Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:22, 11 January 2006 view sourceEusebeus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,666 edits →More attack templates← Previous edit Revision as of 03:42, 11 January 2006 view source Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →Various attack templates: Reply to aaronNext edit →
Line 181: Line 181:
* Someone keeps resuscitating ]. As it's both an attack and an incitement to vandalism and there is substantial consensus that (a) vandalism must not be encouraged, (b) personal attacks are not allowed and (c) this applies in template space too, I'd appreciate it if someone else would help us to pull the plug on this especially toxic template. --]|] 00:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC) * Someone keeps resuscitating ]. As it's both an attack and an incitement to vandalism and there is substantial consensus that (a) vandalism must not be encouraged, (b) personal attacks are not allowed and (c) this applies in template space too, I'd appreciate it if someone else would help us to pull the plug on this especially toxic template. --]|] 00:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore and TfD,''' mostly per Dragons flight. Once there is rational opposition, it's not a speedy anymore. None of these appear to rise to the level of acrimony that an attack speedy requires. Unless we're ''trying'' to create a divide between admins and regular users, these discussions should take place where everyone can judge the contents. - ]]] 01:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Restore and TfD,''' mostly per Dragons flight. Once there is rational opposition, it's not a speedy anymore. None of these appear to rise to the level of acrimony that an attack speedy requires. Unless we're ''trying'' to create a divide between admins and regular users, these discussions should take place where everyone can judge the contents. - ]]] 01:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
** I'm just not seeing a policy reason to restore here. There was a bit of a kerfuffle over User GWB but that seems to have resolved itself by a bit of inspired editing that managed to remove the attack and the incitement while still adhering to the original author's stated intention (and I believe him) of expressing abhorrence of vandalism to the George W. Bush article. There ''is'' a policy divide between administrators and users. Administrators don't slavishly follow what other users want them to do. --]|] 03:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


====]==== ====]====

Revision as of 03:42, 11 January 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 admins will honour requests to provide the content of a deleted article if asked politely. See Category:User undeletion.

History only undeletion

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

Decisions to be reviewed

Shortcut

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

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

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

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

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

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

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 December 25}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

4.

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

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 December 25}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 December 25|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

2006-01-10

TRANGO_real-time_embedded_hypervisor

Template:User noie

Was speedily deleted as a R1 (target does not exist), even though according to the summary it apparently redirected to a target that does exist. In addition, there seems to still be references to it. This template should, therefore, be restored as an invalid speedy (which may have been a mistake -- but of course, we are not perfect!). --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Interflop


EUROFUTURES

Please undelete the above page. It is a bona fide page on an NGO-in-creation prepared by a German futures professor. When we returned here in order to improve it and link it to more pages, we find it was simply deleted - without any substantial reasons! It was not a stub but a rather long article, so it is hard to re-create from scratch. --Tjfulopp 10:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: AfD located at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/EUROFUTURES. --Allen3  11:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

More attack templates

Doc glasgow found these and I speedied them.

  1. 11:22, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User War on drugs" (Sole purpose attack on US government policy)
    • This is an attack on the US policy on illegal drugs.
      • As the author of this template, I would like to say that my sole purpose was not to attack US govt policy. My main purpose (and perhaps there were others) was to create a community of Wikipedians interested in writing articles on the decriminalization of drugs. --Tiger Marc 21:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. 11:22, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User No EU" (Sole purpose attack on EU)
    • This is an attack on the EU.
      • How is it an "attack" on the EU ??? and who gives you the right to judge that ? It's simply saying one is against the EU which is a perfectly legitimate political stance. MANY people are in strong opposition of the EU ! No wonder no one takes Misplaced Pages seriously. Epf 20:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. 11:21, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User Fear Bush" (Sole purpose link Bush admistration with neo-fascism)
    • This attacks George W. Bush and his administration by associating US foreign policy with fascism.
  4. 11:20, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User GWB" (Sole purpose attack on George W. Bush)
    • This is a personal attack on George W. Bush
      • Note: I have speedy undeleted this as the associated TFD is running >70% in favor of keeping with more than 70 voters. I believe in that circumstance it is simply inappropriate to have deleted this. Dragons flight 14:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
        • That's okay, soon as this is over, I'll renominate it for deletion, and or speedy it at my descretion. This is a place to write encyclopedic articles, not plaster ones userpage with bumbersticker nonsense.--MONGO 21:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. 11:20, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User Anti-ACLU" (Sole purpose attack on ACLU)
    • This is an attack on the American Civil Liberties Union.
  6. 11:20, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User Anti-UN" (sole purpose attack on UN)
    • This is an attack on the United Nations Organisation.
  • As with the earlier speedies on User apple sucks, User ms sucks and User Bad EU, the criterion I adopted was that: a person, persons, a corporation, government or other organisation was being attacked.
  • Of those listed by Doc, I did not delete some for the following reasons:
  • Template:user illegal-immigration-0
    • Opposition to an process or activity not associated exclusively with any particular group.
      • I'm not advocating this, but for the sake of consistency.... Since the "attack" policy is to delete the "war on drugs" template (above), which opposed a process or activity of the US govt, you should delete this as well because it opposes an activity or process of the US govt -- namely the patriation of illegal immigrants. Note that this template links to -- sacre bleu! -- an entry on illegal immigration in the U.S. --Tiger Marc 21:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Template:User No Marxism
    • Opposition to a political ideology
  • Template:User Antipope
    • Jokey expression of the primacy of one's claim to be pope.
  • Endorse deletion - and wish I'd been bolder myself. Although, I'm not sure I'm following the subtleties of Tony's differentiations. If we are get rough consensus on this, we may need to work out a more simple form of words. --Doc 11:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    To clarify, I'll take the war on drugs policy. This is a specific policy adopted by a specific government, and an attack on the policy in those terms is an attack on the government. A user who says he's opposed to the criminalization of drugs is making a more general statement and, although we may want to regulate, limit, or even forbid the use of that latter kind of template, it wouldn't be an attack. On this occasion I'm performing test speedies of articles that I believe all fall under a particular criterion that I think could command consensus as attack speedies, so I'm only deleting what I think qualifies as an attack on person, persons or a group of people. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion of them all. Opposition to illegal immigration is political movement in U.S., aligns one on a side of an issue of intense debate in the U.S. No Marxism, also aligns a person in a political category, and the use of category is less in your face than the userbox. Antipope could easily be construed to mean anti-Catholic and needs to go.--MONGO 11:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you may not have been paying attention for the last week or so. There is an ongoing policy discussion, and deleting these templates out of process is a sure way to upset folks. Just because you are no longer running for ArbCom does not mean you should act unilaterally. Speedy deletion is not a toy. Opposition to the war on drugs is an opinion, not an attack. Opposition to the EU is an opinion, not an attack. Opposition to George W Bush is an opinion, not an attack. Opposition to the ACLU is an opinion, not an attack. Opposition to the UN is an opinion, not an attack. Your criterion would be acceptable if you were capable of applying it. Please revert the deletions and place these templates on TfD if you truly feel that they need to be removed from wikipedia. Speedy deletion is not a toy. --Dschor 11:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Hm, 'not a toy' is a good catchphrase. I move we add it to WP:NOT - and remember Misplaced Pages is an Encyclopedia. But I don't think it is Tony that is guilty of using its resources as a toy! If your opinions leave you wanting to attack and disparage, fine (indeed I abhor some of these subjects myself). But use you 'own' userspace, not the wiki-wide-template space as a playpark. --Doc 12:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    I am fine with adding 'not a toy' to WP:NOT. The use of templates for userboxes may not be your favorite use of resources, but I think speedy deletion of these templates should at least be supported by policy - and in this case there is no support. These templates should be placed on TfD where they can be properly discussed. None of them are attacks, they are simply opinions. If they were being placed in the article space, I would see your point, but these are for use in user space, and they ought not be deleted in this manner. Speedy deletion is not a toy. --Dschor 12:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages is also not a toy. Endorse Speedy Deletion - attack templates step considerably beyond the scope of the project, divide the community, etc. Misplaced Pages is not Myspace. --Improv 17:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages resources - Actually, it takes less drive space to have one template user box that is included in many user pages than to have each of those Wikipedians copy the user box to their individual pages. This resource argument seems specious. I think it cuts both ways. --Tiger Marc 22:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete All except "Fear Bush". Tony, as it turns out I think we have a different conception of what constitutes an attack. I generally believe that Wikipedians should have the right to express their opposition to any politically important out-of-wiki government, organization, policy or person. In my opinion, if conveyed by an infobox, such opposition should be conveyed in a civil manner. I will agree with you that several of these could be made more civil, but that is a matter of small edits to their content and does not call for deletion. By speedying these, you give the impression that you are opposed to any expression of opposition when directed against a specific organization, policy or person. If that is your intention, then I certainly do not agree with you. I would also like to voice my opinion that it is disrespectful to the voters in TFD to speedy User GWB while it was being discussed there. Dragons flight 13:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: I have speedy undeleted {{User GWB}} on the grounds that the associated and ongoing TFD shows a strong consensus favoring it's existence. Dragons flight 14:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • What you're actually seeing is a majority in a straw poll on a particular template. The opinion expressed by the majority is in favor of abusing Misplaced Pages resources in the name of free speech. This doesn't mean there is a consensus on Misplaced Pages to keep that template. I've redeleted as it's obviously an attack template, and expresses support for some of our most serious vandalism into the bargain. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Agreed. I've re-deleted the template. An attack is not permissible simply because it's contained in a template. In addition, deletion review isn't a venue for voting to ignore WP:NPA or to support vandalism on a particular page. Carbonite | Talk 16:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Attacking politicans is considered protected political speech. There may be reasons for not keeping it, but NPA is irrelevant. Even for you Yanks, I believe. Eusebeus 00:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
          • If this was a trial in the US, the concept of "protected political speech" may be valid. However, this is an encyclopedia, not a court of law. WP:NPA is perfectly valid and relevant to this issue. Carbonite | Talk 01:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Attacking Bush, like attacking any national leader, doesn't fit into personal attacks; it is a valid and recognised vehicle for the expression of political dissent and to characterise it as a personal attack is willfully jejune and supine. As to whether it belongs in an encyclopedia is another matter. Personally I don't care one way or the other, but NPA is not the argument to make here. Eusebeus 03:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, I have no problems with speedying any userbox template that is used to attack a belief or organisation. There's a big difference between these userboxes and those that state how well you speak pig latin. --Deathphoenix 13:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep speedies deleted, and delete ALL opposition/support templates infavor of "interest templates". The goal of NPOV is not to fork articles or encyclopaedias, foster ill-will, change someone's beliefs, or show how much you want to screw some actor/actress. Userboxes should be used to foster a dialogue between opposing viewpoints, o that some sort of consensus view can be brought into articles on the subject. If all pro- and anti- folks had to use the same userbox/usercat system, then they would all get informed equally, and neither side could claim bias or vote-stuffing. Userboxes which violate WP:NPA need not wait on the userbox policy to be formulated, Dschor. Check your userbox POV at the door and look at the good of the encyclopaedia. I can't even edit these days because the servers are crashing from all the vitriol flying. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete pending on-going policy discussion, which is in its infancy. Policy is good. I shall say no more for fear of stomping WP:CIVIL into little pieces in an angry, profane tirade. Lord Bob 15:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, these have no place on Misplaced Pages.--Sean|Black 16:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong undelete all of these. "Attack on US policy"! That is simply foolish, IMO. If that is an "attack page" then any page that expresses in opnion of any govenment policy is an attack page. Since articels are supposed to include such opnions (properly sourced and attributed) this might lead to the deletion of valid articels. In any case the WP:NPOV policy page says that it applies to articles -- expression of opnion on user pages is perfectly legitimate under current policy, and disagreeing with current government policy is not in any rational sense an "attack" on anyone. This is WAY out-of-process. I am going to restore several of these. DES 16:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. We already have policies against attacks. Putting an attack in template form does not in any way exempt it from policy. Carbonite | Talk 16:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:CSD A6 says "Attack pages. Articles which serve no purpose but to disparage their subject" (Emphasis mine). There is currently no policy againt attacks on user pages or in tempaltes except WP:NPA, and several of the above are by no reasoanble streach Personal attacks. DES 18:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
THat;s just plain wikilawyering. Can I thus create templates saying 'user x is an asshole' and expect them not to be speedied as they are not artilces? --Doc 19:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
No becuase that is clearly personal and so violates WP:NPA. But templates that "attack" US policy on an issue, or the US as a whole, or the EU, or a particular wikipedia policy are in no rational sense attacks. IMO such templates should not be speedied, and i would probably oppose their deletion at TfD. DES 20:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, disruptive attack templates. Here's to Tony. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. 18:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete The only difference between writing out an opinion and using a template is ease of use, both for the proprietor of the personal page and for the readers. Deleting these templates opens the box of user page censorship. That is one box an open project cannot afford to open. --۩ Pandora ۩ 20:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Strike comment from sockpuppet of banned User:Zephram Stark (see evidence) Carbonite | Talk 22:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The only difference between writing out an opinion and using a template is ease of use, both for the proprietor of the personal page and for the readers. Deleting these templates opens the box of user page censorship. If we are to adopt the priciple of user page censorship (which perhaps we should) let's do so openly and after a considered discsion on amending WP:UP, not by deleting individual templates. DES 23:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I think to some degree it's one that we can't affod not to open. The Wikimedia Foundation is under no obligation to host irrelevant opinions, especially those that may hurt the encyclopedia by being divisive. -- SCZenz 20:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Ahh, bush's favorite argument. These protestors are dividing the country and therefore we have are right to stop them. These templates are not divisive, what's divisive are all the admins ignoring process and attacking people's personal opinion boxes. Censorship is divisive.--God of War 20:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete Because these were speedy deleted, I cannot see what these User boxes said. Based on a presumption of innocence, I would like them reverted and sent to deletion page for further discussion. --Tiger Marc 21:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete; not attack pages. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, except for war on drugs template. This attacks a policy, not the government itself, or a person, or whoever. The US are not the only country that fights a war on drugs. Nearly all of Asia does so as well. If this has to stay deleted then the illegal immigration template should be judged equally to this one. -- Sneltrekker†My Talk 23:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore and take to TfD. This is taking a good thing too far. Like any other deletion, if there is reasonable disagreement than it is no longer a speedy. It doesn't matter if we agree with the argument that critisicm of the EU is not an attack. All that matters is that this is not the venue in which to have that discussion. - brenneman 01:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore and take to TfD While I think all of these should have been deleted I have to agree that the ammount of disagreement presented makes speedy a questionable descision. — Falerin 01:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Various attack templates

As we're still making policy on this, I'll discuss these recent speedy deletions in detail, with the hope that we can decide what kind of attack can acceptably be speedied. Reverse chronological order because that's how the deletion log lists them.

  1. 08:13, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User ms sucks" (sole purpose attack on microsoft and its customers)
    • Companion to apple sucks. Expresses contempt for Microsoft and its customers, "drones".
  2. 08:09, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User jerk" (sole purpose personal attack)
    • Appears to have been used by people to describe themselves, but has obvious applications as an attack and no redeeming encyclopedic use.
  3. 08:08, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User jacko wacko" (sole purpose personal attack)
  4. 08:03, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User does not trust Jimbo" (sole purpose personal attack)
  5. 08:03, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User delete deletionists" (sole purpose is attack on group (albeit jokey))
    • Partly jokey, but ventures deep into partisan advocacy and attacking a subgroup of Wikipedians.
  6. 08:00, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User browser:Other" (Sole purpose is attack on Microsoft's IE browser (yes I know it sucks))
    • I have doubts about this deletion. Is it an attack, or just a particularly vague expression of browser preference? "This user contributes using any browser other than Internet Explorer" I think I'll go with the intent--which seems to be to denigrate a software product for the purpose of advocacy.
  7. 07:58, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User apple sucks" (Sole purpose is an attack on Apple Computer.)
    • As ms sucks, almost identical wording.
  8. 07:54, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User bad eu" (redirect to deleted userbox that denigrated the EU)
    • See below
  9. 07:52, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User bad EU" (Sole purpose is denigration of the EU)
    • This is a very harsh condemnation of the EU.
  • Overall I think that userbox templates of this kind have no place on Misplaced Pages because they abuse Misplaced Pages facilities in the service of attacking a person, a group of people, a company, or the works uniquely associated with a person, persons or a company. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse I'm actually glad to see those gone - although the "user does not trust Jimbo" one is hilarious :). WhiteNight 09:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion of all templates which criticize or disparage their subject. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse, weak in some cases. I feel like the EU and major corporations are too large for "attacking" them to be a big deal; attacking their users is another matter. It's also worth noting that Template:User does not trust Jimbo was created as a humorous counterpoint to my own userbox {{User trusts Jimbo}}; one could argue that if a userbox supporting Mr. Wales is ok, then the counterpoint should also (albeit probably not in this form). -- SCZenz 09:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • One could argue that, although I would argue that it is not necessarily so. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • (To SCZenz): On the EU one, how about a template that said something similar about the USA? Although the EU is not a nation state like the EU, it does have a social apparatus, and its membership is open only to members of the Council of Europe, who are bound by one overriding constitution governing human rights, its citizens vote in Europe-wide democratic elections to its Parliament, and most of its executive decisions are taken by senior elected cabinet ministers of the member countries in session. The box describes the EU as "an over-powerful, non-democratic bureaucracy" as a matter of fact rather than opinion, which seems to be use of template space to get around the neutrality policy
    • On your argument for symmetry, I think I can imagine a very mild, jokey template as a counterpart to yours, but I must admit I have to screw my eyes tight shut to do so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Anything that's unacceptable regarding the EU would be unacceptable regarding the US, and vice versa. There's should be a similar equivalence for any country or international organization. The question is, whether attacks that are so massively impersonal, because the targets are so huge, really a problem? -- SCZenz 09:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm making a conscious effort to avoid further userbox dramatics... but several of these had associated categories, which someone may want to zap as well. —Cryptic (talk) 09:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If there is indeed consensus that the deletions above are basically sensible, I suggest we add it to WP:CSD. See Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Attack_templates. -- SCZenz 09:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. However, framing a 'policy' could be difficult. What about 'user against apartheid'? I'd suggest: 1) any userboxes are generally allowed (subject to WP:NPA). Howerer, as for templates. 2) No commenting whatsoever, even implicitly, on individual wikipedians. 2) No disparraging of groups of wikipedians. 3) No campaigning or wiki-politicing 3) No disparaging of any individual figure (remember Seigenthaler). Any of the above should be speediable - anything debatable then TfD. As I say, you can still do most of the above in your userspace, just not using wiki-wide-templates. --Doc 09:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • User against apartheid, etc, are probably not attacks because they're expression of (albeit often extreme) shades of political opinion, on which I think I'd want to see a separate policy. Here I'm concentrating on attacks on a person, a group of people, a goverment, corporation or other organisation, or works uniquely associated with a person, persons, or a government, corporation or other organisation. So attacking Microsoft by going after their browser is covered, but saying you don't use non-tabbing browsers with undisclosed security bugs isn't. Saying you hate communists is covered, saying you hate communism isn't. Saying you are vehemently opposed to scientology is covered, saying you support the longstanding antiscientology project "Operation Clambake isn't (at least, notunder the proposed extension of A6). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with this opinion completely. I love userboxes, and use a ton myself, but if all they contain is hatespeech they only ruin the community, instead of improving it, which as far as I can see is their main goal. -- Sneltrekker†My Talk 22:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • One template that I chose not to speedy is one that expresses implacable opposition to illegal immigration, "without forgiveness". While the wording there is a little odd (forgiveness?) and such templates may still be deletable if they damage wikipedia, they're not attacks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete speedy deletion is not a toy. None of these are, properly speaking, attack templates. All of the express an opinion, but not one is an attack. These are not intended for use in the article space, and NPOV is not required in user space. Please list these templates properly. Speedy deletion is not a toy. --Dschor 11:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Tentative support deletion, but temporarily undelete and substub where humorous use was appropriate. - Mgm| 12:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted except for the jerk template if it was self-applied (as noted above), I have no problems with speedying any userbox template that is used to attack a belief or organisation. --Deathphoenix 13:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Really wishing these were not a block item:
    1. Undelete and reword User bad EU: As per my comments above (Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review#More_attack_templates), legitimiate expressions of political opposition should be rewritten to be made civil, but should not be uniformly deleted.
    2. Undelete User browser:Other: I simply see no problem with this.
    3. Undelete and TFD User does not trust Jimbo and User delete deletionists: While I am not a fan of these and might well vote for their deletion, they are both apparently intended as humourous and I do not think they rise to the level of something that should be speedied. Had it been any other Wikipedian than Jimbo, I would have endorsed deletion of that one, but he is in fact a very visible public person and I think there is room for legitimate discussion of to what extent we should be able to poke fun at our Godking.
    4. Keep deleted User jerk and User jacko wacko: Jerk may have legitimate uses, but is likely to also be used as an attack. The Jackson template is clearly inappropriate.
    5. Mixed feelings on User apple sucks and User ms sucks: I might support anti-ms/anti-apple templates if someone was prepared to give them a better name and far more civil content, but as presented these are rather far over the top and it might be better to start over than to use these as a foundation for anything. Even with a rewrite, I'm not sure I'd support these, but I would have to see it first.
  • Somebody undeleted Template:GWB, but I think it's obvious that its intention is to denigrate George W. Bush. There's also the problem of advocating vandalism. I'm unwilling to let a template of this type stand, so I've deleted it again. I've also deleted Template:GWB2, which is another attack on Bush. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
GWB2 is actually nicer than the fist GWB. GWB2 said Bush's edits to the constitution should be reverted. This is following NPA as cricising the action, not the person. The link in GWB2 was to legislation of the patriot act, not bush. If you were to read the tfd for GWB, people were suggesting switching to GWB2 as it was nicer than GWB. Please undelete this and list it properly if you must.--God of War 21:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep speedies deleted, and delete ALL opposition/support templates in favor of "interest templates". The goal of NPOV is not to fork articles or encyclopaedias, foster ill-will, change someone's beliefs, or show how much you want to screw some actor/actress. Userboxes should be used to foster a dialogue between opposing viewpoints, o that some sort of consensus view can be brought into articles on the subject. If all pro- and anti- folks had to use the same userbox/usercat system, then they would all get informed equally, and neither side could claim bias or vote-stuffing. Userboxes which violate WP:NPA need not wait on the userbox policy to be formulated; now can we get back to making an encyclopaedia?? -- nae'blis (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and TfD User jerk and User browser:Other, but do as you like with the others. —Andux 16:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete all Tfd ones that are personal attacks, leave all others pending agreement on userbox policy. i have undelteded all of these that were not clear personal attacks (and I do not regard the EU as a "person") as obviously out-of-process spedies. Take them to TfD if you must. DES 17:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted deleted. These are all personal attacks in violation of Misplaced Pages policies.Gateman1997 18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, these templates were primarily used as personal attacks. Endorse the proviso noted by Mgm. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletions. 19:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Respectfully Disagree The Michael Jackson template was meant in humor. Also consider it was pretty widely used, and does anyone seriously think Michael Jackson cares what we think about him? --D-Day 20:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Someone keeps resuscitating Template: User GWB. As it's both an attack and an incitement to vandalism and there is substantial consensus that (a) vandalism must not be encouraged, (b) personal attacks are not allowed and (c) this applies in template space too, I'd appreciate it if someone else would help us to pull the plug on this especially toxic template. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore and TfD, mostly per Dragons flight. Once there is rational opposition, it's not a speedy anymore. None of these appear to rise to the level of acrimony that an attack speedy requires. Unless we're trying to create a divide between admins and regular users, these discussions should take place where everyone can judge the contents. - brenneman 01:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm just not seeing a policy reason to restore here. There was a bit of a kerfuffle over User GWB but that seems to have resolved itself by a bit of inspired editing that managed to remove the attack and the incitement while still adhering to the original author's stated intention (and I believe him) of expressing abhorrence of vandalism to the George W. Bush article. There is a policy divide between administrators and users. Administrators don't slavishly follow what other users want them to do. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Jim Apple/deeceevoice departure

Was deleted with notices that it was a betting pool (it was not) or attacked deeceevoice (it did not). It was created after deeceevoice's suggestion . Jim Apple 06:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Is that a suggestion? It was, more than anything else, deeceevoice showing she was annoyed over the betting pool. Endorse speedy, keep deleted. Titoxd 06:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
There was no betting pool, as there were no bets suggested.
If "take it elsewhere" means something other than "take it elsewhere", then I'm just lost from the beginning. -- Jim Apple 06:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
If she had told you, "you can put it somewhere else", it might. But she just removed it from her talk page, which is a "Stop bugging me" from any angle you see it. Titoxd 07:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The edit summary is "you can put it somewhere else". Jim Apple 07:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
deecee also said that she does not care about the speculation. . -- Jim Apple 07:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
If you said "I don't care what people say about me", that would not be an invitation for me to call you names, nor would it grant me an exception to WP:NPA. -Will Beback 07:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
There was not one personal attack on the page in question. I'm not asking for an exception to NPA, since I don't intend to make any PAs. Jim Apple 07:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Please be don't call me any names. -- Jim Apple 06:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
He's not, that's an actual page on meta, SCZenz wants you to read. - Mgm| 12:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Just because something is an actual page doesn't mean it's not actually calling someone a name. It would be rude to point to Mental retardation or reading comprehension. -- Jim Apple 13:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I mean in general in a dispute. I'm not calling anyone here slow. -- Jim Apple 14:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
What was the attack? There were no insults; the page specifically said that I want dcv to stay, so I don't know how it could be considered hostile. Jim Apple 07:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
It is an insulting page, making fun of a user in good standing by speculating how long it takes to get fed up with Misplaced Pages and leave. Deeceevoice is under quite a lot of stress now, due to an ArbCom case against her, and that makes such a page all the worse. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no "making fun". See User talk talk:Jim Apple/deeceevoice departure. The question is quite serious - what happens when someone who has thousands of contributions gets fed up? Just because my page was in chart form, rather than in anecdote form as on user talk:deeceevoice, doesn't make it a joke. Jim Apple 07:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
You're trolling. Stop it. Misplaced Pages userspace is for work in furtherance of the project, not for making personal attacks, slights, speculation, etc, on the people associated with the project. If you must engage in such speculation, do it elsewhere and do not link there from Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
It's a nice idea that userspace furthers the project, but often userspace is random musings, political affiliations, wikistress meters or photos of the editor in question. -- Jim Apple 13:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-09

Template:User against scientology

  • Out of Process - There is a debate still on-going at Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion#Template:User_against_scientology. User:Tony Sidaway has deleted this template in the middle of the debate without any notice in the tfd. Regardless of whether or not the template has any merit, it should be undeleted for the course of tfd as cleary no consensus has yet been reached there.--God of War 05:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep deleted. Templates that exist only to attack groups of people (any people) have absolutley no place on Misplaced Pages.--Sean|Black 05:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • That is your opinion, but wouldn't things be better if you were saying these words at the on-going tfd?--God of War 05:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Honestly, no. I speedied {{user against jews}}, and no one overturned me- I'm sorry, but these things simply can't exist. WP:CIV--Sean|Black 06:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Including the creators of that template, who had by their own admission made it as a POINT, and who made it a very improper analogue to the template they were trying to get deleted (if they had named it correctly, it would have been "User against Judaism" and it wouldn't have been the knee-jerk case that they and you are arguing the template actually under discussion is.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Actually if you'd read the template it only referred to Judaism. Granted it was named wrong but the message on it was correctly pointing to Judaism not Jew. The name of the template was irrelevant, similar to if I had a template named User:People who eat worms that had the message "This user supports rainbows".Gateman1997 18:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
              • Ah, I see, so if I want to delete {{user cpp}}, all I have to do is create a new template called {{user wants to kill all Visual Basic programmers}}, and have the text of that template be "This user is a C++ programmer". That way, people will judge the template based on the title rather than the contents, and then once it's deleted I can tell people that they have to delete {{user cpp}}, as its contents are exactly the same as a template we've already deleted. I see! ... You "grant" that the template was named wrong as if that misleading name had no effect at all on whether it was deleted, something that I for one am not at all inclined to take on faith.-- Antaeus Feldspar 19:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
                • Hey it was named appropriately since Jew does refer to somone of the Jewish faith or Judaism. Jew is not an exclusive term for someone of Hebrew decent. It could easily have been moved, but of course everyone for the Scientolgy one looked for the easy out to support their case. In either case they're both gone now and should remain so since they are nothing but divisive hate speech that do NOTHING to further the project and are not in the spirit Jimbo has put forth for the project. Many of the disputed userboxes that are considered "silly" are, but this one is not.Gateman1997 20:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete/Overturn I wouldn't mind any of these gone, but we really should let the community decide, and the speedy was not valid. WhiteNight 05:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Actually, I noticed that the scientology linked to an anti-scientology site, which very well could make this fall under an A6-type speedy - so I'll withdraw from this one. WhiteNight 07:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I have no problem with this being speedied. While speedy-deletion criterion A6 technically applies only to pages in the main space, extending it to pages in the Template: space seems quite reasonable to me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted for obvious reasons.--MONGO 06:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Should have been speedied as fast as {{user against jews}}, and I'm frankly embarrased that I didn't do it myself. -- SCZenz 06:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. No reason to treat this differently than "user against jews". Rhobite 06:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, except that "Scientology" is a belief system, where as "Jews" may designate a belief system or a racial classification. Are we going to have a general policy stating that a user cannot declare themselves against any belief system? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't see this as a slippery slope. If you're going to declare yourself "against" a religion, you should spend the 2 seconds and express your bias in your own words. Also: Since "Muslim" only refers to a belief system, would you support a "user against muslims" userbox? In your view, is there a moral difference between being bigoted against a religion and being bigoted against a race? Rhobite 23:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
        • To answer your first question, then point out how it's a poorly constructed question: No, I wouldn't support a "user against Muslims" template. However, I would give the same vote to "user against Islam", "user against Judaism" and "user against Roman Catholicism" (my religion, BTW) the same vote I gave to "user against Scientology", namely "Keep until such time as we have a policy worked out that covers userboxes like this in general." If you don't believe that my money is where my mouth is, just let me know and I'll be the first to create {{user against Roman Catholicism}}. You see, when you subtract the prejudicial terminology from your second question, and make it into an actual question, it becomes "Is there a moral difference between being opposed to a belief system and being opposed to a race?" And the answer is quite obviously yes. No one has any control over what race they belong to. However, people clearly have control over what belief system they choose to adopt; to suggest that it is automatically "bigoted" to oppose any such belief system is to support the premise that no belief system should ever be opposed -- which is clearly ludicrous. Is it wrong to oppose the belief system of Nazism? Would it suddenly become wrong if Nazism suddenly became a "religion"; would the racial hatred of Nazism get a free pass then? Do the prejudices embedded in Scientology, that "anyone who criticizes Scientology is a criminal" who in a perfect Scientology world would be "disposed of quietly and without sorrow", that every single psychiatrist practicing is a sociopathic murderer -- do these hatreds suddenly become acceptable once the belief system that contains them is classified as a "religion"? Did you notice that we now have this template, {{user scientology}}? What about it? Is it okay to express support for a belief system that contains bigotries, but "bigoted" to express opposition to that same belief system? This is why my vote was to keep until a policy fair to everyone was worked out. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted We shouldn't be handcuffed from exercising commonsense in such an obvious case as this. Rx StrangeLove 06:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore, was speedily deleted without consensus while TfD discussion is still ongoing at Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion... --Mistress Selina Kyle 06:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Sorry, this is way beyond the line. This is an attack template, deletable on sight. Titoxd 06:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and speedy any similar hatemongering. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Look at that. I checked and each and every person here voting for deletion is an administrator. So much for community consensus.--God of War 06:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Look at that. We've been here long enough to realize we're here to write an encyclopedia, not attack people. If you do a bit more research, you'll see this is the first time I've ever supported one of Tony's "out-of-process" speedies; maybe there's a reason for that, eh? -- SCZenz 06:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, that does it. I was going to abstain, but I'd say this has tipped my opinion just enough to one side. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I voted keep at TfD on procedural grounds, but I see no problem extending CSD A6 to templates per Knowledge Seeker. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm the person who speedied this. While there has been strong opposition to deletion of belief-based userboxes in general, this seems to fit into a small category of userboxes that exist solely for denigration and disparagement of a group of people. I notice that a few people, for instance User:Rogue 9, have substed the template onto their user pages, and that may be acceptable (I won't make a judgement either way at the moment) because it then falls solely within userspace. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, substing has become the only way to protect yourself from waking-up to find your userpage desecrated with red-links with your only chance of review at a board like this one full of like minded people to the admin that deleted all of your boxes without warning anyone.--God of War 07:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Most of the people who hang around here would probably be quite insulted to be considered like-minded with Tony. —Cryptic (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
        I wouldn't be, so I guess I don't fit into the "most" category. Userboxes have gotten out of control. I'm thinking a policy change needs implementation--MONGO 11:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
        • That's why this deletion out of process is an insult to those of us whose vote was "Keep, until a general policy is in place."
      • Well often the editors in this most bureaucratic of discussion pages do endorse non-bureaucratic deletions of unsuitable material. So on this issue I think that, despite our differences on form, there is substantial agreement. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, I have no problems with speedying any userbox template that is used to attack a belief or organisation, no matter how much I agree with the userbox (and I agree with the sentiments in this one). --Deathphoenix 13:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, and I'm not an admin, God of War. Guess that breaks your conspiracy theory, eh? -- nae'blis (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore. If this was going to be speedied on a single admin's decision that it was unsuitable, it should have been done at the beginning of the discussion. The fact that for six days the discussion went on without a single admin who looked at it saying "This is clearly speedy-delete material" means that it was not a case clear enough that one admin should step in at the end and say "I don't care that there is a wide variety of opinions being expressed here, I only choose to see it one way and because I'm an admin, I will force that on everyone else." -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, does nothing to further the project, is divisive, violates WP:CIV, and is a personal attack on a group of people. Also Tony waited 7 days and then deleted as is his right as an admin, remember WP isn't a democracy.Gateman1997 18:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You have got to be kidding me! "His right as an admin"?! I think you are slightly confused, because you seem to be mistaken between what Tony did and what a responsible admin might have done. A responsible admin might have checked the date that the discussion started, seen that enough time had elapsed for points and counter-points to be well-discussed, and decided to close the discussion. A responsible admin would then have counted the various votes to assess what the will of the community was, and either announce the results of consensus if the consensus was clear, or use their discretion between the options supported by the community if there was no clear consensus, and then announce at the ongoing discussion what the result was and why. This is not what Tony did. What Tony did was to delete the template immediately, unilaterally, and not even announce that he'd done so. This wasn't an admin legitimately closing the debate; this was a rogue admin using his powers illegitimately to enforce the result he wanted, and showing his contempt for the process. That is the whole reason this is at deletion review; people have been casting "Keep deleted" votes as if this was just an extension of the debate about whether or not the template should be deleted. It's not. It's about whether Tony should be looking at a TfD debate and saying "Well, there's a spectrum of opinion here: some people think it should be speedy-deleted, some think it should be regularly deleted, some think it should be kept, some think it should be kept and then reviewed once we have a general policy in place that covers all userboxes of this kind. However, screw them all; not only do their opinions not matter a bit in the face of the fact that I think it should be speedy-deleted, they don't even deserve to know why the template suddenly disappeared with no explanation. Why should I bother to explain myself to lowly non-admin users?" -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted. For all the reasons listed above. 18:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted. WP:NPA. A notice on WP:TfD would have been nice though. -- Sneltrekker†My Talk 22:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted. "Misplaced Pages is not a place to assess the morality of a person, their beliefs or their orientation, neither is it the place to advocate for or against a political or religious point of view." --JWSchmidt 23:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted as per WP:NPA and the many things above. — Falerin 01:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Virago

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Virago 2

Deleted against the policy; the debate ended in "no consensus", which means that the article stays. Since there was almost no participation in this VfD, it is a fair game for AfD-relisting, but definitelyt not deletion. mikka (t) 01:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

LUElinks

I feel that, after the "raid" yesterday, LUElinks merits an article. They did pass the WP:WEB before it was changed recently, having over 5,000 members, and it's made an impact out of its community many a time (as the GameFAQs counterpart LUE). It was actually deleted last month for failing WP:WEB, as it is a closed community, of which I am a member. Please see Talk:LUElinks for discussion Sceptre 21:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted. Articles about LUElinks have already been deleted several times; The website is inaccessible to outsiders making an article inherently unverifiable; and I still don't see how this meets WP:WEB guidelines. Site is not notable. Rhobite 21:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Rhobite. Neither verifiable or notable in any encyclopedic sense. Fails WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn This valid title should redirect to GameFAQs message boards, where it is of some notability. Ashibaka tock 01:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite. LUELinks is significant in the events that it has created/taken part in, such as the (unsuccesful) U.S.-wide UFO Hoax and the recent participation in the Ebuams raid. While I understand that it is difficult to write about a site closed to outsiders, there is enough known information to write into an article, and there are other wikipedia articles written that are also unverifiable. Keeping it deleted seems to suggest that it is not significant to the rest of the internet in any way whatsoever. I also disagree that it should redirect to GameFAQs message boards because LUELinks is only related to GameFAQS from its conception and userbase. LUELinks is not a GameFAQs board. Making LUELinks a section under the GameFAQs boards would be akin to placing 4chan under the Something_Awful_forums, as 4chan was created in a similar manner (albeit without the privatization of the site to outsiders). Kyre Elsion 04:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Writing about it is easy. However fact-checking what is written is something that is impossible to most of Misplaced Pages. Also, the difference between 4-chan and SA and LL and GFAQs is that 4-chan is not closed off to anyone that does not have an SA account. You needed a GFAQs account at some point to get into LL.--Toffile 15:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, valid AfD. --Deathphoenix 13:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I enjoy the site, but the verifiability for outsiders and teh fact that outside of the e-Baum's invasion is almost nil in terms of it having an effect on the outside world. Yes, there was the UFO hoax, but that failed. The only other one I can think of was the boxing, but even then....the site in the grand scheme of things is non-notable. As for a redirect to GameFAQs or GameFAQs Message Boards, I don't support either. I respect that LUELinks has some autonomy from GFAQs, but even then it's really just a spinoff.--Toffile 15:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Tiny Rewrite: LUELinks has played a part in the YTMND-Day demonstrations, and that should be noted on the page, especially since it is linked directly from eBaum's World. By all means, keep it limited to that, and keep it protected, but it does deserve a sentence or two noting what it is and how it was involved. And yes, I am a member of LUELinks, although I try to keep as NPOV as possible. gtdp (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • As an extension to my above comment, I would be happy to provide a screenshot of LL's involvement in the riots as a source if the article is re-written (feel free to leave a comment on my talk page if you want to). gtdp (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and redirect and protect. -Sean Curtin 00:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Dechronification

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dechronification

It's a new year, times change, so please give Dechronification another chance. It's a concept made by Robert Freitas, promoted & endorsed (and expanded?) by Ray Kurzweil. He even hosts Freitas's essay about it here. They're both notable, so why shouldn't Dechronification. Notability is also subjective in the fact that there's no magic # of Google Hits to determine notability or not.

In fact, there are many articles even less notable than Dechronification. Press "Random Article". They're an easy find. Therefore, at least give Dechronification a chance. Especially when it's backed up by at least a couple prominent scientists & futurists, and is a technological form of Rejuvenation. --Shultz 23:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment that there are things less notable does not make this somehow more notable - that is a logical fallacy. If there are things worse, perhaps they should also be deleted. Your first argument, that this has become notable, may indeed be valid. KillerChihuahua 00:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
As per KillerChihuahua, please tell us what NEW information that was not available at debate would justify giving this another run. As is I don't really see anything except an argument that it is notable, which should have been made at the afd. Just because you think it is notable doesn't mean anyone else does, and indeed they must have thought it wasn't because they wanted to delete it unanimously. So please tell us what information the debators didn't know at the time. If there was none then there is really nothing for us to do here. WhiteNight 01:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
What is the "statute of limitations" for a deleted article- how long is it before its ok to post the article again? Anyways, dechronification is a form of technological rejuvenation. The votes were heavily biased; a long time ago, when the AFD was up, I was such a noob so people disliked me more than they do now. I naively made mistakes without knowing they were mistakes, so the slanted choices probably also came from looking at my previous contributions at that time.
About the information the debators didn't know at the time, maybe they didn't even read through the article, and went straight to deleting it because of me myself. Also, they probably forgot to look at the links.
The user "Just zis guy you know" said "this is pure sci fi", well nanotech is already starting to gain good momentum. I think they've already made medical advances in it, so Dechronification is in its fetal stages right now.
Second, many sci-fi concepts are already here. Teleportation, FTL Travel, phasers, techlepathy, holodeck, space elevator, and I could go on and on. Another thing is that notability isn't determined by the number of search results. User:Alai told me this when I asked, "How many search results does a topic need before being considered notable? 10000?" He told me luckily it doesn't need to be that many, and it's subjective as there are other factors to consider as well. Google says there are 178 search results on this link, though as Alai said, a topic over 10000 Google Hits may not be articleworthy, or it can have less than 100, and be articleworthy because it's not all dependent on Google Hits (again, what I didn't tell the debators at the time.)
The article would give hope to the many, many users that long to be young again. It would prove to them that rejuvenation won't be a fantasy anymore. (I didn't tell them this at the time either. About the hope it would give, plus that rejuvenation won't be a fantasy, you see?) It will become reality somewhere around the corner. (2 Decades, tops.) Doubt that? See the Technological Singularity; it'll race technological advancements here faster than you think (and eventually, faster than you can think).
I might add more later. That'll be all for now. --Shultz 10:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-07

Category:List of Christian Entertainers

All that is left is subcategories for people of specific faiths.If a person doesn't fit into those categories, there is no longer a place for them.Some people such as Tom Hanks for example don't fit neatly into any sub-category.This list included all Christians both Protestant and Catholic.California 12 02:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I am unable to find any evidence that the category for which you are requesting undeletion ever existed. Are you perhaps looking for Category:Christian actors, Category:Christian writers, or some other subcategory of Category:Christian people? --Allen3  23:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Christian Entertainers did exist.You can find it on google search.I had contributed quite a bit to it and was suprised to find it gone.However I did not realize the lists that you mentioned above existed.In light of this I will add some of the names that were lost on the other list which was much longer.And will withdraw my request for the deletion review as I did not realize there was a list that was similar.Although it is a shame that the info off the other list was not merged with these.Thanks .California 12 10:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's it.Maybe it could be brought back with a different title.Perhaps it could be called List of Entertainers who are Christians? Would that be allowed? California 12 12:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The closure of that debate was pretty questionable: strictly on the numbers, it was only 60% for deletion, and it appears that some effort was made to resolve the concerns of those who voted delete as the nomination progressed. You could take it up with the closing admin, User:Enochlau, on his talk page, or ask here for the article to be undeleted, in which case it quite possibly would be. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I hate to keep going back and forth , but with the information you've just given me I would like to request the page be undeleted.I don't care that much about the name, it's the content that matters.I've never requested an article be undeleted before.If I'm not going about it correctly then I apologize and please don't hesitate to admonish me if I am doing this incorrectly.The thing that bothers me is if there is a list of famous people who just happened to be atheist, so why not a list of famous people who happen to be Christians? Is this not the fair and neutral thing? As a Christian I have no urge to delete the atheist list.California 1201:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

comment: IMHO this list should stay deleted, and be replaced with a Category. Lists such as this are inherently hard to maintain, whereas Cats are self-updating. I would also, as a parenthetical remark, vote Delete if a List of Atheist Entertainers showed on Afd. KillerChihuahua 17:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Please pardon my ignorance but could you direct me to a page explaining the list versus category ? Also with regards to the atheist list I do strongly believe it sends a very biased message to allow some lists with regards to a certain situation while omitting the other side of the coin.California 1210:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Zigger has a partially written FAQ: User:Zigger/Categorisation_FAQ#What_is_the_difference_between_a_list_and_a_category.3F, there is a talk page at Misplaced Pages talk:Merge some redundant lists to categories which may help explain a bit, and if you have any further questions please bring to my talk page - there are major advantages to having this as a Category, and lists have a lot of inherent problems. KillerChihuahua 18:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok after reading this it occurs to me that it might be better to bring back Christian Entertainers as a category, rather than a list? Because the Christian actors category listed above leaves no place for other types of entertainers.So perhaps it could be renamed? If something on this order is allowed, then perhaps it would not be needed to bring back the list.I would like to thank those who took the time to explain the categories vs. list to me as I have used the category link on several pages and not even realized it wasn't the same as a list.I don't want to clutter this page with my ramblings so will bring the discussion to Killer Chihuahua's page or mine at least temporarily. .California 1201:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Lists and categories, although rather similar in intent and display are implemented differeently, and considered different things on wikipedia. The previous deletion of a list in no way prevents anyoen from simply creating a category, and marking appropriate articles as members of that category. DES 21:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:German-American mobsters

As creator of this category I was neither notified of its nomination or of its deletion. However, the main arguments for deletion seem to be over categorization by way of (at least in my opinion) the debatable categorization of "ethnic group of Americans by profession" and underpopulated.

First, I believe there are at least some instances where categorization by ethnicity is appropriate and within organized crime essential for the classification of American organized crime figures as, in the US alone, diffrent organized crime groups are identified specifically by ethnicity (with the exception of syndicate organizations). From a historical perpectictive, it has remained a source of conflict between rival organizations for well over a century.

As for the category's unperpopulation, had this been brought to my attention I would have at least entered it into Category:Underpopulated categories, particularly for a category which has been around for only a few months, if not compiled a few more articles. This does raise a concern however as I have many categories which are more or less underpopulated (such as Category:Asian-American mobsters and Category:Polish-American mobsters) which, as set by the recent vote for deletion, despite the fact there are quite a few notible mobsters to be able to fill those appropriate categories.

However, compiling each one myself is quite time consuming (my early work on the Irish mobsters has now around 60+ articles) and thus many categories appear underpopulated. This issue has been brought up several times are far back as the recreation of Category:Italian-American mobsters and yet categories continue to be deleted or nominated for deletion fairly quickly. I hope someone can look into this and hopefully settle this issue. MadMax 23:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - Two things. Firstly, reading the CfD, it appears the concern with overcatergorisation stands in as concern with underpopulation: I'd say underpopulatioon is the main concern cited in that CfD discussion. Second, why can't Category:American mobsters be populated first, and only when enough entries appear create subcategories? --- Charles Stewart 01:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As of a year ago it was fully populated before it was cleared out to make the present subcategories by myself, Stefanomione, and a few others. The articles themselves can easily be added back to the Category:American mobsters however given the large numbers of article which exist I'd think it might seem a bit redundant to have them listed in that category as well. Unfortunatly, as there are only a few which I'm aware of, organized crime contributions are slow in coming and, as a result, categories are often underpopulated (not to mention the uncategorized article I come across now and again). If this category were empty for at least a year or more I could see the concern, however, deleting the category without even listing it on underpopulated categories, I fail to see the chance for Users to work on it (as I personally can only work on one category at a time). MadMax 04:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
So how many articles are there that would go in this category? --- Charles Stewart 20:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Presently there were only two existing articles, however more then twenty articles could be added in Chicago alone (including the Chicago crime syndicate). I suppose notibility would be a factor, however I would estimate around 100 depending on how far back one would include as organized crime such as Micheal Cassius MacDonalds organization or California's Barabary Coast. MadMax 21:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Endorse decision, keep deleted - It's a natural enough category, but until it has more currently existing entries, the articles should go in Category:American mobsters. Starting a List of German-American mobsters might be helpful. --- Charles Stewart 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Undelete. I'm going to go with the category creator on this one. Organized crime in the United States has often organized itself on an ethnic basis. This hinders infiltration by law enforcement and enhances the criminals' power over their respective communities. It is misleading to categorize such people generically. Durova 18:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Margolinian Satanism

If it is a vanity page where is the bragging or vanity? Fact Rev. Margolin is supported by the O.T.O. A:.A:., Freemasons, and many satanic groups except church of satan. The reason why church of satan has tried to suppress and destroy Sinagogue of Satan from its start is the fact that it is Based on Aleister Crowley and Albert Pike and has nothing to do with Anton LaVey. CoS went so far as to have some of its members join to find other CoS members in SoS to expell them. Are these the actions of a church that supports freedom of religion, let alone freedom of the individual? You will see SoS does not slander CoS or even discuss them, unlike church of satan's actions against other satanic groups calling them "Pseudo Satanists" . I assume Mikeblas is an Anton LaVey Fan and or a CoS member and is trying to undermine Sinagogue of Satan's existance as CoS has been doing for going on 7 years. The other fact I bring up is SoS does not charge for membership or ask for dues ever from its members. Membership so far is over 4,000 people world wide. CoS now charges $200 for membership. Do The Math 4,000 x $200= $800,000 in lost membership fees. This and the fact we have nothing to do with Anton LaVeys Satanism is the reason CoS wishes to Destroy SoS. I proclaim this dispute as biased! I ask wikipedia to stand by its non biased policies and protect Sinagogue of Satan's inclusion in it's encyclopedia. Thank you for your Time. Rev. Michael S. Margolin P.S. Besides if I wanted to bragg I'd need a few more pages.
I WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL POSTER OF THE ARTICLE SO IT IS NOT A MATTER OF SELF PROMOTION! unsigned comment left by user:Rev. Michael S. Margolin

Pussy City Pimps

Speedy deleted, no reason given. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pussy City Pimps. I believe this hacked rom is notable of it's type and thus of interest to users. Kappa 19:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, it was speedy-deleted on 2 Dec by Ingoolemo who commented hoax. It was recreated and again speedy-deleted on 7 Jan by Voice of All who commented ''no notability at all. Neither of those are valid speedy-delete criteria. In particular, we have always rejected "hoax" as a speedy criterion because of our history with false positives. The speedy-deletions were clearly out-of-process. Undelete and re-open the existing AFD discussion. Allow the discussion to run it's course. Rossami (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't object to the common-sense speedy. I don't particularly object to full Afd either I suppose, but it's just a longer walk to arrive at the same conclusion. Friday (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    I didn't expect many more (2+) votes to come considering only the nom voted (nobody goes to this page, so no one notices). I am about to go on wikiBREAK from AFD, as I am so sick of taking BS and getting accused of "admin abuse" for removeing policy violations. BTW, Friday, you might want to check of List of sexual slurs, the last AFD was sock/troll infested.Voice of All 19:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I see nothing wrong with speedy deleting obvious hoaxes. I do it on occasion, usually as "nonsense". If that's a bit of a stretch, so be it (hell, even Tony Sidaway has said that hoaxes should be speediable). But if someone objects to it I see nothing wrong with taking a second look, but we can do that here without having to send it to AfD. So, if it is a hoax, then keep deleted, if it's an actual thing from an actual video game, then undelete and list on AfD. -R. fiend 20:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If I've ever said that suspected hoaxes should be speediable then I'm happy to say now that I was wrong to make that judgement. Of course without doing considerable research (which is why we have AfD of course) one cannot be reasonably sure that one chap and his dog have actually speedied a hoax. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted for reasons above & per numquam ponendo est pluritas sine necessitate that nonsense can certainly well be speedied as a matter of blindingly obvious common sense. Eusebeus 20:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, it's definitely not a hoax in the sense that the game is absolutely real, so it's at least worth seeing the content to decide. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Forgive my boldness, but I have unilaterally undeleted this article. IMO this is a reasonable thing to do with a contested speedy. It's still listed on Afd, so the deletion issue is quite open. There's no reason to prevent non-admins from seeing the content. Friday (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Further explanation- the status as a hoax is contested. So I think re-opening the Afd is appropriate in this case. Friday (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not a hoax, it's a completely unencyclopedic article full of original research. I have re-deleted. This is NOT AN ENCYCLOPEDIC ARTICLE. Please, someone READ IT before undeleting it. It's not an article on the game, it's an article discussing the fake city in the ROM hack, full of original research claims. "If it were a real city, it would be located in either western British Columbia, California, or Florida due to its year-round warm climate and liberal attitudes towards sexuality. Pussy City has two high schools and four shopping malls. Although the exact population of the city is unknown, the statistics put the city's population from anywhere between 100,000 to 500,000 people. Prostitution is legal and prostitutes can be purchased at common shopping malls (where young children are present, presenting the notion that Pussy City is more liberal than the average North American, European, or even Asian city)." WTF is that crap? Who says it "would be located" anywhere? Who says it presents any notion? What "statistics?" If someone wants to write a sourced article on the game itself, they are free to do so, but this nonsense original research essay about the fake city has no business remaining on Misplaced Pages. FCYTravis 04:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • It's no different from a television episode guide. Containing a little bit of original research is not even a regular deletion criterion, let alone a speedy one. Kappa 04:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Um, excuse me? A television episode guide on Misplaced Pages should not make unsourced, original research claims about the city and whatever "notions" it presents - and if there is one on Misplaced Pages that does so, please point it out so it can be edited. It was even misnamed, as the article WAS NOT EVEN ABOUT "PUSSY CITY PIMPS"!! It was about some tiny fancruft aspect of it. Again, I have no opposition to a properly written article on the game, but that junk shouldn't be in the history. The ENTIRE ARTICLE was original research and as such, should be nuked from Misplaced Pages as soon as possible. It was an essay, not an encyclopedia article. If you care so much about the subject, why aren't you writing a properly encyclopedic stub on the subject? FCYTravis 04:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Please don't wheel war. I explained my actions, I thought there was reasonable doubt. Where's the harm in allowing further discussion? Where's the harm in allowing the unprivileged class to see the content in the meantime? Friday (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I've taken the time to do what none of you were apparently interested in doing - writing an encyclopedic stub. Apparently you'd all rather just bitch and moan about rules than get things done. More bureaucratic process over product mindset. FCYTravis 04:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
            • You did what you could have easily done in a normal edit, no deletion required, no deletion review required. But now the history is gone, so anyone that thought there was something salvagable in there is out of luck. And the Afd is orphaned now, so people that STILL don't think this is encyclopedic are at a disadvantage. I don't see why you did this, or why you're complaining at the rest of us. Friday (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Rules...well we follow rules that support inclusionism (AFD everything even when speedy is reasonable and often do nothing at all with "clean up" consensus cases) but policy like WP:V and WP:NOT, WP:NOR and notability are shoved aside. Usually you can fix articles, but some things are inherently WP:V violations or are just not notable...you cant "fix" notability.Voice of All 05:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree. However, a couple people objected to not being able to see the content, and having the Afd end early. Since there were good faith objections, the least harmful thing is to undelete and let it run it's course. For me, this wasn't about rule-following, it was about courtesy and not hurrying against objections without good reason. As it stands, the OR issues are now fixed and the Afd can focus on whether this topic deserves an article at all. I think we're done with this here now. Friday (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn speedy Lack of notability, lack of verifibility, and "Hoax" are good reasons for deletion at AfD, but not for speedy deletion. An Articel full of RO on a real topic is a good reason for a cleanup, but not for even an AfD unless there is not enough content left for a decent stub after the OR and other inappropriate conent has been edited out. DES 17:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and send to AfD. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 01:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Send to AFD per DESiegel. - Mgm| 11:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Test7

Deleted via a valid TfD discussion on August 10th, and a similar recreation was speedied on October 20th. The most significant argument put forward for deletion is that the template text included stuff about IP addresses, which we don't block indefinitely. I would like to restore this template because I think that it does make sense to have an indefinite block template for accounts, and I would change the wording to something along the lines of "your account appears to have been created for the sole purpose of vandalism and as such has been blocked indefinitely..." instead of mentioning anything about IP addresses. JYolkowski // talk 15:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment If you plan to make that significant a change to the verbiage and usage of the template, then it won't be recreation of deleted content, and undeletion does not really apply. Why not just create the template you are describing? If it does not find acceptance it will be nom'd for Afd in the usual way. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 16:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. This template, rewritten, is needed to inform people who have been indefinitely blocjed that they have been so. It needs three elements (i) information that someone has been blocked indefinitely, (ii) the reason, (iii) a warning not to create sockpuppets to dodge the block. A standard template communicating these facts is needed. FearÉIREANN\ 16:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I would point out that this template is not actually needed as such - one can, after all, achieve the same effect by just typing the message. Phil Sandifer 16:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Not true. The point of templates is to create co-ordinated wordings that are used for all users. Having individual users making up their own version is unworkable. The message may be wrongly communicated, or inarticularly communicated, or ineffectively co-ordinated. NPOV Co-ordination requires a standard set of words used for all users, not individual POV attempts to communicate the message that may get the message wrong. FearÉIREANN\ 16:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
        • NPOV is not a policy applying to user blocks. It's a policy applying to the writing of articles. Phil Sandifer 16:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Professional organisation of Misplaced Pages requires professional targeted wording of warnings, hence the use of carefully phrased templates, hence their creation and use. I am astonished you seem to be the only person who doesn't realise that. FearÉIREANN\ 16:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion Just create the template you are describing - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» 16:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Since general consensus seems to be that this would not be a recreation, I'll go ahead and create it. JYolkowski // talk 16:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

List of anti-heroes

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of anti-heroes
Note: I have never made an edit to this article, so my following arguments are not slighted in that regard. Kingturtle

When it was deleted earlier today, this article was nearly three years old and had over 700 edits. User:Howcheng deleted it despite a 20+% keep sentiment. The article that has been worked on by over 100 regiestered users and dozens of anonymous (nearly 30 of which made three or more edits) and not one saw it fit to nominate it for deletion. Moreover, the TALK page of the article was used civilly, apporpriately and successfully to make the article better. Certainly, VfD nominator User:CaveatLector could have used the TALK page to work with the contributors in improving the article. Certainly some of the compliants voiced in the VfD could have been addressed in the TALK page.

I think it is a diservice to these contributors to leave them out of the VfD process. Yes, yes, you'll say, they had their chance - but I don't think you realize that VfD tags often go unnoticed. Tags can get buried in or vanish from watchlists; users can be away. Contributors should be not punished for this. Indeed, I considered notifying eighteen of the registered contributors who had made 3+ edits to tell them to tell them of the VfD - NOT to campaign, but to let them know - as a service to them and the community. Before I did, I asked in two places ( and ) to get an idea of how and if such notification should be done. By the time I started getting answers, though, it was too late.

Therefore, I propose the article be re-instated because:

  1. 20+% voted to keep
  2. issues with defining anti-hero and with renaming the article can be cleared up in TALK
  3. over 100 people have worked on the article and successfully used TALK to resolve matters

