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 20:37, 17 January 2006 view sourceEddieSegoura (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,738 edits →[]: undelete← Previous edit Revision as of 20:45, 17 January 2006 view source Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →[]: Undeletion of Tally (accounting) and SuperOfficeNext edit →
Line 127: Line 127:
*'''Endorse'''. There was no abuse of process in the deletion; attempting to have a valid AFD overturned here is futile. ] 00:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Endorse'''. There was no abuse of process in the deletion; attempting to have a valid AFD overturned here is futile. ] 00:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. Can't work out why this was listed for deletion in the first place. Perfectly good article about a company and its product which appears to be a significant player in a vertical market. --]|] 19:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Undelete'''. Can't work out why this was listed for deletion in the first place. Perfectly good article about a company and its product which appears to be a significant player in a vertical market. --]|] 19:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
** I'm taking the liberty of undeleting one of two of the other articles because their deletion was silly. ] is about a well established Indian company with numerous major clients in its native country and representation as far afield as the UK, and ] is a public listed company with a turnover of around Euro 30m . --]|] 20:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 20:45, 17 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.

Gallery of Socialist Realism

This article has been deleted following an AfD, and the outcome of that AfD was disputed here and the closure endorsed. During the DRV, User:Aaron Brenneman requested that, if the deletion was endorsed, the page be userfied to his space, so that he could work on it. This was not done: since the topic arose in a discussion, can the article be userfied now? --- Charles Stewart 10:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

History only undeletion

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

Decisions to be reviewed

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".

2006-01-17

Badawiya HOTEL

Speedy deleted while on AfD. The delete log reason was just "A4". The article does read like an advertisement, but does not at all fit A4 (or A3 with which A4 has been merged). IMO this should have been allowe to run the AfD course. It might have been cleaned up into a reasonable article, or there might have been an in-process deletion. DES 18:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Linked pages from Crooked Timber

User Pboyd04 posted Crooked Timber (group blog) on AfD and simultaneously sought speedy deletion of linked articles on group members, which has taken place in most but not all cases. I posted a response requesting that both issues be resolved together. The only other response on the talk pages was for Kieran Healy opposing speedy deletion and this entry has not been deleted. The arguments for and against speedy deletion of other entries are broadly similar, so the outcome has been inconsistent.

So far Pboyd04's AfD proposal for Crooked Timber has received 6 Keep responses and no Delete responses. The suggested grounds for deletion were either subjective and rejected by respondents (nn) or factually erroneous (no media coverage). Several of those deleted have also received significant media coverage in relation to blogging and Internet issues, but the speedy deletion gave no opportunity to discuss the merits.

I feel that the speedy deletions of linked pages were out of process and that, if desired, the whole issue should either be reconsidered once the AfD discussion on Crooked Timber is resolved or merged with the discussion on Crooked Timber. I therefore request undeletion of

Henry Farrell (political scientist)

Eszter Hargittai

John Holbo

Tom Runnacles

Micah Schwartzman

Belle Waring

JQ 08:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

PS: These articles were on my watchlist, but I got no notification of their deletion. I haven't had any experience with deletions before, but this seems like a defect in the process to me.

  • Endorse speedies. These were all speedy deleted under criteria A7 (Unremarkable people or groups). Being a college professor who happens to contribute to a web log is not usually considered a claim of notability. If any of the individuals meet the guidelines at WP:BIO, there is nothing preventing recreation of these articles. --Allen3  16:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorese speedies In the versions just prior to deletion, all look like valid WP:CSDA7 (nn-bio) deletions. Each stated the person'd profession, in soem cases the person's research intersts, adn that the person contributed to this blog and in some cases to other blogs. Contributign to a blog, even a notable blog, as not in itself a claim of notability, IMO. Neither is being an academing in a particualr field, nor a lawyer, nor a journalist. if any of these people have doen soemthing notable, or are notable for some other reason, recreate the article about that person with that info included -- preferably sourced. If anyone wants to do that an needs the text of one the above deleted stubs (and they all were stubs) I'll be glad to put a copy in anyone's userspace. DES 17:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I knew of Henry Farrell before I heard of Crooked Timber: I have a feeling there may be a case for his notability. John Quiggin is a name as a left-leaning Australian economist: I think an articlke on him would have a good chance of surviving an AfD. I'll do a spot more research, and see what I can dig up. --- --- Charles Stewart 18:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Holy Father

I would like to nominate the article Holy Father for undeletion review or at least I would like a stub to be made for the article for Holy Father. The rcc's pope is only "Holy Father" to at least some rcc members, but not to everyone. Redirecting automatically to a their pope is not NPOV and others would probably agree if more knew about what was going on here. The article was doing fine for some months before TCC/Csernica blindside afd'd and had support from "other" people that didn't have much to do with the article. TCC/Csernica could have discussed about the page instead of afd'ing.

I would like the article to be protected from being redirected exclusively to their pope. I would think some people would like to know the history of the original use and about the rcc title.

My thoughts about making the article NPOV is on Talk:Holy Father and I invite TCC/Csernica to share his/her thoughts instead of deleting an article that was going well for some time.

The article was going well until someone removed a section which may have caused TCC/Csernica to afd the article.--jeolmeun 08:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: since the article exists, I don't think deletion review is the right place. For what it's worth I think it should be a disambiguation page, to God and Pope, since it is used to mean either (depending on which church you belong to). - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 11:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-16

2120s and 2140s

All other decade pages for the 22nd century (2110s ... 2190s) are currently redirects to the main 22nd century article. These two pages were orginally protected because they kept being created with meaningless content. However, it seems silly to have these two protected and not the others. I recommend they be unprotected and made into redirects. Gurch 12:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

24SevenOffice

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/24SevenOffice - from April 2005 (result was keep rewritten article)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/24SevenOffice (second nomination) - from January 2006 (result was delete)

Australia's largest newspaper (Sydney Morning Herald) refer to 24SevenOffice as a succesfull ASP in comparison with industry leaders such as Salesforce.com and NetSuite. I think this proves that it is notable enough and the deletion was a mistake. Also the company is listed on the OTC-market in Norway. A similar company, Centraview, was nominated for deletion and kept. A google search for Centraview gives 11,900 results while 24SevenOffice gives 66,800. I do not think the votes for deletion of the 24SevenOffice article were based on facts. --Sleepyhead 10:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Note that all of these pages (many of which you will notice have been deleted) are either software products or software companies, the same as 24SevenOffice. Note that User:Sleepyhead81 added a note to his/her userpage on August 10th in which he/she identified himself/herself as an employee of 24SevenOffice . Note that User:Sleepyhead81's history of nominating articles for deletion was minimal until 24SevenOffice was nominated for AFD a second time, after which all of the above listed nominations were made. Almost as if User:Sleepyhead81 was motivated by something other than pure altruism and a desire to improve Misplaced Pages. Note that earlier today, User:Sleepyhead81 removed the statement identifying himself/herself as an employee of 24SevenOffice from his/her userpage, shortly after listing 24SevenOffice here on DRV . Perhaps he/she is no longer with the company, but still feels like the company deserves a Misplaced Pages article. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 11:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. No new information is being presented. This is a small company with no evidence of significance, was added to various articles pparently asserting parity with salesforce.com and Google Earth among others (which is patently absurd). Was stated to meet WP:CORP as being used to calculate a market index; this claim was false as it is a whole-market index. Was asserted to meet WP:CORP on the basis of press coverage; this was false as the press coverage was a press release. Is now asserted to meet WP:CORP on the basis of the Syndey Morning Herald article, but that is simply a namecheck (and notes that there are around 12,000 similar companies). Nominator and article author is associated with the company (always a bad idea). I see no evidence of process irregularity. Motives for creating the article have been questioned, whether fairly or not (e.g. Personally I don't really care about the article itself, but I'm sick of having to revert the addition of a link to this article into other articles where it doesn't belong. As far as I can see, the authors worked out that a link to their homepage would survive a lot longer if they wrapped an article around it., Rufous (talk · contribs)). Unless an independent party wishes to challenge this I see no merit in reopening a debate which ended in clear consensus. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 11:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The list of articles that i nominated for deletion is a way to show the inconsistance of votes in regards to which articles are kept and which ones are deleted. Centraview is a perfect example of this. JzG's vote was based on an article on a website called vnunet.com where CentraView is listed as an example of an open source application. But an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, which is a much more respectable source than vnunet.com, is not a reason for the 24SevenOffice article to be kept according to JzG. I find that the vote here does not reflect the facts presented in this case. Whether the 24SevenOffice article should be kept should be based on the notability of 24SevenOffice in the same as CentraView and others alike. Not based on my relation to 24SevenOffice, my edits or any others subjective votes in regards to the article. Other contributors can edit the article. I really feel that votes in deletion debates are based on whether people like the article or not. Thus open source projects, linux based software and other projects who share characteristics with Misplaced Pages are always kept while commerical products are always deleted. Advertising applies just as much to open source projects as they do with products. Also in regards to the CentraView debate there was three votes for delete and two for keep. The keep votes was JzG reason as above and the other for 'being open source'. --Sleepyhead 14:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure - I could probably have voted either way on the afd, but the debate was validly closed, and the decision far from unreasonable. That, combined with the complainer's vested interest and violation of WP:POINT, leaves me seeing to reason to reverse this. --Doc 19:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and suggest nominator read WP:POINT. User:Zoe| 22:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse. There was no abuse of process in the deletion; attempting to have a valid AFD overturned here is futile. Stifle 00:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Can't work out why this was listed for deletion in the first place. Perfectly good article about a company and its product which appears to be a significant player in a vertical market. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm taking the liberty of undeleting one of two of the other articles because their deletion was silly. Tally (accounting) is about a well established Indian company with numerous major clients in its native country and representation as far afield as the UK, and SuperOffice is a public listed company with a turnover of around Euro 30m . --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-15

Michael E. Berumen

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michael E. Berumen

I was an original supporter of deletion of this article. The consensus was - not by a great deal - to keep it. Yesterday, I received an email from a person claiming to be Michael E. Berumen. I have no reason to doubt its authenticity (though if Mr Berumen is reading I would ask him to verify it) containing the following (which has been edited only to remove references to specific editors):

" Well over a year ago, I demanded that the head of this enterprise, Mr. James Wales, remove untoward remarks made about me made along with any references in articles made by others. He complied with this . Mr. Wales personally asked me if he could keep the article about me, which he apparently liked and thought harmless enough. Reluctantly, I agreed, notwithstanding its several minor errors. Having thought that the matter was put rest, I discover the whole thing started again in an attempt to promulgate my views and correct some of the previous damages.
"I certainly concur that I am not especially notable, most particularly in relation to my scholarly pursuits. If anything, I am more notable for my business dealings, only some of which is mentioned in the article. Fact is, I do not wish to be notable in any serious way (other than amongst friends and clients of course), for, among other things, that would eliminate some of my legal protections. I am a private person, which has a strict legal definition in this country. I prefer to control my own public persona, and not to have it controlled by others, including you. The article ought to have been deleted long ago when I suggested as much. Some of the reasons you adduced for doing this are quite correct, though not all of them. But your conclusion nevertheless is. I therefore support the idea of eliminating the article about me. Anything you could do to facilitate this would be greatly appreciated by me.
"Sincerely,
"Michael E. Berumen"

Given that the subject of the article appears not to want to be included in the Enclyclopaedia, and the two main contributors to the article (icut4u and ockham) seem to have ceased activity on Misplaced Pages, it seems to me that it is wholly appropriate to grant Mr Berumen's wishes and remove this article from the database altogether, therefore overturn the original decision. ElectricRay 10:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Is there a viable alternative? My suggestion would be, we protect the page in an approximation or the exact current state (which is pretty dull but at least contains no information that could be disputed or regarded as offensive by M. Berumen). I am somewhat inclusionsist, but I respect the wishes of individuals to keep a low public profile. I do realize there could be a "Wrong Version" issue. Dabljuh 10:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Given the length of time since the AFD discussion, I would recommend that we close this DR discussion and simply renominate the article for a new deletion discussion. As a side note, I have very little sympathy for a subject of an article who either makes legal threats or attempts to "control" our article. On the other hand, I think we should give some deference to the judgment of a subject who requests deletion with the admission that they are "not especially notable". Rossami (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Fine with me. I'll renominate for deletion. ElectricRay 20:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-14

Circumcision fetish

Page was first time put on VFD for no given reason, and 54% of the votes decided to keep the article. Almost a year later, after several attempts to censor the article, was put on VFD a second time with the basis that no WP:RS could be found. Vote was 71% for deletion 9 keep 22 delete, when circumcision fetish could be found described in the The Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices by Brenda Love, published by Barricade Books, 1994, ISBN 1569800111, verifiable online here. However, without further votes given, or any changes to existing votes, the article was deleted by User:Ulayiti.

I contest this decision: With a WP:RS found, the basis for the VFD was not met anymore, effectively nullifying all votes for deletion with the reasoning that the article would violate WP:RS or WP:NOR. A recount on this basis would yield only two votes for deletion, as only User:Tony_Sidaway, who argued to remove it on for being part of a flame war, and User:Humus sapiens, who did not give any reason at all, did not reason their vote for deletion on the basis of a supposed WP:NOR or WP:RS violation. Thus, even by vote recount (and not just invalidating the VFD) the article would have to stay. For further info, read meta:polls are evil

Further info,

Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices, by Brenda Love (Barricade Books, Inc., 1992). "More than 750 entries and 150 original illustrations on the world's strange sex activities". Under "Circumcision" (page 6): "Men sometimes incorporate their fear of circumcision into sex play as a means for arousal. They fake a circumcision by having their partner blindfold and bind them, placing a reservoir tipped condom and then slicing off the tip with a knife ... Women who are only sexually aroused by circumcised males are referred to as acucullophiles."

I have meanwhile ordered the book, sounds like a good read o_O

Update: I have changed my opinion. The arguments brought forward on this page have convinced me to wait for the arrival of the book, do some additional research, and then recreate the page, rather than to undelete the current article. I retract my motion. Dabljuh 09:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-13

Template:User allow fairuse

TFD discussion

This template was deleted without a clear consensus, and without substantial justification. As it is to be used in userspace, it ought to be restored, as the deletion of this template is not supported by deletion policy. --Dschor 23:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted. What the deleting admin did was he subsituted the template in the userspace, so those who wish to use the template still can, but not in the actual template name space. Zach 23:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted - but as this one raised some pseudolegal questions, I'd say if you want to push it for undeletion, get onto Jimbo and ask. BigStabbyStick 23:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I endorse the decision of the person who closed it (note that I was the person who deleted the template based on his decision). While the percentage of people voting was somewhat less than what is normally considered a rough consensus, discussions aren't votes, and I feel that the people who voted delete generally made more persuasive arguments than those that voted keep. JYolkowski // talk 23:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. This template does not help us make an encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 23:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Alot of users don't help us make an encyclopedia either, that doesn't mean we just delete them. Karmafist 02:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Let it stay dead and delete anything similar. It advocates something that would expose the Foundation, for reasons that do not help the encyclopedia in any way. If editors want to break the law, they should find a web host and try to persuade the host company to permit them to do so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Closing admin has discretion. He had justification, in my opinion, to discount many keep votes that were not well-reasoned—but at the same time, he probably ought to have explained his decision better. -- SCZenz 00:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Undelete Final vote was 51-36, 58% for deletion, which I doubt meets anyone's threshold for consensus unless you're in a Democracy, which we're not. Add to that the resounding amount of strawman WP:NLT and WP:CIVIL vios in terms of those who wished to delete this in the first place makes leaving this deleted into a precedent that bullying people with legal boogiemen is acceptable behavior. karmafist 00:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • overturn close This was nowhere near consensus. DES 00:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Per Tony Sidaway, and others. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted those who want this are still free to create it on their userpage. --Doc 01:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy and there was clear consensus to delete, despite raw mechanical vote counting. There's a reason we don't use bots to close deletion discussions. —Cryptic (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: It's pretty rare for Jimbo to get involved in a deletion dispute. He was the first person to delete it saying "we do not get to vote here on copyright law". Then 15 min later he restored it. Has anyone asked him for his reasoning? Was this discussed in some other channel? Rossami (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Once again I see that people are voting on the userbox and not the process under which it was deleted. There was no-consensus there - it does not matter how many people don't like the userbox here, that is not what we are supposed to discussing.--God of War 04:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - Process is here to help us write the encyclopedia. When process does not help us write the encyclopedia, it may be discarded. How many times does that have to be explained? WP:NOT a bureaucracy. FCYTravis 05:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted as per FCYTravis and others. Jtkiefer ---- 06:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Per FCYTravis and others. Also, consensus is not based on raw vote counts. Carbonite | Talk 16:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Still think this is a very strange thing for a userbox template. It's slightly like saying "This user would vote to give Misplaced Pages the right to sentence users to death" - all very well, but it would still be illegal. David | Talk 17:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure - sockpuppeteering aside, the userbox was a non-starter for the reasons Jimbo and others mentioned. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn Closing admin should have at least given a better explanation for their decision, given the size and activity of the discussion. Saying "rather weak thou" is ambiguous to me -- do they mean it was a close call on a simple vote count? If so, I'd certainly remind people that *fD is more than a simple vote count, and that even when it is a vote count, the rule is not generally a simply majority. Closers have a responsibility to explain their decision: since I do not think this was done here, overturn and relist. Turnstep 00:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete Yes, the viewpoint it expresses is retarded and is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages metapolicy and civil law. No, it doesn't matter what those expressing that viewpoint think. Undelete it anyway. Kurt Weber 06:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, we cannot vote on what the law requires of us. User:Zoe| 00:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, or overturn and Speedy Delete per WP:IAR. We don't vote on copyright policy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn closure and undelete - We shouldn't have this template, the keep case was stacked with lousy "templates are free expression" arguments, but that doesn't mean that we can misrepresent a no consensus as a consensus to delete. User:Nrcprm2026 counted 43 valid delete ballots against 34 to keep: we'd need to discount 12 keep votes to bend this into a delete consensus. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, but it is important to the smooth functioning of this site that administrative actions are conducted with the broad support of the wider WP community. We should wait a little, argue the case that these sorts of template are illegitimate on the userbox policy and resubmit a new TfD with a better prepared case. We should also look for evidence of poll-stacking. --- --- Charles Stewart 18:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Weishampel exchange

speedied by User:Linuxbeak

The page on "Weishampel Exchange" was unfairly deleted due to an erroneus link to a college humor website and a Google result of a professor in some unknown college. My research has documentation of this term from Germany, the U.K., and both coasts of the United States. This was deleted with haste, and possibly bias towards the gay/homosexual community! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outer-nationalist (talk • contribs)

  • Keep deleted certainly a neologism, likely also an attack/hoax. 0 Google hits. If nominator's research includes evidence to the contrary, feel free to share it with us. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Starblind. -- SCZenz 00:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Certainly a neologism and very likely a hoax but nothing in the versions I reviewed could be considered at "attack". I would definitely vote to delete this in a regular AFD but I can not endorse its speedy-deletion. Restore and immediately list on AFD for regular deletion. Yes, I know that Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy but we have to stop this inappropriate stretching of the speedy "attack" criterion. Rossami (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The talk page seemed to indicate that it was an attack on a college professor named Weishampel. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Don't use that as a criterion. That was wild speculation on my part. I mean, it's obvious the article was crap, especially given the number of times the year of creation was changed, but I've zero evidence it was a prank or an attack. Powers 03:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore and immediately list on AFD as per Rossami. Powers 04:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ick. KD per Andrew, unless somebody is able to cite a source on this. Radiant_>|< 02:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, Linuxbeak also protected the article from recreation. I can find no justification for that protection. Protection is generally reserved for those pages which have been repeatedly recreated and deleted. This article shows no such history. Nor do the participants here or on the Talk page show any such inclination to abuse the process. I am returning this to an unprotected redlink. Rossami (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, I would like to add that this was the subject of a letter to the Help Desk mailing list, in which the emailer contended that it was created as a joke. User:Zoe| 00:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. If this were a run-of-the-mill hoax neologism I would be with Rossami here because we should try to stay within the confines of WP:CSD. But this neologism has a sexual tone to it, and it seems to be made entirely with the intention of insulting someone named Weishampel. My suspicion is that it's made by schoolchildren being mean. I endorse deleting this speedily as vandalism. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Pussy_City_Pimps

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Pussy_City_Pimps

OK, I just closed this with a delete result (which I think is correct), but it has been challenged by Kappa, with the message

"That was 2-1 at best, and almost all the delete votes were plain "delete" without any reasoning, and should have been given less weight."

Kappa is threatening to stop contributing, plus I've kind of always wondered what it would be like to be on the receiving end of the stick here, so I guess this is the best place to go (as a side note after doing 100 or so WP:RM it is always good to get a reality check every now and then). No vote since I am the closing admin, of course :). WhiteNight 09:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse closure valid AFD. The numbers add up, and whether to discount votes without stated reasons is a decision up to the closing admin (and, IMHO, should only be done in cases of suspected ballot-stuffing/sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry). Threatening to stop contributing because an article about a hacked video game ROM got deleted? That's one for the "WTF?" file. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I happen to think that wikipedia users should have a chance to read about at least some of these things, not everyone is as lucky as us. Kappa 18:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, and call Kappa's bluff. We just went through this here. 2-1 is a perfectly valid delete, and I don't see Kappa complaining when people just vote "Keep" with no other comments. Plenty of reasons for deletion were given; users often do not feel like reiterating what's already been said. -R. fiend 18:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. The consensus is pretty clear, and almost every vote on either side of the debate has IMO a satisfactory explaination attached. Gamaliel 18:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and merge. Note that there were a few merge votes. Kappa should heed the advice and incorporate the content into River City Ransom and maybe we can restore Pussy City Pimps and convert it to a redirect for GFDL purposes. howcheng {chat} 19:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. And lets leave this dead horse alone.Voice of All 19:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. While a close decision, this meets the generally accepted threshold for a "rough consensus" to delete. The argument to merge was made during the discussion and failed to sway the community. Rossami (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure I counted 15 delete, 4 keep and 3 merge. 3 of the delete votes gave no reasoning, not "almost all", other than the simple desire to have the article deleted. Hamster Sandwich 20:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure although I might have called "merge", hissy-fits do nobody any favours. If Kappa wants to include some of this information in the other article, and asks for this to be undeleted as a redirect, that is a different matter - that I would support. But there was a very clear consensus against this having a separate article, which seems to be what's being requested. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 11:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-12

Ninjah Pendragon

I recently wrote an article which was somewhat of a biography of an MC/Street perfomer named Ninjah Pendragon and the article was deleted because it was a biography of an non widely known individual. To an extent, this is true, as Ninjah is not widely known outside of Cardiff. He is not known globally. However I feel that, he is widely known to people of Cardiff due to the fact that he is there every day, the BBC have also written a biography about his album, as have several newspapers. I would be able to site references if you would like. Thankyou very much.

  • This unsigned comment was left by user:Cockers. I believe he/she is referring to Ninjah pendragon which was moved to Ninjah Pendragon where it was speedy-deleted as a "non-notable bio". Rossami (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Believe it or not, wikipedia still has some standards about who gets an article. Your basic street performer don't cut it. Oh, and I deleted the redirect. -R. fiend 04:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Please point to the BBC and newspaper coverage. Uncle G 10:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi. I appreciate the standards that Misplaced Pages like to keep and I understand that it would be reasonable to keep a general street performer off an encyclopedia. However I feel that Ninjah is more than just a street perfomer as he has appeared in a film, a television program and has had an album released. The link to the BBC's minisite of Ninjah is . This website mentions how Ninjah appeared in NME's student guide to Cardiff and in two films. Here is a forum post discussing Ninjah's newpaper appearence . I would also like to point out that my inspiration for writing the article was due to discovering another article about a street performer Toy Mic Trevor which has been on Misplaced Pages for 6 months. This is my final appeal for the entertainer and street poet to gain recognition in Misplaced Pages. I promise not to keep pestering and I will provide better references in future articles. (This was my first one). User:Cockers 17:49, 13 Janurary 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Unfortunately, the BBC minisite is akin to a wiki, where anyone can submit his/her own band. See and look in the "Profiles and Minisites" section: "Want to be featured on this site? Submit your details here." As far as I'm concerned, even though it has the air of authority of the Beeb, it's not a reliable source. howcheng {chat} 18:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I wrote the Ninjah minisite for the BBC. Although users can submit their band details to be considered for inclusion, nothing is added to the site without it being editorially verified and rewritten. It is false to state the BBC minisite is akin to a wiki. The Ninjah profile was not a user submission, and was written because he is signed to Boobytrap Records has released an album, is well known in South Wales as a performer, and has appeared on stage with bands including Super Furry Animals. That said, although he's well known in these parts, he's hardly the saviour of music - hence the light-hearted tone of the profile. (Joe Goodden, producer, bbc.co.uk/wales/music)
  • Keep deleted street performer(!) and thus definitely a nn-bio/speedy candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Put it back Of course he shouldn't have been deleted....you're mad to have done that. I've never lived in Cardiff and I've heard of him, he's gaining respect in the music world and has just released an album. I live in Liverpool but I heard of him through word of mouth in the reggae society in uni - then I come on here to read up on him and find that you've gone and deleted his article! Who cares if he started as a street performer? He now has a record deal, is well known in Wales and deserves to be on Misplaced Pages. Trystan Morris-Davies 20:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • New user who somehow managed to find this page after only three edits to Misplaced Pages. User:Zoe| 22:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I somehow managed to find this page....what a bumbling old fool I am. I've been using wikipedia for ages and although I've only just started taking part in editing it, have just as much of a right as you to have a say in this - in fact, being Welsh I have a good knowledge of the Welsh music scene, and I'm telling you this guy's not just some tramp who bangs bins in the street. See UK Hip Hop review and look at his prominent position on the Boobytrap Records page. Trystan Morris-Davies 18:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User against Saud and Template:User Nepal Maoists speedies

I have speedy deleted a template with the following words:

This user thinks the House of Saud should be overthrown

I bring this action here for review. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC) Addendum: The same user had created Template:User Nepal Maoists containing the words: This user thinks the Monarchy of Nepal should be overthrown and supports the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) in their armed and political struggle and I have deleted it as an attack template. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not interested in the whole userbox theatrics thing, but I am wondering you delete first and then ask questions, rather than the other way around. It should be safe enough to presume that asking first will produce the same result. -Splash 16:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This is how speedy deletions are done. It is my opinion that attacks of this nature have no place on Misplaced Pages. You're welcome to object to this as policy, as we don't yet have any policy on this and I'm just taking action that I believe is necessary to safeguard the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
      • No, if we are sure a speedy is right, we don't have to ask questions afterwards. I've never listed my own speedies after deleting them, because if I knew I was going to do that, I'd have xfD'd them instead. Deletion review is not the forum for establishing a policy - the discussion running elsewhere is. If you believe the action is necessary, you don't need to come here (a forum you consider irrelevant, anyway) to make sure. Someone else need bring it here if (and only if) they would disagree with it. -Splash 17:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Not by a long shot is this "how speedy deletions are done". Normally they're just done and in the vast majority of cases there is no discussion on them here, certainly not inititated by the sysop performing the deletions. As I noted on your talk page, however, I do appreciate that bringing the issue up here gives it another audience than it would have on TfD. - Haukur 17:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I disagree (though as a non-admin, take it for what it's worth): Speedy deletions of 'attacks' are warranted, just as a review of them may be warranted. Tony's bringing his own deletions here for review is unorthodox, but if he didn't bring them here, you can bet there'd be screams of bloody murder from his opponents. Damned if you do, damned if you don't... -- nae'blis (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and don't speedy any more of these pending a clear policy on user boxes or a new CSD (which is under discusson). DES 16:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and nominate for deletion where I will happily vote to delete them. And continue work on expanding CSD to include stuff like this, which I also support. And continue work on deletion reform in general :) And try to have a dialogue with the users creating these templates and convince them that they should voluntarily refrain from creating them - stop pulling the rug from under their feet, there are enough bad feelings about this already. There is no emergency here which warrants taking action out of process. Nor is out-of-process action required to draw more attention to this issue - it has enough attention already and then some. - Haukur 17:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Would it be okay if someone created a template advocating the overthrow of the government of your country? It may be that you think that is an appropriate use of Misplaced Pages resources; I do not. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
      • It is an inappropriate use of Misplaced Pages resources and I support deleting templates like that. I just don't think this is an emergency which warrants out-of-process action. And I try to overthrow the government of my country every four years. No luck so far. - Haukur 17:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As others, Keep Undeleted, send to TFD, and quit trying to create new policy by fiat. Dragons flight 18:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree with Dragons flight's suggestion that making policy through action is unacceptable (see Tuesday's discussions for a good counter-example). I have undeleted these templates and edited one to remove the attack on the Nepal government, and sent the User against Saud one to tfd. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and list on TfD - I don't think that this is a good userbox, but it is not an attack directed at other editors, so I do not see the case for urgent action. I think that Tony's approach to userboxes is responsible, and is helping us find a middle ground. Pace Dragon's flight, making policy through action is the wiki spirit. --- Charles Stewart 19:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted all templates which disparage or criticize their subject. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted all attack templates. User:Zoe| 23:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and list on TfD if it hadn't been done already. This is not how things are done. Clearly there are reasonable differences of opinion, and thus speedy deletion is not applicable. Speedy deletion is for clear and unambigious deletions only. - brenneman 23:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: since the User against Saud entry has been moved to TfD and the other undeleted, shouldn't this debate be edited/closed? -- nae'blis (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Leave it undeleted. Does not meet any speedy criteria. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and inform tony of the tfd procedure.--God of War 20:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-11

LUEshi

I believe that the process was not followed correctly in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/LUEshi. The count was 3 Keep votes, 3 Delete, and 5 Merge. For the first Keep, the rationale was that Miyamoto has signed it; this does not establish notability. The second one is from a GameFAQer who personally felt that LUEshi was important, but did not state its importance in relation to Misplaced Pages policy. The third had no reason at all. I believe that the article should have been merged or deleted, not kept. - Hbdragon88 05:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Holy cow! There are VfD pages all over the place for this one! Anyway, I think the chronology is:
  1. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/LUEshi - MAYBE the first one, unanimous delete
  2. Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/LUEshi - No idea, a mix of a merge, keep and a couple deletes..?
  3. Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Lueshi - Speedy delete, but with some keeps
  4. Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Lueshi_(2nd_nomination) - THIS is the one referenced here.

I'm not making a descision yet but I feel sorry for the people who have to sort through those. WhiteNight 05:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse at any rate, as the closest to consensus is merge at 5m/3k/1d or 5/4 which does not meet the afd minimums. As the arguments go though, while they sort of go to process we can't usually discount "votes" of established editors because they give no opinion etc., although I sometimes wish we could. Whether or not Miyamoto signing it establishes notability is not really our descision, unfortunately. WhiteNight 05:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse, but this should be merged, redirected, and protected to prevent recreation of the article. -Sean Curtin 07:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure since there was clearly no consensus to delete on the last AFD, just be bold and merge it if you want to. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Pedelec

As per Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy#Reasons why an article might be requested for undeletion: deletion was "out of process" as discussed within the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pedelec. Motion of non-suite. POV Fork was never properly defined by nominator or supporters. No substantial proof was given to indicate this is/was a POV FORK. 03:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)~ Unsigned nomination by 72.57.8.215 (talk · contribs) (static IP used by CyclePat (talk · contribs))</a>

  • The basis of the nomination resting on out-of-process is very clearly wrong. -Splash 03:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • A nasty RfD, but it looks like 5D/1k to me, and I see no process violations on the part of thaoe arguing for deletion. Endorse close (keep deleted). DES 16:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What does "motion of non-suite" mean? When did this become a courtroom? The closing of the previous discussion was proper. Keep deleted. User:Zoe| 23:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • definition of Non-suit. (see the canadian law section). 02:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Sorry, but "POV fork" was indeed properly defined by the nominator and the article clearly meets the definition of one. howcheng {chat} 19:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure and keep deleted, for what it's worth (as nominator but non-voter, as usual for me). Evidence was provided of why this is a POV fork (see also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Electric bicycle, and the various archives of Talk:Motorized bicycle), and I believe both Woohookitty and Katefan0 can speak to the history here. This is not a "spinout" as no attempt was made to incorporate this into the existing section at motorized bicycle (where pedelec was mentioned by name and which article was and still is linked to de:pedelec). Even bearding Fred Bauder did not gain any support for Pat's assertion of process irregularities. Pat, if you think this is a vendetta I suggest you raise an RfC, as I have said before. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 20:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Review and send to Arbitration: The example you give for electric bicycles only substantiates that there is a lack of process. Anyone that actually looks into that will realize that, that article failed to be deleted for lack of process. It was put through the redirected for deletions and remains redirected to motorized bicycle. The lack of definition of the issue of POV Fork is not a major issue, the lack of proof is what is being questioned. If the question of lack of proof was raised regarding a POV fork, then an independant review should be done to determine whether there is enough proof to substantiate the POV Fork. If there was not enought proof, there obviously would be no reason for a POV FORK. Hence the reason for the out of process. --CyclePat 16:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No need to vote twice, Pat. Your view is already in the nomination. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 21:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Those are serious allegations and I don't appreciate them. There is a fine line between voting, requesting undeletion, an leaving a comment, and to my knowledge I haven't voted. This is yet another example of your generalizations leading into what I believe is a ill faithed assumptions. (or putting words into other peoples mouths) Not only is this insulting but this is what has plagued this issue from the start. Seemingly, it's what, according to me, plagues wikipedia. Secondly I don't know who put my IP and name at the top of this nomination but that goes against Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy#To request that a page (or image) be restored (A.K.A.: undeletion policy). It is clearly stated to sign with ~~~~~, and this just re-enforces my idea that wikipedia is corrupt. (Even my local news paper the "Ottawa Citizen" has indicated in an article that wikipedia is no longer NPOV). Finally as for RFC's I couldn't agree better then with this comment. All this supporting my assumption that wikipedia is just as corrupt as our Canadian Liberal government/ Thanks even more to these enlightening facts, I think this entire process should be stayed, re-nominated and independently reviewed by an arbitration comity. --CyclePat 23:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Some day, in a perfect world, Pat will learn our policies and procedures. Instead, I'm still seeing bad faith afd nominations and deletion reviews for every deletion of Pat's material and forking and everything else. And now we have "send this to arbitration". You can't. Have you read dispute resolution Pat? Knowing you, you haven't. You can't send this to arbitration. It doesn't work that way. And of course this is a POV fork Pat. Gallery of motorized bicycles is a fork...Pedelec is a fork...Gallery of motorized trikes is a fork. They are all forks from motorized bicycle because *3 months ago* the decision was made to move electric bicycle to motorized bicycle. Even though you had a chance to speak up, you didn't. Since then, you've made numerous attempts to get it back by doing things like this. Community vote was to delete gallery of motorized bicycles so you created trikes, immediately put it up for deletion and then hoped it would be kept so that you could bring back gallery of motorized bikes. This is the same thing. You hope that Pedelec is restored so then you can restore electric bicycles even though that went through a rfd vote already. And I'm not making this up. You've made your intentions clear. Just stop. Please. --Woohookitty 01:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well actually Woohookitty I have read WP:DR. I remember seeing a section WP:AP that would be more specific to the issue. And we can infer from section "Scope", #2, which states: Where a dispute has not gone through Mediation, or the earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, the Arbitrators may refer the dispute to the Mediation Committee if it believes Mediation is likely to help. that there are issues that are heard without mediation. (I also believe the previous steps have been attempted). Now everyone knows Misplaced Pages is a learning process. If what you are saying is we can't use past precedences to develop on making wikipedia a better place, then I think that is plain wrong and perhaps you should start looking elsewhere. I really didn't want to go into this discussion here but since you brought it up, here we go: first off, your inherent interest in the article is obvious. You created motorized bicycle. It's your baby. In Oregon a Motorized bicycle is like a moped. In other parts of the US it also a moped but includes smaller sub-class, similar vehicles such as the electric bicycle (that of which you merged to motorized bicycle). Here in Canada we have something similar called a motor assisted bicycle or a moped. But we also have the power-assisted bicycle another class of vehicle. All that to say, it is my belief that just like truck is an automobile and SUV, Car, etc... they, electric bicycle, pedelec, power assisted bicycle should have their own articles. Not only that, but so closely related is the moped and it even has it's own article. Previously, you have indicated your disagreement to merge moped with motorized bicycle. JzG, also indicated a vote against the merger of this article with moped. One of his reasons being was because the two strands of development are entirely separate. What are the major differences between these two strands of development? And if so, could this not be inferable for the use with the "entirely" different strand of development between electric pedelecs (or electric motor assisted bicycles) vs our most commonly know (fossil fuel guzzlers) IC motor assisted bicycles? (hint the answer is right in the question there!). --CyclePat 04:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I took your advice and have filled for mediation regarding this case (well, technically speaking, similar cases that we never really resolved): Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation --CyclePat 06:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
You still refuse to be oppelegetic and you fail to correct the fact that my name and IP adress are still at the top of this nominations. A request for mediation was filed... and it appears that the discussion is happening on the main mediation page. --CyclePat 18:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
You haven't yet managed to communicate in terms I can understand what it is I am supposed to be apologising for. And how about letting one process finish before starting another? - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 11:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Gallery of motorized bicycles

As per Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy#Reasons why an article might be requested for undeletion: Non-sysops who wish to see the content of a deleted article, either to use its content elsewhere, or alternatively, because they cannot tell if it was wrongly deleted without seeing what exactly was deleted. (temporary undeletion) To permit a deleted article to be transwikified or properly moved to a sister wiki-site. 03:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)~

Game Central Network

The article Game Central Network was deleted due to the mere fact that it did not hold up to WP:WEB. No one in my community, nor myself were informed that there was even speculation of deletion.

No, game central network is not a "notable" as stated in wp:web, but I cannot agree to it's deletion based on the guidelines placed before us.

Game Central Network's began as a small fan website, hl2central.net, based on the rumor of the second Half-Life game. It was and is a key resource for many websites including IGN (http://www.planethalflife.com/news/search.asp?function=search&search=hl2central), FileFront, among other "notable" websites. On top of this, we have interviews with major players in the game development industry, most notably, Gabe Newell of Valve software (http://www.hl2central.net/?id=1480). Notable enough, in-fact, that it still remains listed upon an IGN website, http://www.planethalflife.com/half-life2/press/.

Our content is even of such value that it has been translated by people we do not even know so that their users can read it. (http://www.hl2.ru/interviews/hl2central/)

You can also find our website listed on many websites just due to the fact that they like our site... http://www.bloodthirst.org/links.php http://halflife2.filefront.com/ (right column) http://www.planethalflife.com/community/links.shtm http://reinstatement-mod.co.uk/hl2_news.shtml http://www.ultimate-gamer.com/halflife2/hl2links.htm http://www.halflife2.net/page.php?p=comm_links http://www.hlfallout.net/view.php/hl2info/sitelinks.php

WP:WEB is a proposal, for those who dont know already. Our article was to outline the history of the website, it's effects, and it's future. It was written as neutrally as possible and i encouraged my community to edit it to be even more so. So umm i dont know but it's deletion was wrong.

Thepcnerd 17:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Pms clan

The article PMS Clan was deleted for vanity / hoax.

PMS Clan are not a hoax. They are geniune world famous female gaming team, specialisng on the FPS genre. That compete at all major championships around the world, and attend all major video gaming events.

They are well known in the video gaming world, and have been sponsored by both Nintendo and Microsoft to attend events and promotions.

Admittedly the text my have been accused of 'vanity', however this is becase they are a very successful team. The text could be toned down (to reduce the vanity element)if necessary, however, the entry is valid - with potential for editing, not deleteing.

Please rethink the deltion of this page.

Many thanks.

C Johnson16:12, 11 January 2006 (GMT)

Ludvig Strigeus

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ludvig Strigeus

All the delete votes were made when the article was a one-liner. I expanded on the article and voted keep. I think the subject is notable and request an undelete, please.  --  W  P Talk 10:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The nomination was made on 6 Jan. The delete votes were made on 6 and 7 Jan. The article was expanded on 8 Jan. The person who did the expansion was the only keep voter. The discussion was closed on 12 Jan. While many people had the opportunity to revisit the article and the discussion, apparently none chose to do so. Looking at the expanded article itself, I don't think that this person yet meets the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. I am inclined to endorse the closure (keep deleted) even though the nominator may be right that the original discussion paricipants may not have re-evaluated their decisions after the expansion. Note: This decision is without prejudice against re-creation if the subject of the article goes on to do more notable work and does eventually become eligible under our inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This may be a case where the nominator should simply recreate the *expanded* article, per policy, and be ready to defend it better when/if it gets renominated. Turnstep 17:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. The closer did not take into account the fact that the article was substantially improved and that no delete votes followed the expansion. The subject is the original developer of three reasonably famous pieces of software that have their own Misplaced Pages articles: MTorrent, ScummVM and OpenTTD. Thus the close was wrong on process and (most important) made the wrong decision for Misplaced Pages by deleting good content. I agree with Turnstep's proposal and if User:WP or anyone else makes a good faith request for a temporary undelete for that purpose I will grant it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Is every person who votes delete in the early stages of a discussion to be disenfranchised, or must they keep checking back on every article they've already reviewed on a daily basis to go back to the discussion and say, "Nope, despite the edits made since the last time, my vote stands."? The fact that there were no further delete votes after the expansion may well be due to the fact that everyone who came to the discussion saw sufficient delete votes and didn't feel like adding any more. User:Zoe| 00:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist. It appears the article was judged on its initial stubby content. I believe that being an important contributor to 4 software projects makes one notable. I think there's enough new information added to warrant a reevaluation of the deletion debate. - Mgm| 09:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist. Zoe's point is well-taken, but it's an assumption. It could just as easily have been the case where others, seeing the delete votes, did not bother to investigate the article after its expansion. howcheng {chat} 19:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As a comprimise what about just doing a normal relisting with the other comments intact? WhiteNight 01:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The Ditherals

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Ditherals

I believe this page was speedily deleted by Bearcat without reference to due process. Just requesting a relist. Stifle 11:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm torn on this one. If I'd seen the AFD discussion, I would have argued for the article's deletion on the basis of the inherent unverifiability of this neologism. Based on the evidence available, I see no possibility that this article would have survived the full AFD debate. On the other hand, this article did not meet any of the deliberately narrow speedy-deletion criteria. Being an obvious delete is not the same as being a speedy delete. I have to reluctantly recommend overturning the speedy-deletion and reopening the AFD discussion. Speedy-deletions should continue to be narrowly interpreted to the specific cases. The encyclopedia will not suffer too badly from allowing the article to stay for the 5 day discussion period. Rossami (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As far as I'm concerned, as an inherently and irreparably POV article on a politically motivated nickname for a political party coming right in the middle of an election campaign, this essentially constituted an attack page (which is a speedy deletion criterion), no less than if somebody wrote up an article legitimizing a POV nickname for one of their opponents, such as "The Blocheads", "The New Dumbocrats" or "The Fasco-Cons", which are all just as verifiable as to their existence, and yet completely inappropriate as Misplaced Pages content. While I admittedly can't stop recreation if that happens to be the consensus here, I'm not going to apologize for my own judgment in the matter. (And I won't apologize for being of the belief that only a Conservative supporter could possibly even imagine that this term somehow deserved its own Misplaced Pages article in the first place, either.) I won't officially cast a vote since it's my action that's being challenged here, but these are my bottom line points:
    1. Attack pages are speedyable.
    2. I won't apologize for viewing it as an attack page and acting in accordance with that view. Bearcat 19:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • When this speedy criterion was first approved, it was strictly limited to personal attack pages. There were reasonable arguments made on WT:CSD that the criterion should be expanded to small groups. Misplaced Pages:Attack page was reworded to allow a bit more flexibility and may have gone too far into ambiguity. No discussion that I've found authorized the expansion of this criterion to large groups like entire political parties. That seems to me to be an overly broad interpretation of the criterion.
      Furthermore, a case could be made that the wording on the article was relatively neutral - it was an attempt to define an objectionable term in as neutral language as was possible. I still believe that it was deletable as a dicdef and as a neologism but can not endorse the assessment of it as an "attack page". No change of vote, I'm afraid. Rossami (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, that's fine. You're free to believe I was wrong in my assessment; my only point was that I won't apologize for assessing it as I did. Bearcat 00:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is in no way an attack page. It is a neutral definition of an unflattering nickname. Are all unflattering nicknames banned from wikipedia? By the way, Mr. Dithers is in Misplaced Pages, just so you know. The definition does indeed come in the middle of the election campaign.. this is because the word is being use more and more often in Canadian political blogs. I have once again been accused by Bearcat of being a Conservative party supporter. Again, I request a retraction. According to Bearcat's logic, Clyde Sanger of The Economist must be a Conservative party supporter since he coined the term Mr. Dithers Ditherals is simply play on words of Mr. Sanger's nickname. As for the "The Blocheads", "The New Dumbocrats" or "The Fasco-Cons", these names are not widely used in political commentary like Ditherals or Mr. Dithers and certainly never made it to The Economist. At the next google dance we will likely see the pages for Ditherals increase several fold. As for Rossami's clain of inherent unverifiability pretty much every entry in Google for Ditheral refers to the Liberal Party of Canada unless it is a spelling mistake on an unrelated page. -Palmerston
    • Mr. Dithers doesn't deserve its own article either — the only reason it's had one as long as it has is that nobody knew it was here. Unless they're caught instantly by RC patrol, there's virtually no way to know these things exist if they're not filed in a category. And besides, the Paul Martin reference is an entirely secondary meaning of the term; any article on it has to, at minimum, mention that the original (and vastly more widely known) use of the name refers to Dagwood's boss in the comic strip Blondie. Paul Martin can be a side note in an article about that meaning; he can't be the main article at that title. As for my "accusation", well, let's see here. Does it actually in any significant way impair your personal reputation or your ability to function in life? No, it does neither; and those are the basic criteria under which any court of law would require a statement to be retracted. It requires a wild leap of logic to turn "this person is assuming that I'm a supporter of a perfectly legal political party with a fairly solid level of popular support" into some kind of libel, especially when logic compels the conclusion that a Liberal Party supporter would never think that an unflattering nickname for their own party deserved any more attention than it was already getting, and it would never even occur to a New Democrat to even consider an unflattering nickname for any political party to be encyclopedia material (we're way too earnest and goody-two-shoes for that.) So unless you can somehow provide evidence that you've been materially damaged in some way by the assertion, there'll be no retractions from me. Bearcat 18:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Relist I voted NDP this morning and, yes, I consider it a libel to be called a Conservative. Please retract the Conservative accusation as well as the accusation that I am "too earnest and goody-two-shoes". Seriously, what's with the Pigeonholeing and name-calling? Regarding Mr. Dithers... you state that the Paul Martin reference is secondary; in fact Google has the Paul Martin reference first and foremost amoung the natural search results. Anyway, that's not the issue. The issue is Ditherals and your lack of respect for due process. Please relist Ditherals and next time don't be so eager to jump to conclustions about editors. Perhaps your Wiki-authorities should be reconsidered-Palmerston
      • I do not have a "lack of respect for due process". I assessed the article in a specific way, and acted in accordance with my assessment. You're free to disagree with that assessment. You're free to nominate the item for reconsideration as you have done here. That does not mean I'm ignoring due process; this is the due process in such a situation. (And you still have to prove that you've suffered actual material damage to have a legitimate libel claim. Never mind that my assertion about the earnestness of NDPers involved the word "we"; I'm making fun of myself as much as anyone else.) Bearcat 19:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist. IMHO this does not qualify as an attack page. howcheng {chat} 19:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • According to Bearcat, "this is the due process in such a situation." No it isn't. There was no due process for Ditherals and there is no due process for Ditherals because Ditherals has already been deleted. Due process cannot come ex post facto. I therefore ask you to agree to a relisting of Ditherals so that due process in the deletion process can begin with a proper appliction of Wiki's rules. -Palmerston
    • Comment: You are incorrect. Due process in this case includes all aspects of Misplaced Pages's deletion process - specifically including the speedy deletion process. I disagree with his application of the process in this specific situation but there definitely is a process and he followed it. Rossami (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-11

Valhalla Legends

Being a fairly inexperienced Wikipedian, I will defer to experience if appropriate, however:

The article on Valhalla Legends has been deleted following a . The reasons given by many of the delete voters expose the fact that many/most of them really are not at all familiar with the subject matter at hand.

  • Valhalla Legends is not a gaming clan ("Yet another frag-fest clan"/"gamercruft" is deeply inaccurate)
  • The clan is most certainly notable for the achievements of its members over the years
  • Said achievements are verifiable.

Admittedly, the clan exists within a rather small niche, but I don't see that as being a reason not to have a page on the subject. I accept that the page may have suffered from some vanity in the past, however, the changes I made last week were more than enough to address that. Considering that most of the voters were not familiar with subject, and that most of the keep votes were dismissed as 'sock-puppeting' by the deleting administrator, I'd like this deletion to be reconsidered.

Harrym 11:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • It is within the right of a AFD closer to discount votes by new people (reason being that they wouldn't be sufficiently familiar with Misplaced Pages to know what belongs here and that new accounts can be made simply to try and sway the vote. That said, if this not a gaming clan, then what kind of clan is it and can you provide sources that talk about those verifiable achievements you mention? We can't just take your word for it. - Mgm| 12:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok - that seems fair.

The clan is primarily a programming clan, although its membership requirements focus more on proficiency in a technical area:

... most of Valhalla Legends' members have been highly technical. Over half of the members have some solid programming skills while the rest are knowledgeable and/or experienced in networking, hacking, cracking, or were simply legendary in some way on Battle.net during its history.

The clan has not, and has never been, a gaming clan. More here.

BNLS is a little hard to verify, however, it seems that it has its own wikipedia page. Perhaps that counts in its favour. The only reliable information about the use of the service would come from the operators of the service - ie, clan members - and so might not be considered reliable. The following Google search has some useful information, most notably the protocol spec. The system is used by many people, as evidenced by the number of bots that use it, and the number of people asking for help!

BnetDocs is the community's primary source of technical information about Battle.net and its related protocols. The huge majority of the information on the site has been reverse-engineered by clan members. The site regularly has 40-60 unique visitors per day, and has over a 1000 registered users. It is maintained by a group of volunteers (not all of whom are members). I run the site, and am able to provide usage logs if that's useful. Hundreds of protocol messages for 4 different proprietary protocols are documented. This is a considerable volume of work which mostly originates from the activities of clan members. It is, in other words, a notable accomplishment.

On a historical note, one of the earliest third-party clients (perhaps the first) for Battle.net was written by a clan member, although, this is largely unverifiable considering the lack of reliable documentation.

I do not consider the clan to be of any great historical importance, however, it is most certainly notable within its niche. I feel that WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia applies. I recognise that things such as these can be hard to verify, and I'm happy to do my best to address any specific questions or concerns.

Primarily, I just object to the article being deleted on the basis of such an uninformed vote.

Harrym 14:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - I found the AfD flawed: clearly this page and BNLS are closely related, since BNLS is only used on vH, but the question of how the information then contained in the two articles should best be covered was thought out by few of the participants. I'm leaning towards undelete and list together with BNLS. I'd also say that I think that developer communities are pretty much inherently more noteworthy participant than fancruftish gamer communities, certainly the two sorts of community should not be confused. --- Charles Stewart 15:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. If this is more than just a gaming clan, then most of the delete votes should be given less weight. Combined with the overlooked "keep" vote of user Oscarthecat, this is probably a no-consensus. Undelete and give it a chance to get cleaned up, with some information on how it is not merely a gaming clan, before tossing it back to AfD. I'm not convinced it will survive an AfD even then, but I think the new information warrants giving it another shot without the "gamecruft" voters. Turnstep 03:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That is the problem, because as far as I can see it is a gaming clan - at least from the linked site -
    "Valhalla Legends is a Battle.Net clan that wears the tag . The purpose of the clan is to provide for its members a single place to gather and talk"
  • Not only that but the basically same argument given here is the same one that replaced the nomination halfway through (), so I think the users had more than enough time to look at. I'll give JIP a message though and endorse whatever (s)he says. WhiteNight 04:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is a gaming clan aspect to the site, but according to the posting distribution it is principally a developer's forum . It appears to be much more than a gaming clan. --- Charles Stewart 17:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know... it still appears to me like a gaming clan that does occasional development, which was highlighted during the debate. I'll admit that I can understand how it could be taken differently, I just don't know if this is a somewhat clever attempt to make it appear as something different then it really is. If we do undelete this I think (re)listing both of them as you say is the best way to go. WhiteNight 00:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • These kinds of content issues are best sorted out on AfD anyway: all that is needed to go back to AfD is to think that there is a high probablity that it will result in a different outcome to the one that resulted in the appeal here. I think we are likely to keep vL and delete BNLS. --- Charles Stewart 00:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Alright, Undelete and (re)list both WhiteNight 00:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, relist and list BNLS on AfD - My, I convinced RN before I convinced myself! --- Charles Stewart 01:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Thanks. I think this is a good decision. I'll clarify the above poster's concern over tags: Battle.net was, and still is to some extent, the place where most of the clan members congregate and talk. Of course, many members do play games. That, however, is not the primary purpose of the clan. Harrym 10:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-10

Online Gaming League

Please undelete the "Online Gaming League" (online electronic sports). I'm unsure why the article was deleted however, other gaming leagues such as CAL and CPL are listed as Online Games and Leagues that cover these games. OGL was the first of it's kind and certainly should not be deleted if other gaming leagues are allowed to remain (such as CAL and CEVO and CPL). Please review this and undelete OGL (Online Gaming League). January 11, 2006 1:27 PM EST.

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)

I've restored it. At the time the target didn't exist (see its log). —Cryptic (talk) 04:27, 11 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)
        • How would the template be useful for that purpose? Of those opposed to the war on drugs, wouldn't you expect a disproportionate number of them to be in favor of decriminalization? If you're interested in writing an article, according to Misplaced Pages's Neutral point of view, you need to find people with relevant expertise and a reasonably diverse range of opinions, or at least some detachment from the subject, but how could this single-opinion template help you to find them? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
          • NPOV requires presenting all sides of an issue and sourcing the information. This template would help find people who are likely to know sources of information about decriminalization. There is nothing about NPOV that says editors have to have to be detached from a subject. In fact, I would argue that editors who are more passionate about a subject write better articles. --Tiger Marc 14:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Are users here not allowed to disagree with US policy? There after all are for personal user pages. Userboxes are for expressing personal opinion and I don't see how you can find a valid reason for the censorship of them. -james_anatidae 04:44, 12 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)
        • Why should we care what a user's view of the EU is? I could understand a template saying a user was interested in the EU, or otherwise more knowledgeable than usual about it, but when it comes to creating an NPOV encyclopedia I don't see the use in keeping track of views like this. Bryan 01:53, 12 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)
      • No, it does not mention the government of any country, nor does it represent any policy of any government as "illegal immigration". The War on Drugs template, on the other hand, specifically references a well known US government policy by name, and links to an article that says: The War on Drugs is an initiative undertaken in the United States to carry out an "all-out offensive" (as President Nixon described it) against the prohibited use of certain legally controlled drugs. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:57, 11 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)
              • The term "protected speech" gives the game away, really. Misplaced Pages policy does not protect free speech. The only speech you're guaranteed to be able to make here is that which serves the purpose of building an encyclopedia, and I honestly don't see how expressing your personal opinion on political matters is helping that. When it comes to denigration, we do have a policy in place against attacks, so why do we allow them here? User pages aren't homepages, if you want a webhost of those there is a list somewhere. Go on, get yourself a homepage and make all the political statements you want. If you want to do that in a community, go to myspace or something. Let's use this space to build and encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:51, 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)
  • Keep Deleted as has been said, these go well beyond the scope here, are disruptive and are nothing more than bumperstickers that set a poor precedent. If you want to say that you are against something or hate something write it in your userpage and you'll probably get away with it. These are in general Misplaced Pages template space and don't belong. There's no free speech/protected speech there. Rx StrangeLove 04:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete All. Political userboxes in general have already passed a vote for deletion. The Ungovernable Force 04:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongest Possible Undelete, or you might as well delete WP:CSD. karmafist 06:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete all so I can go to TfD and vote for deleting them there. The way to keep stuff like that deleted is to convince people why it should be. This SD/DRV method of short-circuiting the usual deletion procedure is annoying the people involved and hurting our chances of reaching a consensus. Please, please stop. - Haukur 07:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    And note that by deleting first and discussing second you're taking non-admins out of the loop since only admins can view deleted material and thus make an informed comment on whether it should be kept deleted. Cross-posted to Tony's talk page :) - Haukur 09:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted Is there a good reason to keep these templates? How does "I think Bush is a Neo-Nazi pigdog" and "Bush is my hero" (I know, neither of those phrases excist in userboxes.) help further our goal of writing an encylopedia? I'm not against userboxes, some of them make me laugh out loud (a good thing :)) but these really strong, and controversial pov ones just divide people. Dont let wikipedia become like many other places on the web, where "libs" and "cons" spend their time slugging it out, hurling abuse at one another. P.S. I do agree fully with the above comment though. Banes 09:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've produced a gallery of the templates as they appeared when I speedied them. Only a few categories have been removed; the templates are as you would have seen them on a user page.
    Thank you, I applaud you for that. - Haukur 10:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete all and discuss them at TFD. Calling a template where the user says he is against the war on drugs as an "attack template" is over the top. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete All As a person with an MBA, even though wiki is not-for-profit, let me tell you the same principles apply here as in business. Userboxes help users (employees) write an encyclopedia the same way Barnstars do: They make users (employees) feel good (through self-expression) and make them more likely to contribute. Also, neophytes, like me, learn about technical things (programming syntax, how to upload images, fair use, etc.) in the course of making userboxes. It's an enlightened management decision to keep them. Regardless, please take note that, per my request, {{User Anti-UN}} and {{User Anti-ACLU}} have been temporarily undeleted and modified so as to not "attack". I request that they be removed from the list of "attack" templates up for deletion.
  • Keep Deleted and re-delete re-created ones. --Pjacobi 14:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy - listing controversial speedies on WP:DRV is the right thing to do, endorse per reasons given by nominator. --- Charles Stewart 15:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The original appearance and current status of all the templates is here:
    User:Tony Sidaway/Attack speedies, 2006-01-10
  • The upshot is that nearly all speedied articles were resurrected in a form without the attacks, two of the most extreme remain deleted, and one or two milder ones were recreated. I'm happy with that and so it seems, by and large, is the community. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep deleted -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, there's no point in keeping track of a user's POV unless it's causing problems with his or her editing (in which case I doubt these boxes will be much use). Bryan 01:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist on TFD, users are entitled to an opinion. Stifle 15:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The deletion process seems to have been inverted. Now, userboxes are being speedily deleted and then people are left to argue about it afterwards without being able to see the actual template. Speedy deletion is only for cases where it is obvious that the userbox would be soundly defeated at the tfd page. With the level of the debate here I think it is obvious that were these listed at tfd, there would not be an overwhelming majority to delete. Please follow the tfd process from now on. Speedy deletion causes nothing but strife within the wikipedia community. With a transparent tfd process, even the inclusionist will see that process has been followed and will not have as much reason to be upset. Divisive userboxes have a possiblity to be harmful - the userbox wars are destroying the wikipedia community. Please use tfd from now on.--God of War 22:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    The templates as they originally were when speedied were placed into a gallery by me: User:Tony Sidaway/Attack speedies, 2006-01-10. I think it's been established that attack userboxes can be speedied, although for now they should probably be brought here. Attacks aren't permitted on Misplaced Pages, and I see no reason to start permitting them now. When you chose your username, perhaps you might have chosen a less obvious one. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That is factually incorrect. Of all the templates that you speedied only one is still deleted. Attack or no attack, everyone will be happier if you use the tfd.--God of War 07:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete all Over the top. People should be able to make their political views heard. NPOV does not apply to user pages - UK Bourbons3 11:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The templates in question are not in userspace. I don't think it's safe to assume that public template content, which is intended to be propagated throughout the wiki, has the same relative freedom of content as userspace content (this caveat would also apply to userfied templates that were still intended to be referenced from other userpages--it's the intent that matters). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete all - unspeedy minds should not be given speedy powers. TCorp 16:18, 17 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)
  • Okay, why did nothing show up in the deletion logs when I checked? I thought there was some sort of error. Anywho, oppose deletion on most of them. I'll have to review some, but the idea that userboxes should be uniformly banned from disagreement with the subject is simply wrong. Rogue 9 04:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted For the same reasons as the other group. Comments are on the next section up if you'd care to look. Rx StrangeLove 04:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted Per above. Except the "jerk" one, that is self depracatory. Banes 09:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted and re-delete re-created ones. --Pjacobi 14:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have undeleted {{User GWB2}} as it is celarly an expression of opnion on specificv policy actions, not an "attack on Bush". Unless all political PoV statements are to be banned from user space, this clearly is not over the line. DES 19:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore and Use Process if you want them deleted, not speedy stuff. I think they aren't attacks so much as expressions of aversion. Some of them are perhaps over the top. They shouldn't be a block. James S. 20:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete all. If templates like 'user jerk' are used as a personal attack treat the attack as such (warn user and remove) but don't delete the template. The others are mostly expressions of opinions or just meant to be funny. Except: keep deleted 'attack' on Jimbo if he sees it as such.--Fenice 07:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete user jerk. Come on, I used it to describe myself. As long as a person uses it themselves, I see nothing wrong with it. WikiFanatic 01:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete all - Welcome to the land where freedom of expression is speedy crushed. TCorp 16:22, 17 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)
  • UNDELETE and relist at TfD. The problem here is that this is not the first out of process deletion Tony has done, and he has said (in so many words) that it won't be the last. In this case the template discussion was only a few hours away from being over. This should be brought back and the discussion allowed to run its course, and then properly closed with proper notices. There seem to be a few admins that think that process is unimportant, that their view of the "good of wikipedia" trumps everything else and they can speedy anything they want... I think that's incorrect. WP:IAR is not an excuse to trample anyone or anything that is "in your way". I am not the only person that thinks that either, given that there seems to be a number of RfCs and RfArs lately addressing this very topic. We have WP:NPA for very good reasons, but we have WP:BITE for a reason too. Process is the way to ensure the perception of fairness is maintained. As WP grows, there will be more need for process, or it won't scale. Admins who think the process is flawed should be working to change it, not trample it. (there is an ongoing and robust discussion of Userbox policy as we speak) ++Lar: t/c 04:56, 12 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)
  • Keep Deleted Forever, per all of the above. Banes 09:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep deleted: Inherently divisive, prone to invite abuse, not conducive to civility, etc. Ombudsman 22:16, 15 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)
  • Keep deleted - until someone outside of Ebaumsworld and YTMND cares about "the raid." FCYTravis 03:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's quite possible to just take screenshots to ensure verificability. The LL front page has a list of recent news articles (visible when not signed in) that were posted and upvoted by LL users; where else would these articles come from if there was not a userbase at the site? In any case, I and probably several other people would be willing to provide screenshots or mirrors to any LL content requird for "verificability." —shoecream 05:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Not only is there no way to know that the screenshots weren't created in Photoshop, but even if they weren't, they'd be primary sources. Misplaced Pages requires secondary sources so that we don't run afoul of WP:NOR. —Cryptic (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I can think of a few secondary sources off the top of my head; I believe some blogs and perhaps a news site reported the UFO hoax, so there's at least a few secondary sources to prove that it exists and has actually done something notable. shoecream 05:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Blogs are not generally considered reliable sources for the purposes of verification. News sites get closer but it depends on the site, their reputation and the longevity of their information. A single news site is almost always considered inadequate since it requires multiple independent coverages in order to have any reasonable expectation of a balanced perspective on the issue. Rossami (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn: The GameFAQs community as a whole does not regard LL as a part of GameFAQs, they played a major organizing role in the eBaums schism, and the inaccessability to outsiders hasn't stopped WP from having articles about groups such as Freemasonry. Steve McLinden 00:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    That's because there are a wealth of verifiable and reliable secondary sources which document the activities of such "secret" groups. There are no such sources available discussing LUElinks, hence Misplaced Pages cannot have an encyclopedic article on it. FCYTravis 06:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and protected. Constant vandalism target; inherently unverifiable subject prone to original research when a "real" article. Badly fails WP:WEB. More original research after the afd is not a convincing reason to overturn. As for the redirect, there was absolutely nothing wrong with the deletion process at WP:RFD. —Cryptic (talk) 02:08, 13 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)

Well this is the problem with categories http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Richard_Kiel&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Richard_Kiel What good does a category do if the resistance is so great that a name cannot be added, even after offering evidence it belongs?For this reason a list was much better, as it did not require altering the person's page.If it was shut down prematurely as Christopher Parham suggested, I would be interested in learning why. California 12011:19, 15 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)



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)
    • No? Who says so? Before this is repeated over and over and over again, let me point out for a second time that I've tried to describe the problem I see at this discussion page. <KF> 18:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      • 80% is not a consensus. Kingturtle 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I will normally close 10K / 21D as a delete, and so will many other admins. This is far stronger than that. DES 17:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Not that much stronger. 9/3 means a 25% keep. If one single person had decided that the page was worth a keep instead of a delete, the vote would be 8/4, or a 33% keep. Or a less than 70% consensus for deletion, and it is very likely that the closing admin might have changed their evaluation. Seems a shame that a three-year old article's fate can swing on a single voter like that. Turnstep 03:39, 12 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)
  • Endorse closure. FWIW, I'm one of those 100+ who edited the list, and also one of the nine who voted to delete for the reasons given in the AfD. -Sean Curtin 00:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and re-list. I am particularly worried about the closing admin's comment "Yikes, this article was almost three years old!": are we to take it that all the old articles should be cleared out to make room? Also note that the "discussion" took place over the New Year holiday, which makes it less likely that people were available to notice that it was taking place. The comment "anything that classes Rincewind and Thomas Covenant as the same sort of person is too vague" implies that the editor has failed to appreciate the point of what an anti-hero is. Lastly, the discussion raises the worry that the old nastiness of "list-cruft, die, die, die!" is rearing its ugly head again: there are many precedents for having lists on Misplaced Pages, we even have featured lists for crying out loud. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Mostly excellent points, but I understood the closing admins intent was to say: now we see that the article isn't worthy of inclusion - look how long it's been messing up WP. --- Charles Stewart 11:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • For the record, if this had not happened around the New Year, I would have more than likely seen it and voted keep. (Of course, other deletionists may have also voted, but at least I've be a little happier with a larger number of people participating). Turnstep 03:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure Having watched the article in question degenerate into a list of people who aren't perfectly virtuous, I voted to have it deleted because I felt it was a lost cause. Any attempt at a List of fictional anti-heroes would be better off starting from scratch. -Rjo 11:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I wonder why nobody has done the obvious thing with this article, and undeleted an early version, keeping the more recent nonsense deleted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." — George Santayana
    All undeleting an old version of the article would do is reset the clock so that the same problems may repeat themselves. --Allen3  00:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)



2006-01-05

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)

Recently concluded

  1. Saugeen Stripper: Undeleted, relisted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Saugeen Stripper 2. 17:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: Kept deleted. 17:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Godcasting: Relisted, now at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Godcasting 2. 20:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Seth Ravin: Relisted, now at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Seth Ravin 2. 20:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. DND: Never deleted, was moved and has been moved back. 01:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Template:Test7: Redirected to Template:Vandalblock. 18:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Margolinian Satanism: No such article ever existed; another article may have been intended, but no argument or support put forward for its undeletion. 18:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Pussy City Pimps: Undeleted, sent to AfD, deleted, relisted at DRV above. 18:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Image:Fem isa 2.gif: Images cannot be undeleted. This was re-uploaded, evidently without protest. 18:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. User:Tai Streets/Gang stalking: Kept deleted. 18:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Template:User userbox purge: Kept deleted (protected). 18:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Category:Moneyball: Repopulation of category allowed, but will probably be sent to CFD if/when that hapens. 18:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Category:Contemporary philosophers: Undeleted. Currently relisted at WP:CFD. 18:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Bloody Shot: Kept deleted. 17:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. That Guy: Speedily undeleted. Deletion was in error. 17:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Template:Album infobox 2: Kept redirected to Template:Album infobox. 00:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oven rack guard: Kept deleted (protected). 18:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. List of real names of professional wrestlers: Closure of keep endorsed. 18:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Mootstormfront: Closure of Keep endorsed. It has since been turned into a redirect (not an issue for DRV). 18:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. List of wiki farms: Speedy undeleted, listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of wiki farms . 18:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Back Door Sluts 9: Unprotected, now a redirect. 19:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Full Bodying: Kept deleted (already at BJAODN). 19:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Chris Jenny Harrison: Kept deleted. 19:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. WP:RFC/KM: Undeleted; sent to WP:RFD, where it was kept. 19:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Template:User Seigenthaler: Kept deleted (protected). 19:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Template:Help Wikiboxes: Kept deleted (protected). 19:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Content review

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

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

Gallery of Socialist Realism

This article has been deleted following an AfD, and the outcome of that AfD was disputed here and the closure endorsed. During the DRV, User:Aaron Brenneman requested that, if the deletion was endorsed, the page be userfied to his space, so that he could work on it. This was not done: since the topic arose in a discussion, can the article be userfied now? --- Charles Stewart 10:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

History only undeletion

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

Decisions to be reviewed

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".

2006-01-17

Badawiya HOTEL

Speedy deleted while on AfD. The delete log reason was just "A4". The article does read like an advertisement, but does not at all fit A4 (or A3 with which A4 has been merged). IMO this should have been allowe to run the AfD course. It might have been cleaned up into a reasonable article, or there might have been an in-process deletion. DES 18:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Linked pages from Crooked Timber

User Pboyd04 posted Crooked Timber (group blog) on AfD and simultaneously sought speedy deletion of linked articles on group members, which has taken place in most but not all cases. I posted a response requesting that both issues be resolved together. The only other response on the talk pages was for Kieran Healy opposing speedy deletion and this entry has not been deleted. The arguments for and against speedy deletion of other entries are broadly similar, so the outcome has been inconsistent.

So far Pboyd04's AfD proposal for Crooked Timber has received 6 Keep responses and no Delete responses. The suggested grounds for deletion were either subjective and rejected by respondents (nn) or factually erroneous (no media coverage). Several of those deleted have also received significant media coverage in relation to blogging and Internet issues, but the speedy deletion gave no opportunity to discuss the merits.

I feel that the speedy deletions of linked pages were out of process and that, if desired, the whole issue should either be reconsidered once the AfD discussion on Crooked Timber is resolved or merged with the discussion on Crooked Timber. I therefore request undeletion of

Henry Farrell (political scientist)

Eszter Hargittai

John Holbo

Tom Runnacles

Micah Schwartzman

Belle Waring

JQ 08:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

PS: These articles were on my watchlist, but I got no notification of their deletion. I haven't had any experience with deletions before, but this seems like a defect in the process to me.

  • Endorse speedies. These were all speedy deleted under criteria A7 (Unremarkable people or groups). Being a college professor who happens to contribute to a web log is not usually considered a claim of notability. If any of the individuals meet the guidelines at WP:BIO, there is nothing preventing recreation of these articles. --Allen3  16:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorese speedies In the versions just prior to deletion, all look like valid WP:CSDA7 (nn-bio) deletions. Each stated the person'd profession, in soem cases the person's research intersts, adn that the person contributed to this blog and in some cases to other blogs. Contributign to a blog, even a notable blog, as not in itself a claim of notability, IMO. Neither is being an academing in a particualr field, nor a lawyer, nor a journalist. if any of these people have doen soemthing notable, or are notable for some other reason, recreate the article about that person with that info included -- preferably sourced. If anyone wants to do that an needs the text of one the above deleted stubs (and they all were stubs) I'll be glad to put a copy in anyone's userspace. DES 17:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I knew of Henry Farrell before I heard of Crooked Timber: I have a feeling there may be a case for his notability. John Quiggin is a name as a left-leaning Australian economist: I think an articlke on him would have a good chance of surviving an AfD. I'll do a spot more research, and see what I can dig up. --- --- Charles Stewart 18:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Holy Father

I would like to nominate the article Holy Father for undeletion review or at least I would like a stub to be made for the article for Holy Father. The rcc's pope is only "Holy Father" to at least some rcc members, but not to everyone. Redirecting automatically to a their pope is not NPOV and others would probably agree if more knew about what was going on here. The article was doing fine for some months before TCC/Csernica blindside afd'd and had support from "other" people that didn't have much to do with the article. TCC/Csernica could have discussed about the page instead of afd'ing.

I would like the article to be protected from being redirected exclusively to their pope. I would think some people would like to know the history of the original use and about the rcc title.

My thoughts about making the article NPOV is on Talk:Holy Father and I invite TCC/Csernica to share his/her thoughts instead of deleting an article that was going well for some time.

The article was going well until someone removed a section which may have caused TCC/Csernica to afd the article.--jeolmeun 08:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: since the article exists, I don't think deletion review is the right place. For what it's worth I think it should be a disambiguation page, to God and Pope, since it is used to mean either (depending on which church you belong to). - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 11:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-16

2120s and 2140s

All other decade pages for the 22nd century (2110s ... 2190s) are currently redirects to the main 22nd century article. These two pages were orginally protected because they kept being created with meaningless content. However, it seems silly to have these two protected and not the others. I recommend they be unprotected and made into redirects. Gurch 12:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

24SevenOffice

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/24SevenOffice - from April 2005 (result was keep rewritten article)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/24SevenOffice (second nomination) - from January 2006 (result was delete)

Australia's largest newspaper (Sydney Morning Herald) refer to 24SevenOffice as a succesfull ASP in comparison with industry leaders such as Salesforce.com and NetSuite. I think this proves that it is notable enough and the deletion was a mistake. Also the company is listed on the OTC-market in Norway. A similar company, Centraview, was nominated for deletion and kept. A google search for Centraview gives 11,900 results while 24SevenOffice gives 66,800. I do not think the votes for deletion of the 24SevenOffice article were based on facts. --Sleepyhead 10:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Note that all of these pages (many of which you will notice have been deleted) are either software products or software companies, the same as 24SevenOffice. Note that User:Sleepyhead81 added a note to his/her userpage on August 10th in which he/she identified himself/herself as an employee of 24SevenOffice . Note that User:Sleepyhead81's history of nominating articles for deletion was minimal until 24SevenOffice was nominated for AFD a second time, after which all of the above listed nominations were made. Almost as if User:Sleepyhead81 was motivated by something other than pure altruism and a desire to improve Misplaced Pages. Note that earlier today, User:Sleepyhead81 removed the statement identifying himself/herself as an employee of 24SevenOffice from his/her userpage, shortly after listing 24SevenOffice here on DRV . Perhaps he/she is no longer with the company, but still feels like the company deserves a Misplaced Pages article. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 11:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. No new information is being presented. This is a small company with no evidence of significance, was added to various articles pparently asserting parity with salesforce.com and Google Earth among others (which is patently absurd). Was stated to meet WP:CORP as being used to calculate a market index; this claim was false as it is a whole-market index. Was asserted to meet WP:CORP on the basis of press coverage; this was false as the press coverage was a press release. Is now asserted to meet WP:CORP on the basis of the Syndey Morning Herald article, but that is simply a namecheck (and notes that there are around 12,000 similar companies). Nominator and article author is associated with the company (always a bad idea). I see no evidence of process irregularity. Motives for creating the article have been questioned, whether fairly or not (e.g. Personally I don't really care about the article itself, but I'm sick of having to revert the addition of a link to this article into other articles where it doesn't belong. As far as I can see, the authors worked out that a link to their homepage would survive a lot longer if they wrapped an article around it., Rufous (talk · contribs)). Unless an independent party wishes to challenge this I see no merit in reopening a debate which ended in clear consensus. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 11:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The list of articles that i nominated for deletion is a way to show the inconsistance of votes in regards to which articles are kept and which ones are deleted. Centraview is a perfect example of this. JzG's vote was based on an article on a website called vnunet.com where CentraView is listed as an example of an open source application. But an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, which is a much more respectable source than vnunet.com, is not a reason for the 24SevenOffice article to be kept according to JzG. I find that the vote here does not reflect the facts presented in this case. Whether the 24SevenOffice article should be kept should be based on the notability of 24SevenOffice in the same as CentraView and others alike. Not based on my relation to 24SevenOffice, my edits or any others subjective votes in regards to the article. Other contributors can edit the article. I really feel that votes in deletion debates are based on whether people like the article or not. Thus open source projects, linux based software and other projects who share characteristics with Misplaced Pages are always kept while commerical products are always deleted. Advertising applies just as much to open source projects as they do with products. Also in regards to the CentraView debate there was three votes for delete and two for keep. The keep votes was JzG reason as above and the other for 'being open source'. --Sleepyhead 14:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure - I could probably have voted either way on the afd, but the debate was validly closed, and the decision far from unreasonable. That, combined with the complainer's vested interest and violation of WP:POINT, leaves me seeing to reason to reverse this. --Doc 19:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and suggest nominator read WP:POINT. User:Zoe| 22:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse. There was no abuse of process in the deletion; attempting to have a valid AFD overturned here is futile. Stifle 00:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Can't work out why this was listed for deletion in the first place. Perfectly good article about a company and its product which appears to be a significant player in a vertical market. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm taking the liberty of undeleting one of two of the other articles because their deletion was silly. Tally (accounting) is about a well established Indian company with numerous major clients in its native country and representation as far afield as the UK, and SuperOffice is a public listed company with a turnover of around Euro 30m . --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-15

Michael E. Berumen

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michael E. Berumen

I was an original supporter of deletion of this article. The consensus was - not by a great deal - to keep it. Yesterday, I received an email from a person claiming to be Michael E. Berumen. I have no reason to doubt its authenticity (though if Mr Berumen is reading I would ask him to verify it) containing the following (which has been edited only to remove references to specific editors):

" Well over a year ago, I demanded that the head of this enterprise, Mr. James Wales, remove untoward remarks made about me made along with any references in articles made by others. He complied with this . Mr. Wales personally asked me if he could keep the article about me, which he apparently liked and thought harmless enough. Reluctantly, I agreed, notwithstanding its several minor errors. Having thought that the matter was put rest, I discover the whole thing started again in an attempt to promulgate my views and correct some of the previous damages.
"I certainly concur that I am not especially notable, most particularly in relation to my scholarly pursuits. If anything, I am more notable for my business dealings, only some of which is mentioned in the article. Fact is, I do not wish to be notable in any serious way (other than amongst friends and clients of course), for, among other things, that would eliminate some of my legal protections. I am a private person, which has a strict legal definition in this country. I prefer to control my own public persona, and not to have it controlled by others, including you. The article ought to have been deleted long ago when I suggested as much. Some of the reasons you adduced for doing this are quite correct, though not all of them. But your conclusion nevertheless is. I therefore support the idea of eliminating the article about me. Anything you could do to facilitate this would be greatly appreciated by me.
"Sincerely,
"Michael E. Berumen"

Given that the subject of the article appears not to want to be included in the Enclyclopaedia, and the two main contributors to the article (icut4u and ockham) seem to have ceased activity on Misplaced Pages, it seems to me that it is wholly appropriate to grant Mr Berumen's wishes and remove this article from the database altogether, therefore overturn the original decision. ElectricRay 10:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Is there a viable alternative? My suggestion would be, we protect the page in an approximation or the exact current state (which is pretty dull but at least contains no information that could be disputed or regarded as offensive by M. Berumen). I am somewhat inclusionsist, but I respect the wishes of individuals to keep a low public profile. I do realize there could be a "Wrong Version" issue. Dabljuh 10:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Given the length of time since the AFD discussion, I would recommend that we close this DR discussion and simply renominate the article for a new deletion discussion. As a side note, I have very little sympathy for a subject of an article who either makes legal threats or attempts to "control" our article. On the other hand, I think we should give some deference to the judgment of a subject who requests deletion with the admission that they are "not especially notable". Rossami (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Fine with me. I'll renominate for deletion. ElectricRay 20:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-14

Circumcision fetish

Page was first time put on VFD for no given reason, and 54% of the votes decided to keep the article. Almost a year later, after several attempts to censor the article, was put on VFD a second time with the basis that no WP:RS could be found. Vote was 71% for deletion 9 keep 22 delete, when circumcision fetish could be found described in the The Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices by Brenda Love, published by Barricade Books, 1994, ISBN 1569800111, verifiable online here. However, without further votes given, or any changes to existing votes, the article was deleted by User:Ulayiti.

I contest this decision: With a WP:RS found, the basis for the VFD was not met anymore, effectively nullifying all votes for deletion with the reasoning that the article would violate WP:RS or WP:NOR. A recount on this basis would yield only two votes for deletion, as only User:Tony_Sidaway, who argued to remove it on for being part of a flame war, and User:Humus sapiens, who did not give any reason at all, did not reason their vote for deletion on the basis of a supposed WP:NOR or WP:RS violation. Thus, even by vote recount (and not just invalidating the VFD) the article would have to stay. For further info, read meta:polls are evil

Further info,

Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices, by Brenda Love (Barricade Books, Inc., 1992). "More than 750 entries and 150 original illustrations on the world's strange sex activities". Under "Circumcision" (page 6): "Men sometimes incorporate their fear of circumcision into sex play as a means for arousal. They fake a circumcision by having their partner blindfold and bind them, placing a reservoir tipped condom and then slicing off the tip with a knife ... Women who are only sexually aroused by circumcised males are referred to as acucullophiles."

I have meanwhile ordered the book, sounds like a good read o_O

Update: I have changed my opinion. The arguments brought forward on this page have convinced me to wait for the arrival of the book, do some additional research, and then recreate the page, rather than to undelete the current article. I retract my motion. Dabljuh 09:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-13

Template:User allow fairuse

TFD discussion

This template was deleted without a clear consensus, and without substantial justification. As it is to be used in userspace, it ought to be restored, as the deletion of this template is not supported by deletion policy. --Dschor 23:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted. What the deleting admin did was he subsituted the template in the userspace, so those who wish to use the template still can, but not in the actual template name space. Zach 23:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted - but as this one raised some pseudolegal questions, I'd say if you want to push it for undeletion, get onto Jimbo and ask. BigStabbyStick 23:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I endorse the decision of the person who closed it (note that I was the person who deleted the template based on his decision). While the percentage of people voting was somewhat less than what is normally considered a rough consensus, discussions aren't votes, and I feel that the people who voted delete generally made more persuasive arguments than those that voted keep. JYolkowski // talk 23:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. This template does not help us make an encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 23:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Alot of users don't help us make an encyclopedia either, that doesn't mean we just delete them. Karmafist 02:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Let it stay dead and delete anything similar. It advocates something that would expose the Foundation, for reasons that do not help the encyclopedia in any way. If editors want to break the law, they should find a web host and try to persuade the host company to permit them to do so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Closing admin has discretion. He had justification, in my opinion, to discount many keep votes that were not well-reasoned—but at the same time, he probably ought to have explained his decision better. -- SCZenz 00:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Undelete Final vote was 51-36, 58% for deletion, which I doubt meets anyone's threshold for consensus unless you're in a Democracy, which we're not. Add to that the resounding amount of strawman WP:NLT and WP:CIVIL vios in terms of those who wished to delete this in the first place makes leaving this deleted into a precedent that bullying people with legal boogiemen is acceptable behavior. karmafist 00:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • overturn close This was nowhere near consensus. DES 00:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Per Tony Sidaway, and others. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted those who want this are still free to create it on their userpage. --Doc 01:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy and there was clear consensus to delete, despite raw mechanical vote counting. There's a reason we don't use bots to close deletion discussions. —Cryptic (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: It's pretty rare for Jimbo to get involved in a deletion dispute. He was the first person to delete it saying "we do not get to vote here on copyright law". Then 15 min later he restored it. Has anyone asked him for his reasoning? Was this discussed in some other channel? Rossami (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Once again I see that people are voting on the userbox and not the process under which it was deleted. There was no-consensus there - it does not matter how many people don't like the userbox here, that is not what we are supposed to discussing.--God of War 04:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - Process is here to help us write the encyclopedia. When process does not help us write the encyclopedia, it may be discarded. How many times does that have to be explained? WP:NOT a bureaucracy. FCYTravis 05:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted as per FCYTravis and others. Jtkiefer ---- 06:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Per FCYTravis and others. Also, consensus is not based on raw vote counts. Carbonite | Talk 16:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Still think this is a very strange thing for a userbox template. It's slightly like saying "This user would vote to give Misplaced Pages the right to sentence users to death" - all very well, but it would still be illegal. David | Talk 17:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure - sockpuppeteering aside, the userbox was a non-starter for the reasons Jimbo and others mentioned. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn Closing admin should have at least given a better explanation for their decision, given the size and activity of the discussion. Saying "rather weak thou" is ambiguous to me -- do they mean it was a close call on a simple vote count? If so, I'd certainly remind people that *fD is more than a simple vote count, and that even when it is a vote count, the rule is not generally a simply majority. Closers have a responsibility to explain their decision: since I do not think this was done here, overturn and relist. Turnstep 00:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete Yes, the viewpoint it expresses is retarded and is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages metapolicy and civil law. No, it doesn't matter what those expressing that viewpoint think. Undelete it anyway. Kurt Weber 06:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, we cannot vote on what the law requires of us. User:Zoe| 00:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, or overturn and Speedy Delete per WP:IAR. We don't vote on copyright policy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn closure and undelete - We shouldn't have this template, the keep case was stacked with lousy "templates are free expression" arguments, but that doesn't mean that we can misrepresent a no consensus as a consensus to delete. User:Nrcprm2026 counted 43 valid delete ballots against 34 to keep: we'd need to discount 12 keep votes to bend this into a delete consensus. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, but it is important to the smooth functioning of this site that administrative actions are conducted with the broad support of the wider WP community. We should wait a little, argue the case that these sorts of template are illegitimate on the userbox policy and resubmit a new TfD with a better prepared case. We should also look for evidence of poll-stacking. --- --- Charles Stewart 18:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Weishampel exchange

speedied by User:Linuxbeak

The page on "Weishampel Exchange" was unfairly deleted due to an erroneus link to a college humor website and a Google result of a professor in some unknown college. My research has documentation of this term from Germany, the U.K., and both coasts of the United States. This was deleted with haste, and possibly bias towards the gay/homosexual community! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outer-nationalist (talk • contribs)

  • Keep deleted certainly a neologism, likely also an attack/hoax. 0 Google hits. If nominator's research includes evidence to the contrary, feel free to share it with us. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Starblind. -- SCZenz 00:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Certainly a neologism and very likely a hoax but nothing in the versions I reviewed could be considered at "attack". I would definitely vote to delete this in a regular AFD but I can not endorse its speedy-deletion. Restore and immediately list on AFD for regular deletion. Yes, I know that Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy but we have to stop this inappropriate stretching of the speedy "attack" criterion. Rossami (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The talk page seemed to indicate that it was an attack on a college professor named Weishampel. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Don't use that as a criterion. That was wild speculation on my part. I mean, it's obvious the article was crap, especially given the number of times the year of creation was changed, but I've zero evidence it was a prank or an attack. Powers 03:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore and immediately list on AFD as per Rossami. Powers 04:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ick. KD per Andrew, unless somebody is able to cite a source on this. Radiant_>|< 02:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, Linuxbeak also protected the article from recreation. I can find no justification for that protection. Protection is generally reserved for those pages which have been repeatedly recreated and deleted. This article shows no such history. Nor do the participants here or on the Talk page show any such inclination to abuse the process. I am returning this to an unprotected redlink. Rossami (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, I would like to add that this was the subject of a letter to the Help Desk mailing list, in which the emailer contended that it was created as a joke. User:Zoe| 00:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. If this were a run-of-the-mill hoax neologism I would be with Rossami here because we should try to stay within the confines of WP:CSD. But this neologism has a sexual tone to it, and it seems to be made entirely with the intention of insulting someone named Weishampel. My suspicion is that it's made by schoolchildren being mean. I endorse deleting this speedily as vandalism. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Pussy_City_Pimps

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Pussy_City_Pimps

OK, I just closed this with a delete result (which I think is correct), but it has been challenged by Kappa, with the message

"That was 2-1 at best, and almost all the delete votes were plain "delete" without any reasoning, and should have been given less weight."

Kappa is threatening to stop contributing, plus I've kind of always wondered what it would be like to be on the receiving end of the stick here, so I guess this is the best place to go (as a side note after doing 100 or so WP:RM it is always good to get a reality check every now and then). No vote since I am the closing admin, of course :). WhiteNight 09:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse closure valid AFD. The numbers add up, and whether to discount votes without stated reasons is a decision up to the closing admin (and, IMHO, should only be done in cases of suspected ballot-stuffing/sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry). Threatening to stop contributing because an article about a hacked video game ROM got deleted? That's one for the "WTF?" file. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I happen to think that wikipedia users should have a chance to read about at least some of these things, not everyone is as lucky as us. Kappa 18:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, and call Kappa's bluff. We just went through this here. 2-1 is a perfectly valid delete, and I don't see Kappa complaining when people just vote "Keep" with no other comments. Plenty of reasons for deletion were given; users often do not feel like reiterating what's already been said. -R. fiend 18:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. The consensus is pretty clear, and almost every vote on either side of the debate has IMO a satisfactory explaination attached. Gamaliel 18:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and merge. Note that there were a few merge votes. Kappa should heed the advice and incorporate the content into River City Ransom and maybe we can restore Pussy City Pimps and convert it to a redirect for GFDL purposes. howcheng {chat} 19:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. And lets leave this dead horse alone.Voice of All 19:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. While a close decision, this meets the generally accepted threshold for a "rough consensus" to delete. The argument to merge was made during the discussion and failed to sway the community. Rossami (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure I counted 15 delete, 4 keep and 3 merge. 3 of the delete votes gave no reasoning, not "almost all", other than the simple desire to have the article deleted. Hamster Sandwich 20:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure although I might have called "merge", hissy-fits do nobody any favours. If Kappa wants to include some of this information in the other article, and asks for this to be undeleted as a redirect, that is a different matter - that I would support. But there was a very clear consensus against this having a separate article, which seems to be what's being requested. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 11:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-12

Ninjah Pendragon

I recently wrote an article which was somewhat of a biography of an MC/Street perfomer named Ninjah Pendragon and the article was deleted because it was a biography of an non widely known individual. To an extent, this is true, as Ninjah is not widely known outside of Cardiff. He is not known globally. However I feel that, he is widely known to people of Cardiff due to the fact that he is there every day, the BBC have also written a biography about his album, as have several newspapers. I would be able to site references if you would like. Thankyou very much.

  • This unsigned comment was left by user:Cockers. I believe he/she is referring to Ninjah pendragon which was moved to Ninjah Pendragon where it was speedy-deleted as a "non-notable bio". Rossami (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Believe it or not, wikipedia still has some standards about who gets an article. Your basic street performer don't cut it. Oh, and I deleted the redirect. -R. fiend 04:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Please point to the BBC and newspaper coverage. Uncle G 10:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi. I appreciate the standards that Misplaced Pages like to keep and I understand that it would be reasonable to keep a general street performer off an encyclopedia. However I feel that Ninjah is more than just a street perfomer as he has appeared in a film, a television program and has had an album released. The link to the BBC's minisite of Ninjah is . This website mentions how Ninjah appeared in NME's student guide to Cardiff and in two films. Here is a forum post discussing Ninjah's newpaper appearence . I would also like to point out that my inspiration for writing the article was due to discovering another article about a street performer Toy Mic Trevor which has been on Misplaced Pages for 6 months. This is my final appeal for the entertainer and street poet to gain recognition in Misplaced Pages. I promise not to keep pestering and I will provide better references in future articles. (This was my first one). User:Cockers 17:49, 13 Janurary 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Unfortunately, the BBC minisite is akin to a wiki, where anyone can submit his/her own band. See and look in the "Profiles and Minisites" section: "Want to be featured on this site? Submit your details here." As far as I'm concerned, even though it has the air of authority of the Beeb, it's not a reliable source. howcheng {chat} 18:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I wrote the Ninjah minisite for the BBC. Although users can submit their band details to be considered for inclusion, nothing is added to the site without it being editorially verified and rewritten. It is false to state the BBC minisite is akin to a wiki. The Ninjah profile was not a user submission, and was written because he is signed to Boobytrap Records has released an album, is well known in South Wales as a performer, and has appeared on stage with bands including Super Furry Animals. That said, although he's well known in these parts, he's hardly the saviour of music - hence the light-hearted tone of the profile. (Joe Goodden, producer, bbc.co.uk/wales/music)
  • Keep deleted street performer(!) and thus definitely a nn-bio/speedy candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Put it back Of course he shouldn't have been deleted....you're mad to have done that. I've never lived in Cardiff and I've heard of him, he's gaining respect in the music world and has just released an album. I live in Liverpool but I heard of him through word of mouth in the reggae society in uni - then I come on here to read up on him and find that you've gone and deleted his article! Who cares if he started as a street performer? He now has a record deal, is well known in Wales and deserves to be on Misplaced Pages. Trystan Morris-Davies 20:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • New user who somehow managed to find this page after only three edits to Misplaced Pages. User:Zoe| 22:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I somehow managed to find this page....what a bumbling old fool I am. I've been using wikipedia for ages and although I've only just started taking part in editing it, have just as much of a right as you to have a say in this - in fact, being Welsh I have a good knowledge of the Welsh music scene, and I'm telling you this guy's not just some tramp who bangs bins in the street. See UK Hip Hop review and look at his prominent position on the Boobytrap Records page. Trystan Morris-Davies 18:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User against Saud and Template:User Nepal Maoists speedies

I have speedy deleted a template with the following words:

This user thinks the House of Saud should be overthrown

I bring this action here for review. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC) Addendum: The same user had created Template:User Nepal Maoists containing the words: This user thinks the Monarchy of Nepal should be overthrown and supports the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) in their armed and political struggle and I have deleted it as an attack template. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not interested in the whole userbox theatrics thing, but I am wondering you delete first and then ask questions, rather than the other way around. It should be safe enough to presume that asking first will produce the same result. -Splash 16:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This is how speedy deletions are done. It is my opinion that attacks of this nature have no place on Misplaced Pages. You're welcome to object to this as policy, as we don't yet have any policy on this and I'm just taking action that I believe is necessary to safeguard the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
      • No, if we are sure a speedy is right, we don't have to ask questions afterwards. I've never listed my own speedies after deleting them, because if I knew I was going to do that, I'd have xfD'd them instead. Deletion review is not the forum for establishing a policy - the discussion running elsewhere is. If you believe the action is necessary, you don't need to come here (a forum you consider irrelevant, anyway) to make sure. Someone else need bring it here if (and only if) they would disagree with it. -Splash 17:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Not by a long shot is this "how speedy deletions are done". Normally they're just done and in the vast majority of cases there is no discussion on them here, certainly not inititated by the sysop performing the deletions. As I noted on your talk page, however, I do appreciate that bringing the issue up here gives it another audience than it would have on TfD. - Haukur 17:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I disagree (though as a non-admin, take it for what it's worth): Speedy deletions of 'attacks' are warranted, just as a review of them may be warranted. Tony's bringing his own deletions here for review is unorthodox, but if he didn't bring them here, you can bet there'd be screams of bloody murder from his opponents. Damned if you do, damned if you don't... -- nae'blis (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and don't speedy any more of these pending a clear policy on user boxes or a new CSD (which is under discusson). DES 16:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and nominate for deletion where I will happily vote to delete them. And continue work on expanding CSD to include stuff like this, which I also support. And continue work on deletion reform in general :) And try to have a dialogue with the users creating these templates and convince them that they should voluntarily refrain from creating them - stop pulling the rug from under their feet, there are enough bad feelings about this already. There is no emergency here which warrants taking action out of process. Nor is out-of-process action required to draw more attention to this issue - it has enough attention already and then some. - Haukur 17:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Would it be okay if someone created a template advocating the overthrow of the government of your country? It may be that you think that is an appropriate use of Misplaced Pages resources; I do not. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
      • It is an inappropriate use of Misplaced Pages resources and I support deleting templates like that. I just don't think this is an emergency which warrants out-of-process action. And I try to overthrow the government of my country every four years. No luck so far. - Haukur 17:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As others, Keep Undeleted, send to TFD, and quit trying to create new policy by fiat. Dragons flight 18:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree with Dragons flight's suggestion that making policy through action is unacceptable (see Tuesday's discussions for a good counter-example). I have undeleted these templates and edited one to remove the attack on the Nepal government, and sent the User against Saud one to tfd. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and list on TfD - I don't think that this is a good userbox, but it is not an attack directed at other editors, so I do not see the case for urgent action. I think that Tony's approach to userboxes is responsible, and is helping us find a middle ground. Pace Dragon's flight, making policy through action is the wiki spirit. --- Charles Stewart 19:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted all templates which disparage or criticize their subject. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted all attack templates. User:Zoe| 23:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and list on TfD if it hadn't been done already. This is not how things are done. Clearly there are reasonable differences of opinion, and thus speedy deletion is not applicable. Speedy deletion is for clear and unambigious deletions only. - brenneman 23:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: since the User against Saud entry has been moved to TfD and the other undeleted, shouldn't this debate be edited/closed? -- nae'blis (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Leave it undeleted. Does not meet any speedy criteria. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and inform tony of the tfd procedure.--God of War 20:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-11

LUEshi

I believe that the process was not followed correctly in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/LUEshi. The count was 3 Keep votes, 3 Delete, and 5 Merge. For the first Keep, the rationale was that Miyamoto has signed it; this does not establish notability. The second one is from a GameFAQer who personally felt that LUEshi was important, but did not state its importance in relation to Misplaced Pages policy. The third had no reason at all. I believe that the article should have been merged or deleted, not kept. - Hbdragon88 05:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Holy cow! There are VfD pages all over the place for this one! Anyway, I think the chronology is:
  1. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/LUEshi - MAYBE the first one, unanimous delete
  2. Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/LUEshi - No idea, a mix of a merge, keep and a couple deletes..?
  3. Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Lueshi - Speedy delete, but with some keeps
  4. Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Lueshi_(2nd_nomination) - THIS is the one referenced here.

I'm not making a descision yet but I feel sorry for the people who have to sort through those. WhiteNight 05:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse at any rate, as the closest to consensus is merge at 5m/3k/1d or 5/4 which does not meet the afd minimums. As the arguments go though, while they sort of go to process we can't usually discount "votes" of established editors because they give no opinion etc., although I sometimes wish we could. Whether or not Miyamoto signing it establishes notability is not really our descision, unfortunately. WhiteNight 05:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse, but this should be merged, redirected, and protected to prevent recreation of the article. -Sean Curtin 07:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure since there was clearly no consensus to delete on the last AFD, just be bold and merge it if you want to. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Pedelec

As per Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy#Reasons why an article might be requested for undeletion: deletion was "out of process" as discussed within the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pedelec. Motion of non-suite. POV Fork was never properly defined by nominator or supporters. No substantial proof was given to indicate this is/was a POV FORK. 03:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)~ Unsigned nomination by 72.57.8.215 (talk · contribs) (static IP used by CyclePat (talk · contribs))</a>

  • The basis of the nomination resting on out-of-process is very clearly wrong. -Splash 03:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • A nasty RfD, but it looks like 5D/1k to me, and I see no process violations on the part of thaoe arguing for deletion. Endorse close (keep deleted). DES 16:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What does "motion of non-suite" mean? When did this become a courtroom? The closing of the previous discussion was proper. Keep deleted. User:Zoe| 23:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • definition of Non-suit. (see the canadian law section). 02:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Sorry, but "POV fork" was indeed properly defined by the nominator and the article clearly meets the definition of one. howcheng {chat} 19:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure and keep deleted, for what it's worth (as nominator but non-voter, as usual for me). Evidence was provided of why this is a POV fork (see also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Electric bicycle, and the various archives of Talk:Motorized bicycle), and I believe both Woohookitty and Katefan0 can speak to the history here. This is not a "spinout" as no attempt was made to incorporate this into the existing section at motorized bicycle (where pedelec was mentioned by name and which article was and still is linked to de:pedelec). Even bearding Fred Bauder did not gain any support for Pat's assertion of process irregularities. Pat, if you think this is a vendetta I suggest you raise an RfC, as I have said before. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 20:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Review and send to Arbitration: The example you give for electric bicycles only substantiates that there is a lack of process. Anyone that actually looks into that will realize that, that article failed to be deleted for lack of process. It was put through the redirected for deletions and remains redirected to motorized bicycle. The lack of definition of the issue of POV Fork is not a major issue, the lack of proof is what is being questioned. If the question of lack of proof was raised regarding a POV fork, then an independant review should be done to determine whether there is enough proof to substantiate the POV Fork. If there was not enought proof, there obviously would be no reason for a POV FORK. Hence the reason for the out of process. --CyclePat 16:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No need to vote twice, Pat. Your view is already in the nomination. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 21:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Those are serious allegations and I don't appreciate them. There is a fine line between voting, requesting undeletion, an leaving a comment, and to my knowledge I haven't voted. This is yet another example of your generalizations leading into what I believe is a ill faithed assumptions. (or putting words into other peoples mouths) Not only is this insulting but this is what has plagued this issue from the start. Seemingly, it's what, according to me, plagues wikipedia. Secondly I don't know who put my IP and name at the top of this nomination but that goes against Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy#To request that a page (or image) be restored (A.K.A.: undeletion policy). It is clearly stated to sign with ~~~~~, and this just re-enforces my idea that wikipedia is corrupt. (Even my local news paper the "Ottawa Citizen" has indicated in an article that wikipedia is no longer NPOV). Finally as for RFC's I couldn't agree better then with this comment. All this supporting my assumption that wikipedia is just as corrupt as our Canadian Liberal government/ Thanks even more to these enlightening facts, I think this entire process should be stayed, re-nominated and independently reviewed by an arbitration comity. --CyclePat 23:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Some day, in a perfect world, Pat will learn our policies and procedures. Instead, I'm still seeing bad faith afd nominations and deletion reviews for every deletion of Pat's material and forking and everything else. And now we have "send this to arbitration". You can't. Have you read dispute resolution Pat? Knowing you, you haven't. You can't send this to arbitration. It doesn't work that way. And of course this is a POV fork Pat. Gallery of motorized bicycles is a fork...Pedelec is a fork...Gallery of motorized trikes is a fork. They are all forks from motorized bicycle because *3 months ago* the decision was made to move electric bicycle to motorized bicycle. Even though you had a chance to speak up, you didn't. Since then, you've made numerous attempts to get it back by doing things like this. Community vote was to delete gallery of motorized bicycles so you created trikes, immediately put it up for deletion and then hoped it would be kept so that you could bring back gallery of motorized bikes. This is the same thing. You hope that Pedelec is restored so then you can restore electric bicycles even though that went through a rfd vote already. And I'm not making this up. You've made your intentions clear. Just stop. Please. --Woohookitty 01:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well actually Woohookitty I have read WP:DR. I remember seeing a section WP:AP that would be more specific to the issue. And we can infer from section "Scope", #2, which states: Where a dispute has not gone through Mediation, or the earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, the Arbitrators may refer the dispute to the Mediation Committee if it believes Mediation is likely to help. that there are issues that are heard without mediation. (I also believe the previous steps have been attempted). Now everyone knows Misplaced Pages is a learning process. If what you are saying is we can't use past precedences to develop on making wikipedia a better place, then I think that is plain wrong and perhaps you should start looking elsewhere. I really didn't want to go into this discussion here but since you brought it up, here we go: first off, your inherent interest in the article is obvious. You created motorized bicycle. It's your baby. In Oregon a Motorized bicycle is like a moped. In other parts of the US it also a moped but includes smaller sub-class, similar vehicles such as the electric bicycle (that of which you merged to motorized bicycle). Here in Canada we have something similar called a motor assisted bicycle or a moped. But we also have the power-assisted bicycle another class of vehicle. All that to say, it is my belief that just like truck is an automobile and SUV, Car, etc... they, electric bicycle, pedelec, power assisted bicycle should have their own articles. Not only that, but so closely related is the moped and it even has it's own article. Previously, you have indicated your disagreement to merge moped with motorized bicycle. JzG, also indicated a vote against the merger of this article with moped. One of his reasons being was because the two strands of development are entirely separate. What are the major differences between these two strands of development? And if so, could this not be inferable for the use with the "entirely" different strand of development between electric pedelecs (or electric motor assisted bicycles) vs our most commonly know (fossil fuel guzzlers) IC motor assisted bicycles? (hint the answer is right in the question there!). --CyclePat 04:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I took your advice and have filled for mediation regarding this case (well, technically speaking, similar cases that we never really resolved): Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation --CyclePat 06:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
You still refuse to be oppelegetic and you fail to correct the fact that my name and IP adress are still at the top of this nominations. A request for mediation was filed... and it appears that the discussion is happening on the main mediation page. --CyclePat 18:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
You haven't yet managed to communicate in terms I can understand what it is I am supposed to be apologising for. And how about letting one process finish before starting another? - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 11:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Gallery of motorized bicycles

As per Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy#Reasons why an article might be requested for undeletion: Non-sysops who wish to see the content of a deleted article, either to use its content elsewhere, or alternatively, because they cannot tell if it was wrongly deleted without seeing what exactly was deleted. (temporary undeletion) To permit a deleted article to be transwikified or properly moved to a sister wiki-site. 03:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)~

Game Central Network

The article Game Central Network was deleted due to the mere fact that it did not hold up to WP:WEB. No one in my community, nor myself were informed that there was even speculation of deletion.

No, game central network is not a "notable" as stated in wp:web, but I cannot agree to it's deletion based on the guidelines placed before us.

Game Central Network's began as a small fan website, hl2central.net, based on the rumor of the second Half-Life game. It was and is a key resource for many websites including IGN (http://www.planethalflife.com/news/search.asp?function=search&search=hl2central), FileFront, among other "notable" websites. On top of this, we have interviews with major players in the game development industry, most notably, Gabe Newell of Valve software (http://www.hl2central.net/?id=1480). Notable enough, in-fact, that it still remains listed upon an IGN website, http://www.planethalflife.com/half-life2/press/.

Our content is even of such value that it has been translated by people we do not even know so that their users can read it. (http://www.hl2.ru/interviews/hl2central/)

You can also find our website listed on many websites just due to the fact that they like our site... http://www.bloodthirst.org/links.php http://halflife2.filefront.com/ (right column) http://www.planethalflife.com/community/links.shtm http://reinstatement-mod.co.uk/hl2_news.shtml http://www.ultimate-gamer.com/halflife2/hl2links.htm http://www.halflife2.net/page.php?p=comm_links http://www.hlfallout.net/view.php/hl2info/sitelinks.php

WP:WEB is a proposal, for those who dont know already. Our article was to outline the history of the website, it's effects, and it's future. It was written as neutrally as possible and i encouraged my community to edit it to be even more so. So umm i dont know but it's deletion was wrong.

Thepcnerd 17:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Pms clan

The article PMS Clan was deleted for vanity / hoax.

PMS Clan are not a hoax. They are geniune world famous female gaming team, specialisng on the FPS genre. That compete at all major championships around the world, and attend all major video gaming events.

They are well known in the video gaming world, and have been sponsored by both Nintendo and Microsoft to attend events and promotions.

Admittedly the text my have been accused of 'vanity', however this is becase they are a very successful team. The text could be toned down (to reduce the vanity element)if necessary, however, the entry is valid - with potential for editing, not deleteing.

Please rethink the deltion of this page.

Many thanks.

C Johnson16:12, 11 January 2006 (GMT)

Ludvig Strigeus

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ludvig Strigeus

All the delete votes were made when the article was a one-liner. I expanded on the article and voted keep. I think the subject is notable and request an undelete, please.  --  W  P Talk 10:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The nomination was made on 6 Jan. The delete votes were made on 6 and 7 Jan. The article was expanded on 8 Jan. The person who did the expansion was the only keep voter. The discussion was closed on 12 Jan. While many people had the opportunity to revisit the article and the discussion, apparently none chose to do so. Looking at the expanded article itself, I don't think that this person yet meets the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. I am inclined to endorse the closure (keep deleted) even though the nominator may be right that the original discussion paricipants may not have re-evaluated their decisions after the expansion. Note: This decision is without prejudice against re-creation if the subject of the article goes on to do more notable work and does eventually become eligible under our inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This may be a case where the nominator should simply recreate the *expanded* article, per policy, and be ready to defend it better when/if it gets renominated. Turnstep 17:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. The closer did not take into account the fact that the article was substantially improved and that no delete votes followed the expansion. The subject is the original developer of three reasonably famous pieces of software that have their own Misplaced Pages articles: MTorrent, ScummVM and OpenTTD. Thus the close was wrong on process and (most important) made the wrong decision for Misplaced Pages by deleting good content. I agree with Turnstep's proposal and if User:WP or anyone else makes a good faith request for a temporary undelete for that purpose I will grant it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Is every person who votes delete in the early stages of a discussion to be disenfranchised, or must they keep checking back on every article they've already reviewed on a daily basis to go back to the discussion and say, "Nope, despite the edits made since the last time, my vote stands."? The fact that there were no further delete votes after the expansion may well be due to the fact that everyone who came to the discussion saw sufficient delete votes and didn't feel like adding any more. User:Zoe| 00:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist. It appears the article was judged on its initial stubby content. I believe that being an important contributor to 4 software projects makes one notable. I think there's enough new information added to warrant a reevaluation of the deletion debate. - Mgm| 09:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist. Zoe's point is well-taken, but it's an assumption. It could just as easily have been the case where others, seeing the delete votes, did not bother to investigate the article after its expansion. howcheng {chat} 19:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As a comprimise what about just doing a normal relisting with the other comments intact? WhiteNight 01:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The Ditherals

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Ditherals

I believe this page was speedily deleted by Bearcat without reference to due process. Just requesting a relist. Stifle 11:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm torn on this one. If I'd seen the AFD discussion, I would have argued for the article's deletion on the basis of the inherent unverifiability of this neologism. Based on the evidence available, I see no possibility that this article would have survived the full AFD debate. On the other hand, this article did not meet any of the deliberately narrow speedy-deletion criteria. Being an obvious delete is not the same as being a speedy delete. I have to reluctantly recommend overturning the speedy-deletion and reopening the AFD discussion. Speedy-deletions should continue to be narrowly interpreted to the specific cases. The encyclopedia will not suffer too badly from allowing the article to stay for the 5 day discussion period. Rossami (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As far as I'm concerned, as an inherently and irreparably POV article on a politically motivated nickname for a political party coming right in the middle of an election campaign, this essentially constituted an attack page (which is a speedy deletion criterion), no less than if somebody wrote up an article legitimizing a POV nickname for one of their opponents, such as "The Blocheads", "The New Dumbocrats" or "The Fasco-Cons", which are all just as verifiable as to their existence, and yet completely inappropriate as Misplaced Pages content. While I admittedly can't stop recreation if that happens to be the consensus here, I'm not going to apologize for my own judgment in the matter. (And I won't apologize for being of the belief that only a Conservative supporter could possibly even imagine that this term somehow deserved its own Misplaced Pages article in the first place, either.) I won't officially cast a vote since it's my action that's being challenged here, but these are my bottom line points:
    1. Attack pages are speedyable.
    2. I won't apologize for viewing it as an attack page and acting in accordance with that view. Bearcat 19:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • When this speedy criterion was first approved, it was strictly limited to personal attack pages. There were reasonable arguments made on WT:CSD that the criterion should be expanded to small groups. Misplaced Pages:Attack page was reworded to allow a bit more flexibility and may have gone too far into ambiguity. No discussion that I've found authorized the expansion of this criterion to large groups like entire political parties. That seems to me to be an overly broad interpretation of the criterion.
      Furthermore, a case could be made that the wording on the article was relatively neutral - it was an attempt to define an objectionable term in as neutral language as was possible. I still believe that it was deletable as a dicdef and as a neologism but can not endorse the assessment of it as an "attack page". No change of vote, I'm afraid. Rossami (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, that's fine. You're free to believe I was wrong in my assessment; my only point was that I won't apologize for assessing it as I did. Bearcat 00:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is in no way an attack page. It is a neutral definition of an unflattering nickname. Are all unflattering nicknames banned from wikipedia? By the way, Mr. Dithers is in Misplaced Pages, just so you know. The definition does indeed come in the middle of the election campaign.. this is because the word is being use more and more often in Canadian political blogs. I have once again been accused by Bearcat of being a Conservative party supporter. Again, I request a retraction. According to Bearcat's logic, Clyde Sanger of The Economist must be a Conservative party supporter since he coined the term Mr. Dithers Ditherals is simply play on words of Mr. Sanger's nickname. As for the "The Blocheads", "The New Dumbocrats" or "The Fasco-Cons", these names are not widely used in political commentary like Ditherals or Mr. Dithers and certainly never made it to The Economist. At the next google dance we will likely see the pages for Ditherals increase several fold. As for Rossami's clain of inherent unverifiability pretty much every entry in Google for Ditheral refers to the Liberal Party of Canada unless it is a spelling mistake on an unrelated page. -Palmerston
    • Mr. Dithers doesn't deserve its own article either — the only reason it's had one as long as it has is that nobody knew it was here. Unless they're caught instantly by RC patrol, there's virtually no way to know these things exist if they're not filed in a category. And besides, the Paul Martin reference is an entirely secondary meaning of the term; any article on it has to, at minimum, mention that the original (and vastly more widely known) use of the name refers to Dagwood's boss in the comic strip Blondie. Paul Martin can be a side note in an article about that meaning; he can't be the main article at that title. As for my "accusation", well, let's see here. Does it actually in any significant way impair your personal reputation or your ability to function in life? No, it does neither; and those are the basic criteria under which any court of law would require a statement to be retracted. It requires a wild leap of logic to turn "this person is assuming that I'm a supporter of a perfectly legal political party with a fairly solid level of popular support" into some kind of libel, especially when logic compels the conclusion that a Liberal Party supporter would never think that an unflattering nickname for their own party deserved any more attention than it was already getting, and it would never even occur to a New Democrat to even consider an unflattering nickname for any political party to be encyclopedia material (we're way too earnest and goody-two-shoes for that.) So unless you can somehow provide evidence that you've been materially damaged in some way by the assertion, there'll be no retractions from me. Bearcat 18:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Relist I voted NDP this morning and, yes, I consider it a libel to be called a Conservative. Please retract the Conservative accusation as well as the accusation that I am "too earnest and goody-two-shoes". Seriously, what's with the Pigeonholeing and name-calling? Regarding Mr. Dithers... you state that the Paul Martin reference is secondary; in fact Google has the Paul Martin reference first and foremost amoung the natural search results. Anyway, that's not the issue. The issue is Ditherals and your lack of respect for due process. Please relist Ditherals and next time don't be so eager to jump to conclustions about editors. Perhaps your Wiki-authorities should be reconsidered-Palmerston
      • I do not have a "lack of respect for due process". I assessed the article in a specific way, and acted in accordance with my assessment. You're free to disagree with that assessment. You're free to nominate the item for reconsideration as you have done here. That does not mean I'm ignoring due process; this is the due process in such a situation. (And you still have to prove that you've suffered actual material damage to have a legitimate libel claim. Never mind that my assertion about the earnestness of NDPers involved the word "we"; I'm making fun of myself as much as anyone else.) Bearcat 19:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist. IMHO this does not qualify as an attack page. howcheng {chat} 19:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • According to Bearcat, "this is the due process in such a situation." No it isn't. There was no due process for Ditherals and there is no due process for Ditherals because Ditherals has already been deleted. Due process cannot come ex post facto. I therefore ask you to agree to a relisting of Ditherals so that due process in the deletion process can begin with a proper appliction of Wiki's rules. -Palmerston
    • Comment: You are incorrect. Due process in this case includes all aspects of Misplaced Pages's deletion process - specifically including the speedy deletion process. I disagree with his application of the process in this specific situation but there definitely is a process and he followed it. Rossami (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-11

Valhalla Legends

Being a fairly inexperienced Wikipedian, I will defer to experience if appropriate, however:

The article on Valhalla Legends has been deleted following a . The reasons given by many of the delete voters expose the fact that many/most of them really are not at all familiar with the subject matter at hand.

  • Valhalla Legends is not a gaming clan ("Yet another frag-fest clan"/"gamercruft" is deeply inaccurate)
  • The clan is most certainly notable for the achievements of its members over the years
  • Said achievements are verifiable.

Admittedly, the clan exists within a rather small niche, but I don't see that as being a reason not to have a page on the subject. I accept that the page may have suffered from some vanity in the past, however, the changes I made last week were more than enough to address that. Considering that most of the voters were not familiar with subject, and that most of the keep votes were dismissed as 'sock-puppeting' by the deleting administrator, I'd like this deletion to be reconsidered.

Harrym 11:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • It is within the right of a AFD closer to discount votes by new people (reason being that they wouldn't be sufficiently familiar with Misplaced Pages to know what belongs here and that new accounts can be made simply to try and sway the vote. That said, if this not a gaming clan, then what kind of clan is it and can you provide sources that talk about those verifiable achievements you mention? We can't just take your word for it. - Mgm| 12:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok - that seems fair.

The clan is primarily a programming clan, although its membership requirements focus more on proficiency in a technical area:

... most of Valhalla Legends' members have been highly technical. Over half of the members have some solid programming skills while the rest are knowledgeable and/or experienced in networking, hacking, cracking, or were simply legendary in some way on Battle.net during its history.

The clan has not, and has never been, a gaming clan. More here.

BNLS is a little hard to verify, however, it seems that it has its own wikipedia page. Perhaps that counts in its favour. The only reliable information about the use of the service would come from the operators of the service - ie, clan members - and so might not be considered reliable. The following Google search has some useful information, most notably the protocol spec. The system is used by many people, as evidenced by the number of bots that use it, and the number of people asking for help!

BnetDocs is the community's primary source of technical information about Battle.net and its related protocols. The huge majority of the information on the site has been reverse-engineered by clan members. The site regularly has 40-60 unique visitors per day, and has over a 1000 registered users. It is maintained by a group of volunteers (not all of whom are members). I run the site, and am able to provide usage logs if that's useful. Hundreds of protocol messages for 4 different proprietary protocols are documented. This is a considerable volume of work which mostly originates from the activities of clan members. It is, in other words, a notable accomplishment.

On a historical note, one of the earliest third-party clients (perhaps the first) for Battle.net was written by a clan member, although, this is largely unverifiable considering the lack of reliable documentation.

I do not consider the clan to be of any great historical importance, however, it is most certainly notable within its niche. I feel that WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia applies. I recognise that things such as these can be hard to verify, and I'm happy to do my best to address any specific questions or concerns.

Primarily, I just object to the article being deleted on the basis of such an uninformed vote.

Harrym 14:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - I found the AfD flawed: clearly this page and BNLS are closely related, since BNLS is only used on vH, but the question of how the information then contained in the two articles should best be covered was thought out by few of the participants. I'm leaning towards undelete and list together with BNLS. I'd also say that I think that developer communities are pretty much inherently more noteworthy participant than fancruftish gamer communities, certainly the two sorts of community should not be confused. --- Charles Stewart 15:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. If this is more than just a gaming clan, then most of the delete votes should be given less weight. Combined with the overlooked "keep" vote of user Oscarthecat, this is probably a no-consensus. Undelete and give it a chance to get cleaned up, with some information on how it is not merely a gaming clan, before tossing it back to AfD. I'm not convinced it will survive an AfD even then, but I think the new information warrants giving it another shot without the "gamecruft" voters. Turnstep 03:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That is the problem, because as far as I can see it is a gaming clan - at least from the linked site -
    "Valhalla Legends is a Battle.Net clan that wears the tag . The purpose of the clan is to provide for its members a single place to gather and talk"
  • Not only that but the basically same argument given here is the same one that replaced the nomination halfway through (), so I think the users had more than enough time to look at. I'll give JIP a message though and endorse whatever (s)he says. WhiteNight 04:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is a gaming clan aspect to the site, but according to the posting distribution it is principally a developer's forum . It appears to be much more than a gaming clan. --- Charles Stewart 17:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know... it still appears to me like a gaming clan that does occasional development, which was highlighted during the debate. I'll admit that I can understand how it could be taken differently, I just don't know if this is a somewhat clever attempt to make it appear as something different then it really is. If we do undelete this I think (re)listing both of them as you say is the best way to go. WhiteNight 00:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • These kinds of content issues are best sorted out on AfD anyway: all that is needed to go back to AfD is to think that there is a high probablity that it will result in a different outcome to the one that resulted in the appeal here. I think we are likely to keep vL and delete BNLS. --- Charles Stewart 00:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Alright, Undelete and (re)list both WhiteNight 00:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, relist and list BNLS on AfD - My, I convinced RN before I convinced myself! --- Charles Stewart 01:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Thanks. I think this is a good decision. I'll clarify the above poster's concern over tags: Battle.net was, and still is to some extent, the place where most of the clan members congregate and talk. Of course, many members do play games. That, however, is not the primary purpose of the clan. Harrym 10:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-10

Online Gaming League

Please undelete the "Online Gaming League" (online electronic sports). I'm unsure why the article was deleted however, other gaming leagues such as CAL and CPL are listed as Online Games and Leagues that cover these games. OGL was the first of it's kind and certainly should not be deleted if other gaming leagues are allowed to remain (such as CAL and CEVO and CPL). Please review this and undelete OGL (Online Gaming League). January 11, 2006 1:27 PM EST.

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)

I've restored it. At the time the target didn't exist (see its log). —Cryptic (talk) 04:27, 11 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)
        • How would the template be useful for that purpose? Of those opposed to the war on drugs, wouldn't you expect a disproportionate number of them to be in favor of decriminalization? If you're interested in writing an article, according to Misplaced Pages's Neutral point of view, you need to find people with relevant expertise and a reasonably diverse range of opinions, or at least some detachment from the subject, but how could this single-opinion template help you to find them? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
          • NPOV requires presenting all sides of an issue and sourcing the information. This template would help find people who are likely to know sources of information about decriminalization. There is nothing about NPOV that says editors have to have to be detached from a subject. In fact, I would argue that editors who are more passionate about a subject write better articles. --Tiger Marc 14:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Are users here not allowed to disagree with US policy? There after all are for personal user pages. Userboxes are for expressing personal opinion and I don't see how you can find a valid reason for the censorship of them. -james_anatidae 04:44, 12 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)
        • Why should we care what a user's view of the EU is? I could understand a template saying a user was interested in the EU, or otherwise more knowledgeable than usual about it, but when it comes to creating an NPOV encyclopedia I don't see the use in keeping track of views like this. Bryan 01:53, 12 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)
      • No, it does not mention the government of any country, nor does it represent any policy of any government as "illegal immigration". The War on Drugs template, on the other hand, specifically references a well known US government policy by name, and links to an article that says: The War on Drugs is an initiative undertaken in the United States to carry out an "all-out offensive" (as President Nixon described it) against the prohibited use of certain legally controlled drugs. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:57, 11 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)
              • The term "protected speech" gives the game away, really. Misplaced Pages policy does not protect free speech. The only speech you're guaranteed to be able to make here is that which serves the purpose of building an encyclopedia, and I honestly don't see how expressing your personal opinion on political matters is helping that. When it comes to denigration, we do have a policy in place against attacks, so why do we allow them here? User pages aren't homepages, if you want a webhost of those there is a list somewhere. Go on, get yourself a homepage and make all the political statements you want. If you want to do that in a community, go to myspace or something. Let's use this space to build and encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:51, 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)
  • Keep Deleted as has been said, these go well beyond the scope here, are disruptive and are nothing more than bumperstickers that set a poor precedent. If you want to say that you are against something or hate something write it in your userpage and you'll probably get away with it. These are in general Misplaced Pages template space and don't belong. There's no free speech/protected speech there. Rx StrangeLove 04:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete All. Political userboxes in general have already passed a vote for deletion. The Ungovernable Force 04:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongest Possible Undelete, or you might as well delete WP:CSD. karmafist 06:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete all so I can go to TfD and vote for deleting them there. The way to keep stuff like that deleted is to convince people why it should be. This SD/DRV method of short-circuiting the usual deletion procedure is annoying the people involved and hurting our chances of reaching a consensus. Please, please stop. - Haukur 07:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    And note that by deleting first and discussing second you're taking non-admins out of the loop since only admins can view deleted material and thus make an informed comment on whether it should be kept deleted. Cross-posted to Tony's talk page :) - Haukur 09:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted Is there a good reason to keep these templates? How does "I think Bush is a Neo-Nazi pigdog" and "Bush is my hero" (I know, neither of those phrases excist in userboxes.) help further our goal of writing an encylopedia? I'm not against userboxes, some of them make me laugh out loud (a good thing :)) but these really strong, and controversial pov ones just divide people. Dont let wikipedia become like many other places on the web, where "libs" and "cons" spend their time slugging it out, hurling abuse at one another. P.S. I do agree fully with the above comment though. Banes 09:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've produced a gallery of the templates as they appeared when I speedied them. Only a few categories have been removed; the templates are as you would have seen them on a user page.
    Thank you, I applaud you for that. - Haukur 10:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete all and discuss them at TFD. Calling a template where the user says he is against the war on drugs as an "attack template" is over the top. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete All As a person with an MBA, even though wiki is not-for-profit, let me tell you the same principles apply here as in business. Userboxes help users (employees) write an encyclopedia the same way Barnstars do: They make users (employees) feel good (through self-expression) and make them more likely to contribute. Also, neophytes, like me, learn about technical things (programming syntax, how to upload images, fair use, etc.) in the course of making userboxes. It's an enlightened management decision to keep them. Regardless, please take note that, per my request, {{User Anti-UN}} and {{User Anti-ACLU}} have been temporarily undeleted and modified so as to not "attack". I request that they be removed from the list of "attack" templates up for deletion.
  • Keep Deleted and re-delete re-created ones. --Pjacobi 14:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy - listing controversial speedies on WP:DRV is the right thing to do, endorse per reasons given by nominator. --- Charles Stewart 15:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The original appearance and current status of all the templates is here:
    User:Tony Sidaway/Attack speedies, 2006-01-10
  • The upshot is that nearly all speedied articles were resurrected in a form without the attacks, two of the most extreme remain deleted, and one or two milder ones were recreated. I'm happy with that and so it seems, by and large, is the community. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep deleted -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, there's no point in keeping track of a user's POV unless it's causing problems with his or her editing (in which case I doubt these boxes will be much use). Bryan 01:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist on TFD, users are entitled to an opinion. Stifle 15:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The deletion process seems to have been inverted. Now, userboxes are being speedily deleted and then people are left to argue about it afterwards without being able to see the actual template. Speedy deletion is only for cases where it is obvious that the userbox would be soundly defeated at the tfd page. With the level of the debate here I think it is obvious that were these listed at tfd, there would not be an overwhelming majority to delete. Please follow the tfd process from now on. Speedy deletion causes nothing but strife within the wikipedia community. With a transparent tfd process, even the inclusionist will see that process has been followed and will not have as much reason to be upset. Divisive userboxes have a possiblity to be harmful - the userbox wars are destroying the wikipedia community. Please use tfd from now on.--God of War 22:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    The templates as they originally were when speedied were placed into a gallery by me: User:Tony Sidaway/Attack speedies, 2006-01-10. I think it's been established that attack userboxes can be speedied, although for now they should probably be brought here. Attacks aren't permitted on Misplaced Pages, and I see no reason to start permitting them now. When you chose your username, perhaps you might have chosen a less obvious one. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That is factually incorrect. Of all the templates that you speedied only one is still deleted. Attack or no attack, everyone will be happier if you use the tfd.--God of War 07:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete all Over the top. People should be able to make their political views heard. NPOV does not apply to user pages - UK Bourbons3 11:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The templates in question are not in userspace. I don't think it's safe to assume that public template content, which is intended to be propagated throughout the wiki, has the same relative freedom of content as userspace content (this caveat would also apply to userfied templates that were still intended to be referenced from other userpages--it's the intent that matters). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete all - unspeedy minds should not be given speedy powers. TCorp 16:18, 17 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)
  • Okay, why did nothing show up in the deletion logs when I checked? I thought there was some sort of error. Anywho, oppose deletion on most of them. I'll have to review some, but the idea that userboxes should be uniformly banned from disagreement with the subject is simply wrong. Rogue 9 04:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted For the same reasons as the other group. Comments are on the next section up if you'd care to look. Rx StrangeLove 04:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted Per above. Except the "jerk" one, that is self depracatory. Banes 09:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted and re-delete re-created ones. --Pjacobi 14:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have undeleted {{User GWB2}} as it is celarly an expression of opnion on specificv policy actions, not an "attack on Bush". Unless all political PoV statements are to be banned from user space, this clearly is not over the line. DES 19:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore and Use Process if you want them deleted, not speedy stuff. I think they aren't attacks so much as expressions of aversion. Some of them are perhaps over the top. They shouldn't be a block. James S. 20:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete all. If templates like 'user jerk' are used as a personal attack treat the attack as such (warn user and remove) but don't delete the template. The others are mostly expressions of opinions or just meant to be funny. Except: keep deleted 'attack' on Jimbo if he sees it as such.--Fenice 07:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete user jerk. Come on, I used it to describe myself. As long as a person uses it themselves, I see nothing wrong with it. WikiFanatic 01:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete all - Welcome to the land where freedom of expression is speedy crushed. TCorp 16:22, 17 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)
  • UNDELETE and relist at TfD. The problem here is that this is not the first out of process deletion Tony has done, and he has said (in so many words) that it won't be the last. In this case the template discussion was only a few hours away from being over. This should be brought back and the discussion allowed to run its course, and then properly closed with proper notices. There seem to be a few admins that think that process is unimportant, that their view of the "good of wikipedia" trumps everything else and they can speedy anything they want... I think that's incorrect. WP:IAR is not an excuse to trample anyone or anything that is "in your way". I am not the only person that thinks that either, given that there seems to be a number of RfCs and RfArs lately addressing this very topic. We have WP:NPA for very good reasons, but we have WP:BITE for a reason too. Process is the way to ensure the perception of fairness is maintained. As WP grows, there will be more need for process, or it won't scale. Admins who think the process is flawed should be working to change it, not trample it. (there is an ongoing and robust discussion of Userbox policy as we speak) ++Lar: t/c 04:56, 12 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)
  • Keep Deleted Forever, per all of the above. Banes 09:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep deleted: Inherently divisive, prone to invite abuse, not conducive to civility, etc. Ombudsman 22:16, 15 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)
  • Keep deleted - until someone outside of Ebaumsworld and YTMND cares about "the raid." FCYTravis 03:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's quite possible to just take screenshots to ensure verificability. The LL front page has a list of recent news articles (visible when not signed in) that were posted and upvoted by LL users; where else would these articles come from if there was not a userbase at the site? In any case, I and probably several other people would be willing to provide screenshots or mirrors to any LL content requird for "verificability." —shoecream 05:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Not only is there no way to know that the screenshots weren't created in Photoshop, but even if they weren't, they'd be primary sources. Misplaced Pages requires secondary sources so that we don't run afoul of WP:NOR. —Cryptic (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I can think of a few secondary sources off the top of my head; I believe some blogs and perhaps a news site reported the UFO hoax, so there's at least a few secondary sources to prove that it exists and has actually done something notable. shoecream 05:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Blogs are not generally considered reliable sources for the purposes of verification. News sites get closer but it depends on the site, their reputation and the longevity of their information. A single news site is almost always considered inadequate since it requires multiple independent coverages in order to have any reasonable expectation of a balanced perspective on the issue. Rossami (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn: The GameFAQs community as a whole does not regard LL as a part of GameFAQs, they played a major organizing role in the eBaums schism, and the inaccessability to outsiders hasn't stopped WP from having articles about groups such as Freemasonry. Steve McLinden 00:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    That's because there are a wealth of verifiable and reliable secondary sources which document the activities of such "secret" groups. There are no such sources available discussing LUElinks, hence Misplaced Pages cannot have an encyclopedic article on it. FCYTravis 06:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and protected. Constant vandalism target; inherently unverifiable subject prone to original research when a "real" article. Badly fails WP:WEB. More original research after the afd is not a convincing reason to overturn. As for the redirect, there was absolutely nothing wrong with the deletion process at WP:RFD. —Cryptic (talk) 02:08, 13 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)

Well this is the problem with categories http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Richard_Kiel&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Richard_Kiel What good does a category do if the resistance is so great that a name cannot be added, even after offering evidence it belongs?For this reason a list was much better, as it did not require altering the person's page.If it was shut down prematurely as Christopher Parham suggested, I would be interested in learning why. California 12011:19, 15 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)



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)
    • No? Who says so? Before this is repeated over and over and over again, let me point out for a second time that I've tried to describe the problem I see at this discussion page. <KF> 18:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      • 80% is not a consensus. Kingturtle 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I will normally close 10K / 21D as a delete, and so will many other admins. This is far stronger than that. DES 17:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Not that much stronger. 9/3 means a 25% keep. If one single person had decided that the page was worth a keep instead of a delete, the vote would be 8/4, or a 33% keep. Or a less than 70% consensus for deletion, and it is very likely that the closing admin might have changed their evaluation. Seems a shame that a three-year old article's fate can swing on a single voter like that. Turnstep 03:39, 12 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)
  • Endorse closure. FWIW, I'm one of those 100+ who edited the list, and also one of the nine who voted to delete for the reasons given in the AfD. -Sean Curtin 00:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and re-list. I am particularly worried about the closing admin's comment "Yikes, this article was almost three years old!": are we to take it that all the old articles should be cleared out to make room? Also note that the "discussion" took place over the New Year holiday, which makes it less likely that people were available to notice that it was taking place. The comment "anything that classes Rincewind and Thomas Covenant as the same sort of person is too vague" implies that the editor has failed to appreciate the point of what an anti-hero is. Lastly, the discussion raises the worry that the old nastiness of "list-cruft, die, die, die!" is rearing its ugly head again: there are many precedents for having lists on Misplaced Pages, we even have featured lists for crying out loud. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Mostly excellent points, but I understood the closing admins intent was to say: now we see that the article isn't worthy of inclusion - look how long it's been messing up WP. --- Charles Stewart 11:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • For the record, if this had not happened around the New Year, I would have more than likely seen it and voted keep. (Of course, other deletionists may have also voted, but at least I've be a little happier with a larger number of people participating). Turnstep 03:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure Having watched the article in question degenerate into a list of people who aren't perfectly virtuous, I voted to have it deleted because I felt it was a lost cause. Any attempt at a List of fictional anti-heroes would be better off starting from scratch. -Rjo 11:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I wonder why nobody has done the obvious thing with this article, and undeleted an early version, keeping the more recent nonsense deleted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." — George Santayana
    All undeleting an old version of the article would do is reset the clock so that the same problems may repeat themselves. --Allen3  00:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)



2006-01-05

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)

Recently concluded

  1. Saugeen Stripper: Undeleted, relisted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Saugeen Stripper 2. 17:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: Kept deleted. 17:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Godcasting: Relisted, now at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Godcasting 2. 20:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Seth Ravin: Relisted, now at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Seth Ravin 2. 20:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. DND: Never deleted, was moved and has been moved back. 01:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Template:Test7: Redirected to Template:Vandalblock. 18:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Margolinian Satanism: No such article ever existed; another article may have been intended, but no argument or support put forward for its undeletion. 18:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Pussy City Pimps: Undeleted, sent to AfD, deleted, relisted at DRV above. 18:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Image:Fem isa 2.gif: Images cannot be undeleted. This was re-uploaded, evidently without protest. 18:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. User:Tai Streets/Gang stalking: Kept deleted. 18:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Template:User userbox purge: Kept deleted (protected). 18:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Category:Moneyball: Repopulation of category allowed, but will probably be sent to CFD if/when that hapens. 18:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Category:Contemporary philosophers: Undeleted. Currently relisted at WP:CFD. 18:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Bloody Shot: Kept deleted. 17:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. That Guy: Speedily undeleted. Deletion was in error. 17:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Template:Album infobox 2: Kept redirected to Template:Album infobox. 00:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oven rack guard: Kept deleted (protected). 18:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. List of real names of professional wrestlers: Closure of keep endorsed. 18:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Mootstormfront: Closure of Keep endorsed. It has since been turned into a redirect (not an issue for DRV). 18:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. List of wiki farms: Speedy undeleted, listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of wiki farms . 18:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Back Door Sluts 9: Unprotected, now a redirect. 19:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Full Bodying: Kept deleted (already at BJAODN). 19:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Chris Jenny Harrison: Kept deleted. 19:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. WP:RFC/KM: Undeleted; sent to WP:RFD, where it was kept. 19:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Template:User Seigenthaler: Kept deleted (protected). 19:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Template:Help Wikiboxes: Kept deleted (protected). 19:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 Categories: