Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:45, 1 February 2006 view sourceAaron Brenneman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,683 edits →[]: Closed - kept deleted but please use TfD next time.← Previous edit Revision as of 23:47, 1 February 2006 view source Aaron Brenneman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,683 edits →[]: Closed - kept deletedNext edit →
Line 598: Line 598:
*'''Endorse deletion''' per FloNight. --] 09:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Endorse deletion''' per FloNight. --] 09:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' and '''Relist''' - A list of names would be a valuable useful information resource. ] - ] 16:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Overturn''' and '''Relist''' - A list of names would be a valuable useful information resource. ] - ] 16:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

====]====
This was put up for deletion ("discussion" ''']'''), but there were '''no''' votes made either way(!). Techincally, I guess the deletion would be out of process since no votes = no consensus = keep (or, better, relist with a plea for some freaken votes), but I'm not standing on ceremony here or blaming the closing admin, I'm just not sure that it should have been deleted, for these reasons:
#As an ''internal'' category, It can't bother/upset/confuse normal users, so it should have a high threshold for deletion (in my opinion) unless the category is causing some actual confusion or clutter or other harm.
#I'm not sure I buy the nominator's point that categories always replace lists, because some groupings are inherently sujective and thus cannot go into public space, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are completely devoid of value.
#There are two articles here that, if the category is deleted, will have ''no'' category, which is more-or-less the same as deleting the article (I think?) because it will then float around in the void with no category handle, unless someone re-categorizes it. These are ] (which may have no value, I don't know) and ] which I think does have potential value, although no one has updated it recently. (I just added a third list to the category, ], which may have little or no value, I don't know.) There is another article, ], which if this category is deleted will only belong to ], but its not of just humorous interest, I think.
Anyway, maybe the category shouldn't exist, you people tell me. ] 15:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and relist''' a nom with no further discussion is not consensus by any reasonble standard IMO. I don't know what I would say on such a relisted discusion. ] ] 18:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Note'''. Unless stated otherwise, I view the nomination as the nominator's choice. In this case, one person wanted to delete the category, and nobody objected. --] 20:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' - nomination counts as vote. --- '''Charles Stewart'''<sup>]</sup> 21:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
**Yes it does, but one vote can not IMO be reasonably called "consensus". ] ] 21:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
***I think it can be: to say there is a consensus is to say there is no serious dispute. Of course raising it here does make a dispute, but that is no objection to how the CfD was closed. I don't think the nomination has indicated any value to the category at all, only listed some dubious principles that, if we accepted, would lead us to keep the category. --- '''Charles Stewart'''<sup>]</sup> 21:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - Seems like a valid Misplaced Pages namespace category to me. --<font style="background: #000000" face="Impact" color="#00a5ff">]</font> 21:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
**This is not a deletion vote. ]]] 22:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse and delete''', nearly half of nominations on CFD are procedural and do not get many votes. '''This is a good thing''' because it prevents CFD from becoming a tarpit of negativity like AFD. CFD is heavily watched and if anybody wanted to object, they would have. And remember that CFD is '''not a vote'''. ]]] 22:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
**Also, this is not a meaningful categorisation. The cat contains pages in Wikispace that (1) are about lists, but those should go in the manual of style, and (2) happen to have the form of a list, which is not a defining characteristic, and those pages should go in a more appropriate cat. I've recategorized both pages Herostratus mentioned. ]]] 01:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment from nominator'''. I don't have a huge problem with the way the original CfD was handled. Nomination ''does'' count as 1 delete vote, and hey, not one person spoke up to support the category. The closing admin ''could'' have relisted, but hey we're busy; no support at all, I can see how he would have just closed. I guess it's kind of a borderline case, I happened to come across it, happen to want to keep the category, so I think as a borderline case -- and on an internal category at that -- it would be proper to relist it. (And I realize I should ''not'' have listed my reasons for keeping the category ''here'', but in a relisted CfD (if there is one), which is also where all debate ''about the category'' should go. Deletion review should be mainly about the process, and I'm sorry for opening up that can of worms.) I still think that ''as a borderline case'' it should be re-listed more-or-less on request unless the closing admin thinks there no real support for that. Or, if the closing admin thinks that a close is a close unless ''clearly'' out of process (not just borderline), I would accept that though not agree.] 17:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - Category depicts useful disimbiguation to list-type articles. -]<sup>]</sup> 03:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
**Once more, DRV is not a deletion vote, and a category is not a "disimbiguation" (sic) anyway, nor did this category contain any articles. ]]] 17:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)




Revision as of 23:47, 1 February 2006

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/Vfu header This page is about articles, not about people. If you feel that a sysop is routinely deleting articles prematurely, or otherwise abusing their powers, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators. Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.

Content review

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

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

History only undeletion

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

Decisions to be reviewed

Shortcut

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion instead.
 
1.

Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: 

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
2.

Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 December 27}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

4.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 December 27}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 December 27|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Temporary_undeletion

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

1 February 2006

Male bikini-wearing

This article is genuine, it shouldn't have been deleted. It's not nonsense. --Muillern 12:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted this patent nonsense has been deleted about seven times. Thryduulf 12:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn not patent nonsense, or a hoax. Genuine article. --Muillern 12:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Clear consensus established that we do not want this article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted IMO, this article has at least three things working against it: (a) As written, it's patent nonsense, or very close to it. Whether it technically is patent nonsense or not is at least debatable, I suppose, but it's surely close enough that it wouldn't stand a snowball's chance on AfD. (b) It's unverified, with no sources cited whatsoever. (c) Even if the first two issues were somehow overcome, it simply isn't encyclopedic. If some men wear bikinis, so what? Should be also have an article on female necktie-wearing? Covering all possible combinations of gender and clothing items in their own articles would be pretty silly. I vote to keep deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, it's not patent nonsense in the strict way we use that term. And it can't really be considered a hoax. But every version pretty clearly was original research. A part of me wants to say "leave it deleted unless a citation is provided here."
    Looking further into this, I find this aborted second deletion discussion which was closed early using the argument "previously deleted content". I am more than a bit confused because 1) there does not seem to be a corresponding first nomination and 2) the only previous deletions were apparently all speedy-deletions. The "recreated content" case explicitly excludes prior speedies as justification for that case. Given the apparent process failures, I'm strongly inclined to say overturn the speedy-deletion and reopen the AFD even though I don't see any chance of this surviving the AFD. Rossami (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • keep deleted with plenty of salt on the earth. This sillyness has wasted enough time already, I don't even follow the process argument - we are interested in content, the content is crap, ergo leave deleted. --Doc 15:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This has been deleted seven times, but all of thsoe deletions seem to have been speedies. Most of them claimed that this was patent nonsense which it clearly is not. No deletions cite an AfD discussion. However, the article as it stands is completely unsourced, and at a title that is a ratehr unlikely search term. It really would ahve been bettter to have allowed the afd linked above to run to completion -- it looked like a delete consensus was forming. While I am tempted to say undelete on process grounds this really would have no chance on AfD as it stands, so i am going to consider that the aborted AfD nonetheless shows a consensus to delete. To thsoe who still want this content include, my advice is 1) find citeable reliable sources 2) include content supported by such sorces in either Bikini or Cross-dressing or some article on male fashion or local trends in the area discussed. If enough verifiable content emerges, it can always be split to a proerp article later. Good luck. Reluctantly endorse deletion. DES 15:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and keep earth salted. Plenty of recreations make this a prime candidate for protection. --Deathphoenix 16:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn - The original content did not contain original research, just facts. And this is a growing phenomenon. --Rahlmanik 16:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn - Genuine article, should never have been deleted. --Guvan 16:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn I think this has potential to become a full article in itself, and we need appropriate redirects. --Rulcliffe (talk · contribs) 19:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, burn the bits used to make it, shred the resultant ashes and jump up and down on them until they are very, very sorry indeed, and never ever revisit this ever again ever as long as the 'pedia lives. Ever. This is a lame excuse for a joke and the above have wasted more than enough of the community's time on it already. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 22:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify, these are the editors who have contributed to the article in question:
I haven't found a single good-faith edit from any one of them yet. Some of them have no remaining edits, all having been deleted. It wouold be good to know whose sock drawer this lot come out of. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 23:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User no Rand

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

  • This user rejects Randroid thought in all its varieties.

and the picture being:

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

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

  • Comment I don't have a problem with someone changing the wording, but I think that we have a process for a reason. If we aren't going to follow TfD, then why have it at all? We might as well let WoW run things if that is the case. --Dragon695 03:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
As the author of this userbox, I can say authoritatively that I made Template:User no Rand precisely in response to the anti-Marx userbox. I did so on the rather radical premise that it is better to engage in debate, however polemical and elbow-throwing it is, than it is to simply poo-poo debate. And why? Because it has its place in the grander scheme of any group intellectual endeavor (including the creation of an encyclopedia).
Don't like that debate? Then may I kindly suggest then that it is perhaps time for Jimbo and co. to close the barn doors behind them and make their own encyclopedia themselves. You can bet your last bit of hard currency that even without userboxes, this group would find some molehill issue to make the size of the mountain. In other words: welcome to the real world, where people may say things you don't necessarily agree with.
Meanwhile, is this a whiff of a McCarthy-style witch-hunt I smell in the air? First the antifa userbox gets subjected to an edit war. Then this userbox is disappeared. Then the "blasphemed" image of Mother Ayn is put through copy vio nonsense (though, oddly enough, not the image it is based on - whose copyright status is completely unlisted). Then the Atlas Puked image that I had prepared for a potential replacement - so nakedly parody it hurts me - gets put through some more copy vio nonsense. --Daniel 07:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Nobody's denying that the image is parody. Its copyright status has been challenged because you tagged it as public domain with the notation that you don't believe in the "tyranny of intellectual property." Unfortunately, whatever you don't believe in, you do not have the option to falsify the copyright status of the images you upload to Misplaced Pages. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn deletion and send to TFD, doesn't meet any speedy criteria and several users here want to have it kept outright. Rejecting a philosophy cannot be construed as an attack. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn deletion and send to TFD. I don't have much of an opinion on whether it is an attack or not, but given the strength of feeling above that it isn't it is certainly not unambiguously an attack. For this reason the speedy delete was inapropriate and it should be listed at TfD. Thryduulf 09:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn, Undelete, and Keep. I think this is another case of Admin abuse, and a harmless userbox being speedied out of process for political purposes. I would like to remind all administrators (and others, as well) that Speedy Deletion is NOT a toy. These deletions are disruptive and violate a number of policies and principles that are central to wikipedia. --Dschor 11:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted without randian views there would be no wikipedia Trödel&#149;talk 12:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and keep Template:User admins ignoring policy - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • 15:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, Ayn Rand's views are not necessary to Misplaced Pages, but an attack template using fair use images certainly is even less necessary. If you want to stop this piecemeal approach, go finish the dad-blamed WP:UBP that's stalled out! Otherwise we're left with no approach but stare decisis -- nae'blis (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep revised version, but discouraged its use. The revised version is not an attack; Tony's out-of-process deletion was not helpful, but he has agreed to stop doing those now. As original construed, the template was a borderline attack, and should have been TfD'ed. Xoloz 17:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted as inherently pejorative. No wonder Jimbo doesn't think much of these userboxes! - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 22:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

31 January 2006

Vampires F.C.

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

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

London Welsh F.C.

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

  • Overturn speedy adn list on AfD I presume that this was intented as an A7 nn-bio (group/club). I don't think the recent expansion of A7 was intented to apply to organized sports teams. The notabiulity here seems a bit marginal, but that ought to be a matter for AfD, not a speedy, IMO. DES 23:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy, according tot he article the club completed less than one full season, in the 1896/97 season, and following their suspension the points wen to Thames Ironworks F.C., their opponents. I don;t think completing slightly less than one season in the London League is much of a claim to fame. But I won't cry much if it's reinstated and AfDd instead, since that's what I would have done with it. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 23:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, just for any athlete to play at the top level of a sport establishes notability, to speedy delete a team which did the same is nonsensical. Kappa 23:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and list on AfD meh it was a proper stub and didn't fall under any CSD by any stretch of the imagination. It needs to get a turn at AfD to properly decide what to do with the article. --W.marsh 23:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, I think that's a valid claim to fame. - N (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete, AFD if we must, playing at the top level, even over a hundred years ago is a claim to notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and list on AfD. I personally feel this is a better stub than many we have around and will vote keep on any AfD, but I feel deserves a hearing. Thryduulf 09:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and list on AfD. However, I have to disagree with statements about this club being at the "top level" of the sport; anyone making such statements should realize that football was just barely getting organized as a sport in its modern form at the time. Thus, to say that this is a club at the "top level" makes no sense simply because there were no levels. howcheng {chat} 17:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Antiracist hitler

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

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

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

Exactly my point - we are here to create an encyclopedia - not to be held hostage by abusive administrators. Stop playing with the delete button, already! --Dschor 11:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Stop playing with wikipedia by creating these wasteful boilerplates to saturate your userpages. They don't advance the project. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. That's our concenus for being here. That's what comes first and foremost. Always. Anything that doesn't contribute to that goal must be removed without mercy. -Zero 11:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I haven't made a new userbox in a while. The true waste is the ongoing purge of userboxes. The disruption caused by mass deletion is a much greater danger to the project than any userbox could ever be. I have yet to see a single userbox that was so out of line that it was deletable, but I have seen dozens of deletions and speedy deletions, which each have required extended debate and discussion. Just leave userspace alone, and we can all go back to editing articles, rather than sparring over misguided deletionism. Admins speedy deleting userbox templates has wasted far too much time already. --Dschor 11:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Its watseful to eliminate the useless shit on-site..? There is no "so-out-ofline userboxes". Anything even remotely away from our true goal is deleted. Always. And speedies are perefable because the encyclopedia comes first and foremost. No exceptions. Fuck process. IGNORE ALL RULES for things which draw away from the encyclopedia. -Zero 12:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It is wasteful even to be going in circles with you about the amount of time/bandwidth/energy wasted on spurious userbox deletions. Suffice it to say, these arguments are fruitless, as is deletion of user space content. --Dschor 12:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
em, not per me, I said kd = 'keep deleted'. --Doc 00:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-30

Lee Hotti

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

AFD discussion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lee Hotti
Endorse closure and keep deleted. Sock-fest and hysterical posturing aside, this looks to me like a valid closure. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 12:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Endorse closure and strong keep deleted as a vile attack page of the lamest sort, accusing some random person of homosexuality (or, as the article puts it, "fairy", 'colon cowboy", "rectum ranger", "ass raider", "butt pirate"... etc.) because they supposedly look "feminine" in a photo. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:GermanGov

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

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

Gazeebow Unit

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

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

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

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


Um, 4 opinions total on an AFD? But they do have academic papers written about them? Which I see have been referenced above? That's odd. Why was this article deleted? It seems like the sane thing to do here is to keep the article. I don't care which discussion that's supposed to go, and I don't think the objections (most of which are procedural in nature) are relevant here. Is there any reason not to undelete and keep, short of procedure? Kim Bruning 17:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • There seems to have been at least soem new info brought out in thsi discussion, and reasons that were alleged in the first AfD were not respond3ed to in that discussion. WP:MUSIC is generally a good guideline, but it does not cover ever case, adn there is at least an argumetn thet this should be an exception. I don't want to evaluate that here, but it is stong enough that I say we should Over turn the close and relist on AfD. DES 22:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Alexander (cartoonist)

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

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

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

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

2006-01-29

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

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

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

User:KJVTRUTH

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

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

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

SNK Boss Syndrome

Looking at the deletion discussion, various users cite this article as oringinal research and non-notable. I highly disagree and cite that numerous links were provided in the discussion to back up this claim. However, I'll not disagree that this article was saturated with un-encyclopediac material, and POV statements. If undeleted, I plan to overhall this article, confroming it to higher standard of quality. -Zero 17:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Tony's having fun with bluelinks again. But you think those links in the AfD are references? Please: not a one of them mentions the term! -Splash 17:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    Nevertheless, I plan to improve this article somewhat if its undeleted; its a common enough term to be useful at wikipedia, as well as a good reference concerning articles to the reader. -Zero 17:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    If you think the article can be improved, why not give it a go? Adding verifiable references to the article would address the main reason for deletion. the article has been temporarily restored and is unprotected. This debate will run for a few days and then it'll be deleted permanently again if there is no reason to keep it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    It already has been, apparently. It's no good to Misplaced Pages if you can't find reliable sources that use the terminology. At least think of a proper title for it. Misplaced Pages is not a how-to guide. -Splash 17:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    Hmm. How about merging the relevant info into the SNK article, fighting -genre article, or King of Fighters artcle....? Keep the terminology and information. -Zero 17:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    You asked for a deletion review. I'm saying I don't see why this has been undeleted before anyone comments on the request and without the offer of sources. Can you provide a reliable source using the terminology? If you can't, the material shouldn't be merged anywhere and should be re-deleted. -Splash 17:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    Actually he may have a point. If the boss behavior ascribed to particular boss characters in the article is verifiable, maybe the material could be usefully merged to SNK if it's not already there. Just a thought. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    Yes. I imagine the actual behaviours are verifiable easily enough, but I don't yet see a source that collects those behaviours together into this 'syndrome' and that creates this syndrome as something that can then be applied to other characters. That is, I was objecting to the part of Zero's comment that says "keep the terminology". -Splash 17:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    I'll look into that. But the 10th anniversary website even states that SNK bosses are purposely created with overwhelming difficulty in mind. That said, I've created a namspace section for its furthur discussion: User:MegamanZero/SNK Boss Syndrome proto-pending. This is certainly valid facts and information, and we as a comprehensive encyclopedia cannot allow it to go to waste. -Zero 17:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    We can if you can't find reliable sources for it. -Splash 18:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    You've also just executed a copy-paste move into your userspace. We should delete that, move the original article there, and then delete its redirect. Wait — that's the way we usually do this! What a good idea! -Splash 18:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    Not for the terminolgy. But the facts are indeed correct. "A half- or full-screen super move that inflicts rated damage values of 1/3 of the opponent's maximum health if unblocked, and 1/6 if blocked (i.e. Don Duke's Ground Zero, Igniz's Chaos Tide).", a very true statement. I am suggesting a "merge", if you will, into a parent article, allowing these analysis be attributed to respective articles. I'm waiting for discussion regarding this. -Zero 18:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    I don't mind if you add information about the particular levels of damage done by particular characters' particular moves to their articles. (Although it's more than a little crufty.) I do mind if you label that information as evidence of this Syndrome, or use a simple description of the move to create the Syndrome, when the only sources I cna find for this 'Syndrome' are mailing list posts, that are hardly reliable sources. -Splash 18:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    Splash, I'm not inquiring for your "permission" on this matter. Furthurmore, I cannot see how statistic information from a video game is crufty. Truthfully, I don't care for the Title/label of the article, I'm concerned about the content and how it can be imformative to the reader. They are true, and one way or another this should stay in its compiled status in mainspace. I'm currently thinking of a section in the SNK article dedicated to it. -Zero 18:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    <reset indent>You don't need to inquire for permission, but you do need to realise that you don't get to add to unverifiable material to articles. Period. You appear to be asserting that you do, adn that to remove it is censorship. -Splash 18:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Saying the damage percentile set by the game's programmers is unverifiable material is a untrue statement. Why not retain the info, make mention of its fan origins, and merge into another article..? I'll agree the opening thesis is incorrect in making it sound as if it is a official term or whatnot, but the core information is indeed true. I don't see what you're getting at here. -Zero 19:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, please take a few minutes to re-read the verifiability policy. Verifiable does not mean "a well-supported opinion." Verifiable does not mean "can be proved true." The policy says Misplaced Pages articles "should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher. " You cannot say any about damage levels, etc. on your personal authority, not even if someone could "verify" them by playing the game. That's not what's mean by verifiability. What you must do is find published sources, e.g. a game magazine, that has published these facts, and cite these sources. "Verifiable" means that someone can find the source--go to a library and check out that copy of the magazine--and see that it really jibes with the way it is used in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure/keep deleted. Validly deleted in process. Comments in the discussion were well-founded, closure was reasonable. The article had no source citations whatsoever and was in violation of our verifiability policy. If Zero didn't keep a copy, provide him with a copy of the deleted article. He should overhaul the article offline or in his own user space. When it meets our policies on verifiability and citing sources, and not before, he can re-create the article without prejudice. (It would be a really good idea for him to ask some other editors to review the work in progress before re-creating the article). To undelete a main-namespace article that is pure, unsourced opinion, and has been properly voted for deletion, is to make a mockery of the verifiability policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • KD, I see no reason to doubt the claims that this is original research. Especially the exact damage percentages cited make for a doubtful definition. Radiant_>|< 17:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted unless and until someone can provide reliable sources. I note the error of the undeletion is already apparent: MegamanZero is insisting on Talk:SNK Boss Syndrome that we must suspend WP:V for several days because to do otherwise would be...wait for it...censorship. -Splash 18:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • How does Zero's expressed opinion on a talk page demonstrate "the error of the undeletion"? I notice that he's objecting to your removal of unverified stuff from the article, but he's not acting in any untoward way, though his opinion is obviously different from yours on the appropriateness of reomving the unverified information from the article at this stage. I tend to agree with you that the material sould remain off the article page until it can be verified and, if verification is possible, Zero will go to it. If edit warring should get out of hand, the article can be protected in the usual way. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, I had to edit war briefly to get the unverified material to stay out, and was told that, since undeletion was being discussed, we had to keep all the material in the article because an undeletion overrides WP:V (which your undeletion did, after all, but not in the same sense). A userfication, as is far more appropriate in such cases wouldn't have that kind of issue. -Splash 20:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
        • You didn't have to edit war. While I agree with you that unverified information shouldn't be in an encyclopedia article, it would have been enough to pop some notice on the top to say that the article contained some unverified statements. I'm sure that Zero, who usually does go out of his way to be reasonable, would have been happy with that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • KD - The more I think about it, the more I think it'd be better just to put an "SNK Boss" section in, say, List of fighting game terms mentioning it'd be slightly opinionated, though the term "SNK boss" has certainly been used before. (I've put a note to this effect in the talk page.) --Yar Kramer 18:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse colsure and keep deleted. Valid process, and I think the right decision as well. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 23:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Colony5

Article was deleted via AfD, even though a) all but one delete vote came before notability was established and added to the article, and b) nominee withdrew nomination following establishment of notability in article and in deletion nomination. Considering the group more than meets the guidelines in place and votes were made without full information in place, this article should be undeleted. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 05:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Undelete per my nom. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 05:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Worth relisting, at the very least, but there doesn't appear to be any basis for deleting the current article. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. There are actually some words in the Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators about this kind of case: "Some opinions can override all others...If a page was to be deleted, but a person finds references for a particular topic or rewrites the article, the page might be kept." It's commonsense, really, and would certainly be strongly indicated where the nominator concedes that the reason for deletion has been addressed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Can I ask that we stop undeleting articles by default when they hit DRV, and that we protect and use the template as suggested in talk? (See discussion advertised above.) - brenneman 12:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I note your request. Why do you want this article protected and hidden? Do you suspect abuse? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      • It's interesting, because I'd think seeing the deleted material would make sense in coming to a consensus as to what to do. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      • It's not about keeping the article hidden. Generally, the process is to post the article text here (if it's a one-sentence wonder) or to put it in someone's userspace (generally the person requesting undeletion). This way, the text is available for the duration of the DRV, but it doesn't show up in "random article", etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Is there a particular reason why this article, which is clearly marked as under review, should not show up on Random article? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes. It's an article deleted following due process, which is in a limbo state during an appeal process. Theres more reason not to have it on random article (and search and mirrors) than to have it. The solution you employed at list of LBU people was, IMO, the right one. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 23:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
        • If I followed the alternative solution then it could not be edited, which I think would be a net loss. Since its deletion status is being queried, and it may well be possible by editing to improve it and make it a better article, more fit for Misplaced Pages, I don't see the mere procedural concept of limbo as useful. It sounds like a game of grandmother's footsteps or musical chairs were everyone has to freeze when the music stops. Misplaced Pages isn't a bloody silly game, it's an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Up to a point, Lord Copper. If it wasn't fixed during AfD, I'd say it is unlikely to be fixed during DRV. Yes, it's an encyclopaedia. And that means unencyclopaedic content gets deleted. And ought really to remain so, at least at the surface level, until there is oncsensus to undelete. Which often there is not. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 23:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
        • But what purpose is served by keeping deleted while we discuss, in good faith, whether deletion was the correct thing to do in this instance? I'm just not seeing a clear reason here except "because AfD voted it so." Well we're deciding whether AfD got it wrong. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
        • What purpose is served by not following our customary procedure? Anyone interested in making significant improvements to the article can do so in user space, publicizing the effort here. Our current procedure is a response to previous abuse by users who discovered they could game the previous system. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete per above. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 23:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, notability established with latest edits. Only one person voted on the AFD after that addition and said the band was non-notable (without further explanation on why they discounted the added evidence). Non-notable isn't a catch all, if you think it's not notable you should explain why. - Mgm| 10:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete/relist - appears right on the borderline of WP:MUSIC to me (multiple releases on an independent label which may or may not fit the criteria "more important"), deserves a proper discussion now that the article asserts notability, as Mgm said, all but one of the AfD delete votes were made before that assertion was made. --Stormie 21:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Could whoever keeps deleting this article please stop it? It's on DRV and there is consensus that if we're reviewing a deletion we want to see the article we're talking about. This deletion is most likely going to be overturned anyhow so what's the point of repeatedly deleting it? --Tony Sidaway 06:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-27

Template:User_ku_klux

This was speedied in the middle of an active tfd Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_27#.5B.5BTemplate:User_ku_klux.5D.5D by User:MarkSweep - the same guy that speedied user freedom during a tfd (which was overturned). Log here . At last count there were 9 keeps to 1 delete. If you were to actually read the template you will see that it only contains a statement of fact not any racist claims. It said "This user is in the KKK". While the KKK says offensive things, people themselves are not offensive it is illegitamite to speedy this template as "offensive". Everyone please remember DRV is not TFD.--God of War 03:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Extremely Strong Undelete. It is outrageous that this was speedied when it was obvious that a clear consensus to keep was developing. In order to avoid sounding like a bureaucrat, I also re-present my argument: "Offensive and POV, but in userspace. It also helps identify what could be biased edits. In any case, it's always best to know thy enemy." - Cuivienen (Return) 04:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete Once again I agree with Cuivienen. There is nothing in that userbox that violates policy, and it isn't even POV. There was a clear consensus to keep, so why was it deleted? -Chairman S. 04:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You seem to be confused about Misplaced Pages policy. There is no 9th Amendment in effect here. You don't have a natural right to create or use certain templates. Templates (and policies as well!) are created if and when they are needed to advance or facilitate the goal of writing an encyclopedia. This template is not only useless, it has the clear potential to offend and divide the community, and its continued presence would send the wrong signal to newcomers. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. The template is an orphan--nobody is including it on his userpage--and it was created by Zanee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has been blocked as a sock of Batzarro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a vandal who put penis pictures on people's userpages. If we get a KKK member who edits Misplaced Pages with civility and wants to make a userbox template like this, then we'll address the issue without any question of bad faith; this is not that occasion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist. Process is Important, and the consensus seemed to be leaning towards Keep at the time this was deleted. I'm very concerned about the precedents being set here. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist, definitely out-of-process. --Andy Saunders 04:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, appropriate speedy deletion of troll template. If you want people to pay more attention to process, simultaneously ensuring that our processes facilitate trolls and vandals is probably not the way to go. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Why must everyone insist on being a fucking moron? I had no sympathy for Kelly Martin until I saw this sort of shit, but now a bunch of idiots have actually made me sympathize with her. Now that takes a whole lot of sheer fuckheadedness. Where's my pisstrough? -R. fiend 06:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and Keep. Obviously the only harm this template is causing is due to the deletion - restore the template, and whomever wants to can show their affiliation. And please stop speedying userboxes already. Speedy deletion is not a toy. --Dschor 07:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted. What the hell does being a KKK member have to do with writing an encyclopedia? I would rather have a racist essay up on user pages that at least attempts to explain KKK membership rather than a quick, moronic, inflamatory trolling template. If it wasn't there to troll then fine, do whatever, its your page...you can decorate it. But your page is on Misplaced Pages, not just some place on the net to put all your BS moronic crap. As editors, we get to have our own cute little page, but using it just to troll with offensive red templates (not that making it blue will help) is idiotic, and permitting this BS, even just to go through a long deletion process, is just a horrid waste of time. It is hard to express this civily...So now any other troll can make BS and it takes takes AFD and DRV and almost two weeks just to get rid of? The voices of reason, grace, truth, and heck even Jimbo stand against this.Voice of All 08:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Is invoking Jimbo the wikipedian version of Godwin's Law? Calling this BS is BS. Leave it alone, and it won't bother anyone. Assume good faith, and please stop trying to make everything a troll. --Dschor 08:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Why not actually look at the templates history. It was made by this user. Hmm, he has been warned and blocked over other matters. If we allows this nonsense, then EVERYthing can go on Misplaced Pages, any random offensive nonsense with nothing to do with the encyclopedia can go on, and we would be a lot worse of.Voice of All 19:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. This is unacceptable, its creation was clear trolling, and arguments to keep it are in clear violation of WP:POINT. To take a page from Tony's book, if it's recreated I promise to delete it as many times as it takes. -- SCZenz 08:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist. The only issue that matters here is whether or not process was violated, and it was. Aaron 09:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, process was not violated by speedily deleting a template promoting hate campaigns. Is anyone even looking at it? This is the KKK we're talking about, that means it's equivalent to a template stating "this user supports murdering people for their skin color". Radiant_>|< 09:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, seems personal attackish to me. IanID:540053 11:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, the fact that "process was violated" is not a reason to stop using common sense. Garion1000 12:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong undelete You can't just have userboxes with anti-KKK opinions. You have to have both sides of the argument available, otherwise its just bias - • Dussst • 12:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. If someone wants to display the fact that they're in the KKK, they can write their own text on their user page. Process does not trump common sense. Carbonite | Talk 13:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. In this case, the "out of process" claim is negated by the fact the userbox is a poster child for WP:POINT. –Abe Dashiell 13:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, this was clearly deleted out of process and WP:SNOW doesn't apply since there are people who want to keep it. But it's an orphan, a fact largely ignored by the TfD discussion. If you can produce a single person who wants to use this in good faith then I'm sure Tony will undelete it for you. But this theoretical userbox boundary testing is really getting old - isn't there some way we can stop dancing when the band is composed of trolls? - Haukur 15:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted. This is a matter of core policy. Enforcing that, when appropriate, is something that permits going outside the normal order of business. --Improv 16:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, out-of-process perhaps, but history of the template and lack of use show that this is just trying to make a point. I agree that this boundary-pushing as a way to manipulate the userbox debate is getting seriously old, though. We should not be slaves to process. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted This review is more than enough to establish community consensus if delete is the outcome. Don't waste editors time on disruptive WP:Point. --FloNight 19:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong overturn there is no valid reason to speedy delete this template, and IMO not much reaosn to delete it at TfD either. DES 23:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted times one million. My god, you userbox people have been so blinded by the Kelly Martin affair that you think you can have whatever userboxes you want. This box is an offensive piece of crap and I'm glad it's gone. Morgan695 23:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There is nothing to vote on here. This userbox is clearly in violation of WP:NPA, and until and unless you change that, this box will have to go. As it should. I can't believe anyone is even discussing this. User:Zoe| 00:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Who exactly is this box attacking? WP:NPA forbids personal attacks, which means there must be a person being attacked for that policy to apply. Putting "I am a racist" on a user's own user page is not a PA, so neither is doing so via a template (ingnoring for the moment any question about whether all KKK members are in fact racists, most of them surely are, IMO). DES 00:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Even if you can't imagine this as a violation of NPA, surely you can see that it's a violation of WP:CIVIL. User:Zoe| 21:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
        • No I can't. What this box says basically is "I am a member of the KKK". That could be a statement of fact about a particular user. It might well imply that said user has various racist and uncivil belifs -- it is not the same as posting hate sppech on the user page, although is suggests that the user belives some hateful things. I would certianly give such a self-identified user less leeway on civility and personal attacks, particualrly against groups traditionally targetd by the KKK. Speaking as a person who has been the target of a KKK picket line (well, among the targets, not the sole or primary target), and as a person who has been able to hold civil discussions with members of white-supremicist groups, and indeed to have a good friend who was a holocaust denier, I think i know a racist attack when i see one, and this isn't one. If we wish to ahve a policy that aasays 'no userboxes that identify users group memberships", or "no userboxes that proclaim political views", or anything of that sort fin -- this tempalte would then need to go. Until we agree on and adopt such a policy, IMO it NEEDS to stay. DES 22:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, unused on any user page. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - I in general, being a process wonk (I think I need a userbox for that! KIDDING!), oppose out of process action, but 9 keeps to 1 delete suggests a lack of common sense in the AfD discussion, not a consensus. Unused, WP:POINT violation, not encyclopedic. But let's be civil in our discussion if we can. ++Lar: t/c 00:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Far out Ummm, keep deleted, smack with a trout everyone who has come within ten feet of this? Bad idea to create it, bad idea to send it to TfD as a "personal attack", bad idea to vote to keep it, bad idea to restore it/delete/whatever again. Please, can we stop with the monkey business of both creating stupid templates and playing around with our admin buttons, and get back to creating content? - brenneman 00:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and forget about it {{db-attack}} applies only to the article namespace; there is no userbox policy right now, so IMHO there's no real reason to delete this. Nobody will use it so it's not a big deal. Ashibaka tock 02:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all polemic userboxes per Jimbo's request. --Cyde Weys 02:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy - highly offensive template created for disruptive purposes. No need for consensus to delete such a template. --- Charles Stewart 02:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I'm a huge fan of due process, sometimes to a fault, but that doesn't mean that I'm an idiot who doesn't know where to draw the line. This speedy and subsequent listing here is making me more and more tempted to try and get a movement to deleting the whole bloody lot of non-Babel userboxes. These boxes have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is an encylopedia, dammit! --Deathphoenix 02:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and appropriately speedied - why does every decision that is to speedy delete a User template - no matter how inappropriate the template is have to be brought to Deletion review - some discretion in what is brought to deletion review would be appreciated by this user Trödel&#149;talk 14:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Deleting a template that is trollish, disruptive and in violation WP:NPA is not out of process. Marskell 14:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - and nuke from orbit. Process is not important when it is used to make a bunch of Wikipedians spend their time bureaucratically defining why a template defining a user as a member of a hate group does not help build the encyclopedia. FCYTravis 22:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted process is a means to an end and in this case nuking it was the right choice. Jtkiefer ---- 22:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn, abuse. // paroxysm (n) 22:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. This is an encyclopedia. Divisive userboxes have no place here. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted How can this possibly have anything to do with writing an encyclopedia? The disruptive effect generated by it's creation should have been apparent to anyone interested in doing what's best for Misplaced Pages. Rx StrangeLove 06:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Besides being offensive, the only conceivable use I can see for this template would be vandals posting it on other peoples' userpages. Hence, vandalism (CSD G3). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy of computer science

I speedy deleted this personal essay/original research entry on January 24, knowing full well it was likely to be a uni study with the authors holding the copyright. It would have been a quick AfD deletion, but that wasn't the route I took. See the article here. The author contacted my talk page requesting a review, so I'll give it a hearing here. Is this article worth keeping/re-writing? It's really as I said: personal essay and original research, violating WP:NOT. Harro5 22:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, it certainly was an exact copy of text from another website and, given the evidence, you were entirely justified in assuming that it was a copyright violation. Universities would be presumed to be "commercial content providers" in the sense of this case because they are generally fairly agressive about policing their own copyrights. The only process failure I see was that you overlooked the notification step to the author. The author did, however, contact you and assert authorship of both copies. The narrow legal question is "does the author have the right to release the text under GFDL or is the University the real copyright holder?" In this case, we can probably ask the author and assume good faith that he will tell the truth. The text itself may be original to this author but it is also based on a text he wrote that has already been published by a reputable publisher (that is, not an obvious vanity-press operation). This is certainly a case close to the line but I would probably call this as not original research in the sense that we mean at WP:NOR. Assuming the copyright question can be confirmed, I would recommend a restore with a listing on AFD if you feel strongly about it. Rossami (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • While in principle a university could make it a condition of employment that all copyrights are assigned to the university, and it is common practice for universities to take a stake in other forms of IP created by their employees, I have never heard of such a thing (nor apparently, have Elsevier, whose copyright assignment form assumes that authors hold copyright to submitted works). If the poster is who he says he is, then we can take it for granted that he holds copyright, and thus validly licensed it when he submitted it. --- Charles Stewart 02:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted. While a Philosophy of computer science articlemight be nice, if one does not already exists, any creation of a non-WP:OR, COPYVIO version would have nothing in common with this article in its current form, so either way it will get deleted.Voice of All 19:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and list on AfD - the author may be able to address OR concerns. --- Charles Stewart 02:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted eh if the author (or anyone else) can rewrite so it isn't a copyvio or original research, they won't be exactly recreating deleted material so he should be able to create the article thataway with no problems (and I hope that happens). As the article was written, it was a valid speedy delete as far as I can tell. --W.marsh 16:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for providing me with invaluable lesson on the Misplaced Pages revolution, about the likes of which Kafka said: "Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy". What's next, a pole whether to define pi=3.14? Please do not restore, I choose to wash my hands from this business. Thank you, --Edenphd 11:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-26

Maria Pia Braganza and Rosario Poidimani

In the wiki article Maria Pia of Braganza,aka Hilda Toledano, is mentioned because she was daughter of the king Charles of Portugal and she was considered a pretender to Portuguese Crown. When she claimed this dynastic rights her name was Maria Pia Saxe Coburg Braganza. This name is riported in her baptizimal certification and also in all her offiacial certifications ],]. In her youth she assumed the name Hilda Toledano, a pseudonym in a dictatorial salazarist period in Portugal because she was pursued in this dictatorial period but she fighted Salazar for the return of democracy in Portugal. So for politic reason she assumed the name Hilda Toledano. With this name she was also a writer and she wrote many books. The names and the story of this books you can find in this site, wrote by an important french hystoric *Maria Pia: The Pretender,part I; part II; part III: part IV; part V. Now her oppositors, the miguelist supporters, want hide the presence of her rights and mystify her story. Can you help me to give again the title "Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza" in her wiki page and change the name Hilda Toledano. The miguelist supporters, in particular with a user Muriel@pt, have delete also the Rosario Poidimani page. Muriel has asked other her wiki-fiends to vote to delete this page. I think this people know nothing about Maria Pia but only for friendship with Muriel they have voted! Is this possible?? Please help me to create the Rosario Poidimani page. Thankyou. M.deSousa 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This is only the truth and you can find this news in many web-sites. Muriel and other Duarte Pio, Duke of Bragançasupporters want hide this wikipage because this page is dangerous for their pretender...but this is no possible in a democratic encyclopedia! Is possible to reinsert Rosario Poidimani page?Thanks,M.deSousa 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • They delete also this important page that explain the claim of these portuguese pretenders Claimants of the Duchy of Braganza. Why? They want hide also these important impartial considerations.Infact this page was created from me and Muriel but after one wiki user delete this page none motivations.The page was this: The vast majority of Portuguese monarchists maintain Manuel II of Portugal, the last King of Portugal, recognized Duarte Nuno, Duke of Braganza (father of the present official head of the House of Braganza, Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza) as his successor. Some historians bolster this argument by citing the Pact of Paris of 1922, with which King Manuel's lieutenant would have abdicated the title of Duke of Bragança in favour of Duarte Nuno. A minority argue against its constitutional validity because the abdication in favour of the miguelist line should have been made after the abrogation, by a King's sovereign act, of article 98 of the Monarchic Constitution, which has never happened, and with the personally sign of the last king Manuel. Such abrogation would however be void, as the Republican Regime revoked the Monarchic Constitution altogether.

Such a discussion is nevertheless academic, as Portugal has for nearly a century been a republic and nobiliary titles, although widely used in society and generally accepted as a form of national patrimony, are legally inexistent. Furthermore, despite the wide support for the present Duke of Bragança and for the monarchist cause, there is no evidence that the country is ready to change its republican regime (which was never subject to referendum anyway). The position of head of the House of Braganza is also claimed by an Italian-born, Rosario Poidimani, calling himself Rosario Saxe Coburg Gotha Bragança. Rosario claims to be a relative of Hilda Toledano, known as Maria Pia of Bragança, who claimed in the 1930s to be an illegitimate child of King Charles I of Portugal by his brazilian married mistress Maria Amelia Laredo e Murça. Rosario and his supporters base theirs claims on the Monarchic Constitution promulgated in 1838 and revoked in , which excluded the direct line of former King Miguel I of Portugal and all his descendants, of which Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza is one, from the dinastic succession and assert the validity of the documents of "Dona Maria Pia" Baptism Acts, of which the original was lost in Spanish Civil War, and the 1930's reconstruction of it in 1982 the Ecclesiastical Court of Sacra Romana Rota confirmed the validity. Under such document it is asserted that King Charles I conferred upon his natural daughter all honours, prerogatives, privileges, obligations and advantages that belong to the Princes of the House of Braganza, with the power of succession to the Portuguese Crown, also if ancient portuguese rules for succession excluded children born as a result of adultery as is the case for Maria Pia, and had no power over the sucession of the trone under Portuguese law. Another minority view asserts that, would the direct line of Miguel de Braganza be excluded, the succession would revert to the descendants of Infanta Ana de Jesus de Bragança (daughter of John VI of Portugal) who married the first Duke of Loulé. But the marriage was morganatic and the Princess no more an Infanta of Portugal aftewards. The Portuguese Royal Family did not include the Loulés as family ties. The present heir of this line is Dom Pedro Folque de Mendonça Moura Barreto, 4th Duke of Loulé.,M.deSousa 26 January 2006 (UTC

I do not know if it matters or not, but The Guardian (London) did a full article on Rosario Poidimani titled "Rivals for a throne" written by Jill Jolliffe on 5 January 1987. A bit of the article:

The newcomer is Sicilian-born Dom Rosario Poidimani, who says he is Dona Maria Pia's nephew. He said he came to Portugal to present his case to his potential subjects and to investigate the possibility of investing in Portugal. He already has investments in the central African Republic, Panama, and Spain.
Dom Rosario said he had a sworn statement from the 79-year-old Dona Maria Pia, written in a quavering hand, in which she passed her dynastic rights to him. He admitted she was experiencing genteel economic distress in Italy, where she lives, and that he had helped her out in return for the gracious document.

I do not know if this article should be undeleted, but the is some validity to his notability. If someone would like the whole text of the article, ask, and I'll see what I can do. Thanks. --LV 16:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Jill Jolliffe proving her credulousness twenty years ago doesn't make someone notable, or Poidimani's claims credible. The purported bastard daughter of a king doesn't have the ability to "pass dynastic rights" to anyone by written instrument, particularly rights to a throne in a republic! At long last, M.deSousa needs to stop using Misplaced Pages as a means of campaigning for his favored pretend royalty. Again, and again, and again. And Wikipedians need to stop collaborating with him in this by repeatedly entertaining the same arguments in successive forums. Undeletion review "should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning." - Nunh-huh 20:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I was just saying that there was an article written about him. I wasn't making any claims that he deserves to be king, I was just saying that a major newspaper ran a story on him, so he approaches notability (not nobility). Oh well, I was just throwing my two centavos in there. --LV 01:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
But ridiculous claims to nobility are not notable - at least not until the claimant attracts a wide following, a la Michael Lafosse. False nobles are a dime-a-dozen, and they are most likely to fool those unfamiliar with their techniques. This gent is not a serious claimant to anything, and can probably count his supporters on two hands. - Nunh-huh 16:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I have read the "Guardinan" wrote in 1987 about Dom Rosario. Where can I find the article that you have reported here ]?

I hope you can ricreate the article of Rosario Poidimani. The last version is impartial but the usual wikiusers deleted this page because they are no democratic and they are duarte Pio supporters(other portuguese pretender). The last version was :Rosario Poidimani is an Italian-born claimant to the position of head of the Portuguese Royal House of Braganza, calling himself Rosario Saxe Coburg Gotha Bragança. Rosario is purportedly a relative of Maria Pia of Braganza (also known as Hilda Toledano), who claimed in the 1930s to be an illegitimate child of King Charles I of Portugal by Maria Amelia Laredo e Murca.Rosario and his supporters base theirs claims on the Monarchic Constitution promulgated in 1838 and revoked in 1910 by the Republic, which excluded the direct line of the fomer King Miguel of Portugal and all his descendants, of which Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza and present official head of the House of Braganza, is one, from the dinastic succession and assert the validity of the documents of Dona Maria Pia Baptism Acts, of which in 1982 the Ecclesiastical Court of Sacra Romana Rota confirmed the validity and with which the King Charles I conferred upon his natural daughter Dona Maria Pia Saxe Coburgo Bragança all honours, prerogatives, privileges, obligations and advantages that belong to the Princes of the House of Bragança, with the power of succession to the Portuguese Crown, also if ancient portuguese rules for succession excluded children born as a result of adultery as is the case for Maria Pia. Dom Rosario was born on the 25th August of 1941, he is a succesfull business man and he is father of 3 sons:

  • Soraya Sayda Tekla, born on the 16 June, 1965
  • Simone Joska, born on the 25 January, 1982
  • Kystal Isabel Dona Maria Pia IV Saxe Coburgo Gotha de Bragança, born on the 7th Setember, 2003

o ------------------

You can find others newspaper article about this claimant in this page: ]. Thanks and best regards --M.deSousa, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


Category:Ambiguous five-letter acronyms

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

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

2006-01-25

Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks: City of New York

Once upon a time, Misplaced Pages had an article listing the casualties of the World Trade Center attack. Due to the unprecedented public attention this article received and the high emotions of the day, this article had a very hard time adhering to the NPOV, NOR, and other policies, and no one really wanted to chastize greiving family members for adding little tributes of their loved ones to the page. Misplaced Pages was still something of a fledgling project at the time and no one really knew what to do about this. These days we would just semi-protect the page and let things run their course until the article could be cleaned up. Instead, we decided to throw in the towel and scrap the article all together. In it's place, we created the lonely step-child known as The Sept 11 Memorial Wiki.

In retrospect, this was a terrible decision. The Sept 11 Memorial Wiki hasn't been actively maintained in years. It has become a playground for vandals and is frankly an embarrassment, IMO. People have been asking that the project be closed or locked for years, but no one seems to want to mess with it. In the meantime, Misplaced Pages has been left with a conspicuous hole in its information regarding September 11. Every few months someone proposes prominently linking to the memorial wiki (usually in the Sept11 template) since there is no list of casualties in Misplaced Pages. This proposal is always shot down since the Memorial wiki is technically an external link and most people don't want to acknowledge that it exists (due to it's declining state of maintanence).

This leads me to the following proposal: Now that September 11th is no longer a fresh wound in the American psyche, let's restore the casualty lists and bring them up to Misplaced Pages standards. We have fairly extensive information about everything else related to September 11 in Misplaced Pages. We also now have more administrators and better tools to deal with vandalism and POV-pushers. I see no reason why Misplaced Pages shouldn't have a well-verified NPOV list of World Trade Center casualties, considering we have hundreds of lists of such trivial topics as Pokemon characters and Star Trek episodes. To test the waters, I have migrated the American Airlines Flight 11 victims list from the Memorial wiki back to Misplaced Pages. Hopefully here it will have a good home and be well looked after. For the Trade Center List, I would ideally like to restore it from deletion so that the history is restored as well. My real hope is that we can migrate all the important NPOV content from the Memorial Wiki back to Misplaced Pages and then close, lock, or move the Memorial wiki so that it is no longer the lonely neglected step-child of the Wikimedia Foundation. Kaldari 21:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


2006-01-23

Template:Background

deletion history

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

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

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

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

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

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



2006-01-20

Karayana

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Karayana.

In light of the deletion review for Torc, P.A.C. Bloos and the pretty clear puppetry that slipped through the net there, this AfD exhibits identical features (puppets, closure and closing admin) and should be overturned and deleted too. -Splash 13:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Why not link this one and the next one to the Torc debate? They plainly involve exactly the same issues. David | Talk 13:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete. There are a number of admins who are (quite commendably) ensuring AfD's are closed within hours of time. However, I think the (perhaps slightly competitive) rush is leading to some ill-considered mathematical decisions. Perhaps slow it down.--Doc 13:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete or run again. Closing admins should always ignore sockpuppet/meatpuppet votes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no use of sockpuppet/meatpuppet votes. If you are going by my IP being the same as Vorak's that is not valid reason to think such. We are two different users on a network with the same IP. Aneirin

David Dom

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David Dom.

In light of the deletion review for Torc, P.A.C. Bloos and the pretty clear puppetry that slipped through the net there, this AfD exhibits identical features (puppets, closure and closing admin) and should be overturned and deleted too. -Splash 13:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn and delete. There are a number of admins who are (quite commendably) ensuring AfD's are closed within hours of time. However, I think the (perhaps slightly competitive) rush is leading to some ill-considered mathematical decisions. Please slow it down.--Doc 13:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete or run again. Closing admins should always ignore sockpuppet/meatpuppet votes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no use of sockpuppet/meatpuppet votes. If you are going by my IP being the same as Vorak's that is not valid reason to think such. We are two different users on a network with the same IP. Aneirin

Recently concluded

  1. Aetherometry, kept deleted. 05:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. How to make a computer virus, kept deleted. 22:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Valhalla legends: undel+re-AfD'd, and BNLS AfD'd with it, per recommendations here. 01:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Category:German-American mobsters: can be recreated, but there are no articles in it at present. 01:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Category:Causes célèbres: no majority to overturn. sounds like it needs more thought elsewhere. 01:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Category:List of Christian Entertainers: category never created/deleted, only comments are to keep list deleted, maybe needs a fresh nomination on correct target. 01:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny: has been redirected, and the quesiton of a new afd by this debate is vague at best here. 01:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Projectplace (software): overturned, undeleted, relisted with ref to this debate. 00:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Torc, P.A.C. Bloos: oveturned+deleted. 00:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. OpenGCL: deletion endorsed. 00:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Caspian James Crichton-Stuart IV (Joshua Adam Gardner), 5th Duke of Cleveland: made into redir+history. 00:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Prinsessakerho: deletion endorsed. 00:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Phish phood: userfication done. 00:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Larry Hama: not a DRV question. 00:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Will McWhinney, Jr.: deletion endorsed. 00:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Saugeen Stripper: no consensus closure endorsed. 00:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Sanchez Raful Sicard & Polanco - rm - undel+afd'd. 00:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Gfxvoid: undel+relisted. 00:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Smoky's Fine Cigars: back to afd. 00:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Category:Copyright examinations: already dealt with. 00:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Jackarandah Productions: kd. 00:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. R@ygold etc.: being dealt with by AfD of another article. 00:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. {{Oregon-State-Highway-stub}} and associated category Category:Oregon State Highway stubs: kept deleted. 00:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Haggle4me.com: kept deleted, but acknowledged as out -of-process speedy. 00:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Adam and andrew: overturned+afd'd. 00:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. The Bible According To: being handled via AfD of another article. 00:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Category:Western science fiction: already recreated, drv closed. 00:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. List of Louisiana Baptist University people: kept deleted. 00:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Template:User against Saud and Template:User Nepal Maoists. Both restored. 30 January 2006
  30. Teagames. Restored and relisted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Teagames (2nd nomination) 27 January 2006.
  31. Greenlighting. Undeleted and relisted for deletion. 16:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Misplaced Pages:Title Neutrality and Misplaced Pages:Conspiracy theory titles - kept userfied. 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Chiens Sans Frontiers - speedy undeleted; listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chiens Sans Frontiers; deleted there. 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Linked pages from Crooked Timber - Henry Farrell (political scientist) (AfD discussion) and Eszter Hargittai (AfD discussion) speedy undeleted, afd'd, and kept; John Holbo, Tom Runnacles, Micah Schwartzman, Belle Waring deletion endorsed. 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. 24SevenOffice - kept deleted. 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Zoner, Inc. - relisted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zoner, Inc. (2nd nomination). 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Yafinsint: Nomination withdrawn, admitted hoax. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. NATARS: Kept deleted. 23:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Holy Father: Not a deletion issue. Article now stands as a dab. 23:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. LUEshi: Closure of "keep" upheld. 04:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Ninjah Pendragon: Kept deleted. 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Pussy_City_Pimps : Kept deleted. 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Weishampel exchange : Kept deleted. 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Template:User allow fairuse : Kept deleted. 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Circumcision fetish: Kept deleted. 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This page is about articles, not about people. If you feel that a sysop is routinely deleting articles prematurely, or otherwise abusing their powers, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators. Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.

Content review

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

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

History only undeletion

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

Decisions to be reviewed

Shortcut

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion instead.
 
1.

Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: 

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
2.

Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 December 27}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

4.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 December 27}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 December 27|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Temporary_undeletion

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

1 February 2006

Male bikini-wearing

This article is genuine, it shouldn't have been deleted. It's not nonsense. --Muillern 12:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted this patent nonsense has been deleted about seven times. Thryduulf 12:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn not patent nonsense, or a hoax. Genuine article. --Muillern 12:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Clear consensus established that we do not want this article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted IMO, this article has at least three things working against it: (a) As written, it's patent nonsense, or very close to it. Whether it technically is patent nonsense or not is at least debatable, I suppose, but it's surely close enough that it wouldn't stand a snowball's chance on AfD. (b) It's unverified, with no sources cited whatsoever. (c) Even if the first two issues were somehow overcome, it simply isn't encyclopedic. If some men wear bikinis, so what? Should be also have an article on female necktie-wearing? Covering all possible combinations of gender and clothing items in their own articles would be pretty silly. I vote to keep deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, it's not patent nonsense in the strict way we use that term. And it can't really be considered a hoax. But every version pretty clearly was original research. A part of me wants to say "leave it deleted unless a citation is provided here."
    Looking further into this, I find this aborted second deletion discussion which was closed early using the argument "previously deleted content". I am more than a bit confused because 1) there does not seem to be a corresponding first nomination and 2) the only previous deletions were apparently all speedy-deletions. The "recreated content" case explicitly excludes prior speedies as justification for that case. Given the apparent process failures, I'm strongly inclined to say overturn the speedy-deletion and reopen the AFD even though I don't see any chance of this surviving the AFD. Rossami (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • keep deleted with plenty of salt on the earth. This sillyness has wasted enough time already, I don't even follow the process argument - we are interested in content, the content is crap, ergo leave deleted. --Doc 15:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This has been deleted seven times, but all of thsoe deletions seem to have been speedies. Most of them claimed that this was patent nonsense which it clearly is not. No deletions cite an AfD discussion. However, the article as it stands is completely unsourced, and at a title that is a ratehr unlikely search term. It really would ahve been bettter to have allowed the afd linked above to run to completion -- it looked like a delete consensus was forming. While I am tempted to say undelete on process grounds this really would have no chance on AfD as it stands, so i am going to consider that the aborted AfD nonetheless shows a consensus to delete. To thsoe who still want this content include, my advice is 1) find citeable reliable sources 2) include content supported by such sorces in either Bikini or Cross-dressing or some article on male fashion or local trends in the area discussed. If enough verifiable content emerges, it can always be split to a proerp article later. Good luck. Reluctantly endorse deletion. DES 15:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and keep earth salted. Plenty of recreations make this a prime candidate for protection. --Deathphoenix 16:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn - The original content did not contain original research, just facts. And this is a growing phenomenon. --Rahlmanik 16:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn - Genuine article, should never have been deleted. --Guvan 16:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn I think this has potential to become a full article in itself, and we need appropriate redirects. --Rulcliffe (talk · contribs) 19:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, burn the bits used to make it, shred the resultant ashes and jump up and down on them until they are very, very sorry indeed, and never ever revisit this ever again ever as long as the 'pedia lives. Ever. This is a lame excuse for a joke and the above have wasted more than enough of the community's time on it already. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 22:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify, these are the editors who have contributed to the article in question:
I haven't found a single good-faith edit from any one of them yet. Some of them have no remaining edits, all having been deleted. It wouold be good to know whose sock drawer this lot come out of. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 23:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User no Rand

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

  • This user rejects Randroid thought in all its varieties.

and the picture being:

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

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

  • Comment I don't have a problem with someone changing the wording, but I think that we have a process for a reason. If we aren't going to follow TfD, then why have it at all? We might as well let WoW run things if that is the case. --Dragon695 03:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
As the author of this userbox, I can say authoritatively that I made Template:User no Rand precisely in response to the anti-Marx userbox. I did so on the rather radical premise that it is better to engage in debate, however polemical and elbow-throwing it is, than it is to simply poo-poo debate. And why? Because it has its place in the grander scheme of any group intellectual endeavor (including the creation of an encyclopedia).
Don't like that debate? Then may I kindly suggest then that it is perhaps time for Jimbo and co. to close the barn doors behind them and make their own encyclopedia themselves. You can bet your last bit of hard currency that even without userboxes, this group would find some molehill issue to make the size of the mountain. In other words: welcome to the real world, where people may say things you don't necessarily agree with.
Meanwhile, is this a whiff of a McCarthy-style witch-hunt I smell in the air? First the antifa userbox gets subjected to an edit war. Then this userbox is disappeared. Then the "blasphemed" image of Mother Ayn is put through copy vio nonsense (though, oddly enough, not the image it is based on - whose copyright status is completely unlisted). Then the Atlas Puked image that I had prepared for a potential replacement - so nakedly parody it hurts me - gets put through some more copy vio nonsense. --Daniel 07:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Nobody's denying that the image is parody. Its copyright status has been challenged because you tagged it as public domain with the notation that you don't believe in the "tyranny of intellectual property." Unfortunately, whatever you don't believe in, you do not have the option to falsify the copyright status of the images you upload to Misplaced Pages. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn deletion and send to TFD, doesn't meet any speedy criteria and several users here want to have it kept outright. Rejecting a philosophy cannot be construed as an attack. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn deletion and send to TFD. I don't have much of an opinion on whether it is an attack or not, but given the strength of feeling above that it isn't it is certainly not unambiguously an attack. For this reason the speedy delete was inapropriate and it should be listed at TfD. Thryduulf 09:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn, Undelete, and Keep. I think this is another case of Admin abuse, and a harmless userbox being speedied out of process for political purposes. I would like to remind all administrators (and others, as well) that Speedy Deletion is NOT a toy. These deletions are disruptive and violate a number of policies and principles that are central to wikipedia. --Dschor 11:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted without randian views there would be no wikipedia Trödel&#149;talk 12:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and keep Template:User admins ignoring policy - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • 15:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, Ayn Rand's views are not necessary to Misplaced Pages, but an attack template using fair use images certainly is even less necessary. If you want to stop this piecemeal approach, go finish the dad-blamed WP:UBP that's stalled out! Otherwise we're left with no approach but stare decisis -- nae'blis (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep revised version, but discouraged its use. The revised version is not an attack; Tony's out-of-process deletion was not helpful, but he has agreed to stop doing those now. As original construed, the template was a borderline attack, and should have been TfD'ed. Xoloz 17:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted as inherently pejorative. No wonder Jimbo doesn't think much of these userboxes! - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 22:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

31 January 2006

Vampires F.C.

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

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

London Welsh F.C.

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

  • Overturn speedy adn list on AfD I presume that this was intented as an A7 nn-bio (group/club). I don't think the recent expansion of A7 was intented to apply to organized sports teams. The notabiulity here seems a bit marginal, but that ought to be a matter for AfD, not a speedy, IMO. DES 23:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy, according tot he article the club completed less than one full season, in the 1896/97 season, and following their suspension the points wen to Thames Ironworks F.C., their opponents. I don;t think completing slightly less than one season in the London League is much of a claim to fame. But I won't cry much if it's reinstated and AfDd instead, since that's what I would have done with it. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 23:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, just for any athlete to play at the top level of a sport establishes notability, to speedy delete a team which did the same is nonsensical. Kappa 23:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and list on AfD meh it was a proper stub and didn't fall under any CSD by any stretch of the imagination. It needs to get a turn at AfD to properly decide what to do with the article. --W.marsh 23:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, I think that's a valid claim to fame. - N (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete, AFD if we must, playing at the top level, even over a hundred years ago is a claim to notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and list on AfD. I personally feel this is a better stub than many we have around and will vote keep on any AfD, but I feel deserves a hearing. Thryduulf 09:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and list on AfD. However, I have to disagree with statements about this club being at the "top level" of the sport; anyone making such statements should realize that football was just barely getting organized as a sport in its modern form at the time. Thus, to say that this is a club at the "top level" makes no sense simply because there were no levels. howcheng {chat} 17:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Antiracist hitler

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

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

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

Exactly my point - we are here to create an encyclopedia - not to be held hostage by abusive administrators. Stop playing with the delete button, already! --Dschor 11:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Stop playing with wikipedia by creating these wasteful boilerplates to saturate your userpages. They don't advance the project. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. That's our concenus for being here. That's what comes first and foremost. Always. Anything that doesn't contribute to that goal must be removed without mercy. -Zero 11:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I haven't made a new userbox in a while. The true waste is the ongoing purge of userboxes. The disruption caused by mass deletion is a much greater danger to the project than any userbox could ever be. I have yet to see a single userbox that was so out of line that it was deletable, but I have seen dozens of deletions and speedy deletions, which each have required extended debate and discussion. Just leave userspace alone, and we can all go back to editing articles, rather than sparring over misguided deletionism. Admins speedy deleting userbox templates has wasted far too much time already. --Dschor 11:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Its watseful to eliminate the useless shit on-site..? There is no "so-out-ofline userboxes". Anything even remotely away from our true goal is deleted. Always. And speedies are perefable because the encyclopedia comes first and foremost. No exceptions. Fuck process. IGNORE ALL RULES for things which draw away from the encyclopedia. -Zero 12:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It is wasteful even to be going in circles with you about the amount of time/bandwidth/energy wasted on spurious userbox deletions. Suffice it to say, these arguments are fruitless, as is deletion of user space content. --Dschor 12:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
em, not per me, I said kd = 'keep deleted'. --Doc 00:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-30

Lee Hotti

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

AFD discussion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lee Hotti
Endorse closure and keep deleted. Sock-fest and hysterical posturing aside, this looks to me like a valid closure. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 12:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Endorse closure and strong keep deleted as a vile attack page of the lamest sort, accusing some random person of homosexuality (or, as the article puts it, "fairy", 'colon cowboy", "rectum ranger", "ass raider", "butt pirate"... etc.) because they supposedly look "feminine" in a photo. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:GermanGov

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

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

Gazeebow Unit

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

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

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

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


Um, 4 opinions total on an AFD? But they do have academic papers written about them? Which I see have been referenced above? That's odd. Why was this article deleted? It seems like the sane thing to do here is to keep the article. I don't care which discussion that's supposed to go, and I don't think the objections (most of which are procedural in nature) are relevant here. Is there any reason not to undelete and keep, short of procedure? Kim Bruning 17:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • There seems to have been at least soem new info brought out in thsi discussion, and reasons that were alleged in the first AfD were not respond3ed to in that discussion. WP:MUSIC is generally a good guideline, but it does not cover ever case, adn there is at least an argumetn thet this should be an exception. I don't want to evaluate that here, but it is stong enough that I say we should Over turn the close and relist on AfD. DES 22:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Alexander (cartoonist)

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

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

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

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

2006-01-29

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

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

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

User:KJVTRUTH

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

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

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

SNK Boss Syndrome

Looking at the deletion discussion, various users cite this article as oringinal research and non-notable. I highly disagree and cite that numerous links were provided in the discussion to back up this claim. However, I'll not disagree that this article was saturated with un-encyclopediac material, and POV statements. If undeleted, I plan to overhall this article, confroming it to higher standard of quality. -Zero 17:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Tony's having fun with bluelinks again. But you think those links in the AfD are references? Please: not a one of them mentions the term! -Splash 17:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    Nevertheless, I plan to improve this article somewhat if its undeleted; its a common enough term to be useful at wikipedia, as well as a good reference concerning articles to the reader. -Zero 17:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    If you think the article can be improved, why not give it a go? Adding verifiable references to the article would address the main reason for deletion. the article has been temporarily restored and is unprotected. This debate will run for a few days and then it'll be deleted permanently again if there is no reason to keep it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    It already has been, apparently. It's no good to Misplaced Pages if you can't find reliable sources that use the terminology. At least think of a proper title for it. Misplaced Pages is not a how-to guide. -Splash 17:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    Hmm. How about merging the relevant info into the SNK article, fighting -genre article, or King of Fighters artcle....? Keep the terminology and information. -Zero 17:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    You asked for a deletion review. I'm saying I don't see why this has been undeleted before anyone comments on the request and without the offer of sources. Can you provide a reliable source using the terminology? If you can't, the material shouldn't be merged anywhere and should be re-deleted. -Splash 17:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    Actually he may have a point. If the boss behavior ascribed to particular boss characters in the article is verifiable, maybe the material could be usefully merged to SNK if it's not already there. Just a thought. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    Yes. I imagine the actual behaviours are verifiable easily enough, but I don't yet see a source that collects those behaviours together into this 'syndrome' and that creates this syndrome as something that can then be applied to other characters. That is, I was objecting to the part of Zero's comment that says "keep the terminology". -Splash 17:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    I'll look into that. But the 10th anniversary website even states that SNK bosses are purposely created with overwhelming difficulty in mind. That said, I've created a namspace section for its furthur discussion: User:MegamanZero/SNK Boss Syndrome proto-pending. This is certainly valid facts and information, and we as a comprehensive encyclopedia cannot allow it to go to waste. -Zero 17:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    We can if you can't find reliable sources for it. -Splash 18:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    You've also just executed a copy-paste move into your userspace. We should delete that, move the original article there, and then delete its redirect. Wait — that's the way we usually do this! What a good idea! -Splash 18:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    Not for the terminolgy. But the facts are indeed correct. "A half- or full-screen super move that inflicts rated damage values of 1/3 of the opponent's maximum health if unblocked, and 1/6 if blocked (i.e. Don Duke's Ground Zero, Igniz's Chaos Tide).", a very true statement. I am suggesting a "merge", if you will, into a parent article, allowing these analysis be attributed to respective articles. I'm waiting for discussion regarding this. -Zero 18:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    I don't mind if you add information about the particular levels of damage done by particular characters' particular moves to their articles. (Although it's more than a little crufty.) I do mind if you label that information as evidence of this Syndrome, or use a simple description of the move to create the Syndrome, when the only sources I cna find for this 'Syndrome' are mailing list posts, that are hardly reliable sources. -Splash 18:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    Splash, I'm not inquiring for your "permission" on this matter. Furthurmore, I cannot see how statistic information from a video game is crufty. Truthfully, I don't care for the Title/label of the article, I'm concerned about the content and how it can be imformative to the reader. They are true, and one way or another this should stay in its compiled status in mainspace. I'm currently thinking of a section in the SNK article dedicated to it. -Zero 18:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    <reset indent>You don't need to inquire for permission, but you do need to realise that you don't get to add to unverifiable material to articles. Period. You appear to be asserting that you do, adn that to remove it is censorship. -Splash 18:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Saying the damage percentile set by the game's programmers is unverifiable material is a untrue statement. Why not retain the info, make mention of its fan origins, and merge into another article..? I'll agree the opening thesis is incorrect in making it sound as if it is a official term or whatnot, but the core information is indeed true. I don't see what you're getting at here. -Zero 19:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, please take a few minutes to re-read the verifiability policy. Verifiable does not mean "a well-supported opinion." Verifiable does not mean "can be proved true." The policy says Misplaced Pages articles "should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher. " You cannot say any about damage levels, etc. on your personal authority, not even if someone could "verify" them by playing the game. That's not what's mean by verifiability. What you must do is find published sources, e.g. a game magazine, that has published these facts, and cite these sources. "Verifiable" means that someone can find the source--go to a library and check out that copy of the magazine--and see that it really jibes with the way it is used in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure/keep deleted. Validly deleted in process. Comments in the discussion were well-founded, closure was reasonable. The article had no source citations whatsoever and was in violation of our verifiability policy. If Zero didn't keep a copy, provide him with a copy of the deleted article. He should overhaul the article offline or in his own user space. When it meets our policies on verifiability and citing sources, and not before, he can re-create the article without prejudice. (It would be a really good idea for him to ask some other editors to review the work in progress before re-creating the article). To undelete a main-namespace article that is pure, unsourced opinion, and has been properly voted for deletion, is to make a mockery of the verifiability policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • KD, I see no reason to doubt the claims that this is original research. Especially the exact damage percentages cited make for a doubtful definition. Radiant_>|< 17:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted unless and until someone can provide reliable sources. I note the error of the undeletion is already apparent: MegamanZero is insisting on Talk:SNK Boss Syndrome that we must suspend WP:V for several days because to do otherwise would be...wait for it...censorship. -Splash 18:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • How does Zero's expressed opinion on a talk page demonstrate "the error of the undeletion"? I notice that he's objecting to your removal of unverified stuff from the article, but he's not acting in any untoward way, though his opinion is obviously different from yours on the appropriateness of reomving the unverified information from the article at this stage. I tend to agree with you that the material sould remain off the article page until it can be verified and, if verification is possible, Zero will go to it. If edit warring should get out of hand, the article can be protected in the usual way. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, I had to edit war briefly to get the unverified material to stay out, and was told that, since undeletion was being discussed, we had to keep all the material in the article because an undeletion overrides WP:V (which your undeletion did, after all, but not in the same sense). A userfication, as is far more appropriate in such cases wouldn't have that kind of issue. -Splash 20:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
        • You didn't have to edit war. While I agree with you that unverified information shouldn't be in an encyclopedia article, it would have been enough to pop some notice on the top to say that the article contained some unverified statements. I'm sure that Zero, who usually does go out of his way to be reasonable, would have been happy with that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • KD - The more I think about it, the more I think it'd be better just to put an "SNK Boss" section in, say, List of fighting game terms mentioning it'd be slightly opinionated, though the term "SNK boss" has certainly been used before. (I've put a note to this effect in the talk page.) --Yar Kramer 18:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse colsure and keep deleted. Valid process, and I think the right decision as well. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 23:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Colony5

Article was deleted via AfD, even though a) all but one delete vote came before notability was established and added to the article, and b) nominee withdrew nomination following establishment of notability in article and in deletion nomination. Considering the group more than meets the guidelines in place and votes were made without full information in place, this article should be undeleted. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 05:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Undelete per my nom. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 05:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Worth relisting, at the very least, but there doesn't appear to be any basis for deleting the current article. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. There are actually some words in the Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators about this kind of case: "Some opinions can override all others...If a page was to be deleted, but a person finds references for a particular topic or rewrites the article, the page might be kept." It's commonsense, really, and would certainly be strongly indicated where the nominator concedes that the reason for deletion has been addressed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Can I ask that we stop undeleting articles by default when they hit DRV, and that we protect and use the template as suggested in talk? (See discussion advertised above.) - brenneman 12:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I note your request. Why do you want this article protected and hidden? Do you suspect abuse? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      • It's interesting, because I'd think seeing the deleted material would make sense in coming to a consensus as to what to do. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      • It's not about keeping the article hidden. Generally, the process is to post the article text here (if it's a one-sentence wonder) or to put it in someone's userspace (generally the person requesting undeletion). This way, the text is available for the duration of the DRV, but it doesn't show up in "random article", etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Is there a particular reason why this article, which is clearly marked as under review, should not show up on Random article? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes. It's an article deleted following due process, which is in a limbo state during an appeal process. Theres more reason not to have it on random article (and search and mirrors) than to have it. The solution you employed at list of LBU people was, IMO, the right one. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 23:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
        • If I followed the alternative solution then it could not be edited, which I think would be a net loss. Since its deletion status is being queried, and it may well be possible by editing to improve it and make it a better article, more fit for Misplaced Pages, I don't see the mere procedural concept of limbo as useful. It sounds like a game of grandmother's footsteps or musical chairs were everyone has to freeze when the music stops. Misplaced Pages isn't a bloody silly game, it's an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Up to a point, Lord Copper. If it wasn't fixed during AfD, I'd say it is unlikely to be fixed during DRV. Yes, it's an encyclopaedia. And that means unencyclopaedic content gets deleted. And ought really to remain so, at least at the surface level, until there is oncsensus to undelete. Which often there is not. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 23:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
        • But what purpose is served by keeping deleted while we discuss, in good faith, whether deletion was the correct thing to do in this instance? I'm just not seeing a clear reason here except "because AfD voted it so." Well we're deciding whether AfD got it wrong. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
        • What purpose is served by not following our customary procedure? Anyone interested in making significant improvements to the article can do so in user space, publicizing the effort here. Our current procedure is a response to previous abuse by users who discovered they could game the previous system. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete per above. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 23:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, notability established with latest edits. Only one person voted on the AFD after that addition and said the band was non-notable (without further explanation on why they discounted the added evidence). Non-notable isn't a catch all, if you think it's not notable you should explain why. - Mgm| 10:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete/relist - appears right on the borderline of WP:MUSIC to me (multiple releases on an independent label which may or may not fit the criteria "more important"), deserves a proper discussion now that the article asserts notability, as Mgm said, all but one of the AfD delete votes were made before that assertion was made. --Stormie 21:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Could whoever keeps deleting this article please stop it? It's on DRV and there is consensus that if we're reviewing a deletion we want to see the article we're talking about. This deletion is most likely going to be overturned anyhow so what's the point of repeatedly deleting it? --Tony Sidaway 06:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-27

Template:User_ku_klux

This was speedied in the middle of an active tfd Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_27#.5B.5BTemplate:User_ku_klux.5D.5D by User:MarkSweep - the same guy that speedied user freedom during a tfd (which was overturned). Log here . At last count there were 9 keeps to 1 delete. If you were to actually read the template you will see that it only contains a statement of fact not any racist claims. It said "This user is in the KKK". While the KKK says offensive things, people themselves are not offensive it is illegitamite to speedy this template as "offensive". Everyone please remember DRV is not TFD.--God of War 03:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Extremely Strong Undelete. It is outrageous that this was speedied when it was obvious that a clear consensus to keep was developing. In order to avoid sounding like a bureaucrat, I also re-present my argument: "Offensive and POV, but in userspace. It also helps identify what could be biased edits. In any case, it's always best to know thy enemy." - Cuivienen (Return) 04:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete Once again I agree with Cuivienen. There is nothing in that userbox that violates policy, and it isn't even POV. There was a clear consensus to keep, so why was it deleted? -Chairman S. 04:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You seem to be confused about Misplaced Pages policy. There is no 9th Amendment in effect here. You don't have a natural right to create or use certain templates. Templates (and policies as well!) are created if and when they are needed to advance or facilitate the goal of writing an encyclopedia. This template is not only useless, it has the clear potential to offend and divide the community, and its continued presence would send the wrong signal to newcomers. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. The template is an orphan--nobody is including it on his userpage--and it was created by Zanee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has been blocked as a sock of Batzarro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a vandal who put penis pictures on people's userpages. If we get a KKK member who edits Misplaced Pages with civility and wants to make a userbox template like this, then we'll address the issue without any question of bad faith; this is not that occasion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist. Process is Important, and the consensus seemed to be leaning towards Keep at the time this was deleted. I'm very concerned about the precedents being set here. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist, definitely out-of-process. --Andy Saunders 04:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, appropriate speedy deletion of troll template. If you want people to pay more attention to process, simultaneously ensuring that our processes facilitate trolls and vandals is probably not the way to go. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Why must everyone insist on being a fucking moron? I had no sympathy for Kelly Martin until I saw this sort of shit, but now a bunch of idiots have actually made me sympathize with her. Now that takes a whole lot of sheer fuckheadedness. Where's my pisstrough? -R. fiend 06:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and Keep. Obviously the only harm this template is causing is due to the deletion - restore the template, and whomever wants to can show their affiliation. And please stop speedying userboxes already. Speedy deletion is not a toy. --Dschor 07:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted. What the hell does being a KKK member have to do with writing an encyclopedia? I would rather have a racist essay up on user pages that at least attempts to explain KKK membership rather than a quick, moronic, inflamatory trolling template. If it wasn't there to troll then fine, do whatever, its your page...you can decorate it. But your page is on Misplaced Pages, not just some place on the net to put all your BS moronic crap. As editors, we get to have our own cute little page, but using it just to troll with offensive red templates (not that making it blue will help) is idiotic, and permitting this BS, even just to go through a long deletion process, is just a horrid waste of time. It is hard to express this civily...So now any other troll can make BS and it takes takes AFD and DRV and almost two weeks just to get rid of? The voices of reason, grace, truth, and heck even Jimbo stand against this.Voice of All 08:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Is invoking Jimbo the wikipedian version of Godwin's Law? Calling this BS is BS. Leave it alone, and it won't bother anyone. Assume good faith, and please stop trying to make everything a troll. --Dschor 08:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Why not actually look at the templates history. It was made by this user. Hmm, he has been warned and blocked over other matters. If we allows this nonsense, then EVERYthing can go on Misplaced Pages, any random offensive nonsense with nothing to do with the encyclopedia can go on, and we would be a lot worse of.Voice of All 19:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. This is unacceptable, its creation was clear trolling, and arguments to keep it are in clear violation of WP:POINT. To take a page from Tony's book, if it's recreated I promise to delete it as many times as it takes. -- SCZenz 08:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist. The only issue that matters here is whether or not process was violated, and it was. Aaron 09:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, process was not violated by speedily deleting a template promoting hate campaigns. Is anyone even looking at it? This is the KKK we're talking about, that means it's equivalent to a template stating "this user supports murdering people for their skin color". Radiant_>|< 09:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, seems personal attackish to me. IanID:540053 11:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, the fact that "process was violated" is not a reason to stop using common sense. Garion1000 12:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong undelete You can't just have userboxes with anti-KKK opinions. You have to have both sides of the argument available, otherwise its just bias - • Dussst • 12:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. If someone wants to display the fact that they're in the KKK, they can write their own text on their user page. Process does not trump common sense. Carbonite | Talk 13:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. In this case, the "out of process" claim is negated by the fact the userbox is a poster child for WP:POINT. –Abe Dashiell 13:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, this was clearly deleted out of process and WP:SNOW doesn't apply since there are people who want to keep it. But it's an orphan, a fact largely ignored by the TfD discussion. If you can produce a single person who wants to use this in good faith then I'm sure Tony will undelete it for you. But this theoretical userbox boundary testing is really getting old - isn't there some way we can stop dancing when the band is composed of trolls? - Haukur 15:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted. This is a matter of core policy. Enforcing that, when appropriate, is something that permits going outside the normal order of business. --Improv 16:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, out-of-process perhaps, but history of the template and lack of use show that this is just trying to make a point. I agree that this boundary-pushing as a way to manipulate the userbox debate is getting seriously old, though. We should not be slaves to process. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted This review is more than enough to establish community consensus if delete is the outcome. Don't waste editors time on disruptive WP:Point. --FloNight 19:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong overturn there is no valid reason to speedy delete this template, and IMO not much reaosn to delete it at TfD either. DES 23:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted times one million. My god, you userbox people have been so blinded by the Kelly Martin affair that you think you can have whatever userboxes you want. This box is an offensive piece of crap and I'm glad it's gone. Morgan695 23:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There is nothing to vote on here. This userbox is clearly in violation of WP:NPA, and until and unless you change that, this box will have to go. As it should. I can't believe anyone is even discussing this. User:Zoe| 00:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Who exactly is this box attacking? WP:NPA forbids personal attacks, which means there must be a person being attacked for that policy to apply. Putting "I am a racist" on a user's own user page is not a PA, so neither is doing so via a template (ingnoring for the moment any question about whether all KKK members are in fact racists, most of them surely are, IMO). DES 00:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Even if you can't imagine this as a violation of NPA, surely you can see that it's a violation of WP:CIVIL. User:Zoe| 21:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
        • No I can't. What this box says basically is "I am a member of the KKK". That could be a statement of fact about a particular user. It might well imply that said user has various racist and uncivil belifs -- it is not the same as posting hate sppech on the user page, although is suggests that the user belives some hateful things. I would certianly give such a self-identified user less leeway on civility and personal attacks, particualrly against groups traditionally targetd by the KKK. Speaking as a person who has been the target of a KKK picket line (well, among the targets, not the sole or primary target), and as a person who has been able to hold civil discussions with members of white-supremicist groups, and indeed to have a good friend who was a holocaust denier, I think i know a racist attack when i see one, and this isn't one. If we wish to ahve a policy that aasays 'no userboxes that identify users group memberships", or "no userboxes that proclaim political views", or anything of that sort fin -- this tempalte would then need to go. Until we agree on and adopt such a policy, IMO it NEEDS to stay. DES 22:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, unused on any user page. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - I in general, being a process wonk (I think I need a userbox for that! KIDDING!), oppose out of process action, but 9 keeps to 1 delete suggests a lack of common sense in the AfD discussion, not a consensus. Unused, WP:POINT violation, not encyclopedic. But let's be civil in our discussion if we can. ++Lar: t/c 00:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Far out Ummm, keep deleted, smack with a trout everyone who has come within ten feet of this? Bad idea to create it, bad idea to send it to TfD as a "personal attack", bad idea to vote to keep it, bad idea to restore it/delete/whatever again. Please, can we stop with the monkey business of both creating stupid templates and playing around with our admin buttons, and get back to creating content? - brenneman 00:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and forget about it {{db-attack}} applies only to the article namespace; there is no userbox policy right now, so IMHO there's no real reason to delete this. Nobody will use it so it's not a big deal. Ashibaka tock 02:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all polemic userboxes per Jimbo's request. --Cyde Weys 02:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy - highly offensive template created for disruptive purposes. No need for consensus to delete such a template. --- Charles Stewart 02:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I'm a huge fan of due process, sometimes to a fault, but that doesn't mean that I'm an idiot who doesn't know where to draw the line. This speedy and subsequent listing here is making me more and more tempted to try and get a movement to deleting the whole bloody lot of non-Babel userboxes. These boxes have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is an encylopedia, dammit! --Deathphoenix 02:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and appropriately speedied - why does every decision that is to speedy delete a User template - no matter how inappropriate the template is have to be brought to Deletion review - some discretion in what is brought to deletion review would be appreciated by this user Trödel&#149;talk 14:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Deleting a template that is trollish, disruptive and in violation WP:NPA is not out of process. Marskell 14:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - and nuke from orbit. Process is not important when it is used to make a bunch of Wikipedians spend their time bureaucratically defining why a template defining a user as a member of a hate group does not help build the encyclopedia. FCYTravis 22:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted process is a means to an end and in this case nuking it was the right choice. Jtkiefer ---- 22:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn, abuse. // paroxysm (n) 22:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. This is an encyclopedia. Divisive userboxes have no place here. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted How can this possibly have anything to do with writing an encyclopedia? The disruptive effect generated by it's creation should have been apparent to anyone interested in doing what's best for Misplaced Pages. Rx StrangeLove 06:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Besides being offensive, the only conceivable use I can see for this template would be vandals posting it on other peoples' userpages. Hence, vandalism (CSD G3). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy of computer science

I speedy deleted this personal essay/original research entry on January 24, knowing full well it was likely to be a uni study with the authors holding the copyright. It would have been a quick AfD deletion, but that wasn't the route I took. See the article here. The author contacted my talk page requesting a review, so I'll give it a hearing here. Is this article worth keeping/re-writing? It's really as I said: personal essay and original research, violating WP:NOT. Harro5 22:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, it certainly was an exact copy of text from another website and, given the evidence, you were entirely justified in assuming that it was a copyright violation. Universities would be presumed to be "commercial content providers" in the sense of this case because they are generally fairly agressive about policing their own copyrights. The only process failure I see was that you overlooked the notification step to the author. The author did, however, contact you and assert authorship of both copies. The narrow legal question is "does the author have the right to release the text under GFDL or is the University the real copyright holder?" In this case, we can probably ask the author and assume good faith that he will tell the truth. The text itself may be original to this author but it is also based on a text he wrote that has already been published by a reputable publisher (that is, not an obvious vanity-press operation). This is certainly a case close to the line but I would probably call this as not original research in the sense that we mean at WP:NOR. Assuming the copyright question can be confirmed, I would recommend a restore with a listing on AFD if you feel strongly about it. Rossami (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • While in principle a university could make it a condition of employment that all copyrights are assigned to the university, and it is common practice for universities to take a stake in other forms of IP created by their employees, I have never heard of such a thing (nor apparently, have Elsevier, whose copyright assignment form assumes that authors hold copyright to submitted works). If the poster is who he says he is, then we can take it for granted that he holds copyright, and thus validly licensed it when he submitted it. --- Charles Stewart 02:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted. While a Philosophy of computer science articlemight be nice, if one does not already exists, any creation of a non-WP:OR, COPYVIO version would have nothing in common with this article in its current form, so either way it will get deleted.Voice of All 19:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and list on AfD - the author may be able to address OR concerns. --- Charles Stewart 02:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted eh if the author (or anyone else) can rewrite so it isn't a copyvio or original research, they won't be exactly recreating deleted material so he should be able to create the article thataway with no problems (and I hope that happens). As the article was written, it was a valid speedy delete as far as I can tell. --W.marsh 16:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for providing me with invaluable lesson on the Misplaced Pages revolution, about the likes of which Kafka said: "Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy". What's next, a pole whether to define pi=3.14? Please do not restore, I choose to wash my hands from this business. Thank you, --Edenphd 11:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-26

Maria Pia Braganza and Rosario Poidimani

In the wiki article Maria Pia of Braganza,aka Hilda Toledano, is mentioned because she was daughter of the king Charles of Portugal and she was considered a pretender to Portuguese Crown. When she claimed this dynastic rights her name was Maria Pia Saxe Coburg Braganza. This name is riported in her baptizimal certification and also in all her offiacial certifications ],]. In her youth she assumed the name Hilda Toledano, a pseudonym in a dictatorial salazarist period in Portugal because she was pursued in this dictatorial period but she fighted Salazar for the return of democracy in Portugal. So for politic reason she assumed the name Hilda Toledano. With this name she was also a writer and she wrote many books. The names and the story of this books you can find in this site, wrote by an important french hystoric *Maria Pia: The Pretender,part I; part II; part III: part IV; part V. Now her oppositors, the miguelist supporters, want hide the presence of her rights and mystify her story. Can you help me to give again the title "Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza" in her wiki page and change the name Hilda Toledano. The miguelist supporters, in particular with a user Muriel@pt, have delete also the Rosario Poidimani page. Muriel has asked other her wiki-fiends to vote to delete this page. I think this people know nothing about Maria Pia but only for friendship with Muriel they have voted! Is this possible?? Please help me to create the Rosario Poidimani page. Thankyou. M.deSousa 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This is only the truth and you can find this news in many web-sites. Muriel and other Duarte Pio, Duke of Bragançasupporters want hide this wikipage because this page is dangerous for their pretender...but this is no possible in a democratic encyclopedia! Is possible to reinsert Rosario Poidimani page?Thanks,M.deSousa 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • They delete also this important page that explain the claim of these portuguese pretenders Claimants of the Duchy of Braganza. Why? They want hide also these important impartial considerations.Infact this page was created from me and Muriel but after one wiki user delete this page none motivations.The page was this: The vast majority of Portuguese monarchists maintain Manuel II of Portugal, the last King of Portugal, recognized Duarte Nuno, Duke of Braganza (father of the present official head of the House of Braganza, Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza) as his successor. Some historians bolster this argument by citing the Pact of Paris of 1922, with which King Manuel's lieutenant would have abdicated the title of Duke of Bragança in favour of Duarte Nuno. A minority argue against its constitutional validity because the abdication in favour of the miguelist line should have been made after the abrogation, by a King's sovereign act, of article 98 of the Monarchic Constitution, which has never happened, and with the personally sign of the last king Manuel. Such abrogation would however be void, as the Republican Regime revoked the Monarchic Constitution altogether.

Such a discussion is nevertheless academic, as Portugal has for nearly a century been a republic and nobiliary titles, although widely used in society and generally accepted as a form of national patrimony, are legally inexistent. Furthermore, despite the wide support for the present Duke of Bragança and for the monarchist cause, there is no evidence that the country is ready to change its republican regime (which was never subject to referendum anyway). The position of head of the House of Braganza is also claimed by an Italian-born, Rosario Poidimani, calling himself Rosario Saxe Coburg Gotha Bragança. Rosario claims to be a relative of Hilda Toledano, known as Maria Pia of Bragança, who claimed in the 1930s to be an illegitimate child of King Charles I of Portugal by his brazilian married mistress Maria Amelia Laredo e Murça. Rosario and his supporters base theirs claims on the Monarchic Constitution promulgated in 1838 and revoked in , which excluded the direct line of former King Miguel I of Portugal and all his descendants, of which Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza is one, from the dinastic succession and assert the validity of the documents of "Dona Maria Pia" Baptism Acts, of which the original was lost in Spanish Civil War, and the 1930's reconstruction of it in 1982 the Ecclesiastical Court of Sacra Romana Rota confirmed the validity. Under such document it is asserted that King Charles I conferred upon his natural daughter all honours, prerogatives, privileges, obligations and advantages that belong to the Princes of the House of Braganza, with the power of succession to the Portuguese Crown, also if ancient portuguese rules for succession excluded children born as a result of adultery as is the case for Maria Pia, and had no power over the sucession of the trone under Portuguese law. Another minority view asserts that, would the direct line of Miguel de Braganza be excluded, the succession would revert to the descendants of Infanta Ana de Jesus de Bragança (daughter of John VI of Portugal) who married the first Duke of Loulé. But the marriage was morganatic and the Princess no more an Infanta of Portugal aftewards. The Portuguese Royal Family did not include the Loulés as family ties. The present heir of this line is Dom Pedro Folque de Mendonça Moura Barreto, 4th Duke of Loulé.,M.deSousa 26 January 2006 (UTC

I do not know if it matters or not, but The Guardian (London) did a full article on Rosario Poidimani titled "Rivals for a throne" written by Jill Jolliffe on 5 January 1987. A bit of the article:

The newcomer is Sicilian-born Dom Rosario Poidimani, who says he is Dona Maria Pia's nephew. He said he came to Portugal to present his case to his potential subjects and to investigate the possibility of investing in Portugal. He already has investments in the central African Republic, Panama, and Spain.
Dom Rosario said he had a sworn statement from the 79-year-old Dona Maria Pia, written in a quavering hand, in which she passed her dynastic rights to him. He admitted she was experiencing genteel economic distress in Italy, where she lives, and that he had helped her out in return for the gracious document.

I do not know if this article should be undeleted, but the is some validity to his notability. If someone would like the whole text of the article, ask, and I'll see what I can do. Thanks. --LV 16:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Jill Jolliffe proving her credulousness twenty years ago doesn't make someone notable, or Poidimani's claims credible. The purported bastard daughter of a king doesn't have the ability to "pass dynastic rights" to anyone by written instrument, particularly rights to a throne in a republic! At long last, M.deSousa needs to stop using Misplaced Pages as a means of campaigning for his favored pretend royalty. Again, and again, and again. And Wikipedians need to stop collaborating with him in this by repeatedly entertaining the same arguments in successive forums. Undeletion review "should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning." - Nunh-huh 20:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I was just saying that there was an article written about him. I wasn't making any claims that he deserves to be king, I was just saying that a major newspaper ran a story on him, so he approaches notability (not nobility). Oh well, I was just throwing my two centavos in there. --LV 01:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
But ridiculous claims to nobility are not notable - at least not until the claimant attracts a wide following, a la Michael Lafosse. False nobles are a dime-a-dozen, and they are most likely to fool those unfamiliar with their techniques. This gent is not a serious claimant to anything, and can probably count his supporters on two hands. - Nunh-huh 16:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I have read the "Guardinan" wrote in 1987 about Dom Rosario. Where can I find the article that you have reported here ]?

I hope you can ricreate the article of Rosario Poidimani. The last version is impartial but the usual wikiusers deleted this page because they are no democratic and they are duarte Pio supporters(other portuguese pretender). The last version was :Rosario Poidimani is an Italian-born claimant to the position of head of the Portuguese Royal House of Braganza, calling himself Rosario Saxe Coburg Gotha Bragança. Rosario is purportedly a relative of Maria Pia of Braganza (also known as Hilda Toledano), who claimed in the 1930s to be an illegitimate child of King Charles I of Portugal by Maria Amelia Laredo e Murca.Rosario and his supporters base theirs claims on the Monarchic Constitution promulgated in 1838 and revoked in 1910 by the Republic, which excluded the direct line of the fomer King Miguel of Portugal and all his descendants, of which Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza and present official head of the House of Braganza, is one, from the dinastic succession and assert the validity of the documents of Dona Maria Pia Baptism Acts, of which in 1982 the Ecclesiastical Court of Sacra Romana Rota confirmed the validity and with which the King Charles I conferred upon his natural daughter Dona Maria Pia Saxe Coburgo Bragança all honours, prerogatives, privileges, obligations and advantages that belong to the Princes of the House of Bragança, with the power of succession to the Portuguese Crown, also if ancient portuguese rules for succession excluded children born as a result of adultery as is the case for Maria Pia. Dom Rosario was born on the 25th August of 1941, he is a succesfull business man and he is father of 3 sons:

  • Soraya Sayda Tekla, born on the 16 June, 1965
  • Simone Joska, born on the 25 January, 1982
  • Kystal Isabel Dona Maria Pia IV Saxe Coburgo Gotha de Bragança, born on the 7th Setember, 2003

o ------------------

You can find others newspaper article about this claimant in this page: ]. Thanks and best regards --M.deSousa, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


Category:Ambiguous five-letter acronyms

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

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

2006-01-25

Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks: City of New York

Once upon a time, Misplaced Pages had an article listing the casualties of the World Trade Center attack. Due to the unprecedented public attention this article received and the high emotions of the day, this article had a very hard time adhering to the NPOV, NOR, and other policies, and no one really wanted to chastize greiving family members for adding little tributes of their loved ones to the page. Misplaced Pages was still something of a fledgling project at the time and no one really knew what to do about this. These days we would just semi-protect the page and let things run their course until the article could be cleaned up. Instead, we decided to throw in the towel and scrap the article all together. In it's place, we created the lonely step-child known as The Sept 11 Memorial Wiki.

In retrospect, this was a terrible decision. The Sept 11 Memorial Wiki hasn't been actively maintained in years. It has become a playground for vandals and is frankly an embarrassment, IMO. People have been asking that the project be closed or locked for years, but no one seems to want to mess with it. In the meantime, Misplaced Pages has been left with a conspicuous hole in its information regarding September 11. Every few months someone proposes prominently linking to the memorial wiki (usually in the Sept11 template) since there is no list of casualties in Misplaced Pages. This proposal is always shot down since the Memorial wiki is technically an external link and most people don't want to acknowledge that it exists (due to it's declining state of maintanence).

This leads me to the following proposal: Now that September 11th is no longer a fresh wound in the American psyche, let's restore the casualty lists and bring them up to Misplaced Pages standards. We have fairly extensive information about everything else related to September 11 in Misplaced Pages. We also now have more administrators and better tools to deal with vandalism and POV-pushers. I see no reason why Misplaced Pages shouldn't have a well-verified NPOV list of World Trade Center casualties, considering we have hundreds of lists of such trivial topics as Pokemon characters and Star Trek episodes. To test the waters, I have migrated the American Airlines Flight 11 victims list from the Memorial wiki back to Misplaced Pages. Hopefully here it will have a good home and be well looked after. For the Trade Center List, I would ideally like to restore it from deletion so that the history is restored as well. My real hope is that we can migrate all the important NPOV content from the Memorial Wiki back to Misplaced Pages and then close, lock, or move the Memorial wiki so that it is no longer the lonely neglected step-child of the Wikimedia Foundation. Kaldari 21:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


2006-01-23

Template:Background

deletion history

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

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

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

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

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

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



2006-01-20

Karayana

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Karayana.

In light of the deletion review for Torc, P.A.C. Bloos and the pretty clear puppetry that slipped through the net there, this AfD exhibits identical features (puppets, closure and closing admin) and should be overturned and deleted too. -Splash 13:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Why not link this one and the next one to the Torc debate? They plainly involve exactly the same issues. David | Talk 13:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete. There are a number of admins who are (quite commendably) ensuring AfD's are closed within hours of time. However, I think the (perhaps slightly competitive) rush is leading to some ill-considered mathematical decisions. Perhaps slow it down.--Doc 13:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete or run again. Closing admins should always ignore sockpuppet/meatpuppet votes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no use of sockpuppet/meatpuppet votes. If you are going by my IP being the same as Vorak's that is not valid reason to think such. We are two different users on a network with the same IP. Aneirin

David Dom

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David Dom.

In light of the deletion review for Torc, P.A.C. Bloos and the pretty clear puppetry that slipped through the net there, this AfD exhibits identical features (puppets, closure and closing admin) and should be overturned and deleted too. -Splash 13:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn and delete. There are a number of admins who are (quite commendably) ensuring AfD's are closed within hours of time. However, I think the (perhaps slightly competitive) rush is leading to some ill-considered mathematical decisions. Please slow it down.--Doc 13:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete or run again. Closing admins should always ignore sockpuppet/meatpuppet votes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no use of sockpuppet/meatpuppet votes. If you are going by my IP being the same as Vorak's that is not valid reason to think such. We are two different users on a network with the same IP. Aneirin

Recently concluded

  1. Aetherometry, kept deleted. 05:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. How to make a computer virus, kept deleted. 22:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Valhalla legends: undel+re-AfD'd, and BNLS AfD'd with it, per recommendations here. 01:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Category:German-American mobsters: can be recreated, but there are no articles in it at present. 01:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Category:Causes célèbres: no majority to overturn. sounds like it needs more thought elsewhere. 01:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Category:List of Christian Entertainers: category never created/deleted, only comments are to keep list deleted, maybe needs a fresh nomination on correct target. 01:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny: has been redirected, and the quesiton of a new afd by this debate is vague at best here. 01:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Projectplace (software): overturned, undeleted, relisted with ref to this debate. 00:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Torc, P.A.C. Bloos: oveturned+deleted. 00:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. OpenGCL: deletion endorsed. 00:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Caspian James Crichton-Stuart IV (Joshua Adam Gardner), 5th Duke of Cleveland: made into redir+history. 00:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Prinsessakerho: deletion endorsed. 00:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Phish phood: userfication done. 00:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Larry Hama: not a DRV question. 00:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Will McWhinney, Jr.: deletion endorsed. 00:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Saugeen Stripper: no consensus closure endorsed. 00:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Sanchez Raful Sicard & Polanco - rm - undel+afd'd. 00:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Gfxvoid: undel+relisted. 00:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Smoky's Fine Cigars: back to afd. 00:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Category:Copyright examinations: already dealt with. 00:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Jackarandah Productions: kd. 00:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. R@ygold etc.: being dealt with by AfD of another article. 00:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. {{Oregon-State-Highway-stub}} and associated category Category:Oregon State Highway stubs: kept deleted. 00:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Haggle4me.com: kept deleted, but acknowledged as out -of-process speedy. 00:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Adam and andrew: overturned+afd'd. 00:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. The Bible According To: being handled via AfD of another article. 00:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Category:Western science fiction: already recreated, drv closed. 00:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. List of Louisiana Baptist University people: kept deleted. 00:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Template:User against Saud and Template:User Nepal Maoists. Both restored. 30 January 2006
  30. Teagames. Restored and relisted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Teagames (2nd nomination) 27 January 2006.
  31. Greenlighting. Undeleted and relisted for deletion. 16:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Misplaced Pages:Title Neutrality and Misplaced Pages:Conspiracy theory titles - kept userfied. 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Chiens Sans Frontiers - speedy undeleted; listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chiens Sans Frontiers; deleted there. 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Linked pages from Crooked Timber - Henry Farrell (political scientist) (AfD discussion) and Eszter Hargittai (AfD discussion) speedy undeleted, afd'd, and kept; John Holbo, Tom Runnacles, Micah Schwartzman, Belle Waring deletion endorsed. 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. 24SevenOffice - kept deleted. 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Zoner, Inc. - relisted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zoner, Inc. (2nd nomination). 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Yafinsint: Nomination withdrawn, admitted hoax. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. NATARS: Kept deleted. 23:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Holy Father: Not a deletion issue. Article now stands as a dab. 23:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. LUEshi: Closure of "keep" upheld. 04:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Ninjah Pendragon: Kept deleted. 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Pussy_City_Pimps : Kept deleted. 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Weishampel exchange : Kept deleted. 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Template:User allow fairuse : Kept deleted. 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Circumcision fetish: Kept deleted. 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Categories: