Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:44, 13 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.

List of software companies

Was deleted on 6 Jan, 2006 (Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_software_companies). This was a useful list where software companies were sectioned based on country. I had created it way back in 2003 and was using it as a reference ever since. Today I went to the page to find out the list of software companies of a particular country, and found that it has been deleted. There is no corresponding Category on "software companies by country" either. I understand that all standalone lists have to be moved into categories, but since we don't have the "Category:Software companies by country" category yet, I request to undelete the list so that the category can be created using the info available in the list. Jay 18:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds convincing, undelete. Pcb21 Pete 19:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, aren't you an admin? Can't you just access the article yourself? Johnleemk | Talk 19:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right I'm a sysop and can access the contents, but non-sysops can't. The categorization work has to be done by all kinds of users, even anon users. Jay 10:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Just one question: if there is a need to sub-categorise by country (which I don't dispute), surely it's easiest just to work through the existing category? Half the companies on the original list were redlinked anyway. Not that I have a problem with undeleting this and moving to a user subpage, I'm just puzzled as to why there's a need. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 20:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I cannot imagine what possessed anyone to list this article for deletion, or the closing administrator to delete it. --Tony Sidaway 22:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Listcruft. Not convincing? How about spam magnet? Categories are nice because they catalog things with actual articles (or which are worthy of articles). This thing was filled with redlinks to companies I couldn't find anywhere. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete so we can categorize the companies, then can be brought back to AfD after categorizing takes place if someone so chooses, as list will probably not be useful after category is created.VegaDark 22:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that it's been userfied in order to create the category, I don't see a need for this list, and it was deleted through due process. Keep Deleted. VegaDark 01:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've moved this to "content review" since that was what was being requested. I've also placed {{tempundelete}} and listed the page on WP:RFPP. There is currently no consensus for fully restoring articles for editing when on deletion review, especially when all that's required is access to the contents. - brenneman 01:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, unless temporarily undeleted for the purposes of category creation, but delete again when finished. This thing was a spam MAGNET. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Userfied to User:Jay/List of software companies as this is clearly what is wanted, including by those requesting undeletion. Redirect deleted. -Splash 04:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. Why on earth was this article deleted in the first place? --Tony Sidaway 08:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a linkspam magnet, and doesn't do anything a category can't do. Oh, and I support the userfication. Let's create a real category. Johnleemk | Talk 09:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not as active on Misplaced Pages as used to be, so unaware of some new terms. What is userfy/userfication ? How will userfication help in making a category out of the list ? I do not intend to do all the categorization work myself, so will another user be able to see the contents of list of software companies when he goes to the article page ? Jay 10:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
        • It's basically stored in your userspace as a subpage of your userpage, instead of in the main namespace. So, yes, other editors can see it. Johnleemk | Talk 10:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Thanks, still not clear though. My question was about the list of software companies article in the article namespace. Does userfy mean this article will now have a redirect to my user subpage ? Instead of doing this, why not just undelete the article. Jay 12:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
            • It won't redirect. That's the point of userfication. And your request clearly was to make the content available for categorisation, not to permanently undelete it. Keeping it in your userspace is enough for this. Johnleemk | Talk 12:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Asked and answered above: you might consider reading some of the responses before asking the same question repeatedly. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as unmaintainable listcruft. A category would be much more suitable, and avoid the problems of red-links, vanity entries, and site-spam. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:26, Feb. 12, 2006
• Undelete - valid listing. Just because no one is quite bold enough to expand upon an article, does not give it justification for deletion. An overhall and some research is needed here. -Zero 09:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No, the problem wasn't a lack of expansion, I assure you. It was a problem with unverifiable entries being spammed every few days/weeks and growing out of control. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, validly deleted in process. Userfying meets Jay stated need. Inspection of deleted article shows more than half the content to be redlinked entries with no source citations, hence not in compliance with the verifiability policy. On inspecting the history, I agree that was a spam magnet. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

moshzilla

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

• Comment - Moved to content review section. --- Charles Stewart 20:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry, no. Since you don't own the copyright to the material and have never edited the article, you can't drop the material into a website that does not use the GFDL to license its content. -Splash 00:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • There's nothing to stop him having a section of his site which is GFDL and which contains the cotnent from the deletd article. There's no shortage of mirrors who do this sort of thing, and as long as it's properly attributed and stated that it is GFDL it's fine. -- AJR | Talk 17:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• For the record, this user has a copy of the deleted content. He/she used it on 9 Feb 06 to recreate the deleted page. I am having trouble assuming good faith about this request. Rossami (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Colonel Xu

Hello, and thanks in advance for your reply(ies). A couple months ago, my classmates created a page on WP called "Colonel Xu." It was mocking our Mandarin teacher as a Communist spy. (It's simplified chinese, what else can you expect? =P) She took it in stride, being the cool person she is. However, they didn't preserve any copies of it, and knowing I was a WP junkie, requested that I help them try to get a copy of it. Could an administrator please let me view it, and then print it out, or to move the "article" to my userspace? If it is moved to my user space, can I keep it there? I'll be checking here and on my Talk page every couple mins. THanks! -Copysan 23:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Article seems to never have existed. — Ambush Commander 23:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • My bad, it was Xu Lanting. Copysan 07:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I undeleted temporarily. Work fast (copy it to a user space or something) Sasquatch t|c 08:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, done. Sasquatch t|c 08:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

• WP:DELREVD

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.

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

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.

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

12 February 2006

Template:User no Rand

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates.

Lowbrow.com

Nobody seems to like this article. Every time I come back here, it's gone. Why is this? What makes the likes of Ebaum's World or other sites any more special? Lowbrow.com is a large website with a pretty massive community. Why someone would want to keep information about it from this encyclopedia is beyond me, and it is very frustrating. I am requesting that this article be undeleted. Thank you.

--Spank fusion 00:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lowbrow.com for one thing, where a consensus to delete the article was first reached. It seems subsequent recreations of the article have all been deleted because they were deemed sufficiently similar to the original deleted version, which is allowed under the criteria for speedy deletion. It does look quite similar every time. You might also see the WP:WEB guidelines for website article inclusion. At any rate I think rather than deletion review you should talk to the admin who protected the page to see about recreating it. --W.marsh 00:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  Hi. I'm that admin, and I sent User:Spank fusion here, as the appropriate place to contest a deletion, rather than than just recreating the article repeatedly. If there's a way to recreate the article so that it meets our inclusion guidelines, this is the place where that should be determined, if I understand correctly. -GTBacchus 01:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

List of interesting or unusual place names

(now at Misplaced Pages:List of interesting or unusual place names)

This article was deleted out of process, then during the resulting debates, recreated and moved to the Misplaced Pages: namespace. It does not belong there; all similar lists (List of city listings by country, List of misleading place names, &c) are in the article namespace. (The only parallel I saw someone mention in the Misplaced Pages: namespace is Misplaced Pages:Unusual articles which is clearly a meta-page about Misplaced Pages and therefore belongs in that namespace.) The article was then placed here for review, and the result was not handled by the book.

The article should be 'undeleted' and restored to its original title -- and then perhaps put up once more for AfD. A second AfD nomination ran for two days, generating over 30 votes, predominantly to keep it; but was closed early for process-lawyering reasons -- that is, because the same discussion should be had here. +sj +

NB: There were good debates raised about how to determine whether a name is unusual or interesting; these are useful to have, and hopefully good revisions of the list will come from them. Undeletion and restoration of the original title should in no way to minimize those debates. +sj + 00:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, nominator. +sj + 00:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted. Here's why. The first AFD was a perfectly valid delete. The user who brought it to DRV the first time used erroneous numbers to justify it (which shouldn't matter, as AFD is not a vote). The article was moved to the WP namespace (as suggested by several users, both in the AFD and the dRV), and the DRV was closed (by me) endorsing this move. It was then recreated in the article space out of process. Furthermore the article itseld is falwed beyond belief. Allow me to elaborate.

This article is downright ridiculous. Despite all these assertions I keep hearing that it is "easily verifiable", no one has cited sources for these (with very; few exceptions, and only very recently). When asked what exactly it is that makes these "interesting" or "unusual" it seems the only answer we ever hear is "Listen! This place is called fucking, Austria!!!!!! Get it??? FUCKING!!!! Isn’t that a hoot???" Um, maybe, but it’s not a source, and the article has this aura of having been partially written by Beavis and Butthead (huh-huh huh-huh "Dix Hills", huh-huh-. They said "Dicks", huh-huh-huh). Can hardly believe they missed Uruguay ("U-R-Gay", get it?), moronic? Absolutely, but, unlike almost every other name in the article, I can actually find a source for that one. I know we have some pre-pubescent editors here, but do we need to advertise that to the world? And as long as we’re loading up the article with juvenile humor, where's Johnson, Tennessee (FYI "Johnson" means "penis" (titter))?

And the problems go on. I mean, do we really want to include street names? Of all the millions and millions of streets in the world I’m sure we can find thousands that will get your average six-year-old in hysterics (which seems to be among the inclusion criteria here). Do you really want me to find a "Pu Street" somewhere on the planet? Because I bet I can. He same goes for informal names of neighborhoods. Alphabet City? It even actually makes sense for a neighborhood defined by lettered streets, so what’s so interesting or unusual about that anyway? And then there are those that just confound me.

Lolita: would that be interesting if it weren’t the name of a Nabokov novel? If someone publishes a book called “Meriden” do we get to include Meriden, Connecticut? Vader: let me guess, if we imagine the word "Darth" in front of it… Mashpee: sounds a little strange to anyone who doesn’t live in a part of the country where every other town is some Indian word, to those of us who do, utterly unremarkable. Sandwich: you do realize that the food item was indirectly named after the place, right? Ware, Massachusetts? Because it’s a homophone of "Where?" Well, get that spelling and that question mark at the end and you might be on the right track, but that is just retarded (how about Wareham (as in “where’s the ham?”)). Lough Neagh: is there anything even slightly interesting or unusual about that? Anything with the name of an animal is unusual? Guess what? That used to name things after animals all the time! Oxford? Oxen used to ford there. I can’t think of anything ‘’less’’ unusual. And, to top it off, what people try to pass off as a source is that another flawed Misplaced Pages article insists that these words are, by definition, downright ‘’hilarious’’! That’s not a source.

And there’s the opposites that make the list: words that are too much common English words (Beer, Commerce, Drain, Eagle) make the list, and those that don’t sound like English words at all make it too (Ouagadougou, Schenectady). Well guess what, there’s tons of places in foreign countries that sound odd to English speakers, they may even sound (get ready)….foreign. Let’s take out my trusty atlas and look at Sumatra as a somewhat random example. I see places named: Pasirpangarayan, Pulaupunjung, Talanglambangantir Kutacane (WHY do they insist on cutting their canes there. That’s just CRRRAZY!), Baganslapiapi, and so on and that’s without even really trying. Do some of those sound atypical to those of us who live in places like Carson City? Sure. Are we going to include half the continent of Asia? I sure hope not.

At least some of the worst offenders have been removed (Amarillo? Bagdad, Arizona (but not Moscow Idaho?)), but that they were ever included is pretty sad. And I bet some which are included actually could be verified by a third party source (Truth or Consequences comes to mind) but no one has bothered to. People seem to think "Oh yeah, we could so verify the shit out of these if we wanted to"; is the same as actual verification. It is not. Some people have compared this to articles such as Films considered the worst ever, but we must keep in mind that that article, imperfect as it is, really went out of its way to get verifiable sources. This one fails utterly in that regard. Trying to pass this off as an encyclopedia article is an insult to every encyclopedia on the planet; mostly this one. -R. fiend 00:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep in Wikispace and do not undelete in encyclopedia space unless moved to List of place names considered to be interesting or unusual with specific reliable and verifiable sourcing for each and every single entry. As it stands right now, the article is complete and utter junk. FCYTravis 00:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep in wikispace -- Francs2000 00:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Restore to / Retain in Article namespace R. fiend has made a valiant attempt to defend deletion above. I am going to attempt to put the case for retention/restoration; hopefully I will do this justice but if not I apologise ... it's past midnight now here in the UK.

There seem to be two main things that are causing problems:

First, that the article title contains the word "interesting" and that this makes the article subjective. I have to say that this is a fair point. However, I would ask - why does this one word invalidate the whole article? I've been a Misplaced Pages editor for about a year now, and I notice a recurring pattern in deletion discussions, which is that often there is just one thing about an article that an editor takes a dislike to, and from this comes a recommendation to delete, without a pause to think whether there is anything worth salvaging in the article. Clearly, from the amount of support that retention of this article is getting (and yes, I agree that polls are evil too, but ...) there is a good case that the article has at least something in it of (encyclopaedic) merit. Instead of just going for the "nuke it" option, we should all be trying hard to see each other's point of view and identify what in the article is worthy of inclusion, and what isn't, and tidy it up accordingly. I have proposed, in each of these debates, that we try to agree some criteria for inclusion, and assess the list against that. I appear to be being told that that is impossible, but without any arguments as to why that is the case. I agree that is is difficult but in the interest of community harmony, it has to be worth a go?

Second, the arguments that the article lacks sources and is POV. Among the people who are espousing these arguments are some very experienced editors, and so I can't just dismiss this view out of hand, but I really do think that people have got into some quite muddled thinking on this. I think that the cause of this is that the article is presented as a list. Because of that, proponents of deletion are insisting on a higher standard of verifiability than they would for any other article. Specifically, not only are sources for the existence of the place names being asked for, sources to justify inclusion of the names in the article are being asked for. We DO NOT do this for any other kind of content. If an article is written as a piece of prose, not in list form, then the inclusion of content that is obviously relevant to the article's subject, without editors having to find a source which proves that it is relevant, is widely accepted. Sometimes there may be items of content that are perhaps peripheral and these are then debated by editors, but by and large we don't have a problem here i.e. we don't have those debates over EVERY sentence in EVERY article. Just because this article is presented as a list, I don't see why we have to treat it differently. The Misplaced Pages policy on citing sources exists, as I understand it, to ensure that Misplaced Pages doesn't end up full of errors (accidental or deliberate), and not as a means of imposing a rigid and bureaucratic editorial process when one isn't needed.

So in summary, if we drop the word interesting from this article's title, agree some inclusion criteria, and then assess the article's content against these, we have the basis for a perfectly valid article (with no need for factcheck notes on every line) in the article namespace. Parallels exist — English words with uncommon properties for instance (note: this one is written as prose) — I think that attempting a solution along these lines has to be a better way forward than continuing with the divisive mess we're currently in? SP-KP 01:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Of course we need sources to justify inclusion of each and every single entry, because inclusion in a list of things which are allegedly "interesting" or "unusual" requires that someone else call them "interesting" or "unusual." Misplaced Pages editors cannot just insert things in the list that they find "interesting" or "unusual" - that is prima facie original research, something which is specifically prohibited by policy. Please see Films considered the worst ever. "The movies listed have achieved a notable level of infamy, through critical and popular consensus." That is an acceptable way of doing things - each entry is sourced with reasons why it is among the worst ever - ratings from movie critics, box-office figures, fan votes on IMDb, etc. This list has none of the above - it's just a list of any name someone ever laughed at. That's not encyclopedically acceptable. FCYTravis 01:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Please, just {{sofixit}}. Until then, it should stay out of mainspace. I've deleted and protected the cross-namespace redirect and noted that at WP:ANI, while we're talking about it. - brenneman 01:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User-AmE-0

Discussion moved to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates.

Quasi-gummi

This article appears to have been deleted on 16 December 2005 by User:Snowspinner without due process of any sort. Its most recent version before deletion has references and appears to describe a valid type of confection. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and send to AFD. I have a feeling it's a neologism and should probably be deleted, but let's send it through the process. -R. fiend 06:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per WP:SNOW since on checking the supposed "references" neither actually supported the term and I can't find any English-language Googles which are not mirrors. From a process point of view this was wrong, but since actually the project is all about content I can't see a lot of point wasting any more time on this. Normally I would userfy and/or invite the creator to repairing these problems, but the creator is missing in action. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 10:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That sounds like an AfD argument, to me. SNOW is not a "per"able thing, really, it being an entertaining essay and not much more. -Splash 17:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist at AfD so a proper discussion can take place. ComputerJoe 13:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Yes, it has been deleted out of process - 'bad Snowspinner, bad admin - slap!'. But it is obviously unreferenced crap, so there is nothing to be gained by undeleting it. If this is about repremanding the admin, then puting crap back into the encyclopedia, because a form wasn't filled in, is not the way to go about it--Doc 18:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and AFD - Hmm, well, I'll be an inclusionist here, seems like a term which could have some use in describing some sorts of candy. Worthy of a shot, at least. FCYTravis 19:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I thought that too - it does seem like a term applying to a type of candy, but I couldn't verify it. Nothing to stop others trying, I guess, but I have a terrible suspicion this is going to be a waste of everyone's time. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 21:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• I can see why it was deleted, but perhaps some of the folks at AfD can find something about it and verify if it is true. Undelete and relist. Titoxd 22:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and relist per Tito. Also, I've replaced the contents of this article with {{tempundelete}} and requested protection.
  brenneman 22:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You see that button saying "protect"... -Splash 22:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

11 February 2006

Heathian anarchism

This article's final AfD tally was 3 deletes, 2 merges closely edging on delete, and 1 keep, from the author of the page. The final decision made was to "keep", which I don't understand. Since the best merge suggestion offered is to an article that does not exist, and what is presently in this article would be insufficient for creating a new article, we're stuck in the meantime with what is a completely OR page. My suggestion would be either to delete it or move it to the creator's userspace. In the meantime we're legitimizing a topic that doesn't even exist. Sarge Baldy 19:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Relist - true, the only person asking for it to be kept as-is was the creator, and most others wanted it gone or gone, but there were not many contributors overall. I would have relisted for further debate rather than closing. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 20:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This approach to relisting is becoming a little concerning to me. Having "no consensus" as an outcome (call it keep if you prefer) is absolutely fine. People seem to be relisting enthusiastically just because there was no Absolute Outcome in the hopes of generating one. If that is what an editor wants, then they should carry out the relisting as an editorial matter, and not in the manner used on DRV which implies a rejection of the earlier debate's closure. -Splash 20:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmmm. I agree up to a point, but I don't think a couple of comments is sufficient to determine consensus, and I don't see why it should be a problem relisting where there are very few comments. Relisting because it's 20k/20m/20d is clearly nonsensical, but I don't recall that happening. I've seen several which have been kept after relisting when closing as delete would have been valid (a couple of deletes and nothing else). But I am becoming somewhat disillusioned with the whole process - nominate a web forum and every member will be along to vote keep, nominate a school at your peril, however bad the article and no matter that it is a commercial enterprise not a school, and so on. Ah well. I'm sure that once the Gastrich-induced cynicism has worn off I'll return to my usual sunny self, and maybe it'll improve with the Pareto effect of {PROD}. There is a slightly more pressing problem with this article: with zero Googles and no cited sources it appears to be unverifiable. Where's that list of templates? - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 21:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Getting 6 participants is more than substantially many debates (see WP:AFD100 for statistics on this). AfD is (still) overloaded, and sending minor articles back there just because we hope for 7 participants rather than 6 seems a little, well, pointless. -Splash 21:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close, clearly. This doesn't even shake a finger at a consensus to delete. There is no need to relist since there is clearly discussion to be had elsewhere about what, precisely, should be done. Having 6 people in an AfD is enough, and there is no quorum for AfD and there never has been. The only reason to relist would be a lack of participation or a supposition that relisting would produce a different result because of problems with the first listing. Noone cites any problems with this listing, apart from its outcome, and so I see neither a case to relist nor overturn. -Splash 20:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe if you're just looking at the numbers, and not reading what people have to say. There does appear to be a 5-1 consensus that this article should no longer exist. That it's divided by people who think it needs to be merged and to be deleted seems irrelevant. Sarge Baldy 21:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Irrelevant to what? To the question of deletion or not, no. To the question of exactly what state it should remain is as a result of the AfD? Largely, yes. People can decide whether to keep, merge or redirect for themselves in the case of an unclear AfD, and it is not the business of DRV to direct them on that. -Splash 21:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not saying it needs to be deleted. I'm saying it shouldn't continue to exist where it does now. "Heathian anarchism" is a term coined by the creator of the article. And right now we're pretending it exists. Sarge Baldy 21:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• This is for what we have the Talk pages of the article and its editors. -Splash 21:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• What's there to discuss? This article is about something that doesn't exist. He might as well have written at the top of the page that the term was coined by Hogeye of Misplaced Pages. If you think that's a stretch, he actually DID put his name as a source in the article on anarchist economics. Sarge Baldy 21:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• In that case, you might wait a short while in case something turns up and then make a fresh AfD nomination with a much more compelling nomination than last time. "Not notable", whilst shorthand for a number of things is much less likely to win favour than "doesn't exist", "unverifiable", "original research" etc. Also, you did not at any point return to that AfD during the debate — it's necessary to do so when things aren't going as you intended, in much the way that you have intervened here. However, DRV is unlikely to make a purely content based decision and is equally unlikely, if not more so, to overturn that AfD debate into a deletion. -Splash 22:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Though this may not be the place for editorial comments, why not just move to Spencer Heath and edit accordingly? -R. fiend 21:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• I don't mind doing that, the major problem is that it is completely unreferenced and unverifiable as-is, that won't be fixed by moving it. But that's a content dispute, so I've taken it to the Talk page. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 21:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it's not completely unreferenced, as it names the book from which this guy's philosophy is outlined: Citadel, Market and Altar. The problem I just discovered is that that book gets 101 unique googles (pretty small for a book that's allegedly the foundation of a notable philosophy) and doesn't seem to appear at Amazon. Is this guy just another self-published crank? I think we should move it (as proposed in the AFD), re-examine, and perhaps re-AFD, based on any new facts that come to life (such as "this guy is a self-published crank", if it turns out to be true). We shoudl also keep in mind that the anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, etc pages have been the scene of ongoing edit wars for eons, and POV, forking, and the like fly about all over the place. anythign connected to these topics deserves special scrutiny. -R. fiend 21:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• The content dispute, and under what name the article should end up residing, should be settled on the talk page, not AfD or here on DRV. There was clearly no consensus to delete... I said keep because of a few reasons, but ultimately does it make a difference here if I said "keep" or "no consensus"? --W.marsh 21:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Depends who you ask. Some folks don't like to see "result keep" when the result was no consensus and more people want rid of it than want it kept. Does it matter? Not to me, I guess. But I move this DRV be closed since R. Fiend has it absolutely right - this should be moved, cleaned up a bit and then re-assessed, which is in broadly line with what most people on the AfD seemed on the whole to want. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 10:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• You know it's my opinion that all AFDs should be kept open until there can be some sort of declared resolution, either a rough consensus to delete (ie 65-70%) or a simple majority to keep. Until that time, I think we can pretty well state the matter is unresolved, and shouldn't be closed. I'm sure people will see this as some sort of deletionist plot, but I think it makes perfect sense. As long as between 50% and 65% want an article deleted, its a bit silly to call the matter settled. We still have it weighted towards keeping, as it only require a simple majority, and we can avoid arbitrary and highly controversial closings much of the time. There is no reason we can't keep those AFDs that meet this criteria open almost indefinitely, after all, the article is still there while the debate goes on, so there's a default to keep anyway. And any time more than half the participants think an article should be deleted, it may not be a consensus, but it is an indication that the article has problems which will not automatically go away after 5 days and a "no consensus, default keep" result is given. Of course, this would largely mean AFD is a vote, but it nearly always comes down to the numbers anyway. -R. fiend 21:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• There's definite merit in that idea. It's hard to gauge consensus from a sample of three. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 23:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Anti-UN

Debate moved to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates

Template:User Anti-ACLU

Debate moved to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates

10 February 2006

Montfort Realschule Zell

This article's AfD nomination had 3 delete comments and just one keep (User:Jcuk's only comment was "of course"). If we were going straight vote style that gives 75% delete. After weighting arguments and comments I'd say the deletes have it. I respect MarkGallagher's decision to keep (the article did change a bit mid-vote) and normally I'd just let it go, but I just don't like this article (admitably I am deletionist scum). BrokenSegue 21:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Why not just relist it? Four comments is hardly a good discussion. Alternatively, try WP:PROD. --Tony Sidaway 21:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Tony. {{prod}} the sucker, and you might get lucky and have it go away on its own. If someone removes the prod tag and doesn't somehow improve it, relist it. --Aaron 22:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Is it really proper to prod an article after it was AfD'd? Misplaced Pages:Proposed_deletion#What_this_process_is_NOT_for suggets that it isn't. BrokenSegue 22:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The whole prod thing is sort of "in beta", and is still under discussion, so "What this process is NOT for" is still just a proposal. As such, I don't think it will hurt anything to prod this article. They need to see how {{prod}} is going to actually be used anyway, not just how editors will use it in theory. --Aaron 22:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• However badly the article sucks you will never get rid of it, it's a verifiable school. I'd walk away. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 22:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Your probably right. It's sad that it has come to this, some people will mechanicaly vote to keep all verifiable schools. *sigh* I added the prod tag just to see. BrokenSegue 01:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Christopher Parham pulled the tag all of an hour and five minutes after you added it, and his user contributions page indicates he reads this page regularly, so JzG's probably right; you'll likely never get rid of this thing. (I fully admit I don't understand the rationale behind WP:SCHOOL. To me it just says, "Well, in this case Misplaced Pages is the phone book.") --Aaron 02:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Our coverage of schools in Germany is pretty sparse (only 23 articles in the category) and this is a perfectly good article. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Which does not address the issue that articles which suck, suck. Whatever the subject. It's not like we have to keep their seats warm until a better one comes along, after all. Me, I'd merge the stubs and wait for more information, but that's against some people's religion. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 23:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User against Iraq War

Debate moved to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates

Template:User USA Police State

Debate moved to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates

Hootenanny (store)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hootenanny (store). 6 delete, 5 merge and or keep votes. Closing admin seems to think that votes he disagrees with can be discounted because "AFD is a debate, not a vote". He also overlooked the argument that it has a notable corporate parent, so he can't have examined the debate very closely. Kappa 13:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Your local Wal-Mart has a notable corporate parent. That doesn't make it notable. It doesn't even make it worthy of being merged; what place would information on that particular store have in the article? Johnleemk | Talk 13:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • So as a closing admin you are just ignoring all the votes which have reaons you disagree with? Kappa 13:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • If you're working your way up to a spray about how admins should only count votes and not exercise their judgement, I'm going to cry. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Please try to remember that wikipedia discussions should be conducted in a civil tone. Kappa 14:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Threatening to cry is incivil? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
          • No, but making someone and then slapping them with fish in the face (obscure reference) is. ComputerJoe 20:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• He's absolutely right that AfD is a discussion, not a vote, and the tally is irrelevant. I also agree that having a notable corporate parent doesn't necessarily mean anything. That said, looking at both Newman Comics and the deleted article, it does look like an excellent merge candidate. A lot of the info in the deleted article is already in its corporate parent's article, so frankly a redirect would probably have done nicely. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing to stop someone creating a redirect right now. Endorse close, no reason given for keeping this.--Doc 14:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I just did. Endorse close, we want to get to a million articles, but not like this. Physchim62 (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, we don't all want to get to a million articles. -R. fiend 07:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Endorse status quo, which is currently merge and redirect by the looks of it, since I don't actually care that much what went on given that the result is a decent-sized article. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 14:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• The status quo is redirected with the history deleted. Kappa 14:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Endorse status quo. -- Jonel | Speak 21:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Endorse closing Closing editor's action fine. A borderline-nn. Somebody has to do the closing on these borderline-nn. We're not drowning kittens! --FloNight 15:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• No, but you are destroying information people care about. Kappa 15:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Not as such, no. Looking at the deleted history, there is very little there. There might be a small amount of trivia missing from the main article, but arguably it is not Misplaced Pages's place to list the brands stocked by a local store, especially since that might change at any time. Do we list all the brands sold out of Macy's? If anyone actually does care that much I will get the additional text out of the deleted history for them, but in my view it's too crufty to be worth the effort. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 15:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, I was specifically promised some kitten drowning when I signed up. --Aaron 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Like Kappa, I found the AfD to be less than well closed. The case for merging was made and supported, but in the tiresome inclusionist-deletionist catfight, the keepers and deleters failed to raise any serious grounds against the suggestion. Closing admins have a responsibility to find the outcome that best fits the discussion, and there's a fine line between doing this and finding an interpretation of the AfD that best fits one's own opinion. Johnleemk may understand that, but this exceptional closing does not provide evidence of it. --- Charles Stewart 15:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  Undelete per Kappa. The nomination was little more than a display of aggressive ignorance; the nominator used the same justification to nominate a well-known and well-established specialty retailer (SFFH bookstore) for deletion, claiming there were "two dozen" like it in his neighborhood. The discussion there ] shows pretty clearly that the nominator didn't know what a specialty retailer was, and should have led the closing admin to discount his "vote" (and the "votes" that simply cited the nominator). Note also that the nominator, in that discussion, used the fact that he'd never heard of many of the notable authors who were associated with the retailer as support for his claim. Misplaced Pages should be guided by the knowledge of its editors, not the ignorance of its editors. I don't know whether this particular specialty retailer is Misplaced Pages-notable, but the parent business certainly is, and has something of a track record for creating distinctive/notable enterprises. Monicasdude 16:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete the history The closure was not perfectly in-process, but a redirect/merge is a satisfactory result as far as content-merit is concerned. Let the history be complete, however, as this does no harm, and satisfies those with a process grievance. Xoloz 16:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • As it's a non-controversial article and is already a redirect, I undeleted the history (which probably should not have been deleted). --Tony Sidaway 16:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per FloNight. --Kbdank71 19:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep redirected. No real need to undelete history, as there's hardly anything to undelete, though there's no harm in undeleting it either. The original closer maybe should have done the redirect himself, but there was certainly no call for a flat out keep. I don't think anyone takes Kurt Weber's comments in AFDs seriously (at least I hope they don't), and no one else gave a single reason for keeping it. -R. fiend 19:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete history - since it is harmless. Despite my reservations about the close, I am happy with the status quo. --- Charles Stewart 19:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete or just Recreate at will and back up off site after recurrent redeletions: You want the breakdown of policy, you've got it. This page is full of examples, this article being one of them. Karmafist 21:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Karmafist. --Aaron 22:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User admins ignoring policy

Decbate moved to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates

9 February 2006

User:SPUI

I totally disagree with deleting this user page. Reverting and protection would have done just as well. I would like to request that this be undeleted, reverted to a satisfactory revision and protected. As I know that SPUI was definitely violating WP:POINT I won't reverse the decision, but I do think that we should not just delete the page arbitrarily. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• It appears this just got undeleted, by both Phroziac and Haukurth. Ral315 (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I can live with that since it's protected. On the deletion, I really appreciate the excellent work SPUI has done, but I don't think we should continue to give him a platform for trolling. --Tony Sidaway 14:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• SPUI's version made me laugh, but I have to agree it doesn't have much to do with building an encyclopaedia. I see it more as satire than trolling, though. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 14:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Restore to creator's preferred version, unprotect as the creator is not an admin, go sort some stubs as punishment for getting so worked up over this. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 15:28, Feb. 9, 2006

  I'm not particular about the version. I put a duck up there as an attempt at compromise but I'm not wedded to it being a duck-only page :) Stub-sorting is pointless—but extremely efficient and well organized—busywork ;) - Haukur 15:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Restore last version by SPUI. It's satire, not trolling; and though it may be making a point, it isn't disrupting Misplaced Pages. (Unless, say, Tony comes in and chooses to disrupt Misplaced Pages over it.) // paroxysm (n) 20:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Ditto on Paroxysm: Has Misplaced Pages gone insane? Karmafist 20:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore, with the difference that the paedophile userboxes must not be there. They are unacceptable. Sam Korn 20:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and unprotect. I'm undecided if we should allow the pedophile things there, but I am tending to a yes. —BorgHunter (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore per Paroxysm. --Aaron 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore to creator's preferred version - that is what userpages are for. If individual templates (e.g. the paedophile userbox Sam Korn mentioned), then delete the templates using the proper process, not the pages using them Cynical 22:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I hope no-one considers it even slightly acceptable to create any userboxes, templatised or hard-coded, in jest or in seriousness, claiming to be a paedophile. If they do, they have another, possibly quite long, think coming. Sam Korn 22:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restory - It's ridiculous to delete someone's user page and then tell them they can't recreate it!!!! --Cyde Weys 23:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore per paroxysm. User:Adrian/zap2.js 01:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy. :> Splash 21:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Now why didn't I think of that? Just zis  Guy, you know? / 21:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• That is brilliant, Splash. Userfy per Spash. KillerChihuahua 22:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

8 Feb 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was restored per request of Thryduulf by Physchim62. Aaron 22:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia

This was spedily deleted by Physchim62 as "G7 (author requested deletion)" (emphasis orginal). However, even though the author did request deletion it is not eligable for speedy deletion under this criterion:

Criterion G7: "Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page was edited only by its author and was mistakenly created. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." (emphasis mine).

The page was not mistakenly created, as evidenced by all the previous discussion. In addition to its author (Herostratus), it has also been edited by Dschor, Zoe, and user:DanielCD in its current location and Paroxysm, Silent War and Jelligraze in its original location (move was a copy and paste that I was going to repair later this evening when I had time).

If there was a clear consensus to delete then I would not be worried by the breach of process, but when it was closed there were 8 votes to delete and to 6 keep (plus stuck out votes and no votes) with strong arguments on both sides - clearly no consensus. I am not asking for permanent undeletion but I am asking for a full hearing at MfD, rather than the ~16 hours it did get. Thryduulf 18:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Dschor was editing in violation of an ArbCom injunction (see CSD G5); Zoe merely added an MfD tag, which does not cont as an edit for the purposes of CSD G7; DanielCD merely removed his name from the participants list in accordance with his stated intention of ceasing to edit on pedophilia-related issues. I wasn't aware that this was a cut-and-paste move, but G7 does appear to apply. The author of the page requested deletion in the light of current events and has removed his name from the participants list. If other users wish to create a WikiProject Pedophilia (as has existed in the past on Misplaced Pages, before this project), I would not consider this a recreation of deleted material. However I think that the wishes of the page author should be respected in this case, especially given the current tensions surrounding the subject. Physchim62 (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn speedy and let the MfD play itself out. As noted, this was a cut-and-paste move so not all the authors can be seen. I'm sympathetic to the fact that this WikiProject and its members knew nothing about the wheel war, and I suspect this WikiProject wouldn't have been involved at all if it wasn't for Dschor signing up for it and creating the userbox template for this WikiProject. However, the damage is likely already done: the main participants in the project have decided to leave because they don't want to be involved. --Deathphoenix 20:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and allow process. Considering changing my vote on the MfD. The Land 21:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Restored as per request. Physchim62 (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

4 February 2006

Template:Commonsgallery

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

1. That is not the admin's call; the deletion discussions may not be votes, but closing admins are, as far as I've gathered from my experience on AfD, not court judges, there to decide which side 'won'; they are there to decide what the community thinks. It renders the whole 'discussion' thing slightly pointless otherwise.
2. Even if I'm wrong on the above point, MarkSweep's decision that there were better arguments for deletion is still extremely shaky IMO. None of the delete voters ever tried to argue the counterpoints the keep voters made against their arguments. These arguments included the fact that the template supposedly advertised for Olympus (it had a picture of a camera, far too small to make out the model). --Malthusian (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• As the closing admin, let me explain my reasoning in more detail. First, we'll have to discount one keep "vote" from an anon. Second, Nickj is using his "vote" as a vehicle for something unrelated, namely improving or changing Template:Commons. Nickj wrote: "That's why my vote is "keep", and it will continue to be "keep" until such time as Template:commons is improved." That's not a reason to keep Template:Commonsgallery. You don't go about changing Template:Commons by forking it and then voting to keep when the fork is nominated for deletion. Third, "Keep, useful template" by Ryan Delaney is fine, but it's not a relevant argument: Template:Commonsgallery was nominated here because it was a fork of an already existing maintenance template: and precisely because it is a fork of a useful template, it is of course useful, but that's not what this debate was seeking to establish. Fourth, there were three delete votes (by Netoholic, Petaholmes, and Phil Boswell) arguing that template forks are bad. The two serious votes in favor of keeping never properly addressed why the forked templates is needed. I completely ignored the bit about the Olympus ad as tangential to the discussion. Fifth, even if we regard the outcome of this debate as "no consensus", it makes no sense to default to keep in the Template namespace: templates, unlike articles, are tools which facilitate and enable; they should only be kept when they are truly needed. As I've said in my comments when I closed this discussion, I was much more swayed by the arguments for deletion, and in the end this is a discussion, not a vote. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - on the principle that forks are bad. FCYTravis 20:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Mark seems to be under the impression that the people behind the template have not bothered to explain what it is for, which is false: it has been extensively explained at Template_talk:Commons and the TfD. Briefly (I don't know why I'm bothering as I thought DRV was about process and not content, but FCYTravis has indicated otherwise): some of us believe the links to Commons galleries would look better if accompanied by a picture explaining what it was going to (e.g. a camera for a gallery of pictures). No-one's yet tried to claim otherwise, the only argument for deletion that's been put forward has been 'standardisation and maintenance'.
• I don't see how this was a 'fork' any more than {{test-n}} is a fork of {{test}}. Both do the same thing, but {{test-n}} does it slightly better in a certain context. Same with this. I admit that the name of the template does scream 'fork', being a redundancy; that was a mistake on my part. I was expecting to move the template to {{commonsimage}} as soon as the TfD was closed. --Malthusian (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Moreover, I'm not going to reply to MarkSweep's responses to why he discounted most of the votes on one side one by one (I've already explained why the 'serious voters' had, in fact, "properly addressed why the forked templates is needed"). But I will say that I think that if the arguments of a certain 'side' in a discussion are weak, it should be explained why they are weak at the time, rather than the closing admin waiting for the discussion period to end, discounting them, then waiting for someone to bring the TfD to DRV to explain why they were weak enough for the editors' opinions to be ignored. If nothing else it would save time. --Malthusian (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • TfD is a debate about the merits of templates. Rather than talking about "sides" one should talk about the outcomes of that debate and the arguments advanced in favor of them. If I see a weak argument or an argument that does not even address the central question of the debate, I call it as I see it. As for commenting on the merits of the various arugments before closing the debate: what do you want me to do? I didn't even know of this particular debate until I started to do my share in trying to clear out the TfD backlog. And if I had been aware of it and commented on it earlier, I wouldn't be in a position to close it. And by the way, I wasn't waiting for someone to bring this here. If you're only interested in saving time, then let it go and work on changing Template:Commons through the customary channels. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • *sigh* I'm going to have to surrender on any further discussion - I tried to reply to Mark's last post but couldn't manage to string three separate counterpoints together in a way that made any sense. I'm just going to say that I used the word 'side' in the sense of 'those who voted one particular way', not 'side' in the sense of 'cabal'. I think it would be worthwhile to have more illustrative {{commons}} templates, but if it gets shot down, well, c'est la vie. If I die in my sleep tonight and St Peter asks me 'And how did you spend your life?' I don't want to have to tell him that my last night was spent fighting a rearguard action over diversifying a Misplaced Pages template. --Malthusian (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted — MarkSweep is surely right in both principle and detail. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• I have forked templates many times, as it is sometimes the only way to switch over from one design to another. I was not aware the cabal disapproved of it. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Mel Etitis. --Kbdank71 05:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The fact that {{commons}} is seemingly perma-protected pushed me over the edge. If one cannot edit the template without going through various bureaucracy (requesting unprotection and hoping that succeeds, or getting consensus on the talk page - so much for being bold!), then forking may be the best option. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. MarkSweep's repeated violations of deletion process are becoming more and more disruptive. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. - How can you can get an result of 5 to keep, and 3 to delete, and decide that "delete" is the right outcome? It makes a complete and total mockery of the concept of consensus. Secondly, for Mark Sweep's "reasoning" that he can disregard my vote, and the votes of others: I wasn't aware that we had ceded complete dictatorial powers to Mark Sweep, so if someone could point to the relevant official wiki guideline outlining his new overlord status, that would be super, thanks. Third, I note that none of the votes to delete were disregarded, so it's good to see that the fine example of Florida lives on! Fourth, the reasons for changing this were outlined extensively on the Commons talk page, and have still not been addressed. Fifth, the commons template is still protected - so, given that anything related get deleted, and the originally seems to be permanently protected, how, exactly, is anything about these templates ever supposed to be improved? Frankly, this really is an appalling decision. If you're going to ignore what the community says, then why even have a deletion process? I mean, really, why bother? Just unilaterally delete whatever you like, irrespective of consensus - it'll give the same result, but without wasting everyone's time by giving the illusion of wanting community input and general agreement. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Mark's justification here. However these exceptional closes should be explained when closing. Pace the squeals of outrage, please note that: (i) TfD does not have a clear numerical criteria for assessing when there is a concensus and (ii) the kind of carefully justified discounting Mark has undertaken here would, if done when closing the *fD dsicussion, be a good thing for the health of *fDs: if you object to these vote discounts, what discounts would you agree with? --- Charles Stewart 01:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Seconded with a pat on the back and a kiss on the cheek. A great many of the discussions that take place on DRV could be avoided if closers took more care with explaining their thinking when they close. Rossami, in particular, provides clear evidence that he has thought about the arguments presented, and I've seen closes of his run to two paragraphs. This is a good thing, and should be more widespread. - brenneman 02:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for the feedback. You have a good point, and I've added my above comments to the TfD page. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Relist on TfD. Whilst Mark's arguments to delete are convincing, and convinced me that it should be deleted, there seems to be enough dissension to warrant a re-examination of the decision. 5 votes to keep against 3 to delete is not a decent consensus to keep, parituclarly given that the last two votes to keep were a) from an IP and b) two words, but I would have thought that this would be enough for the Template to remain pending further discussion. Deleting it was against the principle of consensus on deletion. If Mark makes the same excellently clear and cogent arguments to delete then I'm sure people will make the appropriate decision. And I think Nickj's reason for keeping is entirely valid - if he believes the template si necessary until the commons template itself is fixed, then that is a valid reason for him to believe the commonsgallery one should be kept. Proto||type 13:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you. It seemed a perfectly valid position to me, given the facts. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Reverse and Keep as per the consensus what was the point of the votes if the deciding admin was going to maket he call anyway? Some nerve.Gator (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Hey look, I lied, one more comment. MarkSweep's reasons for discounting most of the delete votes may make sense on the outside, but to me there seems to be equally good reasons for discounting the delete votes. One said "performs the same function as {{commons}}" (none of the counter-arguments to that here, on the TfD and on Template_talk:Commons have ever been addressed), another said (paraphrasing for brevity) 'template forks are evil, and advertises for Olympus'. Of that last post, the first argument is not an argument, the second rather nonsensical (maybe it was in jest, but Mark talks about "serious votes"). Why not discount those arguments too?
• Now at this point I think we can agree that it becomes ridiculous, having unilaterally discarded almost the entire debate, which is why I disagree with vote discounting on principle in all but the most obvious cases (sockpuppetry/trolling), for two reasons: 1) If an argument is weak, someone should say so at the time so its proponent can respond to the criticism without having to do it at WP:DRV, and 2) If the overall case for one 'side' (ooer, used that word again) is weak, then people will read it, be unconvinced, vote delete and the article will be deleted by an actual consensus (not just a consensus of "serious voters"). If the reason for the *fD not getting enough delete 'votes' was because it didn't get enough attention, then relist it. --Malthusian (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Closing admin properly discounted "votes" which did not comply with policy directions; TFD page expressly says Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement. Voting standards were clear, and closing admin quite properly followed them rather than disregarding them. Monicasdude 21:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but my vote/comment/preference was discounted because of my mistake in pointing something out, not because of my reasons. My reasons are that the newer template is (in my opinion) clearer, easier to understand (both in language and visually), and more exact than the commons template. My conclusion therefore was keep. My mistake was apparently in saying that there would be no reason for commonsgallery if commons could be improved (but unfortunately, that seems to be impossible), and that in that situation I would most likely change my vote. Furthermore, it should be noted that this template doesn't even seem to pass the tests of whether it should be proposed for deletion: Is it helpful? Yes. Is it redundant? No, I don't think it is (see reasons above). Is it used? Yes. Is it NPOV? Yes. Was it a candidate for speed deletion? No. Therefore, it doesn't even seem to fulfil the basic criteria for being listed on TfD, let alone the criteria to actually be deleted. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, I do not see the difficulty to simply construct an independent userbox in one's own userspace. Less controversial, and quite sensical. The same can be said for many other userbox tempaltes. -Zero 09:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Are articles in the main space allowed to use templates from a user's namespace? I thought I read somewhere that this was a no-no, but I could be wrong. If it's allowed, then that's exactly what I will do, and I thank for suggesting this. However, if it's not allowed, then I would please ask that you reconsider your position because it means the problem cannot be solved by the method you propose. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

1. Best blond joke ever and/or Best blonde joke ever kept deleted and now exist as redirects. 23:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Template:User pedo: Kept deleted. 23:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Sin (musician): Kept deleted. 23:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Marianne Curan: Kept deleted, better re-written from scratch. 23:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Christopher Howard: Kept deleted. 23:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Armand Traoré: Kept deleted. 23:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
7. The Foxymorons: Withdrawn, new stub to be written. 22:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Template:User Antiracist hitler: Speedy deletion endorsed. 17:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Template:GermanGov: Kept deleted. 17:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
10. List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C.: Original keep closure endorsed. 17:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
11. User:KJVTRUTH: kept undeleted, user subsequently blocked as sockpuppet. 17:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Category:Ambiguous five-letter acronyms: Moot request, kept deleted. 17:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
13. The Better Mod: Speedy undeleted, listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Better Mod. 23:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Clay Sun Union: Undeleted. As the deletion seemed to be in error (the members were AFDed, not the band) there is no reason for an automatic listing at AFD. It is free to be nominated by any user, however. 23:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Template:User no Rand: Undeleted, now listed at WP:TFD. 18:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Good Thing, Bad Thing, Right Thing, and Wrong Thing: Latter 2 merged. Any other issues are a content dispute, not DRV. 18:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
17. List_of_interesting_or_unusual_place_names: Moved to wikipedia namespace. 18:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC) R. Fiend
18. Jason Ward-Recording Engineer/Producer: Kept deleted. 17:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
19. Vampires F.C.: rdirected to Crouch End Vampires F.C.. 17:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
20. London Welsh F.C.: Undeleted (consensus seemed to be AFD was not automatically warranted, but it is open to an AFD nomination by any user). 17:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
21. Lee Hotti: Kept deleted (protected). 17:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
22. Gazeebow Unit: Kept deleted. 17:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
23. Patrick Alexander (cartoonist): Kept deleted. 17:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
24. Mesh Computers: Undeleted; out of process deletion, relisted for deletion and deleted on same day, should have remained relisted for five days per Misplaced Pages:Deletion process 10:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
25. SNK Boss Syndrome: Kept deleted. 19:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
26. Colony5: Undeleted, currently listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Colony5 (2nd nomination). 18:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
27. Maria Pia Braganza and Rosario Poidimani : former redirected, latter kept deleted (protected). 18:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
28. David Dom and Karayana , overturned, narrowly missed deletion, now at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Karayana and David Dom. - 01:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
29. Male bikini-wearing speedily kept deleted. - 01:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
30. Philosophy of computer science, kept deleted. - 23:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
31. Template:User_ku_klux, kept deleted. - 23:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
32. Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks: City of New York, kept deleted and saw several like it sent to AfD. - 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
33. Category:Lists in the Misplaced Pages namespace, kept deleted. - 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
34. Template:User homosexual-no, kept deleted but with recomendations that people use TfD in future. - 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
35. Aetherometry, kept deleted. 05:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
36. How to make a computer virus, kept deleted. 22:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
37. Valhalla legends: undel+re-AfD'd, and BNLS AfD'd with it, per recommendations here. 01:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
38. Category:German-American mobsters: can be recreated, but there are no articles in it at present. 01:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Content review

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

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

List of software companies

Was deleted on 6 Jan, 2006 (Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_software_companies). This was a useful list where software companies were sectioned based on country. I had created it way back in 2003 and was using it as a reference ever since. Today I went to the page to find out the list of software companies of a particular country, and found that it has been deleted. There is no corresponding Category on "software companies by country" either. I understand that all standalone lists have to be moved into categories, but since we don't have the "Category:Software companies by country" category yet, I request to undelete the list so that the category can be created using the info available in the list. Jay 18:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds convincing, undelete. Pcb21 Pete 19:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, aren't you an admin? Can't you just access the article yourself? Johnleemk | Talk 19:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right I'm a sysop and can access the contents, but non-sysops can't. The categorization work has to be done by all kinds of users, even anon users. Jay 10:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Just one question: if there is a need to sub-categorise by country (which I don't dispute), surely it's easiest just to work through the existing category? Half the companies on the original list were redlinked anyway. Not that I have a problem with undeleting this and moving to a user subpage, I'm just puzzled as to why there's a need. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 20:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I cannot imagine what possessed anyone to list this article for deletion, or the closing administrator to delete it. --Tony Sidaway 22:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Listcruft. Not convincing? How about spam magnet? Categories are nice because they catalog things with actual articles (or which are worthy of articles). This thing was filled with redlinks to companies I couldn't find anywhere. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete so we can categorize the companies, then can be brought back to AfD after categorizing takes place if someone so chooses, as list will probably not be useful after category is created.VegaDark 22:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that it's been userfied in order to create the category, I don't see a need for this list, and it was deleted through due process. Keep Deleted. VegaDark 01:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've moved this to "content review" since that was what was being requested. I've also placed {{tempundelete}} and listed the page on WP:RFPP. There is currently no consensus for fully restoring articles for editing when on deletion review, especially when all that's required is access to the contents. - brenneman 01:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, unless temporarily undeleted for the purposes of category creation, but delete again when finished. This thing was a spam MAGNET. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Userfied to User:Jay/List of software companies as this is clearly what is wanted, including by those requesting undeletion. Redirect deleted. -Splash 04:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. Why on earth was this article deleted in the first place? --Tony Sidaway 08:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a linkspam magnet, and doesn't do anything a category can't do. Oh, and I support the userfication. Let's create a real category. Johnleemk | Talk 09:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not as active on Misplaced Pages as used to be, so unaware of some new terms. What is userfy/userfication ? How will userfication help in making a category out of the list ? I do not intend to do all the categorization work myself, so will another user be able to see the contents of list of software companies when he goes to the article page ? Jay 10:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
        • It's basically stored in your userspace as a subpage of your userpage, instead of in the main namespace. So, yes, other editors can see it. Johnleemk | Talk 10:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Thanks, still not clear though. My question was about the list of software companies article in the article namespace. Does userfy mean this article will now have a redirect to my user subpage ? Instead of doing this, why not just undelete the article. Jay 12:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
            • It won't redirect. That's the point of userfication. And your request clearly was to make the content available for categorisation, not to permanently undelete it. Keeping it in your userspace is enough for this. Johnleemk | Talk 12:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Asked and answered above: you might consider reading some of the responses before asking the same question repeatedly. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as unmaintainable listcruft. A category would be much more suitable, and avoid the problems of red-links, vanity entries, and site-spam. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:26, Feb. 12, 2006
• Undelete - valid listing. Just because no one is quite bold enough to expand upon an article, does not give it justification for deletion. An overhall and some research is needed here. -Zero 09:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No, the problem wasn't a lack of expansion, I assure you. It was a problem with unverifiable entries being spammed every few days/weeks and growing out of control. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, validly deleted in process. Userfying meets Jay stated need. Inspection of deleted article shows more than half the content to be redlinked entries with no source citations, hence not in compliance with the verifiability policy. On inspecting the history, I agree that was a spam magnet. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

moshzilla

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

• Comment - Moved to content review section. --- Charles Stewart 20:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry, no. Since you don't own the copyright to the material and have never edited the article, you can't drop the material into a website that does not use the GFDL to license its content. -Splash 00:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • There's nothing to stop him having a section of his site which is GFDL and which contains the cotnent from the deletd article. There's no shortage of mirrors who do this sort of thing, and as long as it's properly attributed and stated that it is GFDL it's fine. -- AJR | Talk 17:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• For the record, this user has a copy of the deleted content. He/she used it on 9 Feb 06 to recreate the deleted page. I am having trouble assuming good faith about this request. Rossami (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Colonel Xu

Hello, and thanks in advance for your reply(ies). A couple months ago, my classmates created a page on WP called "Colonel Xu." It was mocking our Mandarin teacher as a Communist spy. (It's simplified chinese, what else can you expect? =P) She took it in stride, being the cool person she is. However, they didn't preserve any copies of it, and knowing I was a WP junkie, requested that I help them try to get a copy of it. Could an administrator please let me view it, and then print it out, or to move the "article" to my userspace? If it is moved to my user space, can I keep it there? I'll be checking here and on my Talk page every couple mins. THanks! -Copysan 23:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Article seems to never have existed. — Ambush Commander 23:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • My bad, it was Xu Lanting. Copysan 07:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I undeleted temporarily. Work fast (copy it to a user space or something) Sasquatch t|c 08:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, done. Sasquatch t|c 08:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

• WP:DELREVD

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.

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

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.

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

12 February 2006

Template:User no Rand

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates.

Lowbrow.com

Nobody seems to like this article. Every time I come back here, it's gone. Why is this? What makes the likes of Ebaum's World or other sites any more special? Lowbrow.com is a large website with a pretty massive community. Why someone would want to keep information about it from this encyclopedia is beyond me, and it is very frustrating. I am requesting that this article be undeleted. Thank you.

--Spank fusion 00:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lowbrow.com for one thing, where a consensus to delete the article was first reached. It seems subsequent recreations of the article have all been deleted because they were deemed sufficiently similar to the original deleted version, which is allowed under the criteria for speedy deletion. It does look quite similar every time. You might also see the WP:WEB guidelines for website article inclusion. At any rate I think rather than deletion review you should talk to the admin who protected the page to see about recreating it. --W.marsh 00:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  Hi. I'm that admin, and I sent User:Spank fusion here, as the appropriate place to contest a deletion, rather than than just recreating the article repeatedly. If there's a way to recreate the article so that it meets our inclusion guidelines, this is the place where that should be determined, if I understand correctly. -GTBacchus 01:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

List of interesting or unusual place names

(now at Misplaced Pages:List of interesting or unusual place names)

This article was deleted out of process, then during the resulting debates, recreated and moved to the Misplaced Pages: namespace. It does not belong there; all similar lists (List of city listings by country, List of misleading place names, &c) are in the article namespace. (The only parallel I saw someone mention in the Misplaced Pages: namespace is Misplaced Pages:Unusual articles which is clearly a meta-page about Misplaced Pages and therefore belongs in that namespace.) The article was then placed here for review, and the result was not handled by the book.

The article should be 'undeleted' and restored to its original title -- and then perhaps put up once more for AfD. A second AfD nomination ran for two days, generating over 30 votes, predominantly to keep it; but was closed early for process-lawyering reasons -- that is, because the same discussion should be had here. +sj +

NB: There were good debates raised about how to determine whether a name is unusual or interesting; these are useful to have, and hopefully good revisions of the list will come from them. Undeletion and restoration of the original title should in no way to minimize those debates. +sj + 00:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, nominator. +sj + 00:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted. Here's why. The first AFD was a perfectly valid delete. The user who brought it to DRV the first time used erroneous numbers to justify it (which shouldn't matter, as AFD is not a vote). The article was moved to the WP namespace (as suggested by several users, both in the AFD and the dRV), and the DRV was closed (by me) endorsing this move. It was then recreated in the article space out of process. Furthermore the article itseld is falwed beyond belief. Allow me to elaborate.

This article is downright ridiculous. Despite all these assertions I keep hearing that it is "easily verifiable", no one has cited sources for these (with very; few exceptions, and only very recently). When asked what exactly it is that makes these "interesting" or "unusual" it seems the only answer we ever hear is "Listen! This place is called fucking, Austria!!!!!! Get it??? FUCKING!!!! Isn’t that a hoot???" Um, maybe, but it’s not a source, and the article has this aura of having been partially written by Beavis and Butthead (huh-huh huh-huh "Dix Hills", huh-huh-. They said "Dicks", huh-huh-huh). Can hardly believe they missed Uruguay ("U-R-Gay", get it?), moronic? Absolutely, but, unlike almost every other name in the article, I can actually find a source for that one. I know we have some pre-pubescent editors here, but do we need to advertise that to the world? And as long as we’re loading up the article with juvenile humor, where's Johnson, Tennessee (FYI "Johnson" means "penis" (titter))?

And the problems go on. I mean, do we really want to include street names? Of all the millions and millions of streets in the world I’m sure we can find thousands that will get your average six-year-old in hysterics (which seems to be among the inclusion criteria here). Do you really want me to find a "Pu Street" somewhere on the planet? Because I bet I can. He same goes for informal names of neighborhoods. Alphabet City? It even actually makes sense for a neighborhood defined by lettered streets, so what’s so interesting or unusual about that anyway? And then there are those that just confound me.

Lolita: would that be interesting if it weren’t the name of a Nabokov novel? If someone publishes a book called “Meriden” do we get to include Meriden, Connecticut? Vader: let me guess, if we imagine the word "Darth" in front of it… Mashpee: sounds a little strange to anyone who doesn’t live in a part of the country where every other town is some Indian word, to those of us who do, utterly unremarkable. Sandwich: you do realize that the food item was indirectly named after the place, right? Ware, Massachusetts? Because it’s a homophone of "Where?" Well, get that spelling and that question mark at the end and you might be on the right track, but that is just retarded (how about Wareham (as in “where’s the ham?”)). Lough Neagh: is there anything even slightly interesting or unusual about that? Anything with the name of an animal is unusual? Guess what? That used to name things after animals all the time! Oxford? Oxen used to ford there. I can’t think of anything ‘’less’’ unusual. And, to top it off, what people try to pass off as a source is that another flawed Misplaced Pages article insists that these words are, by definition, downright ‘’hilarious’’! That’s not a source.

And there’s the opposites that make the list: words that are too much common English words (Beer, Commerce, Drain, Eagle) make the list, and those that don’t sound like English words at all make it too (Ouagadougou, Schenectady). Well guess what, there’s tons of places in foreign countries that sound odd to English speakers, they may even sound (get ready)….foreign. Let’s take out my trusty atlas and look at Sumatra as a somewhat random example. I see places named: Pasirpangarayan, Pulaupunjung, Talanglambangantir Kutacane (WHY do they insist on cutting their canes there. That’s just CRRRAZY!), Baganslapiapi, and so on and that’s without even really trying. Do some of those sound atypical to those of us who live in places like Carson City? Sure. Are we going to include half the continent of Asia? I sure hope not.

At least some of the worst offenders have been removed (Amarillo? Bagdad, Arizona (but not Moscow Idaho?)), but that they were ever included is pretty sad. And I bet some which are included actually could be verified by a third party source (Truth or Consequences comes to mind) but no one has bothered to. People seem to think "Oh yeah, we could so verify the shit out of these if we wanted to"; is the same as actual verification. It is not. Some people have compared this to articles such as Films considered the worst ever, but we must keep in mind that that article, imperfect as it is, really went out of its way to get verifiable sources. This one fails utterly in that regard. Trying to pass this off as an encyclopedia article is an insult to every encyclopedia on the planet; mostly this one. -R. fiend 00:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep in Wikispace and do not undelete in encyclopedia space unless moved to List of place names considered to be interesting or unusual with specific reliable and verifiable sourcing for each and every single entry. As it stands right now, the article is complete and utter junk. FCYTravis 00:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep in wikispace -- Francs2000 00:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Restore to / Retain in Article namespace R. fiend has made a valiant attempt to defend deletion above. I am going to attempt to put the case for retention/restoration; hopefully I will do this justice but if not I apologise ... it's past midnight now here in the UK.

There seem to be two main things that are causing problems:

First, that the article title contains the word "interesting" and that this makes the article subjective. I have to say that this is a fair point. However, I would ask - why does this one word invalidate the whole article? I've been a Misplaced Pages editor for about a year now, and I notice a recurring pattern in deletion discussions, which is that often there is just one thing about an article that an editor takes a dislike to, and from this comes a recommendation to delete, without a pause to think whether there is anything worth salvaging in the article. Clearly, from the amount of support that retention of this article is getting (and yes, I agree that polls are evil too, but ...) there is a good case that the article has at least something in it of (encyclopaedic) merit. Instead of just going for the "nuke it" option, we should all be trying hard to see each other's point of view and identify what in the article is worthy of inclusion, and what isn't, and tidy it up accordingly. I have proposed, in each of these debates, that we try to agree some criteria for inclusion, and assess the list against that. I appear to be being told that that is impossible, but without any arguments as to why that is the case. I agree that is is difficult but in the interest of community harmony, it has to be worth a go?

Second, the arguments that the article lacks sources and is POV. Among the people who are espousing these arguments are some very experienced editors, and so I can't just dismiss this view out of hand, but I really do think that people have got into some quite muddled thinking on this. I think that the cause of this is that the article is presented as a list. Because of that, proponents of deletion are insisting on a higher standard of verifiability than they would for any other article. Specifically, not only are sources for the existence of the place names being asked for, sources to justify inclusion of the names in the article are being asked for. We DO NOT do this for any other kind of content. If an article is written as a piece of prose, not in list form, then the inclusion of content that is obviously relevant to the article's subject, without editors having to find a source which proves that it is relevant, is widely accepted. Sometimes there may be items of content that are perhaps peripheral and these are then debated by editors, but by and large we don't have a problem here i.e. we don't have those debates over EVERY sentence in EVERY article. Just because this article is presented as a list, I don't see why we have to treat it differently. The Misplaced Pages policy on citing sources exists, as I understand it, to ensure that Misplaced Pages doesn't end up full of errors (accidental or deliberate), and not as a means of imposing a rigid and bureaucratic editorial process when one isn't needed.

So in summary, if we drop the word interesting from this article's title, agree some inclusion criteria, and then assess the article's content against these, we have the basis for a perfectly valid article (with no need for factcheck notes on every line) in the article namespace. Parallels exist — English words with uncommon properties for instance (note: this one is written as prose) — I think that attempting a solution along these lines has to be a better way forward than continuing with the divisive mess we're currently in? SP-KP 01:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Of course we need sources to justify inclusion of each and every single entry, because inclusion in a list of things which are allegedly "interesting" or "unusual" requires that someone else call them "interesting" or "unusual." Misplaced Pages editors cannot just insert things in the list that they find "interesting" or "unusual" - that is prima facie original research, something which is specifically prohibited by policy. Please see Films considered the worst ever. "The movies listed have achieved a notable level of infamy, through critical and popular consensus." That is an acceptable way of doing things - each entry is sourced with reasons why it is among the worst ever - ratings from movie critics, box-office figures, fan votes on IMDb, etc. This list has none of the above - it's just a list of any name someone ever laughed at. That's not encyclopedically acceptable. FCYTravis 01:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Please, just {{sofixit}}. Until then, it should stay out of mainspace. I've deleted and protected the cross-namespace redirect and noted that at WP:ANI, while we're talking about it. - brenneman 01:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User-AmE-0

Discussion moved to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates.

Quasi-gummi

This article appears to have been deleted on 16 December 2005 by User:Snowspinner without due process of any sort. Its most recent version before deletion has references and appears to describe a valid type of confection. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and send to AFD. I have a feeling it's a neologism and should probably be deleted, but let's send it through the process. -R. fiend 06:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per WP:SNOW since on checking the supposed "references" neither actually supported the term and I can't find any English-language Googles which are not mirrors. From a process point of view this was wrong, but since actually the project is all about content I can't see a lot of point wasting any more time on this. Normally I would userfy and/or invite the creator to repairing these problems, but the creator is missing in action. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 10:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That sounds like an AfD argument, to me. SNOW is not a "per"able thing, really, it being an entertaining essay and not much more. -Splash 17:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist at AfD so a proper discussion can take place. ComputerJoe 13:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Yes, it has been deleted out of process - 'bad Snowspinner, bad admin - slap!'. But it is obviously unreferenced crap, so there is nothing to be gained by undeleting it. If this is about repremanding the admin, then puting crap back into the encyclopedia, because a form wasn't filled in, is not the way to go about it--Doc 18:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and AFD - Hmm, well, I'll be an inclusionist here, seems like a term which could have some use in describing some sorts of candy. Worthy of a shot, at least. FCYTravis 19:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I thought that too - it does seem like a term applying to a type of candy, but I couldn't verify it. Nothing to stop others trying, I guess, but I have a terrible suspicion this is going to be a waste of everyone's time. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 21:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• I can see why it was deleted, but perhaps some of the folks at AfD can find something about it and verify if it is true. Undelete and relist. Titoxd 22:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and relist per Tito. Also, I've replaced the contents of this article with {{tempundelete}} and requested protection.
  brenneman 22:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You see that button saying "protect"... -Splash 22:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

11 February 2006

Heathian anarchism

This article's final AfD tally was 3 deletes, 2 merges closely edging on delete, and 1 keep, from the author of the page. The final decision made was to "keep", which I don't understand. Since the best merge suggestion offered is to an article that does not exist, and what is presently in this article would be insufficient for creating a new article, we're stuck in the meantime with what is a completely OR page. My suggestion would be either to delete it or move it to the creator's userspace. In the meantime we're legitimizing a topic that doesn't even exist. Sarge Baldy 19:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Relist - true, the only person asking for it to be kept as-is was the creator, and most others wanted it gone or gone, but there were not many contributors overall. I would have relisted for further debate rather than closing. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 20:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This approach to relisting is becoming a little concerning to me. Having "no consensus" as an outcome (call it keep if you prefer) is absolutely fine. People seem to be relisting enthusiastically just because there was no Absolute Outcome in the hopes of generating one. If that is what an editor wants, then they should carry out the relisting as an editorial matter, and not in the manner used on DRV which implies a rejection of the earlier debate's closure. -Splash 20:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmmm. I agree up to a point, but I don't think a couple of comments is sufficient to determine consensus, and I don't see why it should be a problem relisting where there are very few comments. Relisting because it's 20k/20m/20d is clearly nonsensical, but I don't recall that happening. I've seen several which have been kept after relisting when closing as delete would have been valid (a couple of deletes and nothing else). But I am becoming somewhat disillusioned with the whole process - nominate a web forum and every member will be along to vote keep, nominate a school at your peril, however bad the article and no matter that it is a commercial enterprise not a school, and so on. Ah well. I'm sure that once the Gastrich-induced cynicism has worn off I'll return to my usual sunny self, and maybe it'll improve with the Pareto effect of {PROD}. There is a slightly more pressing problem with this article: with zero Googles and no cited sources it appears to be unverifiable. Where's that list of templates? - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 21:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Getting 6 participants is more than substantially many debates (see WP:AFD100 for statistics on this). AfD is (still) overloaded, and sending minor articles back there just because we hope for 7 participants rather than 6 seems a little, well, pointless. -Splash 21:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close, clearly. This doesn't even shake a finger at a consensus to delete. There is no need to relist since there is clearly discussion to be had elsewhere about what, precisely, should be done. Having 6 people in an AfD is enough, and there is no quorum for AfD and there never has been. The only reason to relist would be a lack of participation or a supposition that relisting would produce a different result because of problems with the first listing. Noone cites any problems with this listing, apart from its outcome, and so I see neither a case to relist nor overturn. -Splash 20:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe if you're just looking at the numbers, and not reading what people have to say. There does appear to be a 5-1 consensus that this article should no longer exist. That it's divided by people who think it needs to be merged and to be deleted seems irrelevant. Sarge Baldy 21:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Irrelevant to what? To the question of deletion or not, no. To the question of exactly what state it should remain is as a result of the AfD? Largely, yes. People can decide whether to keep, merge or redirect for themselves in the case of an unclear AfD, and it is not the business of DRV to direct them on that. -Splash 21:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not saying it needs to be deleted. I'm saying it shouldn't continue to exist where it does now. "Heathian anarchism" is a term coined by the creator of the article. And right now we're pretending it exists. Sarge Baldy 21:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• This is for what we have the Talk pages of the article and its editors. -Splash 21:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• What's there to discuss? This article is about something that doesn't exist. He might as well have written at the top of the page that the term was coined by Hogeye of Misplaced Pages. If you think that's a stretch, he actually DID put his name as a source in the article on anarchist economics. Sarge Baldy 21:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• In that case, you might wait a short while in case something turns up and then make a fresh AfD nomination with a much more compelling nomination than last time. "Not notable", whilst shorthand for a number of things is much less likely to win favour than "doesn't exist", "unverifiable", "original research" etc. Also, you did not at any point return to that AfD during the debate — it's necessary to do so when things aren't going as you intended, in much the way that you have intervened here. However, DRV is unlikely to make a purely content based decision and is equally unlikely, if not more so, to overturn that AfD debate into a deletion. -Splash 22:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Though this may not be the place for editorial comments, why not just move to Spencer Heath and edit accordingly? -R. fiend 21:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• I don't mind doing that, the major problem is that it is completely unreferenced and unverifiable as-is, that won't be fixed by moving it. But that's a content dispute, so I've taken it to the Talk page. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 21:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it's not completely unreferenced, as it names the book from which this guy's philosophy is outlined: Citadel, Market and Altar. The problem I just discovered is that that book gets 101 unique googles (pretty small for a book that's allegedly the foundation of a notable philosophy) and doesn't seem to appear at Amazon. Is this guy just another self-published crank? I think we should move it (as proposed in the AFD), re-examine, and perhaps re-AFD, based on any new facts that come to life (such as "this guy is a self-published crank", if it turns out to be true). We shoudl also keep in mind that the anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, etc pages have been the scene of ongoing edit wars for eons, and POV, forking, and the like fly about all over the place. anythign connected to these topics deserves special scrutiny. -R. fiend 21:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• The content dispute, and under what name the article should end up residing, should be settled on the talk page, not AfD or here on DRV. There was clearly no consensus to delete... I said keep because of a few reasons, but ultimately does it make a difference here if I said "keep" or "no consensus"? --W.marsh 21:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Depends who you ask. Some folks don't like to see "result keep" when the result was no consensus and more people want rid of it than want it kept. Does it matter? Not to me, I guess. But I move this DRV be closed since R. Fiend has it absolutely right - this should be moved, cleaned up a bit and then re-assessed, which is in broadly line with what most people on the AfD seemed on the whole to want. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 10:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• You know it's my opinion that all AFDs should be kept open until there can be some sort of declared resolution, either a rough consensus to delete (ie 65-70%) or a simple majority to keep. Until that time, I think we can pretty well state the matter is unresolved, and shouldn't be closed. I'm sure people will see this as some sort of deletionist plot, but I think it makes perfect sense. As long as between 50% and 65% want an article deleted, its a bit silly to call the matter settled. We still have it weighted towards keeping, as it only require a simple majority, and we can avoid arbitrary and highly controversial closings much of the time. There is no reason we can't keep those AFDs that meet this criteria open almost indefinitely, after all, the article is still there while the debate goes on, so there's a default to keep anyway. And any time more than half the participants think an article should be deleted, it may not be a consensus, but it is an indication that the article has problems which will not automatically go away after 5 days and a "no consensus, default keep" result is given. Of course, this would largely mean AFD is a vote, but it nearly always comes down to the numbers anyway. -R. fiend 21:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• There's definite merit in that idea. It's hard to gauge consensus from a sample of three. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 23:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Anti-UN

Debate moved to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates

Template:User Anti-ACLU

Debate moved to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates

10 February 2006

Montfort Realschule Zell

This article's AfD nomination had 3 delete comments and just one keep (User:Jcuk's only comment was "of course"). If we were going straight vote style that gives 75% delete. After weighting arguments and comments I'd say the deletes have it. I respect MarkGallagher's decision to keep (the article did change a bit mid-vote) and normally I'd just let it go, but I just don't like this article (admitably I am deletionist scum). BrokenSegue 21:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Why not just relist it? Four comments is hardly a good discussion. Alternatively, try WP:PROD. --Tony Sidaway 21:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Tony. {{prod}} the sucker, and you might get lucky and have it go away on its own. If someone removes the prod tag and doesn't somehow improve it, relist it. --Aaron 22:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Is it really proper to prod an article after it was AfD'd? Misplaced Pages:Proposed_deletion#What_this_process_is_NOT_for suggets that it isn't. BrokenSegue 22:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The whole prod thing is sort of "in beta", and is still under discussion, so "What this process is NOT for" is still just a proposal. As such, I don't think it will hurt anything to prod this article. They need to see how {{prod}} is going to actually be used anyway, not just how editors will use it in theory. --Aaron 22:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• However badly the article sucks you will never get rid of it, it's a verifiable school. I'd walk away. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 22:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Your probably right. It's sad that it has come to this, some people will mechanicaly vote to keep all verifiable schools. *sigh* I added the prod tag just to see. BrokenSegue 01:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Christopher Parham pulled the tag all of an hour and five minutes after you added it, and his user contributions page indicates he reads this page regularly, so JzG's probably right; you'll likely never get rid of this thing. (I fully admit I don't understand the rationale behind WP:SCHOOL. To me it just says, "Well, in this case Misplaced Pages is the phone book.") --Aaron 02:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Our coverage of schools in Germany is pretty sparse (only 23 articles in the category) and this is a perfectly good article. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Which does not address the issue that articles which suck, suck. Whatever the subject. It's not like we have to keep their seats warm until a better one comes along, after all. Me, I'd merge the stubs and wait for more information, but that's against some people's religion. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 23:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User against Iraq War

Debate moved to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates

Template:User USA Police State

Debate moved to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates

Hootenanny (store)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hootenanny (store). 6 delete, 5 merge and or keep votes. Closing admin seems to think that votes he disagrees with can be discounted because "AFD is a debate, not a vote". He also overlooked the argument that it has a notable corporate parent, so he can't have examined the debate very closely. Kappa 13:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Your local Wal-Mart has a notable corporate parent. That doesn't make it notable. It doesn't even make it worthy of being merged; what place would information on that particular store have in the article? Johnleemk | Talk 13:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • So as a closing admin you are just ignoring all the votes which have reaons you disagree with? Kappa 13:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • If you're working your way up to a spray about how admins should only count votes and not exercise their judgement, I'm going to cry. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Please try to remember that wikipedia discussions should be conducted in a civil tone. Kappa 14:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Threatening to cry is incivil? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
          • No, but making someone and then slapping them with fish in the face (obscure reference) is. ComputerJoe 20:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• He's absolutely right that AfD is a discussion, not a vote, and the tally is irrelevant. I also agree that having a notable corporate parent doesn't necessarily mean anything. That said, looking at both Newman Comics and the deleted article, it does look like an excellent merge candidate. A lot of the info in the deleted article is already in its corporate parent's article, so frankly a redirect would probably have done nicely. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing to stop someone creating a redirect right now. Endorse close, no reason given for keeping this.--Doc 14:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I just did. Endorse close, we want to get to a million articles, but not like this. Physchim62 (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, we don't all want to get to a million articles. -R. fiend 07:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Endorse status quo, which is currently merge and redirect by the looks of it, since I don't actually care that much what went on given that the result is a decent-sized article. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 14:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• The status quo is redirected with the history deleted. Kappa 14:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Endorse status quo. -- Jonel | Speak 21:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Endorse closing Closing editor's action fine. A borderline-nn. Somebody has to do the closing on these borderline-nn. We're not drowning kittens! --FloNight 15:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• No, but you are destroying information people care about. Kappa 15:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Not as such, no. Looking at the deleted history, there is very little there. There might be a small amount of trivia missing from the main article, but arguably it is not Misplaced Pages's place to list the brands stocked by a local store, especially since that might change at any time. Do we list all the brands sold out of Macy's? If anyone actually does care that much I will get the additional text out of the deleted history for them, but in my view it's too crufty to be worth the effort. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 15:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, I was specifically promised some kitten drowning when I signed up. --Aaron 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Like Kappa, I found the AfD to be less than well closed. The case for merging was made and supported, but in the tiresome inclusionist-deletionist catfight, the keepers and deleters failed to raise any serious grounds against the suggestion. Closing admins have a responsibility to find the outcome that best fits the discussion, and there's a fine line between doing this and finding an interpretation of the AfD that best fits one's own opinion. Johnleemk may understand that, but this exceptional closing does not provide evidence of it. --- Charles Stewart 15:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  Undelete per Kappa. The nomination was little more than a display of aggressive ignorance; the nominator used the same justification to nominate a well-known and well-established specialty retailer (SFFH bookstore) for deletion, claiming there were "two dozen" like it in his neighborhood. The discussion there ] shows pretty clearly that the nominator didn't know what a specialty retailer was, and should have led the closing admin to discount his "vote" (and the "votes" that simply cited the nominator). Note also that the nominator, in that discussion, used the fact that he'd never heard of many of the notable authors who were associated with the retailer as support for his claim. Misplaced Pages should be guided by the knowledge of its editors, not the ignorance of its editors. I don't know whether this particular specialty retailer is Misplaced Pages-notable, but the parent business certainly is, and has something of a track record for creating distinctive/notable enterprises. Monicasdude 16:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete the history The closure was not perfectly in-process, but a redirect/merge is a satisfactory result as far as content-merit is concerned. Let the history be complete, however, as this does no harm, and satisfies those with a process grievance. Xoloz 16:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • As it's a non-controversial article and is already a redirect, I undeleted the history (which probably should not have been deleted). --Tony Sidaway 16:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per FloNight. --Kbdank71 19:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep redirected. No real need to undelete history, as there's hardly anything to undelete, though there's no harm in undeleting it either. The original closer maybe should have done the redirect himself, but there was certainly no call for a flat out keep. I don't think anyone takes Kurt Weber's comments in AFDs seriously (at least I hope they don't), and no one else gave a single reason for keeping it. -R. fiend 19:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete history - since it is harmless. Despite my reservations about the close, I am happy with the status quo. --- Charles Stewart 19:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete or just Recreate at will and back up off site after recurrent redeletions: You want the breakdown of policy, you've got it. This page is full of examples, this article being one of them. Karmafist 21:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Karmafist. --Aaron 22:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User admins ignoring policy

Decbate moved to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates

9 February 2006

User:SPUI

I totally disagree with deleting this user page. Reverting and protection would have done just as well. I would like to request that this be undeleted, reverted to a satisfactory revision and protected. As I know that SPUI was definitely violating WP:POINT I won't reverse the decision, but I do think that we should not just delete the page arbitrarily. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• It appears this just got undeleted, by both Phroziac and Haukurth. Ral315 (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I can live with that since it's protected. On the deletion, I really appreciate the excellent work SPUI has done, but I don't think we should continue to give him a platform for trolling. --Tony Sidaway 14:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• SPUI's version made me laugh, but I have to agree it doesn't have much to do with building an encyclopaedia. I see it more as satire than trolling, though. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 14:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Restore to creator's preferred version, unprotect as the creator is not an admin, go sort some stubs as punishment for getting so worked up over this. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 15:28, Feb. 9, 2006

  I'm not particular about the version. I put a duck up there as an attempt at compromise but I'm not wedded to it being a duck-only page :) Stub-sorting is pointless—but extremely efficient and well organized—busywork ;) - Haukur 15:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Restore last version by SPUI. It's satire, not trolling; and though it may be making a point, it isn't disrupting Misplaced Pages. (Unless, say, Tony comes in and chooses to disrupt Misplaced Pages over it.) // paroxysm (n) 20:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Ditto on Paroxysm: Has Misplaced Pages gone insane? Karmafist 20:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore, with the difference that the paedophile userboxes must not be there. They are unacceptable. Sam Korn 20:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and unprotect. I'm undecided if we should allow the pedophile things there, but I am tending to a yes. —BorgHunter (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore per Paroxysm. --Aaron 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore to creator's preferred version - that is what userpages are for. If individual templates (e.g. the paedophile userbox Sam Korn mentioned), then delete the templates using the proper process, not the pages using them Cynical 22:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I hope no-one considers it even slightly acceptable to create any userboxes, templatised or hard-coded, in jest or in seriousness, claiming to be a paedophile. If they do, they have another, possibly quite long, think coming. Sam Korn 22:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restory - It's ridiculous to delete someone's user page and then tell them they can't recreate it!!!! --Cyde Weys 23:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore per paroxysm. User:Adrian/zap2.js 01:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy. :> Splash 21:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Now why didn't I think of that? Just zis  Guy, you know? / 21:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• That is brilliant, Splash. Userfy per Spash. KillerChihuahua 22:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

8 Feb 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was restored per request of Thryduulf by Physchim62. Aaron 22:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia

This was spedily deleted by Physchim62 as "G7 (author requested deletion)" (emphasis orginal). However, even though the author did request deletion it is not eligable for speedy deletion under this criterion:

Criterion G7: "Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page was edited only by its author and was mistakenly created. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." (emphasis mine).

The page was not mistakenly created, as evidenced by all the previous discussion. In addition to its author (Herostratus), it has also been edited by Dschor, Zoe, and user:DanielCD in its current location and Paroxysm, Silent War and Jelligraze in its original location (move was a copy and paste that I was going to repair later this evening when I had time).

If there was a clear consensus to delete then I would not be worried by the breach of process, but when it was closed there were 8 votes to delete and to 6 keep (plus stuck out votes and no votes) with strong arguments on both sides - clearly no consensus. I am not asking for permanent undeletion but I am asking for a full hearing at MfD, rather than the ~16 hours it did get. Thryduulf 18:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Dschor was editing in violation of an ArbCom injunction (see CSD G5); Zoe merely added an MfD tag, which does not cont as an edit for the purposes of CSD G7; DanielCD merely removed his name from the participants list in accordance with his stated intention of ceasing to edit on pedophilia-related issues. I wasn't aware that this was a cut-and-paste move, but G7 does appear to apply. The author of the page requested deletion in the light of current events and has removed his name from the participants list. If other users wish to create a WikiProject Pedophilia (as has existed in the past on Misplaced Pages, before this project), I would not consider this a recreation of deleted material. However I think that the wishes of the page author should be respected in this case, especially given the current tensions surrounding the subject. Physchim62 (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn speedy and let the MfD play itself out. As noted, this was a cut-and-paste move so not all the authors can be seen. I'm sympathetic to the fact that this WikiProject and its members knew nothing about the wheel war, and I suspect this WikiProject wouldn't have been involved at all if it wasn't for Dschor signing up for it and creating the userbox template for this WikiProject. However, the damage is likely already done: the main participants in the project have decided to leave because they don't want to be involved. --Deathphoenix 20:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and allow process. Considering changing my vote on the MfD. The Land 21:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Restored as per request. Physchim62 (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

4 February 2006

Template:Commonsgallery

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

1. That is not the admin's call; the deletion discussions may not be votes, but closing admins are, as far as I've gathered from my experience on AfD, not court judges, there to decide which side 'won'; they are there to decide what the community thinks. It renders the whole 'discussion' thing slightly pointless otherwise.
2. Even if I'm wrong on the above point, MarkSweep's decision that there were better arguments for deletion is still extremely shaky IMO. None of the delete voters ever tried to argue the counterpoints the keep voters made against their arguments. These arguments included the fact that the template supposedly advertised for Olympus (it had a picture of a camera, far too small to make out the model). --Malthusian (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• As the closing admin, let me explain my reasoning in more detail. First, we'll have to discount one keep "vote" from an anon. Second, Nickj is using his "vote" as a vehicle for something unrelated, namely improving or changing Template:Commons. Nickj wrote: "That's why my vote is "keep", and it will continue to be "keep" until such time as Template:commons is improved." That's not a reason to keep Template:Commonsgallery. You don't go about changing Template:Commons by forking it and then voting to keep when the fork is nominated for deletion. Third, "Keep, useful template" by Ryan Delaney is fine, but it's not a relevant argument: Template:Commonsgallery was nominated here because it was a fork of an already existing maintenance template: and precisely because it is a fork of a useful template, it is of course useful, but that's not what this debate was seeking to establish. Fourth, there were three delete votes (by Netoholic, Petaholmes, and Phil Boswell) arguing that template forks are bad. The two serious votes in favor of keeping never properly addressed why the forked templates is needed. I completely ignored the bit about the Olympus ad as tangential to the discussion. Fifth, even if we regard the outcome of this debate as "no consensus", it makes no sense to default to keep in the Template namespace: templates, unlike articles, are tools which facilitate and enable; they should only be kept when they are truly needed. As I've said in my comments when I closed this discussion, I was much more swayed by the arguments for deletion, and in the end this is a discussion, not a vote. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - on the principle that forks are bad. FCYTravis 20:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Mark seems to be under the impression that the people behind the template have not bothered to explain what it is for, which is false: it has been extensively explained at Template_talk:Commons and the TfD. Briefly (I don't know why I'm bothering as I thought DRV was about process and not content, but FCYTravis has indicated otherwise): some of us believe the links to Commons galleries would look better if accompanied by a picture explaining what it was going to (e.g. a camera for a gallery of pictures). No-one's yet tried to claim otherwise, the only argument for deletion that's been put forward has been 'standardisation and maintenance'.
• I don't see how this was a 'fork' any more than {{test-n}} is a fork of {{test}}. Both do the same thing, but {{test-n}} does it slightly better in a certain context. Same with this. I admit that the name of the template does scream 'fork', being a redundancy; that was a mistake on my part. I was expecting to move the template to {{commonsimage}} as soon as the TfD was closed. --Malthusian (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Moreover, I'm not going to reply to MarkSweep's responses to why he discounted most of the votes on one side one by one (I've already explained why the 'serious voters' had, in fact, "properly addressed why the forked templates is needed"). But I will say that I think that if the arguments of a certain 'side' in a discussion are weak, it should be explained why they are weak at the time, rather than the closing admin waiting for the discussion period to end, discounting them, then waiting for someone to bring the TfD to DRV to explain why they were weak enough for the editors' opinions to be ignored. If nothing else it would save time. --Malthusian (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • TfD is a debate about the merits of templates. Rather than talking about "sides" one should talk about the outcomes of that debate and the arguments advanced in favor of them. If I see a weak argument or an argument that does not even address the central question of the debate, I call it as I see it. As for commenting on the merits of the various arugments before closing the debate: what do you want me to do? I didn't even know of this particular debate until I started to do my share in trying to clear out the TfD backlog. And if I had been aware of it and commented on it earlier, I wouldn't be in a position to close it. And by the way, I wasn't waiting for someone to bring this here. If you're only interested in saving time, then let it go and work on changing Template:Commons through the customary channels. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • *sigh* I'm going to have to surrender on any further discussion - I tried to reply to Mark's last post but couldn't manage to string three separate counterpoints together in a way that made any sense. I'm just going to say that I used the word 'side' in the sense of 'those who voted one particular way', not 'side' in the sense of 'cabal'. I think it would be worthwhile to have more illustrative {{commons}} templates, but if it gets shot down, well, c'est la vie. If I die in my sleep tonight and St Peter asks me 'And how did you spend your life?' I don't want to have to tell him that my last night was spent fighting a rearguard action over diversifying a Misplaced Pages template. --Malthusian (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted — MarkSweep is surely right in both principle and detail. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• I have forked templates many times, as it is sometimes the only way to switch over from one design to another. I was not aware the cabal disapproved of it. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Mel Etitis. --Kbdank71 05:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The fact that {{commons}} is seemingly perma-protected pushed me over the edge. If one cannot edit the template without going through various bureaucracy (requesting unprotection and hoping that succeeds, or getting consensus on the talk page - so much for being bold!), then forking may be the best option. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. MarkSweep's repeated violations of deletion process are becoming more and more disruptive. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. - How can you can get an result of 5 to keep, and 3 to delete, and decide that "delete" is the right outcome? It makes a complete and total mockery of the concept of consensus. Secondly, for Mark Sweep's "reasoning" that he can disregard my vote, and the votes of others: I wasn't aware that we had ceded complete dictatorial powers to Mark Sweep, so if someone could point to the relevant official wiki guideline outlining his new overlord status, that would be super, thanks. Third, I note that none of the votes to delete were disregarded, so it's good to see that the fine example of Florida lives on! Fourth, the reasons for changing this were outlined extensively on the Commons talk page, and have still not been addressed. Fifth, the commons template is still protected - so, given that anything related get deleted, and the originally seems to be permanently protected, how, exactly, is anything about these templates ever supposed to be improved? Frankly, this really is an appalling decision. If you're going to ignore what the community says, then why even have a deletion process? I mean, really, why bother? Just unilaterally delete whatever you like, irrespective of consensus - it'll give the same result, but without wasting everyone's time by giving the illusion of wanting community input and general agreement. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Mark's justification here. However these exceptional closes should be explained when closing. Pace the squeals of outrage, please note that: (i) TfD does not have a clear numerical criteria for assessing when there is a concensus and (ii) the kind of carefully justified discounting Mark has undertaken here would, if done when closing the *fD dsicussion, be a good thing for the health of *fDs: if you object to these vote discounts, what discounts would you agree with? --- Charles Stewart 01:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Seconded with a pat on the back and a kiss on the cheek. A great many of the discussions that take place on DRV could be avoided if closers took more care with explaining their thinking when they close. Rossami, in particular, provides clear evidence that he has thought about the arguments presented, and I've seen closes of his run to two paragraphs. This is a good thing, and should be more widespread. - brenneman 02:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for the feedback. You have a good point, and I've added my above comments to the TfD page. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Relist on TfD. Whilst Mark's arguments to delete are convincing, and convinced me that it should be deleted, there seems to be enough dissension to warrant a re-examination of the decision. 5 votes to keep against 3 to delete is not a decent consensus to keep, parituclarly given that the last two votes to keep were a) from an IP and b) two words, but I would have thought that this would be enough for the Template to remain pending further discussion. Deleting it was against the principle of consensus on deletion. If Mark makes the same excellently clear and cogent arguments to delete then I'm sure people will make the appropriate decision. And I think Nickj's reason for keeping is entirely valid - if he believes the template si necessary until the commons template itself is fixed, then that is a valid reason for him to believe the commonsgallery one should be kept. Proto||type 13:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you. It seemed a perfectly valid position to me, given the facts. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Reverse and Keep as per the consensus what was the point of the votes if the deciding admin was going to maket he call anyway? Some nerve.Gator (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Hey look, I lied, one more comment. MarkSweep's reasons for discounting most of the delete votes may make sense on the outside, but to me there seems to be equally good reasons for discounting the delete votes. One said "performs the same function as {{commons}}" (none of the counter-arguments to that here, on the TfD and on Template_talk:Commons have ever been addressed), another said (paraphrasing for brevity) 'template forks are evil, and advertises for Olympus'. Of that last post, the first argument is not an argument, the second rather nonsensical (maybe it was in jest, but Mark talks about "serious votes"). Why not discount those arguments too?
• Now at this point I think we can agree that it becomes ridiculous, having unilaterally discarded almost the entire debate, which is why I disagree with vote discounting on principle in all but the most obvious cases (sockpuppetry/trolling), for two reasons: 1) If an argument is weak, someone should say so at the time so its proponent can respond to the criticism without having to do it at WP:DRV, and 2) If the overall case for one 'side' (ooer, used that word again) is weak, then people will read it, be unconvinced, vote delete and the article will be deleted by an actual consensus (not just a consensus of "serious voters"). If the reason for the *fD not getting enough delete 'votes' was because it didn't get enough attention, then relist it. --Malthusian (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Closing admin properly discounted "votes" which did not comply with policy directions; TFD page expressly says Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement. Voting standards were clear, and closing admin quite properly followed them rather than disregarding them. Monicasdude 21:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but my vote/comment/preference was discounted because of my mistake in pointing something out, not because of my reasons. My reasons are that the newer template is (in my opinion) clearer, easier to understand (both in language and visually), and more exact than the commons template. My conclusion therefore was keep. My mistake was apparently in saying that there would be no reason for commonsgallery if commons could be improved (but unfortunately, that seems to be impossible), and that in that situation I would most likely change my vote. Furthermore, it should be noted that this template doesn't even seem to pass the tests of whether it should be proposed for deletion: Is it helpful? Yes. Is it redundant? No, I don't think it is (see reasons above). Is it used? Yes. Is it NPOV? Yes. Was it a candidate for speed deletion? No. Therefore, it doesn't even seem to fulfil the basic criteria for being listed on TfD, let alone the criteria to actually be deleted. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, I do not see the difficulty to simply construct an independent userbox in one's own userspace. Less controversial, and quite sensical. The same can be said for many other userbox tempaltes. -Zero 09:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Are articles in the main space allowed to use templates from a user's namespace? I thought I read somewhere that this was a no-no, but I could be wrong. If it's allowed, then that's exactly what I will do, and I thank for suggesting this. However, if it's not allowed, then I would please ask that you reconsider your position because it means the problem cannot be solved by the method you propose. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

1. Best blond joke ever and/or Best blonde joke ever kept deleted and now exist as redirects. 23:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Template:User pedo: Kept deleted. 23:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Sin (musician): Kept deleted. 23:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Marianne Curan: Kept deleted, better re-written from scratch. 23:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Christopher Howard: Kept deleted. 23:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Armand Traoré: Kept deleted. 23:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
7. The Foxymorons: Withdrawn, new stub to be written. 22:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Template:User Antiracist hitler: Speedy deletion endorsed. 17:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Template:GermanGov: Kept deleted. 17:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
10. List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C.: Original keep closure endorsed. 17:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
11. User:KJVTRUTH: kept undeleted, user subsequently blocked as sockpuppet. 17:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Category:Ambiguous five-letter acronyms: Moot request, kept deleted. 17:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
13. The Better Mod: Speedy undeleted, listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Better Mod. 23:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Clay Sun Union: Undeleted. As the deletion seemed to be in error (the members were AFDed, not the band) there is no reason for an automatic listing at AFD. It is free to be nominated by any user, however. 23:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Template:User no Rand: Undeleted, now listed at WP:TFD. 18:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Good Thing, Bad Thing, Right Thing, and Wrong Thing: Latter 2 merged. Any other issues are a content dispute, not DRV. 18:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
17. List_of_interesting_or_unusual_place_names: Moved to wikipedia namespace. 18:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC) R. Fiend
18. Jason Ward-Recording Engineer/Producer: Kept deleted. 17:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
19. Vampires F.C.: rdirected to Crouch End Vampires F.C.. 17:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
20. London Welsh F.C.: Undeleted (consensus seemed to be AFD was not automatically warranted, but it is open to an AFD nomination by any user). 17:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
21. Lee Hotti: Kept deleted (protected). 17:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
22. Gazeebow Unit: Kept deleted. 17:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
23. Patrick Alexander (cartoonist): Kept deleted. 17:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
24. Mesh Computers: Undeleted; out of process deletion, relisted for deletion and deleted on same day, should have remained relisted for five days per Misplaced Pages:Deletion process 10:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
25. SNK Boss Syndrome: Kept deleted. 19:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
26. Colony5: Undeleted, currently listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Colony5 (2nd nomination). 18:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
27. Maria Pia Braganza and Rosario Poidimani : former redirected, latter kept deleted (protected). 18:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
28. David Dom and Karayana , overturned, narrowly missed deletion, now at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Karayana and David Dom. - 01:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
29. Male bikini-wearing speedily kept deleted. - 01:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
30. Philosophy of computer science, kept deleted. - 23:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
31. Template:User_ku_klux, kept deleted. - 23:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
32. Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks: City of New York, kept deleted and saw several like it sent to AfD. - 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
33. Category:Lists in the Misplaced Pages namespace, kept deleted. - 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
34. Template:User homosexual-no, kept deleted but with recomendations that people use TfD in future. - 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
35. Aetherometry, kept deleted. 05:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
36. How to make a computer virus, kept deleted. 22:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
37. Valhalla legends: undel+re-AfD'd, and BNLS AfD'd with it, per recommendations here. 01:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
38. Category:German-American mobsters: can be recreated, but there are no articles in it at present. 01:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages deletion
• Misplaced Pages maintenance