Sincerely, Kingturtle 21:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse/keep deleted. I see absolutely nothing wrong with process. An argument based on the number of edits and contributors is faulty, and has nothing to do with deletion process. In fact, too often with lists like this too many contributors are the problem; people add anything/anyone that comes into their mind with no discussion, and these lists quickly become unmaintainable, POV, and meaningless. I believe List of heroes was deleted under similar circumstances. I'm starting to think it's about time to nominate List of unusual personal names for similar reasons. -R. fiend 21:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • i think contributors have a right to know that their work is being considered for deletion. tagging an article is not sufficient. ideally i think all significant contributors (who are registered) should be personally notified. since that is not practical, then at least the originator of the article should be personally notified (if that person is registered). this is about courtesy and kindness. Kingturtle 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • And I think a vast majority of the crap on AfD should be deleted on sight. I also think zucchini is an overrated vegetable. Anyway, if people really care about an article and their contributions to it they'll keep it on their watchlist. -R. fiend 16:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • R fiend, VfD tags don't make it to watchlists. if a VfD tag is added at 8 PM and another edit on the article happens at 9 PM and someone looks at their watchlist at 9:15pm, that VfD tag is missed. a kinder, gentler way is for the VfD nominator to personally alert the creator of the article. it should be part of the VfD process - if not formally, than customarily. Kingturtle 03:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
      • If someone adds an AfD template to an article, it certainly does appear on the watchlist. If another change is made afterwards, that doesn't make the earlier change disappear; anyone clicking the "diff" on the newest edit will also see the entire article appear below the highlighted change, and a big old AfD template is hard to miss. -R. fiend 03:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • you're expecting someone on a more than weekly basis to click on "diff" on each of their 1800 watchlist articles? it just doesn't work that way. Kingturtle 03:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, no one has to have 1800 articles on their watchlist, and, yes, I would expect people to pretty carefully check the articles that are most important to them. If all you're doing is looking at the summary of the last edit to any article you aren't really watching it, and maybe your watchlist should be brought down to a more managable number. A potential solution I can think of is to try to introduce a system in which tags are posted on talk pages as well, since they generally get fewer edits the "AFD" summary won't be pre-empted as frequently by more recent edits. -R. fiend 17:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • plenty of people have 1000s in their watchlists. it helps broaden the scope against vandalism. nevertheless, things still get past watchlists. a potential system i can think of is for the VfD nominator to courteously inform the author of the article that said article has been nominated. Kingturtle 04:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). The AFD discussion was fair and balanced and considered the case for and against the article. I see no process problems with this decision. Please remember that no user can review every article or even every deletion discussion. The nature of a wiki is that we trust that enough interested users are watching that the right thing gets done. Kingturtle is correct that some users who worked on versions of this article may not have had the chance to participate in the debate. It is equally true that other users did not get to participate who may have opposed the article but weren't motivated enough to nominate it themselves. In a perfect world, we'd all have unlimited time and interest. The real processes are messier but they do seem to work. Rossami (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Arguments given on VfD were convincing. --Improv 22:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • many of those arguments could have been hashed out in the TALK page. that is what TALK pages are for. if there are concerns about the title of the article or the how to define words, discuss it in TALK. that article had a very lengthy and well-used TALK page. Kingturtle 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. I believe that what those who want to keep the list deleted are voicing here amounts to a misguided attempt at democracy (no one is excluded from voting, it's your job to stay informed) which shows a striking likeness to a False Rubicon. Kingturtle has pointed out very well how hard it is to keep up to date about such things. If one single user had been in a different mood and had not put up this article for deletion it would have gone unnoticed for a long time to come. Please do not delude yourselves into thinking that everything is okay if collaborative work of more than three years is destroyed on the whim of a handful of deletionists. <KF> 22:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Although I don't really care about the article one way or another, saying that the article might have gone unnoticed for a long time is not a reason to keep it. The reason to keep the article should be that it's NPOV and properly referenced. Collaborative work on a non-encyclopedic article should not stay regardless of how much work is put into it. That's a sunk cost. We judge the article based on its contents, not on how much effort went into it. howcheng {chat} 23:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. If the most convincing argument available for restoration is "awww, shucks, it had some edits" then I'm really not persuaded. -Splash 22:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • some edits? this was an article worked on for years by dozens of users. it should be common courtesy to alert contributors that their work is under consideration for deletion. it is common courtesy. Kingturtle 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close. 9D/3K looks like a fairly clear consensus to me, and I see no process problems. The arguments against the article were spelled out in the AfD in some detail, and look reasonable and fairly convincing. No process problems, no issues raised but ignored, no new info provided here, no policy violations. Sorry. DES 22:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral I feel the deletion is unfortunate, but to be perfectly honest it wasn't an article, or a subject, in which I had much emotional or intellectual investment. Lee M 22:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close and keep deleted. This is a prime example of listcruft; the Afd process was followed. The argument given for undeletion is not germane, per DESiegal. KillerChihuahua 23:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure as per DESiegel. --Allen3  00:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure per DESiegel. Mackensen (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion 20% is not exactly a close result, its not like 40% voted keep. Also, basing the overturning of a deletion on the number of edits and editors does not act as a sufficient reason - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» 16:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted The delete votes in the AfD makes a set of very good points about the innate problems with the article; the fact that many people have laboured on a bad article is unfortunate, but not sufficient to redeem the subject. Moreover, there is no suggestion that the closure was flawed. Eusebeus 21:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Having fun, aren't you? As I can see, the same "argument" is being repeated over and over and over again. Please point me to the guideline/policy/whatever where it says that "the fact that many people have laboured on a bad article is unfortunate, but not sufficient to redeem the subject". What were all those people thinking when they contributed? That they were taking part in a futile effort that would eventually be deleted by a small set of other people? Meanwhile, for the third time, these are my reasons for wanting to have this list undeleted (from Wikipedia_talk:Lists_in_Wikipedia#Deleting_lists.2C_and_a_proposal):
      While I agree that "lists are not a place to make value judgements of people or organizations", recent deletions of what at least some consider useful lists have alerted me. True, the above List of anti-heroes ("a prime example of listcruft", according to one deletionist) should have been called List of fictional anti-heroes to make it absolutely clear that no politicians or other real people must be added.
      "The usefulness of lists in Misplaced Pages is very clear as it often provides the starting point for readers to research a particular subject." Search printed encyclopaedias or other reference material, search the Internet—some of the lists here at Misplaced Pages are unique, or were until they were deleted (just think of List of song titles phrased as questions). (Fortunately, Misplaced Pages mirror sites still have those lists.) As for literature lists, students of literature browsing such a list may find valuable advice on what books to choose and read.
      There is hardly any problem with original research as, by definition, a list of titles is, if anything, the basis for research rather than research itself. Verifiability depends on the individual list—song titles phrased as questions are no problem. The same holds true for the neutral point of view policy.
      My point is that fiction needs to be treated as a special case as far as verifiability and NPOV are concerned (see Category:Literature lists for examples). The List of fictional war heroes, which has also been put up for deletion, is a case in point. I claim that the vast majority of people who use the Internet to consult an encyclopaedia are mature enough not to believe every word they read. Additionally, a special template (to be created) might point them to the fact not that the list is incomplete and they should add something to it but that it is deliberately so and will always contain contentious items because it is in the nature of fiction to be debatable. Thus, to me such a sapere aude hint would be most welcome. Each and everyone can make up their own mind: This, I believe, is part of human nature. The alternative, which is currently being practised, is wholesale deletion, which is radical and to all intents and purposes counterproductive but nothing else.
      Problems inherent in the collaborative nature of this project must be considered and dealt with, not deleted. How long will it take until someone calls the List of film remakes (which already has that stupid {{listdev}} tag) POV, unmaintainable, ambiguous, incomplete, too short, too long, unmanagable, unreferenced, unencyclopaedic, unbalanced? In the long run, what will happen with the List of years in literature pages if people keep adding births, deaths, "events", and book titles? Will they all have to be deleted?
      "9D/3K looks like a fairly clear consensus to me, and I see no process problems", writes one deletionist at Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review#List_of_anti-heroes, and subsequent contributors mutely endorse him. However, in democratic thought, voting is an alternative to, not a synonym for, consensus decision-making. But this is quite a different problem, which I'll have to address at some other place. <KF> 00:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • comment. i have had this complaint about VfD for a long time. we are going down a slippery slope if 80% is considered a consensus. we are also going down a slippery slope if we don't have the common courtesy to alert contributors that their work is under review for deletion. Kingturtle 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's consensus, not consensus. If Misplaced Pages decisionmaking required actual consensus, nothing would ever happen. android79 06:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • i know that there is a difference, and wikipedia's notion of consensus is absurd. we should use the term super-majority, because consensus is the wrong word. Kingturtle 06:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        • You're right about that, but the word is ingrained into Misplaced Pages culture. That's a change that just won't happen. Whenever you read "consensus", just think "rough consensus" or "supermajority". android79 06:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm pleased that Kingturtle is volunteering to go through today's AfD log and drop each contributor to each article a note on their talk pages regarding their article's AfD. -Splash 21:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • That's neat - someday I'd like this to be a software feature... oh, and Keep Deleted. I would have voted delete myself too and remember this afd - along with KingTurtle's commentary which seemed to appeal to emotion rather than addressing the actual problems with the article. Anyway, that's really a side note as the AfD was quite valid in nearly every way. WhiteNight 22:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        • If any, what are the "actual problems with the article"? A reference to an (almost) "quite valid AfD" is immaterial here: If the deletion of the list had violated Misplaced Pages's deletion policy we would not be having a discussion here and the article would immediately have been restored. I believe it is new arguments which, for some reason or other, were not mentioned during the AfD process that count here. However, new arguments seem to be generously ignored or sidetracked here ("As soon as someone starts namecalling, I start filtering out everything they say"). Also, I don't think Kingturtle's mention of the many contributors to this article is an appeal to emotion: If dozens of people over a period of more than three years collaboratively create an article they do so in good faith and because they want to improve Misplaced Pages—we might consider their contributions to the deleted article keep votes eo ipso. (more) <KF> 22:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist on AfD - There's a serious problem with the article that was deleted, namely that it is a magnet for POV and unverifiable claims, and CaveatLector put together a good AfD. I am nonethless unhappy with it: I think that, despite its flaws, the list brought together at that page had value (was it an anti-list? Nevermind...) and given the long history and much work put into the page, the main question asked at the AfD should not have been: does this list meet our standards, but can this list be repaired? I think that, given the definition at anti-hero, the list could be and deserves a second hearing. --- Charles Stewart 05:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I dislike the new fashion for deleting talk pages when executing delete decisions. --- Charles Stewart 05:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. That's not a new trend. Deciding whether or not to delete the orphaned Talk Page is a long-standing rule - a required step of the Deletion process since the first version of that page and, before that, a required step in the Deletion guidelines for administrators. For those not familiar with it, deletion of the associated Talk page is not an absolute rule (though the vast majority of such Talk pages are deleted). The deleting admin is required to make a decision about whether or not the Talk page should be preserved. By long tradition, that decision is left to the admin's discretion. We do not require a second deletion discussion to make the decision. Rossami (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. First, I have problems with some of the math used. By my count, there were 9 delete votes, and 3 keep votes. That leads to a 25% keep faction, and a 75% delete faction. I think that the age and amount of work on the article should also be a factor: certainly the fact that it has been around and hevily edited for three years at least discounts the "unmaintainable" arguments. The AfD process is entirely too random and arbitrary. I think if this had been nominated some other week, the votes could have easily been 10d/2k, or 8/4, or even 6/7, depending on who happened to be reading AfD that week. Therefore, especially in the case of established articles with a long history, the bar for deletion should be set higher than 75%. Turnstep 14:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Undelete. While I think that the process was proper, this is one of those instances where deletion review should look at the big picture. We are supposed to work on consensus. Can we really say that there is a "consensus to delete" an article that over 100 registered editors worked on simply because nine people in a particular five day period expressed a desire to delete, particluarly when the nominee (as most nominees do, including me) only pointed out the reasons to delete. Note that no one during the voting pointed out the facts that Kingturtle does. Lets put it back on AfD with both the pros and the cons and see how it fares. -- DS1953 15:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. There is no bar for ratio of participants in AfD to editors of the article, no quota for how long or short an article's history must be before we can delete it, and certainly no requirement that we notify anyone. You edit an article, and if you care about it you watch over it. Part of the beauty of the self-selection excercise is impartiality of participants. Lists in particular attract large numbers of editors, and I despair at the thought of the sorting out the mess if we involved every one. The process works well enough, and these are all bad ways we're talking about changing it. - brenneman 15:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Aaron, at least on my part, I don't think I am arguing to change anything. I made two points. First, the statement at the top of this page says that undoing a deletion is proper if you "have some information pertaining to the debate that did not receive an airing during the AfD debate". I am saying that the information posted by Kingturtle was relevant to the discussion and should be aired. Second, there have been discussions in the past about how many delete "votes" is "enough" or whether, for example, debate should be extended. Nine votes is far more than necessary for most articles. On the other hand, if a former Featured Article made it through an AfD vote with a 4-0 delete vote, I would be very disappointed if the closer did not question whether 4 votes to delete an article that probably had a hundred hours invested in it really represented a consensus to delete. I hope that is not a change, because if everyone is so rigidly evaluating "consensus" that they would allow 4 people to delete a Featured Article then we ought to automate the counting and eliminate the personal judgment instead of pretending to determine consensus. I am not arguing for this article to be kept, just that 9 delete votes on the facts before us is not a consensus to delete. Relist, post the relevant facts - pro and con - and let the people decide. -- DS1953 16:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What is this based on? A supposition that a relisting will magically have the effect of 50 participants, when getting 12 (not 9) in the first place is highly unusual? It might, and statistically probably would, get fewer participants; will we relist the relisting because the relisting of the relisting didn't get enough? Are the original 12's opinion somehow not good enough? Kingturtle's 'information' relies on looking at the history of the article — this was available to all at the time of the AfD and is hardly new information. Posting the relevant facts, pro and con, was doing already, and I don't see how "aww, shucks, it's got some edits" makes an article either good, encyclopedic, or keepable. And, incidentally, you imply that the people were excluded from things the first time around; I wonder how you have reached such a conclusion? -Splash 16:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Splash, I'll take your points in the reverse order since the last two are the easiest to answer. I don't know what I said that you think implies that people were excluded from the AfD but no such implication was intended. I also don't think that a large number of edits make "an article either good, encyclopedic, or keepable" and again, no such implication was intended. I don't suggest that anyone should vote "keep" on any basis other than whether the article is one which should be kept under the applicable standards. My only concern is that AfD is not infallable and that nine editors voting to delete may express the consensus of the voters during that five day period but seems to hardly represent a consensus of Wikipedians when so many editors have contributed to the article over a three year period. This is an uncommon situation. And you are absolutely correct that Kingturtle's information was available to anyone who wanted to delve into the page's history and talk page. However, I think that as the number of pages on AfD has continued to grow, it is unrealistic to assume that potential voters will do any more than read what is on the AfD page. Hopefully, those that are attracted to stop and record their opinion will look at the history and talk pages but from all appearances many simply parrot the previous opinions and don't even look at the page itself, let alone the talk page and history. Finally, I don't know if relisting on AfD will get more attention, but if the pros and cons are both set out succinctly, that is about all that we can ask of the process. If the result is still 9-3 in favor of deletion, we can't guess the opinion of those who chose not to express their choice (or more likely, were unaware of AfD). What all this boils down to is simply that in those relatively rare instances that we think that the AfD process hasn't worked well as a process, we should try to fix it. We can't fix all the problems at once, but this one seems easy to do. -- DS1953 19:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is absurd, on multiple counts. First of all, assuming that the 100+ edits actually wanted to keep the article is downright silly - some people are nuetral and others might have just worked on the article because they couldn't take it any more (the reason why I work on some schools...). Second, the argument that the opening statement biases it is wrong - I've heard that argument a million times on WP:RM, people asking me to do it over etc., but it just doesn't pan out and you get the same result anyway. This was a valid AfD if I ever saw one - as the burden of proof was on the nominator to give a good reason to delete the article and he/she did so, and the following keeps simply didn't have much of a reason at all to keep the article. "It's been here a long time and had lots of editors" is an appeal to emotion and ultimately has little to do with the validity of the article. "I want to make the same argument again because this article had lots of editors" is not a reason for relisting, in fact it is probably offensive to those who took the time on the first one, especially since they already heard that argument. WhiteNight 19:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - Kingturtle's (possibly) facetious arguments about the definition of consensus notwithstanding, this seems to have followed process. Old lists can be better served by categorization in many cases. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Godcasting

This by howcheng, on Godcasting

Please note that this article has been deleted yet again and the page is now protected from re-creation. You wrote on the article page, "To not have an entry for Godcasting shows an anti-religion censorship by Misplaced Pages and I think this might be best brought to the media's attention." This is not censorship; the article was deleted appropriately in accordance with Misplaced Pages's deletion policy, primarily because the term is a neologism and no verification up to the standards that we require has been provided. If in fact the term has made it into the mainstream, you should cite reliable sources on Talk:Godcasting and I and other administrators will re-evaluate and restore the page. If you feel the deletion has been out of process, please visit Misplaced Pages:Deletion review and make your case there. Regards, howcheng {chat} 07:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This by CentrOS

This may have been true many months ago when this was first created, but it certainly is not true today. You said: "If in fact the term has made it into the mainstream, you should cite reliable sources". A simple Google search of "godcast" returns 103,000 results. This is mainstream. On that Google search you'll find that Business Week http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2005/tc20050525_0375_tc_211.htm has an article entitled Need a Lift? Try a Godcast. Again, showing not only is the term in the mainstream, but is used by exceedingly reliable sources. This meets both the requirements you asked for, and a simple Google search could have saved both of us a lot of trouble. I don't believe I need to present any further evidence due to the weight of what i have already presented. Please reinstate the article and I will build a deeper history and provide more information over the next few days. And BTW, the term "godcasting" has 149,000 entries on Google and as you scan the entries you will see MANY are from mainstream AND reliable sources. CentrOS 11:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn/Undelete Term has entered mainstream and has been used by many reliable sources CentrOS 11:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist, seems notable, but I'd still like to let the community decide. - ulayiti (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist, let the community decide as above. FWIW, I get 149,000 Google hits. It might also help to see the article circa Dec 24, 2005-- —Locke Cole • t • c 12:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist on AfD. Now that this term has hit the mainstream, it deserves to be examined again. --Deathphoenix 13:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, 232 unique Google hits is not mainstream. User:Zoe| 16:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Just curious, how are you coming up with 232? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Type in Godcast in Google and Search for it. I get "Results 1 - 10 of about 101,000 for Godcast". But if you go to the last page of the returned search, which is Page 24, it says "231 - 232 of about 101,000". That means all of those hits are multiple occurrences on a page. Not on the same page, of course, but only 232 pages have this word on them. User:Zoe| 17:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Zoe, you are making a common technical error. Google's process is to select the first 1000 results and then eliminate redunancies without replacement. So the best that can be said is that of the top 1000 results on Google for Godcast, ~77% are viewed as being redundant. This says nothing at all about the remaining 100,000 results as google will never in any case give more than 1000 results even when insructed to show duplicates. Dragons flight 18:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. No substantial change in usage from last AfD vote and I would have classed this as a dicdef. David | Talk 16:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The article was hardly more than a dicdef, so I don't see a point to restoring. The term is already mentioned in Podcasting, so I've made this into a redirect. If it's still too much of a neologism, I wouldn't really object to the redirect going away, but it seems fairly harmless to me. Friday (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • personal attack deleted Xerves 18:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The point in restoring it is quite simple. Religious podcasts, godcasts, are dominating the podcast landscape. It is by far and away the largest single genre and has been legitimately coined by many as podcasting's killer app, and for good reason. In the history of anything, the driving force, or a significant force behind the success of such, is something that should be recorded. The argument that it was a stub and had little content is not valid as I have already agreed to expand it once restored, and I can get others to do so as well. Religion, whether you like it or not, has and always will play an enormous part of our lives. How religion is influencing new technology, in this case podcasting, is important enough to have its own entry and not just a redirect from podcasting. Should we should remove Princess Diana and just put a redirect to the Royal Family? This is akin to what we have here. Please do not censor religion on the Misplaced Pages. The history of godcasting needs to be documented and preserved. Thank you.
  • Err, the article is "alive" again. It's been made into a redirect, unredirected and made into an article again, and subsequently re-redirected. Unless there are lingering concerns over the deletion, I think we're done here. If people have opinions on whether to redirect, thats a matter for Talk:Godcasting. Friday (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's not argue over semantics. A redirect is NOT a restoration of the entry. There are effectively 4 votes to restore the article and only one to delete it, so we have a clear consensus. Zoe's vote does not count because it is based on in an incorrect assertion. Please remove the redirect and allow the entry to stand on its own so I may edit it. CentrOS 07:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Saugeen Stripper

Why was this article deleted? AfD result was non consensus, with the decision that the article would be kept. But now it is gone? Can someone please undelete? This was cleary done in error.? Tokyojoe2002 18:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • According to the deletion log: "Adam Bishop deleted "Saugeen Stripper" (undoing failure of AFD)". overturn out-of-process deletion. If someon thinks than an AfD "failed" that person should either re-nominate or bring the matter here. DES 18:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the help DES. We had a pretty lively week long discussion on this page that got a lot of feedback. if was a reasonably even split, slight edge to delete but no consensus and admin decided to keep it. Frustrating that a week of good debate disregarded like that, and glad it was undeleted. Thanks again. Tokyojoe2002 18:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Technically, a no consensus is an automatic keep. I didn't really decide anything, and still believe the article doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages. Mindmatrix 19:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
        • No, I understand, I just meant that whoever closed the AfD declared that it was a non consensus/auto keep. I value your opinion, and appreciated that you stuck to process. I think this is truly a divided issue. I do believe, however, that there was sufficient discussion in the AfD to have all viewpoints heard, and to make it clear that while there is an arguement not to keep, as you share, there certainly are valid arguments to keep, and hopefully we can all just 'agree to disagree and the issue can be laid to rest. ] 20:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You people have absolutely no idea what the term "encyclopedic" means, I guess. On the other hand I am not surprised that it's already undeleted. Adam Bishop 19:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I have a very good idea what the term "out-of-process" means. If you felt this was unencyclopedic (although coverage in multiple major newspapers makes at least an argument for encyclopedic inclusion) you could have 1) brought the matter here -- this page reveiws allegedly improper keeps as well as allegedly improper deletions, or 2) started a new AfD nomination in which you made your views clearer. IMO simply ignoring the lack of expressd consensus to delete and deleting unilaterally was wrong in this case, and is almost always wrong. DES 19:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Adam, I can sympathize with the fact that you want the article deleted - I think it should go too, and expressed that sentiment on the AfD. However, we have to take into account the AfD process (which I think is ineffective in some cases, but that's a different matter). I don't think any administrator should have the privilege to delete an article without some broader justification, which is the very reason AfD and CSD exist. In this instance, undeletion is appropriate from the perspective of "process", and most likely a follow-up AfD will ensue. Mindmatrix 19:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Adam's comments on Talk:Saugeen Stripper even indicate he knew he was working out-of-process and that it was likely to be reversed. I've had at least one article that I felt had no place in Misplaced Pages, but the community didn't agree with me. Learn to live with it. Wrathchild 21:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist. There is obviously some unresolved controversy here, and the result could have gone either way, depending on the closer. There was, at least, a solid majority for deletion, which could have been considered a consensus by some. -R. fiend 21:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I would also support a Relist although I doubt that enough consensus will emerge to delete this. Unfortunately, too many contributors conflate news with encyclopedic notability. Obviously, some random coed stripping incident is not encyclopedic and it is discouraging that people express interest in retaining material like this. Eusebeus 21:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's now looking like the residence hall where this took place has a long-standing reputation for being a "wild" place. I am now thinking that this article should be merged to the article about the residence hall where it took place, along with any other verifiable information that can be gleaned. Wrathchild 23:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      • And I would likely argue that an article on the residence hall should be included in an article on the college. Maybe this could be smerged there, but I suppose that's more of an issue for AfD than for DRV. -R. fiend 02:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete (and perhaps relist), deleting against the concensus of AFD is a bad thing. Adam should have followed procedure or ask Mindmatrix to review his own decision. - Mgm| 11:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • AFAIK this has already been undeleted, but I'd prefer it was merged into the article about the residence hall (which has notability, see talk page). -- nae'blis (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-06

Image:Fem isa 2.gif

Deleted because of lack of licensing, however the talkpage says:

I found Elf's current address and emailed him. Here's the reply:
The original asfaq was placed under a Creative Commons license, but it has been a long time since I did any work on any of the FAQ materials. ... I think at this point I would be comfortable putting the work under the GFDL, yes.

So it should be safe to undelete and mark it as GFDL. It is used in eight articles. Rasmus (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Images aren't undeletable, sorry. If you can find it on a mirror, it can be re-uploaded with a new license. android79 13:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I have re-uploaded it. Rasmus (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That Guy

The article was deleted because it contained nonsense. However, it only contained nonsense because someone vandalised it :/ I'd like to start the article over fresh but can't get back my original text. porges 07:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've speedily undeleted (and reverted) it. Straightforward case of overlooking the history when confronted with nonsense. —Cryptic (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Tai Streets/Gang stalking

For the Miscellany For Deletion discussion of this page that is currently in progress, see Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tai Streets/Gang stalking.

Deleted because "user space is not a place to preserve deleted articles" . When did that become a speedy criterion? Surely we are allowed to keep records of articles that we feel were wrongly deleted, and/or which hope to improve enough to put back into wikipedia. Kappa 03:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, that depends. If the request is made by an editor in good standing and if at least some of the community believes that the article might someday be redeemable, we have allowed people to keep a temporary copy. But that is the exception rather than the rule. If we allowed all deleted content to be moved into the userspace, it would defeat the very purpose of the deletion discussion. Given the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking, I think some skepticism is justified about whether the community concluded that this article has any possibility of being redeemed. Further noting the massive abuse degree of participation by apparent sockpuppets and that it was moved to the user space of a suspiciously new account which is already tagged as a suspected sockpuppet, I think there is also reason to suspect motivations. We are supposed to assume good faith but not to the point of incredulity. Looking into it more, the edit history alleges that it was moved from the article space on 4 Jan but according to the deletion history of the other pages, this content had been completely deleted on 29 Dec. I can't find where it was supposed to have been moved from but it looks to me like reposted content. Unless someone can come forward and provide a reasonable explanation for the actions taken, I'm inclined to endorse the status quo (keep deleted). Rossami (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. This user has shown no inclination to work within Misplaced Pages norms, relying upon sockpuppets and edit-warring to continually insert original, unverified material. Why enable such behavior? --Calton | Talk 05:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Rossami. In the past, material like this has been deleted even given Misplaced Pages's huge leniency with the userspace. --Deathphoenix 13:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. User:EddieSegoura/Exicornt was kept on MFD, and this is no different. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 15:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, recreation of deleted content. User space should not be used to dance around consensus or sidestep a valid AfD decision. If the user wishes to keep it, they can put it on their hard drive or a free website somewhere. Also, this sort of tinfoil-hat conspiracy nonsense makes WP look bad (one of the deletions of the original article was done by Jimbo Wales himself)! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete - the right to keep deleted content in the userspace was established in Anthony's second RFAr. Since this was out of process, I've speedily recreated. Phil Sandifer 16:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • See this edit, made today, where this content was reinserted into an article; and this edit where this person explains that xe intends to repeatedly insert this content into articles. See also Special:Contributions/Curt Jurgens, Special:Contributions/Tai Streets, Special:Contributions/Wyatt Ehrenfels, Special:Contributions/67.129.121.254, and Special:Contributions/172.149.8.228. This person has stated xyr intent to repeatedly submit the same text to many different articles, and has done exactly that. Undeleting this will achieve nothing. Xe has demonstrated no inclination to work on this content in xyr user space(s), that having been Will Beback's idea, no need to have a copy of the deleted content (given today's edit), and no intention of providing sources or altering the text that xe is repeatedly submitting in any way. Indeed, 67.129.121.254 simply blanked this userspace copy before it was deleted. If the circumstances were different, and the editor had actually shown a desire to work towards properly verifiable text that contained no original research, I would agree with an undeletion. But in these circumstances there appears to be no point. The editor clearly doesn't need or want the user space page. Uncle G 16:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted as per Uncle G. -- The Anome 13:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete - "the right to keep deleted content in the userspace was established in Anthony's second RFAr."-Snowspinner — agree. plus from reading it it looks like it could be a valid "real" article if some of the POV was removed (much of it focused on one particular group for example) --Mistress Selina Kyle 13:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete per estabilished tradition.  Grue  20:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted if it were't on MfD,since user space is intended to be used to support the goals of the encyclopedia, not oppose them. And censure whomever restored it for sticking his fingers up at everyone taking part in this discussion. - brenneman 23:12, 8 January 2006
  • Keep deleted per Rossami, but I'm a bit bothered by the conflict with what was said at the DiPierro RfAr (]). If userspace is actively being used to disrupt WP, then I think that precedent (which contrary to Snowspinner establishes no right, but talks only of such deletions being discouraged) should not be seen as having great force. I'm not completely happy with this, though. --- Charles Stewart 00:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted/redelete/make it go away. This tinfoil pam campaign needs to go. --Calton | Talk 04:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I created the page myself in order to give the editor who wrote it a chance to bring it into conformity with Misplaced Pages standards. The editor never tried to edit it, except to blank it. My effort was misguided and wasted, and the page serves no purpose. -Will Beback 06:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per UncleG. Material is used for repeated reinsertion and not to rework it for later use according to our style guidelines. That's clear misuse of the mentioned precedent. - Mgm| 11:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler

The article about this well-known blog was deleted as a result of GNAA members teaming up and voting. Skrewler, Femmina, Timecop, supers, Eusebeus have voted in concert to delete many blog articles, listed here. Many of these users contribute nothing to Misplaced Pages other than delete votes on blog-related articles. Rhobite 03:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse closure. Looking at this poor excuse for a discussion, the "keep" crowd failed to provide anything to counter the argument put forward by the nominator. A puacity of meaningful exchange does not an invalid closure make. - brenneman 05:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • So in the world of Aaron Brenneman, "keep" voters are required to cite external sources but "delete" voters can vote "nn" if they want? Very hypocritical. Please don't arbitrarily "refactor" deletion discussions by striking through votes you disagree with. Rhobite 19:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'd encourage Rhobite to pay a bit more attention. Any one of several things might have alerted him to the fact that I wasn't refactoring the deletion discussions: The lack of the coloured background, my caveat at the top of the page, or the word "talk" in the page's title.
      • As to my "hypocritical" actions with regards to how I interpret votes: When making a claim, the burden is clearly on the claiment to provide evidence. A single link to, for example, a review in major media would counteract any number of "not notable" opinions. No such evidence was provided here. Testimony by wikipedia editors is not sufficient. - brenneman 01:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. Consensus, clearly, was to delete it. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 05:58, Jan. 6, 2006
    (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, valid AfD, though the discussion was on the border. --Deathphoenix 13:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist on AfD - Properly closed AfD, which missed easily discovered information: the weblog has won two web awards, namely two of the Weblogger Warblogger awards organised by the Right Wing News weblog for Most Bloodthirsty Blog in 2002 , and Most annoying right-of-center blogger for 2003 which technically qualify it for keeping under WP:WEB. Passing notoriety among right-wing US webloggers falls somewhat under my notability threshold, but I think it's worth throwing open to discussion. --- Charles Stewart 06:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC) (fix Charles Stewart 04:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC))
    • Following the post of Tony Sidaway below, I had noticed but took no account of Rhobite's claim of manipulation, in the above. If there is evidence of substantive manipulation, the AfD should be reopened regardless of this DRV's verdict. --- Charles Stewart 04:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion Discussion clearly shows that the majority wanted to delete the article - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» 16:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Closure and KD. The GNAA may be a childish group, but i agree with their efforts to eliminate blogcruft. To ] I would note that before you make such claims about my activity here, you check out any of the various articles I have created and maintain. Eusebeus 21:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure The majority argument found that this blog is uninfluential outside of the blogosphere. If it scoops a major story then feel free to recreate the article. Ashibaka tock 22:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Tons of google hits. This blog is especially notable for the intemperate tone of its posts and has often been cited and discussed for this reason. If this isn't undeleted, I may write a new article on it myself. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. AfD was fair. It's a blog, and the bar is properly set high for that by the community. We should be glad to have this gone. --Improv 22:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree partly with Charles Stewart on this. Like him I found the awards, and although the rightwing weblogger awards are trash (allowing multiple votes) the warblogger awards are much more selective. A shortlist is selected and only recognised right wing bloggers are invited to vote. This ensures some quality control (obviously as a leftie I'm going to disagree with some aspects of this but I don't come to Misplaced Pages to discuss politics). I've honestly no idea why this was ever nominated for deletion, and if the trolls were involved then it bloody well should be undeleted without ceremony. On that I'm completely in agreement with Rhobite. I'll be investigating the allegations he has made and will of course undelete any articles that have been deleted as a result of collusion by trolls, if this has indeed occurred. Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn, relist on AFDMajority is irrelevant; Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, and a series of "nn" vote does not a consensus make. If lefty readers think it's valuable as a benchmark, that I think is a good sign of notability from both sides of the aisle. --Mmx1 05:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, evidence here suggests it was removed in error. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Unfortunately discusionless debate, but there's nothing new to present and there was nothing inheritly wrong with the debate and the close was valid. WhiteNight 07:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The key words to note in the box at the top of the page are "significant new information." (Emphasis mine.) The "awards" cited are, um, tenous indications of notability at best. As to "rightwingnews" itself - lots of google, but the only substantial one was a single unannotated line on MSN out of about 250 other blogs, starting with "Chimps in the news". Ironically, rightwingnews gets 0 hits for news. And as to the awards it presents: "most bloodthirsty" - 16 google hits, no news, and "most annoying" - 117 google, no news. If we are seriously thinking of restoring an article based upon this paucity of notability, than the world has gone mad. And I'd urge Tony Sidaway to "of course" present any new information he may discover about collusion here rather than engaging in further unilateral action leading, in all likelyhood, to yet another wheel war. - brenneman 07:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think notability has been established, but there are two reasons i think we should go back to AfD anyway: (i) to repeat myself, it satisfies the letter of WP:WEB since it has won an award, (ii) The RWN warblogger award actually has some credibility: it's a pretty good measure of what the warblogger community think, and whether that matters is really an AfD decision, not a policywonkish DRV decision --- Charles Stewart 10:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, WEB's quote on awards is "well known and independent award", which I think we've established this isn't.
    • I'm unclear on how trying to use some common sense is "policy-wonking" while insisting that this go through another round of hoops is not. I will, however, at this point yield the floor.
      brenneman 10:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Re award: if it's not well known, it's not obscure either. What I meant by policy-wonking (been reading too many ArbCom platforms, sorry about that) is that DRV is about something like judicial oversight, whose remit to review content is fairly limited. Thorny questions about notability really should go to back to AfD, and I think this qualifies. --- Charles Stewart 10:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. If my understanding of the process is correct, we should overturn AfD that were improperly closed or in cases where Misplaced Pages would clearly be better off including them. It is also the responsibility of the author of the article to provide references proving that the article meets the threshold of notability, in this case WP:WEB. Looking at the AfD discussion, I see no arguement that asserts the article is in compliance with WP:WEB and see no valid reason why the AfD should be relisted. That is not to say that the article should not be recreated, but the AfD was closed correctly in my opinion. If someone wanted to recreate the article with bonafide evidence of compliance with WP:WEB, I would vote for temporary undeletion in accordance with the undeletion policy. Movementarian 07:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete per Tony's comments on the awards. - Mgm|

2006-01-05

Category:Contemporary philosophers

Very useful category – it categorizes contemporary philosophers as opposed to historical ones. Content is not duplicated by any "living phiosopher" category. Maintenance is not very burdensome – only a few philosophers die each year. Category was deleted with only four votes, none of which appear to be philosophy article editors. A major category like this should be voted on by the wider WP community. — goethean ॐ 16:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Bloody Shot

This badly formatted entry refers to Bloody Shot which was deleted on January 3. However if you want to read what the article said, see BJAODN. David | Talk 14:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User userbox purge

Speedied as "disruption", which it is obviously not. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 12:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  • For those that can't see it, the template in question refers to Kelly Martin's deletion of userboxes as the 'great userbox purge' and implicitly comparares her with a picture of the mass-murdering dictator Stalin. That is clearly a personal attack. Further, at a time where we have three divisive RfC's, and countless other discussions, the last thing the community needs is for a gloating template 'this user survived the great userbox purge' blowing everything out of proportion. This template has appeared at various name spaces, and has been deleted by a number of admins, it should remain deleted and not be recreated. --Doc 13:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - This template documents an ongoing wiki-event. Speedy deletion of this template is simply pouring fuel on the fire. It will not be possible to eradicate the sentiment, and protection of the deleted userbox will only breed more discontent. --Dschor 13:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted as a template used solely to attack. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. At the risk of starting yet another userbox attack, this is just another example of userbox people using userboxes to attack people who don't like userboxes (BTW, I like userboxes, but only good ones). --Deathphoenix 14:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. If you don't like WP:NPA, feel free to leave. —Cryptic (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, attack pages get speedy deleted. User:Zoe| 16:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore Are we going to start censoring the wikipedia articles about Misplaced Pages next? I'm going to add that I would have said Relist except that I don't recall it ever being listed anywhere. Tom 18:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore. Harmless humor. Deletion and fighting over this template will cause more harm than the template itself. Friday (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - attack pages don't get free speech protections. If you oppose the 'agenda' against userboxes, visit the Proposed policy on userboxes and have your say. Or make a box that doesn't attack people. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • IMO, it takes a bit of imagination to interpret this template as an attack. Friday (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I think user boxes should be given a lot of leeway, but there was a bit too much edge on that one. –Abe Dashiell 19:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted attacks aren't humorous or harmless. .:.Jareth.:. 19:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Whether this is an attack or a bit of snide humor that some people are taking too seriously is certainly debatable. Therefore I think that debate should happen at TfD, so undelete and list at TfD. -R. fiend 19:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • There are already three duplicates of this template, under different names, listed there. —Cryptic (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Hmmm. I only noticed one. So here goes, if Template:User 2006 New Year Day Participate gets deleted at TfD, then this should be too, as it's basically the same thing. However, as the picture of Stalin (which seems to be a major factor in this one) was removed from that and not from this, this one might be seen as worse, and a result that keeps that one might not endorse the added Stalin image here. I guess this is sort of confusing, but I think it's best not to open multiple TfCs (long ones to boot) on this, if it can be helped. In any case, while I think the "purge" itself was a really stupid idea, I don't think the other side is behaving very well in this either. -R. fiend 21:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Userboxes designed to violate a policy (WP:NPA in this case) should be deleted. Carbonite | Talk 20:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete Haven't the last few days proved that you can't go around deleting boxes instantly. This box was never listed at tfd. No notice was ever give that it was to be deleted. This box does not reference anyone directly and thus is not a personal attack. I am going to recreate this and then you guys can properly list it at tfd.--God of War 20:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral, If the template is deleted, then I can not see if it is disruptive or not. -MegamanZero|Talk 20:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. This one is even more over the top than most other bad userboxes. Pictures of Stalin and the phrasing... wow. --Improv 21:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overtunr deletion deleted out-of-process while TfD was in progress. DES 21:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I'd like to see this template so that I can verify my humble opinion. Futhurmore, it is extremley irregular to have a deletion on something that is already deleted. -MegamanZero|Talk 22:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete This userbox was deleted in the same way the userboxes it talks about were deleted. O the irony - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» 22:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Attack page. -- SCZenz 22:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted as a personal attack. Comparing someone who deleted userboxes to a mass murderer is clearly and inarguably a blatant personal attack, and no "discussion" can negate that fact.

FCYTravis 23:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  • For the last time, this is not a personal attack template. This template says. "This user survived the great user box purge" It does not name any names. It does not even denounce the userbox purge. All it says is that the user was around during the user box purge. However, we do not get to know this as the template has been speedied so none of us can actually read what it says before making our minds up.--God of War 03:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • For the last time, slapping a picture of Stalin on this box is clearly and unabashedly a personal attack. It's comparing someone's deletion of userboxes templates to an act of mass murder by a dictator. If that's not a personal attack, I'd like you to tell me what is! FCYTravis 03:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Why not just remove the image of Stalin?

--AySz88^-^ 05:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Undelete and list properly. Speedies are basically for stuff that aren't worth considering because most any reasonable person would agree that they should be deleted, I think. This doesn't seem to be one of those cases, turns out, I guess. It was a good-faith honest mistake, we all make them, easy to rectify. Herostratus 10:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This does not meet critieria for speedy deletion, and should be undeleted until such time as a proper vote can be conducted. These out of process userbox deletions are still happening constantly, and this userbox is merely an attempt to find some humor in the carnage. --Dschor 10:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, and remove Stalin picture (btw, it wasn't my idea, I copied and pasted it from where it was actually posted on the RfC) --Mistress Selina Kyle 11:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)\

Zoner, Inc.

See Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Zoner,_Inc.
I believe that the Zoner, Inc. meets the criteria for a Misplaced Pages article. Zoner is not a small "garage" company. See google hits: 13,600 hits for "Zoner, Inc." 559,000 hists for "Zoner software", 1,670,000 for Zoner and WP:NOT#Misplaced Pages is not a propaganda machine, part Advertising. I would like to translate article to Czech Misplaced Pages. Thanks. --Michal Jurosz 10:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Relist to AfD. The votes in the AfD were too few to properly gauge consensus. --Deathphoenix 14:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Unless there is better evidence that can be presented that this company meets the recommended criteria at WP:CORP, I have to endorse closure (keep deleted). The vast majority of the google hits cited above (and during the AFD discussion) are irrelevant. They include the software company's own site (reasonable but not relevant for the purposes of verification), download sites, advertising sites and lots of irrelevant use of "zoner" by a variety of people as a username. The google statistics failed to convince the participants of the previous decision. Note: In circumstances like this, a Google Groups search can be more informative. That returns 10,800 hits just for "zoner" but, again, many are irrelevant. I would agree to a relisting if new evidence is presented. Mere google hits are not, in my opinion, meeting that threshold. Rossami (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:CORP is a proposed Misplaced Pages policy. I used official policy WP:NOT, part Advertising: Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. ... --Michal Jurosz 16:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
      • That doesn't automatically mean that all articles about companies or products are appropriate. The "garage" company is a clear example at the extreme end of the spectrum. Companies in the middle are judgment calls. They are generally kept or deleted based on the evidence presented. WP:CORP, while still tagged as a proposal, is a widely respected attempt to provide more specific guidance based on the community's history of decisions. By the way, I'd overlooked your request above to translate the article for the Czech Misplaced Pages. If you participate on both projects and are familiar with their general inclusion criteria, I have no objection to a temporary undelete either to m:transwiki or to your userspace for translation and cross-posting. Rossami (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Michal, my counting skills seem to differ from yours. Where you report 13,600, when I click on the link you provided, I get 998, of which 232 are unique. Where you report 559,000, I get 438,000, of which 326 are unique. However, of 1,670,000 you report, I get 2,900,000, of which 760 are unique. But that is for every single possible use of the word Zoner, most of which have nothing to do with this software. Not notable, keep deleted. User:Zoe| 16:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Zoe, the unique hits are per the thousand sample, and not across the entire returned hit count - you have to multiply the unique count by the overall total divided by a thousand. As you say, though, google is irrelevant due to the multiple uses of the word. Eusebeus 00:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
It is bit confusing for me, because when I click on these links, I get the exactly the same count of hits as Michal Juros. --Petr.adamek 16:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-04

Oven rack guard

I am posting the following appeal for User:BSHUL, who requested help navigating this page. -- SCZenz 06:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Opening statement: I posted the article on the Cool Touch Oven Rack Guard on Misplaced Pages, in good faith, thinking that it was an educational article, similar to the "How Stuff Works" articles, that are quite informative and useful. I received comments in no particular order, as follows:(I added the 1). , 2)., to make references easier)

The Comments:

1). Delete : apparent advertisement for product, already edited-out elsewhere, added by probable spammer Special:Contributions/69.118.41.221. --Zigger User:Zigger User_talk:Zigger 16:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

2). Delete - I agree, a product ad. Bergsten User:Bergsten 16:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

3). Delete, advert. Stifle User:Stifle 00:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

4). It's got to do with a product making national news or not, I think. You might review What Misplaced Pages is not WP:NOT and WP:SPAM WP:SPAM, and if you still disagree with me you can appeal at Misplaced Pages:Deletion Review Misplaced Pages:Deletion_Review . -- SCZenz User:SCZenz 22:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

5).Roomba Roomba is an article that was written by Wikipedians, not by the company that makes the product. 6).You have a patent on the technology used in the Oven rack guard and clearly have a vested interest in creating the article. That's the difference, and the reason why your article is an advertisement and Roomba Roomba is not. If you'd like to create a Request for Undeletion, you can, but it will not succeed. Andre User:Andrevan (talk User_talk:Andrevan) 20:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 7). Your article reads like sales pitch, 8). your references are essentially product reviews. 9).The oven rack guard, as proud as you are of it, is non-notable. Are there other oven rack guards on the market? I couldn't find any, you are stuck having to reference your product because no others exist. 10). Using a sock puppet Internet_sock_puppet, NoMoreBurns...index.php?title=User:NoMoreBurns&action=edit, to attempt to get your article published, as well as 11). your lack of contributions to other articles, isn't helping your case. maxcap User:Maxcap 20:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

12). Phroziac wrote: User:Phroziac I've heard of cool touch before. It's not as known about as Roomba. 13). Deletion discussions are usually very silly. 14). You need independant, verifiable sources to write an article. See our policies on "No independant research" (http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:NOR). 15). It's also usually considered a bad idea to write about yourself, your company, or something you invented. 16). And, it's way more likely to be neutral if someone else writes it. Anyway, you should probably just let someone else write the article. If someone takes the time to write about it on Misplaced Pages, then we *know* it's well known

Reviewing the numbered comments above:

1). Comments 1,2,3,5,6,7,15 indicate that the CTORG article is, an advertisement, a sales pitch, a vanity article. To these, I respond with the Roomba article; here are some quotes from the article: "Roomba is a robotic vacuum cleaner made and sold by iRobot." "Twenty percent of the sale price of this Roomba will be donated to the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, with a $45,000 minimum guarantee." "As of May 2005, over 1.2 million units have been sold, making it the most successful domestic robot so far." "Unlike the competing (and much more expensive) Electrolux Trilobite vacuuming robots, Roomba's do not map out the rooms they are cleaning."

Not to mention a detailed description of all the models and accessories available, My contention is that if this self touting article has not been deleted as a long winded advertisement, then the CTORG article is not an advertisement/sales pitch/vanity article.

2). Comments #5, 6, 10, 15 and 16. indicate that the reason the CTORG article is considered an advertisement is because it is written by me and I have vested interest. In response to this, the article was edited and reposted by another person, who has no vested interest, yet the CTORG article remains deleted. The resubmit was further discounted, by deeming it "written by a sock puppet". See the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith (I can supply an affidavit).

3). Comment #11, my lack of other contributions, in my opinion, is not a criteria for article deletion.

4). Comment #4, The Cool Touch Oven Rack Guard made national news when Reader's Digest and HGTV, presented international written and video coverage. Additionally, two newspaper articles are cited in the CTORG source links. Other newspaper articles can be supplied, if required.

5). Comment #8 indicates that the references cited by the CTORG article, are product reviews. Indeed, the references cited refer to this technical development, as embodied by the CTORG product. Please see Misplaced Pages article http://en.wikipedia.org/Camera_phone and check out all the product reviews in the External Links. If those references are acceptable, then the CTORG references are acceptable.

6). Comment #9 indicates that the CTORG article, is non-notable, "because no others exist" The latter, is absolutely true, there is no other product like the CTORG. Please see Misplaced Pages article http://en.wikipedia.org/Dippin_dots in which no others exist. If this article can be in Misplaced Pages, then the CTORG article can be. Additionally "Notability is related to importance </Wikipedia:Importance>. Articles should be relevant to a reasonable number of people". The CTORG article is relevant to anyone who uses an oven, as well as, the many who have burned themselves. Are there any female admins?

7). Comment #13...no comment.

In Summation:

I believe that the Cool Touch Oven Rack Guard article in one of its more recent edits, meets the criteria for a Misplaced Pages article and does not meet the criteria for deletion:

1). It is written based on independent, verifiable and notable sources. (See the CTORG article below) and so it is not written, as original research (such as reporting data coming from one's lab).

2). It is notable, as it is relevant to anyone who uses an oven. It was written about in Internationally circulated articles from Reader's Digest(May 2004), HGTV, and Gizmag (Austrailia). It has won the Cooking Club of America's Seal of Approval.

2). It is not a vanity page, because it was lastly edited and submitted by someone, other than myself, who has no vested interest in the article.

3). It is not a product advertisement or sales pitch. The embodiment of the particular use of two of Nomex's physical properties is indeed a product (Cool Touch Oven Rack Guard). One cannot discuss this particular use of Nomex's properties, without discussing it's embodiment. (see comment #9..."you are stuck..."). Additionally, The CTORG article's wording, does not try to persuade someone they need it, does not offer it for sale, quote a price or tell where it can be bought.

4). It has a more neutral point of view, than the Roomba article, which has not been cited for POV.

Cool Touch Oven Rack Guard article:

(note: each line is an independently verifiable fact, no opinions) (note: some source articles were stored in my FTP space)

Ovens and stoves, throughout history, have something in common; they will burn the person who comes in contact with their hot metal surfaces, for instance, the oven rack's front edge . Devices to protect the hands, such as oven gloves, have been developed, but need to be used consistently, to be effective; so people still get burned. In 2004, a device was developed by Burt Shulman of Wappingers Falls, NY, called the Cool Touch Oven Rack Guard, which is a fabric strip that attaches along the front edge of the oven rack and stays in the oven. If a person touches it, even at 500 deg. F., they will not be burned. The fabric is made from a modern synthetic fiber called Nomex Nomex - which can withstand 500 deg. F. temperatures and has both low thermal conductivity Thermal_conductivity and thermal mass Thermal_mass, . These material properties reduce the heat transferred to the skin, during the "touch', so no burn results. Source Articles:

(posted for User:BSHUL -- SCZenz)

List of real names of professional wrestlers

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Professional wrestlers real names
This listing received nine votes to delete (the original of which was mine), one vote to merge and four votes to keep and redirect to List of real names of professional wrestlers. The vote was closed and the latter course decided upon, despite there being more than 2:1 opposition to keeping the article. No record of the vote was added to the article's discussion page. It's also worth noting that the article has still received absolutely no attention whatsoever, and that several "delete" votes (and none of the outright "keep" votes) came from members of the WikiProject Professional wrestling, who are the editors most likely to work on the article. McPhail 20:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Given there was not full consensus to delete (64% delete support), I think the closing admin took the right decision. David | Talk 20:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. Consensus to delete is around 70-80%, so I think the right decision was made here, though I would have put "No consensus" instead. --Deathphoenix 20:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure - Merge votes count with keep votes for the purposes of calculating whether there is a consensus to delete, bringing the delete votes to below 2/3s. I'd have voted to merge, but you don't need DRV to get that outcome, just find a normal consensus on the article page. --- Charles Stewart 20:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure though I agree that the decision probably would have been better worded as "no consensus". For AFD purposes, "keep", "merge" and "move" are generally equivalent as objections to deletion. 5 to 9 falls just below the generally accepted 2/3s threshold for "rough consensus". Rossami (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, I would call it 8/5 since Oakster didn't supply any sort of reasoning (not even "agree with X"). This is not even close to concensus. Apart from that, I don't see how merging with the existing list is a worse thing than deletion. - Mgm| 22:03, 4 January 2006
    • I'd like to give a big kiss to Mgm for this and suggest that we chuck out naked "votes" a bit more consistantly. (Although they are more commonly "keep, seems notable" with no evidence provided.) - brenneman 00:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Temp undelete merge each individual "real name" into the article of said wrestler if they have an article... then the list has no more need and can be deleted.  ALKIVAR™ 00:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-03

Seth Ravin

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Seth Ravin
Slightly hazy. A couple of clear delete opinions (one mine, please note), a couple of clear keep opinions (JJay and Kurt Weber). The rest are pretty clear that they consider him less notable than Rimini Street. We don't expect AfDs to be consistant, but the real issue are the pseudo-merges. I think that everyone who took part would be suprised at this outcome. My prefered option would be to ping the participants, un-close/extend this, and run it for a few more days. - brenneman 07:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Eek... a pretty difficult AFD to close, further complicated by the fact that the suggested merge target, Rimini Street was deleted. I think that we should relist this one for a new AFD debate now that the staus of Rimini Street has clarified. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems there was a consensus that this topic doesn't deserve it's own article. Votes to merge to a non-existant target should be discounted. Thus, it should have been deleted. Re-list if necessary. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:51, Jan. 4, 2006
  • Delete. It should have been merged with Rimini Street and deleted along with it. Let's face it, it's vanity. Kurt Weber's opinion basically boils down to "he exists so he should have an article", a view he's expressed about anything that could theoretically exist, and has been universally rejected. Relist if need be, but deletion is preferable. -R. fiend 16:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete, Any argument that rests on "it exists, so keep" should be rejected out of hand (at least Kmweber has laid off the "deletionist vandal" schtick), and votes that are later rendered impossible should be discounted, IMO, though JIP's handling of it as a no consensus also makes sense. android79 16:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete - From here, the three merge votes count as delete votes given that the AfD said delete Rimini Street (two of them including Howcheng explicitly said they were delete in this case, the last said per Howcheng), and the four keep votes were all weak keeps. Note that Aaron voted delete in a roundabout manner (he said same as the Rimini AfD). That makes 7 delete against 4 weak keeps: given no real defence of the article was mounted, I count that as a consensus to delete. --- Charles Stewart 17:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete, per above, altho the original "no consensus" call was not unreasonable. Friday (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete. Despite the fact that merges often count as keeps, these merge votes all seemed to depend on the outcome of Rimini Street, and since Rimini Street was deleted, so should this. --Deathphoenix 20:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Funny one. Overturn and delete, as good arguments have been made, or failing that, just reopen and extend for 2 days, asking the merge voters to reconsider their opinions. Titoxd 21:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No need to delete. In 2004, Ravin persuaded H. David Anderson IV, director of information technology for the state of Georgia's employee retirement system, to switch contracts from Peoplesoft to Mr Ravin's company, TomorrowNow Inc . Undercutting the big boys, verifiably in a non-fluff piece in a reputable newspaper, seems noteworthy to me. Not one if the big boys, but not a blue sky dreamer either. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Good call. How much of the article discussed Ravin and his company? Did you get this via LexisNexis? --- Charles Stewart 10:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to link it. It's on the WSJ site but you need a subscription for that. There are quite a few copies, such as: here (PDF), Here is a html cache copy. The article is about a customer revolt in response to poor and costly service from Peoplesoft/Oracle, and focused primarily on the growth of FutureNow's business at the expense of the giant. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Mootstormfront

The AfD was closed out of process by Howcheng, after just 7 votes, including the primary editor— hardly enough input to provide consensus for such a marginal article. This promotional entry for a Web site/forum fails the basic criteria for Notability for a Web site— which none of the participants addressed in the AfD discussion. More critically, the site no longer even exists, nor is there a single reliable source which refers to it, which means there is no means to provide verifiable information— a fundamental requirement for any article. The Deletion process should be re-opened/re-listed, with a discussion of how this currently non-existent and non-verifiable site qualifies for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. —LeFlyman 08:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

  • To clarify: what I am referring to as "out of process" is the closure of an AfD started the night before Christmas Eve and closed the day after New Year's-- a holiday period when activity is naturally going to be at a low, so that very few editors who might have a disinterested opinion on the article would have the opportunity to comment/vote. A lack of interest and participation should not be a beneficial qualifer for encyclopedic inclusion. I was particularly concerned that none of the Misplaced Pages standards were considered in the decision on whether this was an appropriate article to keep, but that the initial votes were based on the claims that it "seems important" or was "well known" but without any proof of such claims. Are we really to the point where the AfD etiquette which states that, "If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, and clearly base your recommendations on the deletion policy" is meaningless? —LeFlyman 16:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks to all who participated in this discussion, which not surprisingly, were more than who voted in the AfD -- the end result appears to be that the article will likely be merged into another, and so the verifiability problems raised will be dealt with. Thus, no need for further review. —LeFlyman 15:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Kept/endorse closure. First, the suggestion that howcheng's closure is out of order is erroneous. The debate ran for 10 days, twice the normal length, thanks to end-of-year lagtime. Secondly, you raised these points in the original debate, and they were unsuccessful. DRV is not the place to reargue a valid AfD. Xoloz 09:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist - Don't think it was out of process closure, but I think your arguments are well-made. No verifiable sources and it doesn't look encyclopedic to me. FCYTravis 09:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure although it was, umm, poor. We shouldn't make a habit of prescribing relisting when there was no procedural error with the close. People hate relisting, and if it's done with a "Per discussion at WP:DRV" that lends some credibility that it mayn't deserve. If someone wants to nominate this again off their own bat, please drop me a note on my talk page so that I may participate, but this is outside the zone of DRV as far as I'm concerned. - brenneman 10:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure and keep. Closed within process, nowhere near a consensus for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, although I am sympathetic to verifiability concerns. I've added this to my watchlist, let's take up verifiability issues on the talk page, and if we must remove unverifiable content, so be it. If we're left without enough for a proper article, maybe we can find some place to merge it into. Friday (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. LeFlyman is incorrect in his/her assertion that the discussion was closed out-of-process. By design, there is no minimum quorum for AFD discussions. Nor is it inappropriate for the article's editor to participate in the deletion discussion. However, LeFlyman does raise some valid concerns over verifiability. I have no objections to an independent relisting after a reasonable period. Rossami (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: As the closing admin, I certainly feel it was justified, but I'll abstain from voting. Like Xoloz says, the debate ran for twice the normal amount of time. I suppose I could have been more generous and closed it with a "no consensus" but I thought a 2/5 vote was pretty clear (yes, I know it's a not a vote). Please also note that a number of other AfD nominations during the holiday period generated plenty of discussion so IMHO arguing that low activity invalidates the closure is unjustified. howcheng {chat} 16:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, 7 votes is certainly enough, I've closed votes with much less than that. --Deathphoenix 19:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, but without prejudice against renomination per Aaron Brenneman, as some of the reasons for keeping (e.g. "Seems important") are quite bad. Titoxd 21:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, even though AFD is not a vote. There were no good reasons presented in the AFD debate as to why the article should be kept, and it clearly fails WP:WEB. I endorse though, since I'm feeling particularly inclusionist at the moment. - ulayiti (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Back Door Sluts 9

Redirect to The Return of the Lord of the Rings to the Two Towers, a Southpark episode in which it plays a prominent role, improperly speedied several times. The deleting admin also blocked the editor that was creating the redirect. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Full Bodying

Chris Jenny Harrison

  • Undelete Chris Jenny Harrison. This is a real person and a real name and everything in the article is true. Chris Harrison is a real and well known person in this part of the world. You may not know him but Im sure a lot of people in other countries dont know who JFK or Gandhi are, I dont see you deleting them. —the preceding unsigned comment is by DokkenDio (talk • contribs) 06:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, attack page, no plausible claim of notability. —Cryptic (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete Chris Jenny Harrison. It has just been brought to my attention that each administrator, or at least for sure "Natalinasmpf" is given their own pages on wikipedia. Why is it at all allowable for admins to post biographies, which are boring yet my dear friend Chris Jenny Harrison cannot be shared with the world, when his life is so exciting? This double standard seems unacceptable. How can this site call itself a fair/good site applying these double standards. You know who else applied these double standards men on women before the age of equal rights. It aint right.
  • Comment - Anyone can have a user page. It's at User:Yournamehere. That's called userspace. Feel free to use it. Nobody is entitled to an *article* in *articlespace* about themselves. FCYTravis 09:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, see WP:BIO and note the difference between articles and userpages. - Mgm| 12:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, this is not even userfy material. "Born from the fiery lava of Mount Ookalawaiah on a small Hawaiin Island", indeed. User:Zoe| 17:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Attack page on a non-notable person. --Deathphoenix 19:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFC/KM

Speedy deleted many times, and now protected blank. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Seigenthaler

Supposedly an "article that serves no purpose but to disparage its subject". In fact it is simply parody/satire - "This user helped Seigenthaler kill John F. Kennedy." --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

First, Chalst, I'd appreciate it if you get the name right- a simple "maru" is more than acceptable. Second, the template was speedied twice by other admins, for no valid reason, when it should have been put through TFD. SPUI is entirely correct- if you examine the deletion history, the third time was me undeleting it to copy it over to my user space, and then promptly redeleting it to await a VFU decision. --maru (talk) Contribs 03:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and list on TfD - It's a pretty tasteless and inadvisable joke, but it's clearly not an attack page. Let's put the issue up for proper discussion. --- Charles Stewart 04:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. No need to screw around with a tastless joke that obviously hurts the credibility of our project. -- SCZenz 04:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Since this template is only useful as a userbox, isn't it just as harmful to have people cut and pasting the text from Maru's user page as to have them make use of the template? Hence, if he speedy is valid for the template, then isn't it right to insist that Maru remove the userbox from his page? I find this to be too much, but I am interested in how far the argument goes to delete from such reasons as the need to uphold the credibility of the project. --- Charles Stewart 04:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Interesting point, Mr. Stewart. The difference between the template, and user-supplied text in userspace, as I see it, is this: Users are generally given wide (though not total) freedom in their own space, in the spirit of freedom of expression. Most WPians understand this; and most casual viewers, familiar with the freedom of speech common in the English-speaking world, grasp it intuitively. A template, because it is circulated among the community in a pre-set form, is subject to greater oversight at TFD, and through CSD; it would be easier for the casual viewer to mistake it as representing WP's views, at least through tacit complicity. This isn't to say that "John Seigenthaler killed Kennedy" belongs on a userpage, either; that discussion, regarding libel at WP, is ongoing, and such a statement might be called a personal attack, under the circumstances. What is clear to me is that the case for CSDing the template is on firmer ground than the deletion of a userpage, for the aforementioned reasons of purview, institutional oversight, and inituitive understanding. Xoloz 09:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
      • But you voted to keep deleted because it is an attack. Attacks are just as unacceptable on user pages as on templates. If you really think that it is an attack, you should edit Maru's user page and remove the box. Or per your comment below, do you think it is really a violation of WP:CIV? --- Charles Stewart 18:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. We have brains for a reason. Ambi 10:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Slightly funny but libellous and a personal attack. David | Talk 10:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, is an attack against Seigenthaler and only marginally funny. - Mgm| 12:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, and nuke the version from maru's user page, too. --Calton | Talk 15:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. This template is just trolling. Gamaliel 17:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, inappropriate in an article, and more inappropriate as a template. --Deathphoenix 19:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove all references to Seigenthaler or keep deleted. The weather in London should not be recreated... but personal attacks don't belong here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted -- You'd think that some people would remember how much the Seigenthaler episode hurt WP's credibility, and how much flak we caught in the public sphere as a result of it. To resurrect that stinking meme is self-destructive behaviour for a Wikipedian. --Peripatetic 13:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted I speedy tagged it, and I feel so correctly, since there is no evidence to suggest Seigenthaler did kill JFK, it only stands to give him a bad name. IanID:540053 17:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted I appreciate the tongue in cheek, but this is a bit like touching a hot stove just after it's burned you. –Abe Dashiell 20:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Extremely insensitive joke template that was correctly deleted on sight. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-01

Template:Help Wikiboxes

Deleted out of process, this was in no way a personal attack, as claimed in the deletions. This was deleted while discussion at WP:TFD was in progress. Undelete and allow the TfD to continue normally. DES 12:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

2005-12-31

Category:Moneyball (CfD Discussion)

I think this deletion should be reviewed because, it seems like, no "baseball people" saw the deletion discussion to make the obvious counter-argument, and the category was deleted on bad evidence. I think this is wrong, and at least the CfD should be re-listed with an informed counter-argument to see what happens.

Moneyball is much more than just some book (a claim the CfD discussion never challenged), the book just gave name to and popularized among the masses a movement that had been brewing for years. Developed by Bill James and first truly implimented by Billy Beane at Oakland, the philosophy is the most controversial topic in baseball (other than steroids) in the past 10 years, and has changed the way nearly everyone thinks about the basic statistics of baseball (which is big, considering baseball is a game of statistics). So it's not just one of many baseball books published every year... it's the most important baseball book published in the past 20 years, and a major topic in baseball even had the book never been written.

The articles on people involved and the basic concepts (on base percentage, On-base plus slugging, sabermetrics, etc.) seem to be improved by being listed in the category, it lets someone interested in moneyball easilly find other related articles. I'm sorry I missed the CfD and couldn't present this argument there... I guess all us baseball geeks take winter off like the players. --W.marsh 16:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

  • If you want to use it for a broader topic than just issues mentioned in the book, why not make Category:Sabermetrics? That would cover the issues involved. Firebug 17:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Sabermetrics is just the statistics, moneyball involves the people who use them, oppose them, etc. which is a big issue in baseball today. For example, you couldn't really put Billy Beane and other people in Category:Sabermetrics. I'll consider creating the category though, it would be useful for the statistics. --W.marsh 17:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, but "moneyball" (as a descriptor) isn't NPOV, is it? I mean, I usually hear the term in the context of the phrase, "f-ckin' moneyball." Of course, I'm a Royals fan -- yes we do exist. :) Anyway, Sabermetrics seems more objective to me. Xoloz 18:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
        • That's an interesting point... but it's not exactly POV to say someone or something is associated with moneyball, as long as that's well documented. The category also applies to well-known critics of moneyball, like Joe Morgan. I really don't see the POV here... it's well documented which people and topics associated with moneyball... it's just moneyball itself that is controversial. Some people think moneyball is bad, some think it's good... the same could be said of many categories we have. --W.marsh 18:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Oh sure... it's just that I don't know anyone who uses moneyball positively, who says, "Wow, isn't moneyball great!" Like I said, this could just be my bias -- but I wonder if "moneyball" isn't like "anti-choice" or "pro-murder" as applied in abortion debates -- exclusively a pejorative. Anyway, undelete and relist, this merits full discussion at a new debate. Substantial new, previously-unaddressed points have been raised. Xoloz 18:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete, reason for deletion contradicted by information here. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete Moneyball is IMO an incredibly important book, with implications for business managers outside of baseball: there is real value in employees that other organizations shun because they don't fit a cookie-cutter mold. I am only a casual fan of baseball & am really not interested in sabremetrics, but I think the concept has broad application. Billbrock 23:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC) Comment: oops, I misread. Didn't realize this was a category deletion, to which I have no objection. Billbrock 01:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist on CfD, see if there are more discussions this time around. --Deathphoenix 18:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: I'm closing this DRV now, and clearly there is an overturning. That appears based on a misunderstanding of the undeletion of categories: it does not repopulate them. So anyone who wants to can recreate the category in the articles (there's no record of those available, either), and use this as their mandate. There is no point relisting an empty category on cfd prior to it being repopulated. -Splash 00:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Timeline for missing persons following the September 11, 2001 Attacks (AFD discussion)

This article should be undeleted because of significant new information that was not considered at discussion: the article was important enough to have been cited in the peer-reviewed article

Edkins, Jenny. The rush to memory and the rhetoric of war. Journal of Political & Military Sociology; Winter 2003, Vol. 31(2), p. 231-250

This printed article is kept in the world's academic libraries and a broken Misplaced Pages link gives an extremely unprofessional impression. For verification, I can email the article to anyone who provides me with their email address on my talk page. AxelBoldt 08:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

2005-12-29

Template:Album infobox 2

TfD here: Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/December 2005#Template:Album_infobox_2

Review so what happened to this whilst most of us were not watching over the holidays, there was no clear concensus so how was this to be a remove authority. There were issues with the clicking on the image but they had been solved. I cannot believe that such creativity should be stamped upon also I don't believe if we are able to use an image we fall foul if we are an image in such an innocuous way. Most of all what is the point of these votes is they are ridden roughshod over!

Clearer guidance should be given if this really is a fair use problem, I fail to see the reason for its use (the fair use arguement) here. If we are able to use the image to illustrate the album, we are able to use the image to illustrate the album, period.

In the forking point, surely the aim of the those working on the version was to make the "smarter" form, the new standard, (i.e. not forked). Perhaps this was not gone about the best way, but there it is.

Overriding these concerns, where is the adjudiction summary, and/or final reason given for the action taken. Please can people be a little more considerate of the effort people are putting in to create this resource. If the decision is to stand please do the 'losing' opinion the courtesy of a polite statement. Kevinalewis 09:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Overturn/Undelete, this TfD closed with 22 delete to 21 keep which is, in my opinion, too close to consider a consensus (further, one of the deletes didn't sign their vote). —Locke Cole • t • c 15:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Overturn/relist On examining the TfD, I do see the defects complained of. Lack of closing rationale, closeness of the tallies, uncertainty over the fair argument. I would endorse the closure if I were convinced regarding lack of a fair use claim; however, album covers are intended for display, and uses that promote the album are generally permissible (and highly unlikely to generate an infringement claim in the first instance.) Decision is too muddled to stand as is. Xoloz 16:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted - TfD is not a vote - less so than other pages, really, because of the relative lack of traffic and the high degree to which people want every stupid template but their own deleted - it has long been run on a system of "Read through the argument and make a call about which side gives the most persuasive reasons." I am thusly persuaded that an increase in the use of fair use images and the desire for a universal style of album infoboxes is a persuasive reason. Phil Sandifer 16:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • There is a universal style, and this template follows it (hence why a simple redirect is all it took to change things; the parameters are identical, this template simply adds a few additional parameters). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Unredirect, closure in error, and per Phil as well, most persuasive arguments were to keep -- or rather, no persuasive argument was made to delete, which amounts to the same thing. While I would support dropping fair use images entirely, if we accept fair use as a rationale it certainly applies to these images. Template forking is not a problem; editors are perfectly capable of choosing among a variety of similar but slighly different templates. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Endorse. TFD is not supposed to be a vote. Most 'keep' voters just joined the pileon and didn't specify a reason. The 'delete' voters had two solid arguments that nobody had a meaningful rebuttal to. 1) It is a fork. If you don't like a template, edit it, do not fork. And 2) It breaks fair use. There are legal problems with the way this template uses images. Legal concerns trump consensus. Radiant_>|< 01:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Most keep votes were agreeing with the disagreement over fair-use. Just because they chose not to comment doesn't immediately invalidate their voice; I take such votes as indicating that everything said up till their vote already addressed their points better than they could. As for forking, it's fully compatible with {{Album infobox}} (hence why a simple redirect was even possible as a stop-gap solution). And legal concerns do not trump consensus if there's no consensus about the legal concerns. That's circular logic. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Legal concerns would trump consensus if the consensus were openly defiant or ignorant of copyright law. However, although I am no IP expert, I take the informed view that fair use applies here. The image (at low resolution) is used only to direct the searcher to an encyclopedic article about the album. If anything, this innocently promotes the album; the character of the use is, in this case, so intermingled with the public commentary permitted under the fair use doctrine that I cannot imagine an infringement action being brought, or succeeding. This case is easily distinguished from claims of fair use on user-pages, which claims are asinine. Xoloz 05:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Fork templates cause a lot of headaches.. we made the right decision. Rhobite 00:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Rhobite, Radiant. There's also an overwhelming preference/consensus demonstrated by the people who create album articles, better than 10:1. Monicasdude 04:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn, we should stop bloody gathering consensuses, then, if nobody's willing to abide by them. That would also solve a lot of the vandalism problems (makes note to suggest rigid hierarchy model sometime)--Agamemnon2 10:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse. A number of users typing "keep" does not make something not a fork (nor does it trump "fair use" concerns). Nothing wrong with the judgement call made in the closing. Jkelly 04:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • There's nothing wrong with a fork in this instance as it is perfectly compatible with {{Album infobox}} (hence why a simple redirect was all that was necessary to keep things working after the initial TFD). As to the issue of people typing "keep", I'm sorry, but when I saw those, I assumed good faith and presumed they were agreeing with all the people who'd typed "keep" and explained the reasoning for why fair-use was not a concern. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. None of the supporters of the disputed template have provided a substantial response to this concern: Quoting from the Misplaced Pages:Fair use guidelines, "it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a 💕." Wikimedia Foundation policy is not subject to revision/exception by Misplaced Pages editors." Monicasdude 15:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The quote cited by Monicasdude really underscores the fair use concerns that made me vote for deletion in the first place. While I personally liked the concept of Infobox2 and prefer the look with the album covers in the discography, I really don't think that can stand when run against the Foundation's stated policy. Not to demean the original Keep votes, but I think many were misinterpreting the policy, instead using personal preference run through the prism of "if it significantly improves the article it is included on" as their justification, rather than the bigger picture of the fully stated policy. Ultimately, I think the right action was taken, as many of the template's supporters were not properly applying the Foundation's stance on the matter. - Liontamer 17:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse - I think this should be rereviewed. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Snowspinner --- Charles Stewart 09:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

  1. Blumpkin: completely rewritten 10:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. List of Netflix distribution centers: withdrawn by nominator 21:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Bonestown: history of discussion page restored. 14:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. John Noble Goodwin: restored 14:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. User boxes deleted by Tony Sidaway: speedily undeleted. 21:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy deletion endorsed, noted on the discussions subpage. 23:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Gojin Motors undeleted and relisted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gojin Motors (2nd nomination). 23:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Wikimongering: kept deleted. 23:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Infosecpedia: closure endorsed, without prejudice against relisting (also without mandating it from this discussion). 23:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Homespring: kept deleted. 23:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Various stub template redirects: numbers short of threshold to simply overturn and undelete, but not clear on how to relist. See note in debate still listed above. 23:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Interwise: speedily undeleted and listed on AfD.
  13. Shpants - History merge up until 12-2-2005 with Three quarter pants and then delete Shpants. WhiteNight 08:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. Gtplanet - Undeleted and relisted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gtplanet (2nd nomination). 21:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  15. Halo.Bungie.Org - Undeleted and relisted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Halo.Bungie.Org (2nd nomination). 21:29, 30 December 2005 (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 admins will honour requests to provide the content of a deleted article if asked politely. See Category:User undeletion.

History only undeletion

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

Decisions to be reviewed

Shortcut

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

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

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

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

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

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

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 December 25}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

4.

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

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 December 25}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 December 25|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

2006-01-10

TRANGO_real-time_embedded_hypervisor

Template:User noie

Was speedily deleted as a R1 (target does not exist), even though according to the summary it apparently redirected to a target that does exist. In addition, there seems to still be references to it. This template should, therefore, be restored as an invalid speedy (which may have been a mistake -- but of course, we are not perfect!). --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Interflop


EUROFUTURES

Please undelete the above page. It is a bona fide page on an NGO-in-creation prepared by a German futures professor. When we returned here in order to improve it and link it to more pages, we find it was simply deleted - without any substantial reasons! It was not a stub but a rather long article, so it is hard to re-create from scratch. --Tjfulopp 10:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: AfD located at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/EUROFUTURES. --Allen3  11:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

More attack templates

Doc glasgow found these and I speedied them.

  1. 11:22, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User War on drugs" (Sole purpose attack on US government policy)
    • This is an attack on the US policy on illegal drugs.
      • As the author of this template, I would like to say that my sole purpose was not to attack US govt policy. My main purpose (and perhaps there were others) was to create a community of Wikipedians interested in writing articles on the decriminalization of drugs. --Tiger Marc 21:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. 11:22, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User No EU" (Sole purpose attack on EU)
    • This is an attack on the EU.
      • How is it an "attack" on the EU ??? and who gives you the right to judge that ? It's simply saying one is against the EU which is a perfectly legitimate political stance. MANY people are in strong opposition of the EU ! No wonder no one takes Misplaced Pages seriously. Epf 20:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. 11:21, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User Fear Bush" (Sole purpose link Bush admistration with neo-fascism)
    • This attacks George W. Bush and his administration by associating US foreign policy with fascism.
  4. 11:20, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User GWB" (Sole purpose attack on George W. Bush)
    • This is a personal attack on George W. Bush
      • Note: I have speedy undeleted this as the associated TFD is running >70% in favor of keeping with more than 70 voters. I believe in that circumstance it is simply inappropriate to have deleted this. Dragons flight 14:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
        • That's okay, soon as this is over, I'll renominate it for deletion, and or speedy it at my descretion. This is a place to write encyclopedic articles, not plaster ones userpage with bumbersticker nonsense.--MONGO 21:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. 11:20, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User Anti-ACLU" (Sole purpose attack on ACLU)
    • This is an attack on the American Civil Liberties Union.
  6. 11:20, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User Anti-UN" (sole purpose attack on UN)
    • This is an attack on the United Nations Organisation.
  • As with the earlier speedies on User apple sucks, User ms sucks and User Bad EU, the criterion I adopted was that: a person, persons, a corporation, government or other organisation was being attacked.
  • Of those listed by Doc, I did not delete some for the following reasons:
  • Template:user illegal-immigration-0
    • Opposition to an process or activity not associated exclusively with any particular group.
      • I'm not advocating this, but for the sake of consistency.... Since the "attack" policy is to delete the "war on drugs" template (above), which opposed a process or activity of the US govt, you should delete this as well because it opposes an activity or process of the US govt -- namely the patriation of illegal immigrants. Note that this template links to -- sacre bleu! -- an entry on illegal immigration in the U.S. --Tiger Marc 21:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Template:User No Marxism
    • Opposition to a political ideology
  • Template:User Antipope
    • Jokey expression of the primacy of one's claim to be pope.
  • Endorse deletion - and wish I'd been bolder myself. Although, I'm not sure I'm following the subtleties of Tony's differentiations. If we are get rough consensus on this, we may need to work out a more simple form of words. --Doc 11:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    To clarify, I'll take the war on drugs policy. This is a specific policy adopted by a specific government, and an attack on the policy in those terms is an attack on the government. A user who says he's opposed to the criminalization of drugs is making a more general statement and, although we may want to regulate, limit, or even forbid the use of that latter kind of template, it wouldn't be an attack. On this occasion I'm performing test speedies of articles that I believe all fall under a particular criterion that I think could command consensus as attack speedies, so I'm only deleting what I think qualifies as an attack on person, persons or a group of people. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion of them all. Opposition to illegal immigration is political movement in U.S., aligns one on a side of an issue of intense debate in the U.S. No Marxism, also aligns a person in a political category, and the use of category is less in your face than the userbox. Antipope could easily be construed to mean anti-Catholic and needs to go.--MONGO 11:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you may not have been paying attention for the last week or so. There is an ongoing policy discussion, and deleting these templates out of process is a sure way to upset folks. Just because you are no longer running for ArbCom does not mean you should act unilaterally. Speedy deletion is not a toy. Opposition to the war on drugs is an opinion, not an attack. Opposition to the EU is an opinion, not an attack. Opposition to George W Bush is an opinion, not an attack. Opposition to the ACLU is an opinion, not an attack. Opposition to the UN is an opinion, not an attack. Your criterion would be acceptable if you were capable of applying it. Please revert the deletions and place these templates on TfD if you truly feel that they need to be removed from wikipedia. Speedy deletion is not a toy. --Dschor 11:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Hm, 'not a toy' is a good catchphrase. I move we add it to WP:NOT - and remember Misplaced Pages is an Encyclopedia. But I don't think it is Tony that is guilty of using its resources as a toy! If your opinions leave you wanting to attack and disparage, fine (indeed I abhor some of these subjects myself). But use you 'own' userspace, not the wiki-wide-template space as a playpark. --Doc 12:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    I am fine with adding 'not a toy' to WP:NOT. The use of templates for userboxes may not be your favorite use of resources, but I think speedy deletion of these templates should at least be supported by policy - and in this case there is no support. These templates should be placed on TfD where they can be properly discussed. None of them are attacks, they are simply opinions. If they were being placed in the article space, I would see your point, but these are for use in user space, and they ought not be deleted in this manner. Speedy deletion is not a toy. --Dschor 12:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages is also not a toy. Endorse Speedy Deletion - attack templates step considerably beyond the scope of the project, divide the community, etc. Misplaced Pages is not Myspace. --Improv 17:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages resources - Actually, it takes less drive space to have one template user box that is included in many user pages than to have each of those Wikipedians copy the user box to their individual pages. This resource argument seems specious. I think it cuts both ways. --Tiger Marc 22:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete All except "Fear Bush". Tony, as it turns out I think we have a different conception of what constitutes an attack. I generally believe that Wikipedians should have the right to express their opposition to any politically important out-of-wiki government, organization, policy or person. In my opinion, if conveyed by an infobox, such opposition should be conveyed in a civil manner. I will agree with you that several of these could be made more civil, but that is a matter of small edits to their content and does not call for deletion. By speedying these, you give the impression that you are opposed to any expression of opposition when directed against a specific organization, policy or person. If that is your intention, then I certainly do not agree with you. I would also like to voice my opinion that it is disrespectful to the voters in TFD to speedy User GWB while it was being discussed there. Dragons flight 13:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: I have speedy undeleted {{User GWB}} on the grounds that the associated and ongoing TFD shows a strong consensus favoring it's existence. Dragons flight 14:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • What you're actually seeing is a majority in a straw poll on a particular template. The opinion expressed by the majority is in favor of abusing Misplaced Pages resources in the name of free speech. This doesn't mean there is a consensus on Misplaced Pages to keep that template. I've redeleted as it's obviously an attack template, and expresses support for some of our most serious vandalism into the bargain. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Agreed. I've re-deleted the template. An attack is not permissible simply because it's contained in a template. In addition, deletion review isn't a venue for voting to ignore WP:NPA or to support vandalism on a particular page. Carbonite | Talk 16:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Attacking politicans is considered protected political speech. There may be reasons for not keeping it, but NPA is irrelevant. Even for you Yanks, I believe. Eusebeus 00:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
          • If this was a trial in the US, the concept of "protected political speech" may be valid. However, this is an encyclopedia, not a court of law. WP:NPA is perfectly valid and relevant to this issue. Carbonite | Talk 01:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Attacking Bush, like attacking any national leader, doesn't fit into personal attacks; it is a valid and recognised vehicle for the expression of political dissent and to characterise it as a personal attack is willfully jejune and supine. As to whether it belongs in an encyclopedia is another matter. Personally I don't care one way or the other, but NPA is not the argument to make here. Eusebeus 03:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, I have no problems with speedying any userbox template that is used to attack a belief or organisation. There's a big difference between these userboxes and those that state how well you speak pig latin. --Deathphoenix 13:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep speedies deleted, and delete ALL opposition/support templates infavor of "interest templates". The goal of NPOV is not to fork articles or encyclopaedias, foster ill-will, change someone's beliefs, or show how much you want to screw some actor/actress. Userboxes should be used to foster a dialogue between opposing viewpoints, o that some sort of consensus view can be brought into articles on the subject. If all pro- and anti- folks had to use the same userbox/usercat system, then they would all get informed equally, and neither side could claim bias or vote-stuffing. Userboxes which violate WP:NPA need not wait on the userbox policy to be formulated, Dschor. Check your userbox POV at the door and look at the good of the encyclopaedia. I can't even edit these days because the servers are crashing from all the vitriol flying. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete pending on-going policy discussion, which is in its infancy. Policy is good. I shall say no more for fear of stomping WP:CIVIL into little pieces in an angry, profane tirade. Lord Bob 15:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, these have no place on Misplaced Pages.--Sean|Black 16:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong undelete all of these. "Attack on US policy"! That is simply foolish, IMO. If that is an "attack page" then any page that expresses in opnion of any govenment policy is an attack page. Since articels are supposed to include such opnions (properly sourced and attributed) this might lead to the deletion of valid articels. In any case the WP:NPOV policy page says that it applies to articles -- expression of opnion on user pages is perfectly legitimate under current policy, and disagreeing with current government policy is not in any rational sense an "attack" on anyone. This is WAY out-of-process. I am going to restore several of these. DES 16:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. We already have policies against attacks. Putting an attack in template form does not in any way exempt it from policy. Carbonite | Talk 16:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:CSD A6 says "Attack pages. Articles which serve no purpose but to disparage their subject" (Emphasis mine). There is currently no policy againt attacks on user pages or in tempaltes except WP:NPA, and several of the above are by no reasoanble streach Personal attacks. DES 18:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
THat;s just plain wikilawyering. Can I thus create templates saying 'user x is an asshole' and expect them not to be speedied as they are not artilces? --Doc 19:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
No becuase that is clearly personal and so violates WP:NPA. But templates that "attack" US policy on an issue, or the US as a whole, or the EU, or a particular wikipedia policy are in no rational sense attacks. IMO such templates should not be speedied, and i would probably oppose their deletion at TfD. DES 20:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, disruptive attack templates. Here's to Tony. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. 18:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete The only difference between writing out an opinion and using a template is ease of use, both for the proprietor of the personal page and for the readers. Deleting these templates opens the box of user page censorship. That is one box an open project cannot afford to open. --۩ Pandora ۩ 20:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Strike comment from sockpuppet of banned User:Zephram Stark (see evidence) Carbonite | Talk 22:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The only difference between writing out an opinion and using a template is ease of use, both for the proprietor of the personal page and for the readers. Deleting these templates opens the box of user page censorship. If we are to adopt the priciple of user page censorship (which perhaps we should) let's do so openly and after a considered discsion on amending WP:UP, not by deleting individual templates. DES 23:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I think to some degree it's one that we can't affod not to open. The Wikimedia Foundation is under no obligation to host irrelevant opinions, especially those that may hurt the encyclopedia by being divisive. -- SCZenz 20:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Ahh, bush's favorite argument. These protestors are dividing the country and therefore we have are right to stop them. These templates are not divisive, what's divisive are all the admins ignoring process and attacking people's personal opinion boxes. Censorship is divisive.--God of War 20:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete Because these were speedy deleted, I cannot see what these User boxes said. Based on a presumption of innocence, I would like them reverted and sent to deletion page for further discussion. --Tiger Marc 21:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete; not attack pages. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, except for war on drugs template. This attacks a policy, not the government itself, or a person, or whoever. The US are not the only country that fights a war on drugs. Nearly all of Asia does so as well. If this has to stay deleted then the illegal immigration template should be judged equally to this one. -- Sneltrekker†My Talk 23:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore and take to TfD. This is taking a good thing too far. Like any other deletion, if there is reasonable disagreement than it is no longer a speedy. It doesn't matter if we agree with the argument that critisicm of the EU is not an attack. All that matters is that this is not the venue in which to have that discussion. - brenneman 01:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore and take to TfD While I think all of these should have been deleted I have to agree that the ammount of disagreement presented makes speedy a questionable descision. — Falerin 01:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Various attack templates

As we're still making policy on this, I'll discuss these recent speedy deletions in detail, with the hope that we can decide what kind of attack can acceptably be speedied. Reverse chronological order because that's how the deletion log lists them.

  1. 08:13, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User ms sucks" (sole purpose attack on microsoft and its customers)
    • Companion to apple sucks. Expresses contempt for Microsoft and its customers, "drones".
  2. 08:09, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User jerk" (sole purpose personal attack)
    • Appears to have been used by people to describe themselves, but has obvious applications as an attack and no redeeming encyclopedic use.
  3. 08:08, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User jacko wacko" (sole purpose personal attack)
  4. 08:03, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User does not trust Jimbo" (sole purpose personal attack)
  5. 08:03, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User delete deletionists" (sole purpose is attack on group (albeit jokey))
    • Partly jokey, but ventures deep into partisan advocacy and attacking a subgroup of Wikipedians.
  6. 08:00, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User browser:Other" (Sole purpose is attack on Microsoft's IE browser (yes I know it sucks))
    • I have doubts about this deletion. Is it an attack, or just a particularly vague expression of browser preference? "This user contributes using any browser other than Internet Explorer" I think I'll go with the intent--which seems to be to denigrate a software product for the purpose of advocacy.
  7. 07:58, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User apple sucks" (Sole purpose is an attack on Apple Computer.)
    • As ms sucks, almost identical wording.
  8. 07:54, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User bad eu" (redirect to deleted userbox that denigrated the EU)
    • See below
  9. 07:52, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User bad EU" (Sole purpose is denigration of the EU)
    • This is a very harsh condemnation of the EU.
  • Overall I think that userbox templates of this kind have no place on Misplaced Pages because they abuse Misplaced Pages facilities in the service of attacking a person, a group of people, a company, or the works uniquely associated with a person, persons or a company. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse I'm actually glad to see those gone - although the "user does not trust Jimbo" one is hilarious :). WhiteNight 09:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion of all templates which criticize or disparage their subject. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse, weak in some cases. I feel like the EU and major corporations are too large for "attacking" them to be a big deal; attacking their users is another matter. It's also worth noting that Template:User does not trust Jimbo was created as a humorous counterpoint to my own userbox {{User trusts Jimbo}}; one could argue that if a userbox supporting Mr. Wales is ok, then the counterpoint should also (albeit probably not in this form). -- SCZenz 09:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • One could argue that, although I would argue that it is not necessarily so. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • (To SCZenz): On the EU one, how about a template that said something similar about the USA? Although the EU is not a nation state like the EU, it does have a social apparatus, and its membership is open only to members of the Council of Europe, who are bound by one overriding constitution governing human rights, its citizens vote in Europe-wide democratic elections to its Parliament, and most of its executive decisions are taken by senior elected cabinet ministers of the member countries in session. The box describes the EU as "an over-powerful, non-democratic bureaucracy" as a matter of fact rather than opinion, which seems to be use of template space to get around the neutrality policy
    • On your argument for symmetry, I think I can imagine a very mild, jokey template as a counterpart to yours, but I must admit I have to screw my eyes tight shut to do so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Anything that's unacceptable regarding the EU would be unacceptable regarding the US, and vice versa. There's should be a similar equivalence for any country or international organization. The question is, whether attacks that are so massively impersonal, because the targets are so huge, really a problem? -- SCZenz 09:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm making a conscious effort to avoid further userbox dramatics... but several of these had associated categories, which someone may want to zap as well. —Cryptic (talk) 09:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If there is indeed consensus that the deletions above are basically sensible, I suggest we add it to WP:CSD. See Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Attack_templates. -- SCZenz 09:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. However, framing a 'policy' could be difficult. What about 'user against apartheid'? I'd suggest: 1) any userboxes are generally allowed (subject to WP:NPA). Howerer, as for templates. 2) No commenting whatsoever, even implicitly, on individual wikipedians. 2) No disparraging of groups of wikipedians. 3) No campaigning or wiki-politicing 3) No disparaging of any individual figure (remember Seigenthaler). Any of the above should be speediable - anything debatable then TfD. As I say, you can still do most of the above in your userspace, just not using wiki-wide-templates. --Doc 09:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • User against apartheid, etc, are probably not attacks because they're expression of (albeit often extreme) shades of political opinion, on which I think I'd want to see a separate policy. Here I'm concentrating on attacks on a person, a group of people, a goverment, corporation or other organisation, or works uniquely associated with a person, persons, or a government, corporation or other organisation. So attacking Microsoft by going after their browser is covered, but saying you don't use non-tabbing browsers with undisclosed security bugs isn't. Saying you hate communists is covered, saying you hate communism isn't. Saying you are vehemently opposed to scientology is covered, saying you support the longstanding antiscientology project "Operation Clambake isn't (at least, notunder the proposed extension of A6). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with this opinion completely. I love userboxes, and use a ton myself, but if all they contain is hatespeech they only ruin the community, instead of improving it, which as far as I can see is their main goal. -- Sneltrekker†My Talk 22:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • One template that I chose not to speedy is one that expresses implacable opposition to illegal immigration, "without forgiveness". While the wording there is a little odd (forgiveness?) and such templates may still be deletable if they damage wikipedia, they're not attacks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete speedy deletion is not a toy. None of these are, properly speaking, attack templates. All of the express an opinion, but not one is an attack. These are not intended for use in the article space, and NPOV is not required in user space. Please list these templates properly. Speedy deletion is not a toy. --Dschor 11:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Tentative support deletion, but temporarily undelete and substub where humorous use was appropriate. - Mgm| 12:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted except for the jerk template if it was self-applied (as noted above), I have no problems with speedying any userbox template that is used to attack a belief or organisation. --Deathphoenix 13:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Really wishing these were not a block item:
    1. Undelete and reword User bad EU: As per my comments above (Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review#More_attack_templates), legitimiate expressions of political opposition should be rewritten to be made civil, but should not be uniformly deleted.
    2. Undelete User browser:Other: I simply see no problem with this.
    3. Undelete and TFD User does not trust Jimbo and User delete deletionists: While I am not a fan of these and might well vote for their deletion, they are both apparently intended as humourous and I do not think they rise to the level of something that should be speedied. Had it been any other Wikipedian than Jimbo, I would have endorsed deletion of that one, but he is in fact a very visible public person and I think there is room for legitimate discussion of to what extent we should be able to poke fun at our Godking.
    4. Keep deleted User jerk and User jacko wacko: Jerk may have legitimate uses, but is likely to also be used as an attack. The Jackson template is clearly inappropriate.
    5. Mixed feelings on User apple sucks and User ms sucks: I might support anti-ms/anti-apple templates if someone was prepared to give them a better name and far more civil content, but as presented these are rather far over the top and it might be better to start over than to use these as a foundation for anything. Even with a rewrite, I'm not sure I'd support these, but I would have to see it first.
  • Somebody undeleted Template:GWB, but I think it's obvious that its intention is to denigrate George W. Bush. There's also the problem of advocating vandalism. I'm unwilling to let a template of this type stand, so I've deleted it again. I've also deleted Template:GWB2, which is another attack on Bush. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
GWB2 is actually nicer than the fist GWB. GWB2 said Bush's edits to the constitution should be reverted. This is following NPA as cricising the action, not the person. The link in GWB2 was to legislation of the patriot act, not bush. If you were to read the tfd for GWB, people were suggesting switching to GWB2 as it was nicer than GWB. Please undelete this and list it properly if you must.--God of War 21:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep speedies deleted, and delete ALL opposition/support templates in favor of "interest templates". The goal of NPOV is not to fork articles or encyclopaedias, foster ill-will, change someone's beliefs, or show how much you want to screw some actor/actress. Userboxes should be used to foster a dialogue between opposing viewpoints, o that some sort of consensus view can be brought into articles on the subject. If all pro- and anti- folks had to use the same userbox/usercat system, then they would all get informed equally, and neither side could claim bias or vote-stuffing. Userboxes which violate WP:NPA need not wait on the userbox policy to be formulated; now can we get back to making an encyclopaedia?? -- nae'blis (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and TfD User jerk and User browser:Other, but do as you like with the others. —Andux 16:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete all Tfd ones that are personal attacks, leave all others pending agreement on userbox policy. i have undelteded all of these that were not clear personal attacks (and I do not regard the EU as a "person") as obviously out-of-process spedies. Take them to TfD if you must. DES 17:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted deleted. These are all personal attacks in violation of Misplaced Pages policies.Gateman1997 18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, these templates were primarily used as personal attacks. Endorse the proviso noted by Mgm. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletions. 19:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Respectfully Disagree The Michael Jackson template was meant in humor. Also consider it was pretty widely used, and does anyone seriously think Michael Jackson cares what we think about him? --D-Day 20:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Someone keeps resuscitating Template: User GWB. As it's both an attack and an incitement to vandalism and there is substantial consensus that (a) vandalism must not be encouraged, (b) personal attacks are not allowed and (c) this applies in template space too, I'd appreciate it if someone else would help us to pull the plug on this especially toxic template. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore and TfD, mostly per Dragons flight. Once there is rational opposition, it's not a speedy anymore. None of these appear to rise to the level of acrimony that an attack speedy requires. Unless we're trying to create a divide between admins and regular users, these discussions should take place where everyone can judge the contents. - brenneman 01:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm just not seeing a policy reason to restore here. There was a bit of a kerfuffle over User GWB but that seems to have resolved itself by a bit of inspired editing that managed to remove the attack and the incitement while still adhering to the original author's stated intention (and I believe him) of expressing abhorrence of vandalism to the George W. Bush article. There is a policy divide between administrators and users. Administrators don't slavishly follow what other users want them to do. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Jim Apple/deeceevoice departure

Was deleted with notices that it was a betting pool (it was not) or attacked deeceevoice (it did not). It was created after deeceevoice's suggestion . Jim Apple 06:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Is that a suggestion? It was, more than anything else, deeceevoice showing she was annoyed over the betting pool. Endorse speedy, keep deleted. Titoxd 06:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
There was no betting pool, as there were no bets suggested.
If "take it elsewhere" means something other than "take it elsewhere", then I'm just lost from the beginning. -- Jim Apple 06:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
If she had told you, "you can put it somewhere else", it might. But she just removed it from her talk page, which is a "Stop bugging me" from any angle you see it. Titoxd 07:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The edit summary is "you can put it somewhere else". Jim Apple 07:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
deecee also said that she does not care about the speculation. . -- Jim Apple 07:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
If you said "I don't care what people say about me", that would not be an invitation for me to call you names, nor would it grant me an exception to WP:NPA. -Will Beback 07:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
There was not one personal attack on the page in question. I'm not asking for an exception to NPA, since I don't intend to make any PAs. Jim Apple 07:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Please be don't call me any names. -- Jim Apple 06:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
He's not, that's an actual page on meta, SCZenz wants you to read. - Mgm| 12:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Just because something is an actual page doesn't mean it's not actually calling someone a name. It would be rude to point to Mental retardation or reading comprehension. -- Jim Apple 13:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I mean in general in a dispute. I'm not calling anyone here slow. -- Jim Apple 14:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
What was the attack? There were no insults; the page specifically said that I want dcv to stay, so I don't know how it could be considered hostile. Jim Apple 07:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
It is an insulting page, making fun of a user in good standing by speculating how long it takes to get fed up with Misplaced Pages and leave. Deeceevoice is under quite a lot of stress now, due to an ArbCom case against her, and that makes such a page all the worse. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no "making fun". See User talk talk:Jim Apple/deeceevoice departure. The question is quite serious - what happens when someone who has thousands of contributions gets fed up? Just because my page was in chart form, rather than in anecdote form as on user talk:deeceevoice, doesn't make it a joke. Jim Apple 07:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
You're trolling. Stop it. Misplaced Pages userspace is for work in furtherance of the project, not for making personal attacks, slights, speculation, etc, on the people associated with the project. If you must engage in such speculation, do it elsewhere and do not link there from Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
It's a nice idea that userspace furthers the project, but often userspace is random musings, political affiliations, wikistress meters or photos of the editor in question. -- Jim Apple 13:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-09

Template:User against scientology

  • Out of Process - There is a debate still on-going at Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion#Template:User_against_scientology. User:Tony Sidaway has deleted this template in the middle of the debate without any notice in the tfd. Regardless of whether or not the template has any merit, it should be undeleted for the course of tfd as cleary no consensus has yet been reached there.--God of War 05:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep deleted. Templates that exist only to attack groups of people (any people) have absolutley no place on Misplaced Pages.--Sean|Black 05:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • That is your opinion, but wouldn't things be better if you were saying these words at the on-going tfd?--God of War 05:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Honestly, no. I speedied {{user against jews}}, and no one overturned me- I'm sorry, but these things simply can't exist. WP:CIV--Sean|Black 06:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Including the creators of that template, who had by their own admission made it as a POINT, and who made it a very improper analogue to the template they were trying to get deleted (if they had named it correctly, it would have been "User against Judaism" and it wouldn't have been the knee-jerk case that they and you are arguing the template actually under discussion is.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Actually if you'd read the template it only referred to Judaism. Granted it was named wrong but the message on it was correctly pointing to Judaism not Jew. The name of the template was irrelevant, similar to if I had a template named User:People who eat worms that had the message "This user supports rainbows".Gateman1997 18:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
              • Ah, I see, so if I want to delete {{user cpp}}, all I have to do is create a new template called {{user wants to kill all Visual Basic programmers}}, and have the text of that template be "This user is a C++ programmer". That way, people will judge the template based on the title rather than the contents, and then once it's deleted I can tell people that they have to delete {{user cpp}}, as its contents are exactly the same as a template we've already deleted. I see! ... You "grant" that the template was named wrong as if that misleading name had no effect at all on whether it was deleted, something that I for one am not at all inclined to take on faith.-- Antaeus Feldspar 19:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
                • Hey it was named appropriately since Jew does refer to somone of the Jewish faith or Judaism. Jew is not an exclusive term for someone of Hebrew decent. It could easily have been moved, but of course everyone for the Scientolgy one looked for the easy out to support their case. In either case they're both gone now and should remain so since they are nothing but divisive hate speech that do NOTHING to further the project and are not in the spirit Jimbo has put forth for the project. Many of the disputed userboxes that are considered "silly" are, but this one is not.Gateman1997 20:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete/Overturn I wouldn't mind any of these gone, but we really should let the community decide, and the speedy was not valid. WhiteNight 05:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Actually, I noticed that the scientology linked to an anti-scientology site, which very well could make this fall under an A6-type speedy - so I'll withdraw from this one. WhiteNight 07:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I have no problem with this being speedied. While speedy-deletion criterion A6 technically applies only to pages in the main space, extending it to pages in the Template: space seems quite reasonable to me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted for obvious reasons.--MONGO 06:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Should have been speedied as fast as {{user against jews}}, and I'm frankly embarrased that I didn't do it myself. -- SCZenz 06:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. No reason to treat this differently than "user against jews". Rhobite 06:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, except that "Scientology" is a belief system, where as "Jews" may designate a belief system or a racial classification. Are we going to have a general policy stating that a user cannot declare themselves against any belief system? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't see this as a slippery slope. If you're going to declare yourself "against" a religion, you should spend the 2 seconds and express your bias in your own words. Also: Since "Muslim" only refers to a belief system, would you support a "user against muslims" userbox? In your view, is there a moral difference between being bigoted against a religion and being bigoted against a race? Rhobite 23:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
        • To answer your first question, then point out how it's a poorly constructed question: No, I wouldn't support a "user against Muslims" template. However, I would give the same vote to "user against Islam", "user against Judaism" and "user against Roman Catholicism" (my religion, BTW) the same vote I gave to "user against Scientology", namely "Keep until such time as we have a policy worked out that covers userboxes like this in general." If you don't believe that my money is where my mouth is, just let me know and I'll be the first to create {{user against Roman Catholicism}}. You see, when you subtract the prejudicial terminology from your second question, and make it into an actual question, it becomes "Is there a moral difference between being opposed to a belief system and being opposed to a race?" And the answer is quite obviously yes. No one has any control over what race they belong to. However, people clearly have control over what belief system they choose to adopt; to suggest that it is automatically "bigoted" to oppose any such belief system is to support the premise that no belief system should ever be opposed -- which is clearly ludicrous. Is it wrong to oppose the belief system of Nazism? Would it suddenly become wrong if Nazism suddenly became a "religion"; would the racial hatred of Nazism get a free pass then? Do the prejudices embedded in Scientology, that "anyone who criticizes Scientology is a criminal" who in a perfect Scientology world would be "disposed of quietly and without sorrow", that every single psychiatrist practicing is a sociopathic murderer -- do these hatreds suddenly become acceptable once the belief system that contains them is classified as a "religion"? Did you notice that we now have this template, {{user scientology}}? What about it? Is it okay to express support for a belief system that contains bigotries, but "bigoted" to express opposition to that same belief system? This is why my vote was to keep until a policy fair to everyone was worked out. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted We shouldn't be handcuffed from exercising commonsense in such an obvious case as this. Rx StrangeLove 06:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore, was speedily deleted without consensus while TfD discussion is still ongoing at Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion... --Mistress Selina Kyle 06:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Sorry, this is way beyond the line. This is an attack template, deletable on sight. Titoxd 06:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and speedy any similar hatemongering. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Look at that. I checked and each and every person here voting for deletion is an administrator. So much for community consensus.--God of War 06:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Look at that. We've been here long enough to realize we're here to write an encyclopedia, not attack people. If you do a bit more research, you'll see this is the first time I've ever supported one of Tony's "out-of-process" speedies; maybe there's a reason for that, eh? -- SCZenz 06:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, that does it. I was going to abstain, but I'd say this has tipped my opinion just enough to one side. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I voted keep at TfD on procedural grounds, but I see no problem extending CSD A6 to templates per Knowledge Seeker. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm the person who speedied this. While there has been strong opposition to deletion of belief-based userboxes in general, this seems to fit into a small category of userboxes that exist solely for denigration and disparagement of a group of people. I notice that a few people, for instance User:Rogue 9, have substed the template onto their user pages, and that may be acceptable (I won't make a judgement either way at the moment) because it then falls solely within userspace. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, substing has become the only way to protect yourself from waking-up to find your userpage desecrated with red-links with your only chance of review at a board like this one full of like minded people to the admin that deleted all of your boxes without warning anyone.--God of War 07:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Most of the people who hang around here would probably be quite insulted to be considered like-minded with Tony. —Cryptic (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
        I wouldn't be, so I guess I don't fit into the "most" category. Userboxes have gotten out of control. I'm thinking a policy change needs implementation--MONGO 11:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
        • That's why this deletion out of process is an insult to those of us whose vote was "Keep, until a general policy is in place."
      • Well often the editors in this most bureaucratic of discussion pages do endorse non-bureaucratic deletions of unsuitable material. So on this issue I think that, despite our differences on form, there is substantial agreement. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, I have no problems with speedying any userbox template that is used to attack a belief or organisation, no matter how much I agree with the userbox (and I agree with the sentiments in this one). --Deathphoenix 13:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, and I'm not an admin, God of War. Guess that breaks your conspiracy theory, eh? -- nae'blis (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore. If this was going to be speedied on a single admin's decision that it was unsuitable, it should have been done at the beginning of the discussion. The fact that for six days the discussion went on without a single admin who looked at it saying "This is clearly speedy-delete material" means that it was not a case clear enough that one admin should step in at the end and say "I don't care that there is a wide variety of opinions being expressed here, I only choose to see it one way and because I'm an admin, I will force that on everyone else." -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, does nothing to further the project, is divisive, violates WP:CIV, and is a personal attack on a group of people. Also Tony waited 7 days and then deleted as is his right as an admin, remember WP isn't a democracy.Gateman1997 18:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You have got to be kidding me! "His right as an admin"?! I think you are slightly confused, because you seem to be mistaken between what Tony did and what a responsible admin might have done. A responsible admin might have checked the date that the discussion started, seen that enough time had elapsed for points and counter-points to be well-discussed, and decided to close the discussion. A responsible admin would then have counted the various votes to assess what the will of the community was, and either announce the results of consensus if the consensus was clear, or use their discretion between the options supported by the community if there was no clear consensus, and then announce at the ongoing discussion what the result was and why. This is not what Tony did. What Tony did was to delete the template immediately, unilaterally, and not even announce that he'd done so. This wasn't an admin legitimately closing the debate; this was a rogue admin using his powers illegitimately to enforce the result he wanted, and showing his contempt for the process. That is the whole reason this is at deletion review; people have been casting "Keep deleted" votes as if this was just an extension of the debate about whether or not the template should be deleted. It's not. It's about whether Tony should be looking at a TfD debate and saying "Well, there's a spectrum of opinion here: some people think it should be speedy-deleted, some think it should be regularly deleted, some think it should be kept, some think it should be kept and then reviewed once we have a general policy in place that covers all userboxes of this kind. However, screw them all; not only do their opinions not matter a bit in the face of the fact that I think it should be speedy-deleted, they don't even deserve to know why the template suddenly disappeared with no explanation. Why should I bother to explain myself to lowly non-admin users?" -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted. For all the reasons listed above. 18:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted. WP:NPA. A notice on WP:TfD would have been nice though. -- Sneltrekker†My Talk 22:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted. "Misplaced Pages is not a place to assess the morality of a person, their beliefs or their orientation, neither is it the place to advocate for or against a political or religious point of view." --JWSchmidt 23:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted as per WP:NPA and the many things above. — Falerin 01:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Virago

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Virago 2

Deleted against the policy; the debate ended in "no consensus", which means that the article stays. Since there was almost no participation in this VfD, it is a fair game for AfD-relisting, but definitelyt not deletion. mikka (t) 01:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

LUElinks

I feel that, after the "raid" yesterday, LUElinks merits an article. They did pass the WP:WEB before it was changed recently, having over 5,000 members, and it's made an impact out of its community many a time (as the GameFAQs counterpart LUE). It was actually deleted last month for failing WP:WEB, as it is a closed community, of which I am a member. Please see Talk:LUElinks for discussion Sceptre 21:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted. Articles about LUElinks have already been deleted several times; The website is inaccessible to outsiders making an article inherently unverifiable; and I still don't see how this meets WP:WEB guidelines. Site is not notable. Rhobite 21:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Rhobite. Neither verifiable or notable in any encyclopedic sense. Fails WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn This valid title should redirect to GameFAQs message boards, where it is of some notability. Ashibaka tock 01:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite. LUELinks is significant in the events that it has created/taken part in, such as the (unsuccesful) U.S.-wide UFO Hoax and the recent participation in the Ebuams raid. While I understand that it is difficult to write about a site closed to outsiders, there is enough known information to write into an article, and there are other wikipedia articles written that are also unverifiable. Keeping it deleted seems to suggest that it is not significant to the rest of the internet in any way whatsoever. I also disagree that it should redirect to GameFAQs message boards because LUELinks is only related to GameFAQS from its conception and userbase. LUELinks is not a GameFAQs board. Making LUELinks a section under the GameFAQs boards would be akin to placing 4chan under the Something_Awful_forums, as 4chan was created in a similar manner (albeit without the privatization of the site to outsiders). Kyre Elsion 04:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Writing about it is easy. However fact-checking what is written is something that is impossible to most of Misplaced Pages. Also, the difference between 4-chan and SA and LL and GFAQs is that 4-chan is not closed off to anyone that does not have an SA account. You needed a GFAQs account at some point to get into LL.--Toffile 15:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, valid AfD. --Deathphoenix 13:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I enjoy the site, but the verifiability for outsiders and teh fact that outside of the e-Baum's invasion is almost nil in terms of it having an effect on the outside world. Yes, there was the UFO hoax, but that failed. The only other one I can think of was the boxing, but even then....the site in the grand scheme of things is non-notable. As for a redirect to GameFAQs or GameFAQs Message Boards, I don't support either. I respect that LUELinks has some autonomy from GFAQs, but even then it's really just a spinoff.--Toffile 15:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Tiny Rewrite: LUELinks has played a part in the YTMND-Day demonstrations, and that should be noted on the page, especially since it is linked directly from eBaum's World. By all means, keep it limited to that, and keep it protected, but it does deserve a sentence or two noting what it is and how it was involved. And yes, I am a member of LUELinks, although I try to keep as NPOV as possible. gtdp (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • As an extension to my above comment, I would be happy to provide a screenshot of LL's involvement in the riots as a source if the article is re-written (feel free to leave a comment on my talk page if you want to). gtdp (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and redirect and protect. -Sean Curtin 00:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Dechronification

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dechronification

It's a new year, times change, so please give Dechronification another chance. It's a concept made by Robert Freitas, promoted & endorsed (and expanded?) by Ray Kurzweil. He even hosts Freitas's essay about it here. They're both notable, so why shouldn't Dechronification. Notability is also subjective in the fact that there's no magic # of Google Hits to determine notability or not.

In fact, there are many articles even less notable than Dechronification. Press "Random Article". They're an easy find. Therefore, at least give Dechronification a chance. Especially when it's backed up by at least a couple prominent scientists & futurists, and is a technological form of Rejuvenation. --Shultz 23:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment that there are things less notable does not make this somehow more notable - that is a logical fallacy. If there are things worse, perhaps they should also be deleted. Your first argument, that this has become notable, may indeed be valid. KillerChihuahua 00:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
As per KillerChihuahua, please tell us what NEW information that was not available at debate would justify giving this another run. As is I don't really see anything except an argument that it is notable, which should have been made at the afd. Just because you think it is notable doesn't mean anyone else does, and indeed they must have thought it wasn't because they wanted to delete it unanimously. So please tell us what information the debators didn't know at the time. If there was none then there is really nothing for us to do here. WhiteNight 01:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
What is the "statute of limitations" for a deleted article- how long is it before its ok to post the article again? Anyways, dechronification is a form of technological rejuvenation. The votes were heavily biased; a long time ago, when the AFD was up, I was such a noob so people disliked me more than they do now. I naively made mistakes without knowing they were mistakes, so the slanted choices probably also came from looking at my previous contributions at that time.
About the information the debators didn't know at the time, maybe they didn't even read through the article, and went straight to deleting it because of me myself. Also, they probably forgot to look at the links.
The user "Just zis guy you know" said "this is pure sci fi", well nanotech is already starting to gain good momentum. I think they've already made medical advances in it, so Dechronification is in its fetal stages right now.
Second, many sci-fi concepts are already here. Teleportation, FTL Travel, phasers, techlepathy, holodeck, space elevator, and I could go on and on. Another thing is that notability isn't determined by the number of search results. User:Alai told me this when I asked, "How many search results does a topic need before being considered notable? 10000?" He told me luckily it doesn't need to be that many, and it's subjective as there are other factors to consider as well. Google says there are 178 search results on this link, though as Alai said, a topic over 10000 Google Hits may not be articleworthy, or it can have less than 100, and be articleworthy because it's not all dependent on Google Hits (again, what I didn't tell the debators at the time.)
The article would give hope to the many, many users that long to be young again. It would prove to them that rejuvenation won't be a fantasy anymore. (I didn't tell them this at the time either. About the hope it would give, plus that rejuvenation won't be a fantasy, you see?) It will become reality somewhere around the corner. (2 Decades, tops.) Doubt that? See the Technological Singularity; it'll race technological advancements here faster than you think (and eventually, faster than you can think).
I might add more later. That'll be all for now. --Shultz 10:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-07

Category:List of Christian Entertainers

All that is left is subcategories for people of specific faiths.If a person doesn't fit into those categories, there is no longer a place for them.Some people such as Tom Hanks for example don't fit neatly into any sub-category.This list included all Christians both Protestant and Catholic.California 12 02:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I am unable to find any evidence that the category for which you are requesting undeletion ever existed. Are you perhaps looking for Category:Christian actors, Category:Christian writers, or some other subcategory of Category:Christian people? --Allen3  23:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Christian Entertainers did exist.You can find it on google search.I had contributed quite a bit to it and was suprised to find it gone.However I did not realize the lists that you mentioned above existed.In light of this I will add some of the names that were lost on the other list which was much longer.And will withdraw my request for the deletion review as I did not realize there was a list that was similar.Although it is a shame that the info off the other list was not merged with these.Thanks .California 12 10:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's it.Maybe it could be brought back with a different title.Perhaps it could be called List of Entertainers who are Christians? Would that be allowed? California 12 12:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The closure of that debate was pretty questionable: strictly on the numbers, it was only 60% for deletion, and it appears that some effort was made to resolve the concerns of those who voted delete as the nomination progressed. You could take it up with the closing admin, User:Enochlau, on his talk page, or ask here for the article to be undeleted, in which case it quite possibly would be. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I hate to keep going back and forth , but with the information you've just given me I would like to request the page be undeleted.I don't care that much about the name, it's the content that matters.I've never requested an article be undeleted before.If I'm not going about it correctly then I apologize and please don't hesitate to admonish me if I am doing this incorrectly.The thing that bothers me is if there is a list of famous people who just happened to be atheist, so why not a list of famous people who happen to be Christians? Is this not the fair and neutral thing? As a Christian I have no urge to delete the atheist list.California 1201:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

comment: IMHO this list should stay deleted, and be replaced with a Category. Lists such as this are inherently hard to maintain, whereas Cats are self-updating. I would also, as a parenthetical remark, vote Delete if a List of Atheist Entertainers showed on Afd. KillerChihuahua 17:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Please pardon my ignorance but could you direct me to a page explaining the list versus category ? Also with regards to the atheist list I do strongly believe it sends a very biased message to allow some lists with regards to a certain situation while omitting the other side of the coin.California 1210:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Zigger has a partially written FAQ: User:Zigger/Categorisation_FAQ#What_is_the_difference_between_a_list_and_a_category.3F, there is a talk page at Misplaced Pages talk:Merge some redundant lists to categories which may help explain a bit, and if you have any further questions please bring to my talk page - there are major advantages to having this as a Category, and lists have a lot of inherent problems. KillerChihuahua 18:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok after reading this it occurs to me that it might be better to bring back Christian Entertainers as a category, rather than a list? Because the Christian actors category listed above leaves no place for other types of entertainers.So perhaps it could be renamed? If something on this order is allowed, then perhaps it would not be needed to bring back the list.I would like to thank those who took the time to explain the categories vs. list to me as I have used the category link on several pages and not even realized it wasn't the same as a list.I don't want to clutter this page with my ramblings so will bring the discussion to Killer Chihuahua's page or mine at least temporarily. .California 1201:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Lists and categories, although rather similar in intent and display are implemented differeently, and considered different things on wikipedia. The previous deletion of a list in no way prevents anyoen from simply creating a category, and marking appropriate articles as members of that category. DES 21:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:German-American mobsters

As creator of this category I was neither notified of its nomination or of its deletion. However, the main arguments for deletion seem to be over categorization by way of (at least in my opinion) the debatable categorization of "ethnic group of Americans by profession" and underpopulated.

First, I believe there are at least some instances where categorization by ethnicity is appropriate and within organized crime essential for the classification of American organized crime figures as, in the US alone, diffrent organized crime groups are identified specifically by ethnicity (with the exception of syndicate organizations). From a historical perpectictive, it has remained a source of conflict between rival organizations for well over a century.

As for the category's unperpopulation, had this been brought to my attention I would have at least entered it into Category:Underpopulated categories, particularly for a category which has been around for only a few months, if not compiled a few more articles. This does raise a concern however as I have many categories which are more or less underpopulated (such as Category:Asian-American mobsters and Category:Polish-American mobsters) which, as set by the recent vote for deletion, despite the fact there are quite a few notible mobsters to be able to fill those appropriate categories.

However, compiling each one myself is quite time consuming (my early work on the Irish mobsters has now around 60+ articles) and thus many categories appear underpopulated. This issue has been brought up several times are far back as the recreation of Category:Italian-American mobsters and yet categories continue to be deleted or nominated for deletion fairly quickly. I hope someone can look into this and hopefully settle this issue. MadMax 23:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - Two things. Firstly, reading the CfD, it appears the concern with overcatergorisation stands in as concern with underpopulation: I'd say underpopulatioon is the main concern cited in that CfD discussion. Second, why can't Category:American mobsters be populated first, and only when enough entries appear create subcategories? --- Charles Stewart 01:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As of a year ago it was fully populated before it was cleared out to make the present subcategories by myself, Stefanomione, and a few others. The articles themselves can easily be added back to the Category:American mobsters however given the large numbers of article which exist I'd think it might seem a bit redundant to have them listed in that category as well. Unfortunatly, as there are only a few which I'm aware of, organized crime contributions are slow in coming and, as a result, categories are often underpopulated (not to mention the uncategorized article I come across now and again). If this category were empty for at least a year or more I could see the concern, however, deleting the category without even listing it on underpopulated categories, I fail to see the chance for Users to work on it (as I personally can only work on one category at a time). MadMax 04:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
So how many articles are there that would go in this category? --- Charles Stewart 20:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Presently there were only two existing articles, however more then twenty articles could be added in Chicago alone (including the Chicago crime syndicate). I suppose notibility would be a factor, however I would estimate around 100 depending on how far back one would include as organized crime such as Micheal Cassius MacDonalds organization or California's Barabary Coast. MadMax 21:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Endorse decision, keep deleted - It's a natural enough category, but until it has more currently existing entries, the articles should go in Category:American mobsters. Starting a List of German-American mobsters might be helpful. --- Charles Stewart 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Undelete. I'm going to go with the category creator on this one. Organized crime in the United States has often organized itself on an ethnic basis. This hinders infiltration by law enforcement and enhances the criminals' power over their respective communities. It is misleading to categorize such people generically. Durova 18:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Margolinian Satanism

If it is a vanity page where is the bragging or vanity? Fact Rev. Margolin is supported by the O.T.O. A:.A:., Freemasons, and many satanic groups except church of satan. The reason why church of satan has tried to suppress and destroy Sinagogue of Satan from its start is the fact that it is Based on Aleister Crowley and Albert Pike and has nothing to do with Anton LaVey. CoS went so far as to have some of its members join to find other CoS members in SoS to expell them. Are these the actions of a church that supports freedom of religion, let alone freedom of the individual? You will see SoS does not slander CoS or even discuss them, unlike church of satan's actions against other satanic groups calling them "Pseudo Satanists" . I assume Mikeblas is an Anton LaVey Fan and or a CoS member and is trying to undermine Sinagogue of Satan's existance as CoS has been doing for going on 7 years. The other fact I bring up is SoS does not charge for membership or ask for dues ever from its members. Membership so far is over 4,000 people world wide. CoS now charges $200 for membership. Do The Math 4,000 x $200= $800,000 in lost membership fees. This and the fact we have nothing to do with Anton LaVeys Satanism is the reason CoS wishes to Destroy SoS. I proclaim this dispute as biased! I ask wikipedia to stand by its non biased policies and protect Sinagogue of Satan's inclusion in it's encyclopedia. Thank you for your Time. Rev. Michael S. Margolin P.S. Besides if I wanted to bragg I'd need a few more pages.
I WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL POSTER OF THE ARTICLE SO IT IS NOT A MATTER OF SELF PROMOTION! unsigned comment left by user:Rev. Michael S. Margolin

Pussy City Pimps

Speedy deleted, no reason given. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pussy City Pimps. I believe this hacked rom is notable of it's type and thus of interest to users. Kappa 19:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, it was speedy-deleted on 2 Dec by Ingoolemo who commented hoax. It was recreated and again speedy-deleted on 7 Jan by Voice of All who commented ''no notability at all. Neither of those are valid speedy-delete criteria. In particular, we have always rejected "hoax" as a speedy criterion because of our history with false positives. The speedy-deletions were clearly out-of-process. Undelete and re-open the existing AFD discussion. Allow the discussion to run it's course. Rossami (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't object to the common-sense speedy. I don't particularly object to full Afd either I suppose, but it's just a longer walk to arrive at the same conclusion. Friday (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    I didn't expect many more (2+) votes to come considering only the nom voted (nobody goes to this page, so no one notices). I am about to go on wikiBREAK from AFD, as I am so sick of taking BS and getting accused of "admin abuse" for removeing policy violations. BTW, Friday, you might want to check of List of sexual slurs, the last AFD was sock/troll infested.Voice of All 19:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I see nothing wrong with speedy deleting obvious hoaxes. I do it on occasion, usually as "nonsense". If that's a bit of a stretch, so be it (hell, even Tony Sidaway has said that hoaxes should be speediable). But if someone objects to it I see nothing wrong with taking a second look, but we can do that here without having to send it to AfD. So, if it is a hoax, then keep deleted, if it's an actual thing from an actual video game, then undelete and list on AfD. -R. fiend 20:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If I've ever said that suspected hoaxes should be speediable then I'm happy to say now that I was wrong to make that judgement. Of course without doing considerable research (which is why we have AfD of course) one cannot be reasonably sure that one chap and his dog have actually speedied a hoax. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted for reasons above & per numquam ponendo est pluritas sine necessitate that nonsense can certainly well be speedied as a matter of blindingly obvious common sense. Eusebeus 20:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, it's definitely not a hoax in the sense that the game is absolutely real, so it's at least worth seeing the content to decide. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Forgive my boldness, but I have unilaterally undeleted this article. IMO this is a reasonable thing to do with a contested speedy. It's still listed on Afd, so the deletion issue is quite open. There's no reason to prevent non-admins from seeing the content. Friday (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Further explanation- the status as a hoax is contested. So I think re-opening the Afd is appropriate in this case. Friday (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not a hoax, it's a completely unencyclopedic article full of original research. I have re-deleted. This is NOT AN ENCYCLOPEDIC ARTICLE. Please, someone READ IT before undeleting it. It's not an article on the game, it's an article discussing the fake city in the ROM hack, full of original research claims. "If it were a real city, it would be located in either western British Columbia, California, or Florida due to its year-round warm climate and liberal attitudes towards sexuality. Pussy City has two high schools and four shopping malls. Although the exact population of the city is unknown, the statistics put the city's population from anywhere between 100,000 to 500,000 people. Prostitution is legal and prostitutes can be purchased at common shopping malls (where young children are present, presenting the notion that Pussy City is more liberal than the average North American, European, or even Asian city)." WTF is that crap? Who says it "would be located" anywhere? Who says it presents any notion? What "statistics?" If someone wants to write a sourced article on the game itself, they are free to do so, but this nonsense original research essay about the fake city has no business remaining on Misplaced Pages. FCYTravis 04:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • It's no different from a television episode guide. Containing a little bit of original research is not even a regular deletion criterion, let alone a speedy one. Kappa 04:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Um, excuse me? A television episode guide on Misplaced Pages should not make unsourced, original research claims about the city and whatever "notions" it presents - and if there is one on Misplaced Pages that does so, please point it out so it can be edited. It was even misnamed, as the article WAS NOT EVEN ABOUT "PUSSY CITY PIMPS"!! It was about some tiny fancruft aspect of it. Again, I have no opposition to a properly written article on the game, but that junk shouldn't be in the history. The ENTIRE ARTICLE was original research and as such, should be nuked from Misplaced Pages as soon as possible. It was an essay, not an encyclopedia article. If you care so much about the subject, why aren't you writing a properly encyclopedic stub on the subject? FCYTravis 04:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Please don't wheel war. I explained my actions, I thought there was reasonable doubt. Where's the harm in allowing further discussion? Where's the harm in allowing the unprivileged class to see the content in the meantime? Friday (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I've taken the time to do what none of you were apparently interested in doing - writing an encyclopedic stub. Apparently you'd all rather just bitch and moan about rules than get things done. More bureaucratic process over product mindset. FCYTravis 04:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
            • You did what you could have easily done in a normal edit, no deletion required, no deletion review required. But now the history is gone, so anyone that thought there was something salvagable in there is out of luck. And the Afd is orphaned now, so people that STILL don't think this is encyclopedic are at a disadvantage. I don't see why you did this, or why you're complaining at the rest of us. Friday (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Rules...well we follow rules that support inclusionism (AFD everything even when speedy is reasonable and often do nothing at all with "clean up" consensus cases) but policy like WP:V and WP:NOT, WP:NOR and notability are shoved aside. Usually you can fix articles, but some things are inherently WP:V violations or are just not notable...you cant "fix" notability.Voice of All 05:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree. However, a couple people objected to not being able to see the content, and having the Afd end early. Since there were good faith objections, the least harmful thing is to undelete and let it run it's course. For me, this wasn't about rule-following, it was about courtesy and not hurrying against objections without good reason. As it stands, the OR issues are now fixed and the Afd can focus on whether this topic deserves an article at all. I think we're done with this here now. Friday (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn speedy Lack of notability, lack of verifibility, and "Hoax" are good reasons for deletion at AfD, but not for speedy deletion. An Articel full of RO on a real topic is a good reason for a cleanup, but not for even an AfD unless there is not enough content left for a decent stub after the OR and other inappropriate conent has been edited out. DES 17:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and send to AfD. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 01:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Send to AFD per DESiegel. - Mgm| 11:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Test7

Deleted via a valid TfD discussion on August 10th, and a similar recreation was speedied on October 20th. The most significant argument put forward for deletion is that the template text included stuff about IP addresses, which we don't block indefinitely. I would like to restore this template because I think that it does make sense to have an indefinite block template for accounts, and I would change the wording to something along the lines of "your account appears to have been created for the sole purpose of vandalism and as such has been blocked indefinitely..." instead of mentioning anything about IP addresses. JYolkowski // talk 15:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment If you plan to make that significant a change to the verbiage and usage of the template, then it won't be recreation of deleted content, and undeletion does not really apply. Why not just create the template you are describing? If it does not find acceptance it will be nom'd for Afd in the usual way. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 16:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. This template, rewritten, is needed to inform people who have been indefinitely blocjed that they have been so. It needs three elements (i) information that someone has been blocked indefinitely, (ii) the reason, (iii) a warning not to create sockpuppets to dodge the block. A standard template communicating these facts is needed. FearÉIREANN\ 16:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I would point out that this template is not actually needed as such - one can, after all, achieve the same effect by just typing the message. Phil Sandifer 16:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Not true. The point of templates is to create co-ordinated wordings that are used for all users. Having individual users making up their own version is unworkable. The message may be wrongly communicated, or inarticularly communicated, or ineffectively co-ordinated. NPOV Co-ordination requires a standard set of words used for all users, not individual POV attempts to communicate the message that may get the message wrong. FearÉIREANN\ 16:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
        • NPOV is not a policy applying to user blocks. It's a policy applying to the writing of articles. Phil Sandifer 16:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Professional organisation of Misplaced Pages requires professional targeted wording of warnings, hence the use of carefully phrased templates, hence their creation and use. I am astonished you seem to be the only person who doesn't realise that. FearÉIREANN\ 16:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion Just create the template you are describing - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» 16:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Since general consensus seems to be that this would not be a recreation, I'll go ahead and create it. JYolkowski // talk 16:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

List of anti-heroes

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of anti-heroes
Note: I have never made an edit to this article, so my following arguments are not slighted in that regard. Kingturtle

When it was deleted earlier today, this article was nearly three years old and had over 700 edits. User:Howcheng deleted it despite a 20+% keep sentiment. The article that has been worked on by over 100 regiestered users and dozens of anonymous (nearly 30 of which made three or more edits) and not one saw it fit to nominate it for deletion. Moreover, the TALK page of the article was used civilly, apporpriately and successfully to make the article better. Certainly, VfD nominator User:CaveatLector could have used the TALK page to work with the contributors in improving the article. Certainly some of the compliants voiced in the VfD could have been addressed in the TALK page.

I think it is a diservice to these contributors to leave them out of the VfD process. Yes, yes, you'll say, they had their chance - but I don't think you realize that VfD tags often go unnoticed. Tags can get buried in or vanish from watchlists; users can be away. Contributors should be not punished for this. Indeed, I considered notifying eighteen of the registered contributors who had made 3+ edits to tell them to tell them of the VfD - NOT to campaign, but to let them know - as a service to them and the community. Before I did, I asked in two places ( and ) to get an idea of how and if such notification should be done. By the time I started getting answers, though, it was too late.

Therefore, I propose the article be re-instated because:

  1. 20+% voted to keep
  2. issues with defining anti-hero and with renaming the article can be cleared up in TALK
  3. over 100 people have worked on the article and successfully used TALK to resolve matters

Sincerely, Kingturtle 21:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse/keep deleted. I see absolutely nothing wrong with process. An argument based on the number of edits and contributors is faulty, and has nothing to do with deletion process. In fact, too often with lists like this too many contributors are the problem; people add anything/anyone that comes into their mind with no discussion, and these lists quickly become unmaintainable, POV, and meaningless. I believe List of heroes was deleted under similar circumstances. I'm starting to think it's about time to nominate List of unusual personal names for similar reasons. -R. fiend 21:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • i think contributors have a right to know that their work is being considered for deletion. tagging an article is not sufficient. ideally i think all significant contributors (who are registered) should be personally notified. since that is not practical, then at least the originator of the article should be personally notified (if that person is registered). this is about courtesy and kindness. Kingturtle 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • And I think a vast majority of the crap on AfD should be deleted on sight. I also think zucchini is an overrated vegetable. Anyway, if people really care about an article and their contributions to it they'll keep it on their watchlist. -R. fiend 16:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • R fiend, VfD tags don't make it to watchlists. if a VfD tag is added at 8 PM and another edit on the article happens at 9 PM and someone looks at their watchlist at 9:15pm, that VfD tag is missed. a kinder, gentler way is for the VfD nominator to personally alert the creator of the article. it should be part of the VfD process - if not formally, than customarily. Kingturtle 03:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
      • If someone adds an AfD template to an article, it certainly does appear on the watchlist. If another change is made afterwards, that doesn't make the earlier change disappear; anyone clicking the "diff" on the newest edit will also see the entire article appear below the highlighted change, and a big old AfD template is hard to miss. -R. fiend 03:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • you're expecting someone on a more than weekly basis to click on "diff" on each of their 1800 watchlist articles? it just doesn't work that way. Kingturtle 03:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, no one has to have 1800 articles on their watchlist, and, yes, I would expect people to pretty carefully check the articles that are most important to them. If all you're doing is looking at the summary of the last edit to any article you aren't really watching it, and maybe your watchlist should be brought down to a more managable number. A potential solution I can think of is to try to introduce a system in which tags are posted on talk pages as well, since they generally get fewer edits the "AFD" summary won't be pre-empted as frequently by more recent edits. -R. fiend 17:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • plenty of people have 1000s in their watchlists. it helps broaden the scope against vandalism. nevertheless, things still get past watchlists. a potential system i can think of is for the VfD nominator to courteously inform the author of the article that said article has been nominated. Kingturtle 04:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). The AFD discussion was fair and balanced and considered the case for and against the article. I see no process problems with this decision. Please remember that no user can review every article or even every deletion discussion. The nature of a wiki is that we trust that enough interested users are watching that the right thing gets done. Kingturtle is correct that some users who worked on versions of this article may not have had the chance to participate in the debate. It is equally true that other users did not get to participate who may have opposed the article but weren't motivated enough to nominate it themselves. In a perfect world, we'd all have unlimited time and interest. The real processes are messier but they do seem to work. Rossami (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Arguments given on VfD were convincing. --Improv 22:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • many of those arguments could have been hashed out in the TALK page. that is what TALK pages are for. if there are concerns about the title of the article or the how to define words, discuss it in TALK. that article had a very lengthy and well-used TALK page. Kingturtle 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. I believe that what those who want to keep the list deleted are voicing here amounts to a misguided attempt at democracy (no one is excluded from voting, it's your job to stay informed) which shows a striking likeness to a False Rubicon. Kingturtle has pointed out very well how hard it is to keep up to date about such things. If one single user had been in a different mood and had not put up this article for deletion it would have gone unnoticed for a long time to come. Please do not delude yourselves into thinking that everything is okay if collaborative work of more than three years is destroyed on the whim of a handful of deletionists. <KF> 22:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Although I don't really care about the article one way or another, saying that the article might have gone unnoticed for a long time is not a reason to keep it. The reason to keep the article should be that it's NPOV and properly referenced. Collaborative work on a non-encyclopedic article should not stay regardless of how much work is put into it. That's a sunk cost. We judge the article based on its contents, not on how much effort went into it. howcheng {chat} 23:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. If the most convincing argument available for restoration is "awww, shucks, it had some edits" then I'm really not persuaded. -Splash 22:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • some edits? this was an article worked on for years by dozens of users. it should be common courtesy to alert contributors that their work is under consideration for deletion. it is common courtesy. Kingturtle 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close. 9D/3K looks like a fairly clear consensus to me, and I see no process problems. The arguments against the article were spelled out in the AfD in some detail, and look reasonable and fairly convincing. No process problems, no issues raised but ignored, no new info provided here, no policy violations. Sorry. DES 22:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral I feel the deletion is unfortunate, but to be perfectly honest it wasn't an article, or a subject, in which I had much emotional or intellectual investment. Lee M 22:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close and keep deleted. This is a prime example of listcruft; the Afd process was followed. The argument given for undeletion is not germane, per DESiegal. KillerChihuahua 23:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure as per DESiegel. --Allen3  00:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure per DESiegel. Mackensen (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion 20% is not exactly a close result, its not like 40% voted keep. Also, basing the overturning of a deletion on the number of edits and editors does not act as a sufficient reason - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» 16:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted The delete votes in the AfD makes a set of very good points about the innate problems with the article; the fact that many people have laboured on a bad article is unfortunate, but not sufficient to redeem the subject. Moreover, there is no suggestion that the closure was flawed. Eusebeus 21:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Having fun, aren't you? As I can see, the same "argument" is being repeated over and over and over again. Please point me to the guideline/policy/whatever where it says that "the fact that many people have laboured on a bad article is unfortunate, but not sufficient to redeem the subject". What were all those people thinking when they contributed? That they were taking part in a futile effort that would eventually be deleted by a small set of other people? Meanwhile, for the third time, these are my reasons for wanting to have this list undeleted (from Wikipedia_talk:Lists_in_Wikipedia#Deleting_lists.2C_and_a_proposal):
      While I agree that "lists are not a place to make value judgements of people or organizations", recent deletions of what at least some consider useful lists have alerted me. True, the above List of anti-heroes ("a prime example of listcruft", according to one deletionist) should have been called List of fictional anti-heroes to make it absolutely clear that no politicians or other real people must be added.
      "The usefulness of lists in Misplaced Pages is very clear as it often provides the starting point for readers to research a particular subject." Search printed encyclopaedias or other reference material, search the Internet—some of the lists here at Misplaced Pages are unique, or were until they were deleted (just think of List of song titles phrased as questions). (Fortunately, Misplaced Pages mirror sites still have those lists.) As for literature lists, students of literature browsing such a list may find valuable advice on what books to choose and read.
      There is hardly any problem with original research as, by definition, a list of titles is, if anything, the basis for research rather than research itself. Verifiability depends on the individual list—song titles phrased as questions are no problem. The same holds true for the neutral point of view policy.
      My point is that fiction needs to be treated as a special case as far as verifiability and NPOV are concerned (see Category:Literature lists for examples). The List of fictional war heroes, which has also been put up for deletion, is a case in point. I claim that the vast majority of people who use the Internet to consult an encyclopaedia are mature enough not to believe every word they read. Additionally, a special template (to be created) might point them to the fact not that the list is incomplete and they should add something to it but that it is deliberately so and will always contain contentious items because it is in the nature of fiction to be debatable. Thus, to me such a sapere aude hint would be most welcome. Each and everyone can make up their own mind: This, I believe, is part of human nature. The alternative, which is currently being practised, is wholesale deletion, which is radical and to all intents and purposes counterproductive but nothing else.
      Problems inherent in the collaborative nature of this project must be considered and dealt with, not deleted. How long will it take until someone calls the List of film remakes (which already has that stupid {{listdev}} tag) POV, unmaintainable, ambiguous, incomplete, too short, too long, unmanagable, unreferenced, unencyclopaedic, unbalanced? In the long run, what will happen with the List of years in literature pages if people keep adding births, deaths, "events", and book titles? Will they all have to be deleted?
      "9D/3K looks like a fairly clear consensus to me, and I see no process problems", writes one deletionist at Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review#List_of_anti-heroes, and subsequent contributors mutely endorse him. However, in democratic thought, voting is an alternative to, not a synonym for, consensus decision-making. But this is quite a different problem, which I'll have to address at some other place. <KF> 00:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • comment. i have had this complaint about VfD for a long time. we are going down a slippery slope if 80% is considered a consensus. we are also going down a slippery slope if we don't have the common courtesy to alert contributors that their work is under review for deletion. Kingturtle 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's consensus, not consensus. If Misplaced Pages decisionmaking required actual consensus, nothing would ever happen. android79 06:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • i know that there is a difference, and wikipedia's notion of consensus is absurd. we should use the term super-majority, because consensus is the wrong word. Kingturtle 06:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        • You're right about that, but the word is ingrained into Misplaced Pages culture. That's a change that just won't happen. Whenever you read "consensus", just think "rough consensus" or "supermajority". android79 06:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm pleased that Kingturtle is volunteering to go through today's AfD log and drop each contributor to each article a note on their talk pages regarding their article's AfD. -Splash 21:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • That's neat - someday I'd like this to be a software feature... oh, and Keep Deleted. I would have voted delete myself too and remember this afd - along with KingTurtle's commentary which seemed to appeal to emotion rather than addressing the actual problems with the article. Anyway, that's really a side note as the AfD was quite valid in nearly every way. WhiteNight 22:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        • If any, what are the "actual problems with the article"? A reference to an (almost) "quite valid AfD" is immaterial here: If the deletion of the list had violated Misplaced Pages's deletion policy we would not be having a discussion here and the article would immediately have been restored. I believe it is new arguments which, for some reason or other, were not mentioned during the AfD process that count here. However, new arguments seem to be generously ignored or sidetracked here ("As soon as someone starts namecalling, I start filtering out everything they say"). Also, I don't think Kingturtle's mention of the many contributors to this article is an appeal to emotion: If dozens of people over a period of more than three years collaboratively create an article they do so in good faith and because they want to improve Misplaced Pages—we might consider their contributions to the deleted article keep votes eo ipso. (more) <KF> 22:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist on AfD - There's a serious problem with the article that was deleted, namely that it is a magnet for POV and unverifiable claims, and CaveatLector put together a good AfD. I am nonethless unhappy with it: I think that, despite its flaws, the list brought together at that page had value (was it an anti-list? Nevermind...) and given the long history and much work put into the page, the main question asked at the AfD should not have been: does this list meet our standards, but can this list be repaired? I think that, given the definition at anti-hero, the list could be and deserves a second hearing. --- Charles Stewart 05:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I dislike the new fashion for deleting talk pages when executing delete decisions. --- Charles Stewart 05:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. That's not a new trend. Deciding whether or not to delete the orphaned Talk Page is a long-standing rule - a required step of the Deletion process since the first version of that page and, before that, a required step in the Deletion guidelines for administrators. For those not familiar with it, deletion of the associated Talk page is not an absolute rule (though the vast majority of such Talk pages are deleted). The deleting admin is required to make a decision about whether or not the Talk page should be preserved. By long tradition, that decision is left to the admin's discretion. We do not require a second deletion discussion to make the decision. Rossami (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. First, I have problems with some of the math used. By my count, there were 9 delete votes, and 3 keep votes. That leads to a 25% keep faction, and a 75% delete faction. I think that the age and amount of work on the article should also be a factor: certainly the fact that it has been around and hevily edited for three years at least discounts the "unmaintainable" arguments. The AfD process is entirely too random and arbitrary. I think if this had been nominated some other week, the votes could have easily been 10d/2k, or 8/4, or even 6/7, depending on who happened to be reading AfD that week. Therefore, especially in the case of established articles with a long history, the bar for deletion should be set higher than 75%. Turnstep 14:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Undelete. While I think that the process was proper, this is one of those instances where deletion review should look at the big picture. We are supposed to work on consensus. Can we really say that there is a "consensus to delete" an article that over 100 registered editors worked on simply because nine people in a particular five day period expressed a desire to delete, particluarly when the nominee (as most nominees do, including me) only pointed out the reasons to delete. Note that no one during the voting pointed out the facts that Kingturtle does. Lets put it back on AfD with both the pros and the cons and see how it fares. -- DS1953 15:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. There is no bar for ratio of participants in AfD to editors of the article, no quota for how long or short an article's history must be before we can delete it, and certainly no requirement that we notify anyone. You edit an article, and if you care about it you watch over it. Part of the beauty of the self-selection excercise is impartiality of participants. Lists in particular attract large numbers of editors, and I despair at the thought of the sorting out the mess if we involved every one. The process works well enough, and these are all bad ways we're talking about changing it. - brenneman 15:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Aaron, at least on my part, I don't think I am arguing to change anything. I made two points. First, the statement at the top of this page says that undoing a deletion is proper if you "have some information pertaining to the debate that did not receive an airing during the AfD debate". I am saying that the information posted by Kingturtle was relevant to the discussion and should be aired. Second, there have been discussions in the past about how many delete "votes" is "enough" or whether, for example, debate should be extended. Nine votes is far more than necessary for most articles. On the other hand, if a former Featured Article made it through an AfD vote with a 4-0 delete vote, I would be very disappointed if the closer did not question whether 4 votes to delete an article that probably had a hundred hours invested in it really represented a consensus to delete. I hope that is not a change, because if everyone is so rigidly evaluating "consensus" that they would allow 4 people to delete a Featured Article then we ought to automate the counting and eliminate the personal judgment instead of pretending to determine consensus. I am not arguing for this article to be kept, just that 9 delete votes on the facts before us is not a consensus to delete. Relist, post the relevant facts - pro and con - and let the people decide. -- DS1953 16:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What is this based on? A supposition that a relisting will magically have the effect of 50 participants, when getting 12 (not 9) in the first place is highly unusual? It might, and statistically probably would, get fewer participants; will we relist the relisting because the relisting of the relisting didn't get enough? Are the original 12's opinion somehow not good enough? Kingturtle's 'information' relies on looking at the history of the article — this was available to all at the time of the AfD and is hardly new information. Posting the relevant facts, pro and con, was doing already, and I don't see how "aww, shucks, it's got some edits" makes an article either good, encyclopedic, or keepable. And, incidentally, you imply that the people were excluded from things the first time around; I wonder how you have reached such a conclusion? -Splash 16:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Splash, I'll take your points in the reverse order since the last two are the easiest to answer. I don't know what I said that you think implies that people were excluded from the AfD but no such implication was intended. I also don't think that a large number of edits make "an article either good, encyclopedic, or keepable" and again, no such implication was intended. I don't suggest that anyone should vote "keep" on any basis other than whether the article is one which should be kept under the applicable standards. My only concern is that AfD is not infallable and that nine editors voting to delete may express the consensus of the voters during that five day period but seems to hardly represent a consensus of Wikipedians when so many editors have contributed to the article over a three year period. This is an uncommon situation. And you are absolutely correct that Kingturtle's information was available to anyone who wanted to delve into the page's history and talk page. However, I think that as the number of pages on AfD has continued to grow, it is unrealistic to assume that potential voters will do any more than read what is on the AfD page. Hopefully, those that are attracted to stop and record their opinion will look at the history and talk pages but from all appearances many simply parrot the previous opinions and don't even look at the page itself, let alone the talk page and history. Finally, I don't know if relisting on AfD will get more attention, but if the pros and cons are both set out succinctly, that is about all that we can ask of the process. If the result is still 9-3 in favor of deletion, we can't guess the opinion of those who chose not to express their choice (or more likely, were unaware of AfD). What all this boils down to is simply that in those relatively rare instances that we think that the AfD process hasn't worked well as a process, we should try to fix it. We can't fix all the problems at once, but this one seems easy to do. -- DS1953 19:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is absurd, on multiple counts. First of all, assuming that the 100+ edits actually wanted to keep the article is downright silly - some people are nuetral and others might have just worked on the article because they couldn't take it any more (the reason why I work on some schools...). Second, the argument that the opening statement biases it is wrong - I've heard that argument a million times on WP:RM, people asking me to do it over etc., but it just doesn't pan out and you get the same result anyway. This was a valid AfD if I ever saw one - as the burden of proof was on the nominator to give a good reason to delete the article and he/she did so, and the following keeps simply didn't have much of a reason at all to keep the article. "It's been here a long time and had lots of editors" is an appeal to emotion and ultimately has little to do with the validity of the article. "I want to make the same argument again because this article had lots of editors" is not a reason for relisting, in fact it is probably offensive to those who took the time on the first one, especially since they already heard that argument. WhiteNight 19:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - Kingturtle's (possibly) facetious arguments about the definition of consensus notwithstanding, this seems to have followed process. Old lists can be better served by categorization in many cases. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Godcasting

This by howcheng, on Godcasting

Please note that this article has been deleted yet again and the page is now protected from re-creation. You wrote on the article page, "To not have an entry for Godcasting shows an anti-religion censorship by Misplaced Pages and I think this might be best brought to the media's attention." This is not censorship; the article was deleted appropriately in accordance with Misplaced Pages's deletion policy, primarily because the term is a neologism and no verification up to the standards that we require has been provided. If in fact the term has made it into the mainstream, you should cite reliable sources on Talk:Godcasting and I and other administrators will re-evaluate and restore the page. If you feel the deletion has been out of process, please visit Misplaced Pages:Deletion review and make your case there. Regards, howcheng {chat} 07:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This by CentrOS

This may have been true many months ago when this was first created, but it certainly is not true today. You said: "If in fact the term has made it into the mainstream, you should cite reliable sources". A simple Google search of "godcast" returns 103,000 results. This is mainstream. On that Google search you'll find that Business Week http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2005/tc20050525_0375_tc_211.htm has an article entitled Need a Lift? Try a Godcast. Again, showing not only is the term in the mainstream, but is used by exceedingly reliable sources. This meets both the requirements you asked for, and a simple Google search could have saved both of us a lot of trouble. I don't believe I need to present any further evidence due to the weight of what i have already presented. Please reinstate the article and I will build a deeper history and provide more information over the next few days. And BTW, the term "godcasting" has 149,000 entries on Google and as you scan the entries you will see MANY are from mainstream AND reliable sources. CentrOS 11:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn/Undelete Term has entered mainstream and has been used by many reliable sources CentrOS 11:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist, seems notable, but I'd still like to let the community decide. - ulayiti (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist, let the community decide as above. FWIW, I get 149,000 Google hits. It might also help to see the article circa Dec 24, 2005-- —Locke Cole • t • c 12:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist on AfD. Now that this term has hit the mainstream, it deserves to be examined again. --Deathphoenix 13:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, 232 unique Google hits is not mainstream. User:Zoe| 16:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Just curious, how are you coming up with 232? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Type in Godcast in Google and Search for it. I get "Results 1 - 10 of about 101,000 for Godcast". But if you go to the last page of the returned search, which is Page 24, it says "231 - 232 of about 101,000". That means all of those hits are multiple occurrences on a page. Not on the same page, of course, but only 232 pages have this word on them. User:Zoe| 17:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Zoe, you are making a common technical error. Google's process is to select the first 1000 results and then eliminate redunancies without replacement. So the best that can be said is that of the top 1000 results on Google for Godcast, ~77% are viewed as being redundant. This says nothing at all about the remaining 100,000 results as google will never in any case give more than 1000 results even when insructed to show duplicates. Dragons flight 18:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. No substantial change in usage from last AfD vote and I would have classed this as a dicdef. David | Talk 16:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The article was hardly more than a dicdef, so I don't see a point to restoring. The term is already mentioned in Podcasting, so I've made this into a redirect. If it's still too much of a neologism, I wouldn't really object to the redirect going away, but it seems fairly harmless to me. Friday (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • personal attack deleted Xerves 18:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The point in restoring it is quite simple. Religious podcasts, godcasts, are dominating the podcast landscape. It is by far and away the largest single genre and has been legitimately coined by many as podcasting's killer app, and for good reason. In the history of anything, the driving force, or a significant force behind the success of such, is something that should be recorded. The argument that it was a stub and had little content is not valid as I have already agreed to expand it once restored, and I can get others to do so as well. Religion, whether you like it or not, has and always will play an enormous part of our lives. How religion is influencing new technology, in this case podcasting, is important enough to have its own entry and not just a redirect from podcasting. Should we should remove Princess Diana and just put a redirect to the Royal Family? This is akin to what we have here. Please do not censor religion on the Misplaced Pages. The history of godcasting needs to be documented and preserved. Thank you.
  • Err, the article is "alive" again. It's been made into a redirect, unredirected and made into an article again, and subsequently re-redirected. Unless there are lingering concerns over the deletion, I think we're done here. If people have opinions on whether to redirect, thats a matter for Talk:Godcasting. Friday (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's not argue over semantics. A redirect is NOT a restoration of the entry. There are effectively 4 votes to restore the article and only one to delete it, so we have a clear consensus. Zoe's vote does not count because it is based on in an incorrect assertion. Please remove the redirect and allow the entry to stand on its own so I may edit it. CentrOS 07:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Saugeen Stripper

Why was this article deleted? AfD result was non consensus, with the decision that the article would be kept. But now it is gone? Can someone please undelete? This was cleary done in error.? Tokyojoe2002 18:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • According to the deletion log: "Adam Bishop deleted "Saugeen Stripper" (undoing failure of AFD)". overturn out-of-process deletion. If someon thinks than an AfD "failed" that person should either re-nominate or bring the matter here. DES 18:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the help DES. We had a pretty lively week long discussion on this page that got a lot of feedback. if was a reasonably even split, slight edge to delete but no consensus and admin decided to keep it. Frustrating that a week of good debate disregarded like that, and glad it was undeleted. Thanks again. Tokyojoe2002 18:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Technically, a no consensus is an automatic keep. I didn't really decide anything, and still believe the article doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages. Mindmatrix 19:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
        • No, I understand, I just meant that whoever closed the AfD declared that it was a non consensus/auto keep. I value your opinion, and appreciated that you stuck to process. I think this is truly a divided issue. I do believe, however, that there was sufficient discussion in the AfD to have all viewpoints heard, and to make it clear that while there is an arguement not to keep, as you share, there certainly are valid arguments to keep, and hopefully we can all just 'agree to disagree and the issue can be laid to rest. ] 20:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You people have absolutely no idea what the term "encyclopedic" means, I guess. On the other hand I am not surprised that it's already undeleted. Adam Bishop 19:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I have a very good idea what the term "out-of-process" means. If you felt this was unencyclopedic (although coverage in multiple major newspapers makes at least an argument for encyclopedic inclusion) you could have 1) brought the matter here -- this page reveiws allegedly improper keeps as well as allegedly improper deletions, or 2) started a new AfD nomination in which you made your views clearer. IMO simply ignoring the lack of expressd consensus to delete and deleting unilaterally was wrong in this case, and is almost always wrong. DES 19:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Adam, I can sympathize with the fact that you want the article deleted - I think it should go too, and expressed that sentiment on the AfD. However, we have to take into account the AfD process (which I think is ineffective in some cases, but that's a different matter). I don't think any administrator should have the privilege to delete an article without some broader justification, which is the very reason AfD and CSD exist. In this instance, undeletion is appropriate from the perspective of "process", and most likely a follow-up AfD will ensue. Mindmatrix 19:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Adam's comments on Talk:Saugeen Stripper even indicate he knew he was working out-of-process and that it was likely to be reversed. I've had at least one article that I felt had no place in Misplaced Pages, but the community didn't agree with me. Learn to live with it. Wrathchild 21:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist. There is obviously some unresolved controversy here, and the result could have gone either way, depending on the closer. There was, at least, a solid majority for deletion, which could have been considered a consensus by some. -R. fiend 21:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I would also support a Relist although I doubt that enough consensus will emerge to delete this. Unfortunately, too many contributors conflate news with encyclopedic notability. Obviously, some random coed stripping incident is not encyclopedic and it is discouraging that people express interest in retaining material like this. Eusebeus 21:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's now looking like the residence hall where this took place has a long-standing reputation for being a "wild" place. I am now thinking that this article should be merged to the article about the residence hall where it took place, along with any other verifiable information that can be gleaned. Wrathchild 23:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      • And I would likely argue that an article on the residence hall should be included in an article on the college. Maybe this could be smerged there, but I suppose that's more of an issue for AfD than for DRV. -R. fiend 02:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete (and perhaps relist), deleting against the concensus of AFD is a bad thing. Adam should have followed procedure or ask Mindmatrix to review his own decision. - Mgm| 11:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • AFAIK this has already been undeleted, but I'd prefer it was merged into the article about the residence hall (which has notability, see talk page). -- nae'blis (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-06

Image:Fem isa 2.gif

Deleted because of lack of licensing, however the talkpage says:

I found Elf's current address and emailed him. Here's the reply:
The original asfaq was placed under a Creative Commons license, but it has been a long time since I did any work on any of the FAQ materials. ... I think at this point I would be comfortable putting the work under the GFDL, yes.

So it should be safe to undelete and mark it as GFDL. It is used in eight articles. Rasmus (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Images aren't undeletable, sorry. If you can find it on a mirror, it can be re-uploaded with a new license. android79 13:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I have re-uploaded it. Rasmus (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That Guy

The article was deleted because it contained nonsense. However, it only contained nonsense because someone vandalised it :/ I'd like to start the article over fresh but can't get back my original text. porges 07:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've speedily undeleted (and reverted) it. Straightforward case of overlooking the history when confronted with nonsense. —Cryptic (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Tai Streets/Gang stalking

For the Miscellany For Deletion discussion of this page that is currently in progress, see Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tai Streets/Gang stalking.

Deleted because "user space is not a place to preserve deleted articles" . When did that become a speedy criterion? Surely we are allowed to keep records of articles that we feel were wrongly deleted, and/or which hope to improve enough to put back into wikipedia. Kappa 03:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, that depends. If the request is made by an editor in good standing and if at least some of the community believes that the article might someday be redeemable, we have allowed people to keep a temporary copy. But that is the exception rather than the rule. If we allowed all deleted content to be moved into the userspace, it would defeat the very purpose of the deletion discussion. Given the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking, I think some skepticism is justified about whether the community concluded that this article has any possibility of being redeemed. Further noting the massive abuse degree of participation by apparent sockpuppets and that it was moved to the user space of a suspiciously new account which is already tagged as a suspected sockpuppet, I think there is also reason to suspect motivations. We are supposed to assume good faith but not to the point of incredulity. Looking into it more, the edit history alleges that it was moved from the article space on 4 Jan but according to the deletion history of the other pages, this content had been completely deleted on 29 Dec. I can't find where it was supposed to have been moved from but it looks to me like reposted content. Unless someone can come forward and provide a reasonable explanation for the actions taken, I'm inclined to endorse the status quo (keep deleted). Rossami (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. This user has shown no inclination to work within Misplaced Pages norms, relying upon sockpuppets and edit-warring to continually insert original, unverified material. Why enable such behavior? --Calton | Talk 05:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Rossami. In the past, material like this has been deleted even given Misplaced Pages's huge leniency with the userspace. --Deathphoenix 13:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. User:EddieSegoura/Exicornt was kept on MFD, and this is no different. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 15:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, recreation of deleted content. User space should not be used to dance around consensus or sidestep a valid AfD decision. If the user wishes to keep it, they can put it on their hard drive or a free website somewhere. Also, this sort of tinfoil-hat conspiracy nonsense makes WP look bad (one of the deletions of the original article was done by Jimbo Wales himself)! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete - the right to keep deleted content in the userspace was established in Anthony's second RFAr. Since this was out of process, I've speedily recreated. Phil Sandifer 16:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • See this edit, made today, where this content was reinserted into an article; and this edit where this person explains that xe intends to repeatedly insert this content into articles. See also Special:Contributions/Curt Jurgens, Special:Contributions/Tai Streets, Special:Contributions/Wyatt Ehrenfels, Special:Contributions/67.129.121.254, and Special:Contributions/172.149.8.228. This person has stated xyr intent to repeatedly submit the same text to many different articles, and has done exactly that. Undeleting this will achieve nothing. Xe has demonstrated no inclination to work on this content in xyr user space(s), that having been Will Beback's idea, no need to have a copy of the deleted content (given today's edit), and no intention of providing sources or altering the text that xe is repeatedly submitting in any way. Indeed, 67.129.121.254 simply blanked this userspace copy before it was deleted. If the circumstances were different, and the editor had actually shown a desire to work towards properly verifiable text that contained no original research, I would agree with an undeletion. But in these circumstances there appears to be no point. The editor clearly doesn't need or want the user space page. Uncle G 16:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted as per Uncle G. -- The Anome 13:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete - "the right to keep deleted content in the userspace was established in Anthony's second RFAr."-Snowspinner — agree. plus from reading it it looks like it could be a valid "real" article if some of the POV was removed (much of it focused on one particular group for example) --Mistress Selina Kyle 13:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete per estabilished tradition.  Grue  20:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted if it were't on MfD,since user space is intended to be used to support the goals of the encyclopedia, not oppose them. And censure whomever restored it for sticking his fingers up at everyone taking part in this discussion. - brenneman 23:12, 8 January 2006
  • Keep deleted per Rossami, but I'm a bit bothered by the conflict with what was said at the DiPierro RfAr (]). If userspace is actively being used to disrupt WP, then I think that precedent (which contrary to Snowspinner establishes no right, but talks only of such deletions being discouraged) should not be seen as having great force. I'm not completely happy with this, though. --- Charles Stewart 00:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted/redelete/make it go away. This tinfoil pam campaign needs to go. --Calton | Talk 04:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I created the page myself in order to give the editor who wrote it a chance to bring it into conformity with Misplaced Pages standards. The editor never tried to edit it, except to blank it. My effort was misguided and wasted, and the page serves no purpose. -Will Beback 06:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per UncleG. Material is used for repeated reinsertion and not to rework it for later use according to our style guidelines. That's clear misuse of the mentioned precedent. - Mgm| 11:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler

The article about this well-known blog was deleted as a result of GNAA members teaming up and voting. Skrewler, Femmina, Timecop, supers, Eusebeus have voted in concert to delete many blog articles, listed here. Many of these users contribute nothing to Misplaced Pages other than delete votes on blog-related articles. Rhobite 03:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse closure. Looking at this poor excuse for a discussion, the "keep" crowd failed to provide anything to counter the argument put forward by the nominator. A puacity of meaningful exchange does not an invalid closure make. - brenneman 05:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • So in the world of Aaron Brenneman, "keep" voters are required to cite external sources but "delete" voters can vote "nn" if they want? Very hypocritical. Please don't arbitrarily "refactor" deletion discussions by striking through votes you disagree with. Rhobite 19:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'd encourage Rhobite to pay a bit more attention. Any one of several things might have alerted him to the fact that I wasn't refactoring the deletion discussions: The lack of the coloured background, my caveat at the top of the page, or the word "talk" in the page's title.
      • As to my "hypocritical" actions with regards to how I interpret votes: When making a claim, the burden is clearly on the claiment to provide evidence. A single link to, for example, a review in major media would counteract any number of "not notable" opinions. No such evidence was provided here. Testimony by wikipedia editors is not sufficient. - brenneman 01:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. Consensus, clearly, was to delete it. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 05:58, Jan. 6, 2006
    (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, valid AfD, though the discussion was on the border. --Deathphoenix 13:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist on AfD - Properly closed AfD, which missed easily discovered information: the weblog has won two web awards, namely two of the Weblogger Warblogger awards organised by the Right Wing News weblog for Most Bloodthirsty Blog in 2002 , and Most annoying right-of-center blogger for 2003 which technically qualify it for keeping under WP:WEB. Passing notoriety among right-wing US webloggers falls somewhat under my notability threshold, but I think it's worth throwing open to discussion. --- Charles Stewart 06:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC) (fix Charles Stewart 04:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC))
    • Following the post of Tony Sidaway below, I had noticed but took no account of Rhobite's claim of manipulation, in the above. If there is evidence of substantive manipulation, the AfD should be reopened regardless of this DRV's verdict. --- Charles Stewart 04:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion Discussion clearly shows that the majority wanted to delete the article - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» 16:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Closure and KD. The GNAA may be a childish group, but i agree with their efforts to eliminate blogcruft. To ] I would note that before you make such claims about my activity here, you check out any of the various articles I have created and maintain. Eusebeus 21:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure The majority argument found that this blog is uninfluential outside of the blogosphere. If it scoops a major story then feel free to recreate the article. Ashibaka tock 22:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Tons of google hits. This blog is especially notable for the intemperate tone of its posts and has often been cited and discussed for this reason. If this isn't undeleted, I may write a new article on it myself. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. AfD was fair. It's a blog, and the bar is properly set high for that by the community. We should be glad to have this gone. --Improv 22:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree partly with Charles Stewart on this. Like him I found the awards, and although the rightwing weblogger awards are trash (allowing multiple votes) the warblogger awards are much more selective. A shortlist is selected and only recognised right wing bloggers are invited to vote. This ensures some quality control (obviously as a leftie I'm going to disagree with some aspects of this but I don't come to Misplaced Pages to discuss politics). I've honestly no idea why this was ever nominated for deletion, and if the trolls were involved then it bloody well should be undeleted without ceremony. On that I'm completely in agreement with Rhobite. I'll be investigating the allegations he has made and will of course undelete any articles that have been deleted as a result of collusion by trolls, if this has indeed occurred. Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn, relist on AFDMajority is irrelevant; Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, and a series of "nn" vote does not a consensus make. If lefty readers think it's valuable as a benchmark, that I think is a good sign of notability from both sides of the aisle. --Mmx1 05:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, evidence here suggests it was removed in error. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Unfortunately discusionless debate, but there's nothing new to present and there was nothing inheritly wrong with the debate and the close was valid. WhiteNight 07:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The key words to note in the box at the top of the page are "significant new information." (Emphasis mine.) The "awards" cited are, um, tenous indications of notability at best. As to "rightwingnews" itself - lots of google, but the only substantial one was a single unannotated line on MSN out of about 250 other blogs, starting with "Chimps in the news". Ironically, rightwingnews gets 0 hits for news. And as to the awards it presents: "most bloodthirsty" - 16 google hits, no news, and "most annoying" - 117 google, no news. If we are seriously thinking of restoring an article based upon this paucity of notability, than the world has gone mad. And I'd urge Tony Sidaway to "of course" present any new information he may discover about collusion here rather than engaging in further unilateral action leading, in all likelyhood, to yet another wheel war. - brenneman 07:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think notability has been established, but there are two reasons i think we should go back to AfD anyway: (i) to repeat myself, it satisfies the letter of WP:WEB since it has won an award, (ii) The RWN warblogger award actually has some credibility: it's a pretty good measure of what the warblogger community think, and whether that matters is really an AfD decision, not a policywonkish DRV decision --- Charles Stewart 10:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, WEB's quote on awards is "well known and independent award", which I think we've established this isn't.
    • I'm unclear on how trying to use some common sense is "policy-wonking" while insisting that this go through another round of hoops is not. I will, however, at this point yield the floor.
      brenneman 10:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Re award: if it's not well known, it's not obscure either. What I meant by policy-wonking (been reading too many ArbCom platforms, sorry about that) is that DRV is about something like judicial oversight, whose remit to review content is fairly limited. Thorny questions about notability really should go to back to AfD, and I think this qualifies. --- Charles Stewart 10:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. If my understanding of the process is correct, we should overturn AfD that were improperly closed or in cases where Misplaced Pages would clearly be better off including them. It is also the responsibility of the author of the article to provide references proving that the article meets the threshold of notability, in this case WP:WEB. Looking at the AfD discussion, I see no arguement that asserts the article is in compliance with WP:WEB and see no valid reason why the AfD should be relisted. That is not to say that the article should not be recreated, but the AfD was closed correctly in my opinion. If someone wanted to recreate the article with bonafide evidence of compliance with WP:WEB, I would vote for temporary undeletion in accordance with the undeletion policy. Movementarian 07:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete per Tony's comments on the awards. - Mgm|

2006-01-05

Category:Contemporary philosophers

Very useful category – it categorizes contemporary philosophers as opposed to historical ones. Content is not duplicated by any "living phiosopher" category. Maintenance is not very burdensome – only a few philosophers die each year. Category was deleted with only four votes, none of which appear to be philosophy article editors. A major category like this should be voted on by the wider WP community. — goethean ॐ 16:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Bloody Shot

This badly formatted entry refers to Bloody Shot which was deleted on January 3. However if you want to read what the article said, see BJAODN. David | Talk 14:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User userbox purge

Speedied as "disruption", which it is obviously not. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 12:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  • For those that can't see it, the template in question refers to Kelly Martin's deletion of userboxes as the 'great userbox purge' and implicitly comparares her with a picture of the mass-murdering dictator Stalin. That is clearly a personal attack. Further, at a time where we have three divisive RfC's, and countless other discussions, the last thing the community needs is for a gloating template 'this user survived the great userbox purge' blowing everything out of proportion. This template has appeared at various name spaces, and has been deleted by a number of admins, it should remain deleted and not be recreated. --Doc 13:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - This template documents an ongoing wiki-event. Speedy deletion of this template is simply pouring fuel on the fire. It will not be possible to eradicate the sentiment, and protection of the deleted userbox will only breed more discontent. --Dschor 13:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted as a template used solely to attack. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. At the risk of starting yet another userbox attack, this is just another example of userbox people using userboxes to attack people who don't like userboxes (BTW, I like userboxes, but only good ones). --Deathphoenix 14:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. If you don't like WP:NPA, feel free to leave. —Cryptic (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, attack pages get speedy deleted. User:Zoe| 16:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore Are we going to start censoring the wikipedia articles about Misplaced Pages next? I'm going to add that I would have said Relist except that I don't recall it ever being listed anywhere. Tom 18:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore. Harmless humor. Deletion and fighting over this template will cause more harm than the template itself. Friday (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - attack pages don't get free speech protections. If you oppose the 'agenda' against userboxes, visit the Proposed policy on userboxes and have your say. Or make a box that doesn't attack people. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • IMO, it takes a bit of imagination to interpret this template as an attack. Friday (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I think user boxes should be given a lot of leeway, but there was a bit too much edge on that one. –Abe Dashiell 19:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted attacks aren't humorous or harmless. .:.Jareth.:. 19:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Whether this is an attack or a bit of snide humor that some people are taking too seriously is certainly debatable. Therefore I think that debate should happen at TfD, so undelete and list at TfD. -R. fiend 19:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • There are already three duplicates of this template, under different names, listed there. —Cryptic (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Hmmm. I only noticed one. So here goes, if Template:User 2006 New Year Day Participate gets deleted at TfD, then this should be too, as it's basically the same thing. However, as the picture of Stalin (which seems to be a major factor in this one) was removed from that and not from this, this one might be seen as worse, and a result that keeps that one might not endorse the added Stalin image here. I guess this is sort of confusing, but I think it's best not to open multiple TfCs (long ones to boot) on this, if it can be helped. In any case, while I think the "purge" itself was a really stupid idea, I don't think the other side is behaving very well in this either. -R. fiend 21:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Userboxes designed to violate a policy (WP:NPA in this case) should be deleted. Carbonite | Talk 20:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete Haven't the last few days proved that you can't go around deleting boxes instantly. This box was never listed at tfd. No notice was ever give that it was to be deleted. This box does not reference anyone directly and thus is not a personal attack. I am going to recreate this and then you guys can properly list it at tfd.--God of War 20:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral, If the template is deleted, then I can not see if it is disruptive or not. -MegamanZero|Talk 20:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. This one is even more over the top than most other bad userboxes. Pictures of Stalin and the phrasing... wow. --Improv 21:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overtunr deletion deleted out-of-process while TfD was in progress. DES 21:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I'd like to see this template so that I can verify my humble opinion. Futhurmore, it is extremley irregular to have a deletion on something that is already deleted. -MegamanZero|Talk 22:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete This userbox was deleted in the same way the userboxes it talks about were deleted. O the irony - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» 22:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Attack page. -- SCZenz 22:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted as a personal attack. Comparing someone who deleted userboxes to a mass murderer is clearly and inarguably a blatant personal attack, and no "discussion" can negate that fact.

FCYTravis 23:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  • For the last time, this is not a personal attack template. This template says. "This user survived the great user box purge" It does not name any names. It does not even denounce the userbox purge. All it says is that the user was around during the user box purge. However, we do not get to know this as the template has been speedied so none of us can actually read what it says before making our minds up.--God of War 03:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • For the last time, slapping a picture of Stalin on this box is clearly and unabashedly a personal attack. It's comparing someone's deletion of userboxes templates to an act of mass murder by a dictator. If that's not a personal attack, I'd like you to tell me what is! FCYTravis 03:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Why not just remove the image of Stalin?

--AySz88^-^ 05:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Undelete and list properly. Speedies are basically for stuff that aren't worth considering because most any reasonable person would agree that they should be deleted, I think. This doesn't seem to be one of those cases, turns out, I guess. It was a good-faith honest mistake, we all make them, easy to rectify. Herostratus 10:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This does not meet critieria for speedy deletion, and should be undeleted until such time as a proper vote can be conducted. These out of process userbox deletions are still happening constantly, and this userbox is merely an attempt to find some humor in the carnage. --Dschor 10:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, and remove Stalin picture (btw, it wasn't my idea, I copied and pasted it from where it was actually posted on the RfC) --Mistress Selina Kyle 11:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)\

Zoner, Inc.

See Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Zoner,_Inc.
I believe that the Zoner, Inc. meets the criteria for a Misplaced Pages article. Zoner is not a small "garage" company. See google hits: 13,600 hits for "Zoner, Inc." 559,000 hists for "Zoner software", 1,670,000 for Zoner and WP:NOT#Misplaced Pages is not a propaganda machine, part Advertising. I would like to translate article to Czech Misplaced Pages. Thanks. --Michal Jurosz 10:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Relist to AfD. The votes in the AfD were too few to properly gauge consensus. --Deathphoenix 14:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Unless there is better evidence that can be presented that this company meets the recommended criteria at WP:CORP, I have to endorse closure (keep deleted). The vast majority of the google hits cited above (and during the AFD discussion) are irrelevant. They include the software company's own site (reasonable but not relevant for the purposes of verification), download sites, advertising sites and lots of irrelevant use of "zoner" by a variety of people as a username. The google statistics failed to convince the participants of the previous decision. Note: In circumstances like this, a Google Groups search can be more informative. That returns 10,800 hits just for "zoner" but, again, many are irrelevant. I would agree to a relisting if new evidence is presented. Mere google hits are not, in my opinion, meeting that threshold. Rossami (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:CORP is a proposed Misplaced Pages policy. I used official policy WP:NOT, part Advertising: Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. ... --Michal Jurosz 16:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
      • That doesn't automatically mean that all articles about companies or products are appropriate. The "garage" company is a clear example at the extreme end of the spectrum. Companies in the middle are judgment calls. They are generally kept or deleted based on the evidence presented. WP:CORP, while still tagged as a proposal, is a widely respected attempt to provide more specific guidance based on the community's history of decisions. By the way, I'd overlooked your request above to translate the article for the Czech Misplaced Pages. If you participate on both projects and are familiar with their general inclusion criteria, I have no objection to a temporary undelete either to m:transwiki or to your userspace for translation and cross-posting. Rossami (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Michal, my counting skills seem to differ from yours. Where you report 13,600, when I click on the link you provided, I get 998, of which 232 are unique. Where you report 559,000, I get 438,000, of which 326 are unique. However, of 1,670,000 you report, I get 2,900,000, of which 760 are unique. But that is for every single possible use of the word Zoner, most of which have nothing to do with this software. Not notable, keep deleted. User:Zoe| 16:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Zoe, the unique hits are per the thousand sample, and not across the entire returned hit count - you have to multiply the unique count by the overall total divided by a thousand. As you say, though, google is irrelevant due to the multiple uses of the word. Eusebeus 00:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
It is bit confusing for me, because when I click on these links, I get the exactly the same count of hits as Michal Juros. --Petr.adamek 16:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-04

Oven rack guard

I am posting the following appeal for User:BSHUL, who requested help navigating this page. -- SCZenz 06:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Opening statement: I posted the article on the Cool Touch Oven Rack Guard on Misplaced Pages, in good faith, thinking that it was an educational article, similar to the "How Stuff Works" articles, that are quite informative and useful. I received comments in no particular order, as follows:(I added the 1). , 2)., to make references easier)

The Comments:

1). Delete : apparent advertisement for product, already edited-out elsewhere, added by probable spammer Special:Contributions/69.118.41.221. --Zigger User:Zigger User_talk:Zigger 16:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

2). Delete - I agree, a product ad. Bergsten User:Bergsten 16:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

3). Delete, advert. Stifle User:Stifle 00:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

4). It's got to do with a product making national news or not, I think. You might review What Misplaced Pages is not WP:NOT and WP:SPAM WP:SPAM, and if you still disagree with me you can appeal at Misplaced Pages:Deletion Review Misplaced Pages:Deletion_Review . -- SCZenz User:SCZenz 22:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

5).Roomba Roomba is an article that was written by Wikipedians, not by the company that makes the product. 6).You have a patent on the technology used in the Oven rack guard and clearly have a vested interest in creating the article. That's the difference, and the reason why your article is an advertisement and Roomba Roomba is not. If you'd like to create a Request for Undeletion, you can, but it will not succeed. Andre User:Andrevan (talk User_talk:Andrevan) 20:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 7). Your article reads like sales pitch, 8). your references are essentially product reviews. 9).The oven rack guard, as proud as you are of it, is non-notable. Are there other oven rack guards on the market? I couldn't find any, you are stuck having to reference your product because no others exist. 10). Using a sock puppet Internet_sock_puppet, NoMoreBurns...index.php?title=User:NoMoreBurns&action=edit, to attempt to get your article published, as well as 11). your lack of contributions to other articles, isn't helping your case. maxcap User:Maxcap 20:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

12). Phroziac wrote: User:Phroziac I've heard of cool touch before. It's not as known about as Roomba. 13). Deletion discussions are usually very silly. 14). You need independant, verifiable sources to write an article. See our policies on "No independant research" (http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:NOR). 15). It's also usually considered a bad idea to write about yourself, your company, or something you invented. 16). And, it's way more likely to be neutral if someone else writes it. Anyway, you should probably just let someone else write the article. If someone takes the time to write about it on Misplaced Pages, then we *know* it's well known

Reviewing the numbered comments above:

1). Comments 1,2,3,5,6,7,15 indicate that the CTORG article is, an advertisement, a sales pitch, a vanity article. To these, I respond with the Roomba article; here are some quotes from the article: "Roomba is a robotic vacuum cleaner made and sold by iRobot." "Twenty percent of the sale price of this Roomba will be donated to the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, with a $45,000 minimum guarantee." "As of May 2005, over 1.2 million units have been sold, making it the most successful domestic robot so far." "Unlike the competing (and much more expensive) Electrolux Trilobite vacuuming robots, Roomba's do not map out the rooms they are cleaning."

Not to mention a detailed description of all the models and accessories available, My contention is that if this self touting article has not been deleted as a long winded advertisement, then the CTORG article is not an advertisement/sales pitch/vanity article.

2). Comments #5, 6, 10, 15 and 16. indicate that the reason the CTORG article is considered an advertisement is because it is written by me and I have vested interest. In response to this, the article was edited and reposted by another person, who has no vested interest, yet the CTORG article remains deleted. The resubmit was further discounted, by deeming it "written by a sock puppet". See the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith (I can supply an affidavit).

3). Comment #11, my lack of other contributions, in my opinion, is not a criteria for article deletion.

4). Comment #4, The Cool Touch Oven Rack Guard made national news when Reader's Digest and HGTV, presented international written and video coverage. Additionally, two newspaper articles are cited in the CTORG source links. Other newspaper articles can be supplied, if required.

5). Comment #8 indicates that the references cited by the CTORG article, are product reviews. Indeed, the references cited refer to this technical development, as embodied by the CTORG product. Please see Misplaced Pages article http://en.wikipedia.org/Camera_phone and check out all the product reviews in the External Links. If those references are acceptable, then the CTORG references are acceptable.

6). Comment #9 indicates that the CTORG article, is non-notable, "because no others exist" The latter, is absolutely true, there is no other product like the CTORG. Please see Misplaced Pages article http://en.wikipedia.org/Dippin_dots in which no others exist. If this article can be in Misplaced Pages, then the CTORG article can be. Additionally "Notability is related to importance </Wikipedia:Importance>. Articles should be relevant to a reasonable number of people". The CTORG article is relevant to anyone who uses an oven, as well as, the many who have burned themselves. Are there any female admins?

7). Comment #13...no comment.

In Summation:

I believe that the Cool Touch Oven Rack Guard article in one of its more recent edits, meets the criteria for a Misplaced Pages article and does not meet the criteria for deletion:

1). It is written based on independent, verifiable and notable sources. (See the CTORG article below) and so it is not written, as original research (such as reporting data coming from one's lab).

2). It is notable, as it is relevant to anyone who uses an oven. It was written about in Internationally circulated articles from Reader's Digest(May 2004), HGTV, and Gizmag (Austrailia). It has won the Cooking Club of America's Seal of Approval.

2). It is not a vanity page, because it was lastly edited and submitted by someone, other than myself, who has no vested interest in the article.

3). It is not a product advertisement or sales pitch. The embodiment of the particular use of two of Nomex's physical properties is indeed a product (Cool Touch Oven Rack Guard). One cannot discuss this particular use of Nomex's properties, without discussing it's embodiment. (see comment #9..."you are stuck..."). Additionally, The CTORG article's wording, does not try to persuade someone they need it, does not offer it for sale, quote a price or tell where it can be bought.

4). It has a more neutral point of view, than the Roomba article, which has not been cited for POV.

Cool Touch Oven Rack Guard article:

(note: each line is an independently verifiable fact, no opinions) (note: some source articles were stored in my FTP space)

Ovens and stoves, throughout history, have something in common; they will burn the person who comes in contact with their hot metal surfaces, for instance, the oven rack's front edge . Devices to protect the hands, such as oven gloves, have been developed, but need to be used consistently, to be effective; so people still get burned. In 2004, a device was developed by Burt Shulman of Wappingers Falls, NY, called the Cool Touch Oven Rack Guard, which is a fabric strip that attaches along the front edge of the oven rack and stays in the oven. If a person touches it, even at 500 deg. F., they will not be burned. The fabric is made from a modern synthetic fiber called Nomex Nomex - which can withstand 500 deg. F. temperatures and has both low thermal conductivity Thermal_conductivity and thermal mass Thermal_mass, . These material properties reduce the heat transferred to the skin, during the "touch', so no burn results. Source Articles:

(posted for User:BSHUL -- SCZenz)

List of real names of professional wrestlers

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Professional wrestlers real names
This listing received nine votes to delete (the original of which was mine), one vote to merge and four votes to keep and redirect to List of real names of professional wrestlers. The vote was closed and the latter course decided upon, despite there being more than 2:1 opposition to keeping the article. No record of the vote was added to the article's discussion page. It's also worth noting that the article has still received absolutely no attention whatsoever, and that several "delete" votes (and none of the outright "keep" votes) came from members of the WikiProject Professional wrestling, who are the editors most likely to work on the article. McPhail 20:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Given there was not full consensus to delete (64% delete support), I think the closing admin took the right decision. David | Talk 20:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. Consensus to delete is around 70-80%, so I think the right decision was made here, though I would have put "No consensus" instead. --Deathphoenix 20:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure - Merge votes count with keep votes for the purposes of calculating whether there is a consensus to delete, bringing the delete votes to below 2/3s. I'd have voted to merge, but you don't need DRV to get that outcome, just find a normal consensus on the article page. --- Charles Stewart 20:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure though I agree that the decision probably would have been better worded as "no consensus". For AFD purposes, "keep", "merge" and "move" are generally equivalent as objections to deletion. 5 to 9 falls just below the generally accepted 2/3s threshold for "rough consensus". Rossami (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, I would call it 8/5 since Oakster didn't supply any sort of reasoning (not even "agree with X"). This is not even close to concensus. Apart from that, I don't see how merging with the existing list is a worse thing than deletion. - Mgm| 22:03, 4 January 2006
    • I'd like to give a big kiss to Mgm for this and suggest that we chuck out naked "votes" a bit more consistantly. (Although they are more commonly "keep, seems notable" with no evidence provided.) - brenneman 00:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Temp undelete merge each individual "real name" into the article of said wrestler if they have an article... then the list has no more need and can be deleted.  ALKIVAR™ 00:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-03

Seth Ravin

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Seth Ravin
Slightly hazy. A couple of clear delete opinions (one mine, please note), a couple of clear keep opinions (JJay and Kurt Weber). The rest are pretty clear that they consider him less notable than Rimini Street. We don't expect AfDs to be consistant, but the real issue are the pseudo-merges. I think that everyone who took part would be suprised at this outcome. My prefered option would be to ping the participants, un-close/extend this, and run it for a few more days. - brenneman 07:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Eek... a pretty difficult AFD to close, further complicated by the fact that the suggested merge target, Rimini Street was deleted. I think that we should relist this one for a new AFD debate now that the staus of Rimini Street has clarified. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems there was a consensus that this topic doesn't deserve it's own article. Votes to merge to a non-existant target should be discounted. Thus, it should have been deleted. Re-list if necessary. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:51, Jan. 4, 2006
  • Delete. It should have been merged with Rimini Street and deleted along with it. Let's face it, it's vanity. Kurt Weber's opinion basically boils down to "he exists so he should have an article", a view he's expressed about anything that could theoretically exist, and has been universally rejected. Relist if need be, but deletion is preferable. -R. fiend 16:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete, Any argument that rests on "it exists, so keep" should be rejected out of hand (at least Kmweber has laid off the "deletionist vandal" schtick), and votes that are later rendered impossible should be discounted, IMO, though JIP's handling of it as a no consensus also makes sense. android79 16:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete - From here, the three merge votes count as delete votes given that the AfD said delete Rimini Street (two of them including Howcheng explicitly said they were delete in this case, the last said per Howcheng), and the four keep votes were all weak keeps. Note that Aaron voted delete in a roundabout manner (he said same as the Rimini AfD). That makes 7 delete against 4 weak keeps: given no real defence of the article was mounted, I count that as a consensus to delete. --- Charles Stewart 17:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete, per above, altho the original "no consensus" call was not unreasonable. Friday (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete. Despite the fact that merges often count as keeps, these merge votes all seemed to depend on the outcome of Rimini Street, and since Rimini Street was deleted, so should this. --Deathphoenix 20:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Funny one. Overturn and delete, as good arguments have been made, or failing that, just reopen and extend for 2 days, asking the merge voters to reconsider their opinions. Titoxd 21:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No need to delete. In 2004, Ravin persuaded H. David Anderson IV, director of information technology for the state of Georgia's employee retirement system, to switch contracts from Peoplesoft to Mr Ravin's company, TomorrowNow Inc . Undercutting the big boys, verifiably in a non-fluff piece in a reputable newspaper, seems noteworthy to me. Not one if the big boys, but not a blue sky dreamer either. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Good call. How much of the article discussed Ravin and his company? Did you get this via LexisNexis? --- Charles Stewart 10:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to link it. It's on the WSJ site but you need a subscription for that. There are quite a few copies, such as: here (PDF), Here is a html cache copy. The article is about a customer revolt in response to poor and costly service from Peoplesoft/Oracle, and focused primarily on the growth of FutureNow's business at the expense of the giant. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Mootstormfront

The AfD was closed out of process by Howcheng, after just 7 votes, including the primary editor— hardly enough input to provide consensus for such a marginal article. This promotional entry for a Web site/forum fails the basic criteria for Notability for a Web site— which none of the participants addressed in the AfD discussion. More critically, the site no longer even exists, nor is there a single reliable source which refers to it, which means there is no means to provide verifiable information— a fundamental requirement for any article. The Deletion process should be re-opened/re-listed, with a discussion of how this currently non-existent and non-verifiable site qualifies for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. —LeFlyman 08:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

  • To clarify: what I am referring to as "out of process" is the closure of an AfD started the night before Christmas Eve and closed the day after New Year's-- a holiday period when activity is naturally going to be at a low, so that very few editors who might have a disinterested opinion on the article would have the opportunity to comment/vote. A lack of interest and participation should not be a beneficial qualifer for encyclopedic inclusion. I was particularly concerned that none of the Misplaced Pages standards were considered in the decision on whether this was an appropriate article to keep, but that the initial votes were based on the claims that it "seems important" or was "well known" but without any proof of such claims. Are we really to the point where the AfD etiquette which states that, "If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, and clearly base your recommendations on the deletion policy" is meaningless? —LeFlyman 16:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks to all who participated in this discussion, which not surprisingly, were more than who voted in the AfD -- the end result appears to be that the article will likely be merged into another, and so the verifiability problems raised will be dealt with. Thus, no need for further review. —LeFlyman 15:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Kept/endorse closure. First, the suggestion that howcheng's closure is out of order is erroneous. The debate ran for 10 days, twice the normal length, thanks to end-of-year lagtime. Secondly, you raised these points in the original debate, and they were unsuccessful. DRV is not the place to reargue a valid AfD. Xoloz 09:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist - Don't think it was out of process closure, but I think your arguments are well-made. No verifiable sources and it doesn't look encyclopedic to me. FCYTravis 09:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure although it was, umm, poor. We shouldn't make a habit of prescribing relisting when there was no procedural error with the close. People hate relisting, and if it's done with a "Per discussion at WP:DRV" that lends some credibility that it mayn't deserve. If someone wants to nominate this again off their own bat, please drop me a note on my talk page so that I may participate, but this is outside the zone of DRV as far as I'm concerned. - brenneman 10:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure and keep. Closed within process, nowhere near a consensus for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, although I am sympathetic to verifiability concerns. I've added this to my watchlist, let's take up verifiability issues on the talk page, and if we must remove unverifiable content, so be it. If we're left without enough for a proper article, maybe we can find some place to merge it into. Friday (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. LeFlyman is incorrect in his/her assertion that the discussion was closed out-of-process. By design, there is no minimum quorum for AFD discussions. Nor is it inappropriate for the article's editor to participate in the deletion discussion. However, LeFlyman does raise some valid concerns over verifiability. I have no objections to an independent relisting after a reasonable period. Rossami (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: As the closing admin, I certainly feel it was justified, but I'll abstain from voting. Like Xoloz says, the debate ran for twice the normal amount of time. I suppose I could have been more generous and closed it with a "no consensus" but I thought a 2/5 vote was pretty clear (yes, I know it's a not a vote). Please also note that a number of other AfD nominations during the holiday period generated plenty of discussion so IMHO arguing that low activity invalidates the closure is unjustified. howcheng {chat} 16:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, 7 votes is certainly enough, I've closed votes with much less than that. --Deathphoenix 19:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, but without prejudice against renomination per Aaron Brenneman, as some of the reasons for keeping (e.g. "Seems important") are quite bad. Titoxd 21:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, even though AFD is not a vote. There were no good reasons presented in the AFD debate as to why the article should be kept, and it clearly fails WP:WEB. I endorse though, since I'm feeling particularly inclusionist at the moment. - ulayiti (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Back Door Sluts 9

Redirect to The Return of the Lord of the Rings to the Two Towers, a Southpark episode in which it plays a prominent role, improperly speedied several times. The deleting admin also blocked the editor that was creating the redirect. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Full Bodying

Chris Jenny Harrison

  • Undelete Chris Jenny Harrison. This is a real person and a real name and everything in the article is true. Chris Harrison is a real and well known person in this part of the world. You may not know him but Im sure a lot of people in other countries dont know who JFK or Gandhi are, I dont see you deleting them. —the preceding unsigned comment is by DokkenDio (talk • contribs) 06:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, attack page, no plausible claim of notability. —Cryptic (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete Chris Jenny Harrison. It has just been brought to my attention that each administrator, or at least for sure "Natalinasmpf" is given their own pages on wikipedia. Why is it at all allowable for admins to post biographies, which are boring yet my dear friend Chris Jenny Harrison cannot be shared with the world, when his life is so exciting? This double standard seems unacceptable. How can this site call itself a fair/good site applying these double standards. You know who else applied these double standards men on women before the age of equal rights. It aint right.
  • Comment - Anyone can have a user page. It's at User:Yournamehere. That's called userspace. Feel free to use it. Nobody is entitled to an *article* in *articlespace* about themselves. FCYTravis 09:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, see WP:BIO and note the difference between articles and userpages. - Mgm| 12:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, this is not even userfy material. "Born from the fiery lava of Mount Ookalawaiah on a small Hawaiin Island", indeed. User:Zoe| 17:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Attack page on a non-notable person. --Deathphoenix 19:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFC/KM

Speedy deleted many times, and now protected blank. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Seigenthaler

Supposedly an "article that serves no purpose but to disparage its subject". In fact it is simply parody/satire - "This user helped Seigenthaler kill John F. Kennedy." --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

First, Chalst, I'd appreciate it if you get the name right- a simple "maru" is more than acceptable. Second, the template was speedied twice by other admins, for no valid reason, when it should have been put through TFD. SPUI is entirely correct- if you examine the deletion history, the third time was me undeleting it to copy it over to my user space, and then promptly redeleting it to await a VFU decision. --maru (talk) Contribs 03:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and list on TfD - It's a pretty tasteless and inadvisable joke, but it's clearly not an attack page. Let's put the issue up for proper discussion. --- Charles Stewart 04:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. No need to screw around with a tastless joke that obviously hurts the credibility of our project. -- SCZenz 04:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Since this template is only useful as a userbox, isn't it just as harmful to have people cut and pasting the text from Maru's user page as to have them make use of the template? Hence, if he speedy is valid for the template, then isn't it right to insist that Maru remove the userbox from his page? I find this to be too much, but I am interested in how far the argument goes to delete from such reasons as the need to uphold the credibility of the project. --- Charles Stewart 04:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Interesting point, Mr. Stewart. The difference between the template, and user-supplied text in userspace, as I see it, is this: Users are generally given wide (though not total) freedom in their own space, in the spirit of freedom of expression. Most WPians understand this; and most casual viewers, familiar with the freedom of speech common in the English-speaking world, grasp it intuitively. A template, because it is circulated among the community in a pre-set form, is subject to greater oversight at TFD, and through CSD; it would be easier for the casual viewer to mistake it as representing WP's views, at least through tacit complicity. This isn't to say that "John Seigenthaler killed Kennedy" belongs on a userpage, either; that discussion, regarding libel at WP, is ongoing, and such a statement might be called a personal attack, under the circumstances. What is clear to me is that the case for CSDing the template is on firmer ground than the deletion of a userpage, for the aforementioned reasons of purview, institutional oversight, and inituitive understanding. Xoloz 09:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
      • But you voted to keep deleted because it is an attack. Attacks are just as unacceptable on user pages as on templates. If you really think that it is an attack, you should edit Maru's user page and remove the box. Or per your comment below, do you think it is really a violation of WP:CIV? --- Charles Stewart 18:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. We have brains for a reason. Ambi 10:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Slightly funny but libellous and a personal attack. David | Talk 10:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, is an attack against Seigenthaler and only marginally funny. - Mgm| 12:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, and nuke the version from maru's user page, too. --Calton | Talk 15:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. This template is just trolling. Gamaliel 17:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, inappropriate in an article, and more inappropriate as a template. --Deathphoenix 19:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove all references to Seigenthaler or keep deleted. The weather in London should not be recreated... but personal attacks don't belong here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted -- You'd think that some people would remember how much the Seigenthaler episode hurt WP's credibility, and how much flak we caught in the public sphere as a result of it. To resurrect that stinking meme is self-destructive behaviour for a Wikipedian. --Peripatetic 13:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted I speedy tagged it, and I feel so correctly, since there is no evidence to suggest Seigenthaler did kill JFK, it only stands to give him a bad name. IanID:540053 17:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted I appreciate the tongue in cheek, but this is a bit like touching a hot stove just after it's burned you. –Abe Dashiell 20:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Extremely insensitive joke template that was correctly deleted on sight. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-01

Template:Help Wikiboxes

Deleted out of process, this was in no way a personal attack, as claimed in the deletions. This was deleted while discussion at WP:TFD was in progress. Undelete and allow the TfD to continue normally. DES 12:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

2005-12-31

Category:Moneyball (CfD Discussion)

I think this deletion should be reviewed because, it seems like, no "baseball people" saw the deletion discussion to make the obvious counter-argument, and the category was deleted on bad evidence. I think this is wrong, and at least the CfD should be re-listed with an informed counter-argument to see what happens.

Moneyball is much more than just some book (a claim the CfD discussion never challenged), the book just gave name to and popularized among the masses a movement that had been brewing for years. Developed by Bill James and first truly implimented by Billy Beane at Oakland, the philosophy is the most controversial topic in baseball (other than steroids) in the past 10 years, and has changed the way nearly everyone thinks about the basic statistics of baseball (which is big, considering baseball is a game of statistics). So it's not just one of many baseball books published every year... it's the most important baseball book published in the past 20 years, and a major topic in baseball even had the book never been written.

The articles on people involved and the basic concepts (on base percentage, On-base plus slugging, sabermetrics, etc.) seem to be improved by being listed in the category, it lets someone interested in moneyball easilly find other related articles. I'm sorry I missed the CfD and couldn't present this argument there... I guess all us baseball geeks take winter off like the players. --W.marsh 16:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

  • If you want to use it for a broader topic than just issues mentioned in the book, why not make Category:Sabermetrics? That would cover the issues involved. Firebug 17:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Sabermetrics is just the statistics, moneyball involves the people who use them, oppose them, etc. which is a big issue in baseball today. For example, you couldn't really put Billy Beane and other people in Category:Sabermetrics. I'll consider creating the category though, it would be useful for the statistics. --W.marsh 17:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, but "moneyball" (as a descriptor) isn't NPOV, is it? I mean, I usually hear the term in the context of the phrase, "f-ckin' moneyball." Of course, I'm a Royals fan -- yes we do exist. :) Anyway, Sabermetrics seems more objective to me. Xoloz 18:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
        • That's an interesting point... but it's not exactly POV to say someone or something is associated with moneyball, as long as that's well documented. The category also applies to well-known critics of moneyball, like Joe Morgan. I really don't see the POV here... it's well documented which people and topics associated with moneyball... it's just moneyball itself that is controversial. Some people think moneyball is bad, some think it's good... the same could be said of many categories we have. --W.marsh 18:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Oh sure... it's just that I don't know anyone who uses moneyball positively, who says, "Wow, isn't moneyball great!" Like I said, this could just be my bias -- but I wonder if "moneyball" isn't like "anti-choice" or "pro-murder" as applied in abortion debates -- exclusively a pejorative. Anyway, undelete and relist, this merits full discussion at a new debate. Substantial new, previously-unaddressed points have been raised. Xoloz 18:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete, reason for deletion contradicted by information here. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete Moneyball is IMO an incredibly important book, with implications for business managers outside of baseball: there is real value in employees that other organizations shun because they don't fit a cookie-cutter mold. I am only a casual fan of baseball & am really not interested in sabremetrics, but I think the concept has broad application. Billbrock 23:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC) Comment: oops, I misread. Didn't realize this was a category deletion, to which I have no objection. Billbrock 01:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist on CfD, see if there are more discussions this time around. --Deathphoenix 18:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: I'm closing this DRV now, and clearly there is an overturning. That appears based on a misunderstanding of the undeletion of categories: it does not repopulate them. So anyone who wants to can recreate the category in the articles (there's no record of those available, either), and use this as their mandate. There is no point relisting an empty category on cfd prior to it being repopulated. -Splash 00:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Timeline for missing persons following the September 11, 2001 Attacks (AFD discussion)

This article should be undeleted because of significant new information that was not considered at discussion: the article was important enough to have been cited in the peer-reviewed article

Edkins, Jenny. The rush to memory and the rhetoric of war. Journal of Political & Military Sociology; Winter 2003, Vol. 31(2), p. 231-250

This printed article is kept in the world's academic libraries and a broken Misplaced Pages link gives an extremely unprofessional impression. For verification, I can email the article to anyone who provides me with their email address on my talk page. AxelBoldt 08:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

2005-12-29

Template:Album infobox 2

TfD here: Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/December 2005#Template:Album_infobox_2

Review so what happened to this whilst most of us were not watching over the holidays, there was no clear concensus so how was this to be a remove authority. There were issues with the clicking on the image but they had been solved. I cannot believe that such creativity should be stamped upon also I don't believe if we are able to use an image we fall foul if we are an image in such an innocuous way. Most of all what is the point of these votes is they are ridden roughshod over!

Clearer guidance should be given if this really is a fair use problem, I fail to see the reason for its use (the fair use arguement) here. If we are able to use the image to illustrate the album, we are able to use the image to illustrate the album, period.

In the forking point, surely the aim of the those working on the version was to make the "smarter" form, the new standard, (i.e. not forked). Perhaps this was not gone about the best way, but there it is.

Overriding these concerns, where is the adjudiction summary, and/or final reason given for the action taken. Please can people be a little more considerate of the effort people are putting in to create this resource. If the decision is to stand please do the 'losing' opinion the courtesy of a polite statement. Kevinalewis 09:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Overturn/Undelete, this TfD closed with 22 delete to 21 keep which is, in my opinion, too close to consider a consensus (further, one of the deletes didn't sign their vote). —Locke Cole • t • c 15:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Overturn/relist On examining the TfD, I do see the defects complained of. Lack of closing rationale, closeness of the tallies, uncertainty over the fair argument. I would endorse the closure if I were convinced regarding lack of a fair use claim; however, album covers are intended for display, and uses that promote the album are generally permissible (and highly unlikely to generate an infringement claim in the first instance.) Decision is too muddled to stand as is. Xoloz 16:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted - TfD is not a vote - less so than other pages, really, because of the relative lack of traffic and the high degree to which people want every stupid template but their own deleted - it has long been run on a system of "Read through the argument and make a call about which side gives the most persuasive reasons." I am thusly persuaded that an increase in the use of fair use images and the desire for a universal style of album infoboxes is a persuasive reason. Phil Sandifer 16:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • There is a universal style, and this template follows it (hence why a simple redirect is all it took to change things; the parameters are identical, this template simply adds a few additional parameters). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Unredirect, closure in error, and per Phil as well, most persuasive arguments were to keep -- or rather, no persuasive argument was made to delete, which amounts to the same thing. While I would support dropping fair use images entirely, if we accept fair use as a rationale it certainly applies to these images. Template forking is not a problem; editors are perfectly capable of choosing among a variety of similar but slighly different templates. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Endorse. TFD is not supposed to be a vote. Most 'keep' voters just joined the pileon and didn't specify a reason. The 'delete' voters had two solid arguments that nobody had a meaningful rebuttal to. 1) It is a fork. If you don't like a template, edit it, do not fork. And 2) It breaks fair use. There are legal problems with the way this template uses images. Legal concerns trump consensus. Radiant_>|< 01:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Most keep votes were agreeing with the disagreement over fair-use. Just because they chose not to comment doesn't immediately invalidate their voice; I take such votes as indicating that everything said up till their vote already addressed their points better than they could. As for forking, it's fully compatible with {{Album infobox}} (hence why a simple redirect was even possible as a stop-gap solution). And legal concerns do not trump consensus if there's no consensus about the legal concerns. That's circular logic. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Legal concerns would trump consensus if the consensus were openly defiant or ignorant of copyright law. However, although I am no IP expert, I take the informed view that fair use applies here. The image (at low resolution) is used only to direct the searcher to an encyclopedic article about the album. If anything, this innocently promotes the album; the character of the use is, in this case, so intermingled with the public commentary permitted under the fair use doctrine that I cannot imagine an infringement action being brought, or succeeding. This case is easily distinguished from claims of fair use on user-pages, which claims are asinine. Xoloz 05:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Fork templates cause a lot of headaches.. we made the right decision. Rhobite 00:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Rhobite, Radiant. There's also an overwhelming preference/consensus demonstrated by the people who create album articles, better than 10:1. Monicasdude 04:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn, we should stop bloody gathering consensuses, then, if nobody's willing to abide by them. That would also solve a lot of the vandalism problems (makes note to suggest rigid hierarchy model sometime)--Agamemnon2 10:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse. A number of users typing "keep" does not make something not a fork (nor does it trump "fair use" concerns). Nothing wrong with the judgement call made in the closing. Jkelly 04:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • There's nothing wrong with a fork in this instance as it is perfectly compatible with {{Album infobox}} (hence why a simple redirect was all that was necessary to keep things working after the initial TFD). As to the issue of people typing "keep", I'm sorry, but when I saw those, I assumed good faith and presumed they were agreeing with all the people who'd typed "keep" and explained the reasoning for why fair-use was not a concern. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. None of the supporters of the disputed template have provided a substantial response to this concern: Quoting from the Misplaced Pages:Fair use guidelines, "it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a 💕." Wikimedia Foundation policy is not subject to revision/exception by Misplaced Pages editors." Monicasdude 15:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The quote cited by Monicasdude really underscores the fair use concerns that made me vote for deletion in the first place. While I personally liked the concept of Infobox2 and prefer the look with the album covers in the discography, I really don't think that can stand when run against the Foundation's stated policy. Not to demean the original Keep votes, but I think many were misinterpreting the policy, instead using personal preference run through the prism of "if it significantly improves the article it is included on" as their justification, rather than the bigger picture of the fully stated policy. Ultimately, I think the right action was taken, as many of the template's supporters were not properly applying the Foundation's stance on the matter. - Liontamer 17:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse - I think this should be rereviewed. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Snowspinner --- Charles Stewart 09:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

  1. Blumpkin: completely rewritten 10:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. List of Netflix distribution centers: withdrawn by nominator 21:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Bonestown: history of discussion page restored. 14:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. John Noble Goodwin: restored 14:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. User boxes deleted by Tony Sidaway: speedily undeleted. 21:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy deletion endorsed, noted on the discussions subpage. 23:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Gojin Motors undeleted and relisted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gojin Motors (2nd nomination). 23:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Wikimongering: kept deleted. 23:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Infosecpedia: closure endorsed, without prejudice against relisting (also without mandating it from this discussion). 23:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Homespring: kept deleted. 23:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Various stub template redirects: numbers short of threshold to simply overturn and undelete, but not clear on how to relist. See note in debate still listed above. 23:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Interwise: speedily undeleted and listed on AfD.
  13. Shpants - History merge up until 12-2-2005 with Three quarter pants and then delete Shpants. WhiteNight 08:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. Gtplanet - Undeleted and relisted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gtplanet (2nd nomination). 21:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  15. Halo.Bungie.Org - Undeleted and relisted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Halo.Bungie.Org (2nd nomination). 21:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 Categories: