Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:58, 7 February 2006 view sourceKnowledge Seeker (talk | contribs)10,201 edits →[]: keep deleted← Previous edit Revision as of 22:00, 7 February 2006 view source Dschor (talk | contribs)811 edits →[]Next edit →
Line 144: Line 144:
:::*I appreciate that some templates are more popular than others. I do not think deletion should be a popularity contest. This template was created as an attempt to find a middle ground, but was deleted immediately. This box has no POV, no political expression, and is clearly not divisive. The fact that it can be speedied and kept deleted demonstrates that there is censorship in user space, and that it is not based on anything aside from the bias and prejudice of editors. I have chosen this battle very carefully, and would not be defending this userbox if I did not feel that it is a perfect example of why the deletionists are wrong. --] 21:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC) :::*I appreciate that some templates are more popular than others. I do not think deletion should be a popularity contest. This template was created as an attempt to find a middle ground, but was deleted immediately. This box has no POV, no political expression, and is clearly not divisive. The fact that it can be speedied and kept deleted demonstrates that there is censorship in user space, and that it is not based on anything aside from the bias and prejudice of editors. I have chosen this battle very carefully, and would not be defending this userbox if I did not feel that it is a perfect example of why the deletionists are wrong. --] 21:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
::::Oh, '''Keep deleted'''. This template is slanderous in the clearest sense of the word. -]<sup>]</sup> 21:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC) ::::Oh, '''Keep deleted'''. This template is slanderous in the clearest sense of the word. -]<sup>]</sup> 21:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::Actually, it is clearly '''not''' slanderous, in any sense of the word. This deletion, however, has led many editors to slander the creator of the template - but the template itself remains NPOV, factual, and helpful. --] 22:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. This is an encyclopedia; I believe this template to be out of place here. &mdash; ] ] 21:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep deleted'''. This is an encyclopedia; I believe this template to be out of place here. &mdash; ] ] 21:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)



====] and/or ]==== ====] and/or ]====

Revision as of 22:00, 7 February 2006

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/Vfu header 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators. 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.

Masud Rahman

A page was created in my name referring to me, and to some false and non-notable achievements, by a some people who knew me, as a joke. I was not aware of this page or its contents at any time while it existed, and have recently read the AfD page, which seems to contain hints as to what the page may have contained during its brief existence. Since there were some personal comments about me on the page, I am very interested to see the page; and it's various histories. This is a request for temporary undeletion.

Many thanks. Masud 02:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems harmless enough, I undeleted and moved it to your user space at User:Masudr/Masud Rahman. Let us know if you want it deleted again but I doubt anyone minds if you keep it around. - Haukur 11:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I'd like to maintain the content within my user page, can I simply remove the AfD (VfD) box? Masud 14:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you can. Proto||type 15:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


moshzilla

I would like to have this undeleted mometarely. I started the internet phenomena, moshzilla, and own moshzilla.com, I would like to move the contents of the moshzilla entry onto the moshzilla site if possible. User:joshhighland

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.

Decisions to be reviewed

Shortcut

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

If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion instead.
 
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=Misplaced Pages: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=2025 January 5}}</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=2025 January 5}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 January 5|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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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".

Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Temporary_undeletion

Advertisement - Please join the talk on if all articles brought to DRV should be fully restored and open for editing by default.

7 Feb 2006

Brian Peppers

Was deleted and protected by User:UninvitedCompany despite the previous failure to remove via AFD. Uninvited's reasoning was as follows: "I have deleted this page at the request of a family member of its subject. I do not believe that this page should be recreated without careful legal review. The subject does not appear to be a public figure." (See Talk:Brian_Peppers.) While I am certain that Uninvited was acting in good faith, I fear that it sets a dubious precedent to allow articles to be deleted because the article subject, or representatives of the subject, complained. If the information is uncited, it should of course be removed; if evidence is shown that it is libelous, it should also be removed. However, there's no evidence any of this was the case here. The mugshot is a public record, accessible to anyone, and is available through many websites other than Misplaced Pages, so removing it from here in no way even increases the subject's privacy. And this particular individual has been widely discussed on the Internet. Although Uninvited says that "privacy laws" may outlaw the publishing of this photo, no specific law was cited, and I find it difficult to believe that any law prohibiting the publication of crime-related information (like this mugshot) would withstand constitutional scrutiny. AFAIK, even laws prohibiting the publication of rape victims' names have been struck down. I suggest that this deletion be reconsidered. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted (in the strongest terms possible). The last AfD followed several successful AfD deletions and recreations. It was my opinion at the time that the article should never be allowed to be created, and I was utterly shocked at some people's lack of appreciation of how unencyclopedic the article was. The article was recreated and kept through an AfD, in my strong opinion, due to recreation/AfD gaming; it should die a permanent death. --Nlu (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and plow a ton of salt under - There is nothing encyclopedic to say about this person, and the content of the article was essentially "ha ha look at this guy he's funny-looking and he's a sex offender, OMGWTFBBQ LOLLERSKATES." It's a juvenile and pathetic attack page. Beyond that, this is a case where the potential harm to the encyclopedia, as expressed by UninvitedCompany, far outweighs the infinitesimal "contribution" made by the article to the "sum total of human knowledge." FCYTravis 18:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak and reluctant overturn (and relist, if you could stomach a 6th nomination). The last time this was AfDed (for the 5th time), it was no consensus (which, while grounds for a keep, still means that there's some serious doubts about whether it should be kept), and I voted Keep because I felt it was a notable Internet meme and the article text at the 5th nomination wasn't a copyvio, nor was it a recreation of what was previously deleted. I feel that the article as written violated no privacy laws as it made use of information already available to the public and contained nothing that could lead the anything dangerous happening to the subject. It does not contain a photo of said individual, nor does it contain any problematic details such as the offender's contact details. However, this article is just a wheel war waiting to happen. Uninvited Company likely deleted this for a very good reason. If UC will bring some good reasons to this discussion (such as, say, the family's lawyer calling with a cease and desist), I'll likely change my vote. OTOH, if it was just family members calling and saying that they don't like the article, I probably won't. --Deathphoenix 19:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If there is a legal issue here, it should certainly be addressed, though I have my doubts that there is, or it would likely affect hundreds of other somewhat similar articles. Does the wikimedia foundation have a lawyer who could straighten this out? Absent anything else, I'd have to go along with undeletion. Wile I'm certainly no fan of it, and likely would have voted to delete it at the AFD, there does seem to be a weak consensus to keep it. -R. fiend 19:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If the guy looked like an average Joe we would not even be having this conversation; those who want to look up this puerile fad can do so elsewhere. Ask yourself: WWJD? Keep deleted. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 20:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have voted (an extremely reluctant) keep in AfD debates for this article on the grounds that the internet fad was just about notable enough. However, assuming that UninvitedCompany is acting honourably (which I am certain he was) then the deletion should stand. Keep deleted. David | Talk 20:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I also voted keep in the last AfD. I do question the extent to which privacy laws protect against the dissemination of photographs taken from a public sex-offender registry. In at least some jurisdictions, dissemination of such information is specifically exempted from privacy laws. Nevertheless, taking Uninvited Company at his word, with sympathy for Mr. Peppers, I'll vote Keep Deleted here. Xoloz 20:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete Unless you can argue that there is a legal issue, it was wrongfully deleted. It should be undeleted, and you can then continue the discussion in AFD. It is silly to argue the articles merits, when the majority of us cannot see it. Jonatan 21:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the Bible

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Bible

Discussion was closed, concluding "no consensus." I count 24 votes for deletion, 3 weak deletes, 5 redirects, 1 to merge, and 5 keeps. It seems to me there is a very clear consensus that this article should be deleted and any valuable content merged into one or more other articles. --Leifern 16:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It has been redirected now. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Wait a minute. Now you've changed the title of the article in your nomination. What article and specifically what AFD discussion are you requesting that we review? Rossami (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Ahh... Simultaneous nominations. Now sorted out. Please post the link to the AFD discussion directly when making the nomination.
  • This reflects a basic misunderstanding of how AfD works. I'm reposting a message I've already sent to two other people who asked me about this:
    AfD is not a vote.
    When votecounters try to impose their rigid definition of consensus on AfD, the minimum standard is 2/3rds or 66%.
    Delete, merge, and redirect are three different outcomes; if there is no consensus, the solution is for the AfD participants to hash out a consensus (whether to merge or redirect or resubmit to AfD) on the talk.
    In addition, merging and deleting is illegal under the GFDL, which requires the page history to be retained if the content is retained. VOTECOUNTING IS BAD so I find it ridiculous that this is being brought up. Johnleemk | Talk 16:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and DRV is for reviewing deletions only; that's why exists (users can't see the content of deleted articles, so they need to request admins on DRV to undelete them). Anything else can be handled by resubmitting to AfD or discussion on the talk page. Johnleemk | Talk 17:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You think it's ridiculous? Reading the guidelines on deletion, it is pretty apparent that your duty as the admin is to summarize your findings and determine a course of action. In this regard, you have pretty plainly been negligent. It seems that a rough consensus has been achieved - there are only 5 who want to keep it as it is, and 32 to get rid of it one way or another. By your standard, no article would ever be deleted as long as some group of people want to keep it. That is plainly not the case. --Leifern 17:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Surprise, surprise — this is the standard most AfD-closing admins adhere to. This is not a process worked out overnight; on a Wiki, there is no consensus if a group of people strongly oppose a particular decision. (If I make an edit you don't like, but you don't revert it, there's consensus — if you revert it, there's no consensus. That's how consensus is defined on a wiki.) It is not my job to make a decision if a large number of people have reviewed a particular article and cannot come to consensus on what to do with it. No consensus is no consensus. It is not an endorsement or a disendorsement of a particular outcome, and defaults to keep unless the admin (in an editorial capacity) decides to merge and/or redirect. Ask pretty much any regular AfD closer (MarkGallagher (talk · contribs), The Land (talk · contribs), Splash (talk · contribs), et al) and they'll tell you the same thing. Johnleemk | Talk 17:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I dunno, I read the relevant guidelines, and what I read is a call for rough consensus not absolute consensus. If I rounded up three other editors and worked together on an article called Why everyone from Sunnmøre has bad breath, (an absurd, non-noteworthy, blatantly POV, rhetorically fallacious article) we'd probably get 300 "votes" to delete within a few minutes, and I somehow doubt that we as a group who opposed the deletion would get our way. Nor should we. --Leifern 17:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure (no consensus). --Kbdank71 17:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If the numbers given at the top are accurate, and I haven't checked to see if they are (and I have noticed in manmy of these reviews that they are not), we have 27 delete votes and 11 non-deletes. That's a rough consensus to delete in the eyes of most admins. I now it's not supposed to be a vote, but somehow it always comes down to a vote count anyway. And the idea that "there is no consensus if a group of people strongly oppose a particular decision" is just not true. There is almost always some sort of small minority who oppose anything, they don't trump everyone else. But in any case keep redirected and if anything is to be merged it should be a content dispute at the target page. -R. fiend 20:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close - but keep redirected (and I voted to delete) --Doc 20:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close as correctly-made decision, and concur with Johnleemk (talk · contribs)'s comments above. Support his redirect and reasoning as proper organic editing practice. -- Jonel | Speak 21:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in the Bible

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Inconsistencies in the Bible

Discussion was closed, concluding "no consensus." I count 26 votes for deletion, 4 to keep, and 10 to merge. It seems to me there is a very clear consensus that this article should be deleted and any valuable content merged into one or more other articles. --Leifern 16:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • It seems like a clear consensus to delete. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • (edit conflicts) I'm not sure how you tallied that or who you think should have been excluded. A cursory review gave me a tally of 28 deletes, 11 merges (with redirect specified or implied), 2 redirect only and 3 keep as is. That certainly seems to be within reasonable discretion for the closer to consider this a "no consensus" decision. Good arguments were made during the discussion but votes continued to come in on both side, indicating that the subsequent participants did not find one side's arguments onerwhelmingly compelling. I endorse the closure (leave as no consensus). Rossami (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • See above. Johnleemk | Talk 16:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep. Just boldly merge, that fits the bill. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 17:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure (no consensus). --Kbdank71 17:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Clear consensus is to get rid of the article, either as a complete Delete or as an attempt to find any redeemable portions and Merge elsewhere. Let's follow consensus, schedule the article for deletion, and let those in favor of a Merge pull out any non-duplicated material and put it elsewhere. Why keep the article in the face of such overwhelming consenus for elimination. We've voted to kill this article; the only question is the method. Alansohn 17:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You don't need DRV for this, as I said. There's a little thing called the talk page, you know. Or you could just be bold or something. But I forgot. Misplaced Pages is about process, not editing! Johnleemk | Talk 17:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • There wasn't a quorum for full deletion. If you want to merge the article, you don't need DRV to do that. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I just boldly redirected it. Anything that anyone wants to merge can be pulled out of the edit history by anyone at any time. There was an obvious consensus not to keep the article, so keeping it as is should be out of the question. Unfortunately, there are always a few confused souls who think that a no consensus means that the article must stay as is. Since that is complete and utter BS, this redirect should at least partially solve the prpblem. This argument can now contimue as a content dispute over at Internal consistency and the Bible. -R. fiend 18:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Like most other people here: Yes, there is probably a consensus to merge it. However, there was not a clear consensus to delete the article. 'Endorse the closer's decision. The Land
  • Endorse close but redirect/merge (and I voted to delete) --Doc 20:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close as obviously correct. AfD discussion suggests that mergeing would be the best outcome, but discussion may continue of the talk page. --- Charles Stewart 20:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close as correctly-made decision, and concur with Johnleemk (talk · contribs)'s comments above. Support R. fiend (talk · contribs)'s redirect and reasoning as proper organic editing practice. -- Jonel | Speak 21:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Ted's_Kiddush

I believe this article should not have been speedy deleted. The reason User:Jon513 offered for his deletion suggestion was that he lives in Jerusalem and has never heard of the club. This is not a valid reason. I too live in Jerusalem and can confirm that the club is very real, and in fact has an active mailing list. User:Listedit25 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There were three votes for deletion and none to keep it. Valid AfD discussion. Keep deleted. User:Zoe| 17:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, two. One is from the submitter. At the very least this should go to discussion if this is a question of whether or not this is a notable group.User:Listedit25 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Not really a valid speedy, and not enough delete votes to warrant an early closure, so reopening the discussion for another day or two wouldn't hurt. Then again, it's unlikely to yield a different result either. -R. fiend 18:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn/relist Editor Thydulff, at least, saw an assertion of notability even as he voted delete; ergo, this A7 is contested, and a full vote is appropriate. Xoloz 20:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist on AfD - any assertion makes it non-speediable, and as Xoloz notes, Thryduulf saw such an assertion. Let the full discussion run its course. -- Jonel | Speak 21:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anti-vaccinationists

was closed prior to the 5-day period. I am requesting that the question be kept open for the regular period. A number of comments have been made about the future of the article beyond the keep and delete votes, and nobody has summarized them yet. I will certainly accept the results of the vote; I am simply asking that it not be a speedy keep. As it is, the vote tally is 5 clear deletes, 1 anonymous delete, 10 clear keeps, 3 keeps with comments, and 3 comments. To me this is not an overwhelming consensus, and people obviously have a lot to say about the article. I should also point out that when I protested against the premature closing, I was threatened with blocking. I do not think that asking for a process to run its course is unreasonable. --Leifern 15:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Sigh. This had run for several days, and a clear consensus had emerged to keep the article. Worse, it had turned into a slug-fest with people accusing other people of bad faith, puppetry, etc, so I invoked Misplaced Pages:Deletion_policy#Early_closings. It was also clear that while people felt the article should not be deleted, they also felt that it needed drastic cleanup, and it appeared from the history and talk pages, that said cleanup was already underway. Since things were already going in the right direction, I didn't see what good would come from letting the brawl continue for another couple of days. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If the early close is contested in good faith (and the request above certainly seems to qualify) then almost by definition there was not the required "clear consensus". The standard necessary for early closing is virtual unanimity and even that has been controversial at times. The fact that the discussion has degenerated is, unfortunately, not enough reason to close the discussion early. Beg people to be more civil in the discussion but let the discussion run its course. By the way, it looks like the AFD discussion only had another 24 hours to go so the early closure seems to have backfired and is now extending rather than shortening the controversy. Rossami (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure doesn't look like a "clear consensus" to me, especially if it would only have taken two or three more delete votes to change that consensus. It should not have been closed early, let it run its course. User:Zoe| 17:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I counted 17 Keep to 4 Delete. I just went back and recounted and came up with the same sums. How do you get "two or three more delete votes to change that consensus" from that? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm involved in two debates on this page today, one in which an admin is arguing that consensus has to be absolutely overwhelming to be called for purposes of deletion; another in which another admin is arguing that a weak consensus is adequate to close a discussion. In both cases, we are dealing with admins who feel that their judgment is the determining factor. I think that if there is a bias to keep articles in one case, the same bias should apply for keeping the discussion going. Just my $.02, but maybe the admins who proclaim themselves judge and jury on the process for deletion should discuss among themselves rather than try to preach to us lowly editors. --Leifern 19:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
        • If I'm looking at the same two discussions, the difference is between a regular close (at the end of the 5-day discussion period and which requires only "rough consensus") and an early close (which requires "clear consensus" and which has been interpreted as a much higher standard). Failure to qualify for "clear consensus" only means that discussion continues until the 5-day period runs out. The 5-day rule is a practical compromise set to ensure that the system doesn't get completely stalled. If you're looking at something else, though, please send a specific question to my Talk page and I'll try to help. Rossami (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Looking through the discussion, it looks like a keep consensus to me (not a "no consensus: default to keep", but an actual consensus to keep, which is actually kind of rare). Unless someone can point out that most of those votes are sockpuppets (I didn't recognize a bunch of the names, but nothing made me suspicious of them, and I didn't check their edit histories) I don't see any harm in closing this after 4 days instead of 5 when the result was so obvious, and the discussion was just dragging on and on. endorse closure. -R. fiend 18:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure I'm with R. fiend here. While there is some dispute, the harm in reducing from 5-days to 4-days a debate which was 17k-4d is de minimis. Especially considering the article might as always be AfD'ed again, after a reasonable time, there is no reason to reopen immediately a debate that had become somewhat heated. Xoloz 20:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see any point in attempting early closures in cases where there is any significant dispute. Let them run their course. The article has a big, conspicuous "deletion" tag on it, no reader is going to be in any doubt about its status. It's one thing when you have a borderline CSD that gets eight deletes and no keeps in two days... or a borderline vanity page that gets a solid string of deletes and the author of the page asks that the page be deleted (to spare him further embarrassment, although they don't usually put it that way). I sometimes think "when in doubt, don't delete" is taken to an extreme, but certainly "when there's any serious doubt, don't attempt an early close." Dpbsmith (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

6 February 2006

Sin (musician)

Was AfD-ed and deleted on February 6 and re-added by a new user same day, with identical contents. Duja 14:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion but note that I would have voted to keep if I had seen the Afd, for the reasons stated by Estavisti. I see nothing wrong with the process here though, and the article should not have been recreated. - N (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted I have re-deleted it as an identical copy of the AfDed version. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User pedo

This template was speedy deleted with minimal comment, and does not meet any criteria for speedy deletion. It should be undeleted, or at least undeleted into user space. It was speedy deleted as part of an ongoing wheel war on a different template, and appears to have been confused with that template. It is not a recreation of deleted content. --Dschor 13:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This template is not a recreation, and was expressly intended not to make a point. --Dschor 14:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it might be useful for folks working on pedophilia related articles to find other editors to help out? --Dschor 20:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It cited as a "talk page", dear Dschor. Try using them instead. From previous experiences, I'm inclied to think they work. -Zero 21:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but I think our determination of what constitutes idiocy may differ slightly. --Dschor 20:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Dschor with an issue like userboxes sometimes you have pick your battles. We will never get everyone to agree to allow all userboxes and we will never agree to having them all destroyed. The best argument, in a situation like this, attempts to find a middle ground. We should concentrate our efforts to save the important boxes that contain political expressions and idealogies. Userboxes like this only serve to further polarise everyone.--God of War 21:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I appreciate that some templates are more popular than others. I do not think deletion should be a popularity contest. This template was created as an attempt to find a middle ground, but was deleted immediately. This box has no POV, no political expression, and is clearly not divisive. The fact that it can be speedied and kept deleted demonstrates that there is censorship in user space, and that it is not based on anything aside from the bias and prejudice of editors. I have chosen this battle very carefully, and would not be defending this userbox if I did not feel that it is a perfect example of why the deletionists are wrong. --Dschor 21:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, Keep deleted. This template is slanderous in the clearest sense of the word. -Zero 21:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it is clearly not slanderous, in any sense of the word. This deletion, however, has led many editors to slander the creator of the template - but the template itself remains NPOV, factual, and helpful. --Dschor 22:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


Best blond joke ever and/or Best blonde joke ever

  • Hi. User:Lucky_6.9 speedy deleted the newly made article "best blonde joke ever." I think he did so unjustly. I don't think it meets any of the Criteria for speedy deletion. Some possible points for speedy deletion:
  1. Recreation of deleted material - I think the original article was also speedy deleted. And this article is also quite different from the original. So No.
  2. Very short articles providing little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). - I think the article provides substantially more info than this example.

Some points in favour of it not being deleted at all:

  1. A different person has made an article with the same title an theme earlier. Another different person has made "best blond joke ever" :).
  2. It has 233.000 hits in google. A random article of lucky_6.9 "Eisenhower Medical Center", has only 78.000 hits.

And I would like to add: Wtf is it with this deletion system? I cant get the material back from the article, not even to review to make my argument. And finding and going to this page, which seems to be the only way to get it back, was not obvious to me. My guess is that you will discourage a lot of new potential wikipedians with this. Jonatan 22:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Kappa: It is not actually a blonde joke.
Rossami: While I agree that if it wasnt an internet meme, it should be probably be deleted, I think it definitely is. To back this claim I checked the meme article, found an example of an internet meme, and googled it. I found the term "Icy Hot Stuntaz". It gave 31.400 hits in google. Let me repeat that "best blonde joke ever" gave 233.000 hits. And thats even just the tip of the iceberg! (Since other blogs will have phrased it slightly differently.)
My main point of defence is that because of its huge size, many, many people will see it. And some will come to wikipedia for information about it. Why not provide these people that information? Because you yourself are not interested? I see no good reason. Jonatan 09:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong undelete. Much more notable than the average wikipedia article. Can't see how any of you can claim that the article is nonsense. There are millions of users seeing this joke every day and many of them wants some encyclopedic information about it. That is very real. Misplaced Pages is here to give them that information. Of course the article should stick to what is known from reliable sources, rather than making guesses. The fact that the article were created independently twice and the information was added to blonde joke also attests to the demand for information about the phenomenon. In any case this review has already clearly disproved the speedy-deletion, since the topic of it's deletion is controversial. Since the article text is now unavailable it is essential that we get it back before we make a final consideration as to it's merits. --CygnusPius 11:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and list on AfD (whichever had more/better content, but note that blonde gets far more hits). Should not have been speedied because there seemed to be enough context to allow expansion, and the notability of the subject is contentious, so AfD is the proper place for this discussion. Without seeing the content, I make no comment as to which way I'd go at AfD. - N (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure and keep as redirect, unencyclopaedic title, content is more than adequately covered at blonde joke, content was lame and smelled strongly of vanispamcruftisement. This was mostly about a link to a blog - I think they need to find a better way to increase their pagerank. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 14:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure of the deleted version, but without prejudice. If someone wants to make a useful and coherent article at Best blonde joke ever, fine, although it might very well end up on AfD. Undeleting the deleted version is not a really good idea, since a cleanup would involve creating an entirely new article anyway. --W.marsh 15:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
However, as I see the information on this meme is now covered in Blonde jokes, to where people looking for the 'best blonde joke ever' are redirected, I think that's a good solution. --W.marsh 15:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete This is silly. The article was wrongfully speedy deleted. We have no basis for arguing whether it should be deleted, since people can't see the content. For instance Just Zis and W Marsh comments seem to be about another entry, than the one I was talking about. I agree that the version I wrote wasn't very encyclopedic. But I didnt get half a chance to improve it. Since it was speedy deleted and gone within an hour. Jonatan 15:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The bit in blonde jokes was only expanded after this discussion started, though. (Also it is factually wrong, or at least misleading.) I would like to question whether the meme should be included in the blonde jokes article, since it is not actually a blonde joke. However, is this the place to discuss that? Jonatan 16:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • See this is what Im talking about. The article version I put in question definitely wasnt just a series of external links. But non-admins cant see that, since it was speedy deleted. Jonatan 17:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure/keep deleted per W. Marsh. Xoloz 20:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • A clear keep deleted. I agree with Rossami, Mirv, W.marsh et al. Misplaced Pages is not LiveJournal or blogspot; it is (or aims to be) a serious encyclopedia. Articles in wikipedia are governed by the cardinal editorial policies of the mainspace. Text must be verified against independent, reputable sources. The original article contained the sentence "An internet meme that is now very common throughout the internet", and an external link to a flickr.com page. It does not fulfill the barest, most elementary requirements of encyclopedia article-writing. The claim it makes is entirely unsourced. There are no books, monographs, theses, newspaper articles or other such sources that concern the subject. The subject, if we may dignify it by using that word, is such that no one will ever be able to write more than a couple of sentences about it—all likely unverifiable. The admins concerned were quite correct to speedy them; certainly an excellent argument can be made that the thing is little more than a hyperlink into the virtual maze that forms this limpid virtual joke. The argument is made that we should be providing "information" to the hordes of chaps bound to come scurrying to Misplaced Pages to reab about this thing. That's a very commendable sentiment, I agree. But what "information" are we to give them? That the joke is, in fact, a joke? That it is also an "internet meme" — an unverified claim? That it is the "best" blonde joke ever—a non-neutral POV? That's all? That isn't an article, and doesn't deserve a page, in my humble opinion. I agree with Rossami that protecting Jonel's redirects would not be a bad idea. This encyclopedia deserves better from us; it deserves the respect and care that go toward writing, wherever possible, beautiful, well-researched, authoritative articles that may be praised in Nature, not (with all due respect) careless, unverified claims that may be derided on CNN. ENCEPHALON 21:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I do agree with Jonatan in one respect: these things were speedied, and it is a fair request that a review of its status take place on AFD, rather than DRV. I have no problems with DRV per se, of course: in its latest form DVR is probably the most thoughtful, accurate and fair forum for the discussion of article-related issues on WP (yes, I'm aware that a small group of colleagues have quite different opinions). However, if the article under DRV consideration has never been reviewed by non-sysops I would ask that it be place under {{TempUndelete}}, and any newer version that people would like to contribute to be placed on an appropriate temporary subpage. It would be better to AFD. ENCEPHALON 21:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Marianne Curan

Out-of-process speedy deletion. Objection to speedy deletion properly filed, article deleted shortly thereafter. Subject of (quite lousy) article has an IMDB entry meeting notability standards for working actors. Hosting 3-4 shows on major (basic) cable TV networks like USA, GamesShow may not demonstrate excellence as a thespian, but at least puts her in the Kadee Strickland range of notability. Monicasdude 21:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I was about to vote "undelete" when I looked at the content. This sucks so badly that it's probably better to just wait until somoene comes along with a better article, so keep deleted because there is pretty much nothing here which would survive the necessary cleanup. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 21:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm with JzG. A cleaned up version of what was deleted would be substantially different so as to not be a recreation of deleted material (CSD G4), so really, no need for undeletion, just recreate it in a better form. --W.marsh
  • Agree with JzG, the article is crap. Keep deleted with no prejudice against a half-decent anything written under the same title. -R. fiend 00:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • At the moment, I'd have to go with Undelete and keep as out-of-process speedy deletion of notable subject, but you adminstrators have the advantage of being able to see the content. Would someone mind temp undeleting the page, or posting the contents here, so others can have a look? If it's that bad, I will recreate the page. - N (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Article was an unencyclopedic write-up for Super Decades, one of the shows she supposedly presented. I'd be happy to userfy it if anyone wants to attempt a rewrite and move it to the proper location when they're done. - Mgm| 13:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes please - N (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted as written, Rewrite and keep if anyone feels like it. The article was one of the worst non-attack pages I recall seeing on WP. Here's a sample of the text: "those of you who don't know about GSN, SHAAAAAAAAAAAME ON YOOOOOOOOU!" It wasn't even about its supposed subject, Marianne Curan, but Super Decades. We are better off having no article than this one, so it should remain deleted. I do think Marianne Curan is notable enough for an article though, if anyone wishes to write a new one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted per Starblind, as the content described is useless. Valid A1 speedy. Xoloz 20:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Howard

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Christopher Howard suggests this article was to be deleted, and yet it is still there. Could someone look into this? To me it seems the whole article is a hoax, created by a confirmed anon vandal. Balcer 19:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Looks like the closer just forgot to carry out the deletion. Easiest thing to do in such a case is drop a note on his talk page. In any case, I've carried out the deletion now. -R. fiend 20:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • According to the Deletion Log, the closer deleted it on 24 Nov 05. On 30 Jan 06, it was recreated and edited by several users. Later that same day, Petaholmes restored the history. In doing so, he/she would almost certainly have seen the link to the AFD discussion. No explanation was given for the decision to restore. Looking at both versions, the current content is only trivially different from the deleted content. Given that all subsequent versions were still unverified, I endorse R. fiend's speedy re-deletion. Rossami (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Armand Traoré

A football (soccer) player who was reported to have signed for Arsenal F.C. but reference to whom was not found on The Official Arsenal Website. It now emerges that reference can be found on the official website to him at , and (though the lattermost may possibly be yet another piece of Dudek-like "evidence"); these should constitute verifiable source to support a page on this player. --Pkchan 14:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted. The original reason for deletion was non-notability, and the reason still stands. Although it is now verified that he is at the club, he's just a 16-year-old who is nowhere near the first team - the only difference between then and now is that he has played one (just one) reserve match. Many other members of the Arsenal reserve squad have played more reserve matches than that, and do not have Misplaced Pages articles (e.g. Gavin Hoyte, Sean Kelly, Marc Elston). He is still not listed in the official Arsenal first-team squad - until he is I do not believe the article should be recreated. Besides, the information on the official website (and elsewhere online) is still pitifully inadequate - merely his name and the date he joined Arsenal - there is barely enough for a substub at this point in time. Qwghlm 16:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment If the original reason for deletion is non-notability then I have no argument with the prior decision. --Pkchan 14:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Foxymorons

I can't believe I'm really doing this, despite my deletionist nature. Speedy deletion of the above article (presumably as nn-band) was out of process. The article when I removed the first nn-band tag had a claim to notability, and what's more...(again, I can't believe I'm saying this) the band is actually notable. A glance to their site reveals a listing on Allmusic and their 3 full length albums. I'm willing to work on the article but I'd like to see what was added, etc. and would like an undeletion on the article. RasputinAXP talk contribs 00:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment No need to get it undeleted. Just compose a decent stub, indicating what's notable, offline or your user page, and re-create it. List the albums, cite a review. Entire previous content consisted of the following two sentences: Dpbsmith (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Mesquite, Texas-based indie-rock band made up of childhood friends, Jerry James and David Dewese. Formed in 1994, the band, who is notorious for its lack of touring, has released three albums to much critical acclaim.
Comment: Ah, OK. I didn't know whether anything else had been added to it before it'd been whacked, though. I'll write it up. Thanks. RasputinAXP talk contribs 03:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

4 February 2006

Template:Commonsgallery

Despite its TfD discussion attracting 3 votes for delete and 4 keeps, plus a keep from an anon who has a few non-project contributions, User:MarkSweep closed the discussion as a delete on the grounds that "The result of the debate was better arguments for deletion than for keeping it." I dispute this decision on two grounds:

  1. That is not the admin's call; the deletion discussions may not be votes, but closing admins are, as far as I've gathered from my experience on AfD, not court judges, there to decide which side 'won'; they are there to decide what the community thinks. It renders the whole 'discussion' thing slightly pointless otherwise.
  2. Even if I'm wrong on the above point, MarkSweep's decision that there were better arguments for deletion is still extremely shaky IMO. None of the delete voters ever tried to argue the counterpoints the keep voters made against their arguments. These arguments included the fact that the template supposedly advertised for Olympus (it had a picture of a camera, far too small to make out the model). --Malthusian (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • As the closing admin, let me explain my reasoning in more detail. First, we'll have to discount one keep "vote" from an anon. Second, Nickj is using his "vote" as a vehicle for something unrelated, namely improving or changing Template:Commons. Nickj wrote: "That's why my vote is "keep", and it will continue to be "keep" until such time as Template:commons is improved." That's not a reason to keep Template:Commonsgallery. You don't go about changing Template:Commons by forking it and then voting to keep when the fork is nominated for deletion. Third, "Keep, useful template" by Ryan Delaney is fine, but it's not a relevant argument: Template:Commonsgallery was nominated here because it was a fork of an already existing maintenance template: and precisely because it is a fork of a useful template, it is of course useful, but that's not what this debate was seeking to establish. Fourth, there were three delete votes (by Netoholic, Petaholmes, and Phil Boswell) arguing that template forks are bad. The two serious votes in favor of keeping never properly addressed why the forked templates is needed. I completely ignored the bit about the Olympus ad as tangential to the discussion. Fifth, even if we regard the outcome of this debate as "no consensus", it makes no sense to default to keep in the Template namespace: templates, unlike articles, are tools which facilitate and enable; they should only be kept when they are truly needed. As I've said in my comments when I closed this discussion, I was much more swayed by the arguments for deletion, and in the end this is a discussion, not a vote. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - on the principle that forks are bad. FCYTravis 20:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Mark seems to be under the impression that the people behind the template have not bothered to explain what it is for, which is false: it has been extensively explained at Template_talk:Commons and the TfD. Briefly (I don't know why I'm bothering as I thought DRV was about process and not content, but FCYTravis has indicated otherwise): some of us believe the links to Commons galleries would look better if accompanied by a picture explaining what it was going to (e.g. a camera for a gallery of pictures). No-one's yet tried to claim otherwise, the only argument for deletion that's been put forward has been 'standardisation and maintenance'.
  • I don't see how this was a 'fork' any more than {{test-n}} is a fork of {{test}}. Both do the same thing, but {{test-n}} does it slightly better in a certain context. Same with this. I admit that the name of the template does scream 'fork', being a redundancy; that was a mistake on my part. I was expecting to move the template to {{commonsimage}} as soon as the TfD was closed. --Malthusian (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Moreover, I'm not going to reply to MarkSweep's responses to why he discounted most of the votes on one side one by one (I've already explained why the 'serious voters' had, in fact, "properly addressed why the forked templates is needed"). But I will say that I think that if the arguments of a certain 'side' in a discussion are weak, it should be explained why they are weak at the time, rather than the closing admin waiting for the discussion period to end, discounting them, then waiting for someone to bring the TfD to DRV to explain why they were weak enough for the editors' opinions to be ignored. If nothing else it would save time. --Malthusian (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • TfD is a debate about the merits of templates. Rather than talking about "sides" one should talk about the outcomes of that debate and the arguments advanced in favor of them. If I see a weak argument or an argument that does not even address the central question of the debate, I call it as I see it. As for commenting on the merits of the various arugments before closing the debate: what do you want me to do? I didn't even know of this particular debate until I started to do my share in trying to clear out the TfD backlog. And if I had been aware of it and commented on it earlier, I wouldn't be in a position to close it. And by the way, I wasn't waiting for someone to bring this here. If you're only interested in saving time, then let it go and work on changing Template:Commons through the customary channels. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
      • *sigh* I'm going to have to surrender on any further discussion - I tried to reply to Mark's last post but couldn't manage to string three separate counterpoints together in a way that made any sense. I'm just going to say that I used the word 'side' in the sense of 'those who voted one particular way', not 'side' in the sense of 'cabal'. I think it would be worthwhile to have more illustrative {{commons}} templates, but if it gets shot down, well, c'est la vie. If I die in my sleep tonight and St Peter asks me 'And how did you spend your life?' I don't want to have to tell him that my last night was spent fighting a rearguard action over diversifying a Misplaced Pages template. --Malthusian (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted — MarkSweep is surely right in both principle and detail. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have forked templates many times, as it is sometimes the only way to switch over from one design to another. I was not aware the cabal disapproved of it. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Mel Etitis. --Kbdank71 05:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. The fact that {{commons}} is seemingly perma-protected pushed me over the edge. If one cannot edit the template without going through various bureaucracy (requesting unprotection and hoping that succeeds, or getting consensus on the talk page - so much for being bold!), then forking may be the best option. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. MarkSweep's repeated violations of deletion process are becoming more and more disruptive. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. - How can you can get an result of 5 to keep, and 3 to delete, and decide that "delete" is the right outcome? It makes a complete and total mockery of the concept of consensus. Secondly, for Mark Sweep's "reasoning" that he can disregard my vote, and the votes of others: I wasn't aware that we had ceded complete dictatorial powers to Mark Sweep, so if someone could point to the relevant official wiki guideline outlining his new overlord status, that would be super, thanks. Third, I note that none of the votes to delete were disregarded, so it's good to see that the fine example of Florida lives on! Fourth, the reasons for changing this were outlined extensively on the Commons talk page, and have still not been addressed. Fifth, the commons template is still protected - so, given that anything related get deleted, and the originally seems to be permanently protected, how, exactly, is anything about these templates ever supposed to be improved? Frankly, this really is an appalling decision. If you're going to ignore what the community says, then why even have a deletion process? I mean, really, why bother? Just unilaterally delete whatever you like, irrespective of consensus - it'll give the same result, but without wasting everyone's time by giving the illusion of wanting community input and general agreement. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Mark's justification here. However these exceptional closes should be explained when closing. Pace the squeals of outrage, please note that: (i) TfD does not have a clear numerical criteria for assessing when there is a concensus and (ii) the kind of carefully justified discounting Mark has undertaken here would, if done when closing the *fD dsicussion, be a good thing for the health of *fDs: if you object to these vote discounts, what discounts would you agree with? --- Charles Stewart 01:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Seconded with a pat on the back and a kiss on the cheek. A great many of the discussions that take place on DRV could be avoided if closers took more care with explaining their thinking when they close. Rossami, in particular, provides clear evidence that he has thought about the arguments presented, and I've seen closes of his run to two paragraphs. This is a good thing, and should be more widespread. - brenneman 02:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much for the feedback. You have a good point, and I've added my above comments to the TfD page. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist on TfD. Whilst Mark's arguments to delete are convincing, and convinced me that it should be deleted, there seems to be enough dissension to warrant a re-examination of the decision. 5 votes to keep against 3 to delete is not a decent consensus to keep, parituclarly given that the last two votes to keep were a) from an IP and b) two words, but I would have thought that this would be enough for the Template to remain pending further discussion. Deleting it was against the principle of consensus on deletion. If Mark makes the same excellently clear and cogent arguments to delete then I'm sure people will make the appropriate decision. And I think Nickj's reason for keeping is entirely valid - if he believes the template si necessary until the commons template itself is fixed, then that is a valid reason for him to believe the commonsgallery one should be kept. Proto||type 13:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Reverse and Keep as per the consensus what was the point of the votes if the deciding admin was going to maket he call anyway? Some nerve.Gator (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Hey look, I lied, one more comment. MarkSweep's reasons for discounting most of the delete votes may make sense on the outside, but to me there seems to be equally good reasons for discounting the delete votes. One said "performs the same function as {{commons}}" (none of the counter-arguments to that here, on the TfD and on Template_talk:Commons have ever been addressed), another said (paraphrasing for brevity) 'template forks are evil, and advertises for Olympus'. Of that last post, the first argument is not an argument, the second rather nonsensical (maybe it was in jest, but Mark talks about "serious votes"). Why not discount those arguments too?
  • Now at this point I think we can agree that it becomes ridiculous, having unilaterally discarded almost the entire debate, which is why I disagree with vote discounting on principle in all but the most obvious cases (sockpuppetry/trolling), for two reasons: 1) If an argument is weak, someone should say so at the time so its proponent can respond to the criticism without having to do it at WP:DRV, and 2) If the overall case for one 'side' (ooer, used that word again) is weak, then people will read it, be unconvinced, vote delete and the article will be deleted by an actual consensus (not just a consensus of "serious voters"). If the reason for the *fD not getting enough delete 'votes' was because it didn't get enough attention, then relist it. --Malthusian (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Closing admin properly discounted "votes" which did not comply with policy directions; TFD page expressly says Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement. Voting standards were clear, and closing admin quite properly followed them rather than disregarding them. Monicasdude 21:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but my vote/comment/preference was discounted because of my mistake in pointing something out, not because of my reasons. My reasons are that the newer template is (in my opinion) clearer, easier to understand (both in language and visually), and more exact than the commons template. My conclusion therefore was keep. My mistake was apparently in saying that there would be no reason for commonsgallery if commons could be improved (but unfortunately, that seems to be impossible), and that in that situation I would most likely change my vote. Furthermore, it should be noted that this template doesn't even seem to pass the tests of whether it should be proposed for deletion: Is it helpful? Yes. Is it redundant? No, I don't think it is (see reasons above). Is it used? Yes. Is it NPOV? Yes. Was it a candidate for speed deletion? No. Therefore, it doesn't even seem to fulfil the basic criteria for being listed on TfD, let alone the criteria to actually be deleted. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

3 February 2006

Clay Sun Union

This was deleted back in July . There was no specific AFD for it (as far as I can see), but apparently it was deleted because of this AFD for its members. For some reason Clay Sun Union (album) (AfD discussion) and Distance (Album) (AfD discussion) were not nominated or deleted at the same time. Both were recently nominated and kept in AFDs (linked above). I think the original deletion was pretty reasonable based on the first AFD discussion of the members, but now we have a peculiar situation of albums without a bands. Nothing was really done out-of-process here, but the result doesn't make much sense. Between the two of them, there isn't currently enough info for me to just merge the two together into a new band article, but once undeleted, a merge of all three articles into one, may be an option. After undeletion, somebody could optionally relist it (doing all three together), if they wish. --Rob 21:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Undelete per nominator's reasoning. If this is ultimately undeleted and kept, I see no reason why the band member names shouldn't redirect here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete: per nom. It wasn't clear that the band should be deleted in the first place - just the members. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete per nom. FCYTravis 07:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete per nom and wknight. Actually, this was slightly out-of-process, as one could at least argue that deletion for the members does not equate to deletion of the band, and there was no AfD for the band. Xoloz 16:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, worth reconsidering per request. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Seems like a straightforward undelete. Done. --Tony Sidaway 05:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've put this as {{tempundelete}} and added it to WP:RFPP as is standard until discussion here is finished. - brenneman 11:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • What exactly are you protecting it from? Brefore it was protected, I discovered (unfortunately/belatedly), that most of the text was copyvio, and had to remove it. Now, it must sit for days, with minimul remaining content. Is there a reason for protecting *this* article in its current state, other than the fact its "standard"? I note that WP:RFPP says "Only consider protection as an option when it is necessary in order to resolve your problem, and when the only solution that will assist in the solution of the problem is protection.". I think its fairly reasonable to interpret that to mean that the standard is to *not* protect, unless there is a specific reason. I see no such reason here. Surely protection isn't the "only" means of dealing with the current situation. --Rob 20:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Protection is not normally necessary unless there is a dispute over content leading to edit warring, or serious ongoing vandalism. I don't know why Aaron thinks this article needs to be protected. --Tony Sidaway 21:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
        • This article had been deleted. It was then brought to deletion review. Discussions at deletion review are taken to run for a set period. By applying a consistant approach, we decrease the chances that a mistake will be made. As the number of articles brought to this forum increase, it becomes more important that we are methodical, not less. There was no pressing need for this article to be restored and opened for editing. By having the article's history restored and {{tempundelete}} protected, the version of the article that was deleted can be examined. Please join the conversations on the talk page for further discussion.
          brenneman 22:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
          • As you know I am one of the participants in the conversations on the talk page. If this article isn't being vandalized and there is no dispute on its content, why is it protected? This is not something we do lightly. The history of an article can always be examined; you don't need to protect it for that. You say "there is no pressing need for the article to be restored and open for editing". Well it's restored anyhow, for the time being, and who needs a pressing need to edit an article? It's a wiki! --Tony Sidaway 22:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
            • Part of being "a wiki" is mutual respect and understanding of consensus. Repetitive and split discussions are considred harmful. Rather than fighting the battle on several fronts in this manner, please continue to contribute to the discussions on the talk page. A clear and compelling case there will surely win the day. In the interim, I'd ask that you abide by your statement here. I won't comment further here. - brenneman 23:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
            • Could you stop trying to tell people where they can and cannot express there opinion? I am asking you here and now, a question pertaining to this particular undeletion discussion. Why does 'this article need to be protected? Where is the vandalism? Where is the edit war? What harm can be done to the article if someone attempts to improve it by normal wiki editing? --Tony Sidaway 00:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete per nomination. ComputerJoe 16:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete seems right. Nothing preventing a revisiting of the whole lot of course, but the present situation is illogical. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 19:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, and unprotect it as well. Oh wait, that's been done. Yay. Proto||type 13:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and keep per nom and wknight94/Xoloz. - N (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

1 February 2006

Good Thing, Bad Thing, Right Thing, and Wrong Thing

Please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bad Thing for the hard-to-close AfD. I actually closed this without realising that someone else did, but I self-reverted and all is well. This AfD was closed as merging all the articles into one (it appears to have been merged into Bad Thing). However, the consensus in the AfD, and acknowledged by the vote closer, was to keep the articles (there were more votes for keep than merge). Most of the votes, even those calling for a merge, said that Good Thing and Bad Thing should be kept and Right Thing and Wrong Thing were the ones to be merged. I was going to close the vote as Keep Good Thing & Bad Thing, Merge and redirect Right Thing to Good Thing and Wrong Thing to Bad Thing. I think the AfD closure should be overturned slightly and replaced with this. Please note: I think the vote closer made a good-faith vote closure on a tough AfD. It's just that I don't think it was what the consensus came out to be. --Deathphoenix 15:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree. --- Charles Stewart 15:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Not really the forum for this, but I agree that it is more natural to merge into two articles, ("Bad and Wrong" and "Good and Right") This does not require a vote here, just be bold and do it if you so desire. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I originally closed this. There was no clear fall of votes, but keeping all four, merging to two and merging to one were the options that garnered most support. As the articles are short and have an amount of shared content, I merged into one. They all seem to me to be ? Thing sayings. --Gareth Hughes 16:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well done for taking on the muddle. Bad Thing and Good Thing have a common source, Sellar and Yeateman, so Good/Right and Bad/Wrong would be a Bad Thing. Or is it a Wrong Thing? Anyway, IU think they all come back to that same source, really, being the originator of the comedy capitalisation-for-effect. If you can split them logically then please do, but one article seems perfectly reaosnable to me. It's not like there is so very much to say that it'll become unusable. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 16:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I did not know this discussion was going on, so my apologies for jumping the gun. I went ahead and reorganized to two articles, Good Thing (dealing just with "Good Thing") and Bad Thing (including "Right Thing" and "Wrong Thing"). For some months now I've been keeping references on Martha Stewart's and her corporation's prolific use of the term "Good Thing" in marketing, and trying to track down references to "Good Thing" and "Good Thing (TM)" use in the 80's and early 90's in USENET and BBS systems. This research is irrelevant to "Right Thing", "Wrong Thing", and "Bad Thing", as those terms were not used in those contexts (except perhaps by way of the occasional humorous analogy, which is arguably in each case is a heteronymic neologism rather than a reuse of an extant lexeme). I'll try to hurry up editing the article to incorporate it, if the argument is that as it now stands the Good Thing article does not contain enough content to stand on its own. --TreyHarris 18:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with keeping Good Thing and Bad Thing, and merging Right Thing and Wrong Thing. I think that's what I said in the original AfD. David | Talk 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Can we close this discussion? It is clear that, to the extent there are unresolved issues, they are not DRV decisions and so should be handled on the talk page. --- Charles Stewart 21:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Which talk page? --TreyHarris 21:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I'd say Talk:Good thing because that one, for sure, will not move. But you should reference the discussion from the AfD talk page and the other relevant talk pages. --- Charles Stewart 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Merge them all and rename to an appropriate descriptor that references the apparent comedy source. I'm about to contradict recent talk page comments by myself by commenting on content not process, but Good thing, "originated in the humorous parody of British history text books, 1066 and All That (1930)..." is ridiculous. Presumably, as far as "good" and "thing" have been recognizable in the language, they've been slapped beside each other regularly and these articles shouldn't exist as they stand anymore than Not! should redirect to Beverly Hills 90210. Rename, rename, I'd say (but do so in process ;). Marskell 22:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
          • You seem to misunderstand. This article is about "Good Thing", specifically where both words are capitalized as if they are a proper noun. This is not about "good thing", the adjective-noun noun phrase; no one is arguing that an ordinary English phrase is encyclopedic. But please, let's take this discussion to Talk:Good Thing. --TreyHarris 22:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Google

This is a complicated story. A template I created and have used many times in talk pages discussions (primarily related to WP:RM) was deleted as a "recreation" of templates with the same name that had been used for spamming the "external links" section of articles. The previous versions were deleted, either by TFD or as recreations, and with good reason. However, my version was independently created (seriously, I didn't even notice it's history at the time), and has had a useful life on Misplaced Pages for more than five months (mostly with subst). As a community, we are clearly accepting of external link templates, i.e. Category:External link templates, and so I see no reason why this should have been deleted.

A comparison of the current and past versions follows.

My version:

Previous Versions:

Created Format Used Deleted
July 11, 2004 {{google|Foo}} =
Google Search for "Foo"		 Spamming external link sections of articles (see TFD) Circa Oct. 2004 (no deletion logs yet): Via TFD
December 20, 2004 {{google|Foo}} =
Google Search for Foo		 Probably same Dec. 24, 2004: Speedied as recreation
March 1, 2005 {{google}} =
on Google
Note this version used {{PAGENAMEE}}		 "Reference" section of a couple articles March 8, 2005: Speedied as recreation
April 2, 2005 {{google|Foo}} =
Google		 Not sure May 19, 2005: Second, brief TFD along with {{Googlethis}} which was another {{PAGENAMEE}} construction

As you can see, my version was longer lived than all the rest combined, and as far as I know was not being abused in article space. I know that others have referenced {{google}}, and though its use is not widespread, it is also not a single user template either. Frankly, my version was useful and used respectfully, and hence should not have been regarded as a recreation of the above mess. I would very much like to see this useful little widget undeleted. Dragons flight 11:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I can't see the need for this to be here. Undelete - make as 'never to be used in articles' - and list on TfD if anyone objects. --Doc 11:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • undelete Thryduulf 12:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted (well, marked with deletedpage and protected). Search links are never encyclopedic. I'd also like to see a big notice posted on the protected page explaining that. For those few "good intent" situations like Project pages... you don't need a template. If we restore its functionality, it will end up being used in articles, and I don't want to be checking it every couple months. The argument that the community is "accepting" of External link templates doesn't fly because most external link template (IMDB, etc.) point to specific encyclopedic references. General search templates do not fit with that purpose, and where they are found they are routinely deleted via TFD. -- Netoholic @ 13:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I would like to point out that you can use google as an interwiki link. In other words, a template isn't really required... you can simply ], rather than {{google|Foo}}, and it does purty much the same thing. Simple to use; doesn't require templates. Nonetheless, I can still see this being useful, so Undelete. --Blu Aardvark | 13:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Why the big delay between the deletion and DRV? Reserve comment on merits for now. ++Lar: t/c 14:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete per Blu Aardvark. I see how people can call it obsolete with the interwiki method, but I didn't know it existed until today. Regardless, it was deleted as a speedy which it clearly isn't. Whether this particular template is obsolete is something that should be decided by a discussion not speedy deletion. - Mgm| 14:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore. if the template works properly, it will help expedite the sluggish AFD process in many cases. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:01, Feb. 2, 2006
  • Undelete and list at TfD as the speedy criteria don't seem to apply directly in this case. Note I'd probably speak out in favour of deletion anyway since there exists another technique to do this, except that if this template is widely used, that would be disruptive to the pages where it was used. (although since it was mostly subst'd maybe that's not that many, what links here shows well less than 20 uses) ++Lar: t/c 15:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and list at TfD as not "substantially similar". If kept at TfD A large Do not use in articles might be a good idea, or would that be a case of WP:BEANS? Perhaps the creatotr would undertake to check for article links on a regular bassis, say once a month? Of course, the non-template method listed above might lead to TfD deleting this, but that ought to be discussed, not the result of a speedy. The tempalte method might actually make it easier to look for article uses, which i agree are improper. DES 16:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. As per WP:DP, "If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this may be evidence of a need for an article." Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • ...or of a common misunderstanding. Where within the general guidelines on external links do we include Google? Is it a reliable source? Ut leaves us in the position of effectively promoting whoever is most successful at search engine optimisation. But I guess that's a matter for the TfD. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 17:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • In general, I'm opposed to just giving some enduser encyclopedia reader a googlesearch in articlespace as if that was a well thought out thing. References, cites, and external links should be specific, and should have been reviewed or verified by the editor that placed them there for their credibility, applicability, and quality. Googlesearches by their very nature can't be that, as they return different things at different times. That doesn't mean this template is not useful in any way in projectspace or in articletalkspace. (for giving examples of how to find things, for making notability arguments and so forth.) What I think Crotalus was referring to was the idea of repeated independent invention of the idea as an argument that maybe the idea has validity, not that this template specifically be used in articles, per se. But as you and I both are saying, I think, is that it should go through a TfD instead of having been speedied. ++Lar: t/c 17:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Do not use in articles but Undelete. I would vote conditional undeletion on TfD: that it be kept out of articlespace - but then that should be happening anyway. Septentrionalis 18:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete - the issue about sourcing should be handled at WP:CITE. --- Charles Stewart 19:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted or as a second preference, undelete and then list at TfD. As the deleter, I stand by my judgement that it is substantially similar (it just looks slightly different), but if others disagree with me, I still think that this is a template that shouldn't exist, due to the temptation of sticking it in article space. If people really want to use it, they can have it on the own user subpage. enochlau (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment and clarification. I agree that this should not be used in the main article space, but rather as an aid for directing others to the same page of search results in project-related discussions/talk pages. Idea: if you wrap class="hiddenStructure{{NAMESPACE}}" around it, nobody will be able to use it in an article. There may be instances where a search result link is approprate in an article, e.g. Google bomb, but that is clearly an exceptional case. I think we can do this, folks. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:03, Feb. 3, 2006
  • Undelete and list at TfD Allow the TfD process to consider finer points we may be missing, but the template is clearly not a "substantial recreation." Xoloz 16:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • undelete this please and talk about it on templates for deletion it is not a recreate Yuckfoo 21:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and list at TfD as per Xoloz et al. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • List on TFD as per many people above. Worth taking to a discussion. Proto||type 13:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

List_of_interesting_or_unusual_place_names

Result of vote was 23 for "delete," 15 for "keep," and 5 for "keep if moved to the Misplaced Pages namespace." It's likely that fewer than half of voters would have supported outright deletion if the third option had been suggested at the get-go rather than after most of the votes had been cast. I move that we overturn the deletion and move the page to the Misplaced Pages namespace -- Mwalcoff 00:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD discussion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names
The article is inherently POV, and our NPOV policy is non-negotiable. None of those wanting a keep put up an argument against its POV nature. How can 'interesting' ever be objectively defined? How can what is 'interesting' (to whom) ever be verified. Unless you are suggesting that it can, I don't understand your vote. Is arithmetic more important than logic? Is process more important to an encyclopedia than WP:NPOV and WP:V? (Besides which it looks like a compromise is available above). --Doc 01:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment. While I do think that the rules of AfD require a "rough consensus" no matter how cut and dried of an issue it may appear to be to some people, I would like to withdraw the request for deletion review. I was unaware that the article could be moved to my namespace, and then to the Misplaced Pages namespace, without going through this process. -- Mwalcoff 02:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Surely WP:NPOV is not trumped by an AfD vote, but that argument was raised at the AfD, adn the keep voters didn'tegard thsi as inherently PoV. Not all subjective lists are PoV, adn objective criterial for this could be devised (published mentions of a name as unusual, for example). But the point is now moot with the nominator Having withdrawn the request for review. DES 02:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The point is actually quite critical. The afd nom and many of the delete arged the article was POV. Only a minority of the keeps disputed that. The majority of the keeps ignored it and simply stated 'interesting' or 'useful'. There was a consensus that the article was POV and unverifiable. If it is POV it has to be deleted, no matter how many people think it is 'interesting'. --Doc 08:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
There may have been a majority saying it was POV, but there was no consensus. AFD is not a vote; it is a discussion to gather consensus. When there is no consensus, we don't delete. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Impossible list to maintain, and the closer was well within his rights to call it as he did. Statements like " 27D/16K, which is rather short of a consensus to delete" seem to contracdict this notion that AFD is not a vote. As far as unusual goes, look at any Atlas's index, find a name, and if there isn't the same name listed right above or below it, it would by definition by "unusual". That's a shitload of names. -R. fiend 06:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn, and I'd be glad to be the re-nominator for deletion review. I was rather fond of the article. Though there was a majority delete vote, at ~60% I don't think it meets consensus for deletion. And if in doubt, don't delete.
To arguments about POV and "maintainability": There's nothing POV about it. Remember: It's "NEUTRAL POV" not "No POV". People find some places have funny names - that's a fact, not a POV. Our article makes a simple list of places that people have found to have an unusual name, Misplaced Pages is not making the argument, other people have. People make a point of discussing places with "unusual names" . Most names can be verified easily. The criteria for unusual isn't "uniqueness" as R Fiend suggests, it's the same criteria we use for every other article. If some media makes a giggle piece, or a trivia game (or show) makes reference to the name simply because of it's name, then that is clear and objective criteria. Snopes has to go to the trouble to say it's TRUE that there is a (omg) Fucking, Austria. People travel out of there way to get there picture taken next to the street signs. So what's our issue with saying that people think it's got an unusual name and linking it with other places that also have interesting names in that magical navigation aid, the list? SchmuckyTheCat 07:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Em, can you clarify who you are calling a troll? --Doc 09:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn what the hell? As soon as I go off guard from AfD, one of the most interesting and fascinating article on Misplaced Pages gets deleted! As far as I remember it was well-referenced and NPOV and there is absolutely no reason for it to stay deleted.  Grue  09:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Firstly, Sean's correct that the first port of call should always be the closing admin. Talk it over with them before you bring it here. That being said, the close was within bounds. While it would be possible for this to become NPOV, it would be difficult, and compelling arguments were not made. The best way forward is for the article to be improved by interested parties by removing anything that hasn't been cited in Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources as being "interesting or unusual", and once that is done bring it here again.
    brenneman<;/font> 10:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have just spent an age removing links to this article (now in the WP namespace) from articles, as per WP:ASR... Thanks/wangi 11:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, valid per the debate. I understand it's been moved to the WP space, which is absolutely fine - a great place for trivia which the community finds interesting or amusing. Absent an objective definition of what constitutes interesting or unusual in the context of a place name, moving it to the WP space seems entirely appropriate. - User:JzG 12:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you not reading the above entries? "Absent an objective definition of what constitutes interesting or unusual" has been defined by myself and several others. SchmuckyTheCat 10:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, it has already been moved to 'unusual articles'.
  • Incidentally, when discarding the anons, and counting those who voted keep in wikispace but delete from articlespace as delete votes (and this is what has been done), I count 13 keep, 26 delete, which is certainly within the realm of consensus, and I would certainly not hesitate to call it that. -R. fiend 19:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. -- User:Docu
  • No comment on the closure, but I think the article should be left in the wikipedia: namespace. --kingboyk 20:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn it's was clearly a no consensus, PoV or not, --Jaranda 21:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • keep deleted, we're talking about an article where inclusion is, on the main, down to the POV and opinion of an editor - there are many entries that leave scratching my head how anyone could find them remotely strange or interesting! The list does not cite sources either. Surely this "review" should be about the process and not the content - there was chance enough for that discussion during the AFD. And if this stays in the WP namespace then lets ensure it's done properly (with no links from the encyclopedia namespace, WP:ASR), and not just as a work around. Thanks/wangi 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)o
Why does the decision to include a name rest on the opinion of an editor? If the list can be sourced, which 80% of it can easily, then why is this article held to a higher standard than any other? Why should review be about the process? We're not building a process, we're building an encyclopedia. If information from the encyclopedia has been removed, that is what should be reviewed. SchmuckyTheCat 10:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, getting slightly over 33% of the comments in an AfD to say "keep" doesnt automatically mean an article must be kept. The closer needs to weigh consensus, and to consider the arguments of both sides and whether they were addressed properly by the other side. In this situation, I don't think the argument that the list is inherently POV was ever satisfactorilly adressed, and so I think the decision to close as a delete was valid. --W.marsh 23:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy either. The closer may well have made a valid decision based on numerics that doesn't mean it was the right decision. As to addressing the argument that the article was POV, nobody claiming it's POV can make the argument either. WHOSE POV is it, for instance? SchmuckyTheCat 10:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought it was obvious... the POV is contemporary white American/europeans in their 20s, it's all stuff that in our culture, sounds odd/unusual/funny etc. Obviously our grandfathers didn't think Big Bone Lick was an odd name at all, it was totally normal to them. Hence the POV. --W.marsh 16:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
So the article suffers from the same systemic bias that the rest of Misplaced Pages does. Why don't we delete the whole thing? No? Then don't hold this article up to a higher standard than the rest of Misplaced Pages. And give your grandfathers more credit - they often chose names BECAUSE they were risque. That's all the more reason to document it. SchmuckyTheCat 18:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
You just aren't getting the point here. An article about George Washington may fall prey to biases eventually, but that can be fixed, and such an article isn't inherently based' on subjective cultural opinions. This particular list, since it's about what individual editors happen to consider interesting or unusual, is inherently POV just by its very nature, that's why people have a problem with it. Change the name to reflect place names considered unusual by certain people (presumably with a source), and it's a different story. --15:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. --Sleepyhead 11:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn per above. AfD was close and I see no compelling reason for keeping this deleted. The case is analogous to Films considered the worst ever. If it helps we can rename to Place names considered interesting or unusual. - Haukur 15:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close per Doc et al. KillerChihuahua 16:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn per arguments above. No consensus in AfD to delete, and POV problems can be overcome. Turnstep 16:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn AfD closure was about 61%. I suppose this is barely within discretion, but in the face of so much opposition expressed here, I see no reason to defend the closure to the limit. I don't blame the closer -- it was a close call, and I understand policy concerns. There are ways to source the list, and the weakness of a "consensus" barely above a supermajority is profound. Xoloz 16:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn per above. — Instantnood 20:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure - There is no objective way to describe "Interesting" or "Unusual." Can I put Richmond in there? I think it's interesting and unusual. Who are YOU to tell me it's not? New York City is interesting. Slap it in there. Get my point? Completely unmaintainable. FCYTravis 00:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    It all hinges on sources. Can you cite a book or film where Richmond is pointed out as a funny place name? No? Then it doesn't belong in the article. Can you cite a source where Fucking is identified as an interesting place name? Probably. - Haukur 10:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    Well, saying "I can probably find a source for a bunch of these" is a far cry from actually having a source, which few of these do. I mean, how many newpapers have articles that say "Hey everybody, here's abunch of places with some wacky names!!!!" A bunch of the entries are ridiculous. Some of them are streets for christsakes. And honestly, is "Vader, Washington" on this list for any reason other than it is the name of a sith lord? There's some objective criteria. Come on. -R. fiend 17:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually a source will only indicate that one individual writer finds the name interesting, not that it is interesting. Just using google, I can find sources for the following places having interesting names: Cold Spring , Kyoub, Scotland , New Harmony , Montecastrilli , New Sheridan , Laodicea , and Muleshoe . Give me an hour and I'll give you 20 more, many from more authorative sites. Anyway you look at it 'interesting' is ultimately sujective - personally I don't find 'Fucking, Australia' interesting at all. Whilst the names of New York, Glasgow, Paris and Athens I do. (And I'll bet I can find a citation in a travel book somewhere that says 'the city has an interesting name' --Doc 12:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Eaton, Ohio? French Camp, California? Shamrock, Texas? Seven Corners, Virginia? What's interesting or unusual about those? Shafter, California? There's *nothing* unusual about that one. This list is filled with pointless junk. FCYTravis 17:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn - no consensus. violet/riga (t) 17:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn - I don't think consensus was reached in favour of deletion. -- Francs2000 17:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Not only was there no consensus, but the result is silly. The NPoV rule is there to make sure that the encyclopædia is neutral with regard to serious matters of opinion (religion, politics, etc.); to use it with regard to this list, which had been maintained for a long time and been edited and enjoyed by many, many people, is Wikilawyering at its pettiest. If a name crept into the list that most people didn't find interesting or unusual, what on Earth would it matter? Unmaintainable? When it had been maintained for longer than most of those voting had even known about Misplaced Pages? Unbelievable. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Just because it's existed doesn't mean it's been maintained. The article is completely unsourced, which means it's been turned into a dumping ground for anything anyone's ever thought was "funny" or "unusual." That's piss-poor maintenance. If the only criteria is "a name someone, somewhere, sometime has found unusual," then I think I'll just add every single city name in California to the list, because, heck, "Independence" is unusual. Why'd someone name a city "Bishop?" How about "Los Angeles"? That's kind of odd, isn't it, a city of angels? "Chico" LOL. Redding, by gosh, who'd call a city "Redding"? Corcoran, haha, that's strange. Fort Bragg, how odd. This "list" will end up with every single place name on Earth inserted, and who's to say it's not? "Unusual" is inherently undefinable and hence unencyclopedic. FCYTravis 20:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC) FCYTravis 19:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    No, just because it's existed doesn't mean that it's been maintained; to determine that you'd have to look at the History and the Talk page. And if you did that you'd seee a long history of careful maintenance and discussion involving, among others, Grue and me. We both picked a bad time to Wiki-holiday, obviously. Also, if you'd checked the facts, you'd have seen that the fantasy scenario that you imagine didn't happen because it wasn't allowed to happen. I might add that your fantasy is predicated on the fact that we agree that certain names aren't either interesting or unusual. And no, "unusual" doesn't mean unique or uncommon; there may be only one place called Haroldton, for all I know, but it wouldn't be unusual, because endings in "-ton" and places named after people are common. "Unusual" isn't inherently undefinable, and I can't imagine why anyone would think that it was. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    Then what the hell is 90 percent of the stuff on there doing on there? Shafter? French Camp? Eaton? Asbestos? Advance? Amarillo? Agency? Asse? Artichoke? Agenda? Apples? Anaconda? Just what the heck is "interesting" or "unusual" about those names, and I'm not even out of the A section yet. Furthermore, not ONE SINGLE THING ON THE PAGE HAS A SOURCE! "We" can't "agree that certain names aren't either interesting or unusual." That would be original research. Misplaced Pages cannot make content judgements about what's "interesting" or "unusual" and what isn't. The only way this page would be acceptable is if every single entry had a specific and verifiable encyclopedic source stating it was "interesting" or "unusual" in which case we could move it to "Place names considered interesting or unusual" with individual sources for every entry. How can you possibly say that "unusual" is definable? What is "unusual" to one person is perfectly normal to another. "Amarillo" might be unusual to someone because it's a Spanish name, but Spanish-named cities are EVERYWHERE in the Western United States. They're hardly unusual to those of us out here. I think "Bishop" is interesting, because who would possibly name a city in the middle of the Owens Valley after a Catholic religious position? Who are you to tell me it's not? FCYTravis 21:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I totally disagree with Mel. NPOV isn't just about politics - it is what an encyclopedia is. Articles contain verifiable facts, or verifiable factual reports of significant opinions. If we depart from that we can have 'lists of nice things' 'lists of horrid things' and edit war all day, since there is no neutral groud to arrive at. NPOV means 'neutral' on everything, we don't do op-eds. --Doc 19:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    I think that you need to ask yourself why we want to offer an NPoV. because it's inherently good, or because it achieves a purpose? If we have an article which presents the Primitive Methodists as hypocritical child-abusers, then a naive reader might think that, becuase it's an encyclopædia article it should be taken seriously, and that would have bad consequence. If somehow an uninteresting name got into the article, what exactly do you think the consequences would be? That readers would conclude that our articles on science and history must be unreliable because they don't agree that Fart Fen, Cambridgeshire is interesting or unusual?
    The worst thing about this for me is that I've gone along with this kind of argument in the past without really thinking about it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm still not sure where you are coming from. We offer NPOV content, because that's what encyclopedias do. If you want vox pop or op-ed look elsewhere. What are you suggesting? That we could have List of the best bands ever - which consisted of the consensus of wikipedian musical tastes, and that would be a Good Thing? The point is not that one or two uninteresting names might creep in: it is that every item is intrinsically subjective. --Doc 20:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn -- no consensus for deletion. older ≠ wiser 20:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've been looking through it. It's ludicrous! "Avenue Road" is "interesting or unusual" although there are six of them in London alone? What's interesting or unusual about Amarillo? Or Alpha? Bakewell? Oh, it's a pune or play on words isn't it, because it's famous for its eponymous tart. But where's Pudding Lane? And what the hell is supposed to be interesting or unusual about Cowes? Or Prince's End? Why is that more unusual than Kidmore End? What's funny about Phuket, once you have passed puberty? The entire list is 100% subjective, 100% unsourced, 100% cruft. In the project space as an archive of the things which have raised a weak smile on the occasional editor's face perhaps, but this is pretty much the definition of "an indiscriminate collection of information". As an encyclopaedia entry it is risible, as in Risible, Newfoundland. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 21:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Could we not agree to just leave it in the wikipedia namespace? --kingboyk 22:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I certainly can. But this DRV is an attempt to put it back in articlespace. FCYTravis 22:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • As it stands I stick by nomination of the article for AFD, and am somewhat sickened by the implications some folk are aiming at me. Anyway, with the article in the WP namespace those who think this list is "great" etc have the chance to work on it, weed out the nonsense and cite references so it does fit in with this encylopedias policies and guidelines (in particular WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:NOR). Once they have a gem, no doubt it could be moved back... Anyway, that's certainly more productive than what's going on here because as it is that list doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. Thanks/wangi 22:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree and 'vote' Keep deleted and leave in wikipedia namespace. --kingboyk 22:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist on AfD. Allow better consensus to be formed. youngamerican (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Close review - article has been placed in Misplaced Pages namespace, and requester has derequested his request. Failing that, keep in Misplaced Pages namespace. It's in the Misplaced Pages namespace, it can always be moved at a later date if it ever manages to actually, you know, become an encyclopaedic article instead of an uncited, unverified, PoV lump of original research. I'm sure the people of Fucking, Austria don't think their hometown has a funny name. And unless I see a section dedicated to English language place names that sound vaguely rude in Chinese, Polish, French, Russian, Swahili, etc, I'll be pretty convinced that this article has a big wodge of systemic bias. Proto||type 13:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist Endorse deletion and keep in WP projectspace - Mwalcoff's argument that "likely half the people would not have supported outright deletion" is speculation, but let's see what the people do say. As it's been copied into Wikispace, let's let this go. I'm not going to engage in content disputes here. -- nae'blis (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, no vote: As an occasional contributor to this list, I would probably have voted to keep, but I didn't see the nomination in time. However, the list now exists in the project namespace, so any salvageable content is still accessible. I was inclined to vote "Relist", but I can't quite tell if that inclination is mostly due to my disappointment that the list is gone. Trying to be objective, I don't see anything particularly wrong about the closing of the discussion. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support undeletion or relisting on AfD - I appreciate the argument as to why it was deleted. I thought many of the names there did not have a good rationale for inclusion but would hardly delete a joke seen by another as funny. As a mother, I try to smile at my children's lame jokes too and not judge them. I found the list did contains some interesting items within the increasingly considerable dross. To continue though, there needed perhaps to be some rules about minimising the dross. As an editor with a watch on the list, I used to attempt to verify Australian place names, format the place name links correctly, and that activity prompted me to write some articles about places I had never heard of. I do not mind such an article within the wikipedia space. I think some guidleines about inclusion are important, for example, all listings must be categorised, not just some. It then becomes much less point of view as to what is unusual - we have defined it and items on the list fall within the definition. It also helps those of us with an impaired sense of humour or even some with some jokes that do not translate well across cultures.--A Y Arktos 23:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support undeletion - This list could never be mistaken as a serious entry in Misplaced Pages; so all the POV or other arguments are not material. Suggesting that any reader would mistake it as a serious article demeans the intelligence of those who access Misplaced Pages. Saga City 23:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Huh? Since when are jokes an appropriate use of the article namespace? That something is not a "serious entry" is precicesly why it doesn't belong as an article. --W.marsh 23:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment in response ot W.marsh - Jokes are no laughing matter. They are a serious topic - see for example Mathematical joke, Mother-in-law joke, Geography joke (which I guess I would suggest this article is a subset of) - yes the names were given seriously but others find them funny. If they give their reason, why is that any the less encyclopaeidc than the Klopman diamond - many items on the ist would have been agreed to be humorous - how doe we maintain such a list with appropriate guidelines becomes an issue.--A Y Arktos 23:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
This is getting quite bizarre. Yes, there can be articles about jokes, if good rouces have written about those jokes, of course. But the article itself cannot be the original joke! --W.marsh 23:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say the article was the joke - the article references jokes - somebody thinks that names that describe something that is in no apparent sense as to a geographical location are funny. Examples given are, Why, Pity Me, and Die. There are other cateogories of place names that are humorous to some people. If they give the criteria as to why they see those names as a joke, this does not make the article a joke, it means the article records what people to perceive as humorous geographical names. There are other cirtieria for being unusual, not just humorous. Reference to the criteria for inclusion would reduce the point of view status of the list.A Y Arktos 23:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
That's all fine and well but the article's title implied objectively interesting or unusual place names, by way of how it was phrased. That is inherently NPOV, and leads to the bias I've discussed above. What you are talking about is what I mentioned as Place names considered interesting or unusual so we can establish who thinks they're unusual. --W.marsh 23:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist. I personally had a lot of fun both adding to this article and learning about some really weird new place names. Besides, I have a friend in Cumming, Georgia who told me that he about laughed up a lung when he first heard of the place. Where would we be without Fucking, Austria? Bad Axe, Michigan? Intercourse, Pennsylvania? If we can have huge resources dedicated to BJAODN, this deserves another shot. - Lucky 6.9 23:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Lucky, that is truely a bizzare vote. There are two reasons for keeping this deleted 1) delete was a fair call from the closer 2) it offends against NPOV. It is reasonable to vote undelete because of process, or because you think it is not POV. But you've basically implied 'forget process, forget NPOV, this is fun so keep'. Actually that's a bit insulting to everyone here who has been debating the real issues. --Doc 00:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
BJAODN is not in the article namespace, obviously. --W.marsh 23:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete for two reasons. 27D/16K is not indicative of consensus. It was not a POV article; criteria for inclusion were quite clear and the article was being maintained:
    • Names suggesting matters sexual or scatological or insulting, usually unintentionally.
    • Names of unorthodox spelling or sound.
    • Names that are also listed on inherently funny word are marked 3.
    • Names that describe something that is in no apparent sense as to a geographical location.
    • Names that are insulting or may hurt some groups of people.
Luigizanasi 00:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Fine, have a list of places with sexual sounding names, but who says that is 'interesting'. THat's POV however you define it. --Doc 01:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Your and others' argument about POV seems to revolve around the use of the word "interesting" in the title being inherently POV. How about we call it List of incongruous and unusual place names? Luigizanasi 16:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Still delete.However, if you are going to keep it, keep it in Misplaced Pages space. It does not belong into an encyclopedia. What one person finds interesting or unusual is most certainly not often interesting or unusual to another. Therefore it is a personal point of view. Dieter Simon 01:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. POV? Marginally, perhaps - but as pointed out, there were criteria for adding things to the page. In any case, I haven't seen complaints about articles which set up equally arbitrary criteria - we even have a category for Category:Close U.S. presidential elections, though no-one seems to have noted that "close" is hardly a rigorous measurement. In any case, this is the sort of list that sets Misplaced Pages apart from other encyclopedias (and IMV, makes it better than them) - it's not 100% serious, but it is interesting. And clearly enough other votes considered it worth keeping for the original vote to be far from one-sided. Grutness...wha? 08:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User no Rand

Userbox was speedy deleted as an "attack userbox". The "attack" in question being:

  • This user rejects Randroid thought in all its varieties.

and the picture being:

  • An X over the photo of Ayn Rand (this is EXACTLY the same as the X over the Karl Marx photo in the anti-marxism userbox).

Yet again, Tony Sidaway has unilaterly deleted a userbox, this time with the faux premise of it being an "attack" on other users. I ask, why is opposing Objectivism and its main proponent, Ayn Rand, an attack? It is my belief that Objectivism is a selfish, cold, and heartless philosphy that I vehemently disagree with. Others may disagree, but it certainly does not merit a unilateral delete. Why could this not have gone through TfD??? Seeing as how this is a chronic pattern, I have no choice but to Assume Bad Faith with respect to his decision. At the time of its unilateral deletion, the template was in use on 10 user pages as well as being listed at Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Beliefs. --Dragon695 00:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I don't have a problem with someone changing the wording, but I think that we have a process for a reason. If we aren't going to follow TfD, then why have it at all? We might as well let WoW run things if that is the case. --Dragon695 03:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
As the author of this userbox, I can say authoritatively that I made Template:User no Rand precisely in response to the anti-Marx userbox. I did so on the rather radical premise that it is better to engage in debate, however polemical and elbow-throwing it is, than it is to simply poo-poo debate. And why? Because it has its place in the grander scheme of any group intellectual endeavor (including the creation of an encyclopedia).
Don't like that debate? Then may I kindly suggest then that it is perhaps time for Jimbo and co. to close the barn doors behind them and make their own encyclopedia themselves. You can bet your last bit of hard currency that even without userboxes, this group would find some molehill issue to make the size of the mountain. In other words: welcome to the real world, where people may say things you don't necessarily agree with.
Meanwhile, is this a whiff of a McCarthy-style witch-hunt I smell in the air? First the antifa userbox gets subjected to an edit war. Then this userbox is disappeared. Then the "blasphemed" image of Mother Ayn is put through copy vio nonsense (though, oddly enough, not the image it is based on - whose copyright status is completely unlisted). Then the Atlas Puked image that I had prepared for a potential replacement - so nakedly parody it hurts me - gets put through some more copy vio nonsense. --Daniel 07:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Nobody's denying that the image is parody. Its copyright status has been challenged because you tagged it as public domain with the notation that you don't believe in the "tyranny of intellectual property." Unfortunately, whatever you don't believe in, you do not have the option to falsify the copyright status of the images you upload to Misplaced Pages. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you aware that Ayn Rand was born in 1905? The photo used in the original userbox and the Ayn Rand article had to have been taken when she was in her 20's, which means that it falls under Public Domain. Public Domain means we are free to use however we want. --Dragon695 01:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn deletion and send to TFD, doesn't meet any speedy criteria and several users here want to have it kept outright. Rejecting a philosophy cannot be construed as an attack. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn deletion and send to TFD. I don't have much of an opinion on whether it is an attack or not, but given the strength of feeling above that it isn't it is certainly not unambiguously an attack. For this reason the speedy delete was inapropriate and it should be listed at TfD. Thryduulf 09:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn, Undelete, and Keep. I think this is another case of Admin abuse, and a harmless userbox being speedied out of process for political purposes. I would like to remind all administrators (and others, as well) that Speedy Deletion is NOT a toy. These deletions are disruptive and violate a number of policies and principles that are central to wikipedia. --Dschor 11:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted without randian views there would be no wikipedia Trödel&#149;talk 12:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and keep {{User admins ignoring policy}} - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • 15:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, Ayn Rand's views are not necessary to Misplaced Pages, but an attack template using fair use images certainly is even less necessary. If you want to stop this piecemeal approach, go finish the dad-blamed WP:UBP that's stalled out! Otherwise we're left with no approach but stare decisis -- nae'blis (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • stare decisis??? If you are going to follow precident, then the proper way to delete a userbox is just like every other template, by nominating it to TfD. However, I guess you're more a fan of the WoW method of dealing with things... --Dragon695 01:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the insult, but actually I'm a big fan of getting things done. Not every decision on Misplaced Pages has to be done by committee; that's what the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is for. Just because we currently lack a policy for how to deal with a specific issue does not mean we cannot discuss fringe/blatant problems, and how to resolve them. That process may lead to a greater clarity in any eventual userbox policy (such as the idea of removing categories, which came up in response to Tony Sidaway's massive deletion effort, I believe, and is gathering legs). -- nae'blis (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not seeing how "bold, revert, discuss cycle" applies here. We're talking about a deletion by an admin, not a bold edit by your average editor. I don't think it was meant to be "BOLD delete by an admin, revert after the discuss cycle on DR". Turnstep 21:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
          • That's your opinion, but my opinion is that people who want EVERY decision on Misplaced Pages to come to *fD or ANI or VP are being disruptive and harming the process. Be bold is an accepted procedure here, since for every decision below Jimbo, there's a way to undo, revisit, and talk about it. The majority of those decisions go through with no problem, after all, and the majority of our admin actions are uncontested as well. -- nae'blis (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep revised version, but discouraged its use. The revised version is not an attack; Tony's out-of-process deletion was not helpful, but he has agreed to stop doing those now. As original construed, the template was a borderline attack, and should have been TfD'ed. Xoloz 17:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted as inherently pejorative. No wonder Jimbo doesn't think much of these userboxes! - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 22:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted or redelete or whichever. Does not help us build an encyclopedia. —Cryptic (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • This debate does not help us build an encyclopedia. Anyway, "redelete" isn't a valid vote, since the current version is not substantially identical to the version that Tony speedied, and DRV no longer even has jurisdiction. Why did you reopen the vote when we both know that the result will be no consensus? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 15:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and send to TFD. Sigh. --Blu Aardvark | 10:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn as out of process. The first thing that should have been done was to raise a concern on the talk page, or simply edit the wording. Then a TfD. Turnstep 21:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted PoV userbox, speedable as a attack template --Jaranda 21:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn, unless Ayn Rand is a Wikipedian (only then is it an attack page). Going on an Arnold Schwarzenegger 'Time to take out ze trash' rampage is disturbing enough without the apparent bias shown by deleting this and not the anti-Marx template. --Malthusian (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Userboxes aren't an entitlement. POV, offered no practical aid to other Wikipedians, borderline attack. Marskell 14:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. It's not a matter of deciding on the userbox (about which I have no opinion one way or the other), but Tony Sidaway is doing too much of this — deleting out or process, declaring that he'll undelete out of process. Send it to TfD, and see what the community says. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, attack template. --Tony Sidaway 21:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC) I had already commented. --Tony Sidaway 21:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. You don't have to be a Wikipedian to be subject to a personal attack. There's a whole bunch of pages created every day by students about their fellows who are 'GAY!!!' or 'FAT~!' that get deleted under WP:CSD as attack pages. Personal attacks are subject to speedy deletion. It's a divisive userbox, and serves no positive purpose. These should all be deleted on sight. Jimbo (PBUH) himself wants them gone, too, which should count for something. Proto||type 13:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jason Ward-Recording Engineer/Producer

Jason Ward-Recording Engineer/Producer was wrongly deleted during an AfD process, which clearly had no concencous to delete or to keep. There's no way this should of happened, and after me making a comment on the AfD page of such, it was then archived without addressing why it was deleted.

  • Relist Joe I 01:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I deleted the article; there was a delay between my deleting the article and adding the AFD-closed template, and I didn't notice that you added something to the discussion during that time. In any case, I disagree that I wrongly deleted it. One keep vote was from an anon who vandalized the nominator's comments, another was from the subject of the article, and I gave less credit to both of their comments. When I analyzed the rest of the comments, I felt that the delete arguments outweighed your keep comments. I felt there was enough of a consensus to delete. —Cleared as filed. 01:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn There was basically one argument for keep and one for delete (not votes, arguments). I find the rational for keeping the article more compelling. The numerical tally wasn't clear enough either way. Rx StrangeLove 05:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Closure (Keep deleted). Hard to see how the decision to delete an admittedly self-authored vanity page could be considered somehow inappropriate. Eusebeus 07:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. If I had been the one to close that debate I'd have done so as no consensus with 3 delete to 2 keep plus an anon's argument to keep. Thryduulf 09:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • There are four delete votes, including the nomination, which does not include a bolded vote but pretty clearly calls for deletion. There are three keep votes, one of which is unsigned, and one of which is from an admitted newcommer who is also the subject of the article. it would be reasonable for the clsoer to have discounted either or both of those, which would give a 4D/2K or 4D/1K result. i might not have closed it that way, but it is not unreasonable. The arguments on each side are of roughly equal strength as they stand. While I might have voted keep, i see no process problems with this close. Endorse close (keep deleted). Note that a different version of an article about this person, perhaps with better references, could be created and should stand on its own. DES 16:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. Pilatus 16:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure per the excellent argument of DES. Xoloz 17:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure and keep deleted, DES is exactly right. The unsigned vote is from an anon with only one other edit. I would have userfied this and left it at that. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 22:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

31 January 2006

Vampires F.C.

...has been deleted as a hoax. This team did exist and were in fact the first team Thames Ironworks F.C. who became West Ham United F.C. ever played in a competitive league, in the 1895-96 season. Surely a claim to fame... or at the very least a job for afd. Spyrides 00:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC) (Spychats)

I have now created the article Crouch End Vampires F.C., which hopefully settles the issue. Perhaps owing to the Vampires existence the Vampires F.C. page can be a worthy redirect page. Spyrides 00:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. The current situation with the redirect seems the most apropriate so I endorse the status quo as of my timestamp. Thryduulf 09:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe this DRV discussion is now moot. howcheng {chat} 01:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. As the deleting admin (whom no-one bothered to inform about the deletion review, incidentally) I'd point out that the title of the article was "Vampires F.C." and the total content was "Crouch End F.C. were an English football team that played in the London League for at least the 1896-97 season, in which they finished 6th." Leave aside the fact that the team is said to have played in a local league for one season, and only managed sixth place, does anyone notice something about the title and the text?
    As for the other articles, they all offered the same silence about the teams' notability, and all were created with the edit summary "it's a set up!". May I suggest that Spyrides uses sensible edit summaries, makes sure that he matches article title to text, and offers some grounds for the significance of the subjects when creating future articles? Any admin who's patrolled the New Pages list knows that it's a huge and time-consuming job, and article-creation like this really doesn't make it easier. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment As the deleting admin, you should have followed process, which you clearly didn't do for this and other related pages. You deleted this as a hoax, yet you have admitted that you didn't do any research on the matter before doing this. I understand the frustrations of those that patrol New pages, but it should never be down to the snap decision of one admin whether a page gets deleted or not, especially when that admin isn't doing necessary checks beforehand. Can I suggest that if you are not prepared to do this, then you at least tag them for speedy, so another admin can double-check before deleting the article? The points you have raised are perfectly valid though, and the proper thing to do would have been to take those up on the users talk page. If you had problems with the article, it really should have gone to AfD. - N (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    Please read what I said: the article title didn't appear in the text, and taken with the edit summary and the fact that no notability was claimed, there were very good grounds for deletion. The idea that one should do research on every one-line article, especially when it's like this one, is fine in an ideal world, but simply unrealistic in the real world. With more than ten articles being created every minute (a rough estimate), a high proportion being vandalism, hoaxes, etc., there simply isn't time. Editors have to take some responsibility for making sure that their articles look genuine and keepable. The tide is coming in rapidly, and though I'd love to build an ornate sandcastle, all I have time for is an upturned bucket. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
You deleted this article as a hoax, yet a basic Google search reveals this not to be the case. The other articles seemed to provide enough context to allow expansion, which excludes them from being candidates for speedy deletion.
London League participation does, in my view, make them worthy of mention on Misplaced Pages, and those interested in the formative years of English football may well have additional info to add. As stubs, these are a lot better than many of the club articles we have now - believe me, I have been doing nothing but going through club pages over the last few days, check out Category:New Zealand football clubs for a laugh (n.b. please don't delete these, I have added them to my to-do list, but they will certainly fall off that if it means recreating them).
As I said, I understand those frustrations, but I really do think it's important to make time for process, the main tenet of Misplaced Pages is consensus on the information that is included. And I do agree with the issues you have raised, this is exactly the kind of thing that a new user needs to hear, but it would surely be more constructive, and would save us all time in the long run, if these issues were brought up with the editor (who was not informed of the deletion either, incidentally), rather than just deleting point-blank. I will endevour to work with User:Spyrides to address those issues.
As a point of disclosure, I should note that Spyrides is a friend of mine IRL. - N (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

London Welsh F.C.

I have noticed that the London Welsh F.C. page has been deleted with the reason "little content, no significance claimed." This football team played in the London League Division One in its first year, alongside Thames Ironworks F.C. who became West Ham United F.C.. In relation to English football history, London Welsh's very existence makes them significant. Other London League teams that went on to greater things include Fulham F.C., Tottenham Hotspur F.C. and Chelsea F.C.. I also hope that "little content" is better than no content, and that some other amateur scholar will somewhere along the line expand the article, which is surely preferable to nothing at all. Spyrides 23:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC) (Spychats)

  • Overturn speedy adn list on AfD I presume that this was intented as an A7 nn-bio (group/club). I don't think the recent expansion of A7 was intented to apply to organized sports teams. The notabiulity here seems a bit marginal, but that ought to be a matter for AfD, not a speedy, IMO. DES 23:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy, according tot he article the club completed less than one full season, in the 1896/97 season, and following their suspension the points wen to Thames Ironworks F.C., their opponents. I don;t think completing slightly less than one season in the London League is much of a claim to fame. But I won't cry much if it's reinstated and AfDd instead, since that's what I would have done with it. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 23:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, just for any athlete to play at the top level of a sport establishes notability, to speedy delete a team which did the same is nonsensical. Kappa 23:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
To dismiss the London League as a local league is somewhat misleading. It didn't really work like that in 1896-97, for various reasons, but mostly because of the practicalities of travelling up north every two weeks (Woolwich Arsenal were the first 'southern' club to join the national Football League in 1893). That isn't really the point of this debate though. This is supposed to be about process. - N (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Just to be be clear, my proposal is to Overturn and Keep. I don't see any reason for this to be listed on AfD. - N (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete, AFD if we must, playing at the top level, even over a hundred years ago is a claim to notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and list on AfD. I personally feel this is a better stub than many we have around and will vote keep on any AfD, but I feel deserves a hearing. Thryduulf 09:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and list on AfD. However, I have to disagree with statements about this club being at the "top level" of the sport; anyone making such statements should realize that football was just barely getting organized as a sport in its modern form at the time. Thus, to say that this is a club at the "top level" makes no sense simply because there were no levels. howcheng {chat} 17:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Relist. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Keep. Personally I see no need to relist. David | Talk 23:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Keep. I don't see any reason to AfD it - there are plenty of football club articles which have grown from even more unpromising beginnings. -- Arwel (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist' - I think the delete votes show drift as to what the notability criterion should be for: clearly this is not an important club, but the material is verifiable and maintainable and of broad enough interest. unsigned comment by Chalst (talk · contribs), 03:35, 3 February 2006 - N (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete Seems to be notable in the history of English football, all but one of the other league participants are blue links. I see no need for it to be administratively relisted, but of course any wikipedian is free to nominate it for deletion at any time. --kingboyk 22:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete/keep. If someone really has a boner for getting this deleted, let it go through AfD. Proto||type 16:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Antiracist hitler

Userbox was speedy deleted as "offensive juxtaposition of Hitler image with refs to MLK, Malcolm X and Mandela". The "references" in question being:

This user opposes all forms of racism on Misplaced Pages, but does not admire Nelson Mandela, Malcolm X or Martin Luther King.

Being offensive in the eyes of an administrator is not a speedy delete criterion. Placing a picture of Hitler next to the words "Nelson Mandela" is not a speedy delete criterion. At the time of its speedy deletion, the template was in use on four user pages as well as being listed at Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Beliefs. Ashibaka tock 19:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my point - we are here to create an encyclopedia - not to be held hostage by abusive administrators. Stop playing with the delete button, already! --Dschor 11:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Stop playing with wikipedia by creating these wasteful boilerplates to saturate your userpages. They don't advance the project. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. That's our concenus for being here. That's what comes first and foremost. Always. Anything that doesn't contribute to that goal must be removed without mercy. -Zero 11:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I haven't made a new userbox in a while. The true waste is the ongoing purge of userboxes. The disruption caused by mass deletion is a much greater danger to the project than any userbox could ever be. I have yet to see a single userbox that was so out of line that it was deletable, but I have seen dozens of deletions and speedy deletions, which each have required extended debate and discussion. Just leave userspace alone, and we can all go back to editing articles, rather than sparring over misguided deletionism. Admins speedy deleting userbox templates has wasted far too much time already. --Dschor 11:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Its watseful to eliminate the useless shit on-site..? There is no "so-out-ofline userboxes". Anything even remotely away from our true goal is deleted. Always. And speedies are perefable because the encyclopedia comes first and foremost. No exceptions. Fuck process. IGNORE ALL RULES for things which draw away from the encyclopedia. -Zero 12:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It is wasteful even to be going in circles with you about the amount of time/bandwidth/energy wasted on spurious userbox deletions. Suffice it to say, these arguments are fruitless, as is deletion of user space content. --Dschor 12:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and censure Tony for his repeated and disruptive violations of process. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, relist if needed. Images can be replaced if they're offensive. But when you get down to it, I don't see the use of the template to begin with. opposing racism doesn't imply admiring any of the people listed and even if it did, it would be too narrow a definition. If we must have one keep it plain and simply "This user opposes all forms of racism". Then again, no one's going to admit they approve of racism and those that do create a bad working atmosphere. - Mgm| 22:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • So basically you're saying that people aren't allowed create their own userboxes if they want to clarify their position like this. Maybe you should comment on my request for clarification. Ashibaka tock 22:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No, what I'm saying is that "This user opposes all forms of racism on Misplaced Pages, but does not admire Nelson Mandela, Malcolm X or Martin Luther King." wrongly implies that opposing racism automatically implies admiring Mandela, Malcolm X and King. People are free to stuff their userpage full of boxes if they want, but not all of them are useful as general templates. - Mgm| 14:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, getting rid of abysmal stuff like this is why we have administrators. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
em, not per me, I said kd = 'keep deleted'. --Doc 00:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Until people quit the nonsense of Misplaced Pages honchos either a) bringing a knife to a gunfight with fascists and racists, and trying to deal with them through convoluted "process" or b) trying to justify a general anti-freedom of expression and anti-userbox stance by going after fascists, then I think the honchos should have to deal with their own impotence at dealing with the problem at hand. --Daniel 06:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and take to TfD (where I'll vote for deletion). For someone who's very quick to lecture other admins on what he perceives as their myriad faults, TS sometimes seems to be almost out of control. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted as needless forking. If you need a statement that specific on your userpage, write your own damn text. -- nae'blis (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, it'd really be a waste of everybody's time relisting this. Doesn't need to exist, nothing to do with the creation of an encyclopaedia, WP:POINT, thank you, nothing to see here. Userboxes do no harm, and can be very useful (Babel, expert in a certain area, etc), but if they are even questionably in bad taste, poor judgement, or are suggestively offensive to even a smallish minority of users they should go. If they are non-offensive, but also non-useful (which covers about 80% of userboxes), I personally think they're useless, but do no harm. If the message is that important to you, figure out how to code it yourself. Proto||type 16:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn - With this level of debate, it should be obvious that this is not a candidate for speedy deletion. It's easy enough to put it on tfd and wait for a few days for it to be deleted.--God of War 20:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-30

Lee Hotti

See Talk:Lee Hotti. Rogerthat 11:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

AFD discussion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lee Hotti
Endorse closure and keep deleted. Sock-fest and hysterical posturing aside, this looks to me like a valid closure. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 12:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Endorse closure and strong keep deleted as a vile attack page of the lamest sort, accusing some random person of homosexuality (or, as the article puts it, "fairy", 'colon cowboy", "rectum ranger", "ass raider", "butt pirate"... etc.) because they supposedly look "feminine" in a photo. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know which version you were looking at but when I got to the article it had been cleaned up. I edited the article to say the subject of the photo was percieved to have a metro-sexual appearance, which I thought was fair enough.--God of War 20:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse/Keep deleted. And do note that being at "requested articles" is absolutely meaningless. -R. fiend 18:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, if there's anything worth writing at this title, it can be done without restoring the attack stub. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close ignoring IP and new users, there is a clear consensus. Valid AfD. The article cites no sources showing wide notability. If there is a real "internet phenom" here, a quite different article can be written, one that cites some sources to show that it is actually notable. DES 23:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure and keep deleted per JzG and Starblind. --Aaron 23:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure and keep the earth salted until further notice. FCYTravis 01:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure valid afd, sockpuppets aside. Eusebeus 07:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, valid afd, non-notable meme or attack page, pick whichever one you prefer. Titoxd 01:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. Valid afd. *drew 11:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. Never mind the fact that there was a valid AFD, Starblind's comments regarding the attack nature of the article are enough proof that we should never see this article again. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Actualy the articel was not an atack It said the photo was notable becaaue veraious people made it the occasion of the attack. Insofar as the article has a PoV, it rather implied that these attacks were unfounded and silly. Documentign attcks made by otehrs does not make an attack page. There are, of course verifiability issues, and notability issues here. But if sources were cited to show that commetn on thsi was widespread enough to ber notabel, and if ther various attacks were more specificaly attributed to their makers, this might be a proepr article. i tend to doubt that such sources exist, but i could be wrong. DES 16:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Make it go away (with reasoning)I agree with DES. The article itself showed a NPOV and was not an attack page. All of the web-forums outside of wikipedia were full of people attacking this page. That said, this afd was meatpuppets gone wild. I was browsing fark.com in the let's make fun of and photoshop lee hotti thread when I came to a link to wikipedia. This was a valid afd. Misplaced Pages can't host the picture of lee hotti due to unknown copyright and without the picture, the article is meaningless.--God of War 20:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:GermanGov

The TfD Discussiuon was closed after only one day as delete. When closed, those who expressed an opnion seem to have been lined up 5D/3K, which is hardly a delete consensus, much less a speedy delete consensus. It was alleged that this template claims that all documents/images published by the German Goverenment or previous governments, ar PD (It never said quite that, but it did make claims of usability). It has also been said that thsi is legally incorrect. There seems to have been along and heated discussion of thsi elsewhere, but legal authority was not cited in the TfD discussion. Even if this position is legally correct (and I assume those who state it are doing so in good faith) this template could be reworded to state soemthing like "This image was produced or published under the authority of the German goverment. It may be subject to copyright -- such images are not automatically free for use. A proper license tag is needed if this image is to be used." making it a tempalte indicating publication information, rather than licensing. Such changes were suggested by at elast one keep voter. Closing off discusion prematurely, as if ther was an obvious policy violation here, is IMO a major mistake. Overturn close and returen to TfD for further discussion. DES 23:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It's the wrong tree that you are barking up. The main task is to get the images tagged and sourced properly. They are now for review at WP:PUI. And we use license tag for copyright information, not for provenance. Thus, endorse decision, keep deleted. Pilatus 05:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • KD, legal issues are not subject to consensus. Radiant_>|< 17:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • But would anyone object to an conversion simialr to the one doen on {{unimage}}? DES 19:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I do, for example. The images previously tagged GermanGov are assorted Third Reich imagery. Can't see what the advantage of a tag is that states "This is Third Reich material and certainly under copyright so tag it properly or it will go away." Pilatus 19:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Since you do not follow Misplaced Pages policy (you have taged these images with Template:no license without informing the uploaders despite the clear instruction in the template) there may be some doubts about your good faith. "Certainly" is a strong word when at least one of the images was published in the UK rather than Germany, inconsistently with UK copyright laws, and contained deliberately false information about its timing and provenance. --Henrygb 01:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Gazeebow Unit

This is a slightly strange case. The article was created and validly deleted by AFD process (3 deletes, one keep). When I found it it had already been deleted, but the last version had a speedy tag on it, and so not knowing about the vote I undeleted it (it wasn't a valid speedy, for reasons I will come to).

While it is true that this article is about a rap group who have released no records and have no website, and operate only in a very small community, they do have a number of other things going for them. They have been subject of a number of academic papers, but most importantly have had a documentary slot on a national arts radio programme (Definitely Not the Opera, 28th January 2006). This is the sort of programme that groups with record contracts in place would cheerfully kill for a one-minute mention on. I would contend that this slot alone makes them notable.

Anyway, I've undeleted this article, so if anyone wants to disagree with me they now have a place to say why. DJ Clayworth 15:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted, since the afd was valid and the content added since wouldn't really help it survive another afd either. WP:MUSIC says "Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio network." Their appearance was a short blurb during hour 3 of a 4 hour show . Someone writing a paper for a university society doesn't quite qualify as being featured in major music media either. - Bobet 15:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted valid AfD, fails WP:MUSIC, and per the article :"...released no records and having no website...", has 29 unique google hits including WP. About as clear-cut a case for deletion of bandity you'll ever find. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
They do have a record. They have about 200 hits if you search for both spellings: "Gazebow Unit" + "Gazeebow Unit". Nonplus 09:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh pop it on AfD and see if it flies. I can't see the problem. Many people--not just Newfoundlanders but people across Canada and in the Northern US--will have heard them on the radio and want to know more about them. Wiki is not paper. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The version that was debated and deleted made no mention of the academic paper "Gazeebow Unit: Local Language And Vernacularity In A St. John’s Rap Group", nor CBC Radio One feature. --maclean25 17:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted (redelete), AfD valid, fails WP:MUSIC all over the place, I would argue that the extent of coverage that they have received does not qualify them for an article. Also, I was unable to track down any of the academic articles about these guys in my quick look. Could we get some citations on that? Lord Bob 19:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
"Gazeebow Unit: Local Language And Vernacularity In A St. John’s Rap Group" by Dr. Philip Hiscock of the Memorial University of Newfoundland Folklore Department. It was delivered at a conference in November, so as far as I'm aware it has yet been printed. I might be able to find a copy, however, if that would be helpful. Nonplus 09:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted (redelete) A valid AfD, validly deleted in process. I don't understand why was even brought here. Common sense says a sysop who makes a simple mistake, discovers the mistake, and has the ability to correct the mistake, should just go ahead and do so. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey guys, there is supposed to be a five day period of review for articles nominated here. I posted it less than 24hrs ago. Someone in this debate asked for more information less than three hours ago. Anyone want to explain? DJ Clayworth 21:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleting, err, I mean, keep deleted. While the subject may be very slightly verifiable if you squint just right, the afd was valid and they sure don't seem to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. I don't see how one appearance on a radio program is enough to call them encyclopedic. Friday (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • A major national radio show like DNTO probably gets more listeners than a single which reaches number fifty in a record chart. Incidentally, the reference for the adademic paper is here. Remember WP:MUSIC is just guidelines. DJ Clayworth 22:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not arguing that the show isn't significant. But, not every single person or group ever mentioned there is encyclopedic. Also, FWIW, scholar.google.com returns no hits on this (but other papers by Hiscock are in there.) Sure, WP:MUSIC is just a guideline, but it's a decent one, and I don't see much to indicate that these guys are significant despite missing those criteria. Friday (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the reference, I had a peek. Unfortunately, I'm still not convinced. This paper doesn't seem to have spent a day of its life in a peer reviewed journal, and it seems to have just been an individual effort done for presentation, not publication. I was hoping to see it in a journal or a book, but such does not seem to be the case. Moreover, since the text of the presentation doesn't seem to be available, the paper isn't capable of providing any verification. Since this presentation was only in November of 2005, of course, it may be in the peer review process to get into a journal someday. When this day comes, it might be time to re-open this discussion, but for now I'm just not sold. Lord Bob 16:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted; afd was valid and in process. The 01:27, 23 January 2006 revision was the one deleted by afd. The 13:45, 29 January 2006 revision was re-created by Lorraine q (talk · contribs) (with edit summary "I know this page got deleted before but they're socially interesting", no less), and is pretty much identical. While Cleared as Filed's speedy as a band not asserting notability is questionable (and believe me, it pisses me off when people use this criterion as an excuse to speedy band articles that claim they released three albums), it's a perfectly valid re-creation speedy. —Cryptic (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    Looking back at what I deleted, I'm not sure how you see it as questionable. I don't see any assertion of three albums in there. Even if it hadn't been previously AFD'd, the article as I deleted it was speediable as a non-notable band, IMO. —Cleared as filed. 05:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    Air time on a national radio program is certainly an assertion of notability. My three-album comment wasn't in reference to this article, or a deletion by you; I apologize for the ambiguity. —Cryptic (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • KD valid AfD & two minutes on DNTO is not that huge a deal. (Grooveshinny, maybe...) The process here seems to have become a bit unglued. Eusebeus 09:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Who cares about the result on this DRV? We could have a hundred votes to keep deleted, but that does not prevent forum shopping by undeleting and immediately relisting at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gazeebow Unit (second nomination). Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Honest mistake on DJ Clayworth's part, but AfD is valid and evidence of notability conspicuously absent. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 12:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've closed the AfD and directed discussions back here. - brenneman 12:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Came here from the AfD discussion. No reason to relist per User:Bobet. --Malthusian (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted as per Bobet Hamster Sandwich 14:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. If Tony wants a "consensus" I think we have one here. -R. fiend 17:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Sounds like those kids had their fifteen minutes of fame, but that doesn't make them encyclopedic per se. I see no reason to overturn this AFD, endorse deletion. Radiant_>|< 17:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted valid AfD, fails WP:MUSIC. --Stormie 21:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted. The AfD was perfectly legitimate, and WP:MUSIC is quite clear that a brief story on a radio show is not enough; you need 30 solid minutes minimum. I was on MTV once; it doesn't make me a notable musician. --Aaron 23:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it was a little bit naughty to thwart the second AfD, but primarily the problem was D. J. Clayworth's decision to bring the issue to DRV. Once articles reach this forum, they are seldom seen or heard of again, which I think is a petty, for it was a perfectly good article about a rap group with some minor claim to national fame.
  • I'm rather worried about the attempt by various people here and elsewhere to assert a right to halt a deletion debate on the grounds that a discussion is already going on here. This seems to me to be rather too ad hoc to stand scrutiny. We start debates here while there are debates going on elsewhere--I've seen speedies discussed while a TfD is ongoing. I don't see any problem with this. It follows that we cannot halt debates going on elsewhere if we are discussing something here. The more the merrier. And since so many people are so keen to claim that this forum is not about content, it's not as if the debates need be on the same subject. One debate can discuss content, the other--whatever else there is to discuss. I suppose someone would think of something... --Tony Sidaway 05:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • So basically, what you're suggesting is this: once someone, anyone, posts on this page the name of any article that has been deleted, you immediately undelete it. It is then immediately renominated at AFD, because DRV isn't allowed to make any decisions on its own. So at the say-so of any user, any AFD can immediately be revoted on. Consensus deletions will be overturned if the consensus doesn't hold up to this completely arbitrary re-vote. We'll see a consensus decision being overturned by a non-consensus, which seems an appallingly bad idea. Is this anything other than an attempt to subvert (indeed castrate) DRV and stick it to the "deletionists"? If so, tell me where I'm wrong. -R. fiend 06:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • People really shouldn't speedy during an XfD discussion, unless the page clearly fits a speedy delete criteriuon, or there has been enough disuccion to make an emerging consensus clear (in which case it isn't really a speedy its an early close, whcih should only be done if clear cut, IMO). If someone does speedy while an XfD discussion is inprogress, and that speedy is disputed the only choices are to bring the matter here, or to unilaterally undo the deletion. Therefore, starting a DRV discussiuon when a XfD sebate has been cut short by a speedy is proper (and if soemone speedies, an in-progress XfD ought to be closed as "Speedy delete" anyway). But staring an new XfD debate while the metter is open here is generally a poor idea IMO. it leads to a split discussion. if the matter is at all contentious, then any keep will surely include a relaistign in any case, so there is no need to rush to XfD. DES 22:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted valid AfD, very well aligned with common sense to boot. Xoloz 18:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, 4 opinions total on an AFD? But they do have academic papers written about them? Which I see have been referenced above? That's odd. Why was this article deleted? It seems like the sane thing to do here is to keep the article. I don't care which discussion that's supposed to go, and I don't think the objections (most of which are procedural in nature) are relevant here. Is there any reason not to undelete and keep, short of procedure? Kim Bruning 17:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • There seems to have been at least soem new info brought out in thsi discussion, and reasons that were alleged in the first AfD were not respond3ed to in that discussion. WP:MUSIC is generally a good guideline, but it does not cover ever case, adn there is at least an argumetn thet this should be an exception. I don't want to evaluate that here, but it is stong enough that I say we should Over turn the close and relist on AfD. DES 22:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Whose pipe dream was it that this had article had a chance in hell? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:58, Feb. 2, 2006
  • Undelete. As somebody who is actually familiar with the cultural context in which this band is relevant, I feel the need to speak up. First of all I want to make clear.. Gazebow Unit are a joke band made up of high school students. Nevertheless, I think they're notable and worthy of inclusion.
They've been the subject of media and even scholarly attention. At least:
  • Definately Not the Opera (National radio)
  • Weekend Arts Magazine (Provincial radio)
  • The Muse (local newspaper)
  • Paper written about them by Dr. Philip Hiscock, presented at a local Folklore Society conference. (No it hasn't been published, but then the paper was only delivered in November.)
They're a pathetic band, musically. What's notable about them is that, despite this, there has been a bizarre grassroots explosion of interest in them locally and beyond. The mainstream media attention is the tip of this iceberg - it's mostly an alarmingly widespread word of mouth thing (which I believe the above-mentioned media commented on). It really is not just about a band - it's an issue of culture and folklore. Gazebow Unit are unique as a media representation of the skeet, a subcultural type in Newfoundland culture - that's why people are interested in them.
Incidentally, they do have a cd out, albeit not a label release. Nonplus 09:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Alexander (cartoonist)

The article had an AfD, at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Patrick Alexander (cartoonist). Noting that AfD is a discussion rather than a vote; that the article underwent a major change during discussion (change done by DollyD (talk · contribs) shortly before DollyD's comments on the AfD page, meaning the nominator and first four others made their comments before seeing the change); that the change remedied the issues of POV, vanity, and nonsense; that DollyD and Steve block (talk · contribs) had established at least some notability by showing that the subject of the article was published in print magazines as well as online; I determined that the AfD did not support deletion. I closed the AfD and placed my reasoning for my decision on Talk:Patrick Alexander (cartoonist).

A week later, Ambi (talk · contribs) speedy-deleted the article, with reason: "per VFD consensus to delete". She did not make any comment to the article's talk page, nor did she notify me that she had an objection to my closing, much less that she had deleted the article. The article was recreated, whereupon Ambi took it upon herself to delete it again, with reason "recreated VFDd articles are speedy deletion candidates", ignoring the declared result of the AfD. Once again, no discussion of the deletion was made. DollyD recreated the article again, leaving a note on Ambi's talk page, suggesting a renomination of the article if Ambi felt strongly that it should be deleted . At this point, DollyD's creation of the article appeared on my watchlist (the first I had noticed that there was even an issue), and I also left a note on Ambi's talk page . Ambi deleted the article a third time deletion log, saying that she would protect the page if created again. Only after this third deletion did Ambi discuss the issue, in a rather hostile and aggressive comment on my talk page that did not address my reasons for closing the debate as I did.

I don't want to war over this, so I'm bringing it here. I ask that the article be undeleted in keeping with the AfD result. It can then be relisted if anyone strongly feels that it does not belong on Misplaced Pages. -- Jonel | Speak 11:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I have undeleted and redeleted to provide a better deletion summary. For relevant policies see WP:DP#Non-Administrators closing discussionsMisplaced Pages:Deletion process#Non-Administrators closing discussions. Jonel, this was not an unambiguous "keep", and you should have let it be closed by an admin. As it was, Ambi did have the authority to review it. Had the debate been closed as "keep" by an administrator, Ambi's deletion would have been out of process and the disputed close would need to be taken here. To me the revised versions don't look significantly different from the one which was originally nominated, so I will have to say endorse Ambi's deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a straightforward relisting. You could have come to me and I would have happily undeleted it as a questionable speedy and listed on AfD. I agree that it was a borderline close, but I don't get where Sjakkalle is going with this talk of "authority to review". There is nothing about this in the deletion policy, and commonsense tells me it's a disputed close and should be relisted to determine consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The debate was closed by a non-admin. Sorry that I linked to the wrong page, it should have been Misplaced Pages:Deletion process#Non-Administrators closing discussions which says "Closing decisions by non-administrators are subject to review and, if necessary, may be reopened by any administrator. If this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as unambiguous as you thought.". Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
      • It doesn't matter who closed the debate. Honestly the long and short of it is that there's nothing much wrong with the article. The delete votes gave no significant arguments and the two keep voters both gave excellent reasons to keep. It would have a very good chance of making it through a second AfD listing, especially after dollyd expanded it--indeed I was rather disgusted to see someone, Splash I think it was, blank the article and cover it with a template after dollyd had edited it. This is a wiki and we're meant to edit article, so this behavior was absolutely and utterly beyond belief. It's as if he wished to prevent anyone editing the article further. Very disquieting. --Tony Sidaway 06:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for providing the (eventually corrected) link. I had read the deletion policy (WP:DP) and found nothing there about this. I have now read the page to which you've linked. I'm still having difficulty with "may be reopened" equalling "article may be speedily deleted without notifying anyone", however. Though I suppose it is eminently reasonable for administrators, with the proven support of the community, to reverse without discussion or explanation an action taken by an editor who has thought out that action, acted in good faith, and explained his reasoning for it. -- Jonel | Speak 17:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I feel the issue of the deletion debate being closed by a non-administrator, Jonel, (who absolutely did the correct thing in my opinion) is far less relevant than whether the subject of the article is notable enough to be included on the Misplaced Pages. I clearly feel that he is, although very few people have addressed the issue in this deletion review. The page has now been protected and the information blanked from the main article page by Splash, which means I cannot add further information to strengthen the notabilty claims. This is quite conterproductive as I was beginning to add the details of some relevant awards, something that I started in my last edit. DollyD 18:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree. This was a terrible thing to do. I still cannot believe that an editor that I had some respect for could have done that. --Tony Sidaway 06:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I fully agree with Jonel that the article should be undeleted. It was improved after most of the 'delete' votes were cast and since that time I have gathered a fair number of sources which could improve it much more.
    Patrick Alexander has been published regularly in widely circulated publications since 2001, namely Krash and Mania. These are two of the largest selling children's magazines in Australia. Krash has a readership of 109,000 and Mania has 42,476 . Alexander also has a popular web comic which was nominated for an award in 2005. .
    The award he was nominated for, a Ledger Award , is one of the major awards of the Australian comic industry, and in addition to being nominated for "Webcomic Strip of the Year" Patrick Alexander was also nominated for "Comic Strip of the Year" .
    I feel that this evidence of large scale publication and industry recognition proves that Patrick Alexander is definitely a notable cartoonist in Australia. DollyD 13:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I endorse both Ambi's right to review any case closed by a non-admin and his/her decision to overturn Jonel's original decision. While some improvement was made to the article during the debate and two people voted "keep" after the change, it was not sufficient to convince any of the early participants in the AFD debate to change their opinions and two people explicitly voted "delete" after the change. While the "fanzine" concerns were successfully addressed, the notability of the subject was not. Only in very recent changes has any assertion of notability been made - specifically, that his works have been nominated for a Ledger Award. Nomination for an award is not sufficient to establish notability in my mind. No objection to relisting if his work wins something, though. Rossami (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I voted keep in the debate, so I'm going to vote endorse the close by Jonel now. I'm not sure I get Rossami's vote, he's voted endorse but seems to mean delete, but it might be Ambi's non-process action that throws that spanner in the works. Regarding Rossami's point regarding assertion of notability; surely the assertion is made in the very first version of the article He draws for numerous publications, most notably Mania and Krash, and writes for videogame magazine Total Gamer. If being a published writer and cartoonist is not an assertion of notability I'm perplexed as to what is.
      I'm also unclear how we determine the changes were not sufficient to convince any of the early participants in the AFD debate to change their opinions. Is it certain that those voters were aware such changes were made? There is no record on their talk pages of them being notified of the changes made to the article, and it's surely not a reasonable assumption that all editors watch deletion debates they partcipate in, much as we'd hope we all do, is it? All that said, I also have to remind people 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. Rossami should direct their comments to the process: is the consensus Jonel determined sound?
      I certainly understand Jonel's reading of the debate, it is unclear that the first four votes are aware of the changes made, the non-notable bio assertion is made by only three users, the others either make charges such as vanity or nonsense whic don't actually address the issue. I'm inclined to say that if people can't elucidate their reasons better in the discussion, there's no onus on a closing admin to take their opinions under consideration. Calling an article nonsense is pretty much a facile, worthless comment, since it can be remedied and it gives no direction to a closing admin, it's a point of view too easily disregarded; if as a closer I find an article not to be nonsense, what am I to do with someone directing me it is? With no reason listed I must look for other clues in the debate, and since the only other reasons which could relate to nonsense is POV and vanity, both of which can be fixed and aren't strictly deletion criteria, I'd move to ignore them.
      I find wikipedia deletion policy a mess sometimes, since notability can depend on the audience of afd on any particular day, and since speedy process allows for deletion of recreated material, on what I perceive as borderline cases such as this it seems harsh to damn it once and for all on the basis of one contested vote.
      As to Ambi's motives, I certainly understand them, it's not by any means anything but a very ambiguous keep close, there's an argument that there's strong consensus for delete, doesn't this page direct users to use it: to challenge the outcome of any deletion, which leads me to assume it should have come here rather than be speedied. If Ambi disputed the outcome of the deletion debate, that user should have come here and listed the article, seeking a review of the consensus. Ambi's motives were correct, but the actions were not. Steve block talk 20:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm in total agreement with Ambi's actions in this matter, and this matter should have been brought here initially instead of trying to do an end run around AfD by recreating the article twice after deletion. With that said, I do feel there has been sufficient evidence of notability presented here to either undelete the article or relist it on AfD. Gamaliel 22:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Let's be fair to DollyD here, even if you think I acted wrongly. Accusing DollyD of "trying to do an end run around AfD" is hardly civil, nor does it assume good faith. When DollyD recreated the article, the AfD page pretty clearly said "keep". In fact, it still does. Ambi didn't even take the time to change that or even to note that the decision was disputed. Nor did she let DollyD know. There was no reason for DollyD to believe anything other than that the article should be there. -- Jonel | Speak 00:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'll freely admit that I should have informed DollyD when I deleted it. However, that by no means excuses your blatantly out of process attempt at railroading your desired result against the explicit wishes of nearly everyone else who voted, and thus, the actual result - that this be deleted - should very much stand. Ambi 06:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. This is obvious vanity, which is why just about everyone who voted voted delete. I re-deleted it because I see no reason to go through even more bureaucracy just because Jonel attempted to railroad the result of the first one. Ambi 06:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Fair play, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't surprised to see it closed as a keep. I am now happy to endorse Ambi's close, but add that a reviewing admin should make a note of the review at the discussion in question, also amending the close notice so that there is a noticeable chain of events. I don't think that's overly bureaucratic, and demonstrates both good faith in both the original close and the deletion process. I don't think it is overly burdensome, and failure to discuss the review has probably caused as much confusion here as Jonel's closing in the first place. After arguments made here, on balance I am inclined to agree the article should have remained deleted and that deletion closure discussed here. Steve block talk 12:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted. I don't think the rewrites satisfy the notability issues raised in the first go-round. Eusebeus 09:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure and keep deleted, valid AfD and correct closure. And even assuming good faith I find it problematic that DollyD (talk · contribs) has no edits outside this article and the linked cartoon. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 12:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Ambi's closure, keep deleted, valid AfD, six deletes, two keeps. The phrasing "I ask that the article be undeleted in keeping with the AfD result" seems strained and tendentious to me. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep undeleted, as it was expanded during the VFD. "Note that since Jonel is not an administrator, the closure was subject to review." What the fuck happened to adminship being "no big deal"? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 13:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, Ambi is entirely correct. Radiant_>|< 14:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Agree with Ambi. This is a blatant overturning of the AFD process. Jonel justified dismissing votes by saying "As for "nn-bio", the links provided both in the AFD and on the article have convinced me that this cartoonist is fairly well-known in Australia." We don't need this kind of AFD activism. As for the article, I don't believe it establishes notability and I would vote "delete" on an AFD. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 20:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, Ambi's closure is entirely correct. --Deathphoenix 21:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Ambi's closure - Jonas did not find the outcome which best fit the discussion, Ambi was right to correct, however Ambi's handling of the aftermath was pretty lousy. Jonas was clearly acting in good faith. --- Charles Stewart 22:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I am convinced that User:Jonel was acting in good faith, and i see no indication that he was trying to "railroad" the result. If he were an admin, the close with his explanation would be at least arguably within the zone of closer judgment, although at best near the edge of that zone. However I think that User:Ambi was acting perfectly properly in reveiwing this close, and that Ambi's close better fits the AfD discussion. It would perhaps have avoided problems had Ambi noted the revised close on the AfD log -- absent this Ambi's action looks out-of-process. I strongly urge any admin who in future reviews and alters an AfD close by a non-admin to note this on the AfD log -- I don't really see this as overly burdensome. If this person really is notable, a rewriten article with more clear cut sources for this, which is not "substantially similar" to the previous article could be created, and if so should stand on its own merits. Endorse Ambi's close and keep deleted, but not protected. DES 23:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I am withdrawing my recommendation for undeletion. Discussion here has shown me that my closing decision was incorrect. I would like to thank those who have been helpful in discussing my error with me, especially Sjakkalle, Howcheng, and DESiegel. -- Jonel | Speak 00:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. What part of the adage "afd is a discussion, not a vote" do you interpret to mean " can take whatever the hell action want", without regard to the other parties? If you think their opinions might change in light of more recent edits to the article, you should contact them and ask them to reconsider. I would expect to be de-sysoped if I frequently made closures like this one. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:25, Feb. 2, 2006
    • Sorry, but your tone is unhelpful, especially considering I have already acknowledged my error. And please explain where you're getting that second quotation, as I certainly don't remember saying anything of the sort. I may have misremembered, but it seems to me as if you've implied that I've taken an unsavory position that I have never taken. -- Jonel | Speak 21:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete Ambi's action was unwarranted. older ≠ wiser 02:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist as ambiguous result. Ambi's actions may have been warranted, but taking it on good faith that the article was in the process of being improved when speedied (after the AfD was closed and therefore DollyD felt like they could work on it unmolested) was disruptive. If it's worthy of deletion, it's worth getting a valid consensus on the article as it stands here. Alternatively, DollyD may just want to recreate it with the as-yet-unincluded information, but only if Ambi agrees not to delete it as substantially being the same. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-29

List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C.

Everyone loves to say "AfD is a discussion, not a vote", now let's see if it's true. If we're just going by numbers (i.e. voting) then this was closed correctly as lacking consensus. If AfD is actually really a discussion, as I've heard so many times, then I think it is worth examining the discussion. 3 keep "voters" said nothing explaining their reasoning, one made a point of refusing to do so (not much of a discussion), 3 are admitted trolls, who made largely nonsensical statements (2 others were accused of being as well; I don't know if they are), and few defended the article in any terms other than "people should know that some streets in DC are named for the states" which it already says in the DC article. The only reason given as to why categories wouldn't work better is that categories, unlike this list, aren't a large collection of redlinks, as if that's a good thing. When I made a point that having this list was like having a List of numbered streets in Manhattan, which would basically just list all integers from 1 to 220, I was actually told that such an article would be a good idea! The 16 delete voters basically all explained their reasoning (usually it was that this is why we have categories, and since not every street in DC is articleworthy, even these, a list of redlinks is not an asset). So is AFD a vote or not? I think it should be overturned and deleted. -R. fiend 22:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  • There was some unnecessary heat in that discussion, IMHO, but my take on it was that consensus for delete was there, after factoring out trolls, but it was a fairly close run thing. I think the closing admin acted in good faith, erring on the side of no consensus as a good admin should, yet I'd nevertheless support overturn and delete. Failing that, suggest that you try again in a few weeks. I'd imagine that relisting wouldn't be out of line as the process was pretty contaminated. Often, things go cleanly the second time around, when passions have cooled a little. It's not going to kill WP if it isn't gotten rid of right away. ++Lar: t/c 22:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Still keep. I voted keep in the AFD because this is an interesting topic and a notable phenomenon, and because categories do not serve the same purpose as lists. The gay niggers you noted have contributed to Misplaced Pages in a positive way and it would be ridiculous to discount their votes just because they have an unusual pastime. // paroxysm (n) 22:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks like a perfectly good article to me. The existence, in the one full part of the United States that does not have statehood, and moreover the one devoted wholly to government of the United States, of streets (mostly avenues) named after all fifty states of the Union, is no coincidence, and a list of those streets is of encyclopedic value. It is of perhaps as much encyclopedic value as the list of streets of Atlentic City that appear in the US monopoly board, or lists of streets in London that appear in the British version. That is to say: not much, but the net value is positive and the article is unlikely to pose any great maintenance problems. Having said that, R. Fiend may wish to try his luck at a second AfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The existence of a naming scheme for some streets in a city is worth mentioning in an article about the city or an article about the transportation infrastructure/streets of the city ingeneral. On the other hand, a list of the names themselves is simply a list of the names of the U.S. states with "Avenue" appended to each name and has no real value, since, frankly, few of them are worth an actual article (Massachusetts Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue being notable exceptions). --Calton | Talk 02:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Rerun AFD or delete looks like the AfD got hijacked by some GNAA members, and then the closing admin forgot to discount their votes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete per Lar. I don't like smearing contributors as "GNAA", and I'd suggest that R. fiend be more civil than usual when dealing with people you suspect are troublemakers. You play into a their hands when you shout "Troll!", howcheng's approach was the better one here. That being said, the arguements to delete were clearly superior. - brenneman 23:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete without prejudice to the closing admin, R. fiend is corrct, we keep saying 'not a vote but a discussion' well the strength of this discussion was delete - no real case was made to do otherwise. --Doc 23:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If VFD really is a discussion, not a vote, there is nothing wrong with this article. Keep. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete. Like R. Fiend says, many reasons given for deleting, not much for keeping. And if the contributions of GNAA have to be proven rather than assumed good, then they're wasting everyone's time here, and goodbye and good riddance to 'em. --Calton | Talk 02:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well I've found yet another way to violate the OMG SANCTITY OF AFD. You can ban me now. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close. I see nothing untoward in the Admin’s decision to close this as no consensus. There are obviously plenty of good arguments for articles and lists of this type, such as those provided by TS above, or some that were made in the AfD. Of course, if we are going to discount the GNAA's contributions, we might have started with the 100 or so skirmishes in the "war on blogs". I mean how much of a discussion and consensus is generated by a bunch of users competing to come up with new turns on the word cruft as they shoot down the latest "pod" or blog article...but I digress. -- JJay 03:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close - as Lar points out above, its probably simplest to just relist this in a month and see what happens then. There are so many worse articles out there, why waste more energy on this one? Turnstep 04:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete The new vote is going heavily in favor of keeping. Golfcam 04:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh yea, the "new vote", created with what certainly appears to be bad faith without even mentioning it here. I'd encourage all concerned to visit Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C. (second nomination).
      brenneman 05:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Nevermind, I already closed it as a bad faith nomination. We can talk about reopening it, if necessary, after this discussion is concluded. It might not be necessary at all. We'll see. -R. fiend 05:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
      • It can hardly have been a bad faith nomination. I made it myself, and I assure you that I very, very sincerely wish to see this issue discussed on AfD. AfD is a consensus-based forum. I won't edit war but if anyone wishes to re-open the AfD immediately so that a consensus can be determined, I should be most grateful. Meanwhile I do with Aaron and R, Fiend would not be so quick to yell "bad faith." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
          • It can hardly have been a bad faith nomination. I made it myself... Nothing about the truth value expressed or implied, but how exactly does the second statement logically support the first? --Calton | Talk 07:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Ah yes, Tony bypasses an ongoing discussion again and wonders how it's possible that people object to that. The perennial allegations that DRV doesn't work have never been backed by actual evidence whenever I asked about it. Consensus is that it does work; if you respect consensus, you should respect that. Radiant_>|< 07:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If an AfD "keep" or "no consensus" result is questionable then as far as I can see the only reasonable way to resolve the issue is to have another AfD some time down the road. One can't simply assume that a consensus to delete would develop in a valid AfD if no such valid AfD has been done. Bryan 07:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • KD per R.Fiend. Good arguments obviously should trump a pileup of votes, especially if they smell faintly of socks. Radiant_>|< 07:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close, keep. The fact that valid arguments for retaining the article were present is what matters. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename, as I said in the new AfD, it should be renamed to List of state-named roads in Washington, D.C., or something to that effect, so as not to make Ohio and California seem oddly out of place. The article itself is useful even if there are many red links; it can always be enhanced, and new articles created. Perhaps making it a category would also be effective? Rory096 07:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. No compelling arguments were made for deletion, so there is no reason to delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Before Radiant and co get on their high horse about consensus, they should remember that this is not a consensus-based forum. The practice if a deletion listing is inconclusive is to list it again to see if a consensus can be reached. There's no reason why the technicalities can't be discused here while the practical matter of whether there is a consensus to delete are discussed on the forum set aside for that purpose: AfD. The premature closing of the AfD thwarted the only ongoing consenus-based discussion of this proposed deletion; that was not a fine moment for Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Practice is to let the AFDs run for five days, and then they are fair game to any admin who wishes to close it. In this case the closure was technically "premature" in one sense, because while it remained open for over 120 hours, it had not yet been moved to the "old" list which happens at midnight GMT, this was closed about 2 hours prior to that move. (And here, I would say that an extra two hours of debating would not matter much.) Standard practise for when there is no consensus is not to relist, but that the article defaults to keep. Relisting is usually done for debates which have received little or no attention, a debate with plenty of attention but nothing really conclusive are closed, usually as "keep" but sometimes an administrator will be bold and choose to merge or redirect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You've lost me here, sjakkalle.How did my nomination remain open for 120 hours? It was prematurely closed a couple of times by R, Fiend only last nightm athough at one point it does seem to have had 6 keeps, 0 deletes. Impressive for an article that had a "no consensus" result last time. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I think Sjakkalle meant the first AfD which I think might have been closed an hour or two early... only a major process wonk would be upset about that. (er, I guess that means I should be upset about that???) I could be wrong though as to what he was referring to. I think starting another AfD before the DRV ran its course isn't necessarily an ideal practice though. ++Lar: t/c 16:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • (resp to Tony) Ah, such irony in someone who does premature closings of deletion debates himself disparaging such closings done by other people. May I just point out that consensus has it that DRV generally works and is a useful process, and there are just a few dissenters that assume otherwise and persist in claiming so? Radiant_>|< 15:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry Radiant!, I've absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Now I popped a few comments on your talk page earlier, why not engage in a dialog and we'll try to see what the problem is? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
      • You prematurely closed the debate on User:KJVTRUTH a few days ago, and now you complain about a premature closure by somebody else. That sounds rather paradoxical. However I'd be happy to engage in dialog if you popped a few reasonable comments on my talk page, as opposed to a few snide offensive remarks as you popped earlier today. Radiant_>|< 18:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I closed a deletion debate that was started as an inappropriate pursuit of a content dispute over a user page. What of it? --Tony Sidaway 06:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Leave undeleted and revisit when the storm has passed, as suggested above. It's a bit crufty but it is scarcely damaging to the encyclopaedia. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 13:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Leave undeleted WP:ENC applies to this. Disk is cheap. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak overturn and delete It isn't harming anyone if kept but I still don't think it is encyclopedic enough to warrant an own article. My overturn and delete vote is reflecting Doc's argument, discussion favored delete even if votes were closer. Not sure why this AfD got so heated in the first place.--Kalsermar 16:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close. I still don't see the point of this list when a category would do better, but a no consensus keep is within the closing admin's discretion. howcheng {chat} 16:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge it into Washington D.C., and mention they exist and only provide links to the ones with acual articles. --ShadowPuppet 17:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse delete, I'm all for road cruft... but this is just extraneous garbage.Gateman1997 23:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse original decision (no consensus keep). The closing admin's decision was reasonable and another AFD can always be attempted at a later time. —Cleared as filed. 23:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse original decision (no consensus, keep). A reasonable decision by the closing admin. -- Arwel (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close and keep: Lack of a certain number of arguments to keep is not a valid deletion criterion. Deletion is not the default answer nor something achievable by even a small majority. Deletion is only valid in two cases: it meets CSD; or valid reasons to delete are presented and no valid reasons to keep are. Further, the second AFD should not have been closed. It is a normal procedure to relist if a nomination fails to reach a consensus. Closing that discussion because it had also been brought here was wrong, and it should not be done again. -- Jake 05:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Delete It really seems this is about whether the information is better to categorify or keep in a clearinghouse article. A category would be better, surely, since R. Fiend's point is well-taken when extended to its logical conclusions. Will we have list of List of city-named Avenues in Paris or List of politician-named Avenues in Madrid next? Eusebeus 10:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete. The first three sentences in the articles are interesting and worthwhile, and belong in the article on Washington, D.C. where they would make a good subsection of the roads section. There is no value added by proceeding to expand that information into an explicit list, it's just an excuse to expand those three sentences into an unnecessary "article." There could conceivably be an article on the history of Washington, D. C.'s roads and road plan, but this isn't such an article and this isn't the germ of one. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn, delete, per WP:NOT. This almost-uncommented listing of road names is original data and as such out of place here. Pilatus 16:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse original decision. The closing admin's judgement of the first AFD is not being questioned as far as I can tell, per Arwel Perry, and I don't see the grounds for listing here. I find the rush to DRV, rather than waiting to file another AFD, per Jake Nelson, questionable. - BanyanTree 18:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse the lack of consensus. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:17, Jan. 31, 2006
  • Keep per SPUI. Disregard this vote as I am a troll. Ashibaka tock 23:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse original no consensus decision Because of the nature of DRV, I don't think it should be used to try to force a delete after an ambiguous AfD. A second AfD is the better solution. –Abe Dashiell 17:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse and close this discussion. I don't usually feel this way of late but I agree with Tony Sidaway. DRV is not the place to get things deleted, and neither this page nor Misplaced Pages:Deletion_policy authorize this page to delete things . It's supposed to be a forum for discussing undeletion, and the very fact that it does not use consensus or have a requirement of notification make it inferior to AfD. Close the DRV and re-open the second AfD. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Not so; if an AfD had all Delete votes and was closed Keep, that would be reversible here; but this article is not in that situation. Septentrionalis 19:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Hmmm, I suppose you could argue that as a case for this venue, but I'd rather see it at WP:ANI. What is being attempted here is more of an end-run around the system; Let it be relisted according to our consensus-based processes..es. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
        • When VFU was converted to DRV, thre was specific discussion that this fourm would be open for the review of ALL deletion decisions, including keeps and daletes. However a keep that seems dubious but is even arguably within the zone of closer judgement is probably better handled with a re-nom on AfD. DES 20:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close; Adashiel said it. Septentrionalis 19:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete, Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. Votes for deletion was renamed not least because it's not a vote. As a result, the raw numbers are irrelevant when the discussion is heavily weighted towards deletion. Lord Bob 19:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Please keep. Lists can be very informative/helpful. Let this one evolve. Snargle 00:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is actually interesting. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse, Keep. Misplaced Pages is not paper; this is a notable topic with foreseeable use; the admin reasonably declared the AfD result a no consensus. StarryEyes 03:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure per Sjakkalle. youngamerican (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist on AfD. My personal instinct is to delete, and all the cogent arguments on the first AfD were to delete - however, this is best decided by reopening this for a further discussion. DRV is inherently a review, and not a decision-making process. Proto||type 16:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

User:KJVTRUTH

KJVTRUTH made a number of POV edits on List of Freemasons, many of which were factually incorrect. He then moved said entries over to his user page and relisted them, using outdated sources that supported his position rather than looking at newer sources that didn't. He also listed people as Masons that were not, specifically based on the fact that they were individuals who "shamed the Fraternity" and that "Masonry was hiding their membership". Based on the incorrect material, I started an MfD. User:Tony Sidaway felt that it was not the way to handle the situation, so he removed it, and suggested that I discuss it first on the user's talk page.

I therefore pointed out and cited seven errors on KJVTRUTH's page here, and he has not changed them. Therefore, he is using his userpage to press a POV issue, disseminate incorrect information despite evidence ot the contrary, and and undermine the actual List of Freemasons article, and I would either like the MfD reopened or the page deleted outright, as KJV's userpage violates the WP userpage policy. MSJapan 16:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Hello! This page is for reviewing the deletion decisions of pages that have already been removed. WP:AN/I is more appropriate for complaints like this regarding pages that still exist, though I urge you to reconsider, as his user page is not considered part of the encyclopedia and doesn't actually have to conform to NPOV. If you feel the user has made edits that are pushing a POV, please continue to try and work it out him/her on their talk page before going to WP:AN/I for intervention. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree. It may be appropriate to discuss here whether I made the right decsion in closing the MD listing for this userpage. I think I made the right decision, but it was an unusual one. There are other views and perhaps this would be an appropriate venue in which to air them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think Tony shouldn't have done that; there was a sensible discussion going on and he just pulled the rug out, while as usual he could have achieved the same effect with less disruption by waiting for two days. But this has been pointed out several times before, and apparently he doesn't really care if he needlessly upsets others. That said, the point is moot since the MFD would (very likely) have resulted in a keep anyway (5d, 4k), so I call WP:SNOW on this one and request to keep undeleted. Radiant_>|< 17:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That's a little bit naughty of you to recast this close as some display of callous indifference (I'd say it's almost a personal attack in the manner in which it's framed, but never mind). If as seems evident this was a content dispute, then the article should not have been listed for deletion and a close was in the interests of the community. I don't think we should entertain the rather drastic step of having users list one another's userpages for deletion when an edit would perform the job quite adequetely. .And Radiant! hasn't done his homework, either, before setting out deliberately to smear a fellow administrator. I acted after the issue of the MD was discussed on WP:AN and the consensus was that it was an inappropriate way to resolve a content dispute . Which is precisely what I said in closing it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Wow, you're having a lot of fun accusing people of deliberate smearing campaigns lately. Ever heard of WP:FAITH? Radiant_>|< 20:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      • You made a false accusation without any basis. You made that false accusation not only here but in WP:AN/I. At no point did you approach me to ask on what basis I made my decision, but simply assumed that I had conjured it up out of thin air. Whatever happened to good faith, indeed! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
        • C'mon guys. Both of you know better than to bicker this way, and either of you could turn the other cheek first if you wanted to. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 20:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse the admin's decision to close the discussion. The user page should never have been listed for deletion on the ostensible basis of verifiability and neutrality. Tom Harrison 18:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep undeleted but smack admin with a trout and with no prejudice against relisting. The discussion on WP:AN used as the obstensible support for the closing shows no such consensus. The MfD had appropiate discussion taking place. We don't just shut down discussion because we think it's silly, and a little forethought would have revealed that a) This MfD was probably going to be a "keep" and b) Closing it early was sure to be contentious. I'm at a loss as to why this venue is an acceptable place to discuss it but that venue was not. - brenneman 23:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: Can someone give me a link to the specific discssion at WP:AN? It didn't jump out at me there. I'm undecided about this, but I don't want it to be seen as a precedent that user pages are immune from the deletion process. -R. fiend 23:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Sure. WP:AN#Soapboxing_and_user_pages at the time of writing. Discussion was 18:34, 25 Jan to 13:02, 26 Jan, and I took action the following morning at around 0400.. But although the conclusion of the discussion was a clear feeling that the listing was inappropriate, the discussion at the time isn't really the point. Maybe the discussion missed something. Should we just let people list one another's userpages for deletion just like any other non-article content page? The discussion was only a way of getting a eat-of-pants feel as to whether to intervene at that time. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep undeleted but smack admin with a trout, as said above by Aaron. (Or maybe, given that that admin is constantly doing this, we should use something bigger. Anyone got a spare whale we can borrow? FearÉIREANN\ 00:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


2006-01-26

Category:Ambiguous five-letter acronyms

Improperly closed: "The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)"

There are no (nil, none, zero) delete votes. There is 1 keep until template deleted vote (mine), supported by multiple comments. Moreover, there is current discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation#Template and category usage on disambiguation pages and Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation#Support for categories instead of lists about keeping this category when the related template is deleted. --William Allen Simpson 13:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


2006-01-23

Template:Background

deletion history

If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline, the template cannot be listed for deletion on TfD separately, the template should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline is taking place.

This template should not have been nominated, let alone deleted, as it is part of a policy or guideline Misplaced Pages:Summary style. It is also under consideration as part of the proposed guideline Misplaced Pages talk:Root page.

Currently used in at least 60-70 articles (and nobody is sure how many more with the state of What links here).

As matter of history, this template was previously considered during the Template:Subarticleof discussions at:

This just seems to be a perennial favorite, accidentally successful listing for deletion because not enough people were watching.

--William Allen Simpson 00:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I support a deletion review for this template. Although the wording should be adjusted ("more background" > "background") it seems to serve a useful purpose, not fully covered by any of the alternatives that have been mentioned, nor even by a conscientious use of Summary Style.--Chris 16:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

  1. Mesh Computers: Undeleted; out of process deletion, relisted for deletion and deleted on same day, should have remained relisted for five days per Misplaced Pages:Deletion process 10:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. SNK Boss Syndrome: Kept deleted. 19:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Colony5: Undeleted, currently listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Colony5 (2nd nomination). 18:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Maria Pia Braganza and Rosario Poidimani : former redirected, latter kept deleted (protected). 18:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. David Dom and Karayana , overturned, narrowly missed deletion, now at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Karayana and David Dom. - 01:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Male bikini-wearing speedily kept deleted. - 01:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Philosophy of computer science, kept deleted. - 23:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Template:User_ku_klux, kept deleted. - 23:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks: City of New York, kept deleted and saw several like it sent to AfD. - 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Category:Lists in the Misplaced Pages namespace, kept deleted. - 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Template:User homosexual-no, kept deleted but with recomendations that people use TfD in future. - 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. Aetherometry, kept deleted. 05:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. How to make a computer virus, kept deleted. 22:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Valhalla legends: undel+re-AfD'd, and BNLS AfD'd with it, per recommendations here. 01:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Category:German-American mobsters: can be recreated, but there are no articles in it at present. 01:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators. 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.

Masud Rahman

A page was created in my name referring to me, and to some false and non-notable achievements, by a some people who knew me, as a joke. I was not aware of this page or its contents at any time while it existed, and have recently read the AfD page, which seems to contain hints as to what the page may have contained during its brief existence. Since there were some personal comments about me on the page, I am very interested to see the page; and it's various histories. This is a request for temporary undeletion.

Many thanks. Masud 02:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems harmless enough, I undeleted and moved it to your user space at User:Masudr/Masud Rahman. Let us know if you want it deleted again but I doubt anyone minds if you keep it around. - Haukur 11:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I'd like to maintain the content within my user page, can I simply remove the AfD (VfD) box? Masud 14:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you can. Proto||type 15:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


moshzilla

I would like to have this undeleted mometarely. I started the internet phenomena, moshzilla, and own moshzilla.com, I would like to move the contents of the moshzilla entry onto the moshzilla site if possible. User:joshhighland

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.

Decisions to be reviewed

Shortcut

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

If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion instead.
 
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=Misplaced Pages: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=2025 January 5}}</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=2025 January 5}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 January 5|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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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".

Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Temporary_undeletion

Advertisement - Please join the talk on if all articles brought to DRV should be fully restored and open for editing by default.

7 Feb 2006

Brian Peppers

Was deleted and protected by User:UninvitedCompany despite the previous failure to remove via AFD. Uninvited's reasoning was as follows: "I have deleted this page at the request of a family member of its subject. I do not believe that this page should be recreated without careful legal review. The subject does not appear to be a public figure." (See Talk:Brian_Peppers.) While I am certain that Uninvited was acting in good faith, I fear that it sets a dubious precedent to allow articles to be deleted because the article subject, or representatives of the subject, complained. If the information is uncited, it should of course be removed; if evidence is shown that it is libelous, it should also be removed. However, there's no evidence any of this was the case here. The mugshot is a public record, accessible to anyone, and is available through many websites other than Misplaced Pages, so removing it from here in no way even increases the subject's privacy. And this particular individual has been widely discussed on the Internet. Although Uninvited says that "privacy laws" may outlaw the publishing of this photo, no specific law was cited, and I find it difficult to believe that any law prohibiting the publication of crime-related information (like this mugshot) would withstand constitutional scrutiny. AFAIK, even laws prohibiting the publication of rape victims' names have been struck down. I suggest that this deletion be reconsidered. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted (in the strongest terms possible). The last AfD followed several successful AfD deletions and recreations. It was my opinion at the time that the article should never be allowed to be created, and I was utterly shocked at some people's lack of appreciation of how unencyclopedic the article was. The article was recreated and kept through an AfD, in my strong opinion, due to recreation/AfD gaming; it should die a permanent death. --Nlu (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and plow a ton of salt under - There is nothing encyclopedic to say about this person, and the content of the article was essentially "ha ha look at this guy he's funny-looking and he's a sex offender, OMGWTFBBQ LOLLERSKATES." It's a juvenile and pathetic attack page. Beyond that, this is a case where the potential harm to the encyclopedia, as expressed by UninvitedCompany, far outweighs the infinitesimal "contribution" made by the article to the "sum total of human knowledge." FCYTravis 18:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak and reluctant overturn (and relist, if you could stomach a 6th nomination). The last time this was AfDed (for the 5th time), it was no consensus (which, while grounds for a keep, still means that there's some serious doubts about whether it should be kept), and I voted Keep because I felt it was a notable Internet meme and the article text at the 5th nomination wasn't a copyvio, nor was it a recreation of what was previously deleted. I feel that the article as written violated no privacy laws as it made use of information already available to the public and contained nothing that could lead the anything dangerous happening to the subject. It does not contain a photo of said individual, nor does it contain any problematic details such as the offender's contact details. However, this article is just a wheel war waiting to happen. Uninvited Company likely deleted this for a very good reason. If UC will bring some good reasons to this discussion (such as, say, the family's lawyer calling with a cease and desist), I'll likely change my vote. OTOH, if it was just family members calling and saying that they don't like the article, I probably won't. --Deathphoenix 19:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If there is a legal issue here, it should certainly be addressed, though I have my doubts that there is, or it would likely affect hundreds of other somewhat similar articles. Does the wikimedia foundation have a lawyer who could straighten this out? Absent anything else, I'd have to go along with undeletion. Wile I'm certainly no fan of it, and likely would have voted to delete it at the AFD, there does seem to be a weak consensus to keep it. -R. fiend 19:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If the guy looked like an average Joe we would not even be having this conversation; those who want to look up this puerile fad can do so elsewhere. Ask yourself: WWJD? Keep deleted. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 20:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have voted (an extremely reluctant) keep in AfD debates for this article on the grounds that the internet fad was just about notable enough. However, assuming that UninvitedCompany is acting honourably (which I am certain he was) then the deletion should stand. Keep deleted. David | Talk 20:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I also voted keep in the last AfD. I do question the extent to which privacy laws protect against the dissemination of photographs taken from a public sex-offender registry. In at least some jurisdictions, dissemination of such information is specifically exempted from privacy laws. Nevertheless, taking Uninvited Company at his word, with sympathy for Mr. Peppers, I'll vote Keep Deleted here. Xoloz 20:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete Unless you can argue that there is a legal issue, it was wrongfully deleted. It should be undeleted, and you can then continue the discussion in AFD. It is silly to argue the articles merits, when the majority of us cannot see it. Jonatan 21:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the Bible

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Bible

Discussion was closed, concluding "no consensus." I count 24 votes for deletion, 3 weak deletes, 5 redirects, 1 to merge, and 5 keeps. It seems to me there is a very clear consensus that this article should be deleted and any valuable content merged into one or more other articles. --Leifern 16:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It has been redirected now. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Wait a minute. Now you've changed the title of the article in your nomination. What article and specifically what AFD discussion are you requesting that we review? Rossami (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Ahh... Simultaneous nominations. Now sorted out. Please post the link to the AFD discussion directly when making the nomination.
  • This reflects a basic misunderstanding of how AfD works. I'm reposting a message I've already sent to two other people who asked me about this:
    AfD is not a vote.
    When votecounters try to impose their rigid definition of consensus on AfD, the minimum standard is 2/3rds or 66%.
    Delete, merge, and redirect are three different outcomes; if there is no consensus, the solution is for the AfD participants to hash out a consensus (whether to merge or redirect or resubmit to AfD) on the talk.
    In addition, merging and deleting is illegal under the GFDL, which requires the page history to be retained if the content is retained. VOTECOUNTING IS BAD so I find it ridiculous that this is being brought up. Johnleemk | Talk 16:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and DRV is for reviewing deletions only; that's why exists (users can't see the content of deleted articles, so they need to request admins on DRV to undelete them). Anything else can be handled by resubmitting to AfD or discussion on the talk page. Johnleemk | Talk 17:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You think it's ridiculous? Reading the guidelines on deletion, it is pretty apparent that your duty as the admin is to summarize your findings and determine a course of action. In this regard, you have pretty plainly been negligent. It seems that a rough consensus has been achieved - there are only 5 who want to keep it as it is, and 32 to get rid of it one way or another. By your standard, no article would ever be deleted as long as some group of people want to keep it. That is plainly not the case. --Leifern 17:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Surprise, surprise — this is the standard most AfD-closing admins adhere to. This is not a process worked out overnight; on a Wiki, there is no consensus if a group of people strongly oppose a particular decision. (If I make an edit you don't like, but you don't revert it, there's consensus — if you revert it, there's no consensus. That's how consensus is defined on a wiki.) It is not my job to make a decision if a large number of people have reviewed a particular article and cannot come to consensus on what to do with it. No consensus is no consensus. It is not an endorsement or a disendorsement of a particular outcome, and defaults to keep unless the admin (in an editorial capacity) decides to merge and/or redirect. Ask pretty much any regular AfD closer (MarkGallagher (talk · contribs), The Land (talk · contribs), Splash (talk · contribs), et al) and they'll tell you the same thing. Johnleemk | Talk 17:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I dunno, I read the relevant guidelines, and what I read is a call for rough consensus not absolute consensus. If I rounded up three other editors and worked together on an article called Why everyone from Sunnmøre has bad breath, (an absurd, non-noteworthy, blatantly POV, rhetorically fallacious article) we'd probably get 300 "votes" to delete within a few minutes, and I somehow doubt that we as a group who opposed the deletion would get our way. Nor should we. --Leifern 17:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure (no consensus). --Kbdank71 17:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If the numbers given at the top are accurate, and I haven't checked to see if they are (and I have noticed in manmy of these reviews that they are not), we have 27 delete votes and 11 non-deletes. That's a rough consensus to delete in the eyes of most admins. I now it's not supposed to be a vote, but somehow it always comes down to a vote count anyway. And the idea that "there is no consensus if a group of people strongly oppose a particular decision" is just not true. There is almost always some sort of small minority who oppose anything, they don't trump everyone else. But in any case keep redirected and if anything is to be merged it should be a content dispute at the target page. -R. fiend 20:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close - but keep redirected (and I voted to delete) --Doc 20:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close as correctly-made decision, and concur with Johnleemk (talk · contribs)'s comments above. Support his redirect and reasoning as proper organic editing practice. -- Jonel | Speak 21:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in the Bible

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Inconsistencies in the Bible

Discussion was closed, concluding "no consensus." I count 26 votes for deletion, 4 to keep, and 10 to merge. It seems to me there is a very clear consensus that this article should be deleted and any valuable content merged into one or more other articles. --Leifern 16:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • It seems like a clear consensus to delete. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • (edit conflicts) I'm not sure how you tallied that or who you think should have been excluded. A cursory review gave me a tally of 28 deletes, 11 merges (with redirect specified or implied), 2 redirect only and 3 keep as is. That certainly seems to be within reasonable discretion for the closer to consider this a "no consensus" decision. Good arguments were made during the discussion but votes continued to come in on both side, indicating that the subsequent participants did not find one side's arguments onerwhelmingly compelling. I endorse the closure (leave as no consensus). Rossami (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • See above. Johnleemk | Talk 16:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep. Just boldly merge, that fits the bill. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 17:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure (no consensus). --Kbdank71 17:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Clear consensus is to get rid of the article, either as a complete Delete or as an attempt to find any redeemable portions and Merge elsewhere. Let's follow consensus, schedule the article for deletion, and let those in favor of a Merge pull out any non-duplicated material and put it elsewhere. Why keep the article in the face of such overwhelming consenus for elimination. We've voted to kill this article; the only question is the method. Alansohn 17:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You don't need DRV for this, as I said. There's a little thing called the talk page, you know. Or you could just be bold or something. But I forgot. Misplaced Pages is about process, not editing! Johnleemk | Talk 17:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • There wasn't a quorum for full deletion. If you want to merge the article, you don't need DRV to do that. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I just boldly redirected it. Anything that anyone wants to merge can be pulled out of the edit history by anyone at any time. There was an obvious consensus not to keep the article, so keeping it as is should be out of the question. Unfortunately, there are always a few confused souls who think that a no consensus means that the article must stay as is. Since that is complete and utter BS, this redirect should at least partially solve the prpblem. This argument can now contimue as a content dispute over at Internal consistency and the Bible. -R. fiend 18:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Like most other people here: Yes, there is probably a consensus to merge it. However, there was not a clear consensus to delete the article. 'Endorse the closer's decision. The Land
  • Endorse close but redirect/merge (and I voted to delete) --Doc 20:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close as obviously correct. AfD discussion suggests that mergeing would be the best outcome, but discussion may continue of the talk page. --- Charles Stewart 20:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close as correctly-made decision, and concur with Johnleemk (talk · contribs)'s comments above. Support R. fiend (talk · contribs)'s redirect and reasoning as proper organic editing practice. -- Jonel | Speak 21:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Ted's_Kiddush

I believe this article should not have been speedy deleted. The reason User:Jon513 offered for his deletion suggestion was that he lives in Jerusalem and has never heard of the club. This is not a valid reason. I too live in Jerusalem and can confirm that the club is very real, and in fact has an active mailing list. User:Listedit25 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There were three votes for deletion and none to keep it. Valid AfD discussion. Keep deleted. User:Zoe| 17:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, two. One is from the submitter. At the very least this should go to discussion if this is a question of whether or not this is a notable group.User:Listedit25 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Not really a valid speedy, and not enough delete votes to warrant an early closure, so reopening the discussion for another day or two wouldn't hurt. Then again, it's unlikely to yield a different result either. -R. fiend 18:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn/relist Editor Thydulff, at least, saw an assertion of notability even as he voted delete; ergo, this A7 is contested, and a full vote is appropriate. Xoloz 20:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist on AfD - any assertion makes it non-speediable, and as Xoloz notes, Thryduulf saw such an assertion. Let the full discussion run its course. -- Jonel | Speak 21:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anti-vaccinationists

was closed prior to the 5-day period. I am requesting that the question be kept open for the regular period. A number of comments have been made about the future of the article beyond the keep and delete votes, and nobody has summarized them yet. I will certainly accept the results of the vote; I am simply asking that it not be a speedy keep. As it is, the vote tally is 5 clear deletes, 1 anonymous delete, 10 clear keeps, 3 keeps with comments, and 3 comments. To me this is not an overwhelming consensus, and people obviously have a lot to say about the article. I should also point out that when I protested against the premature closing, I was threatened with blocking. I do not think that asking for a process to run its course is unreasonable. --Leifern 15:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Sigh. This had run for several days, and a clear consensus had emerged to keep the article. Worse, it had turned into a slug-fest with people accusing other people of bad faith, puppetry, etc, so I invoked Misplaced Pages:Deletion_policy#Early_closings. It was also clear that while people felt the article should not be deleted, they also felt that it needed drastic cleanup, and it appeared from the history and talk pages, that said cleanup was already underway. Since things were already going in the right direction, I didn't see what good would come from letting the brawl continue for another couple of days. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If the early close is contested in good faith (and the request above certainly seems to qualify) then almost by definition there was not the required "clear consensus". The standard necessary for early closing is virtual unanimity and even that has been controversial at times. The fact that the discussion has degenerated is, unfortunately, not enough reason to close the discussion early. Beg people to be more civil in the discussion but let the discussion run its course. By the way, it looks like the AFD discussion only had another 24 hours to go so the early closure seems to have backfired and is now extending rather than shortening the controversy. Rossami (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure doesn't look like a "clear consensus" to me, especially if it would only have taken two or three more delete votes to change that consensus. It should not have been closed early, let it run its course. User:Zoe| 17:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I counted 17 Keep to 4 Delete. I just went back and recounted and came up with the same sums. How do you get "two or three more delete votes to change that consensus" from that? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm involved in two debates on this page today, one in which an admin is arguing that consensus has to be absolutely overwhelming to be called for purposes of deletion; another in which another admin is arguing that a weak consensus is adequate to close a discussion. In both cases, we are dealing with admins who feel that their judgment is the determining factor. I think that if there is a bias to keep articles in one case, the same bias should apply for keeping the discussion going. Just my $.02, but maybe the admins who proclaim themselves judge and jury on the process for deletion should discuss among themselves rather than try to preach to us lowly editors. --Leifern 19:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
        • If I'm looking at the same two discussions, the difference is between a regular close (at the end of the 5-day discussion period and which requires only "rough consensus") and an early close (which requires "clear consensus" and which has been interpreted as a much higher standard). Failure to qualify for "clear consensus" only means that discussion continues until the 5-day period runs out. The 5-day rule is a practical compromise set to ensure that the system doesn't get completely stalled. If you're looking at something else, though, please send a specific question to my Talk page and I'll try to help. Rossami (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Looking through the discussion, it looks like a keep consensus to me (not a "no consensus: default to keep", but an actual consensus to keep, which is actually kind of rare). Unless someone can point out that most of those votes are sockpuppets (I didn't recognize a bunch of the names, but nothing made me suspicious of them, and I didn't check their edit histories) I don't see any harm in closing this after 4 days instead of 5 when the result was so obvious, and the discussion was just dragging on and on. endorse closure. -R. fiend 18:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure I'm with R. fiend here. While there is some dispute, the harm in reducing from 5-days to 4-days a debate which was 17k-4d is de minimis. Especially considering the article might as always be AfD'ed again, after a reasonable time, there is no reason to reopen immediately a debate that had become somewhat heated. Xoloz 20:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see any point in attempting early closures in cases where there is any significant dispute. Let them run their course. The article has a big, conspicuous "deletion" tag on it, no reader is going to be in any doubt about its status. It's one thing when you have a borderline CSD that gets eight deletes and no keeps in two days... or a borderline vanity page that gets a solid string of deletes and the author of the page asks that the page be deleted (to spare him further embarrassment, although they don't usually put it that way). I sometimes think "when in doubt, don't delete" is taken to an extreme, but certainly "when there's any serious doubt, don't attempt an early close." Dpbsmith (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

6 February 2006

Sin (musician)

Was AfD-ed and deleted on February 6 and re-added by a new user same day, with identical contents. Duja 14:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion but note that I would have voted to keep if I had seen the Afd, for the reasons stated by Estavisti. I see nothing wrong with the process here though, and the article should not have been recreated. - N (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted I have re-deleted it as an identical copy of the AfDed version. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User pedo

This template was speedy deleted with minimal comment, and does not meet any criteria for speedy deletion. It should be undeleted, or at least undeleted into user space. It was speedy deleted as part of an ongoing wheel war on a different template, and appears to have been confused with that template. It is not a recreation of deleted content. --Dschor 13:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This template is not a recreation, and was expressly intended not to make a point. --Dschor 14:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it might be useful for folks working on pedophilia related articles to find other editors to help out? --Dschor 20:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It cited as a "talk page", dear Dschor. Try using them instead. From previous experiences, I'm inclied to think they work. -Zero 21:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but I think our determination of what constitutes idiocy may differ slightly. --Dschor 20:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Dschor with an issue like userboxes sometimes you have pick your battles. We will never get everyone to agree to allow all userboxes and we will never agree to having them all destroyed. The best argument, in a situation like this, attempts to find a middle ground. We should concentrate our efforts to save the important boxes that contain political expressions and idealogies. Userboxes like this only serve to further polarise everyone.--God of War 21:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I appreciate that some templates are more popular than others. I do not think deletion should be a popularity contest. This template was created as an attempt to find a middle ground, but was deleted immediately. This box has no POV, no political expression, and is clearly not divisive. The fact that it can be speedied and kept deleted demonstrates that there is censorship in user space, and that it is not based on anything aside from the bias and prejudice of editors. I have chosen this battle very carefully, and would not be defending this userbox if I did not feel that it is a perfect example of why the deletionists are wrong. --Dschor 21:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, Keep deleted. This template is slanderous in the clearest sense of the word. -Zero 21:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it is clearly not slanderous, in any sense of the word. This deletion, however, has led many editors to slander the creator of the template - but the template itself remains NPOV, factual, and helpful. --Dschor 22:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


Best blond joke ever and/or Best blonde joke ever

  • Hi. User:Lucky_6.9 speedy deleted the newly made article "best blonde joke ever." I think he did so unjustly. I don't think it meets any of the Criteria for speedy deletion. Some possible points for speedy deletion:
  1. Recreation of deleted material - I think the original article was also speedy deleted. And this article is also quite different from the original. So No.
  2. Very short articles providing little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). - I think the article provides substantially more info than this example.

Some points in favour of it not being deleted at all:

  1. A different person has made an article with the same title an theme earlier. Another different person has made "best blond joke ever" :).
  2. It has 233.000 hits in google. A random article of lucky_6.9 "Eisenhower Medical Center", has only 78.000 hits.

And I would like to add: Wtf is it with this deletion system? I cant get the material back from the article, not even to review to make my argument. And finding and going to this page, which seems to be the only way to get it back, was not obvious to me. My guess is that you will discourage a lot of new potential wikipedians with this. Jonatan 22:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Kappa: It is not actually a blonde joke.
Rossami: While I agree that if it wasnt an internet meme, it should be probably be deleted, I think it definitely is. To back this claim I checked the meme article, found an example of an internet meme, and googled it. I found the term "Icy Hot Stuntaz". It gave 31.400 hits in google. Let me repeat that "best blonde joke ever" gave 233.000 hits. And thats even just the tip of the iceberg! (Since other blogs will have phrased it slightly differently.)
My main point of defence is that because of its huge size, many, many people will see it. And some will come to wikipedia for information about it. Why not provide these people that information? Because you yourself are not interested? I see no good reason. Jonatan 09:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong undelete. Much more notable than the average wikipedia article. Can't see how any of you can claim that the article is nonsense. There are millions of users seeing this joke every day and many of them wants some encyclopedic information about it. That is very real. Misplaced Pages is here to give them that information. Of course the article should stick to what is known from reliable sources, rather than making guesses. The fact that the article were created independently twice and the information was added to blonde joke also attests to the demand for information about the phenomenon. In any case this review has already clearly disproved the speedy-deletion, since the topic of it's deletion is controversial. Since the article text is now unavailable it is essential that we get it back before we make a final consideration as to it's merits. --CygnusPius 11:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and list on AfD (whichever had more/better content, but note that blonde gets far more hits). Should not have been speedied because there seemed to be enough context to allow expansion, and the notability of the subject is contentious, so AfD is the proper place for this discussion. Without seeing the content, I make no comment as to which way I'd go at AfD. - N (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure and keep as redirect, unencyclopaedic title, content is more than adequately covered at blonde joke, content was lame and smelled strongly of vanispamcruftisement. This was mostly about a link to a blog - I think they need to find a better way to increase their pagerank. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 14:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure of the deleted version, but without prejudice. If someone wants to make a useful and coherent article at Best blonde joke ever, fine, although it might very well end up on AfD. Undeleting the deleted version is not a really good idea, since a cleanup would involve creating an entirely new article anyway. --W.marsh 15:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
However, as I see the information on this meme is now covered in Blonde jokes, to where people looking for the 'best blonde joke ever' are redirected, I think that's a good solution. --W.marsh 15:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete This is silly. The article was wrongfully speedy deleted. We have no basis for arguing whether it should be deleted, since people can't see the content. For instance Just Zis and W Marsh comments seem to be about another entry, than the one I was talking about. I agree that the version I wrote wasn't very encyclopedic. But I didnt get half a chance to improve it. Since it was speedy deleted and gone within an hour. Jonatan 15:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The bit in blonde jokes was only expanded after this discussion started, though. (Also it is factually wrong, or at least misleading.) I would like to question whether the meme should be included in the blonde jokes article, since it is not actually a blonde joke. However, is this the place to discuss that? Jonatan 16:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • See this is what Im talking about. The article version I put in question definitely wasnt just a series of external links. But non-admins cant see that, since it was speedy deleted. Jonatan 17:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure/keep deleted per W. Marsh. Xoloz 20:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • A clear keep deleted. I agree with Rossami, Mirv, W.marsh et al. Misplaced Pages is not LiveJournal or blogspot; it is (or aims to be) a serious encyclopedia. Articles in wikipedia are governed by the cardinal editorial policies of the mainspace. Text must be verified against independent, reputable sources. The original article contained the sentence "An internet meme that is now very common throughout the internet", and an external link to a flickr.com page. It does not fulfill the barest, most elementary requirements of encyclopedia article-writing. The claim it makes is entirely unsourced. There are no books, monographs, theses, newspaper articles or other such sources that concern the subject. The subject, if we may dignify it by using that word, is such that no one will ever be able to write more than a couple of sentences about it—all likely unverifiable. The admins concerned were quite correct to speedy them; certainly an excellent argument can be made that the thing is little more than a hyperlink into the virtual maze that forms this limpid virtual joke. The argument is made that we should be providing "information" to the hordes of chaps bound to come scurrying to Misplaced Pages to reab about this thing. That's a very commendable sentiment, I agree. But what "information" are we to give them? That the joke is, in fact, a joke? That it is also an "internet meme" — an unverified claim? That it is the "best" blonde joke ever—a non-neutral POV? That's all? That isn't an article, and doesn't deserve a page, in my humble opinion. I agree with Rossami that protecting Jonel's redirects would not be a bad idea. This encyclopedia deserves better from us; it deserves the respect and care that go toward writing, wherever possible, beautiful, well-researched, authoritative articles that may be praised in Nature, not (with all due respect) careless, unverified claims that may be derided on CNN. ENCEPHALON 21:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I do agree with Jonatan in one respect: these things were speedied, and it is a fair request that a review of its status take place on AFD, rather than DRV. I have no problems with DRV per se, of course: in its latest form DVR is probably the most thoughtful, accurate and fair forum for the discussion of article-related issues on WP (yes, I'm aware that a small group of colleagues have quite different opinions). However, if the article under DRV consideration has never been reviewed by non-sysops I would ask that it be place under {{TempUndelete}}, and any newer version that people would like to contribute to be placed on an appropriate temporary subpage. It would be better to AFD. ENCEPHALON 21:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Marianne Curan

Out-of-process speedy deletion. Objection to speedy deletion properly filed, article deleted shortly thereafter. Subject of (quite lousy) article has an IMDB entry meeting notability standards for working actors. Hosting 3-4 shows on major (basic) cable TV networks like USA, GamesShow may not demonstrate excellence as a thespian, but at least puts her in the Kadee Strickland range of notability. Monicasdude 21:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I was about to vote "undelete" when I looked at the content. This sucks so badly that it's probably better to just wait until somoene comes along with a better article, so keep deleted because there is pretty much nothing here which would survive the necessary cleanup. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 21:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm with JzG. A cleaned up version of what was deleted would be substantially different so as to not be a recreation of deleted material (CSD G4), so really, no need for undeletion, just recreate it in a better form. --W.marsh
  • Agree with JzG, the article is crap. Keep deleted with no prejudice against a half-decent anything written under the same title. -R. fiend 00:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • At the moment, I'd have to go with Undelete and keep as out-of-process speedy deletion of notable subject, but you adminstrators have the advantage of being able to see the content. Would someone mind temp undeleting the page, or posting the contents here, so others can have a look? If it's that bad, I will recreate the page. - N (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Article was an unencyclopedic write-up for Super Decades, one of the shows she supposedly presented. I'd be happy to userfy it if anyone wants to attempt a rewrite and move it to the proper location when they're done. - Mgm| 13:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes please - N (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted as written, Rewrite and keep if anyone feels like it. The article was one of the worst non-attack pages I recall seeing on WP. Here's a sample of the text: "those of you who don't know about GSN, SHAAAAAAAAAAAME ON YOOOOOOOOU!" It wasn't even about its supposed subject, Marianne Curan, but Super Decades. We are better off having no article than this one, so it should remain deleted. I do think Marianne Curan is notable enough for an article though, if anyone wishes to write a new one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted per Starblind, as the content described is useless. Valid A1 speedy. Xoloz 20:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Howard

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Christopher Howard suggests this article was to be deleted, and yet it is still there. Could someone look into this? To me it seems the whole article is a hoax, created by a confirmed anon vandal. Balcer 19:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Looks like the closer just forgot to carry out the deletion. Easiest thing to do in such a case is drop a note on his talk page. In any case, I've carried out the deletion now. -R. fiend 20:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • According to the Deletion Log, the closer deleted it on 24 Nov 05. On 30 Jan 06, it was recreated and edited by several users. Later that same day, Petaholmes restored the history. In doing so, he/she would almost certainly have seen the link to the AFD discussion. No explanation was given for the decision to restore. Looking at both versions, the current content is only trivially different from the deleted content. Given that all subsequent versions were still unverified, I endorse R. fiend's speedy re-deletion. Rossami (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Armand Traoré

A football (soccer) player who was reported to have signed for Arsenal F.C. but reference to whom was not found on The Official Arsenal Website. It now emerges that reference can be found on the official website to him at , and (though the lattermost may possibly be yet another piece of Dudek-like "evidence"); these should constitute verifiable source to support a page on this player. --Pkchan 14:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted. The original reason for deletion was non-notability, and the reason still stands. Although it is now verified that he is at the club, he's just a 16-year-old who is nowhere near the first team - the only difference between then and now is that he has played one (just one) reserve match. Many other members of the Arsenal reserve squad have played more reserve matches than that, and do not have Misplaced Pages articles (e.g. Gavin Hoyte, Sean Kelly, Marc Elston). He is still not listed in the official Arsenal first-team squad - until he is I do not believe the article should be recreated. Besides, the information on the official website (and elsewhere online) is still pitifully inadequate - merely his name and the date he joined Arsenal - there is barely enough for a substub at this point in time. Qwghlm 16:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment If the original reason for deletion is non-notability then I have no argument with the prior decision. --Pkchan 14:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Foxymorons

I can't believe I'm really doing this, despite my deletionist nature. Speedy deletion of the above article (presumably as nn-band) was out of process. The article when I removed the first nn-band tag had a claim to notability, and what's more...(again, I can't believe I'm saying this) the band is actually notable. A glance to their site reveals a listing on Allmusic and their 3 full length albums. I'm willing to work on the article but I'd like to see what was added, etc. and would like an undeletion on the article. RasputinAXP talk contribs 00:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment No need to get it undeleted. Just compose a decent stub, indicating what's notable, offline or your user page, and re-create it. List the albums, cite a review. Entire previous content consisted of the following two sentences: Dpbsmith (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Mesquite, Texas-based indie-rock band made up of childhood friends, Jerry James and David Dewese. Formed in 1994, the band, who is notorious for its lack of touring, has released three albums to much critical acclaim.
Comment: Ah, OK. I didn't know whether anything else had been added to it before it'd been whacked, though. I'll write it up. Thanks. RasputinAXP talk contribs 03:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

4 February 2006

Template:Commonsgallery

Despite its TfD discussion attracting 3 votes for delete and 4 keeps, plus a keep from an anon who has a few non-project contributions, User:MarkSweep closed the discussion as a delete on the grounds that "The result of the debate was better arguments for deletion than for keeping it." I dispute this decision on two grounds:

  1. That is not the admin's call; the deletion discussions may not be votes, but closing admins are, as far as I've gathered from my experience on AfD, not court judges, there to decide which side 'won'; they are there to decide what the community thinks. It renders the whole 'discussion' thing slightly pointless otherwise.
  2. Even if I'm wrong on the above point, MarkSweep's decision that there were better arguments for deletion is still extremely shaky IMO. None of the delete voters ever tried to argue the counterpoints the keep voters made against their arguments. These arguments included the fact that the template supposedly advertised for Olympus (it had a picture of a camera, far too small to make out the model). --Malthusian (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • As the closing admin, let me explain my reasoning in more detail. First, we'll have to discount one keep "vote" from an anon. Second, Nickj is using his "vote" as a vehicle for something unrelated, namely improving or changing Template:Commons. Nickj wrote: "That's why my vote is "keep", and it will continue to be "keep" until such time as Template:commons is improved." That's not a reason to keep Template:Commonsgallery. You don't go about changing Template:Commons by forking it and then voting to keep when the fork is nominated for deletion. Third, "Keep, useful template" by Ryan Delaney is fine, but it's not a relevant argument: Template:Commonsgallery was nominated here because it was a fork of an already existing maintenance template: and precisely because it is a fork of a useful template, it is of course useful, but that's not what this debate was seeking to establish. Fourth, there were three delete votes (by Netoholic, Petaholmes, and Phil Boswell) arguing that template forks are bad. The two serious votes in favor of keeping never properly addressed why the forked templates is needed. I completely ignored the bit about the Olympus ad as tangential to the discussion. Fifth, even if we regard the outcome of this debate as "no consensus", it makes no sense to default to keep in the Template namespace: templates, unlike articles, are tools which facilitate and enable; they should only be kept when they are truly needed. As I've said in my comments when I closed this discussion, I was much more swayed by the arguments for deletion, and in the end this is a discussion, not a vote. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - on the principle that forks are bad. FCYTravis 20:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Mark seems to be under the impression that the people behind the template have not bothered to explain what it is for, which is false: it has been extensively explained at Template_talk:Commons and the TfD. Briefly (I don't know why I'm bothering as I thought DRV was about process and not content, but FCYTravis has indicated otherwise): some of us believe the links to Commons galleries would look better if accompanied by a picture explaining what it was going to (e.g. a camera for a gallery of pictures). No-one's yet tried to claim otherwise, the only argument for deletion that's been put forward has been 'standardisation and maintenance'.
  • I don't see how this was a 'fork' any more than {{test-n}} is a fork of {{test}}. Both do the same thing, but {{test-n}} does it slightly better in a certain context. Same with this. I admit that the name of the template does scream 'fork', being a redundancy; that was a mistake on my part. I was expecting to move the template to {{commonsimage}} as soon as the TfD was closed. --Malthusian (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Moreover, I'm not going to reply to MarkSweep's responses to why he discounted most of the votes on one side one by one (I've already explained why the 'serious voters' had, in fact, "properly addressed why the forked templates is needed"). But I will say that I think that if the arguments of a certain 'side' in a discussion are weak, it should be explained why they are weak at the time, rather than the closing admin waiting for the discussion period to end, discounting them, then waiting for someone to bring the TfD to DRV to explain why they were weak enough for the editors' opinions to be ignored. If nothing else it would save time. --Malthusian (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • TfD is a debate about the merits of templates. Rather than talking about "sides" one should talk about the outcomes of that debate and the arguments advanced in favor of them. If I see a weak argument or an argument that does not even address the central question of the debate, I call it as I see it. As for commenting on the merits of the various arugments before closing the debate: what do you want me to do? I didn't even know of this particular debate until I started to do my share in trying to clear out the TfD backlog. And if I had been aware of it and commented on it earlier, I wouldn't be in a position to close it. And by the way, I wasn't waiting for someone to bring this here. If you're only interested in saving time, then let it go and work on changing Template:Commons through the customary channels. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
      • *sigh* I'm going to have to surrender on any further discussion - I tried to reply to Mark's last post but couldn't manage to string three separate counterpoints together in a way that made any sense. I'm just going to say that I used the word 'side' in the sense of 'those who voted one particular way', not 'side' in the sense of 'cabal'. I think it would be worthwhile to have more illustrative {{commons}} templates, but if it gets shot down, well, c'est la vie. If I die in my sleep tonight and St Peter asks me 'And how did you spend your life?' I don't want to have to tell him that my last night was spent fighting a rearguard action over diversifying a Misplaced Pages template. --Malthusian (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted — MarkSweep is surely right in both principle and detail. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have forked templates many times, as it is sometimes the only way to switch over from one design to another. I was not aware the cabal disapproved of it. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Mel Etitis. --Kbdank71 05:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. The fact that {{commons}} is seemingly perma-protected pushed me over the edge. If one cannot edit the template without going through various bureaucracy (requesting unprotection and hoping that succeeds, or getting consensus on the talk page - so much for being bold!), then forking may be the best option. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. MarkSweep's repeated violations of deletion process are becoming more and more disruptive. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. - How can you can get an result of 5 to keep, and 3 to delete, and decide that "delete" is the right outcome? It makes a complete and total mockery of the concept of consensus. Secondly, for Mark Sweep's "reasoning" that he can disregard my vote, and the votes of others: I wasn't aware that we had ceded complete dictatorial powers to Mark Sweep, so if someone could point to the relevant official wiki guideline outlining his new overlord status, that would be super, thanks. Third, I note that none of the votes to delete were disregarded, so it's good to see that the fine example of Florida lives on! Fourth, the reasons for changing this were outlined extensively on the Commons talk page, and have still not been addressed. Fifth, the commons template is still protected - so, given that anything related get deleted, and the originally seems to be permanently protected, how, exactly, is anything about these templates ever supposed to be improved? Frankly, this really is an appalling decision. If you're going to ignore what the community says, then why even have a deletion process? I mean, really, why bother? Just unilaterally delete whatever you like, irrespective of consensus - it'll give the same result, but without wasting everyone's time by giving the illusion of wanting community input and general agreement. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Mark's justification here. However these exceptional closes should be explained when closing. Pace the squeals of outrage, please note that: (i) TfD does not have a clear numerical criteria for assessing when there is a concensus and (ii) the kind of carefully justified discounting Mark has undertaken here would, if done when closing the *fD dsicussion, be a good thing for the health of *fDs: if you object to these vote discounts, what discounts would you agree with? --- Charles Stewart 01:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Seconded with a pat on the back and a kiss on the cheek. A great many of the discussions that take place on DRV could be avoided if closers took more care with explaining their thinking when they close. Rossami, in particular, provides clear evidence that he has thought about the arguments presented, and I've seen closes of his run to two paragraphs. This is a good thing, and should be more widespread. - brenneman 02:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much for the feedback. You have a good point, and I've added my above comments to the TfD page. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist on TfD. Whilst Mark's arguments to delete are convincing, and convinced me that it should be deleted, there seems to be enough dissension to warrant a re-examination of the decision. 5 votes to keep against 3 to delete is not a decent consensus to keep, parituclarly given that the last two votes to keep were a) from an IP and b) two words, but I would have thought that this would be enough for the Template to remain pending further discussion. Deleting it was against the principle of consensus on deletion. If Mark makes the same excellently clear and cogent arguments to delete then I'm sure people will make the appropriate decision. And I think Nickj's reason for keeping is entirely valid - if he believes the template si necessary until the commons template itself is fixed, then that is a valid reason for him to believe the commonsgallery one should be kept. Proto||type 13:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Reverse and Keep as per the consensus what was the point of the votes if the deciding admin was going to maket he call anyway? Some nerve.Gator (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Hey look, I lied, one more comment. MarkSweep's reasons for discounting most of the delete votes may make sense on the outside, but to me there seems to be equally good reasons for discounting the delete votes. One said "performs the same function as {{commons}}" (none of the counter-arguments to that here, on the TfD and on Template_talk:Commons have ever been addressed), another said (paraphrasing for brevity) 'template forks are evil, and advertises for Olympus'. Of that last post, the first argument is not an argument, the second rather nonsensical (maybe it was in jest, but Mark talks about "serious votes"). Why not discount those arguments too?
  • Now at this point I think we can agree that it becomes ridiculous, having unilaterally discarded almost the entire debate, which is why I disagree with vote discounting on principle in all but the most obvious cases (sockpuppetry/trolling), for two reasons: 1) If an argument is weak, someone should say so at the time so its proponent can respond to the criticism without having to do it at WP:DRV, and 2) If the overall case for one 'side' (ooer, used that word again) is weak, then people will read it, be unconvinced, vote delete and the article will be deleted by an actual consensus (not just a consensus of "serious voters"). If the reason for the *fD not getting enough delete 'votes' was because it didn't get enough attention, then relist it. --Malthusian (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Closing admin properly discounted "votes" which did not comply with policy directions; TFD page expressly says Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement. Voting standards were clear, and closing admin quite properly followed them rather than disregarding them. Monicasdude 21:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but my vote/comment/preference was discounted because of my mistake in pointing something out, not because of my reasons. My reasons are that the newer template is (in my opinion) clearer, easier to understand (both in language and visually), and more exact than the commons template. My conclusion therefore was keep. My mistake was apparently in saying that there would be no reason for commonsgallery if commons could be improved (but unfortunately, that seems to be impossible), and that in that situation I would most likely change my vote. Furthermore, it should be noted that this template doesn't even seem to pass the tests of whether it should be proposed for deletion: Is it helpful? Yes. Is it redundant? No, I don't think it is (see reasons above). Is it used? Yes. Is it NPOV? Yes. Was it a candidate for speed deletion? No. Therefore, it doesn't even seem to fulfil the basic criteria for being listed on TfD, let alone the criteria to actually be deleted. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

3 February 2006

Clay Sun Union

This was deleted back in July . There was no specific AFD for it (as far as I can see), but apparently it was deleted because of this AFD for its members. For some reason Clay Sun Union (album) (AfD discussion) and Distance (Album) (AfD discussion) were not nominated or deleted at the same time. Both were recently nominated and kept in AFDs (linked above). I think the original deletion was pretty reasonable based on the first AFD discussion of the members, but now we have a peculiar situation of albums without a bands. Nothing was really done out-of-process here, but the result doesn't make much sense. Between the two of them, there isn't currently enough info for me to just merge the two together into a new band article, but once undeleted, a merge of all three articles into one, may be an option. After undeletion, somebody could optionally relist it (doing all three together), if they wish. --Rob 21:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Undelete per nominator's reasoning. If this is ultimately undeleted and kept, I see no reason why the band member names shouldn't redirect here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete: per nom. It wasn't clear that the band should be deleted in the first place - just the members. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete per nom. FCYTravis 07:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete per nom and wknight. Actually, this was slightly out-of-process, as one could at least argue that deletion for the members does not equate to deletion of the band, and there was no AfD for the band. Xoloz 16:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, worth reconsidering per request. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Seems like a straightforward undelete. Done. --Tony Sidaway 05:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've put this as {{tempundelete}} and added it to WP:RFPP as is standard until discussion here is finished. - brenneman 11:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • What exactly are you protecting it from? Brefore it was protected, I discovered (unfortunately/belatedly), that most of the text was copyvio, and had to remove it. Now, it must sit for days, with minimul remaining content. Is there a reason for protecting *this* article in its current state, other than the fact its "standard"? I note that WP:RFPP says "Only consider protection as an option when it is necessary in order to resolve your problem, and when the only solution that will assist in the solution of the problem is protection.". I think its fairly reasonable to interpret that to mean that the standard is to *not* protect, unless there is a specific reason. I see no such reason here. Surely protection isn't the "only" means of dealing with the current situation. --Rob 20:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Protection is not normally necessary unless there is a dispute over content leading to edit warring, or serious ongoing vandalism. I don't know why Aaron thinks this article needs to be protected. --Tony Sidaway 21:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
        • This article had been deleted. It was then brought to deletion review. Discussions at deletion review are taken to run for a set period. By applying a consistant approach, we decrease the chances that a mistake will be made. As the number of articles brought to this forum increase, it becomes more important that we are methodical, not less. There was no pressing need for this article to be restored and opened for editing. By having the article's history restored and {{tempundelete}} protected, the version of the article that was deleted can be examined. Please join the conversations on the talk page for further discussion.
          brenneman 22:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
          • As you know I am one of the participants in the conversations on the talk page. If this article isn't being vandalized and there is no dispute on its content, why is it protected? This is not something we do lightly. The history of an article can always be examined; you don't need to protect it for that. You say "there is no pressing need for the article to be restored and open for editing". Well it's restored anyhow, for the time being, and who needs a pressing need to edit an article? It's a wiki! --Tony Sidaway 22:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
            • Part of being "a wiki" is mutual respect and understanding of consensus. Repetitive and split discussions are considred harmful. Rather than fighting the battle on several fronts in this manner, please continue to contribute to the discussions on the talk page. A clear and compelling case there will surely win the day. In the interim, I'd ask that you abide by your statement here. I won't comment further here. - brenneman 23:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
            • Could you stop trying to tell people where they can and cannot express there opinion? I am asking you here and now, a question pertaining to this particular undeletion discussion. Why does 'this article need to be protected? Where is the vandalism? Where is the edit war? What harm can be done to the article if someone attempts to improve it by normal wiki editing? --Tony Sidaway 00:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete per nomination. ComputerJoe 16:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete seems right. Nothing preventing a revisiting of the whole lot of course, but the present situation is illogical. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 19:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, and unprotect it as well. Oh wait, that's been done. Yay. Proto||type 13:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and keep per nom and wknight94/Xoloz. - N (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

1 February 2006

Good Thing, Bad Thing, Right Thing, and Wrong Thing

Please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bad Thing for the hard-to-close AfD. I actually closed this without realising that someone else did, but I self-reverted and all is well. This AfD was closed as merging all the articles into one (it appears to have been merged into Bad Thing). However, the consensus in the AfD, and acknowledged by the vote closer, was to keep the articles (there were more votes for keep than merge). Most of the votes, even those calling for a merge, said that Good Thing and Bad Thing should be kept and Right Thing and Wrong Thing were the ones to be merged. I was going to close the vote as Keep Good Thing & Bad Thing, Merge and redirect Right Thing to Good Thing and Wrong Thing to Bad Thing. I think the AfD closure should be overturned slightly and replaced with this. Please note: I think the vote closer made a good-faith vote closure on a tough AfD. It's just that I don't think it was what the consensus came out to be. --Deathphoenix 15:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree. --- Charles Stewart 15:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Not really the forum for this, but I agree that it is more natural to merge into two articles, ("Bad and Wrong" and "Good and Right") This does not require a vote here, just be bold and do it if you so desire. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I originally closed this. There was no clear fall of votes, but keeping all four, merging to two and merging to one were the options that garnered most support. As the articles are short and have an amount of shared content, I merged into one. They all seem to me to be ? Thing sayings. --Gareth Hughes 16:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well done for taking on the muddle. Bad Thing and Good Thing have a common source, Sellar and Yeateman, so Good/Right and Bad/Wrong would be a Bad Thing. Or is it a Wrong Thing? Anyway, IU think they all come back to that same source, really, being the originator of the comedy capitalisation-for-effect. If you can split them logically then please do, but one article seems perfectly reaosnable to me. It's not like there is so very much to say that it'll become unusable. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 16:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I did not know this discussion was going on, so my apologies for jumping the gun. I went ahead and reorganized to two articles, Good Thing (dealing just with "Good Thing") and Bad Thing (including "Right Thing" and "Wrong Thing"). For some months now I've been keeping references on Martha Stewart's and her corporation's prolific use of the term "Good Thing" in marketing, and trying to track down references to "Good Thing" and "Good Thing (TM)" use in the 80's and early 90's in USENET and BBS systems. This research is irrelevant to "Right Thing", "Wrong Thing", and "Bad Thing", as those terms were not used in those contexts (except perhaps by way of the occasional humorous analogy, which is arguably in each case is a heteronymic neologism rather than a reuse of an extant lexeme). I'll try to hurry up editing the article to incorporate it, if the argument is that as it now stands the Good Thing article does not contain enough content to stand on its own. --TreyHarris 18:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with keeping Good Thing and Bad Thing, and merging Right Thing and Wrong Thing. I think that's what I said in the original AfD. David | Talk 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Can we close this discussion? It is clear that, to the extent there are unresolved issues, they are not DRV decisions and so should be handled on the talk page. --- Charles Stewart 21:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Which talk page? --TreyHarris 21:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I'd say Talk:Good thing because that one, for sure, will not move. But you should reference the discussion from the AfD talk page and the other relevant talk pages. --- Charles Stewart 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Merge them all and rename to an appropriate descriptor that references the apparent comedy source. I'm about to contradict recent talk page comments by myself by commenting on content not process, but Good thing, "originated in the humorous parody of British history text books, 1066 and All That (1930)..." is ridiculous. Presumably, as far as "good" and "thing" have been recognizable in the language, they've been slapped beside each other regularly and these articles shouldn't exist as they stand anymore than Not! should redirect to Beverly Hills 90210. Rename, rename, I'd say (but do so in process ;). Marskell 22:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
          • You seem to misunderstand. This article is about "Good Thing", specifically where both words are capitalized as if they are a proper noun. This is not about "good thing", the adjective-noun noun phrase; no one is arguing that an ordinary English phrase is encyclopedic. But please, let's take this discussion to Talk:Good Thing. --TreyHarris 22:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Google

This is a complicated story. A template I created and have used many times in talk pages discussions (primarily related to WP:RM) was deleted as a "recreation" of templates with the same name that had been used for spamming the "external links" section of articles. The previous versions were deleted, either by TFD or as recreations, and with good reason. However, my version was independently created (seriously, I didn't even notice it's history at the time), and has had a useful life on Misplaced Pages for more than five months (mostly with subst). As a community, we are clearly accepting of external link templates, i.e. Category:External link templates, and so I see no reason why this should have been deleted.

A comparison of the current and past versions follows.

My version:

Previous Versions:

Created Format Used Deleted
July 11, 2004 {{google|Foo}} =
Google Search for "Foo"		 Spamming external link sections of articles (see TFD) Circa Oct. 2004 (no deletion logs yet): Via TFD
December 20, 2004 {{google|Foo}} =
Google Search for Foo		 Probably same Dec. 24, 2004: Speedied as recreation
March 1, 2005 {{google}} =
on Google
Note this version used {{PAGENAMEE}}		 "Reference" section of a couple articles March 8, 2005: Speedied as recreation
April 2, 2005 {{google|Foo}} =
Google		 Not sure May 19, 2005: Second, brief TFD along with {{Googlethis}} which was another {{PAGENAMEE}} construction

As you can see, my version was longer lived than all the rest combined, and as far as I know was not being abused in article space. I know that others have referenced {{google}}, and though its use is not widespread, it is also not a single user template either. Frankly, my version was useful and used respectfully, and hence should not have been regarded as a recreation of the above mess. I would very much like to see this useful little widget undeleted. Dragons flight 11:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I can't see the need for this to be here. Undelete - make as 'never to be used in articles' - and list on TfD if anyone objects. --Doc 11:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • undelete Thryduulf 12:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted (well, marked with deletedpage and protected). Search links are never encyclopedic. I'd also like to see a big notice posted on the protected page explaining that. For those few "good intent" situations like Project pages... you don't need a template. If we restore its functionality, it will end up being used in articles, and I don't want to be checking it every couple months. The argument that the community is "accepting" of External link templates doesn't fly because most external link template (IMDB, etc.) point to specific encyclopedic references. General search templates do not fit with that purpose, and where they are found they are routinely deleted via TFD. -- Netoholic @ 13:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I would like to point out that you can use google as an interwiki link. In other words, a template isn't really required... you can simply ], rather than {{google|Foo}}, and it does purty much the same thing. Simple to use; doesn't require templates. Nonetheless, I can still see this being useful, so Undelete. --Blu Aardvark | 13:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Why the big delay between the deletion and DRV? Reserve comment on merits for now. ++Lar: t/c 14:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete per Blu Aardvark. I see how people can call it obsolete with the interwiki method, but I didn't know it existed until today. Regardless, it was deleted as a speedy which it clearly isn't. Whether this particular template is obsolete is something that should be decided by a discussion not speedy deletion. - Mgm| 14:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore. if the template works properly, it will help expedite the sluggish AFD process in many cases. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:01, Feb. 2, 2006
  • Undelete and list at TfD as the speedy criteria don't seem to apply directly in this case. Note I'd probably speak out in favour of deletion anyway since there exists another technique to do this, except that if this template is widely used, that would be disruptive to the pages where it was used. (although since it was mostly subst'd maybe that's not that many, what links here shows well less than 20 uses) ++Lar: t/c 15:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and list at TfD as not "substantially similar". If kept at TfD A large Do not use in articles might be a good idea, or would that be a case of WP:BEANS? Perhaps the creatotr would undertake to check for article links on a regular bassis, say once a month? Of course, the non-template method listed above might lead to TfD deleting this, but that ought to be discussed, not the result of a speedy. The tempalte method might actually make it easier to look for article uses, which i agree are improper. DES 16:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. As per WP:DP, "If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this may be evidence of a need for an article." Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • ...or of a common misunderstanding. Where within the general guidelines on external links do we include Google? Is it a reliable source? Ut leaves us in the position of effectively promoting whoever is most successful at search engine optimisation. But I guess that's a matter for the TfD. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 17:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • In general, I'm opposed to just giving some enduser encyclopedia reader a googlesearch in articlespace as if that was a well thought out thing. References, cites, and external links should be specific, and should have been reviewed or verified by the editor that placed them there for their credibility, applicability, and quality. Googlesearches by their very nature can't be that, as they return different things at different times. That doesn't mean this template is not useful in any way in projectspace or in articletalkspace. (for giving examples of how to find things, for making notability arguments and so forth.) What I think Crotalus was referring to was the idea of repeated independent invention of the idea as an argument that maybe the idea has validity, not that this template specifically be used in articles, per se. But as you and I both are saying, I think, is that it should go through a TfD instead of having been speedied. ++Lar: t/c 17:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Do not use in articles but Undelete. I would vote conditional undeletion on TfD: that it be kept out of articlespace - but then that should be happening anyway. Septentrionalis 18:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete - the issue about sourcing should be handled at WP:CITE. --- Charles Stewart 19:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted or as a second preference, undelete and then list at TfD. As the deleter, I stand by my judgement that it is substantially similar (it just looks slightly different), but if others disagree with me, I still think that this is a template that shouldn't exist, due to the temptation of sticking it in article space. If people really want to use it, they can have it on the own user subpage. enochlau (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment and clarification. I agree that this should not be used in the main article space, but rather as an aid for directing others to the same page of search results in project-related discussions/talk pages. Idea: if you wrap class="hiddenStructure{{NAMESPACE}}" around it, nobody will be able to use it in an article. There may be instances where a search result link is approprate in an article, e.g. Google bomb, but that is clearly an exceptional case. I think we can do this, folks. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:03, Feb. 3, 2006
  • Undelete and list at TfD Allow the TfD process to consider finer points we may be missing, but the template is clearly not a "substantial recreation." Xoloz 16:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • undelete this please and talk about it on templates for deletion it is not a recreate Yuckfoo 21:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and list at TfD as per Xoloz et al. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • List on TFD as per many people above. Worth taking to a discussion. Proto||type 13:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

List_of_interesting_or_unusual_place_names

Result of vote was 23 for "delete," 15 for "keep," and 5 for "keep if moved to the Misplaced Pages namespace." It's likely that fewer than half of voters would have supported outright deletion if the third option had been suggested at the get-go rather than after most of the votes had been cast. I move that we overturn the deletion and move the page to the Misplaced Pages namespace -- Mwalcoff 00:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD discussion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names
The article is inherently POV, and our NPOV policy is non-negotiable. None of those wanting a keep put up an argument against its POV nature. How can 'interesting' ever be objectively defined? How can what is 'interesting' (to whom) ever be verified. Unless you are suggesting that it can, I don't understand your vote. Is arithmetic more important than logic? Is process more important to an encyclopedia than WP:NPOV and WP:V? (Besides which it looks like a compromise is available above). --Doc 01:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment. While I do think that the rules of AfD require a "rough consensus" no matter how cut and dried of an issue it may appear to be to some people, I would like to withdraw the request for deletion review. I was unaware that the article could be moved to my namespace, and then to the Misplaced Pages namespace, without going through this process. -- Mwalcoff 02:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Surely WP:NPOV is not trumped by an AfD vote, but that argument was raised at the AfD, adn the keep voters didn'tegard thsi as inherently PoV. Not all subjective lists are PoV, adn objective criterial for this could be devised (published mentions of a name as unusual, for example). But the point is now moot with the nominator Having withdrawn the request for review. DES 02:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The point is actually quite critical. The afd nom and many of the delete arged the article was POV. Only a minority of the keeps disputed that. The majority of the keeps ignored it and simply stated 'interesting' or 'useful'. There was a consensus that the article was POV and unverifiable. If it is POV it has to be deleted, no matter how many people think it is 'interesting'. --Doc 08:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
There may have been a majority saying it was POV, but there was no consensus. AFD is not a vote; it is a discussion to gather consensus. When there is no consensus, we don't delete. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Impossible list to maintain, and the closer was well within his rights to call it as he did. Statements like " 27D/16K, which is rather short of a consensus to delete" seem to contracdict this notion that AFD is not a vote. As far as unusual goes, look at any Atlas's index, find a name, and if there isn't the same name listed right above or below it, it would by definition by "unusual". That's a shitload of names. -R. fiend 06:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn, and I'd be glad to be the re-nominator for deletion review. I was rather fond of the article. Though there was a majority delete vote, at ~60% I don't think it meets consensus for deletion. And if in doubt, don't delete.
To arguments about POV and "maintainability": There's nothing POV about it. Remember: It's "NEUTRAL POV" not "No POV". People find some places have funny names - that's a fact, not a POV. Our article makes a simple list of places that people have found to have an unusual name, Misplaced Pages is not making the argument, other people have. People make a point of discussing places with "unusual names" . Most names can be verified easily. The criteria for unusual isn't "uniqueness" as R Fiend suggests, it's the same criteria we use for every other article. If some media makes a giggle piece, or a trivia game (or show) makes reference to the name simply because of it's name, then that is clear and objective criteria. Snopes has to go to the trouble to say it's TRUE that there is a (omg) Fucking, Austria. People travel out of there way to get there picture taken next to the street signs. So what's our issue with saying that people think it's got an unusual name and linking it with other places that also have interesting names in that magical navigation aid, the list? SchmuckyTheCat 07:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Em, can you clarify who you are calling a troll? --Doc 09:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn what the hell? As soon as I go off guard from AfD, one of the most interesting and fascinating article on Misplaced Pages gets deleted! As far as I remember it was well-referenced and NPOV and there is absolutely no reason for it to stay deleted.  Grue  09:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Firstly, Sean's correct that the first port of call should always be the closing admin. Talk it over with them before you bring it here. That being said, the close was within bounds. While it would be possible for this to become NPOV, it would be difficult, and compelling arguments were not made. The best way forward is for the article to be improved by interested parties by removing anything that hasn't been cited in Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources as being "interesting or unusual", and once that is done bring it here again.
    brenneman<;/font> 10:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have just spent an age removing links to this article (now in the WP namespace) from articles, as per WP:ASR... Thanks/wangi 11:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, valid per the debate. I understand it's been moved to the WP space, which is absolutely fine - a great place for trivia which the community finds interesting or amusing. Absent an objective definition of what constitutes interesting or unusual in the context of a place name, moving it to the WP space seems entirely appropriate. - User:JzG 12:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you not reading the above entries? "Absent an objective definition of what constitutes interesting or unusual" has been defined by myself and several others. SchmuckyTheCat 10:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, it has already been moved to 'unusual articles'.
  • Incidentally, when discarding the anons, and counting those who voted keep in wikispace but delete from articlespace as delete votes (and this is what has been done), I count 13 keep, 26 delete, which is certainly within the realm of consensus, and I would certainly not hesitate to call it that. -R. fiend 19:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. -- User:Docu
  • No comment on the closure, but I think the article should be left in the wikipedia: namespace. --kingboyk 20:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn it's was clearly a no consensus, PoV or not, --Jaranda 21:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • keep deleted, we're talking about an article where inclusion is, on the main, down to the POV and opinion of an editor - there are many entries that leave scratching my head how anyone could find them remotely strange or interesting! The list does not cite sources either. Surely this "review" should be about the process and not the content - there was chance enough for that discussion during the AFD. And if this stays in the WP namespace then lets ensure it's done properly (with no links from the encyclopedia namespace, WP:ASR), and not just as a work around. Thanks/wangi 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)o
Why does the decision to include a name rest on the opinion of an editor? If the list can be sourced, which 80% of it can easily, then why is this article held to a higher standard than any other? Why should review be about the process? We're not building a process, we're building an encyclopedia. If information from the encyclopedia has been removed, that is what should be reviewed. SchmuckyTheCat 10:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, getting slightly over 33% of the comments in an AfD to say "keep" doesnt automatically mean an article must be kept. The closer needs to weigh consensus, and to consider the arguments of both sides and whether they were addressed properly by the other side. In this situation, I don't think the argument that the list is inherently POV was ever satisfactorilly adressed, and so I think the decision to close as a delete was valid. --W.marsh 23:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy either. The closer may well have made a valid decision based on numerics that doesn't mean it was the right decision. As to addressing the argument that the article was POV, nobody claiming it's POV can make the argument either. WHOSE POV is it, for instance? SchmuckyTheCat 10:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought it was obvious... the POV is contemporary white American/europeans in their 20s, it's all stuff that in our culture, sounds odd/unusual/funny etc. Obviously our grandfathers didn't think Big Bone Lick was an odd name at all, it was totally normal to them. Hence the POV. --W.marsh 16:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
So the article suffers from the same systemic bias that the rest of Misplaced Pages does. Why don't we delete the whole thing? No? Then don't hold this article up to a higher standard than the rest of Misplaced Pages. And give your grandfathers more credit - they often chose names BECAUSE they were risque. That's all the more reason to document it. SchmuckyTheCat 18:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
You just aren't getting the point here. An article about George Washington may fall prey to biases eventually, but that can be fixed, and such an article isn't inherently based' on subjective cultural opinions. This particular list, since it's about what individual editors happen to consider interesting or unusual, is inherently POV just by its very nature, that's why people have a problem with it. Change the name to reflect place names considered unusual by certain people (presumably with a source), and it's a different story. --15:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. --Sleepyhead 11:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn per above. AfD was close and I see no compelling reason for keeping this deleted. The case is analogous to Films considered the worst ever. If it helps we can rename to Place names considered interesting or unusual. - Haukur 15:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close per Doc et al. KillerChihuahua 16:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn per arguments above. No consensus in AfD to delete, and POV problems can be overcome. Turnstep 16:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn AfD closure was about 61%. I suppose this is barely within discretion, but in the face of so much opposition expressed here, I see no reason to defend the closure to the limit. I don't blame the closer -- it was a close call, and I understand policy concerns. There are ways to source the list, and the weakness of a "consensus" barely above a supermajority is profound. Xoloz 16:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn per above. — Instantnood 20:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure - There is no objective way to describe "Interesting" or "Unusual." Can I put Richmond in there? I think it's interesting and unusual. Who are YOU to tell me it's not? New York City is interesting. Slap it in there. Get my point? Completely unmaintainable. FCYTravis 00:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    It all hinges on sources. Can you cite a book or film where Richmond is pointed out as a funny place name? No? Then it doesn't belong in the article. Can you cite a source where Fucking is identified as an interesting place name? Probably. - Haukur 10:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    Well, saying "I can probably find a source for a bunch of these" is a far cry from actually having a source, which few of these do. I mean, how many newpapers have articles that say "Hey everybody, here's abunch of places with some wacky names!!!!" A bunch of the entries are ridiculous. Some of them are streets for christsakes. And honestly, is "Vader, Washington" on this list for any reason other than it is the name of a sith lord? There's some objective criteria. Come on. -R. fiend 17:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually a source will only indicate that one individual writer finds the name interesting, not that it is interesting. Just using google, I can find sources for the following places having interesting names: Cold Spring , Kyoub, Scotland , New Harmony , Montecastrilli , New Sheridan , Laodicea , and Muleshoe . Give me an hour and I'll give you 20 more, many from more authorative sites. Anyway you look at it 'interesting' is ultimately sujective - personally I don't find 'Fucking, Australia' interesting at all. Whilst the names of New York, Glasgow, Paris and Athens I do. (And I'll bet I can find a citation in a travel book somewhere that says 'the city has an interesting name' --Doc 12:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Eaton, Ohio? French Camp, California? Shamrock, Texas? Seven Corners, Virginia? What's interesting or unusual about those? Shafter, California? There's *nothing* unusual about that one. This list is filled with pointless junk. FCYTravis 17:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn - no consensus. violet/riga (t) 17:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn - I don't think consensus was reached in favour of deletion. -- Francs2000 17:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Not only was there no consensus, but the result is silly. The NPoV rule is there to make sure that the encyclopædia is neutral with regard to serious matters of opinion (religion, politics, etc.); to use it with regard to this list, which had been maintained for a long time and been edited and enjoyed by many, many people, is Wikilawyering at its pettiest. If a name crept into the list that most people didn't find interesting or unusual, what on Earth would it matter? Unmaintainable? When it had been maintained for longer than most of those voting had even known about Misplaced Pages? Unbelievable. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Just because it's existed doesn't mean it's been maintained. The article is completely unsourced, which means it's been turned into a dumping ground for anything anyone's ever thought was "funny" or "unusual." That's piss-poor maintenance. If the only criteria is "a name someone, somewhere, sometime has found unusual," then I think I'll just add every single city name in California to the list, because, heck, "Independence" is unusual. Why'd someone name a city "Bishop?" How about "Los Angeles"? That's kind of odd, isn't it, a city of angels? "Chico" LOL. Redding, by gosh, who'd call a city "Redding"? Corcoran, haha, that's strange. Fort Bragg, how odd. This "list" will end up with every single place name on Earth inserted, and who's to say it's not? "Unusual" is inherently undefinable and hence unencyclopedic. FCYTravis 20:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC) FCYTravis 19:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    No, just because it's existed doesn't mean that it's been maintained; to determine that you'd have to look at the History and the Talk page. And if you did that you'd seee a long history of careful maintenance and discussion involving, among others, Grue and me. We both picked a bad time to Wiki-holiday, obviously. Also, if you'd checked the facts, you'd have seen that the fantasy scenario that you imagine didn't happen because it wasn't allowed to happen. I might add that your fantasy is predicated on the fact that we agree that certain names aren't either interesting or unusual. And no, "unusual" doesn't mean unique or uncommon; there may be only one place called Haroldton, for all I know, but it wouldn't be unusual, because endings in "-ton" and places named after people are common. "Unusual" isn't inherently undefinable, and I can't imagine why anyone would think that it was. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    Then what the hell is 90 percent of the stuff on there doing on there? Shafter? French Camp? Eaton? Asbestos? Advance? Amarillo? Agency? Asse? Artichoke? Agenda? Apples? Anaconda? Just what the heck is "interesting" or "unusual" about those names, and I'm not even out of the A section yet. Furthermore, not ONE SINGLE THING ON THE PAGE HAS A SOURCE! "We" can't "agree that certain names aren't either interesting or unusual." That would be original research. Misplaced Pages cannot make content judgements about what's "interesting" or "unusual" and what isn't. The only way this page would be acceptable is if every single entry had a specific and verifiable encyclopedic source stating it was "interesting" or "unusual" in which case we could move it to "Place names considered interesting or unusual" with individual sources for every entry. How can you possibly say that "unusual" is definable? What is "unusual" to one person is perfectly normal to another. "Amarillo" might be unusual to someone because it's a Spanish name, but Spanish-named cities are EVERYWHERE in the Western United States. They're hardly unusual to those of us out here. I think "Bishop" is interesting, because who would possibly name a city in the middle of the Owens Valley after a Catholic religious position? Who are you to tell me it's not? FCYTravis 21:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I totally disagree with Mel. NPOV isn't just about politics - it is what an encyclopedia is. Articles contain verifiable facts, or verifiable factual reports of significant opinions. If we depart from that we can have 'lists of nice things' 'lists of horrid things' and edit war all day, since there is no neutral groud to arrive at. NPOV means 'neutral' on everything, we don't do op-eds. --Doc 19:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    I think that you need to ask yourself why we want to offer an NPoV. because it's inherently good, or because it achieves a purpose? If we have an article which presents the Primitive Methodists as hypocritical child-abusers, then a naive reader might think that, becuase it's an encyclopædia article it should be taken seriously, and that would have bad consequence. If somehow an uninteresting name got into the article, what exactly do you think the consequences would be? That readers would conclude that our articles on science and history must be unreliable because they don't agree that Fart Fen, Cambridgeshire is interesting or unusual?
    The worst thing about this for me is that I've gone along with this kind of argument in the past without really thinking about it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm still not sure where you are coming from. We offer NPOV content, because that's what encyclopedias do. If you want vox pop or op-ed look elsewhere. What are you suggesting? That we could have List of the best bands ever - which consisted of the consensus of wikipedian musical tastes, and that would be a Good Thing? The point is not that one or two uninteresting names might creep in: it is that every item is intrinsically subjective. --Doc 20:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn -- no consensus for deletion. older ≠ wiser 20:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've been looking through it. It's ludicrous! "Avenue Road" is "interesting or unusual" although there are six of them in London alone? What's interesting or unusual about Amarillo? Or Alpha? Bakewell? Oh, it's a pune or play on words isn't it, because it's famous for its eponymous tart. But where's Pudding Lane? And what the hell is supposed to be interesting or unusual about Cowes? Or Prince's End? Why is that more unusual than Kidmore End? What's funny about Phuket, once you have passed puberty? The entire list is 100% subjective, 100% unsourced, 100% cruft. In the project space as an archive of the things which have raised a weak smile on the occasional editor's face perhaps, but this is pretty much the definition of "an indiscriminate collection of information". As an encyclopaedia entry it is risible, as in Risible, Newfoundland. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 21:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Could we not agree to just leave it in the wikipedia namespace? --kingboyk 22:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I certainly can. But this DRV is an attempt to put it back in articlespace. FCYTravis 22:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • As it stands I stick by nomination of the article for AFD, and am somewhat sickened by the implications some folk are aiming at me. Anyway, with the article in the WP namespace those who think this list is "great" etc have the chance to work on it, weed out the nonsense and cite references so it does fit in with this encylopedias policies and guidelines (in particular WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:NOR). Once they have a gem, no doubt it could be moved back... Anyway, that's certainly more productive than what's going on here because as it is that list doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. Thanks/wangi 22:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree and 'vote' Keep deleted and leave in wikipedia namespace. --kingboyk 22:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist on AfD. Allow better consensus to be formed. youngamerican (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Close review - article has been placed in Misplaced Pages namespace, and requester has derequested his request. Failing that, keep in Misplaced Pages namespace. It's in the Misplaced Pages namespace, it can always be moved at a later date if it ever manages to actually, you know, become an encyclopaedic article instead of an uncited, unverified, PoV lump of original research. I'm sure the people of Fucking, Austria don't think their hometown has a funny name. And unless I see a section dedicated to English language place names that sound vaguely rude in Chinese, Polish, French, Russian, Swahili, etc, I'll be pretty convinced that this article has a big wodge of systemic bias. Proto||type 13:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist Endorse deletion and keep in WP projectspace - Mwalcoff's argument that "likely half the people would not have supported outright deletion" is speculation, but let's see what the people do say. As it's been copied into Wikispace, let's let this go. I'm not going to engage in content disputes here. -- nae'blis (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, no vote: As an occasional contributor to this list, I would probably have voted to keep, but I didn't see the nomination in time. However, the list now exists in the project namespace, so any salvageable content is still accessible. I was inclined to vote "Relist", but I can't quite tell if that inclination is mostly due to my disappointment that the list is gone. Trying to be objective, I don't see anything particularly wrong about the closing of the discussion. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support undeletion or relisting on AfD - I appreciate the argument as to why it was deleted. I thought many of the names there did not have a good rationale for inclusion but would hardly delete a joke seen by another as funny. As a mother, I try to smile at my children's lame jokes too and not judge them. I found the list did contains some interesting items within the increasingly considerable dross. To continue though, there needed perhaps to be some rules about minimising the dross. As an editor with a watch on the list, I used to attempt to verify Australian place names, format the place name links correctly, and that activity prompted me to write some articles about places I had never heard of. I do not mind such an article within the wikipedia space. I think some guidleines about inclusion are important, for example, all listings must be categorised, not just some. It then becomes much less point of view as to what is unusual - we have defined it and items on the list fall within the definition. It also helps those of us with an impaired sense of humour or even some with some jokes that do not translate well across cultures.--A Y Arktos 23:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support undeletion - This list could never be mistaken as a serious entry in Misplaced Pages; so all the POV or other arguments are not material. Suggesting that any reader would mistake it as a serious article demeans the intelligence of those who access Misplaced Pages. Saga City 23:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Huh? Since when are jokes an appropriate use of the article namespace? That something is not a "serious entry" is precicesly why it doesn't belong as an article. --W.marsh 23:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment in response ot W.marsh - Jokes are no laughing matter. They are a serious topic - see for example Mathematical joke, Mother-in-law joke, Geography joke (which I guess I would suggest this article is a subset of) - yes the names were given seriously but others find them funny. If they give their reason, why is that any the less encyclopaeidc than the Klopman diamond - many items on the ist would have been agreed to be humorous - how doe we maintain such a list with appropriate guidelines becomes an issue.--A Y Arktos 23:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
This is getting quite bizarre. Yes, there can be articles about jokes, if good rouces have written about those jokes, of course. But the article itself cannot be the original joke! --W.marsh 23:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say the article was the joke - the article references jokes - somebody thinks that names that describe something that is in no apparent sense as to a geographical location are funny. Examples given are, Why, Pity Me, and Die. There are other cateogories of place names that are humorous to some people. If they give the criteria as to why they see those names as a joke, this does not make the article a joke, it means the article records what people to perceive as humorous geographical names. There are other cirtieria for being unusual, not just humorous. Reference to the criteria for inclusion would reduce the point of view status of the list.A Y Arktos 23:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
That's all fine and well but the article's title implied objectively interesting or unusual place names, by way of how it was phrased. That is inherently NPOV, and leads to the bias I've discussed above. What you are talking about is what I mentioned as Place names considered interesting or unusual so we can establish who thinks they're unusual. --W.marsh 23:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist. I personally had a lot of fun both adding to this article and learning about some really weird new place names. Besides, I have a friend in Cumming, Georgia who told me that he about laughed up a lung when he first heard of the place. Where would we be without Fucking, Austria? Bad Axe, Michigan? Intercourse, Pennsylvania? If we can have huge resources dedicated to BJAODN, this deserves another shot. - Lucky 6.9 23:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Lucky, that is truely a bizzare vote. There are two reasons for keeping this deleted 1) delete was a fair call from the closer 2) it offends against NPOV. It is reasonable to vote undelete because of process, or because you think it is not POV. But you've basically implied 'forget process, forget NPOV, this is fun so keep'. Actually that's a bit insulting to everyone here who has been debating the real issues. --Doc 00:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
BJAODN is not in the article namespace, obviously. --W.marsh 23:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete for two reasons. 27D/16K is not indicative of consensus. It was not a POV article; criteria for inclusion were quite clear and the article was being maintained:
    • Names suggesting matters sexual or scatological or insulting, usually unintentionally.
    • Names of unorthodox spelling or sound.
    • Names that are also listed on inherently funny word are marked 3.
    • Names that describe something that is in no apparent sense as to a geographical location.
    • Names that are insulting or may hurt some groups of people.
Luigizanasi 00:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Fine, have a list of places with sexual sounding names, but who says that is 'interesting'. THat's POV however you define it. --Doc 01:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Your and others' argument about POV seems to revolve around the use of the word "interesting" in the title being inherently POV. How about we call it List of incongruous and unusual place names? Luigizanasi 16:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Still delete.However, if you are going to keep it, keep it in Misplaced Pages space. It does not belong into an encyclopedia. What one person finds interesting or unusual is most certainly not often interesting or unusual to another. Therefore it is a personal point of view. Dieter Simon 01:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. POV? Marginally, perhaps - but as pointed out, there were criteria for adding things to the page. In any case, I haven't seen complaints about articles which set up equally arbitrary criteria - we even have a category for Category:Close U.S. presidential elections, though no-one seems to have noted that "close" is hardly a rigorous measurement. In any case, this is the sort of list that sets Misplaced Pages apart from other encyclopedias (and IMV, makes it better than them) - it's not 100% serious, but it is interesting. And clearly enough other votes considered it worth keeping for the original vote to be far from one-sided. Grutness...wha? 08:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User no Rand

Userbox was speedy deleted as an "attack userbox". The "attack" in question being:

  • This user rejects Randroid thought in all its varieties.

and the picture being:

  • An X over the photo of Ayn Rand (this is EXACTLY the same as the X over the Karl Marx photo in the anti-marxism userbox).

Yet again, Tony Sidaway has unilaterly deleted a userbox, this time with the faux premise of it being an "attack" on other users. I ask, why is opposing Objectivism and its main proponent, Ayn Rand, an attack? It is my belief that Objectivism is a selfish, cold, and heartless philosphy that I vehemently disagree with. Others may disagree, but it certainly does not merit a unilateral delete. Why could this not have gone through TfD??? Seeing as how this is a chronic pattern, I have no choice but to Assume Bad Faith with respect to his decision. At the time of its unilateral deletion, the template was in use on 10 user pages as well as being listed at Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Beliefs. --Dragon695 00:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I don't have a problem with someone changing the wording, but I think that we have a process for a reason. If we aren't going to follow TfD, then why have it at all? We might as well let WoW run things if that is the case. --Dragon695 03:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
As the author of this userbox, I can say authoritatively that I made Template:User no Rand precisely in response to the anti-Marx userbox. I did so on the rather radical premise that it is better to engage in debate, however polemical and elbow-throwing it is, than it is to simply poo-poo debate. And why? Because it has its place in the grander scheme of any group intellectual endeavor (including the creation of an encyclopedia).
Don't like that debate? Then may I kindly suggest then that it is perhaps time for Jimbo and co. to close the barn doors behind them and make their own encyclopedia themselves. You can bet your last bit of hard currency that even without userboxes, this group would find some molehill issue to make the size of the mountain. In other words: welcome to the real world, where people may say things you don't necessarily agree with.
Meanwhile, is this a whiff of a McCarthy-style witch-hunt I smell in the air? First the antifa userbox gets subjected to an edit war. Then this userbox is disappeared. Then the "blasphemed" image of Mother Ayn is put through copy vio nonsense (though, oddly enough, not the image it is based on - whose copyright status is completely unlisted). Then the Atlas Puked image that I had prepared for a potential replacement - so nakedly parody it hurts me - gets put through some more copy vio nonsense. --Daniel 07:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Nobody's denying that the image is parody. Its copyright status has been challenged because you tagged it as public domain with the notation that you don't believe in the "tyranny of intellectual property." Unfortunately, whatever you don't believe in, you do not have the option to falsify the copyright status of the images you upload to Misplaced Pages. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you aware that Ayn Rand was born in 1905? The photo used in the original userbox and the Ayn Rand article had to have been taken when she was in her 20's, which means that it falls under Public Domain. Public Domain means we are free to use however we want. --Dragon695 01:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn deletion and send to TFD, doesn't meet any speedy criteria and several users here want to have it kept outright. Rejecting a philosophy cannot be construed as an attack. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn deletion and send to TFD. I don't have much of an opinion on whether it is an attack or not, but given the strength of feeling above that it isn't it is certainly not unambiguously an attack. For this reason the speedy delete was inapropriate and it should be listed at TfD. Thryduulf 09:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn, Undelete, and Keep. I think this is another case of Admin abuse, and a harmless userbox being speedied out of process for political purposes. I would like to remind all administrators (and others, as well) that Speedy Deletion is NOT a toy. These deletions are disruptive and violate a number of policies and principles that are central to wikipedia. --Dschor 11:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted without randian views there would be no wikipedia Trödel&#149;talk 12:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and keep {{User admins ignoring policy}} - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • 15:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, Ayn Rand's views are not necessary to Misplaced Pages, but an attack template using fair use images certainly is even less necessary. If you want to stop this piecemeal approach, go finish the dad-blamed WP:UBP that's stalled out! Otherwise we're left with no approach but stare decisis -- nae'blis (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • stare decisis??? If you are going to follow precident, then the proper way to delete a userbox is just like every other template, by nominating it to TfD. However, I guess you're more a fan of the WoW method of dealing with things... --Dragon695 01:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the insult, but actually I'm a big fan of getting things done. Not every decision on Misplaced Pages has to be done by committee; that's what the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is for. Just because we currently lack a policy for how to deal with a specific issue does not mean we cannot discuss fringe/blatant problems, and how to resolve them. That process may lead to a greater clarity in any eventual userbox policy (such as the idea of removing categories, which came up in response to Tony Sidaway's massive deletion effort, I believe, and is gathering legs). -- nae'blis (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not seeing how "bold, revert, discuss cycle" applies here. We're talking about a deletion by an admin, not a bold edit by your average editor. I don't think it was meant to be "BOLD delete by an admin, revert after the discuss cycle on DR". Turnstep 21:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
          • That's your opinion, but my opinion is that people who want EVERY decision on Misplaced Pages to come to *fD or ANI or VP are being disruptive and harming the process. Be bold is an accepted procedure here, since for every decision below Jimbo, there's a way to undo, revisit, and talk about it. The majority of those decisions go through with no problem, after all, and the majority of our admin actions are uncontested as well. -- nae'blis (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep revised version, but discouraged its use. The revised version is not an attack; Tony's out-of-process deletion was not helpful, but he has agreed to stop doing those now. As original construed, the template was a borderline attack, and should have been TfD'ed. Xoloz 17:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted as inherently pejorative. No wonder Jimbo doesn't think much of these userboxes! - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 22:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted or redelete or whichever. Does not help us build an encyclopedia. —Cryptic (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • This debate does not help us build an encyclopedia. Anyway, "redelete" isn't a valid vote, since the current version is not substantially identical to the version that Tony speedied, and DRV no longer even has jurisdiction. Why did you reopen the vote when we both know that the result will be no consensus? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 15:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and send to TFD. Sigh. --Blu Aardvark | 10:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn as out of process. The first thing that should have been done was to raise a concern on the talk page, or simply edit the wording. Then a TfD. Turnstep 21:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted PoV userbox, speedable as a attack template --Jaranda 21:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn, unless Ayn Rand is a Wikipedian (only then is it an attack page). Going on an Arnold Schwarzenegger 'Time to take out ze trash' rampage is disturbing enough without the apparent bias shown by deleting this and not the anti-Marx template. --Malthusian (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Userboxes aren't an entitlement. POV, offered no practical aid to other Wikipedians, borderline attack. Marskell 14:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. It's not a matter of deciding on the userbox (about which I have no opinion one way or the other), but Tony Sidaway is doing too much of this — deleting out or process, declaring that he'll undelete out of process. Send it to TfD, and see what the community says. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, attack template. --Tony Sidaway 21:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC) I had already commented. --Tony Sidaway 21:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. You don't have to be a Wikipedian to be subject to a personal attack. There's a whole bunch of pages created every day by students about their fellows who are 'GAY!!!' or 'FAT~!' that get deleted under WP:CSD as attack pages. Personal attacks are subject to speedy deletion. It's a divisive userbox, and serves no positive purpose. These should all be deleted on sight. Jimbo (PBUH) himself wants them gone, too, which should count for something. Proto||type 13:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jason Ward-Recording Engineer/Producer

Jason Ward-Recording Engineer/Producer was wrongly deleted during an AfD process, which clearly had no concencous to delete or to keep. There's no way this should of happened, and after me making a comment on the AfD page of such, it was then archived without addressing why it was deleted.

  • Relist Joe I 01:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I deleted the article; there was a delay between my deleting the article and adding the AFD-closed template, and I didn't notice that you added something to the discussion during that time. In any case, I disagree that I wrongly deleted it. One keep vote was from an anon who vandalized the nominator's comments, another was from the subject of the article, and I gave less credit to both of their comments. When I analyzed the rest of the comments, I felt that the delete arguments outweighed your keep comments. I felt there was enough of a consensus to delete. —Cleared as filed. 01:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn There was basically one argument for keep and one for delete (not votes, arguments). I find the rational for keeping the article more compelling. The numerical tally wasn't clear enough either way. Rx StrangeLove 05:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Closure (Keep deleted). Hard to see how the decision to delete an admittedly self-authored vanity page could be considered somehow inappropriate. Eusebeus 07:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. If I had been the one to close that debate I'd have done so as no consensus with 3 delete to 2 keep plus an anon's argument to keep. Thryduulf 09:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • There are four delete votes, including the nomination, which does not include a bolded vote but pretty clearly calls for deletion. There are three keep votes, one of which is unsigned, and one of which is from an admitted newcommer who is also the subject of the article. it would be reasonable for the clsoer to have discounted either or both of those, which would give a 4D/2K or 4D/1K result. i might not have closed it that way, but it is not unreasonable. The arguments on each side are of roughly equal strength as they stand. While I might have voted keep, i see no process problems with this close. Endorse close (keep deleted). Note that a different version of an article about this person, perhaps with better references, could be created and should stand on its own. DES 16:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. Pilatus 16:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure per the excellent argument of DES. Xoloz 17:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure and keep deleted, DES is exactly right. The unsigned vote is from an anon with only one other edit. I would have userfied this and left it at that. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 22:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

31 January 2006

Vampires F.C.

...has been deleted as a hoax. This team did exist and were in fact the first team Thames Ironworks F.C. who became West Ham United F.C. ever played in a competitive league, in the 1895-96 season. Surely a claim to fame... or at the very least a job for afd. Spyrides 00:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC) (Spychats)

I have now created the article Crouch End Vampires F.C., which hopefully settles the issue. Perhaps owing to the Vampires existence the Vampires F.C. page can be a worthy redirect page. Spyrides 00:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. The current situation with the redirect seems the most apropriate so I endorse the status quo as of my timestamp. Thryduulf 09:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe this DRV discussion is now moot. howcheng {chat} 01:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. As the deleting admin (whom no-one bothered to inform about the deletion review, incidentally) I'd point out that the title of the article was "Vampires F.C." and the total content was "Crouch End F.C. were an English football team that played in the London League for at least the 1896-97 season, in which they finished 6th." Leave aside the fact that the team is said to have played in a local league for one season, and only managed sixth place, does anyone notice something about the title and the text?
    As for the other articles, they all offered the same silence about the teams' notability, and all were created with the edit summary "it's a set up!". May I suggest that Spyrides uses sensible edit summaries, makes sure that he matches article title to text, and offers some grounds for the significance of the subjects when creating future articles? Any admin who's patrolled the New Pages list knows that it's a huge and time-consuming job, and article-creation like this really doesn't make it easier. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment As the deleting admin, you should have followed process, which you clearly didn't do for this and other related pages. You deleted this as a hoax, yet you have admitted that you didn't do any research on the matter before doing this. I understand the frustrations of those that patrol New pages, but it should never be down to the snap decision of one admin whether a page gets deleted or not, especially when that admin isn't doing necessary checks beforehand. Can I suggest that if you are not prepared to do this, then you at least tag them for speedy, so another admin can double-check before deleting the article? The points you have raised are perfectly valid though, and the proper thing to do would have been to take those up on the users talk page. If you had problems with the article, it really should have gone to AfD. - N (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    Please read what I said: the article title didn't appear in the text, and taken with the edit summary and the fact that no notability was claimed, there were very good grounds for deletion. The idea that one should do research on every one-line article, especially when it's like this one, is fine in an ideal world, but simply unrealistic in the real world. With more than ten articles being created every minute (a rough estimate), a high proportion being vandalism, hoaxes, etc., there simply isn't time. Editors have to take some responsibility for making sure that their articles look genuine and keepable. The tide is coming in rapidly, and though I'd love to build an ornate sandcastle, all I have time for is an upturned bucket. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
You deleted this article as a hoax, yet a basic Google search reveals this not to be the case. The other articles seemed to provide enough context to allow expansion, which excludes them from being candidates for speedy deletion.
London League participation does, in my view, make them worthy of mention on Misplaced Pages, and those interested in the formative years of English football may well have additional info to add. As stubs, these are a lot better than many of the club articles we have now - believe me, I have been doing nothing but going through club pages over the last few days, check out Category:New Zealand football clubs for a laugh (n.b. please don't delete these, I have added them to my to-do list, but they will certainly fall off that if it means recreating them).
As I said, I understand those frustrations, but I really do think it's important to make time for process, the main tenet of Misplaced Pages is consensus on the information that is included. And I do agree with the issues you have raised, this is exactly the kind of thing that a new user needs to hear, but it would surely be more constructive, and would save us all time in the long run, if these issues were brought up with the editor (who was not informed of the deletion either, incidentally), rather than just deleting point-blank. I will endevour to work with User:Spyrides to address those issues.
As a point of disclosure, I should note that Spyrides is a friend of mine IRL. - N (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

London Welsh F.C.

I have noticed that the London Welsh F.C. page has been deleted with the reason "little content, no significance claimed." This football team played in the London League Division One in its first year, alongside Thames Ironworks F.C. who became West Ham United F.C.. In relation to English football history, London Welsh's very existence makes them significant. Other London League teams that went on to greater things include Fulham F.C., Tottenham Hotspur F.C. and Chelsea F.C.. I also hope that "little content" is better than no content, and that some other amateur scholar will somewhere along the line expand the article, which is surely preferable to nothing at all. Spyrides 23:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC) (Spychats)

  • Overturn speedy adn list on AfD I presume that this was intented as an A7 nn-bio (group/club). I don't think the recent expansion of A7 was intented to apply to organized sports teams. The notabiulity here seems a bit marginal, but that ought to be a matter for AfD, not a speedy, IMO. DES 23:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy, according tot he article the club completed less than one full season, in the 1896/97 season, and following their suspension the points wen to Thames Ironworks F.C., their opponents. I don;t think completing slightly less than one season in the London League is much of a claim to fame. But I won't cry much if it's reinstated and AfDd instead, since that's what I would have done with it. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 23:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, just for any athlete to play at the top level of a sport establishes notability, to speedy delete a team which did the same is nonsensical. Kappa 23:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
To dismiss the London League as a local league is somewhat misleading. It didn't really work like that in 1896-97, for various reasons, but mostly because of the practicalities of travelling up north every two weeks (Woolwich Arsenal were the first 'southern' club to join the national Football League in 1893). That isn't really the point of this debate though. This is supposed to be about process. - N (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Just to be be clear, my proposal is to Overturn and Keep. I don't see any reason for this to be listed on AfD. - N (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete, AFD if we must, playing at the top level, even over a hundred years ago is a claim to notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and list on AfD. I personally feel this is a better stub than many we have around and will vote keep on any AfD, but I feel deserves a hearing. Thryduulf 09:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and list on AfD. However, I have to disagree with statements about this club being at the "top level" of the sport; anyone making such statements should realize that football was just barely getting organized as a sport in its modern form at the time. Thus, to say that this is a club at the "top level" makes no sense simply because there were no levels. howcheng {chat} 17:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Relist. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Keep. Personally I see no need to relist. David | Talk 23:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Keep. I don't see any reason to AfD it - there are plenty of football club articles which have grown from even more unpromising beginnings. -- Arwel (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist' - I think the delete votes show drift as to what the notability criterion should be for: clearly this is not an important club, but the material is verifiable and maintainable and of broad enough interest. unsigned comment by Chalst (talk · contribs), 03:35, 3 February 2006 - N (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete Seems to be notable in the history of English football, all but one of the other league participants are blue links. I see no need for it to be administratively relisted, but of course any wikipedian is free to nominate it for deletion at any time. --kingboyk 22:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete/keep. If someone really has a boner for getting this deleted, let it go through AfD. Proto||type 16:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Antiracist hitler

Userbox was speedy deleted as "offensive juxtaposition of Hitler image with refs to MLK, Malcolm X and Mandela". The "references" in question being:

This user opposes all forms of racism on Misplaced Pages, but does not admire Nelson Mandela, Malcolm X or Martin Luther King.

Being offensive in the eyes of an administrator is not a speedy delete criterion. Placing a picture of Hitler next to the words "Nelson Mandela" is not a speedy delete criterion. At the time of its speedy deletion, the template was in use on four user pages as well as being listed at Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Beliefs. Ashibaka tock 19:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my point - we are here to create an encyclopedia - not to be held hostage by abusive administrators. Stop playing with the delete button, already! --Dschor 11:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Stop playing with wikipedia by creating these wasteful boilerplates to saturate your userpages. They don't advance the project. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. That's our concenus for being here. That's what comes first and foremost. Always. Anything that doesn't contribute to that goal must be removed without mercy. -Zero 11:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I haven't made a new userbox in a while. The true waste is the ongoing purge of userboxes. The disruption caused by mass deletion is a much greater danger to the project than any userbox could ever be. I have yet to see a single userbox that was so out of line that it was deletable, but I have seen dozens of deletions and speedy deletions, which each have required extended debate and discussion. Just leave userspace alone, and we can all go back to editing articles, rather than sparring over misguided deletionism. Admins speedy deleting userbox templates has wasted far too much time already. --Dschor 11:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Its watseful to eliminate the useless shit on-site..? There is no "so-out-ofline userboxes". Anything even remotely away from our true goal is deleted. Always. And speedies are perefable because the encyclopedia comes first and foremost. No exceptions. Fuck process. IGNORE ALL RULES for things which draw away from the encyclopedia. -Zero 12:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It is wasteful even to be going in circles with you about the amount of time/bandwidth/energy wasted on spurious userbox deletions. Suffice it to say, these arguments are fruitless, as is deletion of user space content. --Dschor 12:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and censure Tony for his repeated and disruptive violations of process. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, relist if needed. Images can be replaced if they're offensive. But when you get down to it, I don't see the use of the template to begin with. opposing racism doesn't imply admiring any of the people listed and even if it did, it would be too narrow a definition. If we must have one keep it plain and simply "This user opposes all forms of racism". Then again, no one's going to admit they approve of racism and those that do create a bad working atmosphere. - Mgm| 22:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • So basically you're saying that people aren't allowed create their own userboxes if they want to clarify their position like this. Maybe you should comment on my request for clarification. Ashibaka tock 22:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No, what I'm saying is that "This user opposes all forms of racism on Misplaced Pages, but does not admire Nelson Mandela, Malcolm X or Martin Luther King." wrongly implies that opposing racism automatically implies admiring Mandela, Malcolm X and King. People are free to stuff their userpage full of boxes if they want, but not all of them are useful as general templates. - Mgm| 14:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, getting rid of abysmal stuff like this is why we have administrators. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
em, not per me, I said kd = 'keep deleted'. --Doc 00:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Until people quit the nonsense of Misplaced Pages honchos either a) bringing a knife to a gunfight with fascists and racists, and trying to deal with them through convoluted "process" or b) trying to justify a general anti-freedom of expression and anti-userbox stance by going after fascists, then I think the honchos should have to deal with their own impotence at dealing with the problem at hand. --Daniel 06:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and take to TfD (where I'll vote for deletion). For someone who's very quick to lecture other admins on what he perceives as their myriad faults, TS sometimes seems to be almost out of control. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted as needless forking. If you need a statement that specific on your userpage, write your own damn text. -- nae'blis (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, it'd really be a waste of everybody's time relisting this. Doesn't need to exist, nothing to do with the creation of an encyclopaedia, WP:POINT, thank you, nothing to see here. Userboxes do no harm, and can be very useful (Babel, expert in a certain area, etc), but if they are even questionably in bad taste, poor judgement, or are suggestively offensive to even a smallish minority of users they should go. If they are non-offensive, but also non-useful (which covers about 80% of userboxes), I personally think they're useless, but do no harm. If the message is that important to you, figure out how to code it yourself. Proto||type 16:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn - With this level of debate, it should be obvious that this is not a candidate for speedy deletion. It's easy enough to put it on tfd and wait for a few days for it to be deleted.--God of War 20:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-30

Lee Hotti

See Talk:Lee Hotti. Rogerthat 11:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

AFD discussion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lee Hotti
Endorse closure and keep deleted. Sock-fest and hysterical posturing aside, this looks to me like a valid closure. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 12:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Endorse closure and strong keep deleted as a vile attack page of the lamest sort, accusing some random person of homosexuality (or, as the article puts it, "fairy", 'colon cowboy", "rectum ranger", "ass raider", "butt pirate"... etc.) because they supposedly look "feminine" in a photo. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know which version you were looking at but when I got to the article it had been cleaned up. I edited the article to say the subject of the photo was percieved to have a metro-sexual appearance, which I thought was fair enough.--God of War 20:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse/Keep deleted. And do note that being at "requested articles" is absolutely meaningless. -R. fiend 18:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, if there's anything worth writing at this title, it can be done without restoring the attack stub. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close ignoring IP and new users, there is a clear consensus. Valid AfD. The article cites no sources showing wide notability. If there is a real "internet phenom" here, a quite different article can be written, one that cites some sources to show that it is actually notable. DES 23:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure and keep deleted per JzG and Starblind. --Aaron 23:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure and keep the earth salted until further notice. FCYTravis 01:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure valid afd, sockpuppets aside. Eusebeus 07:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, valid afd, non-notable meme or attack page, pick whichever one you prefer. Titoxd 01:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. Valid afd. *drew 11:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. Never mind the fact that there was a valid AFD, Starblind's comments regarding the attack nature of the article are enough proof that we should never see this article again. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Actualy the articel was not an atack It said the photo was notable becaaue veraious people made it the occasion of the attack. Insofar as the article has a PoV, it rather implied that these attacks were unfounded and silly. Documentign attcks made by otehrs does not make an attack page. There are, of course verifiability issues, and notability issues here. But if sources were cited to show that commetn on thsi was widespread enough to ber notabel, and if ther various attacks were more specificaly attributed to their makers, this might be a proepr article. i tend to doubt that such sources exist, but i could be wrong. DES 16:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Make it go away (with reasoning)I agree with DES. The article itself showed a NPOV and was not an attack page. All of the web-forums outside of wikipedia were full of people attacking this page. That said, this afd was meatpuppets gone wild. I was browsing fark.com in the let's make fun of and photoshop lee hotti thread when I came to a link to wikipedia. This was a valid afd. Misplaced Pages can't host the picture of lee hotti due to unknown copyright and without the picture, the article is meaningless.--God of War 20:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:GermanGov

The TfD Discussiuon was closed after only one day as delete. When closed, those who expressed an opnion seem to have been lined up 5D/3K, which is hardly a delete consensus, much less a speedy delete consensus. It was alleged that this template claims that all documents/images published by the German Goverenment or previous governments, ar PD (It never said quite that, but it did make claims of usability). It has also been said that thsi is legally incorrect. There seems to have been along and heated discussion of thsi elsewhere, but legal authority was not cited in the TfD discussion. Even if this position is legally correct (and I assume those who state it are doing so in good faith) this template could be reworded to state soemthing like "This image was produced or published under the authority of the German goverment. It may be subject to copyright -- such images are not automatically free for use. A proper license tag is needed if this image is to be used." making it a tempalte indicating publication information, rather than licensing. Such changes were suggested by at elast one keep voter. Closing off discusion prematurely, as if ther was an obvious policy violation here, is IMO a major mistake. Overturn close and returen to TfD for further discussion. DES 23:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It's the wrong tree that you are barking up. The main task is to get the images tagged and sourced properly. They are now for review at WP:PUI. And we use license tag for copyright information, not for provenance. Thus, endorse decision, keep deleted. Pilatus 05:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • KD, legal issues are not subject to consensus. Radiant_>|< 17:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • But would anyone object to an conversion simialr to the one doen on {{unimage}}? DES 19:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I do, for example. The images previously tagged GermanGov are assorted Third Reich imagery. Can't see what the advantage of a tag is that states "This is Third Reich material and certainly under copyright so tag it properly or it will go away." Pilatus 19:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Since you do not follow Misplaced Pages policy (you have taged these images with Template:no license without informing the uploaders despite the clear instruction in the template) there may be some doubts about your good faith. "Certainly" is a strong word when at least one of the images was published in the UK rather than Germany, inconsistently with UK copyright laws, and contained deliberately false information about its timing and provenance. --Henrygb 01:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Gazeebow Unit

This is a slightly strange case. The article was created and validly deleted by AFD process (3 deletes, one keep). When I found it it had already been deleted, but the last version had a speedy tag on it, and so not knowing about the vote I undeleted it (it wasn't a valid speedy, for reasons I will come to).

While it is true that this article is about a rap group who have released no records and have no website, and operate only in a very small community, they do have a number of other things going for them. They have been subject of a number of academic papers, but most importantly have had a documentary slot on a national arts radio programme (Definitely Not the Opera, 28th January 2006). This is the sort of programme that groups with record contracts in place would cheerfully kill for a one-minute mention on. I would contend that this slot alone makes them notable.

Anyway, I've undeleted this article, so if anyone wants to disagree with me they now have a place to say why. DJ Clayworth 15:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted, since the afd was valid and the content added since wouldn't really help it survive another afd either. WP:MUSIC says "Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio network." Their appearance was a short blurb during hour 3 of a 4 hour show . Someone writing a paper for a university society doesn't quite qualify as being featured in major music media either. - Bobet 15:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted valid AfD, fails WP:MUSIC, and per the article :"...released no records and having no website...", has 29 unique google hits including WP. About as clear-cut a case for deletion of bandity you'll ever find. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
They do have a record. They have about 200 hits if you search for both spellings: "Gazebow Unit" + "Gazeebow Unit". Nonplus 09:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh pop it on AfD and see if it flies. I can't see the problem. Many people--not just Newfoundlanders but people across Canada and in the Northern US--will have heard them on the radio and want to know more about them. Wiki is not paper. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The version that was debated and deleted made no mention of the academic paper "Gazeebow Unit: Local Language And Vernacularity In A St. John’s Rap Group", nor CBC Radio One feature. --maclean25 17:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted (redelete), AfD valid, fails WP:MUSIC all over the place, I would argue that the extent of coverage that they have received does not qualify them for an article. Also, I was unable to track down any of the academic articles about these guys in my quick look. Could we get some citations on that? Lord Bob 19:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
"Gazeebow Unit: Local Language And Vernacularity In A St. John’s Rap Group" by Dr. Philip Hiscock of the Memorial University of Newfoundland Folklore Department. It was delivered at a conference in November, so as far as I'm aware it has yet been printed. I might be able to find a copy, however, if that would be helpful. Nonplus 09:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted (redelete) A valid AfD, validly deleted in process. I don't understand why was even brought here. Common sense says a sysop who makes a simple mistake, discovers the mistake, and has the ability to correct the mistake, should just go ahead and do so. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey guys, there is supposed to be a five day period of review for articles nominated here. I posted it less than 24hrs ago. Someone in this debate asked for more information less than three hours ago. Anyone want to explain? DJ Clayworth 21:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleting, err, I mean, keep deleted. While the subject may be very slightly verifiable if you squint just right, the afd was valid and they sure don't seem to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. I don't see how one appearance on a radio program is enough to call them encyclopedic. Friday (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • A major national radio show like DNTO probably gets more listeners than a single which reaches number fifty in a record chart. Incidentally, the reference for the adademic paper is here. Remember WP:MUSIC is just guidelines. DJ Clayworth 22:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not arguing that the show isn't significant. But, not every single person or group ever mentioned there is encyclopedic. Also, FWIW, scholar.google.com returns no hits on this (but other papers by Hiscock are in there.) Sure, WP:MUSIC is just a guideline, but it's a decent one, and I don't see much to indicate that these guys are significant despite missing those criteria. Friday (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the reference, I had a peek. Unfortunately, I'm still not convinced. This paper doesn't seem to have spent a day of its life in a peer reviewed journal, and it seems to have just been an individual effort done for presentation, not publication. I was hoping to see it in a journal or a book, but such does not seem to be the case. Moreover, since the text of the presentation doesn't seem to be available, the paper isn't capable of providing any verification. Since this presentation was only in November of 2005, of course, it may be in the peer review process to get into a journal someday. When this day comes, it might be time to re-open this discussion, but for now I'm just not sold. Lord Bob 16:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted; afd was valid and in process. The 01:27, 23 January 2006 revision was the one deleted by afd. The 13:45, 29 January 2006 revision was re-created by Lorraine q (talk · contribs) (with edit summary "I know this page got deleted before but they're socially interesting", no less), and is pretty much identical. While Cleared as Filed's speedy as a band not asserting notability is questionable (and believe me, it pisses me off when people use this criterion as an excuse to speedy band articles that claim they released three albums), it's a perfectly valid re-creation speedy. —Cryptic (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    Looking back at what I deleted, I'm not sure how you see it as questionable. I don't see any assertion of three albums in there. Even if it hadn't been previously AFD'd, the article as I deleted it was speediable as a non-notable band, IMO. —Cleared as filed. 05:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    Air time on a national radio program is certainly an assertion of notability. My three-album comment wasn't in reference to this article, or a deletion by you; I apologize for the ambiguity. —Cryptic (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • KD valid AfD & two minutes on DNTO is not that huge a deal. (Grooveshinny, maybe...) The process here seems to have become a bit unglued. Eusebeus 09:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Who cares about the result on this DRV? We could have a hundred votes to keep deleted, but that does not prevent forum shopping by undeleting and immediately relisting at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gazeebow Unit (second nomination). Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Honest mistake on DJ Clayworth's part, but AfD is valid and evidence of notability conspicuously absent. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 12:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've closed the AfD and directed discussions back here. - brenneman 12:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Came here from the AfD discussion. No reason to relist per User:Bobet. --Malthusian (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted as per Bobet Hamster Sandwich 14:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. If Tony wants a "consensus" I think we have one here. -R. fiend 17:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Sounds like those kids had their fifteen minutes of fame, but that doesn't make them encyclopedic per se. I see no reason to overturn this AFD, endorse deletion. Radiant_>|< 17:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted valid AfD, fails WP:MUSIC. --Stormie 21:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted. The AfD was perfectly legitimate, and WP:MUSIC is quite clear that a brief story on a radio show is not enough; you need 30 solid minutes minimum. I was on MTV once; it doesn't make me a notable musician. --Aaron 23:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it was a little bit naughty to thwart the second AfD, but primarily the problem was D. J. Clayworth's decision to bring the issue to DRV. Once articles reach this forum, they are seldom seen or heard of again, which I think is a petty, for it was a perfectly good article about a rap group with some minor claim to national fame.
  • I'm rather worried about the attempt by various people here and elsewhere to assert a right to halt a deletion debate on the grounds that a discussion is already going on here. This seems to me to be rather too ad hoc to stand scrutiny. We start debates here while there are debates going on elsewhere--I've seen speedies discussed while a TfD is ongoing. I don't see any problem with this. It follows that we cannot halt debates going on elsewhere if we are discussing something here. The more the merrier. And since so many people are so keen to claim that this forum is not about content, it's not as if the debates need be on the same subject. One debate can discuss content, the other--whatever else there is to discuss. I suppose someone would think of something... --Tony Sidaway 05:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • So basically, what you're suggesting is this: once someone, anyone, posts on this page the name of any article that has been deleted, you immediately undelete it. It is then immediately renominated at AFD, because DRV isn't allowed to make any decisions on its own. So at the say-so of any user, any AFD can immediately be revoted on. Consensus deletions will be overturned if the consensus doesn't hold up to this completely arbitrary re-vote. We'll see a consensus decision being overturned by a non-consensus, which seems an appallingly bad idea. Is this anything other than an attempt to subvert (indeed castrate) DRV and stick it to the "deletionists"? If so, tell me where I'm wrong. -R. fiend 06:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • People really shouldn't speedy during an XfD discussion, unless the page clearly fits a speedy delete criteriuon, or there has been enough disuccion to make an emerging consensus clear (in which case it isn't really a speedy its an early close, whcih should only be done if clear cut, IMO). If someone does speedy while an XfD discussion is inprogress, and that speedy is disputed the only choices are to bring the matter here, or to unilaterally undo the deletion. Therefore, starting a DRV discussiuon when a XfD sebate has been cut short by a speedy is proper (and if soemone speedies, an in-progress XfD ought to be closed as "Speedy delete" anyway). But staring an new XfD debate while the metter is open here is generally a poor idea IMO. it leads to a split discussion. if the matter is at all contentious, then any keep will surely include a relaistign in any case, so there is no need to rush to XfD. DES 22:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted valid AfD, very well aligned with common sense to boot. Xoloz 18:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, 4 opinions total on an AFD? But they do have academic papers written about them? Which I see have been referenced above? That's odd. Why was this article deleted? It seems like the sane thing to do here is to keep the article. I don't care which discussion that's supposed to go, and I don't think the objections (most of which are procedural in nature) are relevant here. Is there any reason not to undelete and keep, short of procedure? Kim Bruning 17:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • There seems to have been at least soem new info brought out in thsi discussion, and reasons that were alleged in the first AfD were not respond3ed to in that discussion. WP:MUSIC is generally a good guideline, but it does not cover ever case, adn there is at least an argumetn thet this should be an exception. I don't want to evaluate that here, but it is stong enough that I say we should Over turn the close and relist on AfD. DES 22:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Whose pipe dream was it that this had article had a chance in hell? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:58, Feb. 2, 2006
  • Undelete. As somebody who is actually familiar with the cultural context in which this band is relevant, I feel the need to speak up. First of all I want to make clear.. Gazebow Unit are a joke band made up of high school students. Nevertheless, I think they're notable and worthy of inclusion.
They've been the subject of media and even scholarly attention. At least:
  • Definately Not the Opera (National radio)
  • Weekend Arts Magazine (Provincial radio)
  • The Muse (local newspaper)
  • Paper written about them by Dr. Philip Hiscock, presented at a local Folklore Society conference. (No it hasn't been published, but then the paper was only delivered in November.)
They're a pathetic band, musically. What's notable about them is that, despite this, there has been a bizarre grassroots explosion of interest in them locally and beyond. The mainstream media attention is the tip of this iceberg - it's mostly an alarmingly widespread word of mouth thing (which I believe the above-mentioned media commented on). It really is not just about a band - it's an issue of culture and folklore. Gazebow Unit are unique as a media representation of the skeet, a subcultural type in Newfoundland culture - that's why people are interested in them.
Incidentally, they do have a cd out, albeit not a label release. Nonplus 09:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Alexander (cartoonist)

The article had an AfD, at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Patrick Alexander (cartoonist). Noting that AfD is a discussion rather than a vote; that the article underwent a major change during discussion (change done by DollyD (talk · contribs) shortly before DollyD's comments on the AfD page, meaning the nominator and first four others made their comments before seeing the change); that the change remedied the issues of POV, vanity, and nonsense; that DollyD and Steve block (talk · contribs) had established at least some notability by showing that the subject of the article was published in print magazines as well as online; I determined that the AfD did not support deletion. I closed the AfD and placed my reasoning for my decision on Talk:Patrick Alexander (cartoonist).

A week later, Ambi (talk · contribs) speedy-deleted the article, with reason: "per VFD consensus to delete". She did not make any comment to the article's talk page, nor did she notify me that she had an objection to my closing, much less that she had deleted the article. The article was recreated, whereupon Ambi took it upon herself to delete it again, with reason "recreated VFDd articles are speedy deletion candidates", ignoring the declared result of the AfD. Once again, no discussion of the deletion was made. DollyD recreated the article again, leaving a note on Ambi's talk page, suggesting a renomination of the article if Ambi felt strongly that it should be deleted . At this point, DollyD's creation of the article appeared on my watchlist (the first I had noticed that there was even an issue), and I also left a note on Ambi's talk page . Ambi deleted the article a third time deletion log, saying that she would protect the page if created again. Only after this third deletion did Ambi discuss the issue, in a rather hostile and aggressive comment on my talk page that did not address my reasons for closing the debate as I did.

I don't want to war over this, so I'm bringing it here. I ask that the article be undeleted in keeping with the AfD result. It can then be relisted if anyone strongly feels that it does not belong on Misplaced Pages. -- Jonel | Speak 11:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I have undeleted and redeleted to provide a better deletion summary. For relevant policies see WP:DP#Non-Administrators closing discussionsMisplaced Pages:Deletion process#Non-Administrators closing discussions. Jonel, this was not an unambiguous "keep", and you should have let it be closed by an admin. As it was, Ambi did have the authority to review it. Had the debate been closed as "keep" by an administrator, Ambi's deletion would have been out of process and the disputed close would need to be taken here. To me the revised versions don't look significantly different from the one which was originally nominated, so I will have to say endorse Ambi's deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a straightforward relisting. You could have come to me and I would have happily undeleted it as a questionable speedy and listed on AfD. I agree that it was a borderline close, but I don't get where Sjakkalle is going with this talk of "authority to review". There is nothing about this in the deletion policy, and commonsense tells me it's a disputed close and should be relisted to determine consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The debate was closed by a non-admin. Sorry that I linked to the wrong page, it should have been Misplaced Pages:Deletion process#Non-Administrators closing discussions which says "Closing decisions by non-administrators are subject to review and, if necessary, may be reopened by any administrator. If this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as unambiguous as you thought.". Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
      • It doesn't matter who closed the debate. Honestly the long and short of it is that there's nothing much wrong with the article. The delete votes gave no significant arguments and the two keep voters both gave excellent reasons to keep. It would have a very good chance of making it through a second AfD listing, especially after dollyd expanded it--indeed I was rather disgusted to see someone, Splash I think it was, blank the article and cover it with a template after dollyd had edited it. This is a wiki and we're meant to edit article, so this behavior was absolutely and utterly beyond belief. It's as if he wished to prevent anyone editing the article further. Very disquieting. --Tony Sidaway 06:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for providing the (eventually corrected) link. I had read the deletion policy (WP:DP) and found nothing there about this. I have now read the page to which you've linked. I'm still having difficulty with "may be reopened" equalling "article may be speedily deleted without notifying anyone", however. Though I suppose it is eminently reasonable for administrators, with the proven support of the community, to reverse without discussion or explanation an action taken by an editor who has thought out that action, acted in good faith, and explained his reasoning for it. -- Jonel | Speak 17:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I feel the issue of the deletion debate being closed by a non-administrator, Jonel, (who absolutely did the correct thing in my opinion) is far less relevant than whether the subject of the article is notable enough to be included on the Misplaced Pages. I clearly feel that he is, although very few people have addressed the issue in this deletion review. The page has now been protected and the information blanked from the main article page by Splash, which means I cannot add further information to strengthen the notabilty claims. This is quite conterproductive as I was beginning to add the details of some relevant awards, something that I started in my last edit. DollyD 18:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree. This was a terrible thing to do. I still cannot believe that an editor that I had some respect for could have done that. --Tony Sidaway 06:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I fully agree with Jonel that the article should be undeleted. It was improved after most of the 'delete' votes were cast and since that time I have gathered a fair number of sources which could improve it much more.
    Patrick Alexander has been published regularly in widely circulated publications since 2001, namely Krash and Mania. These are two of the largest selling children's magazines in Australia. Krash has a readership of 109,000 and Mania has 42,476 . Alexander also has a popular web comic which was nominated for an award in 2005. .
    The award he was nominated for, a Ledger Award , is one of the major awards of the Australian comic industry, and in addition to being nominated for "Webcomic Strip of the Year" Patrick Alexander was also nominated for "Comic Strip of the Year" .
    I feel that this evidence of large scale publication and industry recognition proves that Patrick Alexander is definitely a notable cartoonist in Australia. DollyD 13:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I endorse both Ambi's right to review any case closed by a non-admin and his/her decision to overturn Jonel's original decision. While some improvement was made to the article during the debate and two people voted "keep" after the change, it was not sufficient to convince any of the early participants in the AFD debate to change their opinions and two people explicitly voted "delete" after the change. While the "fanzine" concerns were successfully addressed, the notability of the subject was not. Only in very recent changes has any assertion of notability been made - specifically, that his works have been nominated for a Ledger Award. Nomination for an award is not sufficient to establish notability in my mind. No objection to relisting if his work wins something, though. Rossami (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I voted keep in the debate, so I'm going to vote endorse the close by Jonel now. I'm not sure I get Rossami's vote, he's voted endorse but seems to mean delete, but it might be Ambi's non-process action that throws that spanner in the works. Regarding Rossami's point regarding assertion of notability; surely the assertion is made in the very first version of the article He draws for numerous publications, most notably Mania and Krash, and writes for videogame magazine Total Gamer. If being a published writer and cartoonist is not an assertion of notability I'm perplexed as to what is.
      I'm also unclear how we determine the changes were not sufficient to convince any of the early participants in the AFD debate to change their opinions. Is it certain that those voters were aware such changes were made? There is no record on their talk pages of them being notified of the changes made to the article, and it's surely not a reasonable assumption that all editors watch deletion debates they partcipate in, much as we'd hope we all do, is it? All that said, I also have to remind people 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. Rossami should direct their comments to the process: is the consensus Jonel determined sound?
      I certainly understand Jonel's reading of the debate, it is unclear that the first four votes are aware of the changes made, the non-notable bio assertion is made by only three users, the others either make charges such as vanity or nonsense whic don't actually address the issue. I'm inclined to say that if people can't elucidate their reasons better in the discussion, there's no onus on a closing admin to take their opinions under consideration. Calling an article nonsense is pretty much a facile, worthless comment, since it can be remedied and it gives no direction to a closing admin, it's a point of view too easily disregarded; if as a closer I find an article not to be nonsense, what am I to do with someone directing me it is? With no reason listed I must look for other clues in the debate, and since the only other reasons which could relate to nonsense is POV and vanity, both of which can be fixed and aren't strictly deletion criteria, I'd move to ignore them.
      I find wikipedia deletion policy a mess sometimes, since notability can depend on the audience of afd on any particular day, and since speedy process allows for deletion of recreated material, on what I perceive as borderline cases such as this it seems harsh to damn it once and for all on the basis of one contested vote.
      As to Ambi's motives, I certainly understand them, it's not by any means anything but a very ambiguous keep close, there's an argument that there's strong consensus for delete, doesn't this page direct users to use it: to challenge the outcome of any deletion, which leads me to assume it should have come here rather than be speedied. If Ambi disputed the outcome of the deletion debate, that user should have come here and listed the article, seeking a review of the consensus. Ambi's motives were correct, but the actions were not. Steve block talk 20:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm in total agreement with Ambi's actions in this matter, and this matter should have been brought here initially instead of trying to do an end run around AfD by recreating the article twice after deletion. With that said, I do feel there has been sufficient evidence of notability presented here to either undelete the article or relist it on AfD. Gamaliel 22:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Let's be fair to DollyD here, even if you think I acted wrongly. Accusing DollyD of "trying to do an end run around AfD" is hardly civil, nor does it assume good faith. When DollyD recreated the article, the AfD page pretty clearly said "keep". In fact, it still does. Ambi didn't even take the time to change that or even to note that the decision was disputed. Nor did she let DollyD know. There was no reason for DollyD to believe anything other than that the article should be there. -- Jonel | Speak 00:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'll freely admit that I should have informed DollyD when I deleted it. However, that by no means excuses your blatantly out of process attempt at railroading your desired result against the explicit wishes of nearly everyone else who voted, and thus, the actual result - that this be deleted - should very much stand. Ambi 06:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. This is obvious vanity, which is why just about everyone who voted voted delete. I re-deleted it because I see no reason to go through even more bureaucracy just because Jonel attempted to railroad the result of the first one. Ambi 06:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Fair play, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't surprised to see it closed as a keep. I am now happy to endorse Ambi's close, but add that a reviewing admin should make a note of the review at the discussion in question, also amending the close notice so that there is a noticeable chain of events. I don't think that's overly bureaucratic, and demonstrates both good faith in both the original close and the deletion process. I don't think it is overly burdensome, and failure to discuss the review has probably caused as much confusion here as Jonel's closing in the first place. After arguments made here, on balance I am inclined to agree the article should have remained deleted and that deletion closure discussed here. Steve block talk 12:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted. I don't think the rewrites satisfy the notability issues raised in the first go-round. Eusebeus 09:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure and keep deleted, valid AfD and correct closure. And even assuming good faith I find it problematic that DollyD (talk · contribs) has no edits outside this article and the linked cartoon. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 12:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Ambi's closure, keep deleted, valid AfD, six deletes, two keeps. The phrasing "I ask that the article be undeleted in keeping with the AfD result" seems strained and tendentious to me. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep undeleted, as it was expanded during the VFD. "Note that since Jonel is not an administrator, the closure was subject to review." What the fuck happened to adminship being "no big deal"? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 13:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, Ambi is entirely correct. Radiant_>|< 14:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Agree with Ambi. This is a blatant overturning of the AFD process. Jonel justified dismissing votes by saying "As for "nn-bio", the links provided both in the AFD and on the article have convinced me that this cartoonist is fairly well-known in Australia." We don't need this kind of AFD activism. As for the article, I don't believe it establishes notability and I would vote "delete" on an AFD. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 20:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, Ambi's closure is entirely correct. --Deathphoenix 21:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Ambi's closure - Jonas did not find the outcome which best fit the discussion, Ambi was right to correct, however Ambi's handling of the aftermath was pretty lousy. Jonas was clearly acting in good faith. --- Charles Stewart 22:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I am convinced that User:Jonel was acting in good faith, and i see no indication that he was trying to "railroad" the result. If he were an admin, the close with his explanation would be at least arguably within the zone of closer judgment, although at best near the edge of that zone. However I think that User:Ambi was acting perfectly properly in reveiwing this close, and that Ambi's close better fits the AfD discussion. It would perhaps have avoided problems had Ambi noted the revised close on the AfD log -- absent this Ambi's action looks out-of-process. I strongly urge any admin who in future reviews and alters an AfD close by a non-admin to note this on the AfD log -- I don't really see this as overly burdensome. If this person really is notable, a rewriten article with more clear cut sources for this, which is not "substantially similar" to the previous article could be created, and if so should stand on its own merits. Endorse Ambi's close and keep deleted, but not protected. DES 23:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I am withdrawing my recommendation for undeletion. Discussion here has shown me that my closing decision was incorrect. I would like to thank those who have been helpful in discussing my error with me, especially Sjakkalle, Howcheng, and DESiegel. -- Jonel | Speak 00:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. What part of the adage "afd is a discussion, not a vote" do you interpret to mean " can take whatever the hell action want", without regard to the other parties? If you think their opinions might change in light of more recent edits to the article, you should contact them and ask them to reconsider. I would expect to be de-sysoped if I frequently made closures like this one. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:25, Feb. 2, 2006
    • Sorry, but your tone is unhelpful, especially considering I have already acknowledged my error. And please explain where you're getting that second quotation, as I certainly don't remember saying anything of the sort. I may have misremembered, but it seems to me as if you've implied that I've taken an unsavory position that I have never taken. -- Jonel | Speak 21:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete Ambi's action was unwarranted. older ≠ wiser 02:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist as ambiguous result. Ambi's actions may have been warranted, but taking it on good faith that the article was in the process of being improved when speedied (after the AfD was closed and therefore DollyD felt like they could work on it unmolested) was disruptive. If it's worthy of deletion, it's worth getting a valid consensus on the article as it stands here. Alternatively, DollyD may just want to recreate it with the as-yet-unincluded information, but only if Ambi agrees not to delete it as substantially being the same. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-29

List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C.

Everyone loves to say "AfD is a discussion, not a vote", now let's see if it's true. If we're just going by numbers (i.e. voting) then this was closed correctly as lacking consensus. If AfD is actually really a discussion, as I've heard so many times, then I think it is worth examining the discussion. 3 keep "voters" said nothing explaining their reasoning, one made a point of refusing to do so (not much of a discussion), 3 are admitted trolls, who made largely nonsensical statements (2 others were accused of being as well; I don't know if they are), and few defended the article in any terms other than "people should know that some streets in DC are named for the states" which it already says in the DC article. The only reason given as to why categories wouldn't work better is that categories, unlike this list, aren't a large collection of redlinks, as if that's a good thing. When I made a point that having this list was like having a List of numbered streets in Manhattan, which would basically just list all integers from 1 to 220, I was actually told that such an article would be a good idea! The 16 delete voters basically all explained their reasoning (usually it was that this is why we have categories, and since not every street in DC is articleworthy, even these, a list of redlinks is not an asset). So is AFD a vote or not? I think it should be overturned and deleted. -R. fiend 22:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  • There was some unnecessary heat in that discussion, IMHO, but my take on it was that consensus for delete was there, after factoring out trolls, but it was a fairly close run thing. I think the closing admin acted in good faith, erring on the side of no consensus as a good admin should, yet I'd nevertheless support overturn and delete. Failing that, suggest that you try again in a few weeks. I'd imagine that relisting wouldn't be out of line as the process was pretty contaminated. Often, things go cleanly the second time around, when passions have cooled a little. It's not going to kill WP if it isn't gotten rid of right away. ++Lar: t/c 22:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Still keep. I voted keep in the AFD because this is an interesting topic and a notable phenomenon, and because categories do not serve the same purpose as lists. The gay niggers you noted have contributed to Misplaced Pages in a positive way and it would be ridiculous to discount their votes just because they have an unusual pastime. // paroxysm (n) 22:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks like a perfectly good article to me. The existence, in the one full part of the United States that does not have statehood, and moreover the one devoted wholly to government of the United States, of streets (mostly avenues) named after all fifty states of the Union, is no coincidence, and a list of those streets is of encyclopedic value. It is of perhaps as much encyclopedic value as the list of streets of Atlentic City that appear in the US monopoly board, or lists of streets in London that appear in the British version. That is to say: not much, but the net value is positive and the article is unlikely to pose any great maintenance problems. Having said that, R. Fiend may wish to try his luck at a second AfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The existence of a naming scheme for some streets in a city is worth mentioning in an article about the city or an article about the transportation infrastructure/streets of the city ingeneral. On the other hand, a list of the names themselves is simply a list of the names of the U.S. states with "Avenue" appended to each name and has no real value, since, frankly, few of them are worth an actual article (Massachusetts Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue being notable exceptions). --Calton | Talk 02:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Rerun AFD or delete looks like the AfD got hijacked by some GNAA members, and then the closing admin forgot to discount their votes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete per Lar. I don't like smearing contributors as "GNAA", and I'd suggest that R. fiend be more civil than usual when dealing with people you suspect are troublemakers. You play into a their hands when you shout "Troll!", howcheng's approach was the better one here. That being said, the arguements to delete were clearly superior. - brenneman 23:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete without prejudice to the closing admin, R. fiend is corrct, we keep saying 'not a vote but a discussion' well the strength of this discussion was delete - no real case was made to do otherwise. --Doc 23:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If VFD really is a discussion, not a vote, there is nothing wrong with this article. Keep. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete. Like R. Fiend says, many reasons given for deleting, not much for keeping. And if the contributions of GNAA have to be proven rather than assumed good, then they're wasting everyone's time here, and goodbye and good riddance to 'em. --Calton | Talk 02:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well I've found yet another way to violate the OMG SANCTITY OF AFD. You can ban me now. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close. I see nothing untoward in the Admin’s decision to close this as no consensus. There are obviously plenty of good arguments for articles and lists of this type, such as those provided by TS above, or some that were made in the AfD. Of course, if we are going to discount the GNAA's contributions, we might have started with the 100 or so skirmishes in the "war on blogs". I mean how much of a discussion and consensus is generated by a bunch of users competing to come up with new turns on the word cruft as they shoot down the latest "pod" or blog article...but I digress. -- JJay 03:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close - as Lar points out above, its probably simplest to just relist this in a month and see what happens then. There are so many worse articles out there, why waste more energy on this one? Turnstep 04:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete The new vote is going heavily in favor of keeping. Golfcam 04:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh yea, the "new vote", created with what certainly appears to be bad faith without even mentioning it here. I'd encourage all concerned to visit Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C. (second nomination).
      brenneman 05:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Nevermind, I already closed it as a bad faith nomination. We can talk about reopening it, if necessary, after this discussion is concluded. It might not be necessary at all. We'll see. -R. fiend 05:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
      • It can hardly have been a bad faith nomination. I made it myself, and I assure you that I very, very sincerely wish to see this issue discussed on AfD. AfD is a consensus-based forum. I won't edit war but if anyone wishes to re-open the AfD immediately so that a consensus can be determined, I should be most grateful. Meanwhile I do with Aaron and R, Fiend would not be so quick to yell "bad faith." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
          • It can hardly have been a bad faith nomination. I made it myself... Nothing about the truth value expressed or implied, but how exactly does the second statement logically support the first? --Calton | Talk 07:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Ah yes, Tony bypasses an ongoing discussion again and wonders how it's possible that people object to that. The perennial allegations that DRV doesn't work have never been backed by actual evidence whenever I asked about it. Consensus is that it does work; if you respect consensus, you should respect that. Radiant_>|< 07:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If an AfD "keep" or "no consensus" result is questionable then as far as I can see the only reasonable way to resolve the issue is to have another AfD some time down the road. One can't simply assume that a consensus to delete would develop in a valid AfD if no such valid AfD has been done. Bryan 07:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • KD per R.Fiend. Good arguments obviously should trump a pileup of votes, especially if they smell faintly of socks. Radiant_>|< 07:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close, keep. The fact that valid arguments for retaining the article were present is what matters. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename, as I said in the new AfD, it should be renamed to List of state-named roads in Washington, D.C., or something to that effect, so as not to make Ohio and California seem oddly out of place. The article itself is useful even if there are many red links; it can always be enhanced, and new articles created. Perhaps making it a category would also be effective? Rory096 07:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. No compelling arguments were made for deletion, so there is no reason to delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Before Radiant and co get on their high horse about consensus, they should remember that this is not a consensus-based forum. The practice if a deletion listing is inconclusive is to list it again to see if a consensus can be reached. There's no reason why the technicalities can't be discused here while the practical matter of whether there is a consensus to delete are discussed on the forum set aside for that purpose: AfD. The premature closing of the AfD thwarted the only ongoing consenus-based discussion of this proposed deletion; that was not a fine moment for Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Practice is to let the AFDs run for five days, and then they are fair game to any admin who wishes to close it. In this case the closure was technically "premature" in one sense, because while it remained open for over 120 hours, it had not yet been moved to the "old" list which happens at midnight GMT, this was closed about 2 hours prior to that move. (And here, I would say that an extra two hours of debating would not matter much.) Standard practise for when there is no consensus is not to relist, but that the article defaults to keep. Relisting is usually done for debates which have received little or no attention, a debate with plenty of attention but nothing really conclusive are closed, usually as "keep" but sometimes an administrator will be bold and choose to merge or redirect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You've lost me here, sjakkalle.How did my nomination remain open for 120 hours? It was prematurely closed a couple of times by R, Fiend only last nightm athough at one point it does seem to have had 6 keeps, 0 deletes. Impressive for an article that had a "no consensus" result last time. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I think Sjakkalle meant the first AfD which I think might have been closed an hour or two early... only a major process wonk would be upset about that. (er, I guess that means I should be upset about that???) I could be wrong though as to what he was referring to. I think starting another AfD before the DRV ran its course isn't necessarily an ideal practice though. ++Lar: t/c 16:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • (resp to Tony) Ah, such irony in someone who does premature closings of deletion debates himself disparaging such closings done by other people. May I just point out that consensus has it that DRV generally works and is a useful process, and there are just a few dissenters that assume otherwise and persist in claiming so? Radiant_>|< 15:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry Radiant!, I've absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Now I popped a few comments on your talk page earlier, why not engage in a dialog and we'll try to see what the problem is? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
      • You prematurely closed the debate on User:KJVTRUTH a few days ago, and now you complain about a premature closure by somebody else. That sounds rather paradoxical. However I'd be happy to engage in dialog if you popped a few reasonable comments on my talk page, as opposed to a few snide offensive remarks as you popped earlier today. Radiant_>|< 18:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I closed a deletion debate that was started as an inappropriate pursuit of a content dispute over a user page. What of it? --Tony Sidaway 06:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Leave undeleted and revisit when the storm has passed, as suggested above. It's a bit crufty but it is scarcely damaging to the encyclopaedia. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 13:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Leave undeleted WP:ENC applies to this. Disk is cheap. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak overturn and delete It isn't harming anyone if kept but I still don't think it is encyclopedic enough to warrant an own article. My overturn and delete vote is reflecting Doc's argument, discussion favored delete even if votes were closer. Not sure why this AfD got so heated in the first place.--Kalsermar 16:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close. I still don't see the point of this list when a category would do better, but a no consensus keep is within the closing admin's discretion. howcheng {chat} 16:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge it into Washington D.C., and mention they exist and only provide links to the ones with acual articles. --ShadowPuppet 17:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse delete, I'm all for road cruft... but this is just extraneous garbage.Gateman1997 23:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse original decision (no consensus keep). The closing admin's decision was reasonable and another AFD can always be attempted at a later time. —Cleared as filed. 23:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse original decision (no consensus, keep). A reasonable decision by the closing admin. -- Arwel (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close and keep: Lack of a certain number of arguments to keep is not a valid deletion criterion. Deletion is not the default answer nor something achievable by even a small majority. Deletion is only valid in two cases: it meets CSD; or valid reasons to delete are presented and no valid reasons to keep are. Further, the second AFD should not have been closed. It is a normal procedure to relist if a nomination fails to reach a consensus. Closing that discussion because it had also been brought here was wrong, and it should not be done again. -- Jake 05:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Delete It really seems this is about whether the information is better to categorify or keep in a clearinghouse article. A category would be better, surely, since R. Fiend's point is well-taken when extended to its logical conclusions. Will we have list of List of city-named Avenues in Paris or List of politician-named Avenues in Madrid next? Eusebeus 10:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete. The first three sentences in the articles are interesting and worthwhile, and belong in the article on Washington, D.C. where they would make a good subsection of the roads section. There is no value added by proceeding to expand that information into an explicit list, it's just an excuse to expand those three sentences into an unnecessary "article." There could conceivably be an article on the history of Washington, D. C.'s roads and road plan, but this isn't such an article and this isn't the germ of one. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn, delete, per WP:NOT. This almost-uncommented listing of road names is original data and as such out of place here. Pilatus 16:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse original decision. The closing admin's judgement of the first AFD is not being questioned as far as I can tell, per Arwel Perry, and I don't see the grounds for listing here. I find the rush to DRV, rather than waiting to file another AFD, per Jake Nelson, questionable. - BanyanTree 18:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse the lack of consensus. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:17, Jan. 31, 2006
  • Keep per SPUI. Disregard this vote as I am a troll. Ashibaka tock 23:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse original no consensus decision Because of the nature of DRV, I don't think it should be used to try to force a delete after an ambiguous AfD. A second AfD is the better solution. –Abe Dashiell 17:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse and close this discussion. I don't usually feel this way of late but I agree with Tony Sidaway. DRV is not the place to get things deleted, and neither this page nor Misplaced Pages:Deletion_policy authorize this page to delete things . It's supposed to be a forum for discussing undeletion, and the very fact that it does not use consensus or have a requirement of notification make it inferior to AfD. Close the DRV and re-open the second AfD. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Not so; if an AfD had all Delete votes and was closed Keep, that would be reversible here; but this article is not in that situation. Septentrionalis 19:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Hmmm, I suppose you could argue that as a case for this venue, but I'd rather see it at WP:ANI. What is being attempted here is more of an end-run around the system; Let it be relisted according to our consensus-based processes..es. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
        • When VFU was converted to DRV, thre was specific discussion that this fourm would be open for the review of ALL deletion decisions, including keeps and daletes. However a keep that seems dubious but is even arguably within the zone of closer judgement is probably better handled with a re-nom on AfD. DES 20:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close; Adashiel said it. Septentrionalis 19:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete, Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. Votes for deletion was renamed not least because it's not a vote. As a result, the raw numbers are irrelevant when the discussion is heavily weighted towards deletion. Lord Bob 19:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Please keep. Lists can be very informative/helpful. Let this one evolve. Snargle 00:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is actually interesting. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse, Keep. Misplaced Pages is not paper; this is a notable topic with foreseeable use; the admin reasonably declared the AfD result a no consensus. StarryEyes 03:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure per Sjakkalle. youngamerican (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist on AfD. My personal instinct is to delete, and all the cogent arguments on the first AfD were to delete - however, this is best decided by reopening this for a further discussion. DRV is inherently a review, and not a decision-making process. Proto||type 16:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

User:KJVTRUTH

KJVTRUTH made a number of POV edits on List of Freemasons, many of which were factually incorrect. He then moved said entries over to his user page and relisted them, using outdated sources that supported his position rather than looking at newer sources that didn't. He also listed people as Masons that were not, specifically based on the fact that they were individuals who "shamed the Fraternity" and that "Masonry was hiding their membership". Based on the incorrect material, I started an MfD. User:Tony Sidaway felt that it was not the way to handle the situation, so he removed it, and suggested that I discuss it first on the user's talk page.

I therefore pointed out and cited seven errors on KJVTRUTH's page here, and he has not changed them. Therefore, he is using his userpage to press a POV issue, disseminate incorrect information despite evidence ot the contrary, and and undermine the actual List of Freemasons article, and I would either like the MfD reopened or the page deleted outright, as KJV's userpage violates the WP userpage policy. MSJapan 16:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Hello! This page is for reviewing the deletion decisions of pages that have already been removed. WP:AN/I is more appropriate for complaints like this regarding pages that still exist, though I urge you to reconsider, as his user page is not considered part of the encyclopedia and doesn't actually have to conform to NPOV. If you feel the user has made edits that are pushing a POV, please continue to try and work it out him/her on their talk page before going to WP:AN/I for intervention. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree. It may be appropriate to discuss here whether I made the right decsion in closing the MD listing for this userpage. I think I made the right decision, but it was an unusual one. There are other views and perhaps this would be an appropriate venue in which to air them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think Tony shouldn't have done that; there was a sensible discussion going on and he just pulled the rug out, while as usual he could have achieved the same effect with less disruption by waiting for two days. But this has been pointed out several times before, and apparently he doesn't really care if he needlessly upsets others. That said, the point is moot since the MFD would (very likely) have resulted in a keep anyway (5d, 4k), so I call WP:SNOW on this one and request to keep undeleted. Radiant_>|< 17:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That's a little bit naughty of you to recast this close as some display of callous indifference (I'd say it's almost a personal attack in the manner in which it's framed, but never mind). If as seems evident this was a content dispute, then the article should not have been listed for deletion and a close was in the interests of the community. I don't think we should entertain the rather drastic step of having users list one another's userpages for deletion when an edit would perform the job quite adequetely. .And Radiant! hasn't done his homework, either, before setting out deliberately to smear a fellow administrator. I acted after the issue of the MD was discussed on WP:AN and the consensus was that it was an inappropriate way to resolve a content dispute . Which is precisely what I said in closing it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Wow, you're having a lot of fun accusing people of deliberate smearing campaigns lately. Ever heard of WP:FAITH? Radiant_>|< 20:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      • You made a false accusation without any basis. You made that false accusation not only here but in WP:AN/I. At no point did you approach me to ask on what basis I made my decision, but simply assumed that I had conjured it up out of thin air. Whatever happened to good faith, indeed! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
        • C'mon guys. Both of you know better than to bicker this way, and either of you could turn the other cheek first if you wanted to. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 20:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse the admin's decision to close the discussion. The user page should never have been listed for deletion on the ostensible basis of verifiability and neutrality. Tom Harrison 18:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep undeleted but smack admin with a trout and with no prejudice against relisting. The discussion on WP:AN used as the obstensible support for the closing shows no such consensus. The MfD had appropiate discussion taking place. We don't just shut down discussion because we think it's silly, and a little forethought would have revealed that a) This MfD was probably going to be a "keep" and b) Closing it early was sure to be contentious. I'm at a loss as to why this venue is an acceptable place to discuss it but that venue was not. - brenneman 23:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: Can someone give me a link to the specific discssion at WP:AN? It didn't jump out at me there. I'm undecided about this, but I don't want it to be seen as a precedent that user pages are immune from the deletion process. -R. fiend 23:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Sure. WP:AN#Soapboxing_and_user_pages at the time of writing. Discussion was 18:34, 25 Jan to 13:02, 26 Jan, and I took action the following morning at around 0400.. But although the conclusion of the discussion was a clear feeling that the listing was inappropriate, the discussion at the time isn't really the point. Maybe the discussion missed something. Should we just let people list one another's userpages for deletion just like any other non-article content page? The discussion was only a way of getting a eat-of-pants feel as to whether to intervene at that time. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep undeleted but smack admin with a trout, as said above by Aaron. (Or maybe, given that that admin is constantly doing this, we should use something bigger. Anyone got a spare whale we can borrow? FearÉIREANN\ 00:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


2006-01-26

Category:Ambiguous five-letter acronyms

Improperly closed: "The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)"

There are no (nil, none, zero) delete votes. There is 1 keep until template deleted vote (mine), supported by multiple comments. Moreover, there is current discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation#Template and category usage on disambiguation pages and Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation#Support for categories instead of lists about keeping this category when the related template is deleted. --William Allen Simpson 13:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


2006-01-23

Template:Background

deletion history

If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline, the template cannot be listed for deletion on TfD separately, the template should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline is taking place.

This template should not have been nominated, let alone deleted, as it is part of a policy or guideline Misplaced Pages:Summary style. It is also under consideration as part of the proposed guideline Misplaced Pages talk:Root page.

Currently used in at least 60-70 articles (and nobody is sure how many more with the state of What links here).

As matter of history, this template was previously considered during the Template:Subarticleof discussions at:

This just seems to be a perennial favorite, accidentally successful listing for deletion because not enough people were watching.

--William Allen Simpson 00:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I support a deletion review for this template. Although the wording should be adjusted ("more background" > "background") it seems to serve a useful purpose, not fully covered by any of the alternatives that have been mentioned, nor even by a conscientious use of Summary Style.--Chris 16:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

  1. Mesh Computers: Undeleted; out of process deletion, relisted for deletion and deleted on same day, should have remained relisted for five days per Misplaced Pages:Deletion process 10:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. SNK Boss Syndrome: Kept deleted. 19:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Colony5: Undeleted, currently listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Colony5 (2nd nomination). 18:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Maria Pia Braganza and Rosario Poidimani : former redirected, latter kept deleted (protected). 18:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. David Dom and Karayana , overturned, narrowly missed deletion, now at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Karayana and David Dom. - 01:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Male bikini-wearing speedily kept deleted. - 01:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Philosophy of computer science, kept deleted. - 23:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Template:User_ku_klux, kept deleted. - 23:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks: City of New York, kept deleted and saw several like it sent to AfD. - 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Category:Lists in the Misplaced Pages namespace, kept deleted. - 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Template:User homosexual-no, kept deleted but with recomendations that people use TfD in future. - 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. Aetherometry, kept deleted. 05:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. How to make a computer virus, kept deleted. 22:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Valhalla legends: undel+re-AfD'd, and BNLS AfD'd with it, per recommendations here. 01:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Category:German-American mobsters: can be recreated, but there are no articles in it at present. 01:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 Categories: