Misplaced Pages:Deletion review: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:51, 2 June 2006 view sourceHaukurth (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators26,987 edits →[]: The line between good sense and idiocy runs through every human heart.← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:08, 2 June 2006 view source Doc glasgow (talk \| contribs)26,084 edits shortcutNext edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
			#REDIRECT ]
	{{Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/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 ]. If you nominate an article here, be sure to make a note on the sysop's user talk page regarding your nomination. A template, <code>{{tls\|DRVNote}}</code> is available to make this easier.

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

	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]

	{{Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Content review}}

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

	*

	{{Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/History only undeletion}}

	== Decisions to be reviewed ==
	{{Template:Vfu mechanics}}
	<!--
	New entry right below here. Please start a === section === for today's date if one does not exist, and put the entry in ==== a subsection ====
	-->
	===01 June 2006===

	==== ] ====
	<div style="float: left; border:solid #88FFAA 1px; margin: 1px;">
	{\| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: #BBFFDD;"
	\| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: #88FFAA; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5\|{{{id-s\|14}}}}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc\|black}}};" \| '''<strike>NN</strike>'''
	\| style="font-size: {{{info-s\|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc\|black}}};" \| This user hates ''']''' and how it is used mercilessly on ] as policy.
	\|}</div><br clear="all" />

	Here is the template, why was it deleted? No one posted anything on the TfD page ]. It is a valid, useable userbox that shouldnt be deleted, just like ones that state POV can be used in userboxes or ones that state that they are inclusionist... Also, there was a TfD that reflected consensus, but this UB was speedy deleted and no message was left on the TfD page. Sorry for the ditto. -- <font color=blue>]</font> <font color=green size=1>]</font> <font color=gray size=1> ]</font> 01:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' as bad-faith deletion. --] 01:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep Deleted''' shows a disrect to an accepted, wide consensus policy, template space is for encyclopedic endeavors, not the advocacy of eliminationg them. Userfy, subst, let people keep it, but get it out of encyclopedic space. -''']</font>'''<sup>]</font></sup> ] 01:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	**'''Notability is not policy'''. You people are the reason this UB was created. Because you don't understand: Essays carry so much less weight than policy. There's an essay saying that all TV show summarys should be deleted. It must be put into effect since you consider essays policy. Besides, it was not a CSD. There is a TfD going on about it that reflected a Keep consensus, but the deleter ignored it, deleted it, AND didn't even close the TfD debate! -- <font color=blue>]</font> <font color=green size=1>]</font> <font color=gray size=1> ]</font> 04:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' This one clearly has the potential to divide Wikipedians and to inflame Wikipedians, which makes it a T1 CSD candidate. But I did learn something from my pre-conclusion research. Of course, someone should implement the German solution on it. ] 02:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep Deleted''' as bad-faith userbox. Obviously divisive in intent, probably speediable. --] \| ] 02:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' as the subject it addresses is not ].] 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	**You're kidding, right??? Seriously? You think that this is less notable than the 5000 fan userboxes? I knew that the people who would want it deleted were people eho support notability... -- <font color=blue>]</font> <font color=green size=1>]</font> <font color=gray size=1> ]</font> 04:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' - not notable per ]. ;) (Actually, it is argumentative, divisive, etc.) ] 02:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	**The irony is killing me here ;p --] 02:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Abstain''' - I am almost convinced that this should exist, because unlike the vast majority of userboxen that have no relevance to Misplaced Pages (or at least should not), like "This User is Christian" or "This user licks Goats", this is actually relevant to wikipedia and is the kind of content that fits well on a userpage. It's not exactly the same kind of bumper-sticker crap that most userboxes are. It is still divisive though.. --] 04:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*How about a milder one? Proposal:

	<div style="float: left; border:solid #88FFAA 1px; margin: 1px;">
	{\| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: #BBFFDD;"
	\| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: #88FFAA; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5\|{{{id-s\|14}}}}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc\|black}}};" \| '''<strike>NN</strike>'''
	\| style="font-size: {{{info-s\|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc\|black}}};" \| This user is against the use of the ] as criteria for deletion on ]
	\|}</div>
	-- <font color=blue>]</font> <font color=green size=1>]</font> <font color=gray size=1> ]</font> 04:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	<br clear="all" />
	** Oh no, that's still far too divisive and inflammatory, don't you know? Consider this:
	<div style="float: left; border:solid #88FFAA 1px; margin: 1px;">
	{\| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: #BBFFDD;"
	\| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: #88FFAA; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5\|{{{id-s\|14}}}}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc\|black}}};" \| '''<strike>NN</strike>'''
	\| style="font-size: {{{info-s\|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc\|black}}};" \| This user is interested in the critical examination of the ] as criteria for deletion on ]
	\|}</div>
	—] 07:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	<br clear="all" />
	*'''Undelete''', let the TFD run its course. (It is running at a strong keep consensus now. THen rewrite it slightly to soften it up a bit. ] ] 06:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. Valid T1, not to mention its obvious potential for aiding in votestacking. --] 06:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Keep deleted'''. I don't care about most userboxes but this one clearly should go. It encourages users to lock in on a position rather than to continue to explore, discuss and debate. It polarizes an already difficult discussion unnecessarily. ] <small>]</small> 06:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Undelete'''. Speedy-deletion criteria should not be used to silence ongoing TfDs just because an admin dislikes the results of the discussion; if you thought the template should be deleted, you should have simply argued for that case on the TfD. Also, it looks to me like it's not the basic message of the template ("I'm opposed to treating 'Notability' as policy"), but the tone, which is potentially inflammatory: I '''support''' undeleting this and changing the text to a less belligerent wording, like "This user is against the use of the ] as criteria for deletion on ]". -] 12:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*Keep deleted - patently divisive, no debate neccessary (not even here). We can discuss notability without factionalist bumper-stickers. --] ] 12:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' and move to user space based on the ]. --] 12:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Keep deleted''' per MM3k, GRBerry and Rossami. '''<font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''']: ]/] 12:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	==== ] ====
	:]
	*'''relist''' why can't he have an Article i mean why can Syed not have one but michelle dewberry have one, syed has done lots of things aswell as appearing on The Apprentice he appeared in the '''Celebrity''' world cup sixes and he is the head of IT People. ] 20:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	* The deletion discussion was virtually unanimous. No new evidence has been presented that would suggest that a new discussion would reach a different decision. '''Endorse closure''' (content deleted, protected redirect). ] <small>]</small> 22:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Endorse closure''' per Rossami. Nobody cares about The Apprentice. --] 23:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse closure''' per Rossami. ]. 02:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse closure''' — unanimous original AfD, and good content already included in ]. No good reasons have been presented for re-creating this article - the subject simply is not sufficiently notable to merit his own article. A redirect already ensures a reader entering his name can find a brief biography on the relevant article. The fact that ] has an article is not a reason to undelete this — if her notability is in question that article should be listed at ]. Finally, ], his company was deleted per ], so the fact that he is the CEO of a company deemed non-notable should be no reason for undeleting this article either. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup>/<sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 08:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	====]====
	:]
	*'''relist''' article was speeded deleted with the comment ''the article as it is is a recreation of the previously deleted articles, despite rewording sentences''. This does not do the new article justice. The article had received a major reworking, rather than a one sided text it had been before it now used a table structure to clearly indicate both sides of the issue with the views of different scholars. I feel this is an important article which in more detail than is appropriate for ] listed all conflicts which some have characterised as involving democracies. Further while the previous articles had been a one man job this article had been the work of two (myself included) whilst in my user space. I was very surprised by the nomination coming from an editor ] has been calling for more balance in Democratic peace theory material actually proposed the article which was the most balanced of the lot. I'm unhappy at the speedy as I did not get a chance to state my case. --] (]) 10:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' While the deleting administrator has agreed that part of the contents can be included in the Democratic peace article, I as Salix alba feel that a separate article would be preferable. I also feel that this is an important article, discussing what has been one of the main controversies in political science. The article has been significantly changed regarding structure, contents, and references due to earlier criticisms.] 13:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*<s>'''Undelete and send to AfD'''. I am making no judgments regarding the worthiness of the article, but from what I've been able to see the reworking means that altough it is similar I don't think it is "substantially similar" so AfD is the apropriate place. ] 16:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)</s>
	**'''Comment''': The information that was extant is now in ]. I have no view one way or the other as to the undeletion or AfDing or the article. ] ] 17:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	***If the content has been merged elsewhere, then I don't really see the point in an AfD. '''Redirect to ] and undelete history''' (if anyone is interested in it). ] 23:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''':Properly speedied, as G4; it is also a polemic on one side of the issue, increasing the existing imbalance. I expect any discussion would also find that this is an unacceptable piece of advocacy, as it always has been. ] 16:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	**Note that Septentrionalis has previously made large scale deletions of material related to democracy. For example this, where he deletes every sourced advantage of liberal democracy while keeping many claimed unsourced disadvantages. Or this, where he completely deletes the painstakingly made table regarding world-wide democracy from ]. If he argues that some information is missing for NPOV, he should add it instead of trying to delete the sourced information he does not like.] 16:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	***This personal attack is by the author of the article, who is also responsible for the OT paragraph at ], and the extensive plagiarism at ] (which is all I object to). ] 17:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Relist''', worth taking a second look though I am hardly confident of the neutrality of this material. ] ] 21:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	* It would be very helpful if ] would spell out which original pages (and deletion discussions) he/she based the speedy-deletion on. From my own limited research, the relevant discussions seem to be ] - closed as "delete", ] - closed as "delete" and ] - closed as "speedy-delete as recreated content". The tracability of this dispute is complicated by several pagemoves and significant cut-and-pasting of content between various articles. If that is correct, the question is whether this page was a recreation of ] (or perhaps ]). Reviewing the deleted content, it does seem just enough different to deserve a full AFD discussion. Pending clarification of which page(s) this is a recreation of, '''overturn speedy-deletion and list to AFD'''. I'll also note, however, that some of the core concerns of the prior deletion discussions appear to apply to this article as well. I am skeptical of its chances during the AFD discussion. ] <small>]</small> 23:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	**This is a reformating of ], which was a recreation of ]. ] 23:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	**He. I've put restored last versions of the article in my user space for the time being. Going chronologically, the ] and the ] are identical, whereas ], though it contains large excerpts from the previous version, it's expanded upon. Like you said, the moves, cutting and pasting made it difficult to figure anything out. I'll undelete it and put it up on AfD. I echo your sentiments that the core concerns still haven't been addressed from the previous discussions, Rossami. The core of this problem is a content dispute between ] and ], so I highly doubt anything we do or don't do is going to have any effect on their seemingly contentious editing of each others' work. ] ] 23:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*** I see your point. They are very similar. I think this ''just'' qualifies for a new discussion. Thanks for clarifying. ] <small>]</small> 02:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Weak Relist (for AfD)''' although it was ''probably'' correctly speedied, I think, giving the benifit of the doubt, the changes are just enough to warrant an AfD (where it can be properly deleted). On another note, having an article entitled "Possible.."-anything doesn't seem like a good idea.--] 23:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*Article has been undeleted and sent to ]. ]. 02:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' The content was already deleted as an attempt to use Misplaced Pages as a soapbox, hence speedy deletion was the protocol. ] \| ] 04:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	====]====

	http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ho_Shin_Do

	'''Undelete''' Ho Shin Do I worked hard to put up good information on the page and added more info to give backing on the origins of the martial art. I feel that the style itself is worthy of being listed here and train in it with the best of intentions for the founders. The martial art has legitimate roots in Korean martial arts, and I sincerely hope that the deleted can be re-considered. ] 08:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)frankiefuller, 03:33 (EST), 6-10-06. I say '''Overturn''' and '''Undelete'''

	*'''endorse closure'''. This was a valid AfD with a unanimous "delete" result, I could see no significant and substantial differences between the version as of the deletion nomination and the version as of the afd closure (with the exception of the picture being added, which is not enough), so there was no additional information that was not available to the early voters that may have made them change their minds. ] 16:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' per Thryduulf. ]. 03:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''', so what is necessary to make it stay? I could put in a great amount of detail about the art itself and the structure of the system. Man you guys are so stubborn, there are many more sub-par articles out there than this. What makes you guys particular academic experts here, and how many of you are martial arts scholars? Heck, I could get deep into the philosophical side of this if you like. Let's go, baby, I love debates. Politics, after all, is what I'm studying for my doctoral program.] 09:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	:*"Man, people commit murder all the time, why do you have to arrest ''me''?" The existence of poor articles does not ''justify'' the existence of poor articles; in this case, the lack of notability of the subject makes it a poor candidate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -] 12:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	====]====
	:] - closed as "keep" on 15 Jan 06
	: Speedy-deleted as "vanity page by banned user" on 10 May 06
	: ] - closed as "overturn speedy and list on AFD" on 23 May 06
	: ] - closed for procedural irregularities on 29 May 06
	: Speedy-deleted as "more of the same nonsense" on 1 Jun 06

	It passed its original deletion at ], but when ] was created, the closing administrator said that because someone didn't follow process and grouped arguements into those for keeping and deleting, that the individual discussion was broken beyond repair. The administrator stated that he had no prejudice toward reopening the debate for a third time, then the article was again deleted by Danny, so I'm requesting it again be created and relisted. ] 22:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Comment, if Danny is the person who deleted it, why did ] salt the earth? ] 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Keep deleted'''. Self-promotion of a non-notable non-agency by a banned user. ] (]:]) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' as out-of-process deletion. If someone believes that something was missed in the first AFD, then relist. —] (] • ]) 22:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep Deleted'''. It's still a nonnotable blog that anyone who was clever enough to register a name like that could set up. --] 23:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	* I think this article should be deleted but I think we should do it properly. '''Overturn the speedy-deletion, relist on AFD''' and I'll help watch the deletion discussion. ] <small>]</small> 23:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''': Wasn't this thing deleted via ]? If so, ]--] 23:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	**WP:SNOW isn't policy nor does it possibly apply in this case, WP:OFFICE was never cited. '''Undelete''' and relist properly. --] <small>]</small> 01:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	* Oh my goodness, the second AfDs closing admin's note of procedural irregularities is certainly true. That is a major refactoring from when I last saw the page. (I was the first to make a non-comment response.) I wish, however, that the closing admin had immediately opened a third AFD... It was in AFD via a community decision. I think '''Resend to AFD''' is the appropriate outcome, but it is a borderline call, concluded this way because ] and because the refactoring appears not to have been done by the articles author or one of the new voices brought in. ] 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''', should probably go to AfD again, but ''definitely'' undelete it. This abuse of process has got to stop. We have ''rules'' here—follow them. ] 03:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*This is just taking the piss. '''Undelete''', do not relist anywhere, and censure the admin who deleted it against consensus. There is no point having shitloads of policy documents and votes on this, that and the other if privileged users can just ignore them out of personal animus. Also censure the admin who has protected the page. This is an egregious abuse of his powers that has become too common these days. The consensus was that there should be an article: protecting it so that there cannot be is completely unacceptable. Apologies for not signing in. -- Grace Note.
	*'''SPEEDY Undelete''' per Grace Note. --] 08:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Keep deleted'''. nn blog, clear sentiment to delete among non-sock, non-meatpuppets. We should stop wasting our time, and stop allowing the associated harrassment of legitimate editors over this. ] ] 09:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''SPEEDY Undelete''' per Grace Note. ] 09:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*AfD was closed as ''borked'' by Aaron Brenneman, no bleeding-heart inclusionist. I still haven't seen any verifiable 3rd party information about this website and I don't think it qualifies for an article on Misplaced Pages. But I would vastly prefer to have this deleted the bureaucratic way rather than through a wheel-warring Danny. ] 10:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	===31 May 2006===
	====]====
	:]
	This entry was for the town supervisor of ] and has no affiliation with the author at all. It was created to improve the reading experience of users researching the town. A biography was created that included references to verifiable sources and was categorized as noteworthy people from New York.

	The entry made no bias conclusions about the elected officals position in office.

	The deletion discussion page mentions that it looks like a personal page -- which it is not and also mentions that there are no sources for the biography. Both are factually untrue. Please consider un-deletion. {{unsigned\|Jimerb}}
	* '''Endorse closure'''. The content of the article does not suggest that this person meets any of the recommended ]. No new evidence has yet been presented to convince me that the AFD decision was in error. ] <small>]</small> 22:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse closure''': The logical spot for the information is in the town's article (e.g. "The township's current supervisor is Steve Bellone, who came to the job from..."). For there to be an article under his name, it would be a biography, and he would have to be a sufficiently well known and significant an individual to require an encyclopedic biography. The article provided insufficient evidence that those two hurdles were overcome, and so a separate biography is unacceptable at present. ] 23:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse closure'''. Local politicians aren't notable just because they're local politicians. ] A redirect to Babylon would work, though. --] 04:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	====]====
	The template ] which was closed on May 28, 2006. It was deleted by ] today for no apparent reason, completely ignoring the consensus of a community. I say, '''Overturn and undelete'''. ] 21:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete'''. Again. We need to get something to agree on such as the ] to someday get this settled. --] 21:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleting''' until all these things (WHATEVER their pov) are history. We endorsed the deletion of the Marxism and Scientology boxes - so why should Christianity and Atheism be any different. --] ] 21:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	**This page is about questioning the process that this template went through, not saying that an endorsement on a particular template makes the deletion of this template, which was completely outside of community consensus, allowable. ]]] ] 09:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	***Community consensus is moving towards keeping this an encyclopaedia rather than a faction ridden social club. ] 22:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Speedy Keep''' as bad faith deletion. I was in the middle of submitting this template for DRV when Grue got there first. This template has been through eleventy billion TFDs and DRVs and multiple administrative edit wars. In every case, the consensus was to keep. See for the most recent DRVU and see . See also the lengthy logs for this template . This is not a referendum on userboxes. Nor, though such a discussion probably needs to be held, is it a referendum on the appropriateness of administrators ignoring consensus and inventing rules. The sole question here is whether it was proper for this template to be deleted according to the currently existing criteria for speedy delete. In other words, is it "divisive and inflammatory" to state, "This user is a Christian." ] 21:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Endorse deletion''' of all political and religious userbox templates -- <small> ]</small> 21:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	**You did not answer any of the questions in that, it is merely your view. Take it to ], not here. ]]] ] 10:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' as per Drini. Whether or not a user is a Christian (as am I) can add nothing to wikipedia. Let's keep it on-topic, shall we?] 21:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	**See reason for drini as to why it is not appropriate to say that here. ]]] ] 10:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*''<s>Grrr! Edit conflict - and I was almost the first one to vote!</s> Waaagh! Two edit conficts!'' But what should I say, anyway? Lemme think... '''Undelete''', '''subst:''' all instances, '''delete''' and '''protect'''. How 'bout this? ]] <sup><u>'''] ]'''</u></sup> 21:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:There aren't that many transclusions left after Immari did a bunch because of Cyde's antics. Paste me the contents and I'll do it or undelete it and have Cydebot do it. ] 22:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' because '''Keep means Keep'''. Less than 72 hours after it survived TfD it is inappropriate to speedy delete it without even the courtesy of an explanation on the article's talk page. The closest thing there is to an explanation by the deleter is their comment below in the deletion review for Template:User satanist. I can understand deleting it, although it was clearly wrong. I don't understand ''']''' for a speedy deletion of something that was just kept after a speedy, review, TfD cycle. ] 21:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. Haven't we had this already? Keep deleted ''again''. --] 21:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	**'''Comment''' - yes, we did, and the consensus both on DRVU and on TFD was undelete/keep. ] 21:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''': This user is against userboxes in general. ] --] 21:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	::'''Comment'''. This debate, as that is what it has become, is also about general policy; certainly, you would let users who wish to have userboxes have them, even if you do not wish to have any; and you would allow them the due process of review/AfD, for if you created a template, you would like to be treated fairly as well. Thus, being against userboxes (a position I do not share, but I do respect) does not nessasarily behoove you to vote one way or the other in these two instances. --] 04:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' along with any other religious user boxes. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 21:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Keep deleted''': do those who are saying it's been discussed countless times not realise the huge disruption and distraction this implies? —] \| ] 21:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	**Many of us feel that the primary, if not sole, cause of the disruption as it pertains to this template, at least, is the deletions. Keeping it deleted would reward the disrupters, which is a very bad outcome. ] 21:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''', per above.--] 21:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' If it survied TfD it shouldn't be deleted under speedy, which I do not see a reason for. —] <sup>] ]</sup> 21:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Overturn (Undelete)''', Although I wholeheartedly agree with Drini above, we have a process here that must be followed to maintain order. The process was not followed here. This is not the place to argue for or against the template, only whether the process was carried out correctly (which it apparently wasn't). Try to formulate an oficial policy prohibiting religious/political/nationalist user boxes instead of trying to delete them one-by-one. I'll be the first to support it.--] 21:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' well, it looks like ] and ] are on equal footing now, although I'm sorry it had to happen this way -_- --] 21:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''', again. Not T1 or T2. If a T3 reaches consensus that religious userboxes should be deleted, delete it ''then'' (but first subst all copies in {{tl\|userbox}} form. — ] \| ] 22:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete'''. This is an example of rogue admins deleting stuff under CSD when they don't get their way under TfD. They rely on the fact that DRv is much less well-known than TfD. —] 22:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Graaahhh''' I really want to vote<!-- lol its not a vote!!!!1111oneoneoene--> keep deleted. I wish we didn't have this userbox (or if people didn't care about userboxes), I think it possibly meets T1, and obviously meets T2. That being said if you are just going to delete it anyways why bother putting it through DRVU and TFD? It just pisses people off, more so I think than deleting it in the first place; and I don't want to encourage people to keep deleting things out of process until it magically gets a majority to keep deleted by attrition. On the other hand, it is just a userbox. I think they are silly, but I understand that some people care about them (even deeply) and they too are people. No matter how many times someone calls everyone that likes userboxes a myspacer it doesn't make it true. Screwing with contributors is not a good way to make an encyclopedia. ] 22:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	**'''Comment''': there is no T2 anymore. —] 22:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' per Katepho. It's not my userbox; but not abiding by a consensus decision is harmful to the encyclopedia. ] 23:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Speedy undelete''' as out-of-process deletion. ] (]) 23:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Speedy undelete''' per community consensus. ] 23:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' - all such userboxes should be userfied and removed from template space. ] 23:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Speedy undelete''' it seems the "I'm an admin, and enforce my own consensus" mentality is spreading. I wonder... if <b>recreating</b> templates/articles that were deleted by consensus is vandalism, then what is <b>deleting</b> templates/articles that were kept by consensus... ] ] ] 00:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' If T2 is toast, there's even less reason to delete this than before. Besides, the consensus was keep, whats the deal here? ] 00:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''', not going to make the same points '''again'''. .:.].:. <sup>]</sup> 01:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''', per consistency with ] arguments for deletion. Both are religeons, both have the same rights. Who at wikipedia is to decide which religeons are allowed and which are not. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 03:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''', and get back to things that help the encyclopedia. ] (]) 03:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. MySpace is '''thataway'''. --] \| ] 03:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' per Kim van der Linde. ] 04:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' again. We're moving all the ideological stuff out of template space, better userfy your boxes now. -]<sup>(])</sup> 04:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	**Could you point me to that policy, please? ] 04:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	***The policy in question is probably ]. --] 05:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	****The policy in question is ]. The interpretation is courtesy of Jimbo, 3 days ago, on his talk page, : "no, really, the template namespace is not for that, . . . we do not endorse this behavior." -]<sup>(])</sup> 05:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*****Keep in mind that ] says Misplaced Pages IS an online community. Online communities are made of people, and people have opinions and biases, and they choose to express them in the form of userboxes. I didn't feel the interpretation by Jimbo was very clear, although it ''was'' rather recent. In the end, there just needs to be a User template: namespace. I have a feeling that would solve some of these issues, mostly those unrelated to T1. By no means is any of this clear or easy :( --] 05:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	* What's the point of even having this discussion? Enough administrators have made it clear that they are going to do whatever the heck they feel like regardless of policy. Administrators ], ], ], ], ], ], and ] have all demonstrated that community consensus is irrelevant to them by endorsing a patently incorrect deletion. I find it incomprehensible that we are even having this discussion. You guys are just making up rules as we go along. If you are going to refuse to enforce whatever actual policy is decided on and just delete anything you don't like out of process, why are we even pretending to have this discussion? Even if it gets undeleted, another one of you will just delete it next week. ] 05:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*: We've had the T1 policy for some time now, and dozens of deletion reviews have endorsed a broad interpretation. The arbitration committee explicitly recognised this in the arbitration case ] just over two months ago. --] 05:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	**I don't question that T1 exists. I question that T1 has anything to do with this userbox. If it is divisive or inflammatory, it is only so because of your actions and the actions of other administrators. There is nothing INHERENTLY divisive or inflammatory about it. If the userbox said "this user doesn't like atheists" or "this user is anti-Catholic" or something like that, I'd be the first one to vote keep deleted on the DRV. But in order for you to say that this userbox is "divisive and inflammatory", you would also have to say that any expression of faith in any way is divisive and inflammatory. (I'm aware that T1 is only relevant to such expressions in template space, but the words "divisive" and "inflammatory" exist and have meaning outside the context of userboxes.) Is it "divisive" or "inflammatory" that I go to church Sunday mornings? That I say, "I am a Christian"? That I pray before meals? How, then, is a userbox that says no more nor less than "this user is a Christian" divisive and inflammatory? There is nothing INHERENTLY inflammatory about it. What is inflammatory is the edit warring, wheel warring, vandalism, and refusal to enforce a consensus. Repeated out-of-process deletions and trips to DRV are divisive and inflammatory - the template itself is not. No, I don't question the existence of T1. I question your application of it. ] 05:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''', this template does not deserve to be used to make a point, especially not this many times in a row. --] 05:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete'''. Whether or not this template is 'good' is immaterial to this discussion. The template was unilaterally deleted by an admin ignoring a consensus to keep and therefore this should be a speedy undelete. All your legitimate concerns about the usefulness of POV boxes can be addressed at TfD, not speedy deletion. IMO Delete votes citing the inappropriateness of POV userboxen should be ignored because that's not what this debate is about, let the community decide that. No one admin (or even a group of them) has the power to decide what is in the best interests of the community when the community itself wants to go the opposite way. Let's stop playing the Big Brother. ] 05:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' - Like I've said somewhere else, I have absolutely no idea why the admins don't just do a mass delete. What is the point of allowing these votes anyway? Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, and it's obvious the admins will interpret a Userbox as "divisive or inflammatory" in whatever way they see fit and delete it. Personally, I'm OK with a mandate and mass delete on Userboxes, but the way the situation is being handled is incredibly inept. Like someone else said, this is essentially a mass delete, carried out in a very annoying manner. ] 05:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Speedy undelete''' Why shouldn't we be allowed to state that we are christians in userboxes if we want to? Besides, the speedy deletion of this userbox template was not justified. ] 05:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' since this has been on DRV something like three times already. THis is becoming a pointless attempt at deletion by attrition. ] ] 06:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' The only userboxes of any value are time zone, technical, linquistic and project participation. ] 06:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete'''. What is it with you people? I like having a flourishing community with all that that entails. User pages were one manifestation of it, userboxes are just another one. Cracking down on them will do not one tiny bit of good and has the potential to drive many people away, or discourage them into reducing the frequency of their contributions (instead of drawing them deeper into the site, which is the kind of thing userboxes do)—either because of frustration at their disappearing userboxes or because of frustration at the ridiculous admin abuse of powers that has gone on in the effort to get rid of them. People want their ability to express themselves maximized, not minimized, and they want to believe that there's some process, some sort of order and rule structure that protects them—I imagine it must be quite vexing to find out how a small minority can rule arbitrarily like this. ] 06:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Speedy Undelete''' - This template '''just restored''' here couple days ago and '''just survived TfD''', what makes one to think things have changed?? ''"-] restored by 27-36 majority, will be relisted at TfD in pre-edit war form. 17:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC) "'' & ] 08:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. I would have voted to undelete six months ago, and I still think that the way this was originally handled showed a complete contempt for the community, but it's quite clear Jimbo doesn't want these boxes, and so at the very least they shouldn't be in template space. I do think, however, that it's ridiculous to say that using a box which says "This user is a Christian" is an attempt to convert others. ] ] 08:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' Stop deleting userbox templates (and indeed creating new ones) until a consensus policy is reached, per Jimbo's request of 'one user at a time.' Deleting them, then having a DRV on everyone is just wasting everyone's time. Having said that - it's now clear to me that no matter what the outcome, we are going to keep having this debate over and over, template by template, as certain admins don't appear to be willing to await the outcome of debate or consensus on the whole userbox/template thing. A template survives a DRV - it get's re-deleted. (Strange how this isn't vandalism, but re-creating something is!) We end up with the ridiculous situation of the {insert religious or political userbox} being deleted while another {insert religious or political userbox} is restored (or, at least, not yet deleted) - obvious examples being Republican / Democrat or Christian / Satanist. So. All religious userbox templates are on one page, yes? As are all political userbox templates? How does one go about nominating them '''all''', simultaneously, for a T1 TfD? ] 09:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' Why do single admins take it on their high horse to act as they please. Why is this discussion even happening. It is a joke that a successful deletion review, immediately followed by a successful TfD, can be followed by someone going and deleting on a whim. ]]] ] 09:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. Templates of the type ''user_worldview'' have created a big load of unproductive and pointless unrest. The most effective way to avoid this from now on is to have them deleted alltogether. The problem with that approach is that many users feel discriminated if "their" worldview-box is deleted, while others are not; So, as it can be assumed that user_christian is among the most popular boxes on en.WP, deleting it is a major step. -- ] 10:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''', it's already been through TfD's and DRV's that've supported keeping this userbox. ''']''' (]) <em><strong>]</strong></em> 10:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' - Knowing peoples' POVs is a very positive thing, and helps us know who is liable to POV-pushing. Someone who has "faith" (which is by definition blind belief/ignorance with no requirement for ]) in any religion cannot be expected to edit any religion-orientated article neutrally. --] 11:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Speedy Undelete''' - I post this as if my opinion matters on Misplaced Pages... but if the consensus repeatedly is for keeping it, then speedy deleting it yet again shows nothing but complete contempt for the user community. Arguing that Jimbo supports speedy deleting it is nothing more than arguing that Jimbo has nothing but complete contempt for the user community, as well. Is that really what you want to say? Or is it the truth? ] 11:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' - I don't have this or ever plan to have this as a userbox but I can see no reason why this or any other religions or ideologies should ever be deleted! If they aren't innately offensive I have no problem with them! -- ] 11:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	**'''Comment''' - The admins who are repeatedly deleting this out of process find anything but bland, homogenous user pages innately offensive. ] 11:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Speedy Undelete like that robot mouse Jerry had on that one episode of Tom and Jerry.'''-Strip Improv of his powers while we are at it! -] --13:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''', there has been a consensus to keep on several occasions. There has never been a consensus to delete. "this user/administrator dislikes this" is NOT a valid deltion criteria, let alone a speedy one. ] 16:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete'''! ] 17:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted.''' Valid T1, as can be seen by the divided and heated nature of this very discussion. No obvious reason to question Improv's judgement. Let it go. ] ] 18:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	**'''Reply''' The template is not controversial, the deletion is. A controversial deletion is reason for keeping, not the inverse. --] 21:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' Lets follow the process, and abide by consensus. ] 19:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. T1. It was valid to delete when I first deleted it many months ago, and T1 still applies. --] 21:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	**So you're not too bothered by the strong consensus to keep on its TfD? —] 21:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' For same rationale as per Col. Hauler, above. Knowlege of their POV pushing nature is valuable and should mean they should recuse themseleves from editing on articles of a religious nature, except to give info about it on talk pages. I don't think its a means to convert, nor do I think it helps to build their cabal (as they just flock to their articles anyway). But, it should be a way to identify who should be discouraged from editing in various articles, esp. those playing admin roles.] 21:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''': POV religious boxes are divisive. See Satanist below. ] 22:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Neutral''' I don't care whether it's undeleted or not, as long as the decision matches Satanist below. Delete both or keep both. ] 23:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''', though '''it is divisive''': "Having a quality that divides or separates", T1 as it stands says the templates must both be '''divisive and inflammatory'''. Having a POV is not inflammatory. Having POV is however CSD T2. If T2 was policy, then my vote would be to delete. Also, Citing the deletion policy:
	*: Repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted, and in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 23:14, 1 June 2006.</small>
	*:: This is a userbox, not an article. This userbox is obviously unsuitable and will either be altered to be suitable for Misplaced Pages or else deleted--all we're arguing over are the details. --] 00:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*:::Who died and made you Jimbo? ] 01:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*:::It's only "obvious" to you and the others who are distorting the purpose of T1 to fulfil your goal of deleting all non-project userboxes. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that goal, but please, be frank about it, admit your motives, and don't abuse existing rules against their original intent. --] 00:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' per '''process'''. Also urge admins to '''wait''' for a solution and stop wasting time deleting boxes. <b>]]]</b><sup>(TheJabberwock)</sup> 23:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' is it worth sorting the votes? —] 23:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. Obviously divisive. ] (]) 00:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' in accordance with the deletion of other religious bias userboxes. --ⁿɡ͡b ]<span style="padding: 0 0.1em;">\</span><sup style="font-size: 70%;">]</sup> 00:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''': I don't care whether this one is kept or deleted, but I hope whichever way it goes, it's done consistently for ''all'' religions rather than showing preference for "approved" ones. ] 01:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''': This is no more inflammatory than if you declared yourself to be a dentist; some people hate Christians and some hate dentists. If you see Christianity as inflammatory, it is because you want it to be. That's your POV problem, not the userbox's. ] 04:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete'''. Does not meet any speedy-deletion criterion. T1 is not relevant here, as being Christian is not "divisive and inflammatory" anymore than being Muslim or atheist or Rastafarian is. T2 is not settled policy, and thus clearly cannot be arbitrarily imposed on random templates in an attempt to force it into becoming a ''de facto'' policy; and even if T2 was policy (or becomes one in the future), it would be much easier to simply make this into a redirect to {{tl\|user christianity}} and subst the original {{tl\|user christian}} to the users who were using it, thus preventing endless DRVs like this one. But right now, as T2 is still under discussion, this deletion is premature at the very least, and downright destructive (much more than the template itself, which never caused an ounce of harm before it was used as a tool by certain admins to exacerbate the userbox debate) at worst. -] 12:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	====]====
	{{tl\|User Christian}} recently had a TfD discussion, and the result was '''keep'''. Although I am not a ], I believe that if one stays, they both stay. Thus I am opening discussion on undeleting this template. See relevant discussion on the TfD discussion: ], especially ]'s comments. I suggest an '''overturn and relist''' or '''undelete'''. Thank you, ] 03:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*Christian had the wrong outcome. (I fixed your link, which was going to {{tl\|tl}} rather than to the desired template) That's no reason not to support the correct outcome in this case. '''Keep Deleted''' '''<font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''']: ]/] 04:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	**Christian had a consensus outcome. How is that "wrong". ]]] ] 10:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	***Consensus does not override policy (or fiat). '''<font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''']: ]/] 12:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	****You are wrong, consensus IS policy. If policy doesn't reflect consensus, it is changed. ] 12:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*****"There are people who have good sense. There are idiots. A consensus of idiots does not override good sense. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy - Jimbo Wales" --] ] 12:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	******Excellent! Now all we need is a reliable method for identifying idiots. Can you give me a list for reference, so I know whose opinions to ignore? ] 12:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep Deleted''' - the template uses a fair use image. Fair use images cannot be used in user space. However, '''unprotect''' so that if there really is interest in a template with this name and this isn't just a bad faith ], they can do so using a free image. ] 04:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:'''Comment'''. Your rationale for keeping deleted is flawed. Check the edit history of : it was marked (incorrectly) as "free use" during the entire span of time when this template existed. Only after its speedy-deletion was the image relabeled as "fair use", so of course it would be impossible for us to replace the image with a more appropriate one (or with simple text) before now. If it's recreated, obviously the image will be replaced immediately. -] 04:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:'''Comment''' concur with Silence. Disavian's point is more problematic. ''All'' religious templates, including {{tl\|User Christian}}, {{tl\|User Muslim}} and others, must go, according to T2. Without such policy, we're really ''not'' justified in deleting this, as badly as I'd like to see it go.] 04:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*::You are entirely correct. If T2 was established policy, I'd vote to either keep this deleted, or to undelete this and move it to {{tl\|user satanism}} with the new meaning "This user is interested in ].", whichever option is more likely to peacefully resolve the dispute. (And of course, either way, deleted or rewritten, we'd subst the original version of this template, sans fair-use image, to every userpage that had it.) But since T2 is still an extremely controversial and disputed proposed criterion, that isn't actually listed on ] anymore and has nowhere ''near'' consensus support (in fact, there almost seems to be consensus ''against'' it, based on a recent poll on a T2 moratorium I saw), there's no real justification for treating it as a ''de facto'' speedy-deletion criterion. And consequently, there's no real justification for speedy-deleting this template, except by appealing to subjective ] ends-justify-the-means "ignoring process is always OK when it's done for templates that I think should be deleted" arguments. Which is rather unconvincing logic; there's no reason this can't be listed at WP:TfD, where a much, much larger number of users will see the template and thus a more fulfilling discussion can be conducted to more accurately determine consensus. -] 04:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:::I'd just like to say that I reject the logic by which "this user is interested in..." constitutes a principled fix. It's just a way to keep the userbox around, along with its previously-marked cabal. It's only credible if the network itself is begun anew, and even so, is a statement of the user's ''interests'' really necessary? Especially when ''in practice'' it's just minimally-compliant code for what users advocate?] 10:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*::::Not like anyone's ''currently'' using it. The users of said userbox ''would'' start that particular network anew. I, for one, count myself an atheist, but I might be interested in ] or ], as a matter of study. Whether or not the userbox is used in the manner I am describing, depends entirely on how it is worded, however. Even that, as you pointed out, is not a guarantee. --] 05:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*... However, with that in mind, I actually think that the best course of action would be to simply '''undelete''' this and then leave things be. Stop with the mass speedy-deletions and DRVs and wait until we have a concrete userbox policy, ''then'' implement it. All these attempts to form a ''de facto'' policy based on "what admins do anyway, regardless of policy" are causing more harm than good, and are really damningly ineffective and time-consuming. Reasonably discussing a userbox policy is a much more constructive way to spend one's time, if one's not going to spend it on the encyclopedia anyway, than arbitrarily targeting random userboxes (i.e. speedying {{tl\|user satanist}} and not the vast majority of other userboxes on ] or ]). -] 04:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	**'''Comment''' I applaud you on your well-considered, legible, and detailed comment, regardless of your opinion on the subject. --] 05:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''keep''' per Silence ] 05:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted and delete the "user christian" box as well if it currently exists''' - these are exactly the kinds of userboxes that all need to be userfied and moved out of template space. I'm prepared to help anyone who wants to userfy it. ] 06:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:By the way this is why we need T2. Either ''both'' templates must go or ''both'' must stay. We are currently getting inconsistent outcomes because we can't get consensus on the simple idea that, regardless of whether or not such messages are "divisive and inflammatory", they just plain don't belong in template space. I don't understand why that concept, combined with the readiness of some admins to help userfy these boxes for people, can't be the end of it. If only one side would stop suggesting that every such box is automatically divisive and inflammatory, and perhaps even makes its user a lesser Wikipedian, and the other side would accept that such boxes are nonetheless an inappropriate use of template space and should all gradually be userfied ... ] 07:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*::'''Comment'''. I agree. That's the focus here -- I will agree with any solution <sub>not that it's up to me...</sub> as long as they are ''both'' kept or ''both'' deleted, although I suppose if I had to choose between those two, I'd prefer kept, for now. Besides, {{tl\|User Christian}} has a snowball's chance in hell <sub>(pun not intended)</sub> of being deleted anytime soon <sub>(i.e., under the current ambiguous policy as cited above)</sub>, and we all know it. Just look at ] for proof of that. --] 07:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''': not divisive or inflammatory. —] 07:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Delete''' after conclusion of more general debate, and as WP is neutral, also delete other religious viewpoints. Keep claims to expertise in religion(s) though. In the mean time, notify users of this userbox that the expression of beliefs in userboxes is discouraged. ] 08:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' Either ''both'' templates must go or ''both'' must stay. --]] 08:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Overturn and relist''' "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire. This box is controversial, but nothing that would warrant a speedy-deletion, especially after a TfD voted it to keep. ] 09:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*<b>Comment</b> Why would we even need TfDs if <i>some</i> admins do not care for their results. Please remember, we only have one benolvent dictator and that is Jimbo - the rest of us, be it admin or editor, are part of the community and bound by consensus. Ignoring conesensus and abusing powers to bring into reality their own view how Misplaced Pages should be should not be done by editors, and especially not by administrators, those charged with upholding and enforcing consensus and policy. There is NO consensus for T2 deletions, there is no consensus for deleting political or POV boxes, just because they are political or POV. And I recall a note from Jimbo himself that, while he dislikes userboxes and regards them as pointless, he is <b>for</b> winning people over to this point "one user at a time" and <b>against</b> "mass deletion of userboxes". So, dear admins, unless you have to show me a new comandment by Jimbo where he states "and delete all userboxes, with all speed" you are acting outside the bounds and obligations given to you by your office, by (mass) speedy-deleting boxes. And as an editor I must ask you, to either respect those bounds, or refrain from working on userboxes knowing your bias, or step down. ] 09:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''': Stop deleting userbox templates (and indeed creating new ones) until a consensus policy is reached, per Jimbo's request of 'one user at a time.' Deleting them, then having a DRV on everyone is just wasting everyone's time. ] 10:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' valid religion, much better than Christianity >;) ] 10:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:Not a valid argument regarding deletion. -- <small> ]</small> 20:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*::Well, since User Christian was deleted the argument no longer holds. I'll use the standard "it's not T1" then. ] 21:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. Divisive. --] 10:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. Per Tony. ] ] 10:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Keep deleted''' per ]: just considering all the screeching and hollering should give people an idea of just how bloody disruptive these damn things can be. HTH HAND —] \| ] 10:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. While I stand by my comments above, perhaps the way to establish T2 policy is to relentlessly act upon it.] 10:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete'''. Until or unless a concensus based policy is established. --] 11:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' Valid T1 deletion. The TfD for "user Christian" being closed incorrectly is no excuse to continue to violate policy in other cases. -]<sup>(])</sup> 13:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. Valid deletion. .:.].:. <sup>]</sup> 14:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' and (relist only as a deletion of all religious userboxes). (By the way, it's not T1, and may not even be T2.) Although some individual satanists and christians can be divisive and inflammatory, this box isn't. — ] \| ] 14:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' consider that this debate may be more divisive than this userbox. the 'screeching and hollering' is about the deletion process, not the userbox. ] 15:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' - and stop bringing userboxes to DRV. --] ] 16:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:<b>Comment:</b> Come again, Doc? I thought deletion review was meant to contest, among other things, unwarranted or out-of-process deletions. We will stop bringing userboxes to deletion review if you (and the other deletionist) stop speedy-deleting userboxes until a new policy if adopted with consensus. Deal? ] 16:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::The anti userboxians are not really deletionists in the clasical sense since they were/are article based.] 01:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Could you clarify/explain that? --] 05:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Deletionists/inclusionists battle over whether wikipedia should be the sum of all human knowleadge, or only useful knowleadge. Userboxes don't fall in either category.--] 23:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Overturn and undelete''' - and stop deleting userboxes that do not clearly violate T1 as "divisive and inflammatory". As one of the contributors over at ] I'm well aware that there is a major debate about what T1 means. But noone has yet produced an clear or convincing argument that T1 implies the broad interpretation or evidence that the broad interpretation has been endorsed as a reason for speedy deletion by either Jimbo or another group with authority to set policy contrary to consensus (if there is any such group). (And ''hint'', if you think you have such an argument or evidence, we could use it over there.) So use of the broad interpretation for speedy deletion ''at this time'' is unjustified. This box does not advocate, it is not polemical when used in good faith (we are supposed to assume good faith), and it does not attack others. And who has supposedly been inflamed by it? On the evidence to date, this is neither divisive nor inflamatory, so TfD is the proper route for those wanting to delete. Given the keep outcome on {{tl\|User Christian}}, it is probable that this would also be kept at this time, so ] provides no support for keeping deleted. ] 17:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep Deleted'''. I'm zapping the christian one as well as of this writing. Try xanga/livejournal. --] 18:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep Deleted''' but also delete other religous userboxen. Either we are NPOV in all our undertakings - including open to all religions (as we are) - or we accept that each to their own but not to the extent of displaying any affiliation. --]:] 20:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' Political and religious templates must go away. Users can write such stetements should they need to, on their userpages by hand. The templates are uncalled for. -- <small> ]</small> 20:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:Yes, really. Users should spend more time editing their userpages. It's not like there's an encyclopedia to write. ] 21:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*::Double yes. Users should spend more time at DRV. -- <small> ]</small> 22:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:::If these userboxes weren't deleted, we both wouldn't participiate in this DRV. ] 22:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Nuke from orbit''' ]] <sup><u>'''] ]'''</u></sup> 21:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:You made my day with that :) --] 21:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''': This user is against userboxes in general. ] --] 21:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' along with any other religious user boxes. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 21:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:Would it be more acceptable as "This user is interested in (insert religion/etc here)"? --] 04:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' per above.--] 21:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' has not been shown to be divisive or inflammatory. —] <sup>] ]</sup> 21:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' per Katepho above; although Grue is making a good effort to make this inflammatory. It's not my userbox; but not abiding by a consensus decision is harmful to the encyclopedia. ] 23:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete for now'''. We need a better userbox policy that both sides will agree to. ] 23:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:Unfortunately, that isn't going to happen. We tried (see ]). --] ] 23:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''', and write an encyclopedia. ] (]) 03:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. MySpace is '''thataway'''. --] \| ] 03:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' until this debate is resolved. The same with any other deleted religions. --] 05:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete'''. Admins speedy templates kept at TfD need to be immediately desysoped for disruption and violating consensus. ] 05:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' (if Template: User Christian is also undeleted) ] 05:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' As I posted above - the only userboxes of any value are time zone, technical, linquistic and project participation. ] 06:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete'''. All religious expression is acceptable, including Satanism, and userboxes are a perfectly good method of expression. ] 07:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''', reason: see ''user_christian''.-- ] 10:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' - Knowing peoples' POVs is a very positive thing, and helps us know who is liable to POV-pushing. Someone who has "faith" (which is by definition blind belief/ignorance with no requirement for ]) in any religion cannot be expected to edit any religion-orientated article neutrally. --] 11:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	**'''Comment.''' An excellent proposition. After all, no one who admits to following a ''religion'', of all things, could ''possibly'' keep their personal bias from seeping into the articles. For the sake of consistency, all editing of articles on humanist philosophy and evolutionism by users who admit to being athiests will similarly have to be banned, of course, and video game fans will have to limit their edits to the arts and crafts, Puerto Rican culture, and 16th century literature categories, to keep their decidedly pro-gamer POV out of the video gaming articles. -] 04:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	***'''Comment''' - Hardy har. No, someone with religion is inherently more prone to POV-pushing, as they see what is a myth (to anyone outside of the religion) as an undeniable fact, without ], only blind "faith". --] 08:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	****'''Reply''' Explain the difference between the local "born-again" who spends his days annoying people by preaching at them and that Halo fanboy who spends his days arguing with the fans of every non-Halo FPS, every non-FPS genre of game, and every non-XBOX console, and why we should keep the former from editing the article on ] but not the latter from editing the article on ]. Both hold a strong and unverifiable belief, the former that Jesus saves man from his sins, and the latter that Halo is the ultimate game made, ever, period. You are simply betraying your own anti-religious POV if you claim there is any objective difference between them. If holding a moral POV is groundss for preclusion from articles on the subject, so is fanboyism. In a perfect world, everyone would edit those articles they didn't care about, so that they wouldn't be biased on the issue, but that will never happen. Plus, you are making the highly biased assumption that a religious person cannot keep their POV out of an article they edit, but a non-religious person can. --] 09:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' until there is (a) consensus at TfD for this template to be deleted and/or (b) consenus that this template meets a deltion criteria for which there is consensus. ''']''' neither consensus exists then deleting this template is bad faith and out of process. ] 16:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted,''' per ]. ] ] 18:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' let's follow the rules and abide by consensus. ] 19:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''', strange, Dpbsmith, I was going to use ] as well... box is only inflammitory if you have a POV on the subject. Editors shouldn't vote based on their POV. Also, inflammitory, WP:SNOW, kinda ironic given the nature of this box :)
	*'''Comment''': I don't care whether this one is kept or deleted, but I hope whichever way it goes, it's done consistently for ''all'' religions rather than showing preference for "approved" ones. ] 01:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''': As I said above, this is no more inflammatory than if you declared yourself to be a dentist; some people hate Satanists and some hate dentists. If you see Satanism as inflammatory, it is because you want it to be. That's your POV problem, not the userbox's. ] 04:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	====]====
	:]
	15:58, 28 May 2006 Sango123 deleted "Talk:Delaware County Intermediate Unit" the reason cited in the discussion was WP:CORP. I feel this is a misunderstanding as the Delaware County Intermediate Unit is not actually a company of any sort, they are state funded and provide services to the local school districts which they would not able to provide to their students. Most states/countries have a similar structure for their schools, some refer to them as LEAs others as Boces (to name a few). I would hope that you would <b>overturn and relist</b> <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2\|}}}.</small>
	* Despite the shortcut name, ] applies to more than just corporations. It applies to all company-like enterprises including non-profits, agencies, partnerships, etc. The second and third criteria don't generally apply to non-profits but the standards of the first criterion clearly still can apply. <br>Looking at this specific case and at the deleted content, I am unsure. The deleted content was far too "advertising-like" and much too light on encyclopedic content. Your nomination doesn't add any new facts to the discussion. I can find nothing to distinguish this entity from several thousand similar local agencies. And the deletion discussion was unanimous. On the other hand, this particular discussion had very low participation and little presentation of evidence on either side. I am going to '''endorse the closure''' of the deletion discussion for now but I'll consider amending that opinion if there is ] evidence that this agency meets at least one of our generally accepted inclusion standards. ] <small>]</small> 13:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse closure''' without prejudice against a new article that at least attempts to meet the inclusion guidelines. If a good faith attempt has been made but people believe the criteria still aren't met then this should be prodded or afd'ed rather than speedy-deleted as a recreation. ] 16:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	====]====
	Speedydeleted by Tony Sidaway on 30 May 2006 stating "T1, blatant campaigning". A borderline case - while this userbox is definity pushing for organ-donation (a good cause in itself) I am not entirely sure if campainging fulfills the T1 criteria. So I'd say <b>Overturn and Relist</b>. Alternativly the text could be changed to "user is a organ donor". ] 01:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*Note: I userified these 3 boxes to CharonX userspace at CharonX's request.... '''Keep deleted''' this userbox is advocacy. Organ donation is an admirable thing to advocate (and I have so pledged, and so, dear reader, should you) but it nevertheless is advocacy. For consistency we cannot allow advocacy. Of any sort. '''<font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''']: ]/] 01:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' in accordance with objective of removing all such userboxes from template space. ] 02:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' as per Metamagician.] 02:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. Divisive. --] 03:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' Does not fall under T1. —] <sup>]</sup> 03:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Comment'''. Can we see the content? (If I don't come back here, '''undelete''' if it's just "this user is an organ donor" or "this user is interested in organ donation," but '''keep deleted''' if it's more opinionated than that) --] 03:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	**OK, '''keep deleted''' with '''no prejudice''' towards a neutral and solely factual recreation. --] 03:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	**The content is right above. I restored the last version to userspace as I noted. Did you want to see all the versions??? '''<font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''']: ]/] 03:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	***Where'd it go? If it got removed it may have been nice to say why, whoever did it. '''<font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''']: ]/] 17:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' <s>'''and send to TfD''' This is a borderline case, and I feel it merits reconsideration.</s> --] 04:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	**After seeing the template, I feel it did not deserve deletion at all. As it is obviously not under T1. --] 05:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep Deleted''' per Rory, but '''unprotect''' so that a non-divisive version may be created ] 04:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete'''. Does not fall under any existing speedy-deletion criterion, as it's very clearly not "divisive and inflammatory". Send this to TfD if you think it should be deleted. -] 04:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	* Aw, come on. I rarely get into userbox debates, but can't "This user is an organ donor" satisfy the "no advocacy" requirement? If rewritten, '''undelete'''. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 05:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''undelete''' and TFD if you must. not really divisive or inflamitory. ] 05:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''': not divisive or inflammatory. —] 07:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''': A divisive version would state: "This user has arranged for ] and is better than you because of it" or "This user has ''not'' arranged for ] as it would violate their God-given right to remain whole as a corpse". Even if anyone actually considered the addition of "have you?" to the template to be in any way divisive or inflammatory, wouldn't it make more sense to edit those words out rather than outright delete the template? ˉˉ<sup>]</sup>╞]╡ 08:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' And remove "have you?" from it. Information only. --]] 08:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' and '''Reword''' - one should reword the template instead of speedy it. ] 09:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''': Stop deleting userbox templates (and indeed creating new ones) until a consensus policy is reached, per Jimbo's request of 'one user at a time.' Deleting them, then having a DRV on everyone is just wasting everyone's time. ] 10:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Keep deleted''' per ]: just considering all the screeching and hollering should give people an idea of just how bloody disruptive these damn things can be. HTH HAND —] \| ] 10:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete'''. Until or unless a concensus based policy is established. --] 11:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''', valid deletion. .:.].:. <sup>]</sup> 14:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' and relist on <s>A</S>TfD. Not T1 or T2, but non-speedy-deletion criteria are more extensive. — ] \| ] 14:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. Xanga/Livejournal beckon. --] 18:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' now this IS ridiculous. ] 20:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''': Burn them all, may the internet run binary with the ones and zeros of the fallen boxes! --] 21:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 21:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Overturn and list''' per nom. Let's see what the community thinks. ] 23:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep Deleted''' Perfectly valid T1 deletion, say a few words about it on your userpage if you want. Keep your personal preferences out of template space. ] 02:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. Inappropriate use of template space. ] ] 08:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Recreate''' in factual format. "This user is an organ donor." --] 08:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Recreate''' per Tjstrf ''']''' (]) <em><strong>]</strong></em> 11:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Recreate''' as a factual box. What's next, Template:User 911?! ] 12:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Recreate''' per Tjstrf, however '''I do not endorse its speedy deletion''' - this was borderline and so obviously easy to change to a neutral version that talk page discussion or a TfD debate would have been less devisive than a speedy deletion. ] 16:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''', I can't see what it initially said, but if it was "I am an organ donor", it's stating a fact, not a POV. If a fact is inflammitory, then so would be "This user owns a car" to enviromentalist. <small> Great, I think I just ] </small>--] 23:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	====]====
	Speedydeleted by Tony Sidaway on 24 May 2006, citing "CSD T1 divisive template".
	While maybe controversial and POV, I do believe this template is far from divisive enough to warrant a speedydeletion per T1 criteria.
	Thus I suggest a <b>overturn and relist</b> so the community can decide whether to delete or keep it. ] 01:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	:'''Comment:''' The text of this userbox at the time of deletion was "This user supports the legalization of Cannabis.". ] 16:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*:'''question''' what was the text of this one? ] 05:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Keep deleted'''. To describe this as "POV" is to miss the point. "I like oranges" is expressing a point of view. It takes a position on a hotly debated ethical issue; when presented as a template, it encourages Misplaced Pages editors to take a position on this issue, which isn't what writing an encyclopedia is about at all. In a word, it's divisive. --] 01:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*: "I like oranges." is not expressing a point of view, it's expressing a fact (assuming you aren't lying about your affection for oranges). "Oranges are delicious." is expressing a point of view. Also, one could describe any template as "divisive", including Babelboxes: the T1 criterion explicitly requires "divisive and inflammatory" for speedying. -] 04:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:: Repeating a fiction over and over again doesn't make it true. We delete divisive userboxes. We delete inflammatory userboxes. Both for obvious reasons. Advocacy of this kind is certainly divisive. --] 11:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' - not divisive or inflammatory, but deletion in accordance with the current practice of removing from template space all userboxes that express views on political and moral issues. It gives the wrong impression of Misplaced Pages to use template space for that purpose, and all such userboxes should ultimately be removed from template space and userfied. ] 01:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:'''Comment''' While this is the practise of some administrators, it should be noted that it has no consensus in the community. Efforts to find a new policy regarding userboxes are still on the way. Also, if it was not divisive or inflammatory, T1 should not have been used. ] 01:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' until a concensus policy is finally reached. --] 01:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' this userbox is advocacy. Cannabis legalisation is an admirable thing to advocate but it nevertheless is advocacy. For consistency we cannot allow advocacy. Of any sort. '''<font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''']: ]/] 01:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' per Lar; well said. -]<sup>(])</sup> 03:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete'''. Does not fall under any existing speedy-deletion criterion, as it's very clearly not "divisive and inflammatory". Send this to TfD if you think it should be deleted. If you think it should be speedy-deleted, undelete it and propose a new speedy-deletion criterion for "advocacy templates". -] 04:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''': I'm having trouble understanding why Tony keeps speedying userboxes when he knows there is going to be large dissent. Your personal opinion is one against userboxes, that is obvious, but you should not be using your admin powers to get rid of them by merely citing divisive and inflammatory. Every userbox is divisive, that's what makes it a userbox. I have one on my page about speaking English well, that's pretty divisive, as it seperates me from those that speak only Spanish, etc. Show me a userbox that is not divisive in some way (maybe if there is one that says "I am a human"). As for inflammatory, in cases like Cannabis and Satanism and Christian, that is very opinionated, and surely makes it a candidate for TfD, not speedy deletion. I reccommend that you take a hiatus from deleting userboxes (Tony), for I fear you are driving yourself towards an RfC. Just as a quick finishing note: Doesn't it make since, since these debates end up here anyway, to put them at TfD, so that more people are aware of the debate. ]]]<sup>]</sup> 05:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Keep deleted''' I'm having a hard time seeing a userbox advocating the legalization of drugs as being anything other than divisive and inflammatory. ] 05:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Comment'''. Can somebody show the text of this one? If it's the one that says "opposes the oppression suffered by cannabis users" or whatever, then '''keep deleted''', otherwise '''no opinion''' until I see the text. --] 06:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	** '''Comment''' Here it is from google cache - - the text was "This user supports the legalization of Cannabis." ] 06:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	***Mehhh, borderline. I'd say '''undelete''' and change to a completely NPOV "this user is interested in cannabis-related topics." --] 06:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	****I agree with Rory096's suggestion. I think this would be a very effective compromise, as it would eliminate any POV and allay deletion wars and DRVs while we work on hammering out a consistent userbox policy. However, as noted, the original contents of the template were also remarkably mild and inoffensive, so I see no pressing reason not to allow either version to exist. It's merely a matter of which is more convenient. -] 09:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Comment'''. Can we get the text of this?. And speedying it was pretty dumb. ] 07:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:Text was "This user supports the legalization of Cannabis." with the Image - ]. ]]]<sup>]</sup> 07:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''': not divisive or inflammatory. —] 07:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''': Stop deleting userbox templates (and indeed creating new ones) until a consensus policy is reached, per Jimbo's request of 'one user at a time.' Deleting them, then having a DRV on everyone is just wasting everyone's time. (And on this particular one - BigDT, please note that there are many countries where cannabis is perfectly legal). ] 10:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*: Actually I think you'll find that we already ''do'' have a number of policies against these abuses of Misplaced Pages. The most important one here is T1, which is well understood and has been validated many, many times on review. While a few proponents of the abuse of Misplaced Pages for the expression of their personal political, religious or polemical points of view object, these policies aren't going to change. --] 12:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' not divisive or inflammatory. ] 10:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Keep deleted''' per ]: just considering all the screeching and hollering should give people an idea of just how bloody disruptive these damn things can be. HTH HAND —] \| ] 10:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Undelete'''. Not T1 or T2. (To Phil, etc. The speedy deletion is what is disruptive, not the userbox.) — ] \| ] 14:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Undelete''' - I've never voted in a userbox debate before, but I couldn't let this one pass. Clearly not divisive or inflammatory, therefore not candidate for speedy deletion. --](<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 14:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	** Per below, the text should be changed to "This user uses cannabis" upon undeletion. --](<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 18:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	***That would probably be even more divisive, to be honest. Some people detest cannabis users. My suggestion above is completely NPOV and non-inflammatory. --] 04:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Keep deleted''' but do not ]. As an advocacy userbox I feel that ] supports keeping it deleted. But this title could be used for a non-advocacy user box (as opposed to a user_for or user_against formulation), so the earth should not be salted. ] 17:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Comment'''. Divisive? Are you serious? Anyone here in the Netherlands (or Mexico which also has legalized it?). I can't see this one being whacked on that basis. But I'm generally against userboxes. I just wanted to say that, of all userboxes to start axing, this one only seems ot demonstrate a strong bias on the part of whoever nominated it. --] 21:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' Divisive. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 21:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. I love the stuff myself, but I don't need a template to tell everyone about it, and ''neither does Misplaced Pages''.] 21:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' per Silence, and Thryduulf below. ] 02:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep Deleted''' Perfectly valid T1 deletion, say a few words about it on your userpage if you want. Keep your personal preferences out of template space. ] 02:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' per Grue. --] 05:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. Inappropriate use of template space. ] ] 08:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''', this template was not devisive or disruptive, its deletion was. ] 16:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''', as I'm runnig out of clever things to say, um, only T1 if your editing from a POV--] 23:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	==== ] ====
	This article was deleted the other day after "Pilotguy" had stuck a {{tl\|db-band}} tag on it. However The Drips are a notable band. They have done a UK tour, their album is in all good shops (like HMV etc), they regularly get played on Kerrang Radio, and BBC Radio 6, they are occasionaly played on BBC Radio 1 - on which they have even had a live interview, they have a large fan base, they are on the MTV website, they have been reviewed in The Guardian Music section, and members of the Drips have come from the bands The Distillers and The Bronx - who have sold litteraly millions of records between them. Surely this is enough to get an article on wikipedia !?--] 15:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	* There's never been an article on Misplaced Pages called ] or ] (apart from a redirect). Please specify which article you're referring to. - ] ] 15:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	** sorry, didn't realise it was case sensitive: the article is "The drips"--] 15:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	* Title corrected. The article was speedy-deleted as a "non-notable band" - case A7 of the ]. Based on the scant information in the article, I would also have reached that conclusion. Given the additional information above, there are grounds to '''overturn the speedy-deletion''' but with an immediate '''listing on AFD''' to determine if the evidence above is sufficient to meet the generally accepted standards at ]. ] <small>]</small> 19:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' and AfD as per above. Give the editors a chance to check out the facts. --] 19:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' They do have an entry in AllMusic, which is often enough to satisfy notability requirements. Unfortunately, so many people try to use Misplaced Pages to promote non-notable bands that occasionally a (reasonably) notable one gets erroneously tagged. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">]</font>]</b> 21:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' per StuffOfInterest. ] 16:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	===30 May 2006===
	====]====
	] doesn't seem to show any discussion about deleting this and doesn't cite any speedy delete criterion.
	I don't know if the page should be undeleted or remain deleted but I just want to make sure the deletion was in line with Misplaced Pages policies. -- ] 23:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	''A very similar nomination has been merged into this discussion. That nomination follows:''<br>
	There were several templates deleted by ] last month that had to do with voting templates.
	*{{tl\|Voting icons}} <s>shown to the right</s> <small>(see note below on why we don't copy in deleted content)</small>
	*] '''Keep: ''' = {{tl\|Keepvote}}, {{tl\|kv}}
	*] '''Support: ''' = {{tl\|S}}
	*] '''Neutral: ''' = {{tl\|Neutralvote}}, {{tl\|nv}}
	*] '''Unsupport: ''' = {{tl\|Unsupport}}, {{tl\|uv}}
	*] '''Oppose: ''' = {{tl\|O}}
	*] '''Delete: ''' = {{tl\|Deletevote}}, {{tl\|dv}}
	''I Added {{tl\|kv}}, {{tl\|S}}, {{tl\|nv}}, {{tl\|uv}}, {{tl\|O}} & {{tl\|dv}} as good redirect shorthands but not previously deleted'' And only {{tl\|S}} & {{tl\|O}} have been deleted before! And {{tl\|Voting icons}} has '''never''' been voted upon before so its not eligible for ] and should be restored to be allowed a proper deletion discussion -- ] 10:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	* Well it was a heap of poo and it is our policy to delete poo, so I guess the deletion was in line with Misplaced Pages policy. I '''endorse''' this. --] 23:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	**Ok that is a very weird vote, any chance of rethinking the poo vote? Just read what I wrote below :) -- ] 10:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	* Can we get rid of all the icons shown here ] too? '''endorse deletion''' as we do not need to encourage people to use these icons, they are obnoxious and can contribute to confusion. Besides we do not vote. '''<font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''']: ]/] 01:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	**They are used extensivly throught wikipedia just check out ] -- ] 10:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	* The template deletion is valid as a ], as there was ] for it, so I '''endorse''' it. But I would strongly object to deleting the icons themselves. They're used all over the place, for example, ] and ]. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 02:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	**Only {{tl\|S}} & {{tl\|O}} have been deleted before! And {{tl\|Voting icons}} has '''never''' been voted upon before so its not eligible for ] and should be restored to be allowed a proper deletion discussion -- ] 21:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	* '''Endorse speedy-deletion'''. The very concept of "voting icons" are anathema. ] A template that makes it ''easier'' to misunderstand the purpose and process of the Misplaced Pages decision-making process is such a patently bad idea that immediate deletion was appropriate. ] <small>]</small> 02:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''' and get rid of the icons too. There has been some consensus that these are creeping into our project in ways that are not beneficial (see ] and ]) --] 02:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	** I insist, deleting the icons themselves is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. ] is the ] symbol, and many of these icons are being used in ], so deleting them would disrupt their operation. Finally, all of these images are on commons, so DRV can't really decide what to do with them, and deleting them because the English Misplaced Pages wants them gone is certainly going to cause ill will with other projects. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 05:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	**Please read my comments below maybe the'll help -- ] 10:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	*'''Endorse deletion''' but not sure why it had to be speedied. Suggest caution before any further, related deletions are made. ] 12:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''' as a valid application ] G4 in spirit if not by letter. We have had TFD discussions on things like {{tl\|votedelete}} and they were deleted by overwhelming consensus. ] ] 14:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	**Only {{tl\|S}} & {{tl\|O}} have been deleted before! And {{tl\|Voting icons}} has '''never''' been voted upon before so its not eligible for ] and should be restored to be allowed a proper deletion discussion -- ] 21:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	*'''Endorse deletion''' as teh deletor I have already expressed my reasons. -- <small> ]</small> 21:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 21:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' per above; this is not a vote, nor is anything else. ] (]) 03:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	**So if the majority ''said'' that it should be removed and it was restored it wouldn't be a problem then? :) -- ] 10:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	*'''Keep deleted'''.] 05:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	] '''Undelete All: ''' Now I know that I am going to be bombarded by people saying that ] or that Misplaced Pages doesn't vote and I just have to say that the reality of Misplaced Pages is different! Now the voting is evil article is '''NOT''' a policy of Misplaced Pages only an essay, and I would say that we don't really vote in Misplaced Pages but I just cannot think of a more apt term for what we do here. I guess you could say that we voice a simple one word opinion followed by a more focused discussion about that opinion. So if you want to rename them to something else that should be fine!<br>Heck even on this page I'm going to see votes Saying '''Undelete''', '''Overturn''', '''Relist''', '''Delete''', '''Endorse''' or '''Keep deleted''' and if you go to ], ], ], ], etc. you'll see that it is very common to find '''Delete''', '''Keep''', '''Neutral''', '''Support''', '''Unsupport''' and '''Oppose''' all followed by the users comments. This is a standard in Misplaced Pages, even if you don't wish it to be so. <br>Now the templates as they were originally shown had images added to it and frankly I have never used those images before today, yet I see no harm in them. Especially since any web browser that goes to a page with these images only has to download them once to fill in the entire page. This would be exactly the same as how the browser displays the bullet points (if you don't know what these are its the square that the <nowiki></nowiki> creates when you make a list). <br>But if the images are the problem I just would like to have the ability to say '''Delete''', '''Keep''', '''Neutral''', '''Support''', '''Unsupport''' and '''Oppose''' by writing only {{tl\|kv}}, {{tl\|S}}, {{tl\|nv}}, {{tl\|uv}}, {{tl\|O}} & {{tl\|dv}} <br>I'm sorry but I cannot find any reason why something that has become ] shouldn't have an easy to use template? Heck its '''already a standard''' in ]!<br>But no matter your opinions about voting '''PLEASE keep your comments''' about this ''']'''... Pretty Please with sugar on top! :) -- ] 07:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	*'''Keep all deleted'''. They take too long to download for those on dialup, they don't work for those on mobile phones, and for everyone else they just make discussions fugly. If Wikimedia Commons jumped off a cliff, would you jump off a cliff? (Besides, someone raised the point that unlike Misplaced Pages, Commons is an international site where people are not expected to be able to speak English to participate, so visual aids actually have some point). And it's ''certainly'' not standard on RfA. --]<sup>]</sup> 08:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	**Most of wikipedia is very and I mean '''VERY''' dialup unfriendly so that dosent sound like a very good argument especially if you try to view the main page... but even so if that is a point of contention I have no quarms in the least to just having a shortcut template that says what we already are doing i.e. '''Undelete''', '''Overturn''', '''Relist''', '''Delete''', '''Endorse''', '''Keep deleted''', '''Delete''', '''Keep''', '''Neutral''', '''Support''', '''Unsupport''' and '''Oppose''' -- ] 10:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	*Apart from Samuel Blanning's reasons to keep these deleted, I will '''endorse the speedy deletions''' as perfectly valid applications of G4 (recreation of previously deleted stuff) ('''''NOT T1!!!!!'''''). See TFD discussion on these templates . ] ] 08:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	**Only {{tl\|S}} & {{tl\|O}} have been deleted before! And {{tl\|Voting icons}} has '''never''' been voted upon before so its not eligible for ] and should be restored to be allowed a proper deletion discussion -- ] 21:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	*'''Endorse deletion''' per Sjakkalle. -- ] 08:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion'''. Would it be in order for someone to edit the above to remove those extremely ugly and unnecessary graphics from the head of this discussion? --] 09:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	**I would say that it is actually better to know what people are voting on. -- ] 10:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*** And, like every other deleted page being discussed, it can be reviewed by following the link to the deleted page and looking in the page history. Non-admins can ''request'' a temporary undeletion if they are actively participating in the debate but none have done so yet in this case. Doing so preemptively and through the inclusion onto this page is a bad idea. In addition to the problems of page bloat, you are only showing the last version. If you really want to do your due diligence, then you should be taking the time to review the entire page's history, not merely the last version. ] <small>]</small> 13:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	****I don't see how anyone can see them since if you go to ] EVERYTHING has been deleted including the Discussion page. There is NO history of any kind! Please leave a link if I am mistaken... I did ask for a temporary undeletion to allow for a proper discussion on But he only pointed me here saying that he was "not fond of restoring the template". -- ] 21:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	*'''Comment''' '''WAIT'''. Isn't this a duplicate with the 30 May application for review ? --] 09:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	**'''Comment''' Oh ok I didnt notice it there... I have moved the discussion to the correct place! -- ] 10:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	*'''Weak keep deleted'''. This should probably go through a proper TfD, but the deletion summary (''this template encourages voting instead of disucssing at debates'') well describes it's outcome anyway. Better now than after it gets widespread. ]] <sup><u>'''] ]'''</u></sup> 10:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	**Would you swing the other way if the images were not included? -- ] 10:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	***I don't think so. Read the deletion summary again and compare with ]. The existence of such vote-easyfying templates encourages users to simply vote without engaging in discussion and as such crosses the Misplaced Pages policy. ]] <sup><u>'''] ]'''</u></sup> 11:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	****I think that users cannot get past the word vote in this and it might need to be changed but I am simply pointing out something that happens all the time on wikipedia and something that you yourself did earlier in the discussion, everyone writes down '''Undelete: ''' '''Overturn: ''' '''Relist: ''' '''Endorse: ''' '''Keep deleted: ''' '''Keep: ''' '''Neutral: ''' '''Support: ''' '''Unsupport: ''' '''Oppose: ''' and '''Delete: '''and all I am trying to prepose is a shortcut way of writing this i.e. {{tl\|ud}}, {{tl\|ot}}, {{tl\|rl}}, {{tl\|kv}}, {{tl\|e}}, {{tl\|kd}}, {{tl\|S}}, {{tl\|nv}}, {{tl\|uv}}, {{tl\|O}} & {{tl\|dv}}! Wouldnt that be easier and like I have pointed out not only is it common to do these votes (for lack of a better term) but it is done throughout wikipedia ], ], ], ], etc. -- ] 11:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	***** I think you may be overlooking the fact that the icons are, to put it mildly, esthetically displeasing to many people. But it's also the case that we don't like votes on English Misplaced Pages (the culture elsewhere may be different, and legitimately so). I think I've seen precisely one legitimate use of one of the above symbols, and that was on the checkuser request page. --] 13:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	******Well if we don't vote and only discuss then, like the league of nations there is nothing but endless discussion with no point and I can pretty much do as I please even if the majoruty of the users out there ''comment'' against me! I could just restore anything I want and should just ignore everyone? :) Yes I'm being rather tongue in cheek about this since I don't think that sounds right and that is why we have this place where we can have many people come vote (lack of a better word) and discuss their reasons for feeling this way and they can feel like they have acomplished something. -- ] 21:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	*'''Comment''': Is there anyway we could document the deletion under G4 in either ] or ? Should we document?<br>Probably just before this discussion is removed, the template can be undeleted temporarily and deleted immediately with a link to the diff showing the removal of this discussion in the delete summary? -- ] 15:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	**Only {{tl\|S}} & {{tl\|O}} have been deleted before! And {{tl\|Voting icons}} has '''never''' been voted upon before so its not eligible for ] and should be restored to be allowed a proper deletion discussion -- ] 21:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	*'''Comment:''' I have no opinion on the templates here, but templates with these icons are used regularly on the Commons (e.g. ]) and may be used on other projects as well. Nominating the icons for deletion on Commons would be a non-starter. 16:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Comment:''' ] was NOT a valid deletion following ]. If you read ] it was {{tl\|Support}} {{tl\|Object}} {{tl\|Oppose}} the items that I just recently added to the discussion! So the main template was not a valid speedy delete candidate! -- ] 21:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	** Um, no. There's also precedent at ] for the deletion of all voting templates. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 00:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	***Afraid your confusing them, go to ] and you can see what was actually deleted was not even close to the previous vote! This template needs to be restored to have a proper vote since it was not a ] candidate. -- ] 04:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	**** ] doesn't lie, and they're substantially identical. The only difference is that these new templates are hard-coded, and {{]}} accepted a parameter. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 04:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*****Well I'm not an admin so I have absolutely no idea as to what you’re referring to. So you’re going to have to show me an example. All ] did was link the images together on the images main page and that has no ] precedence thus it should have a proper deletion process! Agree with what it represents or not it should have its proper day in court! -- ] 05:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	====]====
	I do not follow e-sports, I have no idea off the top of my head of who the reigning ] champions are etc. However, coming across the CSD category, I spotted Team NoA. Although I don't even know what NoA stands for, I've heard of it, which means it had to have been pretty successful. And so I was surprised at the crappy stub it has compared to ] or ]. Intriguing, I looked further. It turns out, there was a pretty nice article on Misplaced Pages at some point in time, as the Google cache has it preserved at . So I checked the , it turns out it was deleted 10 days ago as an nn-club. This is incorrect, the ] are an nn-club. But for a clan considered to have been the best in the world at one point (coming from the Google cache), I think some mistake has been made. - ]]] 20:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	*There have been three iterations of this article; the first two asserted notability, the thid didn't. All three have been speedied; there's never been a deletion discussion. I've restored the two older versions, since they do appear to assert notability in their own context and we have a few incoming links. ] \| ] \| 23:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	**If that's the case, are you listing on AfD? There are folks like me who think that ''all'' "clans" are below the encyclopedic threshold, as I regard them as no more significant, stable, or appropriate than the winners of the world Scrabble championship. (Once we say that video games are important, then we'd have to get into why other games, from Cat's Cradle to marbles to rock, paper, scissors to jacks aren't as important.) ] 12:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	***I decided last night that I'd list it this morning, so I could see if anyone was yelling at me first... I'll put it up now. ] \| ] \| 13:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	***Done - ]. ] \| ] \| 13:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	**Thanks. I'm not passionate about this one or that one, and I recognize that I'm in the minority now, but it's probably good to get an official "Oakie doakie" from AfD to prevent the next cranky admin (like me, but not me) from nuking the article. ] 14:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

	====]====
	The closer made an error in their assessment of the ]. They saw 4-2 delete/redirect. However, the first delete vote was qualified that "if the redirect is incorrect". After consulting with editors at the target article, the redirect was shown to be appropriate. This would mean 3/3, no consensus. Furthermore, the discussion with the editors at the redirect target (]) are a good argument for redirection.
	Another point is that some voters determined that the article was invalid because its topic did not exist. This was based on a statement made in the article. However, statements by editors at ] suggest that that statement was not accurate. - ] ] <small>(])</small> 07:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Ultra-weak overturn and redirect to ]''': While the AfD itself seemed to be valid, I don't think that the earlier voters considered the discussion in the above-mentioned talk page. ] is a very good target for this article. That being said, the article as it stood when AfDed really wasn't that good (an article that begins by saying that there it doesn't exist?), so I think a good alternative would be to just create a redirect while leaving the article history deleted. --] ] 14:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	* I don't see anything in the history that was necessary to merge to the target article. Since deletion does not prevent the creation of new content at the same title, I have ] and created the redirect. I see no harm in a '''history-only undeletion''' when the DRV discussion is complete. ] <small>]</small> 14:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Overturn and undelete history''' — not that it makes much difference now that it's been redirected. Personally, I'd have closed this as a clear "redirect" based on the relative merits of the arguments given, and the fact that no comments favoring deletion were made ''after'' KeithTyler's argument. Remember that AfD is a discussion, not a vote, people. (Also, if you read carefully, you'll note that the nominator actually withdrew the nomination.) —] <small>(])</small> 13:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

	====]====
	:''Content was: ] image, with the text: '''This user supports the Communist Party of China.'''''

	Not sure why this was deleted. Userboxes are allowed for basically all major political parties in the world. ]. Can someone cite the reason it was deleted? And should it be undeleted? ] 03:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)#
	*'''Endorse deletion'''. Who on earth told you that those templates were ''allowed''? They're all subject to summary deletion according to T1. --] 03:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:By virtue of the fact that they are still in existence, and nobody has tagged them for deletion, that's why I'm implying that they're allowed. ] 04:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*::: That's not valid. That's like saying because I'm chewing gum in class and the teacher hasn't noticed yet, everyone's allowed to chew gum in class. ] (]) 04:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:::: Not so, your analogy is incorrect. All those Userboxes for political parties are listed in public. It is as if the teacher is aware that you are chewing gum, but does not tell you to stop. So yes, they are in fact allowed. ] 04:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:::: Yes, give us a chance. We'll get around to the others in time. It wouldn't be very nice to just delete the whole lot of them at once. --] 04:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:::::I cannot understand the point in NOT deleting them all at once if political userboxes are indeed banned. It seems to me you want it to slip under the radar as it were. - ]]] 04:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:::::: Well we certainly don't want to go for mass deletions. This is the middle way. --] 04:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*::::::: Well why not go for mass deletion? There is basically no reason to keep certain political parties around, yet delete certain other ones. ] 04:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:::::::: I agree, why not mass deletion? If it's against the rules, I'm sure someone higher up can just delete the whole page of political userboxes. If it's according to some "T1" rule, then you either delete all or keep all, there's no "middle way". ] 06:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:::::: When there is a mass deletion it draws enough people to DRV to actually overturn the decision. When it is just a few at a time it can come in under the radar. More people need to monitor TfD and DRV if they really want to represent their view. It is an interesting pattern where if a userbox goes to TfD it has a good chance of suriving. It if goes via speedy to DRV then it is much harder to get a concensus, or super majority, or act of local deity to get it restored. Some of the boxes have been here multiple times over the last six months. It it doesn't work the first time the deletionists keep coming back since it is apparently acceptable to use T1 multiple times on one template. If someone else restores the template then it suddenly becomes wheel warring and the bans start. --] 13:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''' via T1. ] (]) 04:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' - no ideological stuff in template space, per T1.5, or whatever it's called. It's certainly nothing personal; they're all on the way out. -]<sup>(])</sup> 04:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' invalid deletion. Tolerance is less divisive. --] 05:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete'''. ] 06:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete'''. Somewhere, someone should try to back to the concept of concensus. --] 10:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' - classic example of a T2 box. ] 10:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:T2 is currently not policy. Read ]. --] 30 May 2006]] at 12:40 (UTC)
	*:: That's moot; T1 is commonly interpreted to include templates that fall under the T2 proposal, and the community has repeatedly endorsed this interpretation on review. --] 12:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*::: ] ] 12:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:::"commonly interpreted" is contradicted by the discussion at ]. There is a group that holds this interpretation, there is another group that disagrees. Size of both groups inadequately measured to say which is larger. However, the fact that two-thirds of timely discussers at ] wanted a policy directly contradicting T2 is evidence against the proposition that T2 is widely supported. Additionally, attempting to explicitly include T2 in T1 caused a great deal of debate as to whether that was policy and caused T1 in its entirety to be removed from WP:CSD or labeled as not-policy a couple times. ] 14:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' - template space isn't for unhelpful bias-promoting bumperstickers. T1,T2,T3.. whatever? whocares? This is an encyclopedia committed to neutrality, these don't help. --] ] 13:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' Stop deleting userbox templates (and, indeed, creating new ones) until there is consensus on the whole userbox debate. Alternatively, delete '''all''' the political party templates simultaneously (I understand they're all listed in one place so this shouldn't be difficult) along with all the userbox templates espousing a religious, ethical or moral viewpoint. But really, continually deleting userbox templates and going through this tedious process with every one is getting nobody anywhere, slowly. ] 13:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete and send to TfD''' There is nothing asserted above to indicate that this template is so troublesome that it needs to be deleted prior to a normal review discussion. (And I can't see the template to check myself.) ] 14:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' Invalid deletion. ] 15:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Keep deleted''' per ]: just considering all the screeching and hollering should give people an idea of just how bloody disruptive these damn things can be. HTH HAND —] \| ] 16:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep Deleted''' Perfectly valid deletion. This does not belong in template space. ] 17:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep Deleted''' seems pretty clear to me. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 17:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''keep Deleted''' Political affiliation templates are inherently polemical and divisive. -- <small> ]</small> 18:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' Someone should probably write out what ] stands for. I mistook it for ] which is now ironically hip and funny, but I guess CCP is a bonafide party. I'm all for CCCP humor :-) --] 18:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:Did that; see above. -]<sup>(])</sup> 18:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' This does not fall under T1. —] <sup>]</sup> 20:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' how can anyone here support the same party that blocked Misplaced Pages in China. That's outrageous. ] 20:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:I think voting here is a waste of time, since what happens in the long run will be determined by consensus. But just out of curiousity, Grue, why you would choose to practice ]? ]\|]<sup>(TheJabberwock)</sup> 03:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' until userbox policy is settled. —] 00:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*This is simple: '''Undelete''', ''unless'': All userboxes in this category are speedied at the same time (that is, within the time that it would take one person to go and get rid of them all), then '''Keep Deleted'''. This sneaking under the radar is inappropriate. If you think that a mass deletion would be opposed, then stop because that's what you're doing, just very slowly and annoyingly. If you don't think it's opposed, go on and get rid of them all now, since no one would complain. Or you could go to TfD when the consensus of the appropriateness of a userbox is in not determined, as is the case in most of these templates. ]]]<sup>]</sup> 06:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:Couldn't agree more with that statement. ] 17:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' and '''Reword'''. While this is an advocacy box, a simple change of the text from "supports" to "is a member of" would have made this an acceptable box while we work to find a compromise that is in accordance with Jimbo's wishes. ] 17:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' God, I hate this battle. Thanks so much, Jimmy. - ] ] <small>(])</small> 17:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. There's a place for this. It's not here. --] 18:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:I assume you mean TfD when you say a place for this. Then why 'Keep Deleted', shouldn't it go to TfD? ]]]<sup>]</sup> 03:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete and list all political party userboxes on TfD''' Is that that hard? ] 02:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. This is an encyclopedia, not a playground. ] (]) 03:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. MySpace is '''thataway'''. --] \| ] 04:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. If you like the Chinese Communist Party, by all means, join it. Don't bother us with it here (anyhow, isn't wikipedia ''banned'' by this very same party?).] 05:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. Userboxes declaring support for a totalitarian regime fall within T1. ] ] 06:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' - deletion of userboxes with simple, factual statements is what is divisive and disruptive, not the template. ] 17:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' - As much as I don't like the CCP, it's a legtimate party and unless all other political userboxes are deleted, I don't think the CCP should be treated any differently. ] 01:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	===29 May 2006===


	====]====

	This article was deleted twice as a copyvio of Zafar's official site, then once again as a one-line substub which did not assert notability, then a fourth version was deleted as a copyvio again. After that the earth was salted.

	Zafar is clearly a notable singer, and so I've written an article from scratch at ]. I would like the community's approval to unprotect ] and move the article there. The weird text at the bottom is neutered categories, and the image is nowiki-ed out as it is fair use and can't be used in userspace - those will obviously be fixed when I move it. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''', permission granted, etc. Whatever it is, excellent rewrite. --] <small>(])</small> 23:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' can you just delete the protection tag and make the new article? It's a valid reason do to that. Thanks ] ] 00:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete'''/'''move userspace draft over''' ] 02:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Pottery Barn Rule''': No problem, of course, and maybe a little hypercorrective in asking, but, uh, if you fix it, will you own it? (I.e. will you keep it straight from the obviously dedicated fans who want to scribble on it?) ] 03:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*Well, I went ahead and moved it over, as the article in its current form has never been deleted so as far as I'm aware, all I really wanted was confirmation that I could take the protection off. To answer Geogre's question: yes. And even if I didn't intend to, I don't think it would be a reason not to recreate it. --]<sup>]</sup> 08:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	**Me either. I just wanted to be sure. I don't argue that things should be deleted because they're vandalized, but I worry when we have a lower profile article that attracts vandals. (Those hundreds of high school articles that people fought viciously to allow are probably not on very many watchlists.) There are just some things where I sleep better at night knowing that they're being watchlisted. ] 11:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete'''.] 05:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	====]====
	Scienter was originally a dictionary term, and was deleted under A7 of the speedy deletion criteria. However, while I realise that it was a dictionary article, I do believe that we can expand it and discuss good examples of its usage, such the scienter requirement of {{usc\|18\|1960}}. I would like it to be undeleted, its structure modified, and an {{tl\|expand}} tag added to it so we can discuss in more detail how the term applies to the law. Please also see for a few examples of how it could be done. - ] 13:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*???? '''Comment''' I don't the word "scienter" or anything like it at {{usc\|18\|1960}}. Could you explain? ] ] 15:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	**See Section 373 of the Patriot Act, it amended {{usc\|18\|1960}} to provide a scienter requirement for Section 1960 violations. - ] 22:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*Its former content was more-or-less verbatim that at ]. It was speedied as an ] transwikied, though, not A7, although it does not appear to actually have ever ''left'' Misplaced Pages. This is probably a good case for just diving in and writing a proper encyclopedia article and freely doing a history-only undel afterwards. However, it never having had an AfD, the second speedy was technically out of process, and there's a good-faith request for its resurrection, so I suppose there is no harm in granting it. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 15:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' OK, there are references to it in Google Books so it's clear that it's in reasonably widespread use, and if 6250 pages of 100 books mention it, I'm sure an article ''can'' be written about it. My next question is: why is it important to undelete the existing, poorly written dictdef? If ] is going to write a real article why can't he (or anyone else) go ahead and do so? The article was merely deleted, not protected against re-creation. Why is action being requested here? ] ] 15:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	**Because if I recreated it, I'd probably get away with it, but if someone else recreated it they risk being seen as disruptive for readding a deleted article. I thought that DR was the best route. No controversy, but DR is the place I take such things. :-) - ] 22:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	* I think that the request was to avoid any potential allegations of a wheel war. I've undeleted the article, as there are no objections, and I'll ask TBSDY to expand the article. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 22:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	** Thanks! Will do so soon. Incidently, it wasn't about wheel warring, I'm just following policy and best practice. - ] 22:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep'''. As a lawyer, let me say that the word is certainly used (although usually in specific areas). For example, the easiest way for you non-legal folks to figure out if a word has a lot of weight behind it is using the free FindLaw website (use the part for legal professionals), if you were to search "scienter", you would get an article like --thus, the article could certainly be expanded, since many legal words can have tons written about their usage and interpretation. Misplaced Pages's legal sections are seriously lacking, while I admit I have very little interest in going work on them, there are people who are in the legal wikiproject. --] 18:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''No objection to an article on this''' - notable legal concept. I gather that's what we're really being asked. Personally, I see no problem with someone simply writing a proper article. I wouldn't see that as wheel warring or bad practice. ] 02:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

	===28 May 2006===

	====]====
	This has apparantly been deleted two times already by ], but shouldn't have been. It's a notable topic and should have an entry. A lot can be said about it. I've restored it and added the template. ] 01:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	* Huh. Mark this down. '''Overturn and undelete''' previous version as stubbed. It's not a speedy, and it's not a valid G4 repost deletion because it never went through AfD. ] ] 03:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' per Rasputin. --] <small>(])</small> 03:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' per Rasputin. --] 03:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	* The complete contents of this page are "An auto repair shop is a place where automobiles are repaired and auto mechanics work." I have no objections if someone wants to write a real article here but the current contents do qualify under speedy-deletion case A3 (article consisting only of ... a rephrasing of the title). ] <small>]</small> 04:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' Notable context, but poor content. It'll get better. ] 08:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''' per Rossami but without prejudice against an actual article. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''': It's a restatement of the title, and a violation of the deletion policy besides (dictionary definition) as well as a CSD as "empty." ] 12:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''' until someone writes an article beyond an A3, per Rossami. --] ] 13:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''', this is a speedy as a simple restatement of the title, ]! Evil that I am, I have correspondingly redeleted it. There is zero value in undeleting such an article or allowing its continued existence, but anyone who wants to can ''not'' spend their edits complaining here and instead write a useful, valid, encyclopedic stub. If noone can persuade themselves to use their edits in such a manner, then we can conclude that at the present time, there is no desire for the article. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 15:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Okay, I've added more to the article. Now it's not merely a restatement of the title. This articles should not be deleted until it's decided whether or not it should be undeleted or kept deleted. ] 19:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion'''. Also ] by the same editor. <b><span style="color: #f33">·]·</span></b> 16:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	**Got it. Note that the author of these 'articles' is an indef blocked, sockpuppeting vandal. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	***I assume you mean the author of the previous articles, as I've just recently created an account here, have not done any vandalism and haven't used any sockpuppets. ] 19:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	****Yes, I do. More specifically, I mean their original author. I should have been clearer. I've moved the article to a proper title. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	====]====

	] was deleted, no reasons stated and no discussion. '''Opt''' for reinstatement.--] 01:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep Deleted''' per ] (yes, I know, not policy, but nonetheless). The content in its entirety was "] will supplant ] in retrieving non-commercial information on the web." Not exactly a bastion of encyclopediac content. ] ] 01:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	**Not that WP:SNOW is ever applicable, but doesn't this meet a speedy criteria anyway? --] <small>(])</small> 01:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	***Borderline A3 because it's utterly lacking in content, but people dislike when I apply that too liberally. ] ] 03:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	****Borderline? I think that's so clearly lacking any content as to be laughable. Keep it deleted please. - ] 13:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Endorse speedy-deletion''' under case A1 (insufficient context for expansion). The only possible expansion of this theory would have been as a speculative essay. It would be acceptable on the user's page and perhaps in the Misplaced Pages-space, but until somone ''else'' writes about it in a ], ], it does not belong in the article space. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources. ] <small>]</small> 04:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''', according to process, it is A1 (per Rossami). If I want to go beyond process (something pretty rare for me in a DRV discussion), it's also unencyclopedic, POV, crystal ballery, and ]. I'd rather not have Misplaced Pages wrench its arm out of its socket trying to pat itself on the back, thank you very much. --] ] 13:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion'''. No content. ] ] 14:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''', perfectly valid ]. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 22:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' as speculative and non-encyclopedic.] 05:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	====]====

	] was closed by ] as a delete. When prompted for further explanation, said that vote counting wasn't taken into effect (although 6 delete/4 keep would normally constitute a "no consensus"), and that the most sensible close was actually delete, even though three of the delete voters noted that there were verifiability issues even though 25 published sources on ] cited him by name, and one delete voter used ] as a rationale. '''Overturn''' the delete and close as no consensus. --] <small>(])</small> 14:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	:You're referring to the number of votes, even though (I assume you meant) the closer even ''told'' you that he'd closed the AfD the Right Way, that is to say, without taking the vote tally into account. It is entirely proper for FireFox to do so, and it makes you look silly to bring it up here, after all the advances you've been making. ] (]) 13:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	::I'm just providing all the available information. Noting how many of the people felt delete was correct, and then demonstrating their incorrect rationales for the opinion seems perfectly legitimate in a DRV discussion. I haven't forgotten, don't worry. --] <small>(])</small> 14:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	::No offense to Mark, but I must disagree. I think it's pretty obvious that this AFD didn't come to any sort of consensus. - ] 14:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Hey, no need to worry about causing ''me'' offence here. I've already said I don't agree with the close. I just don't see what the tally has to do with it, and I don't like the attempts from certain users to spread the misconception that it matters. ] (]) 15:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Overturn'''. Google Scholar, minus the cancer stuff, turns up a fair number of references to Price. ] \| ] 14:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Overturn''' per Johnleemk. ] ] 15:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Overturn'''. AfD failed, as did the administrator who deleted it anyway. ] 19:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	:*He just made a mistake in good faith. That's what DRV is ''for''. ] (]) 13:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''', looks like a fellow worth having an article about. ] (]) 13:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Overturn''', looks like a classic no consensus, before and after the relisting. --] ] 13:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	====], ] and others ====

	Others include ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]. The category ] was also speedy deleted along with these, but has since been undeleted.

	These articles were speedy deleted as attack pages. I contend that they were not attack pages, primarily on the basis that the information contained in them was verifiable according to the rules at ]. I don't believe stating the verifiable truth is disparaging.

	Yes, the majority of things they said about their subjects were negative. But if this were the only criteria for a page being an attack page, then we couldn't have pages like ] or any other that deals with a subject for which the only things worth saying really are negative.

	Admittedly, the Barbara Bauer article has had some things added to it that weren't sourced. However, the appropriate action would be to remove these comments and find sources for them before restoring them, or to add a <nowiki>{{disputed}}</nowiki> tag. Not to delete the article. ] 08:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

	:*Just a correction: ] wasn' undeleted, it was re-created, by me. --] \| ] 12:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

	*'''Keep deleted''' - these agencies don't seem especially notable. ] 08:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	**I suggest that their inclusion on the list makes them notable. ] at least is notable, if only because of the numerous recent discussions concerning her. It may be best to merge the other articles together into one about the list, but that and the notability of the articles would surely be best dealt with via an AfD discussion after their reinstatement? ] 08:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	**Just a datum regarding notability; a google test for '"barbara bauer" agent' turnes up 279 unique results; a test for '"donald maass" agent' (one of the most noteworthy literary agents currently trading) turns up 622. ] 09:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

	*'''Undelete ], undecided '''(as yet)''' on the rest.''' The notion that the opinion of a professional organization (the ] (SFWA), the people who bring you the ]) regarding companies that deal with their peers, counts as "attack pages" stretches the meaning of the speedy-deletion criterion to its breaking point. By that logic -- that any such listing is a priori a speediable attack page -- means you best have a look at the listings at ], since it's a bunch of articles about companies (mostly not institutions, though some pretend to be) that are not what they appear and are listed on various official and unofficial watchlists. POV problems can be fixed: calling these articles speediable is an assertion that they never can be, and that's flatly wrong, especially with regard to the recent notoriety of Bauer. She's ''at least'' borderline notable, not speedy material. --] \| ] 12:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	**'''Comment''' - do you think perhaps it would be more appropriate to create a single page concerning the rest, rather than undeleting the individual pages I created? Then, as and when these agencies rise to further prominence, like Bauer's did, individual articles could be spun off from that page. ] 09:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''No vote''' on ] because it is already in AfD, '''Endorse deletion''' (or list on AfD) on the rest. These organisations seem like valid A6es (attack pages), these articles should be written to be more ] in tone. --] ] 13:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	====]====
	Extended, ongoing discussion was taking place at this talk page, regarding an article Jimbo had deleted and protected back in February. The discussion included a fairly considerable number of users and diversity of views, many strongly felt. ], however, recently decided that the discussion should not be taking place and chose to delete and protect the talk page as well. I propose that this was wrong of him and the talk page should be restored. ] 07:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Keep deleted''' Jimbo asked us to give it a rest for a while, and I propose the deletion of the talk page as the only way to give us a proper chance of coming back to the issue with fresh eyes in a year or two's time. --] 07:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	** ] 15:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC) '''Comment''' It seems that Geni has ] restored this talk page.
	*** 08:45, 28 May 2006 Geni restored "Talk:Brian Peppers" (restoing public record pluss index of archives)
	*:You want discussion to stop? Protect it. Myself I'd rather we had a place to keep track of any developments (such as say it.wikipedia).] 16:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' - common sense in the circs. ] 08:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:Please provide evidence or a logical basis for your claim.] 16:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep Deleted''' - After the years up, restart the conversation. No meaningful conversation was taking place. The purpose of the original article deletion was to spend time/resources on other things for the year. --] 08:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	**To me, all the conversation seemed meaningful. ] 09:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*I agree with Tony. The whole ''point'' of giving the Peppers issue a year's rest was to allow us to come at it with fresh eyes next year. If we spend the intervening time sitting around the talkpage discussing what we're going to write when the suspension period ends, we may as well not have bothered placing that period there in the first place. Now, there are those who would very much like that to be the case — but they're out of luck. There ''will not'' be an article mocking Brian Peppers until the year is up, at which point we're supposed to be able to look at the need for it with a fresh perspective. We can't do that as long as people are discussing the potential article on its talkpage. ] (]) 09:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:No. According to jimbo the reason was recreation of previously deleted material or "We can live without this until 21 February 2007". Can't find where he talked about fresh eyes. Oh and If I'm around in a year there will not be an article "mocking Brian Peppers". There may be a NPOV sourced article covering the meme. we will have to see.] 16:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete'''. I don't see why the conversation wasn't meaningful. I also don't see how attempting to forbid discussion on the issue is supposed to help make a better encyclopedia. If you feel you need a "fresh look" at the article, for whatever reason, please feel free to not look at the Talk page until February. ''Enforcing'' a "fresh look" seems like a fairly futile and counterproductive thing to do. --] 12:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC) --] 12:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted.''' Tony Sidaway did the right thing. I read some of that discussion, and not only did it seem to me not to be terribly productive, but it was also rather polarizing. Too many people seemed to be engaging in grandstanding and posturing. The cries of "censorship" were particularly unnattractive and extremist. All this over an article about a particularly ugly sex offender? Aren't there better things to do in Misplaced Pages? ] 14:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:We've been through this (sometime during one of the more intense parts of the deletionist/inclusionist wars) we can't force people to do things on wikipedia.] 16:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:We're being told that our views, despite being made rationally and without any attempt to spill outside of the confines of that tall page, are not welcome. If a person can't make the connection here, then when? --] 17:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''', although I don't have any doubt that Tony was trying to do the right thing here. The most telling part for me is that Jimbo, who stepped in on the article, didn't do anything to the talk page. If it was meant to not be discussed, why wouldn't he have done so then? --] <small>(])</small> 14:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Undelete''' (although seems to be restored). Tony is clearly one of the best admins here. However, I don't think it was necessary to remove this talk page nor do I see any policy basis for deletion. More discussion is good and should be encouraged. In any case, what's wrong with MFD?-- ] 14:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	**Looks like ] restored it. It remains protected, though. ] 14:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. Give it a rest means stop discussing it. .:.].:. <sup>]</sup> 14:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:where did jimbo use the term "give it a rest"?] 16:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:: I've just look at his deletion summary. The wording is: "We can live without this until 21 February 2007, and if anyone still cares by then, we can discuss it". I take this as meaning on 21 February, 2007 we can discuss whether to recreate. And a rather heavy hint that it won't be recreated. --] 18:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:::Nothing saying we can't disscuss it now. Nothing saying give it a rest.] 18:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:::: Give it a rest. Happy now?--] 18:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. ] ] 14:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:Why?] 16:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted.''' The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to build a 💕, not to adhere to some absolute view of purity-of-Wikihood. Let's not go off on some overdramatized "and when they came for Brian Peppers, I said nothing" tangent. Let's find some other trivia to fight about. ] ] 16:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:So what is your actual argument for keeping it deleted? At present you appear to be attacking a strawman.] 16:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	**First, your comment is accurate. Second, the reason for my vote, not constituting "an argument," is that my personal judgement is that it is in the best interest of Misplaced Pages to keep it deleted, per ]. ] ] 15:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. If there is a problem here it is that the deletion was only carried out now. The talk pages of deleted articles are deleted—we have a speedy deletion criterion for it, G8, a perfectly legitimate policy. They are only left untouched in a small number of old cases, where AFD discussion took place on the article talk page (the former custom in ''Misplaced Pages'' was that AFDs were held on the nominated articles' talk pages; to maintain a record of these old deletion discussions which lack dedicated AFD subpages, the talk pages were not deleted along with the articles, as is the normal practice). The deletion discussions for the unfortunate Peppers page, however, are all perfectly amply recorded in the numerous AFD pages and the DRV logs. There is no good reason for the page to be restored. —''] 16:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)''
	*'''Undelete'''. How was the conversation not constructive? While there were certainly different positions, there was no loss of civility. People are noticing this odd year-long-deletion of Peppers' article, and it's not surprising that they want to discuss it --the ability to discuss it lets people know that they're not marginalized because they share a view that's not share by those in power (especially when it's certainly rationale, if not the right choice). The people advocating for its recreation (in the year) are not mere anons or low-watt editors. We're people who sincerely believe that there is an article that can be written (or moved to within another article) and that the arguments that are being tossed back at us (as clearly illustrated in the talk page) are dubious. I believe in the Misplaced Pages project, but not this: Obviously Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, but I at least thought the people were allowed to speak so long as they are not harming anything in the project. Where is the harm here? Is there a problem that some of us would like to dissent from this action? Does it embarrass you that there are others out there who are pointing to this oddly handled page to say "look, another fubar (1 out of over 1 million non-fubars, mind you)"? '''The person who added the speedy-delete tag was an ANON user '''. I know that, by itself, that is not suspicious --but the fact that there has been a passionate argument on both sides makes me curious why, all of a sudden, a traceless anon decides to speedy delete the talk page and now we're here. This isn't what the project is about: odd antics to suppress those of us that want to better the project but find ourselves in the minority. We're following the rules, but now we're tolding that's not good enough. We're being told that our views are embarassing the rest of you and thus we should be quieted. We are being pushed beyond marginalization, we are being suppressed for advocating views that are not agreeing that whatever is done is the best way. I am not going to draw comparisons to any real world political situations, but the comparison just sits there ready to be made. Let's not push Misplaced Pages past that point, ''please''? A lot of us believe in the project, but the way this talk page is being handled is just crushing. --] 17:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*: I didn't delete the talk page in response to a speedy tag. That had been removed by the time I got there. I deleted the talk page because discussion was still continuing three months after the article had been deleted with a suggestion that we give it a rest for twelve months. Moreover, anon IPs are permitted to add speedy tags. The tagging was quite in order. --] 18:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:: Er... you deleted a talk page '''because''' there was discussion on it? I'm sorry, but I find this wildly inappropriate, especially considering that there was a discussion on the talk page itself about whether it should be deleted, and there was a strong majority in favour of keeping it. --] 18:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*Was there some reason that this couldn't have gone through MfD first if it needed to be deleted? In fact, although I rarely disagree with Encephalon, we ''often'' leave the talk page in place when we protect a deleted page. There may not have been much meaningful discussion, but clearly there ''was'' discussion going on. If it was felt that that was harmful, blanking and protecting would have been a more conservative option. Failing that, again MfD. No reason for this. '''Restore''' except of course that is already is. - ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 17:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' per Jimbo. --]<sup>]</sup> 17:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:"Recreation of previously deleted material" makes no sense at all in this case.] 17:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' so we can for pity's sake all forget about it. --ⁿɡ͡b ]<span style="padding: 0 0.1em;">\</span><sup style="font-size: 70%;">]</sup> 18:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:I can't think of any logical biological mechanism by which deletion should aid forgetting. Take it off your watchlist.] 18:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*::It isn't on my watchlist. However, it keeps on cropping up over and over again all around Misplaced Pages because for some unfathomable reason some Wikipedians '''won't let it go'''. --ⁿɡ͡b ]<span style="padding: 0 0.1em;">\</span><sup style="font-size: 70%;">]</sup> 18:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:::It turns up from time to time in certian polical areas but it had been pretty quiet lately. Oh it might have been going to get a minor resurection over the it.wikipedia issue but deleting the talk page won't do anything about that.] 18:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' Nasty stuff ] 18:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:In what sense? can you justify your claim?] 18:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Overturn and undelete''' and keep it that way, as much meaningful discussion ''was'' and should continue to take place there. "Per Jimbo" is a misnomer. ] 18:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete'''. There was an ongoing discussion on whether it should be deleted under G8, and so far there's a "keep" consensus. ''']''' (]) <em><strong>]</strong></em> 19:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep Deleted'''. The ongoing discussion on the page is a sign that people rae not 'giving it a rest'. ] 19:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*Bloody hell, undelete. Undelete the article too. --] (] - ]) 19:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' (or '''keep undeleted''' to be precise). ] has a good point: Jimbo said nothing of discussing '''about''' the article. In fact, deleting the page will prevent any constructive discussion to emerge with the aim of creating a well sourced, NPOV article. And we better have a good idea for one when 21st of February 2007. ]] <sup><u>'''] ]'''</u></sup> 19:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep Deleted''' ''and if anyone still cares by then, we can discuss it'' Seem clear to me that he wants us to step away from the article for a while. That'll be hard to do with that edit button sitting there...] 20:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:Personaly I find it very easy. Again would protection not have the same effect?] 21:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*::Not everyone has your self control...but the problem is that the more people that are interested in a talk page the higher the likelyhood of someone at some point editing the page. And the group that's interested in this talk page is quite large, there's almost zero chance that this page could go a year (or whatevers left of the year) without someone editing it. And once one person says something, someone else will respond and then it's off to the races. The only way to keep it from being edited is for it not to exist. The same for protection, there are some pretty itchy fingers out there, how long would it be before someone ran right through that stopsign or unprotected it all together, especially as the year started winding down. ] 07:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Strongest undelete possible''' Should have at least gone through MfD. Your "Interpretation" of Jimbo's actions doesn't make sense. If Jimbo wanted the talk page deleted he would have deleted it himself, no? ] 20:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Speedy delete''' as the talk page of a non-existent article. Then ignore it until February; we spend far too much time on Misplaced Pages arguing about stupid things that don't matter, because so many of our editors take so much pride in being right all the time. Both sides should think about why you're arguing, and see if your time might not be better spent. (It is prideful of me even to vote on this, but at least I will go back to ignoring this subject after this one comment.) -- ] 20:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Keep deleted/redelete'''. I am always extremely suspicious of deletions under ] but this time it was an appropriate use. This entire debate about the article was inappropriate. Regardless of whatever wikilawyering you want to try to apply to Jimbo's words, the continuation of the article on the talk page clearly violated the spirit of Jimbo's request. He clearly wanted us to walk away from this whole dispute for a while. Kill it, protect it and leave it dead. Unprotect it in when the year runs out ''and start the discussion then''. ] <small>]</small> 20:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:On what basis do you claim that this will prevent further debate? More likely t will result in debate in places where it is harder to ignore. In any case would just striaghtforward protection have the same effect?] 21:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Comment'''. In view of the pretty strong endorsement for my deletion, I think it's inappopriate to leave the page in its undeleted state. I have accordingly deleted it again. Please be aware that I am under administrator "one revert rule" and will not delete the page if it is restored again. --] 21:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:] suggests there is no such consensus. I think we can wait for the weekday crowd before considering deletion. Or takeing this through MFD in the normal manner.] 21:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' deleting talk pages is pointless. ] 21:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' now that it's deleted again, I can't even see what the previous discussion was. I say undelete because you are trying to interpret Jimbo's words and not just listen to what they said. Also, Tony, a strong endorsement does not indicate consensus. As I count it, including my support, there are 15 users (aside from yourself) who say delete and 12 who say keep. That is certainly not consensus, and after you saw the opposing argument for deletion here, it was inappropriate to not put this through MFD. Until this does go through MfD, please put the talk page back (maybe protected if you want), so that others can see the discussion there and consider that when deciding what should happen. ]]]<sup>]</sup> 22:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete'''. You don't want to talk about it, don't talk about it. But we haven't appointed you arbiter of what other people can talk about. It's time Tony Sidaway stopped abusing his tool to impose his views of what is proper for this encyclopaedia on other editors. ] 23:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' (or keep undeleted) there was no need to remove these discussions. ] 04:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' (or delete and protect). An article -- if any -- isn't going to appear until 2007, so any talk page discussion before then is pointless wankery which violates the very notion of "starting fresh": "starting stale", would be a better description. --] \| ] 06:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''', I really argued for the keeping of ], but once Jimbo deleted it, he made it policy (and set a possible future date for re-creation). As such, the article was validly deleted. It also makes the talk page a valid ] candidate as a G8 (talk pages for articles that do not exist). --] ] 13:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''' If the point is to let it go for a year, it really doesn't help to maintain a Brian Peppers discussion board. Let's leave the guy alone for a while; there are so many other articles to think about. -]<sup>(])</sup> 16:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:Except those that are "inconvenient", apparently. --] 17:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*::What does that even mean? I'm saying let's let it go for a year, as was suggested. What are you talking about? -]<sup>(])</sup> 20:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' - discussion pages are only justifiable where they are about articles.] 16:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' - I normally would not be for deletion of a talk page. However, there were five pages of discussion here - for those doing the math, that's about two pages of discussion for every sentence that would actually go into the article if it were created. Numerous hot-button political issues and figures don't even have three-page talk sections on Misplaced Pages, which is a sign there's something wrong with this discussion. This is because neither side was trying to make headway in understanding the other, and it's pretty clear that the "keep" side was using the old Internet debate tactic of "Last Man Standing" (ignore, confound, and misrepresent your opponent until he quits in frustration, then declare victory). I'd have to say my favorite argument in the discussion was "Why do we have a page on Adolf Hitler but not Brian Peppers? I mean, all Adolf Hitler did was drop out of art school!"...and, sadly, I didn't take too much liberty with that. And then there's the inevitable army of YTMND kids posting "WTF NO BRIAN PEPPERS PAGE OMG FASCISTS" from, of course, unsigned IP addresses. I predict that, come February 2007, the page will be created, again, somebody will vandalize it, again, it will be reverted and huge arguments will show up on the talk page on why one of the article's three sentences shouldn't be there, again, it will be VfD'd, again, the losing side will whine and cry about not getting their way, again, and go to ]. I love Misplaced Pages and I think it's a great resource, but Brian Peppers bears witness to one of the reasons Misplaced Pages's detractors will always give for why an online, (mostly) freely-editable encyclopedia shouldn't work. ] 19:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' - I do not see any harm in keeping it and I generally like to err on the side of keeping talk pages. ] 20:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''' Let's give it a rest for awhile. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">]</font>]</b> 20:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete'''. While I am against the restoration of the article, (I've said many a time it should be redirected), I should mention that deleting this page comes into conflict with ] censored, ], and ]. ] does not apply to talk pages, and it is not policy or guideline. Although there was a lack of consensus to keep or delete the article, there is a clear consensus to keep the talk page. I really don't think it's appropriate for people to twist Jimbo's words to suit their own agendas. Must I remind people that ] a bureaucracy, and consensus and process are what run Misplaced Pages? ] 21:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. ] G8. ] ] 09:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*<s> '''Keep deleted''', then cauterize the wound with fire. </s>] 11:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:that is not a valid basis for deleteion.] 13:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:: Fine. '''Keep deleted''' per CSD G8. ''Then'' cauterize the wound with fire. ] 00:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Keep deleted''' it needs to rest , so it's ok to stop the arguings -- <small> ]</small> 21:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. Even if it wasn't Jimbo's will, it's G8. --] 22:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep Deleted''' per CSD G8. ] 23:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete.''' All discussions should be archived whether or not the related articles are. --] 01:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	**Err, what? We never archive talk pages of deleted articles. --] 03:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*** Never? ] 06:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	****Not that I know of. Can you point me to one? --] 06:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	***** Comment: We used to back when the deletion discussion was moved to the article's Talk page. That process was obsoleted when we began holding deletion discussions on VFD(now AFD)/subpages. That doesn't seem to apply in this case. ] <small>]</small>
	*'''Keep deleted'''. Serves no purpose. -] 06:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' as per Grace Note. Also, Italy have a ], why not en.? --<small>]<sub>]</sub>\|<sup>]</sup></small> 14:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Keep deleted''' I followed the talk page discussion for months and found it circular, pointless, and mostly carried forward by non-Wikipedians and a few well-known Wikipedians who are outspoken in (a) valuing freedom of speech over privacy and (b) their unwillingness to accept any form of leadership from Jimbo. ] Co., ] 15:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:'''Comment''': The above comment is a prime example of the enforced marginalization by those who assumed the conversation was (1) by non wikipedians and/or by (2) Wikipedians with some kind of general ax to grind. Well, Uninvited Company, since you're making the sweeping generalization, I ask you to demonstrate it. We were acting within Jimbo's restrictions of the page (only others have broadly interpreted his decision to include talk), in good faith, and yet you would make us out to be "outsiders" who are out to disrupt Misplaced Pages. Well, thank you but no. --] 17:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*::'''Comment''': I'm not going to say anything about the assumption of those taking part in the conversation, but the discussion did contain points that were being repeated ad nauseaum. For example, there seemed to be at least several dozen mentions of "Why Star Wars Kid but not Brian Peppers?" and an equal number of very similar refutations, but none seemed to keep the point from coming up again. This is generally what is referred to as a hopelessly circular discussion. ] 04:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*::We were never questioning Jimbo's means at all, just his ends. Jimbo just wants this to end, and so do I. However, I don't believe that forcing people's mouths shut is the answer. That's why I continue to advocate middle ground. Having one side win and censoring the other side in an endless debate such as this won't work. ] 23:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep Deleted''' Isn't it standard policy to delete talk pages of deleted articles anyway??? Oh yeah, it's ] G8. -- ] (] • ]) 17:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''History only Undeletion''' Best of both worlds; the record remains, but discussion is impossible. ] 23:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

	===27 May 2006===

	====]====
	:]
	:]
	:]
	:http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1532557/05252006/story.jhtml
	Kept via AfD, nominated again two weeks later, deleted. Okay, fine. The problem, as it stands now? '']'', which came out in theaters on Friday and immediately made $45 million dollars, second only to '']''. What happens in this movie? Why, ] actually makes mention of this meme, screaming "Don't you know who I am? I'm the Juggernaut, bitch!" not only is the meme referenced in a blockbuster movie, now, but ] saw it fit to note it as well, as evidenced by this video: . Not that there was much in the way of serious question of its notability before, this pretty much cements it. If it's good enough for a popular action movie...

	EDIT: I see it's been recreated, which could get dicey, but process is important in this case. --] <small>(])</small> 02:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

	EDIT: As of Sunday afternoon, 28 May EST, MTV also noted the link between the meme and the movie --] <small>(])</small> 20:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


	*Do you have any evidence -- other than a single line of dialogue -- that connects this to the X-Men movie? And the point of the box office totals is what, exactly? --] \| ] 02:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	**No, I don't. What else do you possibly think it would be referencing? It's fairly self-evident. As for the point of the box office totals, it's to demonstrate that a LOT of people are seeing this movie. --] <small>(])</small> 02:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	***'' What else do you possibly think it would be referencing?'' How about "nothing whatsoever"? Which was, you know, '''the entire point of the question.''' Which you have answered, in a way, so '''Keep deleted'''/'''Delete and protect against recreation'''. --] \| ] 04:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	****so the meme doesn't exist? The movie just happened to throw that line in there independent of anything else? You're joking, right? --] <small>(])</small> 04:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*****Does your chewing gum lose its flavor on the bedpost overnight? Why do fools fall in love? Who, who wrote the Book of Love? I'm sorry, isn't this the "empty rhetorical question" topic? Any time you want to actually offer actual evidence of your actual claim, that there's a verifiable connection between this so-called meme and its specific use in the movie, though, I'm all ears. Vigorous handwaving and empty sputtering? Not so much. --] \| ] 12:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	******I'm sorry, it wasn't an empty rhetorical question. If you can't see what's in front of you on this one, there's not much else I can say. The evidence is there if you want to look at it. --] <small>(])</small> 13:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*******No, it's precisely an empty question, since it has no content, an intentional distraction from the fact you haven't provided a scintilla of a shred of a shadow of an iota of evidence connecting the so-called meme with its use in the movie. Last time I checked, Misplaced Pages was a fact-based encyclopedia: your faith-based editing runs afoul of basic Misplaced Pages principles. And it seems odd for you to be so hung-up on policy regarding the exact timing of AfDs and yet constantly ignoring the more fundamental ] and ] policies: is it that you find them inconvenient? --] \| ] 06:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	********Not at all. The verification is there, the third party verification is there. If the evidence isn't going to sway you, nothing will, and I can accept that, but you could certainly be nicer about it. --] <small>(])</small> 14:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*********''If the evidence isn't going to sway you, nothing will'' The moment you provide a shred of it, it will. Hint: an MTV story that merely repeats the claim without backing means you've merely pushed your empty handwaving back a level. Do find concepts like "proof" and "evidence" to be too archaic and inconvenient for your ideal faith-based encyclopedia? --] \| ] 13:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	**********Whatever issues you're having with reliable sourcing aren't a problem I can deal with, obviously. You're convinced otherwise, so be it. --] <small>(])</small> 18:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	***********My issue with "reliable sourcing" is simple: you haven't provided any. Indeed, you don't even seem to understand the concept. You '''do''' seem to understand the concept of "misdirection", since it constitutes a significant portion of your arguments on this page. --] \| ] 04:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	************Then you haven't been paying much attention to the discussion, unfortunately. --] <small>]</small> 10:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*******It's certainly not unthinkable that those two words should appear in that order without it being an intentional reference. I find it quite natural, when I've just used the word "Juggernaut", to follow it with "bitch", and I didn't know there was such a meme. Ever hear of parallel evolution, or like when ] and ] ''both'' invented ]? -]<sup>(])</sup> 20:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	********Is it possible? Of course. Is it almost an absurd reach? I think so. To think one of the more notable memes didn't get put in the eyes and ears of the creators of the film is almost too much to think logically about. BTW, more news stories added to the top. It's like saying ] referenced ] without ever seeing Strongbad. --] <small>(])</small> 20:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*Or, maybe, it's just a coincidental line of dialogue with no relevance to this at all. ] 02:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*The facts as described sound too "current-event" flavored for me. It's wonderful that WP is able to be up-to-date in important matters, but on questions of borderline notability, "This got mentioned once on FOX News this week!" is not compelling evidence, to my mind. We should wait to see if a trend develops. It's fine for WP to catalog major internet memes, but I think it bad for encyclopedia integrity if WP begins to promote minor memes, giving undue attention. I'm worried this case is of the latter variety. It is too soon to assess well the term's notability increase, if any, from this single mention. ] 02:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	**As well as the fact that the exact line, word-for-word, appeared in an X-men TV episode to begin with, long before ]. Maybe they're just reusing the line because it's in character for the Juggernaut to say. ] 03:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	***Did it? That's quite a claim. Where's the source? Because I have to ask, how would the line "Don't you know who I am? I'm the Juggernaut, bitch!" have ever appeared in a saturday morning children's cartoon? Additionally, the line is not representative of the way in which Juggernaut speaks in the comics, and I can find no reference to a usage of it predating the web video. If you can, feel free to cite it. ] 19:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	**The problem is that this is continually characterized as a minor meme. It's not, and the idea that this is coincedental is really rather silly. I don't understand what more people are looking for at this stage. --] <small>(])</small> 03:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	***But the article isn't about the meme. It's about a short film. ] 14:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*The author even acknowledges the article was "gone" so he copied back the answers.com version. I don't think it's worth keeping anyway, but it's clearly recreated content.<b><span style="color: #f33">·]·</span></b>
	**Nonsense, the article is about the meme and the video, as any article should, as most articles on ] are ] 15:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	***What part of what I wrote is nonsense? If you really mean "I disagree", try saying it in a more civil way. Also try writing coherently. <b><span style="color: #f33">·]·</span></b> 21:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*In my judgment, this is a substantially identical copy of the deleted content -- I have speedied via G4 and protected. Of course, as the nomination proceeds, this matter may evolve. ] 03:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' Even on the small chance that the mention exists and ''isn't'' merely coincidental, that still wouldn't be enough. It's one line of dialogue. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 03:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	**What, exactly, do you need? --] <small>(])</small> 03:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	***Actual proof or evidence might be a start, as opposed to "firm belief". --] \| ] 04:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)"
	*'''Undelete.''' per first AfD. ] 03:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC).
	*'''Undelete''' per badlydrawnjeff and first AfD. ]
	*'''Undelete''', valid Internet phenomenon with a pretty clear reference in a massively successful movie. —] (] • ]) 04:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	**And your evidence that the two things have the slightest connection is what, exactly? --] \| ] 12:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' per badlydrawnjeff and first AfD. ] 04:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' - This is a particularly notable meme, I saw the movie and that came back to mind. ] 04:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	**And the evidence for a connection between the two is what, exactly? --] \| ] 06:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	'''Undelete''' I saw the juggernaut bitch vid at a friends house, and we saw the movie together as well. That line is a clear connection between the two; I highly* doubt the two were coincidental. Even the voice inflections in the movie are similar to that in the Juggernaut Bitch video. Undelete this article, and keep it. -] 05:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	**And your evidence that the two things have the slightest connection is what, exactly? --] \| ] 12:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' I think Fan-1967 hit the nail on the head; the movie has most likely re-used lines from previous TV shows (or the original comics) that are "catchphrases" for the characters. I don't think that really bolsters the notability of the meme (though it makes it a little funnier to watch the movie having seen the "Juggernaut Bitch" video). Though I acknowledge that it's a popular meme, I'm still not convinced it merits its own article. Maybe we get some expert advice from ? <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">]</font>]</b> 07:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	**I haven't seen every part of X-Men television, but I highly, highly doubt that "I'm the Juggernaut, bitch" aired over a television station for a superhero cartoon. --] <small>(])</small> 13:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*** <s>I haven't seen the movie yet, but does he actually say "bitch" in the movie? (In the Fox News clip, he simply says "Don't you know who I am? I'm the Juggernaut," so either he doesn't say "bitch" or Fox chopped it. I still find it highly unlikely that the quote was included in the movie as a nod to the meme. (Though such things do occasionally happen, such as with ]. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">]</font>]</b> 16:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC) </s>
	*'''Undelete''' this was obviously important enough to be included in the movie, so why should there not be something on wikipedia, a juggernaut (hah) of information. ] 08:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	**And your evidence that the two things have the slightest connection is what, exactly? --] \| ] 12:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' per above. ] 08:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''': How is your pet rock doing? How about your mood ring? Say "Where's the beef?" often? Misplaced Pages is not a web guide. It is not the Jargon File. It is not a news site. If the meme is going gangbusters, it doesn't need Misplaced Pages, and it doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. It is not encyclopedic in any sense. ] 11:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	**You do of course realize that ], ], and ] all have articles on Misplaced Pages? --] 15:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Overturn and Undelete'''. New information such as this can make the article even better. Thanks to nom for bringing this to our attention. -- ] 14:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	**And what new information would that be? --] \| ] 06:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	**Glad to be of assistance. Start at the top and work your way down. Check the MTV link. Reread the long discussion involving yourself and the nom focused on this very issue. I hope this provides you with ''a scintilla of a shred of a shadow of an iota'' of a response to your <s>vigorous handwaving</s> <s>empty sputtering</s> question. --] 01:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Endorse deletion'''. We discussed this less than a week ago. No substantive new information has been presented convincing me that the ''second'' AFD decision or the Deletion Review decision should be overturned. ] <small>]</small> 16:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	**So a blockbuster film and news coverage don't constitute "substantive new information?" If I wasn't concerned w/that, I would have brought it back here again sooner. I only saw the clip last night, it's brand new. --] <small>(])</small> 17:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*** This was not made into a "blockbuster film". It received a casual and ambiguously interpretable mention in such a film. Neither did ''this'' get any "news coverage" that I can find cited. MTV Movies is not what I consider "major media". (If there is some other coverage that I've overlooked it, please point it out to me.) ] <small>]</small>
	****Whether or not you consider MTV Movies "major media" is irrelevant. A reliable source is a reliable source, and since this has been covered by a reliable source via ] and ], the article should be reinstated. ] 21:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	***** I disagree with your conclusion. Not everything on TV is appropriate for the encyclopedia. We are not WikiNews. ] <small>]</small> 04:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	* Here's a link to the complete video on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/v/4TCFyiB8Vzo -- ] 16:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' in light of recent events. ] 18:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' This was featured on MTV Movies: http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1532557/05252006/story.jhtml
	::<i>A Bitchin' Shout-Out — In one scene, the unstoppable Juggernaut (Vinnie Jones) bashes through wall after wall, until a naive Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page) slows him down by sinking him into the floor. The angry mutant declares, "I'm the Juggernaut, bitch!" and then continues on his quest, but the brief line sticks out glaringly in an otherwise vulgarity-free film. "When that line comes up, I'm probably going to start breakdancing, and Randy will scream out the phrase himself," 21-year-old college student Xavier Nazario said excitedly, <b>thrilled over the prospect of watching Jones utter the line made popular by an Internet spoof Nazario released last February.</b> Using an old "X-Men" cartoon, Nazario and pal Randy Hayes dubbed their voices in, giving birth to the now-famous catchphrase. Hayes, who voiced Juggernaut's ghetto persona in the top-rated YouTube.com clip, isn't quite so shocked that Ratner paid tribute to the clip. "Everybody loves the Juggernaut," he laughed.</i>
	::...emphasis mine ] 18:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''', nn meme/amateur film, proper AfD. Trying to overturn an AfD on the grounds that the first one was valid but the second one isn't is, um, invalid. ]\|] 19:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	**I'm trying to overturn a deletion based on new information that has come about following the otherwise valid closure. At no time did i disparage the second AfD as invalid in this argument, although I am trying to get some sort of policy in place over at ] to refrain from the constant AfDing of consensus keeps. --] <small>(])</small> 20:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*Undelete despite the video sucking shit, due to new "notability". Maybe it should be merged with ], but that's not for us to decide (bindingly) here. --] (] - ]) 19:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse Deletion''', as it was a valid AfD, but allow recreation after recent events showing how notable this meme really is. If you want to take this as an '''Undelete''' I don't have a problem with that, I just think we should respect valid AfD's. ] 20:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	**'''Comment''' Keep in mind that people did not 'respect' the first AfD -- and it survived the first. So people renominated it again. ] 21:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	***Yes, I feel an admin should have closed the second as a speedy keep with the last AfD having been only 2 weeks prior, nominating again so soon doesn't make much sense...I still feel the result of the second should be respected (although I would have voted keep), but certainly allow recreation now that he actually said it in the film. ] 07:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Undelete''' Per {{User\|72.145.155.253}}'s MTV link above, it seems as if perhaps Ratner did include the line as an homage. Given the popularity of the movie (and the silly video), I'm going to have to change my vote. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">]</font>]</b> 20:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	**'''Comment'''. Producer of the video ''believes'' that the movie line was an homage to him. Not exactly an objective observer. ] 21:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' for the usual reasons. ] 23:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' Some anon refactored this debate into "discussion" and "vote" sections. I have reverted because such things are an anathema in my mind. ] 01:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' With the sources provided this seems like it could use a mention in the movie's article, but we are still a long way from sourcing the article from secondary sources and I do not believe that the encyclopedia derives enough benefit from this article to allow it to be sourced by the video itself. ] 01:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' this appears to be notable now. ] 04:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelte''' Mention on fox and mtv makes this notable. ] 05:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' in light of greater notability. -- ] <i><sub>]</sub></i> 08:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. An inside joke in a movie isn't justification for the creation of an entire article. <i><b>]</b>]</i> 09:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' Per first AfD. Notable Internet meme, now even more notable thanks to ''X3''. ] 11:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete'''. For an additional, documented example of filmmakers reshooting a scene to include "fancruft" (the most ridiculous word on Misplaced Pages), please see '']''. This was meant for the fans of the parody, if you can't see it, then you're trying too hard to legitimize earlier actions. --] 17:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*I can't believe people are actually arguing this shit. '''Undelete''' the damn thing. ] 02:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' This is an obvious reference to the fan movie and as someone else said, many other pop culture notorietys have Wiki entries.
	*'''Admin Action''' - I've undeleted this for now as it seems to be more than a handful of undelete requests, it is currently under another AfD so please take discussion there -- ] 05:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*: As I couldn't find the AFD Tawker is talking about, I've opened one: ]. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 05:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:: I spoke to tawker on irc, he simply got confused over the afd... the article can't be here and on afd at the same time ] 06:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*::: I have closed the AfD. -] <sup>] </sup> 06:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' - Please keep discussing here, the article has been brought back only to facilitate discussion, if consensus here is reached to keep the article deleted, it will be deleted, otherwise it will be kept. ''But we are voting to bring back an article already restored?'' -- yep that's correct but the restoration is only temporary and only because there is preliminary consensus to bring it back. Think of it as a temporary injunction, the movie is hot off the theaters right now and people are interested in the subject matter. ] 16:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	*'''Comment. Recall that the purpose of DRV is not ti "refight" the deletion, it's only for decide wether the AFD was valid or not. Those having concerns about the AFD being closed incorrectly can give arguments here. That's what DRV is about.'''' -- <small> ]</small> 18:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:There is, in fact, a process question here, though. People are arguing that it should be deleted as CSD G4, despite the fact that the circumstances surrounding the video/meme have changed. Thus DRV is the appropriate place to go about getting the prior article undeleted, which recovers the ] history better than copying it back frm answers.com. -- ] <i><sub>]</sub></i> 20:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*::As noted above, circumstances regarding the meme have changed radically since the release of the movie, and while I agree that it wasn't notable before, it most certainly is now. Any time Internet culture makes the leap to mainstream culture like this, it's most certainly worthy of an article. '''Undelete.''' ] 01:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:And I hope that everyone understands that this is not the place to gripe about technicalities of the procedures, but instead a place to discuss wether new facts that have come to light should affect the consideration of the AFD. ] 03:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' The film's use of the line (which has never appeared before in the X-men canon) is a very clear and direct reference to the web video. Suggesting that the line's inclusion came about through coincidence stretches not only credibility but incredulity, and would suggest a personal investment in keeping the page off Wiki due to bias and subjective dislike. ] 19:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' I'm still not convinced that of this meme's notability. I suggest that it remain deleted for a period of one year. Should the topic be considered noteworthy after that time, then I believe it should be recreated. -- ] <small>] ]</small> 20:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	:What exactly did they need to do in ''X3''? Have Juggernaut follow up the comment with "Did you guys get it? It's from the internet video that's been flying around the web --just like they're doing with the production of ''Snakes on a Plane'', and MTV is going to even cover this reference. Oh-Em-Gee-Dubya-Tee-Eff-Barbeque." :-p --] 03:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' Ratner has a link to this cartoon clip on his personal webpage; further suggestion of homage
	*'''Undelete''' It survived once and has been basically crusaded against because of its content however it has made its way main stream with the director linking it on his page so it is quite obvious he was inspired by this clip link can be found on directors page at the following address http://www.brettratner.com/content/videos/miscellaneous.html ] 16:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' NegroSuave has just found fairly good evidence, and seeing as the movie directly echoes the video--save one word ("Do" in the video becomes "Don't"), it seems notable enough as a meme to keep. I think if we (really, really) clean up the language from the article as it is now, it can be an unobtrusive part of Misplaced Pages.] 03:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' The video's signature line being quoted in a blockbuster movie rather firmly establishes its notability as a meme, and scoring nearly half a million Google hits doesn't hurt either. Also, while I'm aware of how limited the value of a single anecdote is, nearly everybody in the theater cracked up when the line was spoken when I went to see X3 last week. And I really doubt anybody would find the line ''that'' funny, unless they'd seen the fan video beforehand. ] 11:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	====]====
	Why was this article ] deleted. It seems that InShaneee has his or her own agenda and opinion when deleting articles instead of using objectivity. Please undelete this article as it is a future baseball league. Their website is . {{unsigned\|KnoxSGT}} <small>moved from the Talk page</small>
	*<s>'''Undelete''', looks like a league similar to the ], not sure why it was ever deleted in the first place.</s> i've seen the article, it was a non-notable stub. A7 would apply, sadly, so '''Endorse'''. Sorry Inshanee. --21:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' until the league exists, fields teams, has competitions, and attracts fans (particularly the latter). Misplaced Pages is explanatory, not advertising, and until there are fans, there is no one to explain to. ] 11:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	**The league exists and fields teams. The competition begins very shortly. Did you feel that ] was created prematurely in May of 2005? --] <small>(])</small> 13:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	***Now that you ask, yes. Encyclopedias are not news sources. They are not speculative. Should there have been an article in someone's user space? Maybe. However, until the thing happens, there is no there there. There is nothing in existence. Again, though, the bottom line is the function of an encyclopedia: it is not to announce. It is to explain, to document history, to draw upon ''secondary sources only'' to create a ''tertiary'' and ''critical'' summary. Anything that hasn't played a game yet is out. ] 14:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	****And if that can be done through an examination of a future event...? --] <small>(])</small> 17:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	****Oh? There are '''secondary''' sources already discussing the '''history''' of the thing, the '''execution''' of the thing, and the '''effects''' of the thing? That is amazing. Encyclopedias don't announce things. Anyone who thinks that advertising on Misplaced Pages is a good idea is already failing at business, music, and art, and anyone who thinks that Misplaced Pages is the place to announce their new accomplishment or event is abusing us and achieving nothing. Let it have some effects to measure before we proclaim those effects sufficient for an encyclopedia. ] 18:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	* It probably wasn't speedy-deletion material but it definitely should have been deleted because ]. As Geogre says, we are a tertiary source. We are not WikiNews. We have no need to scoop anyone. We can (and per ], ''must'') wait. '''Keep deleted'''. ] <small>]</small> 16:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep Deleted''' For the record, I speedied this as a nn-group, no content, and wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --] 19:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	**So the challenge of the speedy is invalid? If I recreate it with sources and content and isn't a G1, it ceases being a problem? --] <small>(])</small> 20:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Comment''' It doesn't matter much to me if we keep the current version of the article or not, but ''certainly'' there's no reason it can't be recreated with sources, if there are sources. Just because something hasn't happen yet, it doesn't mean that saying it's ''planned'' is unverifiable. -- ] 01:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	**Comment: If ''verification'' were the only concern, we'd not be an encyclopedia. We are supposed to serve the curious, not the organizer. When we have something that needs explanation, we can explain it, by reference. Until then, being true isn't all that's required. ] 02:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	***If you're saying that the article violates ], then verifiability ''is'' the issue; that's why we don't have speculation about the future. If the group is non-notable, that is a different matter. -- ] 07:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	**Actually, I'm saying that it does not make claims for notability ''because'' it can't because it doesn't exist. I.e. my objections over future articles are that we can't be sure that the thing will happen, that a meteor won't hit while they occur, that anyone will show up, that anyone will watch, etc. They violate ''all'' of the criteria. We can affirm that they're planned, but that's only part of one requirement, as an article needs to be verifiable ''and'' significant. Until it happens, we can only speculate that it will be significant, and that would include major events like the World Baseball Classic or the 2012 Summer Olympic Games -- it's virtually certain that they'll be significant, but it's not at all certain ''in what way'' they will achieve significance, and that's why we write exclusively after the fact. ] 12:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	====]====
	Out of process delete by ], who arbitrarily decided that and wrongly described as a G1 candidate (the article was not patent nonsense, yet was described as such by 7 of the 15 '''delete''' voters) repeatedly constituted consensus to ignore process. At the very least, the AfD should be allowed to run its course, allowing for an actual discussion about the policies governing such things to be completed. --] <small>(])</small> 21:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' AfD at time of closure was 16-to-1 to delete, with several of those calling for a speedy. Unlikely in the extreme that it would have resulted in a keep. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 03:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	**Relevance? The article did not meet a single speedy criteria, and there is nothing in policy allowing for a speedy close such as this. --] <small>(])</small> 03:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted.''' Valid AfD. Article cited no sources at all. Reconsider if someone presents convincing citations from a reliable source showing that "it has become a popular ]" as the article states. ] ] 03:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	**Given that it was on AfD for less than a day, not much was given to allow for such sources to be found. Also, was not a valid AfD, as it was closed early and improperly. --] <small>(])</small> 03:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*I would not have speedied it myself, nor closed the AfD early, but I think undeleting it merely so it can be deleted again in a couple of days would be unconscionable process wonkery (an ideology that has no place on this encyclopaedia). So, '''keep deleted'''. ] (]) 04:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Do not endorse deletion, keep deleted anyway'''. No need to close this early, even less need to reopen. --]<sup>]</sup> 05:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' - early closure well within reasonable admin discretion. ] 08:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	**According to what? Serious question. --] <small>(])</small> 13:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted.''' I read the entry, and it wasn't an encyclopedia article even by WP standards. There's no reason bickering over something of such questionable quality. Any mention of this catchphrase should be included in the article on the guy who uses it. ] 14:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	* It was clearly inappropriate to close this discussion early. Doing so has already wasted more time and effort than if we'd let the discussion run its course. However, it would also be pointless to reopen the discussion just to delete it in a few days. Censure ] for failing to follow the process but '''leave it deleted'''. ] <small>]</small> 16:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep Deleted''' - An admin using common sense to close a deletion, like OMG! I saw the AFD and the article when it was still running, and the article was not good or worthy of an encyclopedia. It seems to be taken from a Prince live track or something, so maybe redirect it to the album title or something. - ]]] 18:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' Per precendent of early closings when consensus is clear/article is hopeless. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">]</font>]</b> 20:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	====]====
	I'm a relatively uninvolved party, and it seems that the article was deleted out of process with the community having voted in favor of keeping it a few months before. It was written by the subject of the article, and so probably violates Misplaced Pages:Original Research and Misplaced Pages:Autobiography, but if it's recreated and relisted for deletion, this can probably be fixed by taking out most of it and reconfirming everything from the bottom up. I've compiled an article from what information can be found outside his website, excepting the information that he is the author of Israel News Agency, which I can't find at any website outside his own other than the Embassy of Israel in San Francisco, which regularly references his work. ] 21:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	:'''Joel Leyden''' is an ]i public relations consultant and the publisher of the ], which purports to be the first online news publication in Israel.<ref></ref> According to CNN, he has once worked as a spokesman for the ] with the rank of ]. <ref></ref> According to '']'', he is also a specialist in communications based in ].</ref>
	*'''Overturn''' with no objection to a relisting, although it shouldn't be necessary. Keep AfD is , and the deletion seems to be completely out of process, especially given the concensus keep by the community at large. --] <small>(])</small> 21:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' (see a ]) I'll basically steal my comment from Danny's talk page. Is the Israel News Agency more than a blog? Is he a search engine spammer? I do not know, but it certainly does not seem fit to say that it is his only claim to fame.
	**Joel Leyden was behind netking.com {{cite news\|title=Mourning by Modem for Rabin\|publisher=The Washington Post\|date=1995-11-09\|first=Sandy\|last=Rovner}} which has 16 mentions in newspapers including the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and The San Francisco Chronicle
	**{{cite news\|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0423/p06s02-wome.html\|title=Palestinian schools hit hard by conflict - Older students in the West Bank headed back to school yesterday, to begin cleaning up battle damage.\|publisher=Christian Science Monitor\|date=2002-04-23\|first=Catherine\|last=Taylor}} quotes him as a Captain and spokesman for the Israeli Defense Force
	**{{cite news\|title=A Flash of Screwy Logic\|publisher=The Washington Post\|date=1996-03-07\|first=Sandy\|last=Rover}} mentions his "internet consulting and advertising company" opening the Israeli Terror Victims Hotline page, <nowiki>http://shani.net/terror</nowiki>, which also has mentions in The Chicago Sun-Times and The Star Tribune
	**Again quoted as a spokesman and captain for the IDF in {{cite news\|title=Mideast Turmoil: Bethlehem - Israel's Threat of an Attack on a Church is Pulled Back\|publisher=The New York Times\|date=2002-04-27\|first=C.J.\|last=Chivers}}; {{cite news\|title=Israelis hunt militants in new West Bank raid - Bush urges end to incursions\|publisher=Chicago Tribune\|date=2002-04-27\|first=Michael\|last=Lev}}; {{cite news\|url=http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/04/24/mideast.bethlehem/index.html\|title=Children to be released from Church of the Nativity\|publisher=CNN\|date=2002-04-24}}
	** that mentions him and uses Israeli News Agency as a source
	:] 21:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	* It was deleted by ] as a "vanity page posted by banned user". The primary contributor, ], has indeed been indefinitely banned from Misplaced Pages. That decision was endorsed by two other admins who found it necessary to protect the page from recreation. The speedy-deletion criterion would certainly seem to apply and, if upheld, supercedes the AFD discussion.<br>Personally, I am going to '''endorse the deletion''' regardless of the concerns about the banned user. I see nothing in any version of the article suggesting that this person meets our recommended ]. ] <small>]</small> 16:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	**The CSD applies to pages created by a banned user ''while they are banned.'' Since Israelbeach is not a sockpuppet of some other banned user, they could not have made the page '''and''' have been banned at the same time. ] 17:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''' -- I suggest that if the subject is determined to be notable, a new article be started rather than continuing with the self-promotion of the deleted article. I suspect it would get filled up again by Joel's cadre of meat- and sockpuppets, but I guess that's always the chance we take when we have an article on a self-promoter. --]] 16:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Overturn and undelete''' per the useful comments made by Kotepho. ] 18:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete'''. Articles should not be deleted as an extension of a wikisquabble. It's curious that supporters of Mr Leyden are considered "meatpuppets" but supporters of the other party involved are not. ] 23:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete'''. The person is notable and deserving of an article as suggested by the original AFD discussion. ] 23:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' - Can't remember the exact details but there was definately a sqwuabble going on before this got nuked and it looks like it was voted on before and decided to keep?? Anyways, this seems sort of notable but I am more concerned when an article gets nuked during a sqwabble... --] 21:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep Deleted'''. If he wants to advertise himself here, he should pay us for the privilege (except we don't take advertising :-). ] ] 09:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	====]====
	Google gets over 30,000 results for sharting. It's a notable concept and should not have been deleted. It should be undeleted. ] 18:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	*] resulted in delete. Was there something wrong with the procedure for AfD? Deletion review isn't just AfD2:The Sequel. - ]</small> (]) 19:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	**This is an undeletion request. Did I send it to the wrong place? Is there a different place for undeletion requests? ] 19:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	***Was there a problem with the AfD? Is there evidence that was not considered? Were there improprieties in how it was conducted? - ]</small> (]) 20:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	****Actually, it was closed early and improperly. '''Undelete and relist'''. --] <small>(])</small> 20:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	**Actually, it sorta is. DRV exists to determine if a problem was made in deleting an article, not merely to determine if process was followed. Process can be followed and still give us the wrong result; in such cases, it would be idiocy in its purest form to say "keep this good article deleted, process was followed". Fortunately, the article in question this time 'round is ''not'' a good article, but is instead an excellent example of when out-of-process deletion is a Good Thing. ] (]) 04:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	**'''Comment.''' I sure hope DRV is AFD: The Sequel, because if AFD goes in favor of keeping you can relist as many times as you like to get it deleted. If it goes in favor of delete, you're saying that it can't be relisted ever if process was followed, which results in an unreasonable ]. —] (] • ]) 04:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''' Shart has been deleted 9 times already; the ] closed early because it was a speedy-able as a repost. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">]</font>]</b> 21:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	**Without knowing the rationale for the deletion in the first place, it's impossible to derive whether the speedy was proper, for one. For another, it's noted in the AfD that the article in the form referred to was vastly different than the one speedied the first times, thus NOT making it a G4 candidate. --] <small>(])</small> 21:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion.''' More ] disruption. Don't waste your time with this ]. —'']'' 21:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	**It may, in fact, be so, but this appears to also be an out of process delete, and that's just as much a problem as any sort of disruption a user may be causing. --] <small>(])</small> 21:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	***R.Koot has made a mistake, as my IP address is not a sockpuppet of ]. I've left a note on the user page. ] 22:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''' No convincing reason given to undelete. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 03:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion'''. This article is a textbook case of the sort of thing we ''do not want'' on Misplaced Pages. I can only assume that, with the exception of our earnest but misguided friend with the naked IP address, the people arguing for undeletion have not actually seen the article. ] (]) 04:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''' of this piece of ... stuff. ] 11:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''': Misplaced Pages is not Wiktionary, and, once past the giggle stage, what is there to do? ] 11:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Endorse deletion''' but not the reason given. This "article" had no redeeming value to the encyclopedia. It was first speedy-deleted as a "vandalism" contribution. That was arguable but would have been my opinion as well. It was re-deleted as "reposted content". That speedy-deletion was in error. The repost criterion may not be used when the only prior deletions have been speedy-deletions. It can be speedied again under the original criterion but the repost criterion only applies to AFD'd content. ] <small>]</small> 16:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion'''. The article was a dicdef of a neologism; it belonged on Wiktionary if it belonged anywhere. --] 03:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	====]====
	Here is the last version... (categories removed), per request:
	<div style="float: left; border:solid green 1px; margin: 1px;">
	{\| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: #D0F0C0;"
	\| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: #D0F0C0; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5\|{{{id-s\|14}}}}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc\|black}}};" \| ''']'''
	\| style="font-size: {{{info-s\|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc\|black}}};" \| This user supports the use of ''']'''.
	\|}</div>
	{{-}}
	It added users to this category: ]
	and was itself in the user templates category: ]
	and had a correspondence: <nowiki>]</nowiki>
	Per request... '''<font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''']: ]/] 15:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	:PS, I put this markup here at request of a user asking to see what it is we are debating. I note that text placed in other DRVs above (text I userified at the request of the user who placed it there) has been removed, although I didn't troll the edit history to see who did it. If there is an issue with placing markup at DRV to show what it was that was deleted, when requested to do so, I'd like to know about it. Pointers to where it's been discussed gratefully received. '''<font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''']: ]/] 15:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Many thanks, Lar. My guess is that the debate could have continued until no-one could remember what the userbox looked like. Now no such limit need apply :-) But seriously, the debate so far has shown there is no consensus for the deletion (a small majority favour undeletion). This indicates the original deletion can be reversed by any admin who is kind enough (and has not a strong personal objection). With regard to avoiding any interpretation as advocacy (I didn't do so) the text could be reworded. How about "This user prefers green energy"? I really think if people put aside any political antipathy, no-one should be inflamed or divided by someone expressing a preference for energy sources that do less damage to the world in which they too live (I bet someone will disagree...) ] 01:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	An opinionated deletion of an informative and inoffensive userbox. This must have annoyed other contributors as well as myself. I suggest this be undeleted and ] be informed how to not alienate contributors. ] 11:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	:For what it's worth, I am thrilled at the prospect of my upcoming re-education procedure. I assume the Secret of How Not to Alienate Contributors is not an easy one to discover, or I'd have found it already. Is it some kind of icky-tasting elixir? An intense weekend-long training course complete with electroshock therapy and vicious sack-beatings? I must say I am all a-quiver, wondering what is going to happen. ] (]) 15:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	* <s>'''Undelete'''</s>: I couldn't see a debate ], so I'm assuming there wasn't one. Userboxes say a lot about the editors who use them. This is no exception. I am aware there is a debate in this area, but this looks like a non-offensive user-box. ] 11:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	*: <s>'''No vote'''</s>: I don't seem to understand enough about this yet to vote, so I'm going to observe a bit longer. ] 18:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	*<s>'''Undelete''':</s> <s>I don't currently see much difference between a graphic and a piece of text in user space.</s> I think opinions should be separated from expertise, but this is a bigger debate. ] 09:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Let's see the result of the debate first, and I'd also like to see the box itself. ] 08:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''': I've been following a lot of the debates on Userboxes since this DRV came up. Although I support the use of Green Energy, I don't think Userboxes should be used to advertise peoples opinions. For consistency, I oppose all userboxes which do not indicate expertise. However, if policy, when it settles, supports POV userboxes, I will support consistency and the reinstatement of this box. ] 15:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*: Ahhhh... I look forward to the explanation on why this was "T1" as the delete log says. Also, I see he has deleted the communist wikipedian category as well as another religion, and yet the cristian category is as vibrant as ever :).... hmmmmmmm..... ] 12:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:: Believe it or not, green energy isn't a slam-dunk-everybody-loves-it cause, even in today's world when nearly everyone accepts the reality of global warming and suchlike. I s'pose if it was, nobody would have bothered making a userbox advocating it. It was a template advocating a potentially inflammatory viewpoint, and in my view fit snugly into T1. If users want userboxen that are ''useful'' to the project, there's no reason they can't create neutrally-worded ones: "This user is interested in green energy issues", "This user edits articles related to green energy", "This user is an expert on green energy", whatever.
	*:::I haven't seen the template, so can't comment on the wording. ] 13:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:::T1, as I read it, requires a userbox to be divisive & inflammatory to meet that criterion for deletion. Try as I might, I can't see a lot of weight going toward the idea that this is a divisive & inflammatory template. "This user supports green energy" is a statement that would be hard-pressed to inflame the passions of all but a small minority of people, and who would it divide? "Green energy" is a concept that's wide open to interpretation. I just don't see a strong case for deletion, and especially not for speedy deletion.--] 23:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	*::::You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what the position is; userboxes that express support for a political/social/religous position are divisive and thus can be deleted, as far as I, and many others, are concerned.--] 02:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:: Re: the Communist Wikipedian category, yes, I deleted it. I deleted the Socialist one, too. Categories that exist only for vote-stacking should not be used on Misplaced Pages. I don't remember deleting any religion-related userboxen or categories, and I wouldn't mind a little clarification about what exactly you were implying when you said I hadn't deleted the Christian category. If you want it gone, you're an admin, feel free: I have no objection. ] (]) 12:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Keep deleted'''. This is an encyclopaedia, and is no more a vehicle for promoting environmental activism than it is for promoting religions or political philosophies. --]<sup>]</sup> 12:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	*: So are you in favour of deleting all user boxes? How about promoting white middle class Englishness, for example? ] 12:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	*::That's not a template. (For the benefit of other users, he's referring to the 'Personal' box on my userpage.) --]<sup>]</sup> 14:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	*::: My mistake then. I seem to have misunderstood what and template:userbox green energy and <s>userboxes</s> 'Personal' boxes are. As I can't see the deleted template either, I'll withdraw my vote until I understand this area better. ] 18:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Keep deleted'''. This is a pretty straightforward "T1" deletion of a userbox with a clear polemical purpose. A laudable purpose, I'm sure many will agree, but not a suitable use of template space. If I want the world to know that I support green alternatives to conventional fossil fuels, I'll write something to that end on my Misplaced Pages userpage, or perhaps on my blog. --] 12:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	** Or you could add a neutrally worded user box to your user page. Is there a server resource issue here? At least you are consistent. And given your lightbulb is ], perhaps you are even secretly a sympathetic conservationalist ;-) ] 13:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep Deleted'''. Try Xanga or livejournal. --] 17:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''', go somewhere else per Improv. --] 17:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep Deleted''' good thing to be in support of, but be in support of it somewhere else. -''']</font>'''<sup>]</font></sup> ] 20:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' If we keep this while deleting other belief boxes, we're making Misplaced Pages take a position as to which opinions are inflammatory and which are kosher. That's way beyond what an encyclopedia needs to be doing. -]<sup>(])</sup> 22:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	**The converse is also supported by your argument. If other userboxes stay, then so should this one. Personally, I'd like to see all userbox creations & deletions stop, except for deletions due to incontrovertible issues, like copyright violations.--] 23:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	**:Yes, Ssbohio, the converse also works, except that means we keep "user Nazi", so I'm willing to dismiss that option out of hand. -]<sup>(])</sup> 23:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' In this discussion, there are several comments favoring keeping this template deleted. Many of them are informative & interesting. However, I have yet to see one directly address itself to how this template is ''divisive'' and ''inflammatory'', per ]. It seems like that would be the central issue in this discussion. I can't see support for green energy to be sufficiently divisive and inflammatory to merit the ultimate sanction, deletion. If there is a legitimate T1 problem, then changing the text of the box would be, to me, a more appropriate solution. However, I don't see this template as having remotely met T1. Lastly, there's a strong argument to be made whether the same CSD should apply to templates used only in userspace. The fact that they exist in omnispace is an artrifact of how the wiki software was constructed. It bears no direct relationship on where the template is seen, nor on its content.--] 23:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:So, you're willing for Misplaced Pages to decide which particular issues are inflammatory and which ones aren't? -]<sup>(])</sup> 23:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:I am alarmed at the apparent level of intolerance in the Misplaced Pages community, and also misunderstanding: the userbox in question expressed a positive attitude towards green energy. This is ''not'' in any way "polemical", and ''not'' a "potentially inflammatory viewpoint" (as a user who prefered to withhold his name stated above), at least not to anyone without a pathological and irrational dislike of green energy - how can someone else's preference for a a certain type of energy source be "inflammatory"? I'm glad to see the only user who referred to the content of T1 pointed out how utterly inappropriate the use of this to justify deletion was. ] 02:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:So what if the attitude was "positive"? It has no place on Misplaced Pages; it serves no purpose in building an encyclopedia and, indeed, actively combats that goal.--] 02:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:How could anyone who accuses anyone who disagrees with him of being "pathological and irrational" be considered polemical or inflammatory? See, the difference between the good userboxes and the bad userboxes is that the good userboxes are ''right.'' '''Keep deleted'''. <b><span style="color: #f33">·]·</span></b> 03:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*Keep deleted per Fuddlemark and others, above.--] 02:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*::Sean, you appear to have misread what I said. I stated that anyone who is "inflamed" by someone else saying that they support the use of green energy must have a pathological (and, in my reasoned opinion, irrational) dislike of green energy. I stand by this statement. ] 21:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:::And you think it's appropriate for Misplaced Pages to say "being inflamed by one issue is ok, but only a pathological so-and-so can be inflamed by another one?" Who are we to say that green energy is an acceptable cause to support and something else isn't? I'm not comfortable politicizing Misplaced Pages in that way. All ideologies out of template-space. -]<sup>(])</sup> 21:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' improper deletion. Not T1 by any stretch of the imagination. <strike>Put the crack pipe down and</strike> '''stop deleting userboxes'''. Thanks. --] 04:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' - this is ''exactly'' the sort of stuff we are currently trying to keep out of template space (pssssst, T2). ] 08:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' and reword so it is not divisive. ] 08:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:I wouldn't oppose a template declaring ''expertise'' in green energy. That'd be downright encyclopedic. -]<sup>(])</sup> 08:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*::Me neither. That's not a reason for undeletion, however; a new template can simply be created at the old name. ] (]) 09:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep Deleted''' It's becoming clearer and clearer that these things don't belong...this was a proper deletion. ] 15:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' as I fail to see how it met a T1 deletion. If it ''had'' been nominated on TfD, perhaps it would have been kept or maybe it would have been subst and deleted, but I don't see how having a userbox saying ''This user supports green energy'' is divisive or inflammatory. It isn't like it's saying ''This user dislikes people who don't use green energy'', it is merely highlighting the fact that the user supports the idea of green energy. If the subject itself was divisive, then people would ] shops because the shop uses green energy. This userbox doesn't say ''this user supports ]'' - a subject which could be divisive. ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 10:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Strong Undelete''', unless every single userbox stating a political, ethical, moral or religious viewpoint is ''also'' deleted. And I understand Jimbo's position is to win people over 'one user at a time', not to merely delete the userboxes. ] 11:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:That's what Jimbo said 3 months ago, right. You know what he said ? What part of "the template namespace is not for that" don't you understand? -]<sup>(])</sup> 18:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''', hopefully to be followed by deletion of all other non-encyclopedic userboxes.] 16:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' as done out of process and not likely to have been the result if process was followed. Between a user who stated that they couldn't find a deletion discussion at TfD and the failure of all prior posters to reference one, it is safe to conclude that this was done as a speedy delete. The above discussion shows no evidence that it met either prong of the T1 test, much less both - therefore it was a violation of process. Userbox templates that are actually used often do not get deleted during a TfD discussion, therefore the argument that the shortcut for a TfD discussion is false. (Those that do are the least used and/or the most contentious - this falls into neither group.) We may someday see Jimbo's preference for not having userbox templates come to pass, but the community as a whole is leaning the other way at the present time and Jimbo has explicitly said that he has not made policy by fiat on this topic, so the potential argument that this will eventually become policy is unproven and does not sustain this out of process action. ] 19:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*: T1 isn't a pronged test. Divisive userboxes don't belong on Misplaced Pages. Inflammatory userboxes don't belong on Misplaced Pages. They're gone. Finito. Speedied. That's what T1 is about. --04:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:: What part of "and" says that there are is only one criterion/prong to meet? ] 17:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*::: I think you're interpreting the criteria in a manner that was never intended by the framer and that has never been applied in practice. Inventive, perhaps, but not very practical. There is no defence for divisive templates. There is no defence for provocative templates. All of them are going to be deleted. The question before us here is: is this template either divisive or inflammatory? If either, it doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. --] 17:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*::::Slipper slope. You can say that even language Userboxes are "divisive". It divides those who speak the language, and those who don't. But whatever. But since you're at it, can you go over to the Feminist and Christian Userboxes and delete them again? ] 17:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep delted''' - template space isn't for biased bumper-stickers. --] ] 19:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete'''. Invalid deletion. ] 15:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' T1 does not appear to apply. —] <sup>]</sup> 20:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''', clearly not divisive ''or'' inflammatory. —] 00:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''', until a concensus policy is established. --] 00:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Keep deleted''' per ]: just considering all the screeching and hollering should give people an idea of just how bloody disruptive these damn things can be. HTH HAND —] \| ] 10:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I presume Phil is suggesting that if the destruction of something causes outrage, this justifies the original destruction (if not, the fact that people are "screeching and hollering" in support of deletion can hardly be used as a logical reason to support their action). Can't see this myself, but it just shows how even the most unusual viewpoints can be represented in a WP discussion. Just out of interest, would users who feel inflamed by other people's altuistic actions think a userbox representing "this user does voluntary work for charity" would qualify for T1 as well, on the grounds of being "inflammatory and divisive"? Or does the fact that some people are inflamed by people being Jewish preclude any userboxes representing this personal characteristic (which is totally inoffensive to me, though I do not share it)? ] 13:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*This template supports a POV and is advocacy. Userify if desired (perhaps under the German Solution) but under T1 and T2, not appropriate for template space. '''Keep Deleted''' Oh, and support reeducation of Mark Gallagher, as long as tickets can be sold at reasonable prices to consenting adults... the fact that he is "a-quiver" at the prospect of "vicious sack beatings" suggest high entertainment value... (KIDDING about that last part...) '''<font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''']: ]/] 15:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''undelete''': Per above. ] 05:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	===26 May 2006===
	====]====
	*'''UnDelete'''. There was no concensous to delete this article. Nearly as many editors voted for it to be merged as voted for it to be deleted (See ]). For the content of article to be merged with ] it will need to be undeleted. Also there may have been some vote gathering see , , and . --] 16:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse Close and Keep Deleted'''. If my counting isn't totally screwed up, I count 15 deletes, 5 merges, 2 keeps, and 1 keep or merge. I don't see any logic that can justify ''"Nearly as many editors voted for it to be merged as voted for it to be deleted."'' Also, quite frankly, all the NPOV content is already at ]. - ] 18:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	* Question: The consensus to delete was clear and I can not disagree with some of the core concerns raised during the AFD discussion. However, I note that this article's earliest version pre-dates the ] article. Was content merged before or during the discussion? If so, we would seem to be obligated to either restore and redirect or to execute a history-only merger in order to preserve the attribution history - a requirement of GFDL. ] <small>]</small> 18:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Overturn and undelete''', by my own analysis, the AfD doesn't quite have enough consensus for the article to be deleted. I would have closed this as ''no consensus'' and applied the default action of merging with ] as mentioned by the DRV nominator. --] ] 19:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:*'''comment''' I'm curious what you mean by merge. From what I remember, the content worth keeping from Left-wing Terrorism is already in the other article. ] 20:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:**What I meant by merge is that I don't know if the information was already merged. :-) If the content is already merged, then a redirect is in order. In fact, if the content was actually merged FROM this article, then an undelete and redirect is required by ] unless an admin cares to perform a history merge (which is more difficult). --] ] 20:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:***I suspect it would take a pretty detailed historical comparision to figure out what appeared where first, and whether any was actually copied. I don't have access to the deleted article, but my impression ws that most of the information was substantively the same, but not word-for-word as if it had been copied. ] 20:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Relist on AfD''', and see if we can get a proper discussion going, instead of a silly poll full of silly little icons. I'm rather more supportive of AfD than most users, but a vote, using icons, is indefensible. Bah. ] (]) 22:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:*'''Comment''' That set of icons lasted through about one day of AfD's, and I agree they're silly, but I don't see how they're relevant to the validity of the discussion. ] 13:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undeleted and relist'''. Closing seems premature. ] 23:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' - decision within reasonable admin discretion and article itself superfluous. ] 08:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Overturn and undelete''', and then re-list on AFD for consensus. ] 18:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Question'''. There was a companion article to this, on Right-wing terrorism (]), similarly deleted for pretty much the same reasons. Why is only one of them being targeted here? ] 19:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	**'''Answer''': because noone has bothered to bring it up for DRV. If you decide to bring it up, I'd be happy to look at the AfD and offer my opinion on it. --] ] 01:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	***'''Comment'''. Oh, no. I don't want that one DRV'ed any more than this one. I just find it interesting that only one of them was brought here. ] 06:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	====]====
	*'''UnDelete''' - this article was still a stub. However, it was deleted. Misplaced Pages does not have information about scout groups in Malta. The page ] is the only Maltese scouting page. Misplaced Pages needs to have a page about the scout groups in Malta, their activities, programme, etc. The ] is an active group, which deserves to be listed. It has carried out a number of joint activities with different scout groups around the globe. {{unsigned\|193.188.46.254}}
	*The entire content of the article was
	*:"'''Stella Maris College Scout Group''' is part of ]"
	*:and an externel link. - I'd just recreate it with something more substantail. ] 15:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion, discourage recreation'''. Individual Scout groups are not ]. "Misplaced Pages needs to have a page about the scout groups in Malta, their activities, programme, etc" - no, the organisation's website needs that, this is an encyclopaedia and not a vehicle for promoting Scout groups. --]<sup>]</sup> 15:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''', this looks to be a valid A7 (non-notable group). --] ] 19:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	*I pulled the trigger on it, so, in a sense, I've already "voted," and therefore all I can do is elaborate on the rationale. I'm sure it's a fine troop and important in its way. However, it is not a thing that is mentioned in multiple contexts, documented in several sources, beyond the local area. Therefore, there isn't a ''need'' for contextualizing and explaining the thing. There would be nothing wrong with putting the information in the extant articles on scouting, or, if appropriate, the cultural life and schools section of Malta, but, as a stand-alone entry, there just isn't an encyclopedic need at this time. ] 20:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''', concur with Samuel's reason. --] 17:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

	===25 May 2006===

	====]====
	''The AfD discussion can be found at ].''
	*'''UnDelete''' - list :offers insight into controversial cultural icon, unique extensive jargon reference
	:Its never been deleted... ] 23:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	::It has, he just linked to the wrong article in the heading. I've fixed it. ] (]) 23:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	:'''Keep deleted'''. AfD was closed quite properly, and a look at the article shows nothing that would be missed from Misplaced Pages. If you'd like to take the content and host it on your own website, I'd be happy to provide it to you. ] (]) 23:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

	*'''endorse closure - keep deleted'''. This was a valid afd with a 100% consensus that there shouldn't be an article on Misplaced Pages (there were votes to transwiki to Wikiquote, 10 votes to delete and one unsigned comment by an anon that didn't express an opinion about the article). ] 23:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse closure''' <s>but not the actual AfD result. Valid AfD ], but I wouldn't have put "no consensus, leaning towards delete" as the result in the AfD. After discounting the invalid votes, this was definitely a consensus towards delete. A "no consensus" means that the article is kept, not deleted. --] ] 00:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)</s>, valid AfD (changed my comments now that RasputinAXP provided a link to the most recent AfD). --] ] 03:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:*AfD isn't a vote ... ] (]) 00:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	::*Yes, as an AfD closer, I'm aware of that. As I've noted somewhere else, while AfD isn't a vote, and each entry in an AfD is a comment, I choose to name any comment which calls for an action (such as comments that start with ''Keep'', ''Merge'', ''Redirect'', or ''Delete'') a "Vote" for convenience and to differentiate it from an actual comment which doesn't call for an action (such as comments that have no heading, or start with ''Comment''). If you would prefer that I use a different noun, I can call it an iVote, nVote, !Vote, notVote, or something like that. :-) --] ] 00:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Keep deleted: List of neologisms from a single person? That's a tribute page, a fan page, or an attack page, and it's ''not'' an encyclopedia article. ] 02:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''': as the closer of the most recent AfD on this article, it was a pretty clear Delete. ] ] 03:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	**Thanks, I changed my comments to reflect that. I had to look for the AfD manually, but didn't think to look for the second nom. --] ] 03:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse closure, keep deleted''' The closure and deletion was proper, and valid reasons for deletion were expressed in the first and second AfDs and here above, while no reasons expressed for keeping it had any weight to them. (Even if the article were deemed to be proper for WP, it had many problems I had identified in the 1st AfD the maintainers of the page were apparently unwilling to address.) ] 04:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''transwiki to Wikiquote''' list qualifies as a unique citation of quotes
	*'''Comment''' ] has further objections as to encyclopedic relevance and other objections--] 17:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse closure (as delete)''' The AfD was altogether proper, and there was a clear consensus for ''delete'' (for our purposes, ''transwiki'' can be understood as supporting ''delete'' ). Nothing is adduced here toward the proposition that new evidence exists such that those supporting ''delete'' would think the article ought to be ''kept'', and, inasmuch as the general AfD objections (mine, at least, in which others joined) were as to ] and in any event largely ], no such evidence could be introduced. I can't think of any valid challenge one could essay to the AfD or to this article's deletion. If one wants to transwiki (I'm not certain that Wikiquote would want the page, but I'm not wholly familiar with their inclusion guidelines), I think the text of original should surely be copied to a user subpage, with the proviso that the text shouldn't stay there forever; we'd then simply be hosting a deleted article in userspace. ] 18:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion'''. Transwiki to wikiquote as well, perhaps, but definitely delete. --] 17:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)



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

	Quite frankly my first experience was a bit nerve wrecking and I feel that I have learned little and am unsure if I am capable of at least starting an article that would be acceptable to Misplaced Pages' standards. Thanks for all your help and I look forward to a fair and ubiased discussion. {{unsigned\|Meanax}}
	*'''Comment''' FWIW, the deleted article can be viewed at a . ] 21:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''': As the closing admin, I'd like to say that I would have liked to be informed about this DRV (please take a look at {{]}}). Now, to the AfD itself. First of all, it wasn't easy, sifting through the extremely long comments by all the new users (likely sockpuppets or meatpuppets). Next, after discounting those invalid votes, on a strict vote count, I counted four deletes and one keep, with the one keep being by the original author. The delete votes took into account the evidence you were presenting, and they still decided that the subject wasn't notable enough to be included. If this article is kept deleted, it's okay, it's not easy sometimes figuring out what's notable and what's not. It might be easiest for you to find a small music-related articles and expand those instead. Misplaced Pages could use some expansion of articles. --] ] 00:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

	*'''Comment''': Once the band has more coverage will they be reconsidered for inclusion on Misplaced Pages or is this a life time delete? user = meanax
	**No, it's not a lifetime delete. Bands that become notable (per ], usually by being signed to a major label and/or releasing a notable album) can and do get undeleted and mentioned on Misplaced Pages. --] ] 12:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	***'''Comment''' And one shouldn't be discouraged when the subject of an article he/she wrote is deemed non-notable, even if he/she is closely linked with the subject. After all, were Misplaced Pages around in 1958, we'd like have adjudged as non-notable (in view of our ]) ], but we'd surely have included them upon their becoming ] and having some commerical success. ] 19:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''': Dear Deathphoenix, I just want to clarify that all the long comment on that AFD were mine. Two of the keep voters I new. I third one I had no idea who or she was. I want to make clear that I was not trying to circumvent the system. I promise. user = meanax
	**No problem. I closed the AfD without malice and in as fair a way as possible. Oh, and note my additions to the response above. --] ]
	*No opinion to the deleted article, but there could be a good article under this name, I think. Isn't superhorse a breeding/racing term applied to specific horses like ] which perform a standard deviation or two above literally any of their peers? I will look into it more and write a draft when I have time and am on my normal computer. --] 14:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	**'''Comment'''Indeed; when first I saw this listing, I assumed it to be an article apropos of the equine appellative (recently ascribed to ] ). ] 19:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	*I've removed the <nowiki>{{deletedpage}}</nowiki> now that the user is involved in DrV. - ]</small> (]) 15:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''' Legit afd (whose concerns focused on verifiability); too local (no mention in Allmusic.com, no titles for sale at Amazon). <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">]</font>]</b> 17:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

	**'''Comment''': Alright. Not wanting to beat this "Superhorse" to death (Just a joke fellas), Keith Kozel, the singer is on IMDB, Allmusic with his other project (GAM is the name of his other band), was awarded best band of GA (While performing with GAM) by a popular poll conducted by Creative Loafing (Currently called Access Savannah and with circulation of 40,000 weekly copies) and has had his paintings published on The ]. Between Superhorse, GAM, his paintings being published, and his acting endeavors Keith Kozel has been mentioned in over 70 articles from Atlanta to Savannah, GA to Charleston SC. Provided you accept his accomplishments as "notable" would you: 1. Reconsider the article. 2. Let me do an article on GAM. 3.Let me do an Article on Keith Kozel and have a stub for Superhorse since he is the founder, composer and lyricist of the band? C'mon! Help me out fellas. I'm doing it all in the name of rock'n roll and rooting for the home team.User = meanax
	: I don't see an entry for Keith Kozel on AllMusic, though I did see . He has two movies listed in IMDB (both of which appear to be limited release) and Google hits. I'd say that's borderline notability at best. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">]</font>]</b> 21:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

	**'''Comment''': Sorry. The mention on Allmusic is for GAM, which Keith is also the founder, composer and lyricist. Does that count? ] 21:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

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

	I understand that some editors object to having to word mentioned on ]. However, I would like to dispel one user's statement that mentioning exicornt on the article is considered vandalism.
	Therefore, I am writing to request that ] (which is now <s>a ])</s> ) be deleted and redirected to ]

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

	Though I am prepared to take any criticism, I feel posting the word here for review is a proper course of action to take in light of the recent controversy. ]ring isn't the answer to solving this problem. -- ], Thursday ] ] at 14:01 14:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	: '''Keep deleted'''. The AFD was completely legit, apart from Eddie's attempts to make it go away. Edit warring doesn't change the reasons why "exicornt" was deleted. No need to create a redirect that would legitimate this word that is used only by a small (perhaps very small) local group. ] 14:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	:'''Keep deleted'''. I don't see that anything has changed since the AfD result, which was exactly correct. Google still shows ''no'' uses of this that aren't Misplaced Pages or Wiktionary-related. <b><span style="color: #f33">·]·</span></b> 14:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	:'''keep deleted''' I am a ], I've been a model railroader since the early 1980s, I helped build the Wisconsin Central project layout for Model Railroader Magazine (article series published in 1997), I'm the lead editor on ] and I'm model contest co-chairman and a Director-At-Large for the Midwest Region of the ]. I hadn't heard of this term before it popped up last November; I've only heard that track configuration referred to as a crossover. ] <small><font color="black">]</font></small> 14:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

	::And speaking of possible sockpuppetry, I notice that a week ago that someone named {{User\|Dnd293}} created redirects to ] at ] and ] -- which were the user's only edits. You wouldn't know about that, would you, Eddie? --] \| ] 15:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Thanks for finding those. And of course there's a good chance you're right. But Eddie edited in seeming good faith for a good number of months after he ceased the suckpuppetry and exicornting, so maybe I'm AGFing a little hard here in a spirit of optimism. —] (]) 15:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' I remember the MfD for Eddie's userpage version of exicornt, where his submitted "source" was a hand-drawn, sloppy diagram of same. I don't see any new sources that would lead to a reevalution here. ] 15:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' as per everyone above. 'Nuff said. ] (]) 01:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''', no compelling reason to overturn previous AFD, nor any new evidence to invalidate it. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 02:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. This has a been an interwiki problem for six months. —] \| ] 10:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' This "neologism" would appear to be a hoax.] 00:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''; if this word was in even slight use by the railfan community, it would splashed all over the Internet, which it isn't. The term is an unused, redundant and slightly ugly neologism for a perfectly good word "crossover". In addition, definitions do not belong in Misplaced Pages. Even if it was a real word, it would belong in Wiktionary, not here. <font style="color:#77AAAA">'''s'''murrayinch</font>]<font style="color:#77AAAA">ster<sup>(]), (])</sup></font> 12:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''''. Nonsense. ] 08:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	====]====
	Speedy deletion in ] of the quoted ] "I1" (redundant): A JPEG is clearly not in the same format as an SVG, not only my browser knows this (unfortunately). The icon was in use for several weeks on almost all template talk pages using {{Tlx\|Protection templates}} after somebody proposed it on one of these pages as general "protected" icon. I tested it because visible is better than broken from my POV on ] for about a month - there were no objections. Therefore I added it to the (few) unprotected protection templates (excl. the semi-protection templates, where a lock icon makes no much sense) today. The edit history clearly stated "working with more browsers". -- ] 05:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	*Images cannot be restored. Please re-upload it and continue to discuss the issue of what image should be used.--] 05:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	*Do you have a copy of the image? It's not possible to undelete images, so unless you have a copy somewhere that you can upload if the DRV passes, it won't really help to list it here... <span style="font-family: Verdana">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 05:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	**No, I only saw it on - most Misplaced Pages icons don't work with my browser, it's too old for inline PNG. Therefore I won'tb miss the few exceptions like wikipedia_minilogo.gif or this JPG. I can transform PNG to say GIF and upload that. If the result is smaller (in bytes) without untolerable losses, otherwise that would be a stupid strategy. -- ] 07:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	***What are you using, Mosaic? Even Netscape 4.5 could handle inline PNG images. --] 09:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	****]. -- ] 04:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''<s>Undelete</s> Reupload''' This truely puzzles me. I assume no bad faith on Borg Hunter's part, but I really don't have a clue how this happened =) Someone enlighten me =P --]] 07:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	**Um, it can't be undeleted, as admins don't have the technical ability to undelete images. Perhaps it might be cached by Google, but I doubt it. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 07:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	**Why don't you understand? It is the ''same thing'' as ]. —] <sup><s>]</s></sup> (]) 20:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	***I certainly can't judge it, I've never seen the PNGified SVG. Should I convert it to GIF? -- ] 04:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	* Hurry, it'll be gone soon. --] 08:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	* I re-uploaded a new copy. Thankfully, I had it saved! --] \|] 09:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	**Thanks, stupid question, '''where''', apparently not on w:en: and also not on commons: (?) -- ] 05:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Re-delete''' What is the big deal? Citing CSD#1 was ''technicaly'' wrong, but {{tl\|redundant}} and {{tl\|BadJPEG}} images are deleted all the time when they are no longer used and replaced by a better version. Misplaced Pages policy is to replace lineart like this with SVG or PNG versions whenever possible. To quote the '''Format''' section of ] "''Drawings, icons, political maps, flags and other such images are preferably uploaded in SVG format as vector images. Images with large, simple, and continuous blocks of color which are not available as SVG should be in PNG format.''". Getting rid of this is entierly within policy. I urge everyone with old browsers that doesn't handle PNG's at all to upgrade or switch browser ASAP. --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 10:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	**'''Comment''' Just a minor addition, I do agree that this one should have been sent to IFD since it's "replacement" was not the same image in a different format and all that, that would have avoided some confution. However it would most scertainly have ended up getting deleted anyway wich is why I don't think it's a huge deal. By the way unless someone gets around to actualy adding some source info to this image it will get deleted again in 7 days regardles of the outcome of this debate. --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 10:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	***See also ]. -- ] 04:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Endorse deletion''', and re-delete per above. ] (]) 11:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Re-delete''' per Sherool. ] 14:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

	===24 May 2006===

	====]====
	You people at Misplaced Pages seem to have a problem with everything I write. You keep deleting them.
	I thought I was opening a big and fair debate about the ] article undeletion, but then you deleted what I wrote, as you have deleted the article ].
	I would like to know what you will do if I make changes in the articles (for better, of course), or if I undelete some articles I think were fine. You people don't want valuable contributionss, you want the articles to say only what you and some users think is true.
	That is not the way, because sooner or latter, you will lose credibility.

	] 24 May 2006

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

	===23 May 2006===
	====]====
	], <span class="plainlinks"></span>

	Its VfD was in August of 2005 and is no longer really relevant, as its Alexa ranking shows. Also, it clearly falls under the exception to G4 "ensure that the material is substantially identical, and not merely a new article on the same subject," which this was. I suggest '''listing''' on AfD. --] 07:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	:'''Overturn and list on AfD'''. A 9-month-old VfD with only five participants ought to be reinforced, especially if new evidence for notability is claimed. Also note Rory's cite of the G4 exception, which is often ignored (or missed). Also note that repeated recreations can be considered evidence of notability (can't find the cite for that in WP's guidelines, though). ] 13:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse continued deletion''' unless new evidence of notability is presented. Per ], Alexa rank is not evidence of notability. --]<sup>]</sup> 17:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	** also has some hits, but they're all borderline trivial mentions. --] 20:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Weak endorse but open to new AfD listing'''. I know of this site; I've used it before and found it very helpful. However, the content does not inspire much confidence in the article's potential, and as the others say, Alexa rank isn't a strong notability indicator. (Although IMO it still ought to count for something.) Still, I'm open to an AfD listing because I think we'd benefit either way. Still, there's no real hurt to the encyclopaedia if this remains deleted; it's a one-sentence stub. ] \| ] 18:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Comment'''. aren't too bad either. --] 22:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete and relist on AfD''', but I do endorse the original deletion. The person bringing this up on AfD has presented some new evidence that could merit this article's inclusion in Misplaced Pages. An AfD is a good way to deletermin if it's more notable now than it was last August. --] ] 00:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete, add more info, and relist on AfD'''. I like this website a lot, but mostly it ends up being a bunch of snobs posting their stats (4.0! Spanish Honor Society President! Biology Olympiad Semifinalist! etc. etc.) --]<font color="green">]</font>] <sup>(] \| ] \| ])</sup> 21:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	**I don't even use it myself (though I believe my brother does), but some people might look for it in Misplaced Pages and so we should have it. --] 07:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Overturn and undelete''' in light of new evidence presented. ] 18:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Comment'''. Well apparently it's been individually recreated by someone ''again''. Still, a history undelete would be nice to have as much info as possible. --] 06:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	==== ] ====
	AfD at ]

	The deletion vote for this article appears to have been initially judged based on the belief that is was a smear campaign. Later in the vote the story was confirmed to have appeared in the news, but the delete argument was then based on lack of notability under WP:BIO.
	However, ] specifically includes people who have become known through their involvement in a notorious event. As the subject was clearly in the news for notorious acts, it seems that it would fall into this category and thereby satisfy WP:BIO. '''Reconsider.''' - ] ] <small>(])</small> 23:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. I'm unclear on why this is being brought up again now. Some people at the time set up a website , which has been kept updated, if you want a summary of the story. At the time, the story was: headmaster accused in drug case. Now the story is: headmaster accused in drug case, charges later dropped. From what I can tell from googling (could be incomplete) it seems this was a local scandal, which certainly was not a big national news story, and I don't see that it's a big enough story to meet notability standards. ] 00:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	:'''Note''' Interesting that TimDingle.com seems to feel the need to include Misplaced Pages in their coverage. There is a page that seems to have the story as it was before deletion (based on my vague recollection of it), as well as a link to the school's article, ], which has a lengthy section on the incident. ] 01:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. I can remember the news story, but after the initial five minutes of infamy it only received mention in a local context (I live in Buckinghamshire). This guy is still just a headteacher who got the chop, and there are plenty of those around. -- ]<font color="green">]</font>] ] 01:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' There's a pretty clear precedent that school headmasters/principals aren't notable enough for articles themselves, and a bit of scandal in the local press isn't enough to change that. There's already a full paragraph about it in ]. I wouldn't object to redirecting ] there, I guess. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 13:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''', the later votes considered the news, and they were still all in favour of deletion. --] ] 00:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' - not notable.] 00:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

	==== ] ====
	Why, why, why is the Abstract People article being deleted? Abstract People were one of the biggest metal acts in Ireland in the 90's!<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2\|}}}.</small><!-- -->
	*Because they don't exist, thats why. Quite simple really - fictional bands don't get entries on the Misplaced Pages. --] 22:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	**But they can always have a ''fictional'' entry! Just close your eyes, and wish upon a star... and you can read their entry, deep inside your heart! :) --] 22:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	***You're hilarious....NOT. Ya stupid FOOLS! <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2\|}}}.</small><!-- -->
	*I went ahead and speedied the article as a G4 and the bogus AfD page as useless. -]<sup>(])</sup> 22:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''' Bad faith DRV. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">]</font>]</b> 22:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''' Totally agree with redeleting as G4, bad-faith nom. ] (]) 22:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	*The page is now protected against recreation, and I've blocked the author after he created it a fourth time. ] 22:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	* The original speedy-deletion was as a "hoax". As we have discussed often before, being a hoax is explicitly '''not''' a speedy-deletion criterion. As individuals, we are notoriously poor at sorting the hoaxes from the real though poorly written articles on obscure topics. The subsequent re-deletions were based on the incorrect assumption that the first speedy-deletion was appropriate. <br>Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now. Like the participants above, I can find no evidence that this band really exists. I can not endorse the speedy-deletion but neither will I argue to overturn it without some evidence of existence. ] <small>]</small> 23:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:Rossami, I think you're right. It would have been better if I'd taken it to AfD instead of re-speedying it. There's no point restoring it now (unless evidence comes along), but I'll keep in mind to be more careful with G4s. Thanks for the reminder. -]<sup>(])</sup> 01:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	**Just a contrary voice here: some people, like me, consider hoax articles ("Jimmy is ten years old he is the CEO of twelve major multinational corporations which took over from Bill gates in 2009") as vandalism. Their intent is to write "Fart" on our pages, so I don't think that an obvious hoax can possibly ''fail'' to be a speedy delete. If it's the biggest metal band in Ireland for a decade and yet gets no Google hits, including on newsgroups, then there's not much debate. ] 15:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	***I think AfD gets the job done more cleanly if any doubt is raised, and very little harm is done in the intervening five days. That said, I also understand and respect your position, Geogre. -]<sup>(])</sup> 23:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse status quo''' - ] 00:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC).
	*'''Endorse deletion(s)''' unless evidence of verifiable existence appears. -]<sup>(])</sup> 01:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''' - obvious hoax, personal abuse from the author shows lack of good faith. ] 08:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''' We can't take chances on hoaxes or unverifiable material. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 18:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	*Some '''remarks'''. As has been pointed out, this is an incorrect application of G4: that criterion was rewritten last year with just this sort of thing in mind, and it was hoped that it made clear that this kind of action is inappropriate. Just a gentle reminder.:-) As to the comment on the nominator, his crude remarks indicate rudeness and incivility; they do not mean that he is acting in bad faith. Do be careful when questioning the intentions of editors. —''] 11:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)''
	*'''Endorse deletion''' As an Irish rock fan, living in Ireland, I think I'd have heard of 'one of the biggest metal bands in Ireland' - and I haven't. ] 16:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''' per Bastun, and the fact that the username of the person who brought it up is Abstract People. Google search for ALL results of "abstract people" (incl. paintings) is less than 50,000, so it can't be very notable. --]<font color="green">]</font>] <sup>(] \| ] \| ])</sup> 22:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''' as per all above.] 00:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

	==== ] ====

	]

	Congratulations! After a brief discussion (that I just noticed today), with a result 12d:4k:2m, they deleted the {{tl\|see also}} for the section ]. Was the article unsalvageable? Or the deletors simply ignorant? Now, I'm not sure of the state of the current article (could somebody please undelete for review), as I haven't looked at it since last Hannukah. But this isn't usually considered "Original Research" to document religious practices (editors aren't making up their own), and it affects a lot of folks in my neck of the woods where mixed-faith families are common. Yet, I doubt we really want to make the already long Hannukkah article even longer.... A nice short separate article would be best.
	*'''Undelete''' and fix any problems, as many (5) of the AfD commentors requested. --] 15:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. Concerns of those voting delete seem well-thought-out and valid. The article does a poor job of covering this notable issue, and has no sources. I'd say a sourced rewrite from scratch would be best. (I have history-undeleted for review.) -- ] 16:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Comment'''. As I am the admin who deleted the article, I will not "vote" here, but I will explain my decision. Firstly, and probably most importantly, there was a clear consensus to delete this article as it stood. Secondly, I felt that the delete votes were better informed by our policies than the keep votes were. I myself am Jewish, and am fully aware of the issues involved in this subject; however, I too felt that the article as it stood controvened ], therefore I saw no reason to go against the majority of votes. My deletion of the article does not mean that the subject is either non-encyclopaedic or unwelcome, but that the article as it stood was in contravention of our policies (a matter which numerous editors agreed upon). An article on this subject ''must'' be sourced in detail as the Christian view of Hanukkah is far from universal. ] 17:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' -- thank you for making it available for review, the article is only a paragraph longer than it was last time I looked at it. IZAK (Jewish) wrote most of it, so I'll prod him. I've no idea what needs "sourcing" as most of it seems to be actual quotes from religious texts. Most of it I've heard in sermons from time to time on the Christian upbringing side, so there might be seminary material somewhere, but I'm long since lapsed and have nobody to ask. Believe me, there's nothing original to somebody raised 5 days a week North American Baptist (with Jewish relatives by marriage). --] 17:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	*:I, along with those who voted to delete the article, am not suggesting that IZAK made up the conent of this article. The problem is that the views expressed in the article are not universal, they are those of certain individuals (I am unaware of any Christian denomination having a specific policy towards the religious festivals of other faiths). This being the case, the article absolutely must be sourced (this is made clear at ]). Like I said earlier, I don't think anybody is disputing that some Christians observe Hanukkah; the problem is that it is such a minority, combined with the fact that there is no standard way in which they perform their observations, that it is necessary for this article to contain sources for it to conform with Misplaced Pages's established policies. ] 18:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	*::Sorry that you're not familiar with a significant number of denominations here in the American Heartland. Merely millions of people is a "minority" when compared to Roman Catholicism.... Anyway, the only contribution I made at the time was to merge 2 similar articles, and that's how it ended up on my watchlist. While I had an important legal brief due last Thursday, I rarely check the watchlist more than once a week anyway. Now, I've done a simple , and among the 847,000 results, there are several that outrank even Misplaced Pages! They are , , and , all "evangelical" or "messianic", just as the article says! Like I mentioned earlier, some seminarian probably has it printed in a book somewhere, but I'm not the person to ask. Looks like ] is correct about the future viability of wikipedia.... --] 19:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''IZAK's response''': Hi everyone: Right off the bat let me make it very clear that I did not write this article (it's actually a stub). This material was mostly first by ] -- please contact him, his user page says he is a Christian pastor and he seems to still be active. I have not tracked it, but you guys have now forced me to look up its history, so here goes: After User:Chad A. Woodburn put it into the ] article it developed as something of a composite from a few subsequent editors, (examples:) ; ; (there are more). When I was editing the main article about the ] of ], rather than deleting this information which was causing constant friction between the Jewish and non-Jewish contributors I opted to it into a more appropriate article in existence at that time called ] (interestingly, ], the author seems to fit into that stream judging by what he writes about himself) which was then renamed in by ] where it got its new name of ]. So that is why there is some confusion, also . Note that this issue of sources was also raised by ]. Thus I hope I have clarified the questions you have here. Take care. ] 19:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	**P.S. By the way, I vote '''Undelete''', as I had no idea about its present fate. It deserves an article of its own. ] 19:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	**:Thank you, IZAK, for taking the time! --] 19:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	**It ''may'' deserve an article on its own (that's my opinion, others may differ), but what was there was completely unreferenced. At least ] has ample footnotes. Cheers! ] 15:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Comment: A cautionary tale''' -- in the AfD, somebody thought this was a . As the history revealed by IZAK shows, the cited page is actually a copy '''of wikipedia''' from several months later than the original section! --] 19:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Comment'''. Look guys, I know this is an emotive subject, I really do, but the purpose of this process is not to challenge the outcome of the AfD debate. That debate has been concluded, the purpose of this page, as is clearly stated in the introduction, is to challenge my interpretation of that outcome. Without wishing to appear rude, it is not relevent to this discussion what your oppinion of the article was, or whether you missed the debate or not. What is relevent is whether you think a) I misjudged the consensus to delete, or b) that, if there was such a consensus, that the votes were not valid. I am sorry if I appear a little hot-headed about this, but the existence of this debate suggests quite a serious error on my part. ] 19:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	**The votes were not valid. 3 cite a copyvio that did not exist. The nominator and several others call it original research. 4 call it "funny" and a "fork". And the most offensive:
	**:''The "Christian" view of Hanukkah is like the "Dutch" view of Mount Kilimanjaro: not something to have an article about.''
	**:--] 20:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	***:Even discounting the copyvio votes, there was a consensus to delete. As I have already stated the article failed our criteria for original research. While I agree that term may not be strictly accurate here, and this may be causing some confusion, if you read to policy page you will realise that the article wa in violation - hence the votes for deletion. ] 20:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''' Legitimate Afd with a clear consensus. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">]</font>]</b> 20:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion'''. Original consensus was clear. ] 21:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion'''. Cut-and-dry AfD. ] (]) 22:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Comment'''. Although my vote was the first that mentioned a copyvio, it is important to also note that my main reason was that the article contained original research. ] 23:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''', consensus was obvious. ] 12:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion'''. The ] argument, raised by the nominator and most of the other people in favour of deletion, was never rebutted by anyone arguing that it should be kept. The person who tried to say it wasn't OR failed to point to any sources, which is odd given that he claims to be studying the subject area. --] (]) 14:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''' - consensus was clear and there were no special circumstances. ] 05:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''' encyclopedias and POVforks shouldn't mix. No special circumstances I can see. --]<font color="green">]</font>] <sup>(] \| ] \| ])</sup> 22:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

	==== ]====
	I made an article on this famous store on Manitoulin Island. Claught of a bird is indeed an actual person, and he does indeed own that store. I demand that it is un-deleted, for it has good information on one of Manitoulins most popular stores. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2\|}}}.</small><!-- -->
	*'''Endorse deletion''', even if there were sources it would still be non notable. --] 22:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''', there ''were'' no sources...] and ]. -- ] 22:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	**'''Comment''' Various spellings of this article title have been made--each with the same content--and deleted. Articles were created by ] and his (painfully obvious) ], ]. -- ] 23:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' If not a hoax then a desperate attempt for publciity. Not notable in the slightest. ]<sup>]</sup> 12:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	* Correcting the article title. I also find related deleted pages at ], ], ], ] and possibly ]. <br>The reason given for speedy-deletion was "hoax" and "patent nonsense". I '''can not''' endorse speedy-deletion for those reasons. First, the articles were not ] in the specific and narrow way that we use that term here. Second, hoaxes are explicitly '''not''' a speedy-deletion criterion. As we've discussed often before, we've had too many problems with articles which were initially thought to be hoaxes but which turned out to be true (though poorly written and very obscure). <br>The content of the articles was certainly ] and was eligible for a regular AFD. Had this been limited to one article, I would be recommending that we overturn the speedy-deletion and allow AFD to take its course. Unfortunately, the author's other edits and patterns of behavior used up all my store of ]. While I strongly believe that the first speedy-deletion was inappropriate, I now must endorse deletion under the vandalism criterion. ] <small>]</small> 21:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Keep deleted''' I'm not sure what this editor is trying to accomplish, but it surely has nothing to do with the creation of a legitimate encyclopedia.] 00:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	==== ] ====
	LIP6 is one of the two largest computer science laboratories in France, with researchers participating at the highest levels (program committees of international conferences, editorial boards of scholarly journals) across a wide variety of computer science disciplines. It is the computer science research arm of Pierre and Marie Curie University (UPMC), the largest science, technology, and medicine university in France, and the highest ranked French university in the University of Shanghai international research ranking. As the researchers also make up the teaching faculty in Computer Science at UPMC, it is, with over 100 faculty, one of the largest Computer Science departments in the world. It is hard to understand how such an institution could not be notable. The copyvio concerns are mitigated by the fact that the contribution came from the copyright holder (the lab) itself. The lab administrators were not contacted, as they should have been following Misplaced Pages's deletion policy, to see if this would be a problem. The answer would have been that the copyright problem is not a problem, and the needed permissions for use of the text and images can be granted. Furthermore, it is not a commercial promotion. It is true, clearly that the style and content must be modified so that it conforms to Misplaced Pages's style considerations and NPOV. However, the material provided should serve as a good basis for this, and the original authors are happy to work as part of the Misplaced Pages community in making the necessary edits. A rewrite is called for, but we do not understand the speedy deletion decision. -- 17:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Rewrite''' The topic seems to be notable, but Misplaced Pages does not want articles which are merely copy-and-paste jobs from official websites, even if they aren't technically copyvios. We also prefer that articles not be written by their subjects or anyone closely connected with the subject. If anyone cares to write a real article, it would probably stay. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 13:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	* Based on the evidence available at the time, I would also have deleted this as a probable copyright violation. We have had such severe problems with unsourced and illegal content, especially violations about images, that we have unfortunately been forced to take aggressive actions. A rewrite seems appropriate but please be very careful to document the copyright provenance of any text or images copied over. Thanks. ] <small>]</small> 13:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Request undeletion of rewritten article''' I did precisely as suggested here, writing a short article with no copyvio, following the structure and style of an established article on another computer science laboratory, and, not even eight hours later, the new article has vanished. It seems whoever did this does not care to partake in the deletion review process, as no justification for deleting the rewritten article has appeared in this thread. Nor, does it seem, has this new deletion respected the ] for speedy deletion, which specifically says: "Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical", which it clearly is not. ] 6:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	** Comment: The deleting admin has already self-reverted the action and apologized in the edit summary. ] <small>]</small>



	====]====

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

	Currently the article ] is protected and redirects to ]. I therefore propose that the page be edited to redirect to ] (the apparent working title of the film) which in turn redirects to the Sequel section of the 2003 film article. When sufficient information about the new film becomes available, the sequel information can then be spun out into its own article. ] 06:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	:*'''Comment''': redirects to sections don't work.  ] 09:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose for now'''. Your suggestion would create a ], which is a Bad Thing. Ask again when you are ready to create the standalone article. ] 07:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	*Agree, premature per Thryduulf. When the article is written, I don't even think you need DRV; you can ask any admin to unprotect ] and then properly redirect it. ] 15:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	*I don't think the protection is needed, so I unprotected it. ] 12:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

	===22 May 2006===

	====]====
	:]
	It was deleted due to not meeting ]. Xombie has been in two magazines so far and ]. This isn't advertising for the site, its about the flash cartoon that's being turned into a movie, how can Misplaced Pages not have this? {{unsigned\|Simonkoldyk}}
	* '''Endorse closure''' (keep deleted). I find no process problems with the AFD discussion. Had I seen this deletion discussion, I would also have argued to delete. I can not convince myself that it is appropriate for Misplaced Pages to include entries for every flash cartoon that comes along. ] <small>]</small> 20:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse closure''', valid AfD. Af first glance, this seems to be a classic "No consensus" AfD, but only one of the <s>delete</s> keep <small>(gosh, what a typo!)</small> votes was valid: one was from an anon, and the other was from a very new user. That puts it right on the border for admin's discretion, and in this case, the closing admin applied it. --] ] 20:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
	**That's all well and good, but I think Simonoldyk's reason for proposing an undeletion was not that the AfD was too close for a decision to be made, but that new evidence has been found which shows that it does meet the unofficial standard of ]. ] 03:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Overturn and undelete'''. So here's a situation where the article clearly did not show it met WP:WEB upon its deletion, and we now have evidence that it, in fact, does meet WP:WEB. Without seeing what was there before, I don't know what the article looked like, but given that it seems that process is being followed by coming to DRV instead of just recreating, and WP:WEB (the justification for deletion) is now met, we should undelete. --] <small>(])</small> 01:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse closure''' Valid AfD, per Deathphoenix's reasoning. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 10:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Overturn and undelete''', not every flash cartoon that comes along gets made into a feature-length film released on DVD. Furthermore, this series clearly meets criteria 1 of WP:WEB. ] 15:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' no consensus on AfD and some claims to notability were presented. ] 12:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse closure''' as per ] above. ] ] 16:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Overturn and undelete'''. Meets ] criteria as explained above. ] 08:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	====]====
	In the heat of the moment of deletion, many failed to look at the facts.
	A notable West Virginian.
	*
	*
	*
	Nationally Known Automotive Person in TV and Print
	*
	*
	*
	* Named a Mopar mover and shaker in 1999 by Mopar Muscle Magazine
	*
	*
	*
	International Credit Card Fraud Expert
	*
	*
	*
	*
	--] 16:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

	*This has been deleted twice; the first time following an ] (Admins can see the final version before this deletion at ), with the consensus being that the article failed ], ] and/or ]. Having seen the content of the deleted version I would also have voted to delete for these reasons. The second time (earlier today) it was speedy deleted as an nn-bio (CSD:A7) but it could also have been deleted under CSD:G4 (recreation of previoulsy deleted material), that version contained even less information than the previously deleted version and no substantiated notability claims so this was a perfectly valid deletion. '''Endorse deletions but allow recreation ] notability can be established'''. I suggest that you start composing an article in your userspace and only move it to the main namespace when it substantially improves on the first version to avoid a further speedy deletion under G4 or A7. '''If notability is still not established then there should be no prejudice against a second AfD'''. ] 16:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Restore''' Never should have been deleted. Meets all criteria for a good Misplaced Pages article. --] 17:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Overturn/Restore''' this never should have been deleted --] 17:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
	*As far as I see it the facts weren't actually presented in such clarity during the afd debate, and so I don't see that the decision to delete was wrong. I'm with Thryduulf: if notability can be established then '''restore'''. -- ]<font color="green">]</font>] ] 17:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
	* I'm afraid that I must disagree with the assertion that the facts above were not considered. In fact, they were clearly documented in the deleted version of the article. I find little evidence convincing me that they were ignored or overlooked by the discussion participants. I must also disagree with 71Demon's specific assertion above that Howell is an "international credit fraud expert". Three of the four articles he/she cites as evidence demonstrate no such thing. (The fourth is in Japanese so I could not evaluate it.) Howell was interviewed as a small business owner who has been affected by international credit card fraud. He is no more "expert" than any other small business owner so afflicted. <br>I '''endorse closure''' (keep deleted) but, as Thryduulf said, there is no prejudice against a new article more thoroughly documenting his achievements. ''If'' such an article is written and upheld, we can do a history-restore at that time. ] <small>]</small> 20:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse closure''', valid AfD. Allow re-creation if the article addresses the concerns mentioned above and in the AfD. --] ] 01:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	*(Caveat: I was the nom on the AfD in question). '''Endorse closure''' as a valid, good-faith AfD. I have no prejudice to recreation as long as it illustrates notability. To do so, the article should focus on Howell's work in the world of hot rods and automobiles (where he may possibly be notable in a relative sense) and it should prove said notability in that field. His status as a guy that has been interviewed because his business was ripped off (at least until his book is published) and his goal of seeking a seat on a local ] should only be mentioned as side-notes and do not contribute either way to his notability or lack there of. ] <small>(])</small> 13:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Restore'''. Should never have been deleted. Deal with the issues with the article separately from considerations of whether we should have an article. Please don't use AfD as an easy road to fixing problematic articles. ] 23:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Overturn and restore''' this article, the history may be helpful and it looks as if notability has been firmly established. ] 08:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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

	*See ] for the deletion debate.

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

	====]====
	I request the return of the article on the book ] because it was deleted without due respect for the deletion process. I would ask that this request be based on whether or not due process was followed (which I think is strong) and not on whether the article may or may not survive a more considered delete process (which I admit is less strong). See also ]. Thanks, ] 08:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
	*Technical '''undelete''' as it clearly wasn't a speedy candidate, '''however''' I recommend Brussels writes an article on the author ] instead of or at least before writing an article on his book. Articles on authors can frequently contain most of the useful information about their writing. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Delete'''. While I have little doubt this was done in good faith, a table of contents of a book is copyrighted. After stripping the TOC and the copyrighted cover images (they can only be used in articles that discuss the book -- not ones that say Title is a book by so and so), all you have left is "Successful Praying, subtitled an explanation of ten rules which guarantee answered prayer is the title of a book by Frederick Julius Huegel." with an ISBN and a link. I don't think that result was an article. I would agree that an article about the author is probably more feasible, but if Brussel can mention something about the book other than the basic details (especially what makes the book special enough for an entry), I have little problems with a recreation. But I don't think the original should be reinstated. Userfy if he wants to expand. - ]\|] 10:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
	**I had fully intended to write more information about the contents of the book, but the stub was deleted within DAYS of it being created. The TOC was there to form a skeleton for what I was about to write. To argue that the content was not sufficient to justify recreation misses many important points:
	**#the article had only been created a few days earlier (thus deleted contrary to wikipedia guidelines of allowing a stub a reasonable time to develop).
	**#the author of the article was not informed of the deletion, except as a "speedy-delete" (while he was asleep) and so had no chance to add the real value which is suggested was missing
	**#the proper procedure was not followed, and I as the person to have most suffered from this lack of procedure, am simply asking for the right to create the article which I wanted to create.
	**:I will add that I have now spent a huge amount of time simply fighting against this speedy-delete, and it is a real tragedy that I waste almost all of the time I spend on Misplaced Pages editing recently because what I see as this admins blunder, rather than contributing useful stuff.] 12:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Endorse speedy-deletion''' as a copyright violation. Unfortunately, Brusselsshrek's statement of his/her intention to expand the stub past copy-vio status does nothing to protect the project. Every page must stand alone as is at the time you hit the "save page" button. The courts have not yet sanctioned us for tolerating copyvios for short periods but that is a theory that we ''should not test''. Take the time to write a solid, non-copyvio stub. Then post it.<br>As to Brusselsshrek's claims that he/she was not informed, no notice is required nor is any such notice appropriate (though it can, in some cases, be courteous). Please read (or re-read) ]. None of us has any claim to ownership of any page here. ] <small>]</small> 14:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse speedy''', per Mgm & Rossami. Sorry, Brusselsshrek, dealing with copyvios takes precedence over everything. Even if you plan to expand the article, any content that is a copyright violation is simply not acceptable (for legal reaasons) and must be removed from the article history. --] ] 01:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''' per Deathphoenix. Although I would have taken a different route (tagging the copyvio and asking the editor to userfy it until it was further along) the destination is the same. ] 15:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	::OK, I get the point about copyvio. Question though, I have done the identical thing for the article ], that is, I have scanned the front/back cover of the book. Is that not copyvio? What is the guideline? I know there's a lot of general stuff written here about copyvio, but what is the story on book covers? Can I or can't I copy them? The book covers for the ] article were scanned at exactly the same resolution or size as the book cover for ] for which nobody seems to be saying anything. Thanks for clarifying. ] 08:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::If you read the guideline at ] it seems that a scan of a book cover to accompany an article about the book is ok. However, copying the text from the jacket so as to constitute the body of the article is definitely not. I would say that at least half of ] is an unacceptable copyright violation. You should find some other way to describe the contents of the book in your own words. ] 14:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

	====]====
	Wow... I really hope I am doing this right. Sincere apologies if I am getting this protocol wrong - I am quite a newbie. I have 2 points to make about the deletion of this article, or maybe 3. 1) May I have the text copied to my userspace? If all else fails here, I would at least be interested in getting the latest version of the text for my own personal use. 2) I didn't get any warning about the deletion notice (prolly because I didn't login for a couple of weeks), so I never got a chance to say anything about the deletion vote. I think the article is a valid attempt, and I would be happy to try and source the article a bit more thoroughly. However, as I pointed out on the discussion page, there isn't much information directly available on this topic via Google. It is a very recent phenomenon, and I did my best to scientifically describe the empirical facts. This is just my opinion, but I often find people have a very strange view of what science is! 3ish) I think the article can be improved if it is fully undeleted. The phenomenon of ] is a real one, and deserves documenting. It has grown out of the rise of ] (and ]) in the west, and the popularity of ] culture in ]. Thanks for your consideration, --]\|<sup>]</sup> 08:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
	*I've moved the text to ]. Please stick a <nowiki>{{delete\|unwanted user subpage}}</nowiki> notice on it when this deletion review is closed and you're otherwise done with the text, as ] a free webhost. Anyway, I think the main issue is: does anyone actually refer to this as "videohypertransference"? Otherwise the article is fundamentally ]. In the absence of specific new evidence that would theoretically have caused the very clear consensus in the ] to be otherwise, '''endorse closure'''. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Thanks... Would it be possible to get the discussion page restored too? I made some useful comments for the would-be deleter on that page, as well as some notes regarding the stories in the media. Thank you! --]\|<sup>]</sup> 06:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''', valid AfD, which was overwhelmingly in favour of deletion. --] ] 01:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Recently concluded ==
	<!-- When creating a new month, place the following two lines at the top removing the comment tags from the first. -->
	<!-- == MonthName Year == -->
	<!-- Place new listings at top of section -->
	{{Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 May)}}

	* ]

Revision as of 13:08, 2 June 2006

Redirect to:

User:Tony Sidaway