Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:50, 30 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 administrators will honour requests to provide the content of a deleted article if asked politely. See Category:User undeletion.

History only undeletion

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

Decisions to be reviewed

• WP:DELREVD

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

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

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

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Temporary_undeletion

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

2006-01-29

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

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

• There was some unnecessary heat in that discussion, IMHO, but my take on it was that consensus for delete was there, after factoring out trolls, but it was a fairly close run thing. I think the closing admin acted in good faith, erring on the side of no consensus as a good admin should, yet I'd nevertheless support overturn and delete. Failing that, suggest that you try again in a few weeks. I'd imagine that relisting wouldn't be out of line as the process was pretty contaminated. Often, things go cleanly the second time around, when passions have cooled a little. It's not going to kill WP if it isn't gotten rid of right away. ++Lar: t/c 22:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Still keep. I voted keep in the AFD because this is an interesting topic and a notable phenomenon, and because categories do not serve the same purpose as lists. The gay niggers you noted have contributed to Misplaced Pages in a positive way and it would be ridiculous to discount their votes just because they have an unusual pastime. // paroxysm (n) 22:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Looks like a perfectly good article to me. The existence, in the one full part of the United States that does not have statehood, and moreover the one devoted wholly to government of the United States, of streets (mostly avenues) named after all fifty states of the Union, is no coincidence, and a list of those streets is of encyclopedic value. It is of perhaps as much encyclopedic value as the list of streets of Atlentic City that appear in the US monopoly board, or lists of streets in London that appear in the British version. That is to say: not much, but the net value is positive and the article is unlikely to pose any great maintenance problems. Having said that, R. Fiend may wish to try his luck at a second AfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The existence of a naming scheme for some streets in a city is worth mentioning in an article about the city or an article about the transportation infrastructure/streets of the city ingeneral. On the other hand, a list of the names themselves is simply a list of the names of the U.S. states with "Avenue" appended to each name and has no real value, since, frankly, few of them are worth an actual article (Massachusetts Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue being notable exceptions). --Calton | Talk 02:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Rerun AFD or delete looks like the AfD got hijacked by some GNAA members, and then the closing admin forgot to discount their votes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per Lar. I don't like smearing contributors as "GNAA", and I'd suggest that R. fiend be more civil than usual when dealing with people you suspect are troublemakers. You play into a their hands when you shout "Troll!", howcheng's approach was the better one here. That being said, the arguements to delete were clearly superior. - brenneman 23:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete without prejudice to the closing admin, R. fiend is corrct, we keep saying 'not a vote but a discussion' well the strength of this discussion was delete - no real case was made to do otherwise. --Doc 23:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• If VFD really is a discussion, not a vote, there is nothing wrong with this article. Keep. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, that was a non-sequitor. --Calton | Talk 02:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It was the truth. If you don't like the truth, you can leave. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Like R. Fiend says, many reasons given for deleting, not much for keeping. And if the contributions of GNAA have to be proven rather than assumed good, then they're wasting everyone's time here, and goodbye and good riddance to 'em. --Calton | Talk 02:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Well I've found yet another way to violate the OMG SANCTITY OF AFD. You can ban me now. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close. I see nothing untoward in the Admin’s decision to close this as no consensus. There are obviously plenty of good arguments for articles and lists of this type, such as those provided by TS above, or some that were made in the AfD. Of course, if we are going to discount the GNAA's contributions, we might have started with the 100 or so skirmishes in the "war on blogs". I mean how much of a discussion and consensus is generated by a bunch of users competing to come up with new turns on the word cruft as they shoot down the latest "pod" or blog article...but I digress. -- JJay 03:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close - as Lar points out above, its probably simplest to just relist this in a month and see what happens then. There are so many worse articles out there, why waste more energy on this one? Turnstep 04:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Don't delete The new vote is going heavily in favor of keeping. Golfcam 04:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh yea, the "new vote", created with what certainly appears to be bad faith without even mentioning it here. I'd encourage all concerned to visit Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C. (second nomination).
    brenneman 05:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Nevermind, I already closed it as a bad faith nomination. We can talk about reopening it, if necessary, after this discussion is concluded. It might not be necessary at all. We'll see. -R. fiend 05:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

User:KJVTRUTH

• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:KJVTRUTH

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

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

• Hello! This page is for reviewing the deletion decisions of pages that have already been removed. WP:AN/I is more appropriate for complaints like this regarding pages that still exist, though I urge you to reconsider, as his user page is not considered part of the encyclopedia and doesn't actually have to conform to NPOV. If you feel the user has made edits that are pushing a POV, please continue to try and work it out him/her on their talk page before going to WP:AN/I for intervention. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No, per the yellow boxes just up there, this page reviews decisions to both delete and not-delete articles. -Splash 17:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Whoops! Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• I disagree. It may be appropriate to discuss here whether I made the right decsion in closing the MD listing for this userpage. I think I made the right decision, but it was an unusual one. There are other views and perhaps this would be an appropriate venue in which to air them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• I think Tony shouldn't have done that; there was a sensible discussion going on and he just pulled the rug out, while as usual he could have achieved the same effect with less disruption by waiting for two days. But this has been pointed out several times before, and apparently he doesn't really care if he needlessly upsets others. That said, the point is moot since the MFD would (very likely) have resulted in a keep anyway (5d, 4k), so I call WP:SNOW on this one and request to keep undeleted. Radiant_>|< 17:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a little bit naughty of you to recast this close as some display of callous indifference (I'd say it's almost a personal attack in the manner in which it's framed, but never mind). If as seems evident this was a content dispute, then the article should not have been listed for deletion and a close was in the interests of the community. I don't think we should entertain the rather drastic step of having users list one another's userpages for deletion when an edit would perform the job quite adequetely. .And Radiant! hasn't done his homework, either, before setting out deliberately to smear a fellow administrator. I acted after the issue of the MD was discussed on WP:AN and the consensus was that it was an inappropriate way to resolve a content dispute . Which is precisely what I said in closing it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Wow, you're having a lot of fun accusing people of deliberate smearing campaigns lately. Ever heard of WP:FAITH? Radiant_>|< 20:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You made a false accusation without any basis. You made that false accusation not only here but in WP:AN/I. At no point did you approach me to ask on what basis I made my decision, but simply assumed that I had conjured it up out of thin air. Whatever happened to good faith, indeed! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      • C'mon guys. Both of you know better than to bicker this way, and either of you could turn the other cheek first if you wanted to. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 20:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse the admin's decision to close the discussion. The user page should never have been listed for deletion on the ostensible basis of verifiability and neutrality. Tom Harrison 18:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep undeleted but smack admin with a trout and with no prejudice against relisting. The discussion on WP:AN used as the obstensible support for the closing shows no such consensus. The MfD had appropiate discussion taking place. We don't just shut down discussion because we think it's silly, and a little forethought would have revealed that a) This MfD was probably going to be a "keep" and b) Closing it early was sure to be contentious. I'm at a loss as to why this venue is an acceptable place to discuss it but that venue was not. - brenneman 23:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Question: Can someone give me a link to the specific discssion at WP:AN? It didn't jump out at me there. I'm undecided about this, but I don't want it to be seen as a precedent that user pages are immune from the deletion process. -R. fiend 23:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure. WP:AN#Soapboxing_and_user_pages at the time of writing. Discussion was 18:34, 25 Jan to 13:02, 26 Jan, and I took action the following morning at around 0400.. But although the conclusion of the discussion was a clear feeling that the listing was inappropriate, the discussion at the time isn't really the point. Maybe the discussion missed something. Should we just let people list one another's userpages for deletion just like any other non-article content page? The discussion was only a way of getting a eat-of-pants feel as to whether to intervene at that time. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep undeleted but smack admin with a trout, as said above by Aaron. (Or maybe, given that that admin is constantly doing this, we should use something bigger. Anyone got a spare whale we can borrow? FearÉIREANN\ 00:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

SNK Boss Syndrome

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

• Tony's having fun with bluelinks again. But you think those links in the AfD are references? Please: not a one of them mentions the term! -Splash 17:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  Nevertheless, I plan to improve this article somewhat if its undeleted; its a common enough term to be useful at wikipedia, as well as a good reference concerning articles to the reader. -Zero 17:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  If you think the article can be improved, why not give it a go? Adding verifiable references to the article would address the main reason for deletion. the article has been temporarily restored and is unprotected. This debate will run for a few days and then it'll be deleted permanently again if there is no reason to keep it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  It already has been, apparently. It's no good to Misplaced Pages if you can't find reliable sources that use the terminology. At least think of a proper title for it. Misplaced Pages is not a how-to guide. -Splash 17:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  Hmm. How about merging the relevant info into the SNK article, fighting -genre article, or King of Fighters artcle....? Keep the terminology and information. -Zero 17:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  You asked for a deletion review. I'm saying I don't see why this has been undeleted before anyone comments on the request and without the offer of sources. Can you provide a reliable source using the terminology? If you can't, the material shouldn't be merged anywhere and should be re-deleted. -Splash 17:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  Actually he may have a point. If the boss behavior ascribed to particular boss characters in the article is verifiable, maybe the material could be usefully merged to SNK if it's not already there. Just a thought. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  Yes. I imagine the actual behaviours are verifiable easily enough, but I don't yet see a source that collects those behaviours together into this 'syndrome' and that creates this syndrome as something that can then be applied to other characters. That is, I was objecting to the part of Zero's comment that says "keep the terminology". -Splash 17:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  I'll look into that. But the 10th anniversary website even states that SNK bosses are purposely created with overwhelming difficulty in mind. That said, I've created a namspace section for its furthur discussion: User:MegamanZero/SNK Boss Syndrome proto-pending. This is certainly valid facts and information, and we as a comprehensive encyclopedia cannot allow it to go to waste. -Zero 17:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  We can if you can't find reliable sources for it. -Splash 18:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  You've also just executed a copy-paste move into your userspace. We should delete that, move the original article there, and then delete its redirect. Wait — that's the way we usually do this! What a good idea! -Splash 18:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  Not for the terminolgy. But the facts are indeed correct. "A half- or full-screen super move that inflicts rated damage values of 1/3 of the opponent's maximum health if unblocked, and 1/6 if blocked (i.e. Don Duke's Ground Zero, Igniz's Chaos Tide).", a very true statement. I am suggesting a "merge", if you will, into a parent article, allowing these analysis be attributed to respective articles. I'm waiting for discussion regarding this. -Zero 18:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  I don't mind if you add information about the particular levels of damage done by particular characters' particular moves to their articles. (Although it's more than a little crufty.) I do mind if you label that information as evidence of this Syndrome, or use a simple description of the move to create the Syndrome, when the only sources I cna find for this 'Syndrome' are mailing list posts, that are hardly reliable sources. -Splash 18:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  Splash, I'm not inquiring for your "permission" on this matter. Furthurmore, I cannot see how statistic information from a video game is crufty. Truthfully, I don't care for the Title/label of the article, I'm concerned about the content and how it can be imformative to the reader. They are true, and one way or another this should stay in its compiled status in mainspace. I'm currently thinking of a section in the SNK article dedicated to it. -Zero 18:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  <reset indent>You don't need to inquire for permission, but you do need to realise that you don't get to add to unverifiable material to articles. Period. You appear to be asserting that you do, adn that to remove it is censorship. -Splash 18:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Saying the damage percentile set by the game's programmers is unverifiable material is a untrue statement. Why not retain the info, make mention of its fan origins, and merge into another article..? I'll agree the opening thesis is incorrect in making it sound as if it is a official term or whatnot, but the core information is indeed true. I don't see what you're getting at here. -Zero 19:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, please take a few minutes to re-read the verifiability policy. Verifiable does not mean "a well-supported opinion." Verifiable does not mean "can be proved true." The policy says Misplaced Pages articles "should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher. " You cannot say any about damage levels, etc. on your personal authority, not even if someone could "verify" them by playing the game. That's not what's mean by verifiability. What you must do is find published sources, e.g. a game magazine, that has published these facts, and cite these sources. "Verifiable" means that someone can find the source--go to a library and check out that copy of the magazine--and see that it really jibes with the way it is used in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure/keep deleted. Validly deleted in process. Comments in the discussion were well-founded, closure was reasonable. The article had no source citations whatsoever and was in violation of our verifiability policy. If Zero didn't keep a copy, provide him with a copy of the deleted article. He should overhaul the article offline or in his own user space. When it meets our policies on verifiability and citing sources, and not before, he can re-create the article without prejudice. (It would be a really good idea for him to ask some other editors to review the work in progress before re-creating the article). To undelete a main-namespace article that is pure, unsourced opinion, and has been properly voted for deletion, is to make a mockery of the verifiability policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• KD, I see no reason to doubt the claims that this is original research. Especially the exact damage percentages cited make for a doubtful definition. Radiant_>|< 17:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted unless and until someone can provide reliable sources. I note the error of the undeletion is already apparent: MegamanZero is insisting on Talk:SNK Boss Syndrome that we must suspend WP:V for several days because to do otherwise would be...wait for it...censorship. -Splash 18:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • How does Zero's expressed opinion on a talk page demonstrate "the error of the undeletion"? I notice that he's objecting to your removal of unverified stuff from the article, but he's not acting in any untoward way, though his opinion is obviously different from yours on the appropriateness of reomving the unverified information from the article at this stage. I tend to agree with you that the material sould remain off the article page until it can be verified and, if verification is possible, Zero will go to it. If edit warring should get out of hand, the article can be protected in the usual way. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I had to edit war briefly to get the unverified material to stay out, and was told that, since undeletion was being discussed, we had to keep all the material in the article because an undeletion overrides WP:V (which your undeletion did, after all, but not in the same sense). A userfication, as is far more appropriate in such cases wouldn't have that kind of issue. -Splash 20:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• KD - The more I think about it, the more I think it'd be better just to put an "SNK Boss" section in, say, List of fighting game terms mentioning it'd be slightly opinionated, though the term "SNK boss" has certainly been used before. (I've put a note to this effect in the talk page.) --Yar Kramer 18:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse colsure and keep deleted. Valid process, and I think the right decision as well. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 23:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Colony5

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

• Undelete per my nom. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 05:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Worth relisting, at the very least, but there doesn't appear to be any basis for deleting the current article. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. There are actually some words in the Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators about this kind of case: "Some opinions can override all others...If a page was to be deleted, but a person finds references for a particular topic or rewrites the article, the page might be kept." It's commonsense, really, and would certainly be strongly indicated where the nominator concedes that the reason for deletion has been addressed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Can I ask that we stop undeleting articles by default when they hit DRV, and that we protect and use the template as suggested in talk? (See discussion advertised above.) - brenneman 12:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I note your request. Why do you want this article protected and hidden? Do you suspect abuse? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's interesting, because I'd think seeing the deleted material would make sense in coming to a consensus as to what to do. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not about keeping the article hidden. Generally, the process is to post the article text here (if it's a one-sentence wonder) or to put it in someone's userspace (generally the person requesting undeletion). This way, the text is available for the duration of the DRV, but it doesn't show up in "random article", etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Is there a particular reason why this article, which is clearly marked as under review, should not show up on Random article? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes. It's an article deleted following due process, which is in a limbo state during an appeal process. Theres more reason not to have it on random article (and search and mirrors) than to have it. The solution you employed at list of LBU people was, IMO, the right one. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 23:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      • If I followed the alternative solution then it could not be edited, which I think would be a net loss. Since its deletion status is being queried, and it may well be possible by editing to improve it and make it a better article, more fit for Misplaced Pages, I don't see the mere procedural concept of limbo as useful. It sounds like a game of grandmother's footsteps or musical chairs were everyone has to freeze when the music stops. Misplaced Pages isn't a bloody silly game, it's an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Up to a point, Lord Copper. If it wasn't fixed during AfD, I'd say it is unlikely to be fixed during DRV. Yes, it's an encyclopaedia. And that means unencyclopaedic content gets deleted. And ought really to remain so, at least at the surface level, until there is oncsensus to undelete. Which often there is not. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 23:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      • But what purpose is served by keeping deleted while we discuss, in good faith, whether deletion was the correct thing to do in this instance? I'm just not seeing a clear reason here except "because AfD voted it so." Well we're deciding whether AfD got it wrong. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per above. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 23:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-27

Template:User_ku_klux

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

• Extremely Strong Undelete. It is outrageous that this was speedied when it was obvious that a clear consensus to keep was developing. In order to avoid sounding like a bureaucrat, I also re-present my argument: "Offensive and POV, but in userspace. It also helps identify what could be biased edits. In any case, it's always best to know thy enemy." - Cuivienen (Return) 04:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Once again I agree with Cuivienen. There is nothing in that userbox that violates policy, and it isn't even POV. There was a clear consensus to keep, so why was it deleted? -Chairman S. 04:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You seem to be confused about Misplaced Pages policy. There is no 9th Amendment in effect here. You don't have a natural right to create or use certain templates. Templates (and policies as well!) are created if and when they are needed to advance or facilitate the goal of writing an encyclopedia. This template is not only useless, it has the clear potential to offend and divide the community, and its continued presence would send the wrong signal to newcomers. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The template is an orphan--nobody is including it on his userpage--and it was created by Zanee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has been blocked as a sock of Batzarro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a vandal who put penis pictures on people's userpages. If we get a KKK member who edits Misplaced Pages with civility and wants to make a userbox template like this, then we'll address the issue without any question of bad faith; this is not that occasion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• You seem to be forgetting that DRV is NOT TFD. Also, this template hasn't been around long enough for anyone to find it.--God of War 04:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What can I say? it's a troll! In the absence of any evidence that there are KKK members who want to use it, I'd say it was created for the purposes of disruption. Sorry you don't get to vote on what is and isn't disruption. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist. Process is Important, and the consensus seemed to be leaning towards Keep at the time this was deleted. I'm very concerned about the precedents being set here. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist, definitely out-of-process. --Andy Saunders 04:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, appropriate speedy deletion of troll template. If you want people to pay more attention to process, simultaneously ensuring that our processes facilitate trolls and vandals is probably not the way to go. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Why must everyone insist on being a fucking moron? I had no sympathy for Kelly Martin until I saw this sort of shit, but now a bunch of idiots have actually made me sympathize with her. Now that takes a whole lot of sheer fuckheadedness. Where's my pisstrough? -R. fiend 06:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Keep. Obviously the only harm this template is causing is due to the deletion - restore the template, and whomever wants to can show their affiliation. And please stop speedying userboxes already. Speedy deletion is not a toy. --Dschor 07:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. What the hell does being a KKK member have to do with writing an encyclopedia? I would rather have a racist essay up on user pages that at least attempts to explain KKK membership rather than a quick, moronic, inflamatory trolling template. If it wasn't there to troll then fine, do whatever, its your page...you can decorate it. But your page is on Misplaced Pages, not just some place on the net to put all your BS moronic crap. As editors, we get to have our own cute little page, but using it just to troll with offensive red templates (not that making it blue will help) is idiotic, and permitting this BS, even just to go through a long deletion process, is just a horrid waste of time. It is hard to express this civily...So now any other troll can make BS and it takes takes AFD and DRV and almost two weeks just to get rid of? The voices of reason, grace, truth, and heck even Jimbo stand against this.Voice of All 08:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Is invoking Jimbo the wikipedian version of Godwin's Law? Calling this BS is BS. Leave it alone, and it won't bother anyone. Assume good faith, and please stop trying to make everything a troll. --Dschor 08:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not actually look at the templates history. It was made by this user. Hmm, he has been warned and blocked over other matters. If we allows this nonsense, then EVERYthing can go on Misplaced Pages, any random offensive nonsense with nothing to do with the encyclopedia can go on, and we would be a lot worse of.Voice of All 19:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. This is unacceptable, its creation was clear trolling, and arguments to keep it are in clear violation of WP:POINT. To take a page from Tony's book, if it's recreated I promise to delete it as many times as it takes. -- SCZenz 08:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. The only issue that matters here is whether or not process was violated, and it was. Aaron 09:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, process was not violated by speedily deleting a template promoting hate campaigns. Is anyone even looking at it? This is the KKK we're talking about, that means it's equivalent to a template stating "this user supports murdering people for their skin color". Radiant_>|< 09:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, seems personal attackish to me. Ian_ID:540053 11:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, the fact that "process was violated" is not a reason to stop using common sense. Garion1000 12:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete You can't just have userboxes with anti-KKK opinions. You have to have both sides of the argument available, otherwise its just bias - • Dussst • 12:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There's an anti-kkk userbox? Where is it? I'll speedy it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I thought you would. No, but theres anti-racism ones, which could include an anti KKK one - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • 15:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. If someone wants to display the fact that they're in the KKK, they can write their own text on their user page. Process does not trump common sense. Carbonite | Talk 13:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. In this case, the "out of process" claim is negated by the fact the userbox is a poster child for WP:POINT. –Abe Dashiell 13:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, this was clearly deleted out of process and WP:SNOW doesn't apply since there are people who want to keep it. But it's an orphan, a fact largely ignored by the TfD discussion. If you can produce a single person who wants to use this in good faith then I'm sure Tony will undelete it for you. But this theoretical userbox boundary testing is really getting old - isn't there some way we can stop dancing when the band is composed of trolls? - Haukur 15:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. This is a matter of core policy. Enforcing that, when appropriate, is something that permits going outside the normal order of business. --Improv 16:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, out-of-process perhaps, but history of the template and lack of use show that this is just trying to make a point. I agree that this boundary-pushing as a way to manipulate the userbox debate is getting seriously old, though. We should not be slaves to process. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted This review is more than enough to establish community consensus if delete is the outcome. Don't waste editors time on disruptive WP:Point. --FloNight 19:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong overturn there is no valid reason to speedy delete this template, and IMO not much reaosn to delete it at TfD either. DES 23:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted times one million. My god, you userbox people have been so blinded by the Kelly Martin affair that you think you can have whatever userboxes you want. This box is an offensive piece of crap and I'm glad it's gone. Morgan695 23:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• There is nothing to vote on here. This userbox is clearly in violation of WP:NPA, and until and unless you change that, this box will have to go. As it should. I can't believe anyone is even discussing this. User:Zoe| 00:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Who exactly is this box attacking? WP:NPA forbids personal attacks, which means there must be a person being attacked for that policy to apply. Putting "I am a racist" on a user's own user page is not a PA, so neither is doing so via a template (ingnorign for the moment any question about whether all KKK members are in fact racists, most of them surely are, IMO). DES 00:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, unused on any user page. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - I in general, being a process wonk (I think I need a userbox for that! KIDDING!), oppose out of process action, but 9 keeps to 1 delete suggests a lack of common sense in the AfD discussion, not a consensus. Unused, WP:POINT violation, not encyclopedic. But let's be civil in our discussion if we can. ++Lar: t/c 00:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Far out Ummm, keep deleted, smack with a trout everyone who has come within ten feet of this? Bad idea to create it, bad idea to send it to TfD as a "personal attack", bad idea to vote to keep it, bad idea to restore it/delete/whatever again. Please, can we stop with the monkey business of both creating stupid templates and playing around with our admin buttons, and get back to creating content? - brenneman 00:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and forget about it {{db-attack}} applies only to the article namespace; there is no userbox policy right now, so IMHO there's no real reason to delete this. Nobody will use it so it's not a big deal. Ashibaka tock 02:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all polemic userboxes per Jimbo's request. --Cyde Weys 02:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy - highly offensive template created for disruptive purposes. No need for consensus to delete such a template. --- Charles Stewart 02:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I'm a huge fan of due process, sometimes to a fault, but that doesn't mean that I'm an idiot who doesn't know where to draw the line. This speedy and subsequent listing here is making me more and more tempted to try and get a movement to deleting the whole bloody lot of non-Babel userboxes. These boxes have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is an encylopedia, dammit! --Deathphoenix 02:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and appropriately speedied - why does every decision that is to speedy delete a User template - no matter how inappropriate the template is have to be brought to Deletion review - some discretion in what is brought to deletion review would be appreciated by this user Trödel&#149;talk 14:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Deleting a template that is trollish, disruptive and in violation WP:NPA is not out of process. Marskell 14:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - and nuke from orbit. Process is not important when it is used to make a bunch of Wikipedians spend their time bureaucratically defining why a template defining a user as a member of a hate group does not help build the encyclopedia. FCYTravis 22:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted process is a means to an end and in this case nuking it was the right choice. Jtkiefer ---- 22:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, abuse. // paroxysm (n) 22:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy of computer science

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

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

2006-01-26

Maria Pia Braganza and Rosario Poidimani

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

• Comment Which AfD is being contested? Is it Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rosario Poidimani (3 nomination)? --- Charles Stewart 18:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maria Pia of Braganza is now a redirect to Hilda Toledano, and Maria Pia Braganza could be made one too, if that's what is wanted. Rosario Poidimani was nominated at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rosario Poidimani, we also have Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dom Rosario Saxe Coburg Gotha Bragança, which apparently is about the same article, and there's Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rosario Poidimani (3 nomination) which was speedily deleted as a G4 after garnering over 10 delete votes, with a single keep (by the present DRV nominator). I guess what is being asked for is the undeletion of Rosario Poidimani (it's blue because it's protetced with a deletedpage template) which I would presently oppose, at least without being given a good reason that has not yet been stated, and for Hilda Toledano to be moved to Maria Pia of Braganza or Maria Pia Braganza, which is a matter for WP:Requested moves. -R. fiend 18:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Following this, the only matter is the review of the deletion of Rosario Poidimani --- Charles Stewart 19:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - About the claim of poll-stacking: it looks like most delete voters voted delete after being contacted by M.deSousa. I don't know where the idea that they voted delete after being lobbied by Muriel comes from. No evidence for this has been presented. --- Charles Stewart 19:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Note I have changed to the heading so it now links 2 articles instead of one. -R. fiend 19:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes this is Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rosario Poidimani (3 nomination). All the users was advised by Muriel. Please see , , , ,. In all this page you can see this Muriel ask her friends to vote delete in the Rosario Poidimani page.Dom Rosario and Maria Pia of Braganza are considered pretenders also in very very important newspapers international, for example in the New York Time. See here . Please reinsert the Rosario Poidimani page and reinsert the name Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza in her wikipage.Thanks.M.deSousa 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• M.deSousa spammed several talk pages asking people to vote keep and is upset if somebody else does the opposite? I already told him that I would have voted delete if the article hadn't already been deleted. This is the third or fourth time this article has been created, there is no need to continue this process. Keep deleted the Poidimani article, keep as a redirect the Maria Pia article. User:Zoe| 19:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I spammed only because Muriel before of me spammed her wiki-friends pages and asked to delete this page.The mine is only a response to advise the other wiki-users, all many important in wikipedia because I choose them from the main page history. Also the other times Muriel asked to her friends to delete Rosario Poidimani page. This is no democratic votations !!!.M.deSousa 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You spammed random users. You spammed me with your voting campaign and I don't know you or this article. Aside from that, it says in big letters on my talk page: "DO NOT SPAM MY TALK PAGE". Talk about poor judgement. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is right: Muriel contacted all the people who voted delete on the 1st AfD I list below before DeSousa conducted the second ill-fated campaign. It's pretty lousy in my view to contact delete voters without also contacting keep voters. --- Charles Stewart 20:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That is not right: i alerted only and only the users i know are fighting this Rosario/Manuel de Sousa issue for the last years. And please note that i said that vote was back, i didnt give instructions like vote keep as Manuel did to Zoe, for instance (as if she hasnt brains of her own) muriel@pt 14:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This was a messy AfD: called the 3rd Afd but apparently the 2nd on the subject (also there was Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dom Rosario Saxe Coburg Gotha Bragança, which is more readable). However the grounds for concern of those two AfD seems to be still valid: the article is being used to advavance the notability of someone based upon original research about who would be the heir to the Portugese throne, if Portugal was not a republic. I'm concerned about the speedy, however: were the contents substantially the same as those deleted in the first AfD? --- Charles Stewart 20:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Dear Chalst the last version of Rosario Poidimani page is impartial and was this version: <reposting of deleted article re-deleted -- User:Zoe| 22:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)>
• keep deleted. relevant policy: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. muriel@pt 14:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

• As undeletion has been requested and there is a deletion template in the place of the article now, I have performed a history undeletion on Rosario Poidimani. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The newcomer is Sicilian-born Dom Rosario Poidimani, who says he is Dona Maria Pia's nephew. He said he came to Portugal to present his case to his potential subjects and to investigate the possibility of investing in Portugal. He already has investments in the central African Republic, Panama, and Spain.

Dom Rosario said he had a sworn statement from the 79-year-old Dona Maria Pia, written in a quavering hand, in which she passed her dynastic rights to him. He admitted she was experiencing genteel economic distress in Italy, where she lives, and that he had helped her out in return for the gracious document.

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

Jill Jolliffe proving her credulousness twenty years ago doesn't make someone notable, or Poidimani's claims credible. The purported bastard daughter of a king doesn't have the ability to "pass dynastic rights" to anyone by written instrument, particularly rights to a throne in a republic! At long last, M.deSousa needs to stop using Misplaced Pages as a means of campaigning for his favored pretend royalty. Again, and again, and again. And Wikipedians need to stop collaborating with him in this by repeatedly entertaining the same arguments in successive forums. Undeletion review "should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning." - Nunh-huh 20:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was just saying that there was an article written about him. I wasn't making any claims that he deserves to be king, I was just saying that a major newspaper ran a story on him, so he approaches notability (not nobility). Oh well, I was just throwing my two centavos in there. --LV 01:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

But ridiculous claims to nobility are not notable - at least not until the claimant attracts a wide following, a la Michael Lafosse. False nobles are a dime-a-dozen, and they are most likely to fool those unfamiliar with their techniques. This gent is not a serious claimant to anything, and can probably count his supporters on two hands. - Nunh-huh 16:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Ambiguous five-letter acronyms

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

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

• Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_17#Category:Ambiguous_five-letter_acronyms The template discussion has gone past the seven days at TFD, no keeps, it's going to be deleted. Shall I go ahead and delete the template for you, making this DRV moot? Never mind, go ahead and recreate it so we can, as you say, "keep until template deleted". --Kbdank71 16:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• This doesn't look like a question of whether the page should be deleted or not, but only about how to go about this. Why don't you just talk to Kbdank about this? I don't see the need for the formality of DRV here. --- Charles Stewart 16:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Thank you. As you'd see in the talk on TfD, we've been using the categories to find the templates to orphan. The templates will probably be in the holding cell for some time.... --William Allen Simpson 04:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-25

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

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

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

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

• Oppose - WP:NOT a memorial. Opens the door to listing every single victim of every terrorist attack, plane crash or natural disaster in the world. Why not a Casualties of Hurricane Katrina, Casualties of PSA Flight 182, Casualties of Bioče train disaster, etc.? FCYTravis 21:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings and List of Hillsborough disaster casualties. Kaldari 21:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Good candidates for deletion or cropping, IMO. FCYTravis 21:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Good luck! Kaldari 21:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: Both those above articles are now AfD nominees: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Casualties_of_the_7_July_2005_London_bombings, Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Hillsborough_disaster_casualties. --Aaron 09:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, a list of people we shouldn't have articles on is just an indiscriminate collection of data. User:Zoe| 21:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  It is a collection of data, but not an indiscriminate one. It is very discriminate and sought after by people using Misplaced Pages. Kaldari 21:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  I sympathize with the sentiment, but every single person that dies in a terror attack is not encyclopedic thereby, and it opens doors I don't think we want opened. Do we start listing every Palestinian and Israeli killed in the 50 years of violence there? Every person who died when the Titanic sunk? Everyone who was killed in the Dresden firebombings and London blitz? Once we start listing victims of a terrorist attack on America, WP:BIAS would seem to suggest that we must start listing victims of every terrorist attack... or anything that killed someone. Why is dying in a terrorist attack more encyclopedic than dying in a tsunami? FCYTravis 21:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Do you think Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings should be deleted? Kaldari 21:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Yes. And I ride along those roads when I go to my London office. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 21:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Then please list it for deletion, so that we are at least consistant. Kaldari 21:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Done, See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings (2nd nomination). DES 22:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Is there a list of victims of the 2004 Tsunami? I think this is an example of systemic bias; WP:ISNOT a memorial. , whatever the nationality of the deceased. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 21:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  No, but there isn't a Memorial Wiki for those events either. Isn't it more of a bias to have an entire Wiki hosted for one disaster than to have a list of victims?? Kaldari 21:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  The only question of bias that arises here is bias in this particular Wikimedia Foundation project. This is a silly counterargument.--- Charles Stewart 21:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  It isn't silly because the Sept11 articles are littered with links to the Memorial Wiki. I try my best to remove them or move them to the external links sections, but they keep coming back. Why not move the verifiable NPOV content into Misplaced Pages so that we can have people link to that instead? Kaldari 22:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Here is just one of countless examples: David_Lawrence_Angell Kaldari 23:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - The arguments for unmaintainability still apply. --- Charles Stewart 21:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per User:FCYTravis. If soemone wants to either maintain or shut down the memorial wiki, that would be fine, but in neither case is it wikipedia's problem, and no such list, for any disaster, should be on wikipedia. DES 21:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per policy. As it says, Misplaced Pages is not a suitable place for "Memorials. It's sad when people die, but Misplaced Pages is not the place to honor them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives." Dpbsmith (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  I fail to see how having someone's name on a list is "honoring" or "memorializing" them. Kaldari 22:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Then you don't agree with me. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support I agree with Kaldari. Verifiable, NPOV lists of victims shouldn't be deleted just because there are "so many of them"--FRS 21:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• KD, we're not a memorial. If you want a memorial wiki, create one on Wikicities or wherever. Radiant_>|< 22:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  My goal with this proposal is to get rid of a memorial wiki, not create one! Why does everyone say I am trying to create a "memorial"? You guys have a strange idea of what "memorial" means :P Kaldari 22:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • You're welcome to get rid of the memorial wiki since it's served its purpose (I think there's a vote on Meta to that extent), but that doesn't mean that the information from there should instead be moved here. The 9/11 wiki was created in the first place to provide an outlet for information on otherwise not notable people. See also WP:NOT. Radiant_>|< 22:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per FCYTravis and Charles Stewart. Rossami (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons listed above. I'm sure comprehensive lists are available externally, a link to one in the 9/11 article would be more useful. goatasaur 22:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose/keep deleted, for reasons stated. If the memorial wiki is in such bad shape and no one cares to clean it maybe it's deletion should be discussed too. I have no opinion on that, as it is outside the scope of wikipedia. -R. fiend 22:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted,oh! wait... after looking into the definition of Casualty (person) I've decided to(undelete/(bring back)). In the event that this article is deleted I would like for all information to be tranfered to a sub article on my user page. I will then proceed to merge the information under another article... This is based on the idea that there is "similar" (I say that without even having looked at this article "because it's delete") one called World War II casualties. So currently there appears to be more precences to support VERY STRONG UNDELETE And perhaps merge to: As President Bush said "War on terrorism." And, if it's to big then perhaps it deserves its own article. --CyclePat 23:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Your argument makes no sense. The article you cite is an article with statistics and information about casualties in World War II. It is NOT a list of every single person killed in World War II. If someone wants to write an article about the statistics and information of those killed in the Sept. 11 attacks, then that would make sense. We don't list a bunch of names of people killed in world tragedies. How about List of Holocaust casualties? FCYTravis 00:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I think you are trying to say that this article was a list of names. Seeing as I can not see Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks: City of New York, why should I believe what you are saying? Secondly, there is nothing in the article name that sugest this is a list. I believe you are adding new information that was not discused in my original query/comment; that is having an article that is a list here on wikipedia. Wikiepedia has a policy that says lists are not permisible. (Conclusion from my rebutal: the article in question that is up for undeletion is called Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks: City of New York, no proof was given to say this is a list and nothing in the title sugests this is a lists. No matter the case I ask that the article be moved to my user space so I may examine the case and see what information may be added to war on terrorism. --CyclePat 00:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Pat, you should believe FCYTravis because he has absolutely no reason to lie. I have looked at the article, too - it's a list. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 01:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Question: Can we consider the result of this debate as binding for the newly created American Airlines Flight 11 victims article, as they cover the same basic concept? If not, one of us (me, I suppose) should nominate it for deletion separately. I do think it's best to cover both in the same forum, to ensure a consistent outcome, at least. -R. fiend 23:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Fair enough, although it's questionable if we'll get a consistant outcome on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings (2nd nomination) as well. Really, we need the policy at WP:NOT clarified if we want this issue resolved definitively. Kaldari 23:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  True, this might be a start to that end, though. -R. fiend 23:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Question: (I would like to here the interpretation of someone that is for keeping this article deleted vs someone that is for undeleting this article.) What is the difference in between deleting article Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks: City of New York vs article World War II casualties, and article American Airlines Flight 11 victims? Do the names of the "casulties" have a signifant importance? Do statistics play an important role? What about information and sources? Do you agree that perhaps there may have been another wiki process, (ie.: such as verifiability logo, etc...) that would have better served the issue? Finally your comment on wiki deletion process. (please answer in regular essay format, 3 paragraphs, totalling no more 500 words) (and since this is more of question about deletion of other similar articles, a deletionist may start) --CyclePat 00:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  Did you look at the World War II casualties article? It's not: "PFC Charles Doober, SSgt Arnold Plotty, Private Al Ripfibb, Col Ernie Gropp..." etc etc etc. It's about the casualities; it's not a list. An entirely different sort of article. -R. fiend 01:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse the original closing decision Process was appropriate and nothing has changed.--FloNight 01:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Also, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/American Airlines Flight 11 victims. Radiant_>|< 01:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Misplaced Pages is not a memorial, VfD went the right way. --Improv 03:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Misplaced Pages is not a memorial. The answer here is to stop complaining and to fix the 911 memorial wiki so it actually can be locked. - Mgm| 11:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Misplaced Pages is not a memorial. *drew 07:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per FloNight. --Aaron 09:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Lists in the Misplaced Pages namespace

This was put up for deletion ("discussion" here), but there were no votes made either way(!). Techincally, I guess the deletion would be out of process since no votes = no consensus = keep (or, better, relist with a plea for some freaken votes), but I'm not standing on ceremony here or blaming the closing admin, I'm just not sure that it should have been deleted, for these reasons:

1. As an internal category, It can't bother/upset/confuse normal users, so it should have a high threshold for deletion (in my opinion) unless the category is causing some actual confusion or clutter or other harm.
2. I'm not sure I buy the nominator's point that categories always replace lists, because some groupings are inherently sujective and thus cannot go into public space, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are completely devoid of value.
3. There are two articles here that, if the category is deleted, will have no category, which is more-or-less the same as deleting the article (I think?) because it will then float around in the void with no category handle, unless someone re-categorizes it. These are Misplaced Pages:List of screenshots (which may have no value, I don't know) and Misplaced Pages:List of lists which I think does have potential value, although no one has updated it recently. (I just added a third list to the category, User:Herostratus/List of non-notable spouses, which may have little or no value, I don't know.) There is another article, Misplaced Pages:Unusual articles, which if this category is deleted will only belong to Category:Misplaced Pages humor, but its not of just humorous interest, I think.

Anyway, maybe the category shouldn't exist, you people tell me. Herostratus 15:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist a nom with no further discussion is not consensus by any reasonble standard IMO. I don't know what I would say on such a relisted discusion. DES 18:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Note. Unless stated otherwise, I view the nomination as the nominator's choice. In this case, one person wanted to delete the category, and nobody objected. --Kbdank71 20:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - nomination counts as vote. --- Charles Stewart 21:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes it does, but one vote can not IMO be reasonably called "consensus". DES 21:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I think it can be: to say there is a consensus is to say there is no serious dispute. Of course raising it here does make a dispute, but that is no objection to how the CfD was closed. I don't think the nomination has indicated any value to the category at all, only listed some dubious principles that, if we accepted, would lead us to keep the category. --- Charles Stewart 21:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems like a valid Misplaced Pages namespace category to me. --Cyde Weys 21:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not a deletion vote. Radiant_>|< 22:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse and delete, nearly half of nominations on CFD are procedural and do not get many votes. This is a good thing because it prevents CFD from becoming a tarpit of negativity like AFD. CFD is heavily watched and if anybody wanted to object, they would have. And remember that CFD is not a vote. Radiant_>|< 22:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, this is not a meaningful categorisation. The cat contains pages in Wikispace that (1) are about lists, but those should go in the manual of style, and (2) happen to have the form of a list, which is not a defining characteristic, and those pages should go in a more appropriate cat. I've recategorized both pages Herostratus mentioned. Radiant_>|< 01:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment from nominator. I don't have a huge problem with the way the original CfD was handled. Nomination does count as 1 delete vote, and hey, not one person spoke up to support the category. The closing admin could have relisted, but hey we're busy; no support at all, I can see how he would have just closed. I guess it's kind of a borderline case, I happened to come across it, happen to want to keep the category, so I think as a borderline case -- and on an internal category at that -- it would be proper to relist it. (And I realize I should not have listed my reasons for keeping the category here, but in a relisted CfD (if there is one), which is also where all debate about the category should go. Deletion review should be mainly about the process, and I'm sorry for opening up that can of worms.) I still think that as a borderline case it should be re-listed more-or-less on request unless the closing admin thinks there no real support for that. Or, if the closing admin thinks that a close is a close unless clearly out of process (not just borderline), I would accept that though not agree.Herostratus 17:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Category depicts useful disimbiguation to list-type articles. -Zero 03:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Once more, DRV is not a deletion vote, and a category is not a "disimbiguation" (sic) anyway, nor did this category contain any articles. Radiant_>|< 17:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User homosexual-no

This template was speedily deleted by Jdforrester during a deletion debate in which several people had disagreed with his conclusion that this is "obviously" an attack template. It was created by me (a lesbian) in response to a request on Misplaced Pages talk:Userboxes/Sexuality and also to the proliferation of progay templates on Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Sexuality (there are six, and that's not even counting the dozens of templates expressing that the user is gay, or lesbian, or bisexual, or transgendered, etc...). Many users already have Template:User marriage man-woman on their userpages, so I believed that there would be a demand for this userbox. Arguments for this have been presented on Template talk:User marriage man-woman, Template talk:User homosexual-no, and in the deletion debate. I believe that since there is debate over whether this template qualifies as a personal attack that it should get the chance to go through a regular TfD debate instead of being deleted out-of-hand. Jdforrester has explained his deletion on his talk page by stating that, "Essentially, all of the templates on Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Sexuality must die. Painfully." However, the way to work on this is by posting at Misplaced Pages:Proposed policy on userboxes, not by deleting individual templates that express views with which you happen to disagree. - AdelaMae 19:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep Deleted. It is an attack template. As I commented, why would a "this user is straight" userbox not suffice to oppose the "this user is gay" userboxes? I don't see any gay boxes claim that straigth intercourse as it would be put, is immoral. -- Sneltrekker†My Talk 19:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

To those who say this is an attack template, I have one question: If someone wrote "I believe homosexual intercourse to be immoral" on a talk page, would it be a personal attack? If so, there are a lot of things needing deleted on Misplaced Pages. - AdelaMae 02:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, please review WP:NPA and tell me which of the criteria this falls under. It most certainly does not apply homophobic epithets to anyone. - AdelaMae 20:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Extreme keep deleted!. Nasty little item. User:Zoe| 19:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, and review WP:POINT. -- SCZenz 19:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Don't see the significance. The template was not created to make a point, nor was undeletion requested to do so. The template was simply created to reflect a significant view that a number of Wikipedians have, so that, if they choose to, they can express that view in a regulated userbox. It was made by request at Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Sexuality, and after a discussion on the matter. In my opinion, the main reason this template is under siege is knee-jerk reactions to any expression of a non-positive view of a minority, without stopping to consider the fact that the template is worded in a non-inflammatory, perfectly un-aggressive manner that does not actually attack homosexuals, but merely expresses a common religious belief regarding homosexual intercourse. The fact that that belief is wrong is certainly no reason to delete the template, else we'd have to delete "This user believes in reincarnation" and most other religious templates; nor does the fact that it expresses a negative view (i.e. "This user thinks X is bad" rather than "This user thinks X is good") intolerable, as there are dozens of similar userboxes that also don't attack say something like "This user thinks that Wikipedian homosexuals are immoral", etc. Nuances like that are being flagrantly ignored, as people attempt to turn this from a debate over whether or not people should be allowed to express an unpopular opinion in a userbox into a debate over the contents of the userbox and whether we agree with the opinion expressed there or not (which is patently ridiculous, as the template was created by a proud member of the LGBT community and a supporter thereof). Utterly besides the point. Whatever happened to disagreeing with what you say, but defending your right to say it? -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Could someone please clarify for me what point they think I was trying to prove and which of my actions was intended to disrupt Misplaced Pages? - AdelaMae 20:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted I can't see how a userbox questioning the morality of homosexual activity is an 'attack' any more than a 'pro-life' userbox questioning the morality of abortion. It is a statement of POV on morality, all be it not a very politically correct POV. However, I will not vote to undelete as I think (with Jimbo) that all such POV userboxes should be gone. --Doc 19:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Pro-life userbox just says: this user is pro-life. It would compare to a userbox: This user is a homophobe. Which would describe the user himself and not attack. -- Sneltrekker†My Talk 21:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  "homophobe" is still an externally-applied label; this is one reason why POV-advocating userboxes are harmful. "This user is verifiably straight." might be more analogous. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep deleted. Now becoming WP:POINT and saying any action is "immoral" is uncivil, creators personal circumstances don't come into it. Ian_ID:540053 20:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• The template does not say that any action is immoral. It says what the user of the template believes to be immoral. Vitally important distinction that you seem to have missed. -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  I haven't missed it. Ian_ID:540053 11:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• We have lots of pacifist templates that state that war is immoral. Would you vote to delete those on the grounds that they are uncivil to members of the military? Also, why is it okay for gay rights supporters to express their opinion, which undoubtedly offends many conservative Christian members of Misplaced Pages, but not okay for people who have a religiously motivated belief that homosexuality is "against God's plan" to express that opinion, which, by the way, is held by nearly half of all American adults? - AdelaMae 20:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted and delete the other hateboxes as well. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 20:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Template is a clear violation of civility policy. FCYTravis 20:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• How can an opinion, in itself, be incivil? Civility is a matter of how you express your opinions, not what your opinions are. It would be incivil to say "I HATE GAY PEOPLE THEY ARE STOOPID >:("—it is not incivil to say "This user considers homosexual intercourse to be immoral"; it's a statement of fact (that fact being that the user has the specified opinion). Let's clear the air here: are we talking about deleting this template because it's incivil, or because we disagree with what it says? Don't try to paint the latter as being the former, and don't try to use Misplaced Pages policy as a front for censorship of significant minority views (even when those views are disgusting and ignorant). -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• The opinion is not being debated (there is no move to mass-block homophobes). It is, however, not possible to express that opinion on Misplaced Pages without causing offence to a sizeable minority, therefore the userbox is uncivil. Or so my thinking goes, anwyay. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 17:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• The expression of the opinion is certainly being debated—people are arguing that it's incivil for people who hold this belief to talk about it in any way on Misplaced Pages, even though it's a common belief and is not any more offensive than dozens of other beliefs, like "This user believes that there is no God" (atheism) and "This user believes that people who don't agree with this user are going to Hell to suffer for eternity" (various religions) and "This user supports Hugo Chavez" and just about any other meaningful template or expression of opinion whatsoever. Offending anyone obviously isn't "incivil" (else you could argue for deleting anything you wanted just by claiming that it "offended" you), so what we're really saying is that offending the majority is "incivil", meaning that expressing any view which a majority of Misplaced Pages users disagrees with is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Is that really the message we want to send? Dissent, even when the opinion being dissented with is vastly, and aggressively, more popular, is not the same thing as an "attack template" or being "incivil". And even if they were, the place to discuss this is on TfD, where many more people can see it and voice their opinion on this clearly controversial matter; to delete it out-of-process like this, and then refuse to let it have more than an hour or two for discussion, is clearly an attempt at suppression, not at "civility". "Appeasing the majority" is not the definition of "civility". If there was a majority anti-homosexual sentiment on Misplaced Pages, would it be "incivility" to express pro-LGBT rights views? Of course not. So the reverse should also be the case; just because Misplaced Pages (like the Internet in general) happens to have an overwhelming number of minorities in proportion to the real world doesn't mean that we need to go out of our way to suppress opinions we don't like. Wikipedians don't have the right to "free speech", but they do have the right to be offensive, controversial, etc. on their user pages, as long as they don't violate any Misplaced Pages policies in doing so; we should promote openness and free discussion of issues like this, not enforce the will of the majority on everyone and mass-attack the templates of any opinions we disagree with strongly enough. -Silence 18:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per SCZenz. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion The only speedy criterion for "attacks" relates strictly to "articles", adn IMO this isn't an attack in any case, although i strongly disagree with the view it asserts. DES 21:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Jimbo's statement on polemical userboxes. Only userboxes that help build the encyclopedia should be allowed. --Cyde Weys 21:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• This template does help build the encyclopedia. It makes it clear that people who hold unpopular views are still permitted to be open and free about what they think, so long as they keep their views from influencing how they edit articles, and so long as they are tolerant of people who disagree with them. People should be permitted to say what they think (rather than forced to remain silent if the majority disagrees with them), and the dialogue should be kept open between disagreeing parties (rather than all disagreeing parties being kept silent, as though closing our eyes and ears to the problem will somehow make everyone with an unpleasant opinion go away), and people should be permitted to state their opinions on a matter even if it's not a positive one (i.e. allowing "I think the European Union is great", "I support George W. Bush", "I support LGBT righst", but never the opposite view, to let both sides state their mind?), and we should be allowed to draw on these types of people as a resource for when an article would be benefited by getting information from people with such an unusual view as "homosexual intercourse is unethical", who may be more familiar with the authors, documents, opinion nuances, Biblical passages, etc. that are relevant to the view. Before we rule absolutely that a certain type of template simply can't ever benefit the encyclopedia no matter what, why don't we give it a chance to benefit the encyclopedia? I don't see the huge tragedy that will ensue if we just calm down, think this through a little more, and give the template some time to see whether it can do any good. -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• KD, attack page. Radiant_>|< 22:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I'm starting to think userboxes are the most idiotic element of wikipedia. And that's saying alot. -R. fiend 22:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Don't necessarily disagree. There are a lot of inane ones out there. But this out-of-process, gang-up-on-the-unpopular-view-at-random speedy-deletion is not the way to deal with the issue. It's a way to hide from it. -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. It's not an attack but it doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme keep deleted. "This user is straight" and "This user is gay" do the job perfectly well, thank you. JIP | Talk 09:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• You obviously aren't very familiar with the LGBT-related userboxes. This was created as a counterpart to the half-dozen LGBT-support templates, etc. we have on the Sexuality page; it has absolutely nothing to do with the "gay" and "straight" templates. I've had debates in the past with both gay and straight people who have held the view very strongly that homosexual intercourse is immoral; maybe if more of the delete-voters had had the exposure to this ridiculous viewpoint that I've had, you'd understand that it's not as simple as "another 'straight' template" at all. -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment For the record, people can be straight and still not believe that homosexual intercourse is immoral. Therefore, your assertion that the userboxes which state sexual orientation "do the job" of this deleted one is specious. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Also true. -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted we already have heterosexual userboxes etc. if you want to mark yourself as 'not homosexual' then use those Cynical 18:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Again, a blatant misunderstanding of what this template, and all other Sexuality-related templates, actually mean. Your personal sexual orientation and your religious or ideological views on sexual intercourse are totally unrelated! The former has more to do with biology, the latter more to do with upbringing, and both can be very relevant to understanding fellow editors and to working in the company of people you disagree with (in fact, in many ways the opinion templates are infinitely more valuable than the sexual orientation ones, since they state a lot more about how the user will tend to behave, what his thought process are, and what his POV is than something like "sexual orientation", which might be significant if Misplaced Pages was an online orgy project, but isn't so important for an online encyclopedia project). -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn - While I don't agree with the opinion stated by this box, I don't think that deleting it will make that opinion go away. Anyway it doesn't matter because, as DES said, this does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This is not the place to make a judgement on the merits of the box - only on wheter on not the speedy deletion protocols were followed. Since they were not followed I believe this should be re-listed on TFD.--God of War 00:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Attack articles, etc. most certainly are covered by speedy deletion action. User:Zoe| 00:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• This is not an attack article. It is a statement of an opinion. The fact that that opinion offends some people certainly does not make it an "attack", in itself; if it did, we'd have deleted controversial articles like Scientology and George W. Bush long ago. Just as Misplaced Pages articles are permitted to offend (so long as they don't go out of their way to do so), so are user pages, and userboxes are purely a feature of userpages. -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. I can't see it, and I can't see the harm in it. It's a userbox, people! It won't harm you! Speedy deletion is not a toy. --Dschor 00:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn: inappropriate use of admin deletion functions; decision should not be made by the limited number of users capable of viewing removed revisions. DRV is not TFD. // paroxysm (n) 00:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Seems self evident - useful for hate and does not build unity Trödel&#149;talk 01:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist as per Misplaced Pages:Process is Important. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 13:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. To be consistant, pro-gay userboxes should go too. These all hurt the community. --Improv 13:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Then nominate them for deletion. Don't just vote for one and ignore the others, and thus promote inconsistency and bias. -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per Doc --- Charles Stewart 15:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted If personal attack userboxes get deleted, then so should these sort of userboxes - • Dussst • 15:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong overturn and relist. This template does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion; not only is it not a genuine "attack" template (and is only being painted as such as a way to censor an unpopular view), but even if it was, speedy-deleting an "attack" is only for something like List of reasons George W. Bush is an asshole, not for grey-area userbox disputes like this, and so this template certainly merits a full run on WP:TfD. What's so horrible about giving the template at least a few days rather than a couple of hours to let people talk (and think) it over, rather than trying to stifle and hide any discussion whatsoever on the matter? If it was so black-and-white and obvious that this is indisputably and beyond a shadow of a doubt an "attack" (rather than what it really is, a statement of an ignorant and horrible, but nonetheless commonplace and very significant, opinion), and nothing more, then the template wouldn't have had a majority for "keep" at the time the TfD was closed out of process. Obviously things aren't so simple. So let's take a step back, breathe, let the thing run its course on TfD, and then see what people think about it. I can understand why people would oppose a template like this, with its potential to cause controversy (though I think the benefit of showing that we allow people to hold and show that they have extremely unpopular opinions, so long as they don't let those opinions infect the articles they work on, outweighs the risk of allowing such an opinion to have its little colored box), but I can't understand why they'd go out of their way to violate Misplaced Pages's VfD process just because they don't like the template. Even templates that clearly were made "just to prove a point" (rather than genuine ones like this, see Misplaced Pages talk:Userboxes/Sexuality), like "This user hates Jews", were given a long run of time to accumulate plenty of votes and establish a real consensus! Why is this one, which is clearly much less of a pointed, aggressive "attack" template than the anti-Semitic one (both based on the context in which it was made and based on the actual text of the template), not being given the same amount of time and consideration? Why the double standard? No good can come of it. -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong overturn This is patently not an attack template; it states an opinion. Why is it that we can keep Template:User GWB and delete this? I would like to delete all political userboxes per Jimbo's suggestion, but it's totally unfair to keep most of them and delete this one. Ashibaka tock 17:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Relist, as there seems to be enough disagreement to warrent some sort of discussion. --AySz88^-^ 18:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Relist. Too much disagreement over the issue not to allow it a day in court through TfD. --StuffOfInterest 18:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, unacceptable attack on members of the community. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong overturn and relist per Silence and Crotalus horridus. --Aaron 09:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Silence - • Dussst • 12:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted what possible use is it in building an encylcopaedia?? --TimPope 12:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, everyone say it with me - DRV is Not TFD - You are supposed to be discussing whether the speedy deletion was appropiate, not whether or not the template should be kept after the tfd.--God of War 18:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Relist — CJewell (talk to me) 18:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong overturn — Deleting this template would make the Wikipedian pro-tolerance, anti-censorship stance appear one-sided and hypocritical.--Chris 16:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Although it seems nearly impossible to override the horde of users which wishes to turn Misplaced Pages into MySpace by playing along with their voting game, I do not wish my silence to be considered agreement. --Gmaxwell 17:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. It's not as clearcut a case as the KKK userbox, but I still think this has become WP:POINT. –Abe Dashiell 19:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why this is being considered WP:POINT. What point is it trying to prove, exactly? - AdelaMae 20:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it was assumed to be an exhibition of free-speech fundamentalism, like (probably) the KKK template. In fact, while the existence of KKK supporters in the Misplaced Pages is questionable, there are certainly hundreds of (for example) conservative Catholics who would agree with the content of this template, while being by their own standards not homophobes.--Chris 21:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion and reprimand the speedy deleting administrator. As a prior poster said, speedy deletion is not a toy! We operate on consensus here, not on unanimous decisions. The question here is not whether to keep or delete the template, but rather whether a discussion to decide it one way or another should even be permitted! This is Misplaced Pages, not Jdforresterpedia. D. G. 00:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-23

Template:Background

deletion history

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

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/June 2005
• Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/July 2005

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

--William Allen Simpson 00:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

2006-01-20

Karayana

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Karayana.

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

• Why not link this one and the next one to the Torc debate? They plainly involve exactly the same issues. David | Talk 13:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • People somtimes object to group nominations. They are clearly identical questions, however. -Splash 13:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. There are a number of admins who are (quite commendably) ensuring AfD's are closed within hours of time. However, I think the (perhaps slightly competitive) rush is leading to some ill-considered mathematical decisions. Perhaps slow it down.--Doc 13:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete or run again. Closing admins should always ignore sockpuppet/meatpuppet votes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

• Endorse close. Discounting only the IP user, there ios nothign like a delete consensus. Id soem of the other voters are to be discounted for sockpuppetry or other reasons, fairly clear evidence of the reason should be presented, I see none in the AfD debate and none in this discussion. DES 16:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Aneirin and Ravenlady both have edits solely to these 3 articles, their AfDs and DRVs. Ravenlady has a grand total of 3 edits ever. -Splash 17:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, 4-1 vote for deletion. User:Zoe| 17:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oh it's such a negligible article anyway that it should be merged to New Order of Druids. If we're keeping an article about that we may as well add information about council members. Irrespective of the sockery I don't see this as a deletion candidate unless (and I suppose it's possible) this person's existence and membership of the council is not verifiable from the Order's own literature or website. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • So you're suggesting that WP:V be expanded to accepting this as a Reliable source? - brenneman 14:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: For what I can see there are 3 debates on the same subject for 3 different articles (Torc, P.A.C. Bloos, David Dom and Karayana) that are related to one another through the article New Order of Druids. One would think it would be easier to discuss them as a group and not individually. For example if one is placed under one guideline (such as WP:V as is being questioned above) then it would also end up applying to the other articles by default.
• Relist. Two of the keeps were Ravenlady (talk · contribs) and 143.129.120.37 (talk · contribs) - strike those two and it's 4-2 delete, which is a 2/3 majority, but a long way from what anybody could reasonably call consensus. We need to address the issue of insufficient votes on AfD, I guess. Anyway, you could call it either way, so I'd relist. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 17:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

David Dom

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David Dom.

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

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

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

• Overturn and delete, would accept relist. Only one keep from anyone with a genuine edit history, but not many deletes either. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 15:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Relist, there were only 3-1 delete votes, this isn't quite a consensus. User:Zoe| 17:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Numerically, that's 3/4... -Splash 17:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I wasn't counting the people with very few edits. User:Zoe| 21:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I hope a relisting won't turn into the same puppetfest as Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Expansion Fleet (2nd nomination), the deletion nomination of David Dom's other website besides New Order of Druids. Kusma (討論) 14:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Aetherometry

• Keep deleted: 13
• Undelete: 9

Counted by Ashibaka tock 00:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aetherometry
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aetherometry (second nomination)

I was reading the Wilhelm Reich article and noticed Aetherometry was a red link, which surprised me, because I could've sworn I remembered seeing an article on that at some point in the past. Well, I checked and found that there were something like 1100 (!) deleted revisions, and a AfD vote that just concluded yesterday. The margin looked pretty narrow, so taking that in combination with the huge number of edits and the fact that this is also mentioned in Reich's article (which would seem to suggest some notability), I think this one deserves a review. Personally, I don't know enough to vote on it, but I figure it deserves a second chance regardless. Everyking 07:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Ho hum. I see I was the admin who closed the first AFD debate and there I did not see a consensus. The main argument against the article was that it was original research and that there were no reliable sources. I must admit, from reading the article, it did not look like original research to me. Also, a Google check shows that this is certainly a topic many people would be interested in finding out what is so I think that there should be an article here. Aetherometry appears to be a crackpot science theory which has received plenty of attention, like several other theories which have articles. (I might be stepping on some toes here, but I would classify creationism as one of those "crackpot theories".) There is quite a lot of material to work on here, and if anybody is interested in doing so I will have no problem with undeleting and moving to userspace for tinkering, fact-checking and verification of its status if not its validity. OK, I will Endorse closure without prejudice against a move to userspace or an improved article at a later time. Suggest a temporary undelete now so that people can review the content. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Excuse me, but if you think aetherometry has received plenty of attention, please quote single scientific journal article about it. If many people are interested to find out about aetherometry, they can go to aetherometry website. For scientific article in encyclopedia, even to say something is "crackpot", you need more than your opinion and interest of many people. You need reputable references. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 16:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, I can't believe that this was deleted. Undelete just because it is too notable to be deleted. This is the first time I'm actually thinking of invoking IAR to undelete something.  Grue  09:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • DRV is for reviewing process decisions, not content. Do you find anything mistakes in my closing of the AfD? 209.74.96.60 17:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC) Oops, that's me. Cookie must have expired right when I was editing this. howcheng {chat} 17:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This is not true. This page is for the review of deletions as a whole. Process can be followed yet an article deleted that should not have been. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 06:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I quote from #Purpose, above: This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some information pertaining to the debate that did not receive an airing during the AfD debate (perhaps because the information was not available at that time). This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content. howcheng {chat} 06:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• I suggest you look at the second vote (and the first too). Keeping this article sane was absorbing too much effort due to determined POV pushing by the pro-aetheometry people; the article was junk & people got sick of it. William M. Connolley 09:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC).

  Do you suggest deleting George W. Bush too, because it's vandalised often? There are appropriate tools, such as semi-protection and full protection. Deletion is not such a tool.  Grue  09:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  Bush is clearly notable. IMHO aetherometry isn't notable. It wasn't on your watchlist... And AFAIK, I'm not allowed to make the article sane then protect My Version. In an ideal world, wiki would have an aetherometry article which would be short and say "this is pseudoscience" and... well, read Dragonflights vote at VFD. In the real world, the pro-ae people kept pushing it. Having said that, there seems to have been a misunderstanding about verifiability in perhaps some of the votes, and probably in the closing: the verifiability criterion for pseduoscience is not published papers (of course; they don't) but links to their wacko websites, because thats all they have. William M. Connolley 10:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC).

• Endorse (keep deleted) None of the above is germane to criteria for undeletion. The Afd was closed correctly, and no new arguments have arisen. The original article was deleted largely because this article is an OR soapbox for a fringe group. WP is not webhosting for every fringe idea that comes along. Vandalism has nothing to do with it so far as I am concerned. KillerChihuahua 10:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• The article does indeed have a problem with reliable sources. That would probably be because it's hard to find a reliable source on pseudoscience. My suggestion would be to keep deleted, and create a new article covering ONLY those facts drawn from a reliable source (which is probably about 20% of what is now in the article) the protect for a while to get the POV pushers cooled down. Radiant_>|< 11:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • DumbA you are Radiant. Article already quoted only reliable sources there were.81.193.157.168
• Undelete. I don't know anything about the subject at all, nor am I particularly interested to change that situation. But I fully agree with Grue that deletion should not be a tool against POV pushing. Lack of reliable sources? Phew! If we use thát as an argument, I believe we can quietely delete about 90 % of our articles. We have other tags for that! While I would endorse a cleanup of the article, it still needs to be undeleted in order to distill the 20% Radiant was talking about. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 11:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted somewhat sadly. I'm surprised this was deleted too, but it does look like a valid AfD. Perhaps some content could be placed in Reich's article, or one of the Orgone articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Either Undelete or recreate as per Radiant. As others have said, POV problems are not grounds for deletion. I have no problem with it remaining a protected stub. –Abe Dashiell 12:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: no vote yet, but I find it troubling that two of the voters who voted to delete the article in the second AFD were two of the editors most responsible for trying to legitimize this (in my opinion) pseudoscience. That they would suddenly argue for the article's deletion makes me suspicious. Since the article's talk page has not been deleted yet, voters can see for themselves without having to view the history of the deleted article. --Calton | Talk 13:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Calton. I know your name, you are one of people who was many times putting aetherometry article in category "pseudoscience". Now you correctly say "this is my opinion". But you know, you cannot just put opinion in encyclopedia as if it is fact. Can you quote published scientific articles that aetherometry is in violation of scientific method? If not, then dont you think that putting category in, as if it was known opinion of scientific majority, is not honorable and not responsible? Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 16:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Chatty Cathy, I was trying to be polite. It's pseudoscience by any reasonable definition; my actual opinion is that it's a complete load of half-baked crap being pushed by glory-seeking self-promoters not talented, knowledgable, or smart enough to get published or noticed by actual scientists or actual peer-reviewed journals, and who are using sockpuppets/meatpuppets/gullible cohorts to use Misplaced Pages to promote their views and sell their self-published books -- but that would take too long to type. And might I point out that this isn't an article you're reading right now?: it's in Misplaced Pages space, and I can express any (non-libellous, non-personal, and non-slanderous) opinion I care to. And as for your challenge to provide a peer-reviewed source that calls it pseudoscience; well, to steal from Wolfgang Pauli, "that's not right; that's not even wrong." --Calton | Talk 02:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Calton. There couldn't be a more eloquent argument for keeping the Aetherometry entry deleted. FrankZappo 03:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Calton, that was a lot of fulmination for something you misread! Pgio 20:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keeep deleted. ENOUGH OF THIS. Nobody is trying to legitimize anything. If you think that having an article in Misplaced Pages, and trying to keep it to verifiable claims, unjustly legitimizes Aetherometry, then you should be the first to want the article deleted. If you just want to recreate the article so as to be able to say it's "pseudoscience", then provide A SINGLE REPUTABLE REFERENCE IN A MAINSTREAM PUBLICATION that reviews the work and concludes it is "pseudoscience". If you want to recreate it for any other reason, then don't just talk; you need to propose how the verifiability problem should be solved. FrankZappo 14:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Editors might wonder about the commenter's sudden change of heart, compared to this or this. I'm thinking parallels to the Sollog article, here. --Calton | Talk 02:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You're thinking? Wow. I wouldn't have called it that. FrankZappo 03:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have to say that I find it absolutely disgusting when the people who have, day in and day out, tried to provide content for the article, and without whom there couldn't even be an Aetherometry article, are referred to contemptuously as "POV pushers" or "legitimizers" in the very same breath in which it is suggested that the article should stay in Misplaced Pages. What are you running here, a plantation on which "niggers" should provide content while you subject them to contempt and ridicule? Is this how you run a utopian encyclopedic establishment? FrankZappo 14:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure with full recognition of the heroic work done by some editors in trying to provide a balanced coverage of what is, according to my reading of the evidence, a crackpot theory aggressively promoted by its proponents; in the end, though the fundamental problem is that as a supposedly scientific subject it is unverifiable from reliable sources since neither the theory nor the rebuttals are presented in peer-reviewed journals. It was asserted that citations could be provided, but none were. Much of the argument on the AfD ignored this (to me) fundamental point. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 15:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is different case than article on Bush. Claims in aetherometry article, on both sides, were presented as scientific. Claims of aetherometry were presented as scientific claims, and opinions of Misplaced Pages administrators about it were presented as judgement of scientific majority. If a claim is presented in scientific context in encyclopedia, you must quote in support reputable scientific sources. Even in Bush article, you would not report something as majority opinion simply because it is opinion held by most Misplaced Pages administrators who are watching article. You would quote published polls or other reputable outside sources. For aetherometry, no such sources exist. If you want to know what aetherometry claims, just go to aetherometry website at www.aetherometry.com. But in encyclopedia that wants to educate public, scientific claims, for minority or majority, should not be published if they cannot be verified. If other Misplaced Pages articles refer to aetherometry article, this is easy to change. They can refer to aetherometry website instead, or not refer at all. Sincerely, Janusz Karpinski. Januszkarp 16:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and slap an NPOV tag, slap a disputed tag, slap a cleanup tag. The subject is interesting and I would that our readers would want and expect such an article to be in Misplaced Pages, knowing that the subject is contentious, is disputed, etc, etc, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If the subject is interesting and your readers want and expect such an article in Misplaced Pages, then you must institute policies by which the people who know something about the subject are treated with respect, as providers of a valuable service, not as "POV pushers", "aggressive promoters" and "cranks" who are "pushing their crackpot theory". I am sorry, but unless Misplaced Pages can guarantee respectful treatment to the people who have studied the subject and can provide information about it, it is disingenous to call the subject "interesting" and argue that the article should be kept. FrankZappo 17:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I am sorry, I need to make another comment, because this is really too much and I need you all to know and understand that it is, and why it is, too much. In June 2005, there was an actual request in Misplaced Pages for an article on Aetherometry, in the category "Applied Sciences". I don't know what misguided, ignorant or malicious soul created this request, but I didn't know anything about Misplaced Pages, saw the request, and took it at face value. I pointed it out to Dr. Askanas, who then did a lot of hard work to fulfill this request and supply the article. Ever since then, Dr. Askanas, Pgio, myself, DrHyde, and everybody else who tried to contribute to the article from first-hand knowledge of the primary sources, has received nothing but scorn and derision. When we provide information, we are called "POV pushers", "snake-oil vendors", and "aggressive promoters"; when we remove claims that are nothing but expressions of bias and cannot be verified, or are simply incorrect, we are called "vandals" and reverted; and when we vote to have the article deleted, this is called "suspicious" and claimed to be a good reason to keep the article. No, there is nothing suspicious about us wanting the article deleted. This has to stop. It was a mistake to respond to the request to create the entry in the first place. The entry, as has been proven by over half a year of completely futile wrangling, does not belong in Misplaced Pages. There is nothing suspicious about having had enough, about no longer wanting to spend every day of our lives trying to "keep the article sane" - i.e., to the best of our knowledge, accurate and verifiable - when there are no acceptable secondary mainstream sources for the contentions of either side. I am sorry to say this, but it is not only frivolous, but de facto malicious - even if the malice is unintentional - to simply say that the article should be undeleted. Either you can, right here and now, propose a concrete, viable way to make this article sane, verifiable, and acceptable to all the main contributors, or the people who have been, since June 2005, locked in an unresolvable conflict with each other trying to make this article viable, need to be released from bondage and permitted to live their lives. FrankZappo 17:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Without serious consideration and clear address of the comment above (FrankZappo 17:54, 20 January 2006), the function and purpose of Misplaced Pages will remain suspect. TTLightningRod 18:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Misplaced Pages need not have an article on every fringe idea. Put a paragraph into Aether theories or some other Misplaced Pages article (iff there is a good reference) and move on. --JWSchmidt 04:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted --Philosophus 07:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Pet peeve, but please provide a reason, even if something as short as "per user XXX above" Turnstep 05:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• I agree that this topic may be notable enough and important enough and interesting enough to warrant an article. I agree that the article as it stood had a lot of issues. I agree that a new article, free of unverifiable claims and POV, that reported on the history and existance of this theory, what it claims, and what the various findings of mainstream science are, and what media attention it has received, would be a good, encylopedic, important article. But none of that is what DRV is about. DRV is about process. I looked over the discussion, and it was long and contentious, and relatively new admin User:howcheng had a hard job to slog through it. But I think he called the consensus correctly. The consensus was delete and I see nothing wrong with the process. Keep Deleted. If someone were to write a new article with the content outlined above so that it did not fall afoul of the "recreation of deleted content" rule, that would be a good and noble thing in my view. But it strikes me as (if some of the comments here are indicative of what those trying to write NPOVly had to face) rather an arduous and thankless task and I pity whoever tries it. ++Lar: t/c 20:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted I was one of the principle authors. If you check the Talk page edit logs you'll see that I broached the topic of VfD this time around, because I'm tired of this whole dispute. Contrary to WMC's revisionism above, the article was not junk. It accurately states the claims of the science involved. WMC and Calton and others were the ones pushing POV by applying the pseudoscience category without references, as if it was self-evident. Until such time as either side can produce acceptable second-party references, I don't see how this article has a place in Misplaced Pages at all. That's what people decided in the VfD. Pgio 20:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to also request a temporary undeletion. Turnstep 05:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, does this discussion not begin to remind a bit of absurdist farce? It was now said twice that deletion review is for reviewing procedure, and not content. Was this incorrect claim? Because if correct, then why should you, Turnstep, request temporary undeletion? The absence of "why" is even more funny because you just told Philosophus that not providing reasons for votes was your "pet peeve". And then if your idea is to try create new article, it seems to me you should work from published mainstream sources, not old article. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 06:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Temporary undeletion is a valid request, in order to allow transfer to user space. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 17:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Undeletion helps me to understand the voter's rationales and thus allows me to evaluate how well the closing admin did at gauging consensus and arriving at the proper conclusion. I certainly have no interest in creating a new article, I don't know why you would think that. Turnstep 16:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted This article was original research and totally useless. The POV problems involved with it were unresolvable for lack of scientific references. No other article referenced it: see Special:Whatlinkshere/Aetherometry. (note: I just removed it from 3 pages that linked to Aetherometry in the "See also" section, check the rest of those links for cleanup) Ashibaka tock 21:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Due to the almost complete failure of anyone to produce source citations on either side, this article did not meet our verifiability policy. Verifiability has always supposedly been our policy, and it says so right under the edit box I'm typing in right now. The article can be re-created without prejudice at any time when anyone can produce substantial source citations showing that aetherometry is a real theory—not a proven theory, but a real theory—that is receiving significant public discussion, for and against, outside a very small circle of people. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, probable original research and very likely unverifiable. I searched journal databases (admittedly doing so fairly quickly) and was unable to find a single academic article on the matter. That, combined with all this above, does not bode well. Lord Bob 21:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete obviously. Very depressing to read the arguments in favour of ridding us of yet another potentially interesting article. It's one of the pluses of Misplaced Pages that it covers crackpot theories. You scientist types get to bully the writers and fill the articles full of your POV as it is. Now you resort to deleting the articles? As for the undue weight provision, that would apply if the debate was about including material about "aetherometry" in a general article on physics, but it's scarcely unduly weighting a crackpot theory to have an article about it, given the many articles about mainstream physics. Grace Note 03:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Grace, the material was deleted for this very example; The phrase "...crackpot theories", used in a comment to undelete material, without citation.Cutaow 13:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and clean thoroughly. There is undoubtedly something called "Aetherometry" on which we should have an article: simply deleting it because some people don't like the current content is hardly conducive to creating a reputable encyclopedia; that's what {{cleanup}} and {{npov}} and all their little friends are for. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Phil, if Misplaced Pages was able to find any citable, reputable reference sources upon which to build the content, specifically the "counter" and "critical" arguments against the material.... you would already have a reputable encyclopedia. Without any such reference, the use of "crack-pot" and "pseudo" is what "some people don't like".Cutaow 13:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. Misplaced Pages has a lot of information about pseudoscience. As someone who's worked on keeping some of those articles NPOV, I know it's a pain, but we can't hold that against having an article at all. To say we should have no article at all on these guys is just plain silly, so the deletion was an error. -- SCZenz 16:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Good. In light of your previous experience, I am sure you will be able to put on the table, right here and now, a proposal for a concrete, viable way to make the Aetherometry article sane, verifiable, and acceptable to all the main contributors. FrankZappo 16:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It can't be done to the satisfaction of all the main contributors, because a small number of them have a vested interest. However, because they have a vested interest, NPOV allows their input to be ignored. User:Dragon's Flight has made one suggestion that would work, along the lines that Aetherometry is a theory advanced by X that claims Y. It has no significant support in the scientific community as verified by its failure to appear in abstract database Z. Some specific claims are A, B, C; as acknowledged by aetherometry's advocates these conflict with established scientific principles D, E, F. Then lock the sucker. But my main reason for voting delete was that the keep arguments were so often framed in terms of the importance of Misplaced Pages as a source for debunking / discussing this topic, in a way not doen elsewhere. I'm probably not the only one for whom that raises red flags; absent reliable sources verification is a real problem. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 21:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Who are the contributors that are said to have a vested interest? That's the first I hear about this. Certainly neither Pgio nor myself. Or does "vested interest" mean that we are interested in the topic? FrankZappo 22:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Helicoid William M. Connolley 22:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"To have a vested interest in something" means to stand to gain from it, yes? From what exactly, and in what form, is Dr. Askanas alleged to stand to gain? FrankZappo 23:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, how in the world is locking the entry supposed to help? Locking does not protect against editing by administrators. So how do you-all propose to protect the entry against the toxic zeal of bigoted administrators like Connolley who are so full of themselves that they equate their own bias with a "scientific point of view" and don't care whether the commentary they put in the entry violates the verifiability policy? Or do you-all simply not care? FrankZappo 22:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and attach whatever framing text or disclaimer tags are necessary to keep the article from looking like an endorsement of unsubstantiated theories. It is obvious that some people seeking insight into the meaning of the term would appreciate information. Possibly redirect to some information merged into the general Reich article? Ben Kidwell 01:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Just because it's kookery that doesn't mean it's invalid for Misplaced Pages to have an article on it. Misplaced Pages runs on notability, not whether it's loony or not. Wiwaxia

Comment. Hi, this is Janusz Karpinski. Looking at this voting process makes me want to ask about underlying Misplaced Pages ideas. Let me explain. My idea of meaning of "community" is that when people vote on community affairs, they have obligation to listen to each other. They dont just say something random and go away, but they contribute to progress in communal thinking by thinking carefully about arguments of others and joining their own thinking powers to them. This is also my idea of meaning of "consensus": it is something that can only arise from rational discussion, where participants listen and consider what others say. This is to me difference between consensus and statistical majority opinion, where opinion can be completely uninformed. But here in this voting I observe that many people just come in and say something random, with no connection to how issue was defined and previous arguments that were presented. They throw something in, with no responsibility, as if they are throwing coin into collection box. And from what I observe this is considered OK, and equally good as votes of people who thought about issue with responsibility and made effort to provide arguments. Does Misplaced Pages notion of community and consensus not contain obligation of mutual response and careful, thoughtful consideration? I am curious about underlying philosophy. Sorry that this is off topic, but I think we are not any longer on any topic here anyway. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 14:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. For months everybody does nothing but jeer and throw garbage at the bloody thing, and now suddenly the world can't live without it? You've got to be kidding. And what's the deal with the undeletion policy that was quoted by Howcheng? "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning - but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some information pertaining to the debate that did not receive an airing during the AfD debate (perhaps because the information was not available at that time). This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content." Was the debate interpreted incorrectly by the closer? Or if not, what's the new information that desperately needed to get aired? That Everyking was reading the entry on Wilhelm Reich and suddenly, to Everyking's surprise, the Aetherometry link was red? And because of Everyking's traumatic experience, the article "deserves a second chance"? A second chance at what, having more garbage thrown at it? Give us all a break, people. DrHyde 05:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Moreover, I this it is appropriate to give a little history review here. I was the original author of the article. Very soon after my misguided creation of the article in response to some poor sod's, or malicious sod's, request for an Aetheropmetry entry, it became very clear to me that the article was created mistakenly. And as this became clear to me, I voted delete in the first VfD. Now, as you can read in ], one of the situations that qualify an article for speedy deletion is when

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

Since the article had at the time been edited only by me (and I do not regard as "editing" attempts at caricaturing, misinformation, and unsubstantiated disparagements), my vote to delete, according to the policy, should have been counted as the deciding vote. And you know what? Even if there was no policy saying so, anybody deciding the vote with fairness and in good faith should have regarded the wishes of the original and only author as binding. But none of this happened - and when I then in fact did blank the article and replaced it with a note saying that the original author wishes the article deleted, this was called "vandalism" and my deletion was reverted. The conclusion is obvious: these decision were not made with fairness and in good faith, but with malice and an intent to harm - the same malice and intent to harm that Natalina formulated in the second AfD when she voted "keep" because "well, because currently we're one of the top search results when you search for it on google, and we can actually impart some unbiased information. The aetherometrists in fact, (as of the last afd), want this deleted, because it disparages their theory. We even classify it as pseudophysics (by cat'ing it as aether theories)..." There it is: malicious intent to harm, hypocritically and disingenuously paraded as the desire to "impart unbiased information". It's the same "unbiased information" that the talented Calton so generously poured upon this here page when he explained that Aetherometry was "a complete load of half-baked crap being pushed by glory-seeking self-promoters not talented, knowledgable, or smart enough to get published or noticed by actual scientists or actual peer-reviewed journals, and who are using sockpuppets/meatpuppets/gullible cohorts to use Misplaced Pages to promote their views and sell their self-published books". And this brings our little story to its next event, which is the second AfD. In the second AfD, both the author of the first version of the article (me) and the author of the second version (Pgio) voted to delete. Once again, this should have been taken as the deciding factor and it should have been the long-overdue end of the story. And yet here we are, voting for the third time. Why? Well, obviously yet again for the very reason that was so clearly articulated by Natalina and Calton - there are people who don't want to let go of the article because they are very fond of making it a vehicle of hurt, libel, misinformation, and disparagement. And yet that very same policy page I quoted above, ], lists the following as yet another category qualifying for speedy deletion:

Attack pages. Articles which serve no purpose but to disparage their subject (e.g., "John Citizen is a moron").

To summarize: both authors of the article want the article deleted. Therefore, by policy, the article should be deleted. The only reason to want to oppose the wishes of the authors is if one wants to use the article as a vehicle of disparagement. Therefore, by policy, the article should be deleted. Helicoid 05:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

1. Template:User against Saud and Template:User Nepal Maoists. Both restored. 30 January 2006
2. Teagames. Restored and relisted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Teagames (2nd nomination) 27 January 2006.
3. Greenlighting. Undeleted and relisted for deletion. 16:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Misplaced Pages:Title Neutrality and Misplaced Pages:Conspiracy theory titles - kept userfied. 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Chiens Sans Frontiers - speedy undeleted; listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chiens Sans Frontiers; deleted there. 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Linked pages from Crooked Timber - Henry Farrell (political scientist) (AfD discussion) and Eszter Hargittai (AfD discussion) speedy undeleted, afd'd, and kept; John Holbo, Tom Runnacles, Micah Schwartzman, Belle Waring deletion endorsed. 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
7. 24SevenOffice - kept deleted. 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Zoner, Inc. - relisted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zoner, Inc. (2nd nomination). 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Yafinsint: Nomination withdrawn, admitted hoax. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
10. NATARS: Kept deleted. 23:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Holy Father: Not a deletion issue. Article now stands as a dab. 23:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
12. LUEshi: Closure of "keep" upheld. 04:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Ninjah Pendragon: Kept deleted. 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Pussy_City_Pimps : Kept deleted. 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Weishampel exchange : Kept deleted. 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
16. Template:User allow fairuse : Kept deleted. 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
17. Circumcision fetish: Kept deleted. 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
18. Pedelec: Kept deleted (something about mediation??? no a DRV matter anyway). 17:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
19. Game Central Network: Kept deleted. 17:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
20. Ludvig Strigeus: Relisted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ludvig Strigeus (second nomination). 17:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Content review

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

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

History only undeletion

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

Decisions to be reviewed

• WP:DELREVD

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

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

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

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Temporary_undeletion

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

2006-01-29

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

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

• There was some unnecessary heat in that discussion, IMHO, but my take on it was that consensus for delete was there, after factoring out trolls, but it was a fairly close run thing. I think the closing admin acted in good faith, erring on the side of no consensus as a good admin should, yet I'd nevertheless support overturn and delete. Failing that, suggest that you try again in a few weeks. I'd imagine that relisting wouldn't be out of line as the process was pretty contaminated. Often, things go cleanly the second time around, when passions have cooled a little. It's not going to kill WP if it isn't gotten rid of right away. ++Lar: t/c 22:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Still keep. I voted keep in the AFD because this is an interesting topic and a notable phenomenon, and because categories do not serve the same purpose as lists. The gay niggers you noted have contributed to Misplaced Pages in a positive way and it would be ridiculous to discount their votes just because they have an unusual pastime. // paroxysm (n) 22:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Looks like a perfectly good article to me. The existence, in the one full part of the United States that does not have statehood, and moreover the one devoted wholly to government of the United States, of streets (mostly avenues) named after all fifty states of the Union, is no coincidence, and a list of those streets is of encyclopedic value. It is of perhaps as much encyclopedic value as the list of streets of Atlentic City that appear in the US monopoly board, or lists of streets in London that appear in the British version. That is to say: not much, but the net value is positive and the article is unlikely to pose any great maintenance problems. Having said that, R. Fiend may wish to try his luck at a second AfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The existence of a naming scheme for some streets in a city is worth mentioning in an article about the city or an article about the transportation infrastructure/streets of the city ingeneral. On the other hand, a list of the names themselves is simply a list of the names of the U.S. states with "Avenue" appended to each name and has no real value, since, frankly, few of them are worth an actual article (Massachusetts Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue being notable exceptions). --Calton | Talk 02:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Rerun AFD or delete looks like the AfD got hijacked by some GNAA members, and then the closing admin forgot to discount their votes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per Lar. I don't like smearing contributors as "GNAA", and I'd suggest that R. fiend be more civil than usual when dealing with people you suspect are troublemakers. You play into a their hands when you shout "Troll!", howcheng's approach was the better one here. That being said, the arguements to delete were clearly superior. - brenneman 23:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete without prejudice to the closing admin, R. fiend is corrct, we keep saying 'not a vote but a discussion' well the strength of this discussion was delete - no real case was made to do otherwise. --Doc 23:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• If VFD really is a discussion, not a vote, there is nothing wrong with this article. Keep. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, that was a non-sequitor. --Calton | Talk 02:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It was the truth. If you don't like the truth, you can leave. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Like R. Fiend says, many reasons given for deleting, not much for keeping. And if the contributions of GNAA have to be proven rather than assumed good, then they're wasting everyone's time here, and goodbye and good riddance to 'em. --Calton | Talk 02:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Well I've found yet another way to violate the OMG SANCTITY OF AFD. You can ban me now. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close. I see nothing untoward in the Admin’s decision to close this as no consensus. There are obviously plenty of good arguments for articles and lists of this type, such as those provided by TS above, or some that were made in the AfD. Of course, if we are going to discount the GNAA's contributions, we might have started with the 100 or so skirmishes in the "war on blogs". I mean how much of a discussion and consensus is generated by a bunch of users competing to come up with new turns on the word cruft as they shoot down the latest "pod" or blog article...but I digress. -- JJay 03:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close - as Lar points out above, its probably simplest to just relist this in a month and see what happens then. There are so many worse articles out there, why waste more energy on this one? Turnstep 04:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Don't delete The new vote is going heavily in favor of keeping. Golfcam 04:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh yea, the "new vote", created with what certainly appears to be bad faith without even mentioning it here. I'd encourage all concerned to visit Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C. (second nomination).
    brenneman 05:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Nevermind, I already closed it as a bad faith nomination. We can talk about reopening it, if necessary, after this discussion is concluded. It might not be necessary at all. We'll see. -R. fiend 05:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

User:KJVTRUTH

• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:KJVTRUTH

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

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

• Hello! This page is for reviewing the deletion decisions of pages that have already been removed. WP:AN/I is more appropriate for complaints like this regarding pages that still exist, though I urge you to reconsider, as his user page is not considered part of the encyclopedia and doesn't actually have to conform to NPOV. If you feel the user has made edits that are pushing a POV, please continue to try and work it out him/her on their talk page before going to WP:AN/I for intervention. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No, per the yellow boxes just up there, this page reviews decisions to both delete and not-delete articles. -Splash 17:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Whoops! Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• I disagree. It may be appropriate to discuss here whether I made the right decsion in closing the MD listing for this userpage. I think I made the right decision, but it was an unusual one. There are other views and perhaps this would be an appropriate venue in which to air them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• I think Tony shouldn't have done that; there was a sensible discussion going on and he just pulled the rug out, while as usual he could have achieved the same effect with less disruption by waiting for two days. But this has been pointed out several times before, and apparently he doesn't really care if he needlessly upsets others. That said, the point is moot since the MFD would (very likely) have resulted in a keep anyway (5d, 4k), so I call WP:SNOW on this one and request to keep undeleted. Radiant_>|< 17:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a little bit naughty of you to recast this close as some display of callous indifference (I'd say it's almost a personal attack in the manner in which it's framed, but never mind). If as seems evident this was a content dispute, then the article should not have been listed for deletion and a close was in the interests of the community. I don't think we should entertain the rather drastic step of having users list one another's userpages for deletion when an edit would perform the job quite adequetely. .And Radiant! hasn't done his homework, either, before setting out deliberately to smear a fellow administrator. I acted after the issue of the MD was discussed on WP:AN and the consensus was that it was an inappropriate way to resolve a content dispute . Which is precisely what I said in closing it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Wow, you're having a lot of fun accusing people of deliberate smearing campaigns lately. Ever heard of WP:FAITH? Radiant_>|< 20:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You made a false accusation without any basis. You made that false accusation not only here but in WP:AN/I. At no point did you approach me to ask on what basis I made my decision, but simply assumed that I had conjured it up out of thin air. Whatever happened to good faith, indeed! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      • C'mon guys. Both of you know better than to bicker this way, and either of you could turn the other cheek first if you wanted to. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 20:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse the admin's decision to close the discussion. The user page should never have been listed for deletion on the ostensible basis of verifiability and neutrality. Tom Harrison 18:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep undeleted but smack admin with a trout and with no prejudice against relisting. The discussion on WP:AN used as the obstensible support for the closing shows no such consensus. The MfD had appropiate discussion taking place. We don't just shut down discussion because we think it's silly, and a little forethought would have revealed that a) This MfD was probably going to be a "keep" and b) Closing it early was sure to be contentious. I'm at a loss as to why this venue is an acceptable place to discuss it but that venue was not. - brenneman 23:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Question: Can someone give me a link to the specific discssion at WP:AN? It didn't jump out at me there. I'm undecided about this, but I don't want it to be seen as a precedent that user pages are immune from the deletion process. -R. fiend 23:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure. WP:AN#Soapboxing_and_user_pages at the time of writing. Discussion was 18:34, 25 Jan to 13:02, 26 Jan, and I took action the following morning at around 0400.. But although the conclusion of the discussion was a clear feeling that the listing was inappropriate, the discussion at the time isn't really the point. Maybe the discussion missed something. Should we just let people list one another's userpages for deletion just like any other non-article content page? The discussion was only a way of getting a eat-of-pants feel as to whether to intervene at that time. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep undeleted but smack admin with a trout, as said above by Aaron. (Or maybe, given that that admin is constantly doing this, we should use something bigger. Anyone got a spare whale we can borrow? FearÉIREANN\ 00:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

SNK Boss Syndrome

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

• Tony's having fun with bluelinks again. But you think those links in the AfD are references? Please: not a one of them mentions the term! -Splash 17:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  Nevertheless, I plan to improve this article somewhat if its undeleted; its a common enough term to be useful at wikipedia, as well as a good reference concerning articles to the reader. -Zero 17:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  If you think the article can be improved, why not give it a go? Adding verifiable references to the article would address the main reason for deletion. the article has been temporarily restored and is unprotected. This debate will run for a few days and then it'll be deleted permanently again if there is no reason to keep it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  It already has been, apparently. It's no good to Misplaced Pages if you can't find reliable sources that use the terminology. At least think of a proper title for it. Misplaced Pages is not a how-to guide. -Splash 17:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  Hmm. How about merging the relevant info into the SNK article, fighting -genre article, or King of Fighters artcle....? Keep the terminology and information. -Zero 17:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  You asked for a deletion review. I'm saying I don't see why this has been undeleted before anyone comments on the request and without the offer of sources. Can you provide a reliable source using the terminology? If you can't, the material shouldn't be merged anywhere and should be re-deleted. -Splash 17:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  Actually he may have a point. If the boss behavior ascribed to particular boss characters in the article is verifiable, maybe the material could be usefully merged to SNK if it's not already there. Just a thought. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  Yes. I imagine the actual behaviours are verifiable easily enough, but I don't yet see a source that collects those behaviours together into this 'syndrome' and that creates this syndrome as something that can then be applied to other characters. That is, I was objecting to the part of Zero's comment that says "keep the terminology". -Splash 17:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  I'll look into that. But the 10th anniversary website even states that SNK bosses are purposely created with overwhelming difficulty in mind. That said, I've created a namspace section for its furthur discussion: User:MegamanZero/SNK Boss Syndrome proto-pending. This is certainly valid facts and information, and we as a comprehensive encyclopedia cannot allow it to go to waste. -Zero 17:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  We can if you can't find reliable sources for it. -Splash 18:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  You've also just executed a copy-paste move into your userspace. We should delete that, move the original article there, and then delete its redirect. Wait — that's the way we usually do this! What a good idea! -Splash 18:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  Not for the terminolgy. But the facts are indeed correct. "A half- or full-screen super move that inflicts rated damage values of 1/3 of the opponent's maximum health if unblocked, and 1/6 if blocked (i.e. Don Duke's Ground Zero, Igniz's Chaos Tide).", a very true statement. I am suggesting a "merge", if you will, into a parent article, allowing these analysis be attributed to respective articles. I'm waiting for discussion regarding this. -Zero 18:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  I don't mind if you add information about the particular levels of damage done by particular characters' particular moves to their articles. (Although it's more than a little crufty.) I do mind if you label that information as evidence of this Syndrome, or use a simple description of the move to create the Syndrome, when the only sources I cna find for this 'Syndrome' are mailing list posts, that are hardly reliable sources. -Splash 18:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  Splash, I'm not inquiring for your "permission" on this matter. Furthurmore, I cannot see how statistic information from a video game is crufty. Truthfully, I don't care for the Title/label of the article, I'm concerned about the content and how it can be imformative to the reader. They are true, and one way or another this should stay in its compiled status in mainspace. I'm currently thinking of a section in the SNK article dedicated to it. -Zero 18:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  <reset indent>You don't need to inquire for permission, but you do need to realise that you don't get to add to unverifiable material to articles. Period. You appear to be asserting that you do, adn that to remove it is censorship. -Splash 18:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Saying the damage percentile set by the game's programmers is unverifiable material is a untrue statement. Why not retain the info, make mention of its fan origins, and merge into another article..? I'll agree the opening thesis is incorrect in making it sound as if it is a official term or whatnot, but the core information is indeed true. I don't see what you're getting at here. -Zero 19:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, please take a few minutes to re-read the verifiability policy. Verifiable does not mean "a well-supported opinion." Verifiable does not mean "can be proved true." The policy says Misplaced Pages articles "should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher. " You cannot say any about damage levels, etc. on your personal authority, not even if someone could "verify" them by playing the game. That's not what's mean by verifiability. What you must do is find published sources, e.g. a game magazine, that has published these facts, and cite these sources. "Verifiable" means that someone can find the source--go to a library and check out that copy of the magazine--and see that it really jibes with the way it is used in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure/keep deleted. Validly deleted in process. Comments in the discussion were well-founded, closure was reasonable. The article had no source citations whatsoever and was in violation of our verifiability policy. If Zero didn't keep a copy, provide him with a copy of the deleted article. He should overhaul the article offline or in his own user space. When it meets our policies on verifiability and citing sources, and not before, he can re-create the article without prejudice. (It would be a really good idea for him to ask some other editors to review the work in progress before re-creating the article). To undelete a main-namespace article that is pure, unsourced opinion, and has been properly voted for deletion, is to make a mockery of the verifiability policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• KD, I see no reason to doubt the claims that this is original research. Especially the exact damage percentages cited make for a doubtful definition. Radiant_>|< 17:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted unless and until someone can provide reliable sources. I note the error of the undeletion is already apparent: MegamanZero is insisting on Talk:SNK Boss Syndrome that we must suspend WP:V for several days because to do otherwise would be...wait for it...censorship. -Splash 18:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • How does Zero's expressed opinion on a talk page demonstrate "the error of the undeletion"? I notice that he's objecting to your removal of unverified stuff from the article, but he's not acting in any untoward way, though his opinion is obviously different from yours on the appropriateness of reomving the unverified information from the article at this stage. I tend to agree with you that the material sould remain off the article page until it can be verified and, if verification is possible, Zero will go to it. If edit warring should get out of hand, the article can be protected in the usual way. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I had to edit war briefly to get the unverified material to stay out, and was told that, since undeletion was being discussed, we had to keep all the material in the article because an undeletion overrides WP:V (which your undeletion did, after all, but not in the same sense). A userfication, as is far more appropriate in such cases wouldn't have that kind of issue. -Splash 20:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• KD - The more I think about it, the more I think it'd be better just to put an "SNK Boss" section in, say, List of fighting game terms mentioning it'd be slightly opinionated, though the term "SNK boss" has certainly been used before. (I've put a note to this effect in the talk page.) --Yar Kramer 18:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse colsure and keep deleted. Valid process, and I think the right decision as well. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 23:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Colony5

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

• Undelete per my nom. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 05:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Worth relisting, at the very least, but there doesn't appear to be any basis for deleting the current article. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. There are actually some words in the Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators about this kind of case: "Some opinions can override all others...If a page was to be deleted, but a person finds references for a particular topic or rewrites the article, the page might be kept." It's commonsense, really, and would certainly be strongly indicated where the nominator concedes that the reason for deletion has been addressed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Can I ask that we stop undeleting articles by default when they hit DRV, and that we protect and use the template as suggested in talk? (See discussion advertised above.) - brenneman 12:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I note your request. Why do you want this article protected and hidden? Do you suspect abuse? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's interesting, because I'd think seeing the deleted material would make sense in coming to a consensus as to what to do. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not about keeping the article hidden. Generally, the process is to post the article text here (if it's a one-sentence wonder) or to put it in someone's userspace (generally the person requesting undeletion). This way, the text is available for the duration of the DRV, but it doesn't show up in "random article", etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Is there a particular reason why this article, which is clearly marked as under review, should not show up on Random article? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes. It's an article deleted following due process, which is in a limbo state during an appeal process. Theres more reason not to have it on random article (and search and mirrors) than to have it. The solution you employed at list of LBU people was, IMO, the right one. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 23:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      • If I followed the alternative solution then it could not be edited, which I think would be a net loss. Since its deletion status is being queried, and it may well be possible by editing to improve it and make it a better article, more fit for Misplaced Pages, I don't see the mere procedural concept of limbo as useful. It sounds like a game of grandmother's footsteps or musical chairs were everyone has to freeze when the music stops. Misplaced Pages isn't a bloody silly game, it's an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Up to a point, Lord Copper. If it wasn't fixed during AfD, I'd say it is unlikely to be fixed during DRV. Yes, it's an encyclopaedia. And that means unencyclopaedic content gets deleted. And ought really to remain so, at least at the surface level, until there is oncsensus to undelete. Which often there is not. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 23:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      • But what purpose is served by keeping deleted while we discuss, in good faith, whether deletion was the correct thing to do in this instance? I'm just not seeing a clear reason here except "because AfD voted it so." Well we're deciding whether AfD got it wrong. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per above. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 23:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-27

Template:User_ku_klux

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

• Extremely Strong Undelete. It is outrageous that this was speedied when it was obvious that a clear consensus to keep was developing. In order to avoid sounding like a bureaucrat, I also re-present my argument: "Offensive and POV, but in userspace. It also helps identify what could be biased edits. In any case, it's always best to know thy enemy." - Cuivienen (Return) 04:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Once again I agree with Cuivienen. There is nothing in that userbox that violates policy, and it isn't even POV. There was a clear consensus to keep, so why was it deleted? -Chairman S. 04:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You seem to be confused about Misplaced Pages policy. There is no 9th Amendment in effect here. You don't have a natural right to create or use certain templates. Templates (and policies as well!) are created if and when they are needed to advance or facilitate the goal of writing an encyclopedia. This template is not only useless, it has the clear potential to offend and divide the community, and its continued presence would send the wrong signal to newcomers. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The template is an orphan--nobody is including it on his userpage--and it was created by Zanee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has been blocked as a sock of Batzarro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a vandal who put penis pictures on people's userpages. If we get a KKK member who edits Misplaced Pages with civility and wants to make a userbox template like this, then we'll address the issue without any question of bad faith; this is not that occasion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• You seem to be forgetting that DRV is NOT TFD. Also, this template hasn't been around long enough for anyone to find it.--God of War 04:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What can I say? it's a troll! In the absence of any evidence that there are KKK members who want to use it, I'd say it was created for the purposes of disruption. Sorry you don't get to vote on what is and isn't disruption. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist. Process is Important, and the consensus seemed to be leaning towards Keep at the time this was deleted. I'm very concerned about the precedents being set here. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist, definitely out-of-process. --Andy Saunders 04:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, appropriate speedy deletion of troll template. If you want people to pay more attention to process, simultaneously ensuring that our processes facilitate trolls and vandals is probably not the way to go. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Why must everyone insist on being a fucking moron? I had no sympathy for Kelly Martin until I saw this sort of shit, but now a bunch of idiots have actually made me sympathize with her. Now that takes a whole lot of sheer fuckheadedness. Where's my pisstrough? -R. fiend 06:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Keep. Obviously the only harm this template is causing is due to the deletion - restore the template, and whomever wants to can show their affiliation. And please stop speedying userboxes already. Speedy deletion is not a toy. --Dschor 07:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. What the hell does being a KKK member have to do with writing an encyclopedia? I would rather have a racist essay up on user pages that at least attempts to explain KKK membership rather than a quick, moronic, inflamatory trolling template. If it wasn't there to troll then fine, do whatever, its your page...you can decorate it. But your page is on Misplaced Pages, not just some place on the net to put all your BS moronic crap. As editors, we get to have our own cute little page, but using it just to troll with offensive red templates (not that making it blue will help) is idiotic, and permitting this BS, even just to go through a long deletion process, is just a horrid waste of time. It is hard to express this civily...So now any other troll can make BS and it takes takes AFD and DRV and almost two weeks just to get rid of? The voices of reason, grace, truth, and heck even Jimbo stand against this.Voice of All 08:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Is invoking Jimbo the wikipedian version of Godwin's Law? Calling this BS is BS. Leave it alone, and it won't bother anyone. Assume good faith, and please stop trying to make everything a troll. --Dschor 08:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not actually look at the templates history. It was made by this user. Hmm, he has been warned and blocked over other matters. If we allows this nonsense, then EVERYthing can go on Misplaced Pages, any random offensive nonsense with nothing to do with the encyclopedia can go on, and we would be a lot worse of.Voice of All 19:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. This is unacceptable, its creation was clear trolling, and arguments to keep it are in clear violation of WP:POINT. To take a page from Tony's book, if it's recreated I promise to delete it as many times as it takes. -- SCZenz 08:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. The only issue that matters here is whether or not process was violated, and it was. Aaron 09:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, process was not violated by speedily deleting a template promoting hate campaigns. Is anyone even looking at it? This is the KKK we're talking about, that means it's equivalent to a template stating "this user supports murdering people for their skin color". Radiant_>|< 09:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, seems personal attackish to me. Ian_ID:540053 11:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, the fact that "process was violated" is not a reason to stop using common sense. Garion1000 12:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete You can't just have userboxes with anti-KKK opinions. You have to have both sides of the argument available, otherwise its just bias - • Dussst • 12:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There's an anti-kkk userbox? Where is it? I'll speedy it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I thought you would. No, but theres anti-racism ones, which could include an anti KKK one - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • 15:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. If someone wants to display the fact that they're in the KKK, they can write their own text on their user page. Process does not trump common sense. Carbonite | Talk 13:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. In this case, the "out of process" claim is negated by the fact the userbox is a poster child for WP:POINT. –Abe Dashiell 13:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, this was clearly deleted out of process and WP:SNOW doesn't apply since there are people who want to keep it. But it's an orphan, a fact largely ignored by the TfD discussion. If you can produce a single person who wants to use this in good faith then I'm sure Tony will undelete it for you. But this theoretical userbox boundary testing is really getting old - isn't there some way we can stop dancing when the band is composed of trolls? - Haukur 15:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. This is a matter of core policy. Enforcing that, when appropriate, is something that permits going outside the normal order of business. --Improv 16:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, out-of-process perhaps, but history of the template and lack of use show that this is just trying to make a point. I agree that this boundary-pushing as a way to manipulate the userbox debate is getting seriously old, though. We should not be slaves to process. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted This review is more than enough to establish community consensus if delete is the outcome. Don't waste editors time on disruptive WP:Point. --FloNight 19:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong overturn there is no valid reason to speedy delete this template, and IMO not much reaosn to delete it at TfD either. DES 23:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted times one million. My god, you userbox people have been so blinded by the Kelly Martin affair that you think you can have whatever userboxes you want. This box is an offensive piece of crap and I'm glad it's gone. Morgan695 23:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• There is nothing to vote on here. This userbox is clearly in violation of WP:NPA, and until and unless you change that, this box will have to go. As it should. I can't believe anyone is even discussing this. User:Zoe| 00:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Who exactly is this box attacking? WP:NPA forbids personal attacks, which means there must be a person being attacked for that policy to apply. Putting "I am a racist" on a user's own user page is not a PA, so neither is doing so via a template (ingnorign for the moment any question about whether all KKK members are in fact racists, most of them surely are, IMO). DES 00:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, unused on any user page. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - I in general, being a process wonk (I think I need a userbox for that! KIDDING!), oppose out of process action, but 9 keeps to 1 delete suggests a lack of common sense in the AfD discussion, not a consensus. Unused, WP:POINT violation, not encyclopedic. But let's be civil in our discussion if we can. ++Lar: t/c 00:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Far out Ummm, keep deleted, smack with a trout everyone who has come within ten feet of this? Bad idea to create it, bad idea to send it to TfD as a "personal attack", bad idea to vote to keep it, bad idea to restore it/delete/whatever again. Please, can we stop with the monkey business of both creating stupid templates and playing around with our admin buttons, and get back to creating content? - brenneman 00:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and forget about it {{db-attack}} applies only to the article namespace; there is no userbox policy right now, so IMHO there's no real reason to delete this. Nobody will use it so it's not a big deal. Ashibaka tock 02:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all polemic userboxes per Jimbo's request. --Cyde Weys 02:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy - highly offensive template created for disruptive purposes. No need for consensus to delete such a template. --- Charles Stewart 02:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I'm a huge fan of due process, sometimes to a fault, but that doesn't mean that I'm an idiot who doesn't know where to draw the line. This speedy and subsequent listing here is making me more and more tempted to try and get a movement to deleting the whole bloody lot of non-Babel userboxes. These boxes have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is an encylopedia, dammit! --Deathphoenix 02:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and appropriately speedied - why does every decision that is to speedy delete a User template - no matter how inappropriate the template is have to be brought to Deletion review - some discretion in what is brought to deletion review would be appreciated by this user Trödel&#149;talk 14:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Deleting a template that is trollish, disruptive and in violation WP:NPA is not out of process. Marskell 14:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - and nuke from orbit. Process is not important when it is used to make a bunch of Wikipedians spend their time bureaucratically defining why a template defining a user as a member of a hate group does not help build the encyclopedia. FCYTravis 22:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted process is a means to an end and in this case nuking it was the right choice. Jtkiefer ---- 22:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, abuse. // paroxysm (n) 22:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy of computer science

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

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

2006-01-26

Maria Pia Braganza and Rosario Poidimani

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

• Comment Which AfD is being contested? Is it Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rosario Poidimani (3 nomination)? --- Charles Stewart 18:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maria Pia of Braganza is now a redirect to Hilda Toledano, and Maria Pia Braganza could be made one too, if that's what is wanted. Rosario Poidimani was nominated at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rosario Poidimani, we also have Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dom Rosario Saxe Coburg Gotha Bragança, which apparently is about the same article, and there's Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rosario Poidimani (3 nomination) which was speedily deleted as a G4 after garnering over 10 delete votes, with a single keep (by the present DRV nominator). I guess what is being asked for is the undeletion of Rosario Poidimani (it's blue because it's protetced with a deletedpage template) which I would presently oppose, at least without being given a good reason that has not yet been stated, and for Hilda Toledano to be moved to Maria Pia of Braganza or Maria Pia Braganza, which is a matter for WP:Requested moves. -R. fiend 18:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Following this, the only matter is the review of the deletion of Rosario Poidimani --- Charles Stewart 19:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - About the claim of poll-stacking: it looks like most delete voters voted delete after being contacted by M.deSousa. I don't know where the idea that they voted delete after being lobbied by Muriel comes from. No evidence for this has been presented. --- Charles Stewart 19:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Note I have changed to the heading so it now links 2 articles instead of one. -R. fiend 19:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes this is Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rosario Poidimani (3 nomination). All the users was advised by Muriel. Please see , , , ,. In all this page you can see this Muriel ask her friends to vote delete in the Rosario Poidimani page.Dom Rosario and Maria Pia of Braganza are considered pretenders also in very very important newspapers international, for example in the New York Time. See here . Please reinsert the Rosario Poidimani page and reinsert the name Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza in her wikipage.Thanks.M.deSousa 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• M.deSousa spammed several talk pages asking people to vote keep and is upset if somebody else does the opposite? I already told him that I would have voted delete if the article hadn't already been deleted. This is the third or fourth time this article has been created, there is no need to continue this process. Keep deleted the Poidimani article, keep as a redirect the Maria Pia article. User:Zoe| 19:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I spammed only because Muriel before of me spammed her wiki-friends pages and asked to delete this page.The mine is only a response to advise the other wiki-users, all many important in wikipedia because I choose them from the main page history. Also the other times Muriel asked to her friends to delete Rosario Poidimani page. This is no democratic votations !!!.M.deSousa 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You spammed random users. You spammed me with your voting campaign and I don't know you or this article. Aside from that, it says in big letters on my talk page: "DO NOT SPAM MY TALK PAGE". Talk about poor judgement. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is right: Muriel contacted all the people who voted delete on the 1st AfD I list below before DeSousa conducted the second ill-fated campaign. It's pretty lousy in my view to contact delete voters without also contacting keep voters. --- Charles Stewart 20:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That is not right: i alerted only and only the users i know are fighting this Rosario/Manuel de Sousa issue for the last years. And please note that i said that vote was back, i didnt give instructions like vote keep as Manuel did to Zoe, for instance (as if she hasnt brains of her own) muriel@pt 14:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This was a messy AfD: called the 3rd Afd but apparently the 2nd on the subject (also there was Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dom Rosario Saxe Coburg Gotha Bragança, which is more readable). However the grounds for concern of those two AfD seems to be still valid: the article is being used to advavance the notability of someone based upon original research about who would be the heir to the Portugese throne, if Portugal was not a republic. I'm concerned about the speedy, however: were the contents substantially the same as those deleted in the first AfD? --- Charles Stewart 20:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Dear Chalst the last version of Rosario Poidimani page is impartial and was this version: <reposting of deleted article re-deleted -- User:Zoe| 22:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)>
• keep deleted. relevant policy: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. muriel@pt 14:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

• As undeletion has been requested and there is a deletion template in the place of the article now, I have performed a history undeletion on Rosario Poidimani. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The newcomer is Sicilian-born Dom Rosario Poidimani, who says he is Dona Maria Pia's nephew. He said he came to Portugal to present his case to his potential subjects and to investigate the possibility of investing in Portugal. He already has investments in the central African Republic, Panama, and Spain.

Dom Rosario said he had a sworn statement from the 79-year-old Dona Maria Pia, written in a quavering hand, in which she passed her dynastic rights to him. He admitted she was experiencing genteel economic distress in Italy, where she lives, and that he had helped her out in return for the gracious document.

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

Jill Jolliffe proving her credulousness twenty years ago doesn't make someone notable, or Poidimani's claims credible. The purported bastard daughter of a king doesn't have the ability to "pass dynastic rights" to anyone by written instrument, particularly rights to a throne in a republic! At long last, M.deSousa needs to stop using Misplaced Pages as a means of campaigning for his favored pretend royalty. Again, and again, and again. And Wikipedians need to stop collaborating with him in this by repeatedly entertaining the same arguments in successive forums. Undeletion review "should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning." - Nunh-huh 20:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was just saying that there was an article written about him. I wasn't making any claims that he deserves to be king, I was just saying that a major newspaper ran a story on him, so he approaches notability (not nobility). Oh well, I was just throwing my two centavos in there. --LV 01:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

But ridiculous claims to nobility are not notable - at least not until the claimant attracts a wide following, a la Michael Lafosse. False nobles are a dime-a-dozen, and they are most likely to fool those unfamiliar with their techniques. This gent is not a serious claimant to anything, and can probably count his supporters on two hands. - Nunh-huh 16:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Ambiguous five-letter acronyms

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

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

• Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_17#Category:Ambiguous_five-letter_acronyms The template discussion has gone past the seven days at TFD, no keeps, it's going to be deleted. Shall I go ahead and delete the template for you, making this DRV moot? Never mind, go ahead and recreate it so we can, as you say, "keep until template deleted". --Kbdank71 16:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• This doesn't look like a question of whether the page should be deleted or not, but only about how to go about this. Why don't you just talk to Kbdank about this? I don't see the need for the formality of DRV here. --- Charles Stewart 16:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Thank you. As you'd see in the talk on TfD, we've been using the categories to find the templates to orphan. The templates will probably be in the holding cell for some time.... --William Allen Simpson 04:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-25

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

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

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

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

• Oppose - WP:NOT a memorial. Opens the door to listing every single victim of every terrorist attack, plane crash or natural disaster in the world. Why not a Casualties of Hurricane Katrina, Casualties of PSA Flight 182, Casualties of Bioče train disaster, etc.? FCYTravis 21:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings and List of Hillsborough disaster casualties. Kaldari 21:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Good candidates for deletion or cropping, IMO. FCYTravis 21:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Good luck! Kaldari 21:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: Both those above articles are now AfD nominees: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Casualties_of_the_7_July_2005_London_bombings, Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Hillsborough_disaster_casualties. --Aaron 09:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, a list of people we shouldn't have articles on is just an indiscriminate collection of data. User:Zoe| 21:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  It is a collection of data, but not an indiscriminate one. It is very discriminate and sought after by people using Misplaced Pages. Kaldari 21:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  I sympathize with the sentiment, but every single person that dies in a terror attack is not encyclopedic thereby, and it opens doors I don't think we want opened. Do we start listing every Palestinian and Israeli killed in the 50 years of violence there? Every person who died when the Titanic sunk? Everyone who was killed in the Dresden firebombings and London blitz? Once we start listing victims of a terrorist attack on America, WP:BIAS would seem to suggest that we must start listing victims of every terrorist attack... or anything that killed someone. Why is dying in a terrorist attack more encyclopedic than dying in a tsunami? FCYTravis 21:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Do you think Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings should be deleted? Kaldari 21:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Yes. And I ride along those roads when I go to my London office. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 21:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Then please list it for deletion, so that we are at least consistant. Kaldari 21:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Done, See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings (2nd nomination). DES 22:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Is there a list of victims of the 2004 Tsunami? I think this is an example of systemic bias; WP:ISNOT a memorial. , whatever the nationality of the deceased. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 21:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  No, but there isn't a Memorial Wiki for those events either. Isn't it more of a bias to have an entire Wiki hosted for one disaster than to have a list of victims?? Kaldari 21:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  The only question of bias that arises here is bias in this particular Wikimedia Foundation project. This is a silly counterargument.--- Charles Stewart 21:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  It isn't silly because the Sept11 articles are littered with links to the Memorial Wiki. I try my best to remove them or move them to the external links sections, but they keep coming back. Why not move the verifiable NPOV content into Misplaced Pages so that we can have people link to that instead? Kaldari 22:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Here is just one of countless examples: David_Lawrence_Angell Kaldari 23:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - The arguments for unmaintainability still apply. --- Charles Stewart 21:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per User:FCYTravis. If soemone wants to either maintain or shut down the memorial wiki, that would be fine, but in neither case is it wikipedia's problem, and no such list, for any disaster, should be on wikipedia. DES 21:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per policy. As it says, Misplaced Pages is not a suitable place for "Memorials. It's sad when people die, but Misplaced Pages is not the place to honor them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives." Dpbsmith (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  I fail to see how having someone's name on a list is "honoring" or "memorializing" them. Kaldari 22:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Then you don't agree with me. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support I agree with Kaldari. Verifiable, NPOV lists of victims shouldn't be deleted just because there are "so many of them"--FRS 21:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• KD, we're not a memorial. If you want a memorial wiki, create one on Wikicities or wherever. Radiant_>|< 22:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  My goal with this proposal is to get rid of a memorial wiki, not create one! Why does everyone say I am trying to create a "memorial"? You guys have a strange idea of what "memorial" means :P Kaldari 22:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • You're welcome to get rid of the memorial wiki since it's served its purpose (I think there's a vote on Meta to that extent), but that doesn't mean that the information from there should instead be moved here. The 9/11 wiki was created in the first place to provide an outlet for information on otherwise not notable people. See also WP:NOT. Radiant_>|< 22:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per FCYTravis and Charles Stewart. Rossami (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons listed above. I'm sure comprehensive lists are available externally, a link to one in the 9/11 article would be more useful. goatasaur 22:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose/keep deleted, for reasons stated. If the memorial wiki is in such bad shape and no one cares to clean it maybe it's deletion should be discussed too. I have no opinion on that, as it is outside the scope of wikipedia. -R. fiend 22:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted,oh! wait... after looking into the definition of Casualty (person) I've decided to(undelete/(bring back)). In the event that this article is deleted I would like for all information to be tranfered to a sub article on my user page. I will then proceed to merge the information under another article... This is based on the idea that there is "similar" (I say that without even having looked at this article "because it's delete") one called World War II casualties. So currently there appears to be more precences to support VERY STRONG UNDELETE And perhaps merge to: As President Bush said "War on terrorism." And, if it's to big then perhaps it deserves its own article. --CyclePat 23:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Your argument makes no sense. The article you cite is an article with statistics and information about casualties in World War II. It is NOT a list of every single person killed in World War II. If someone wants to write an article about the statistics and information of those killed in the Sept. 11 attacks, then that would make sense. We don't list a bunch of names of people killed in world tragedies. How about List of Holocaust casualties? FCYTravis 00:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I think you are trying to say that this article was a list of names. Seeing as I can not see Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks: City of New York, why should I believe what you are saying? Secondly, there is nothing in the article name that sugest this is a list. I believe you are adding new information that was not discused in my original query/comment; that is having an article that is a list here on wikipedia. Wikiepedia has a policy that says lists are not permisible. (Conclusion from my rebutal: the article in question that is up for undeletion is called Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks: City of New York, no proof was given to say this is a list and nothing in the title sugests this is a lists. No matter the case I ask that the article be moved to my user space so I may examine the case and see what information may be added to war on terrorism. --CyclePat 00:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Pat, you should believe FCYTravis because he has absolutely no reason to lie. I have looked at the article, too - it's a list. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 01:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Question: Can we consider the result of this debate as binding for the newly created American Airlines Flight 11 victims article, as they cover the same basic concept? If not, one of us (me, I suppose) should nominate it for deletion separately. I do think it's best to cover both in the same forum, to ensure a consistent outcome, at least. -R. fiend 23:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Fair enough, although it's questionable if we'll get a consistant outcome on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings (2nd nomination) as well. Really, we need the policy at WP:NOT clarified if we want this issue resolved definitively. Kaldari 23:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  True, this might be a start to that end, though. -R. fiend 23:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Question: (I would like to here the interpretation of someone that is for keeping this article deleted vs someone that is for undeleting this article.) What is the difference in between deleting article Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks: City of New York vs article World War II casualties, and article American Airlines Flight 11 victims? Do the names of the "casulties" have a signifant importance? Do statistics play an important role? What about information and sources? Do you agree that perhaps there may have been another wiki process, (ie.: such as verifiability logo, etc...) that would have better served the issue? Finally your comment on wiki deletion process. (please answer in regular essay format, 3 paragraphs, totalling no more 500 words) (and since this is more of question about deletion of other similar articles, a deletionist may start) --CyclePat 00:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  Did you look at the World War II casualties article? It's not: "PFC Charles Doober, SSgt Arnold Plotty, Private Al Ripfibb, Col Ernie Gropp..." etc etc etc. It's about the casualities; it's not a list. An entirely different sort of article. -R. fiend 01:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse the original closing decision Process was appropriate and nothing has changed.--FloNight 01:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Also, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/American Airlines Flight 11 victims. Radiant_>|< 01:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Misplaced Pages is not a memorial, VfD went the right way. --Improv 03:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Misplaced Pages is not a memorial. The answer here is to stop complaining and to fix the 911 memorial wiki so it actually can be locked. - Mgm| 11:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Misplaced Pages is not a memorial. *drew 07:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per FloNight. --Aaron 09:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Lists in the Misplaced Pages namespace

This was put up for deletion ("discussion" here), but there were no votes made either way(!). Techincally, I guess the deletion would be out of process since no votes = no consensus = keep (or, better, relist with a plea for some freaken votes), but I'm not standing on ceremony here or blaming the closing admin, I'm just not sure that it should have been deleted, for these reasons:

1. As an internal category, It can't bother/upset/confuse normal users, so it should have a high threshold for deletion (in my opinion) unless the category is causing some actual confusion or clutter or other harm.
2. I'm not sure I buy the nominator's point that categories always replace lists, because some groupings are inherently sujective and thus cannot go into public space, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are completely devoid of value.
3. There are two articles here that, if the category is deleted, will have no category, which is more-or-less the same as deleting the article (I think?) because it will then float around in the void with no category handle, unless someone re-categorizes it. These are Misplaced Pages:List of screenshots (which may have no value, I don't know) and Misplaced Pages:List of lists which I think does have potential value, although no one has updated it recently. (I just added a third list to the category, User:Herostratus/List of non-notable spouses, which may have little or no value, I don't know.) There is another article, Misplaced Pages:Unusual articles, which if this category is deleted will only belong to Category:Misplaced Pages humor, but its not of just humorous interest, I think.

Anyway, maybe the category shouldn't exist, you people tell me. Herostratus 15:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist a nom with no further discussion is not consensus by any reasonble standard IMO. I don't know what I would say on such a relisted discusion. DES 18:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Note. Unless stated otherwise, I view the nomination as the nominator's choice. In this case, one person wanted to delete the category, and nobody objected. --Kbdank71 20:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - nomination counts as vote. --- Charles Stewart 21:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes it does, but one vote can not IMO be reasonably called "consensus". DES 21:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I think it can be: to say there is a consensus is to say there is no serious dispute. Of course raising it here does make a dispute, but that is no objection to how the CfD was closed. I don't think the nomination has indicated any value to the category at all, only listed some dubious principles that, if we accepted, would lead us to keep the category. --- Charles Stewart 21:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems like a valid Misplaced Pages namespace category to me. --Cyde Weys 21:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not a deletion vote. Radiant_>|< 22:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse and delete, nearly half of nominations on CFD are procedural and do not get many votes. This is a good thing because it prevents CFD from becoming a tarpit of negativity like AFD. CFD is heavily watched and if anybody wanted to object, they would have. And remember that CFD is not a vote. Radiant_>|< 22:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, this is not a meaningful categorisation. The cat contains pages in Wikispace that (1) are about lists, but those should go in the manual of style, and (2) happen to have the form of a list, which is not a defining characteristic, and those pages should go in a more appropriate cat. I've recategorized both pages Herostratus mentioned. Radiant_>|< 01:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment from nominator. I don't have a huge problem with the way the original CfD was handled. Nomination does count as 1 delete vote, and hey, not one person spoke up to support the category. The closing admin could have relisted, but hey we're busy; no support at all, I can see how he would have just closed. I guess it's kind of a borderline case, I happened to come across it, happen to want to keep the category, so I think as a borderline case -- and on an internal category at that -- it would be proper to relist it. (And I realize I should not have listed my reasons for keeping the category here, but in a relisted CfD (if there is one), which is also where all debate about the category should go. Deletion review should be mainly about the process, and I'm sorry for opening up that can of worms.) I still think that as a borderline case it should be re-listed more-or-less on request unless the closing admin thinks there no real support for that. Or, if the closing admin thinks that a close is a close unless clearly out of process (not just borderline), I would accept that though not agree.Herostratus 17:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Category depicts useful disimbiguation to list-type articles. -Zero 03:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Once more, DRV is not a deletion vote, and a category is not a "disimbiguation" (sic) anyway, nor did this category contain any articles. Radiant_>|< 17:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User homosexual-no

This template was speedily deleted by Jdforrester during a deletion debate in which several people had disagreed with his conclusion that this is "obviously" an attack template. It was created by me (a lesbian) in response to a request on Misplaced Pages talk:Userboxes/Sexuality and also to the proliferation of progay templates on Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Sexuality (there are six, and that's not even counting the dozens of templates expressing that the user is gay, or lesbian, or bisexual, or transgendered, etc...). Many users already have Template:User marriage man-woman on their userpages, so I believed that there would be a demand for this userbox. Arguments for this have been presented on Template talk:User marriage man-woman, Template talk:User homosexual-no, and in the deletion debate. I believe that since there is debate over whether this template qualifies as a personal attack that it should get the chance to go through a regular TfD debate instead of being deleted out-of-hand. Jdforrester has explained his deletion on his talk page by stating that, "Essentially, all of the templates on Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Sexuality must die. Painfully." However, the way to work on this is by posting at Misplaced Pages:Proposed policy on userboxes, not by deleting individual templates that express views with which you happen to disagree. - AdelaMae 19:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep Deleted. It is an attack template. As I commented, why would a "this user is straight" userbox not suffice to oppose the "this user is gay" userboxes? I don't see any gay boxes claim that straigth intercourse as it would be put, is immoral. -- Sneltrekker†My Talk 19:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

To those who say this is an attack template, I have one question: If someone wrote "I believe homosexual intercourse to be immoral" on a talk page, would it be a personal attack? If so, there are a lot of things needing deleted on Misplaced Pages. - AdelaMae 02:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, please review WP:NPA and tell me which of the criteria this falls under. It most certainly does not apply homophobic epithets to anyone. - AdelaMae 20:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Extreme keep deleted!. Nasty little item. User:Zoe| 19:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, and review WP:POINT. -- SCZenz 19:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Don't see the significance. The template was not created to make a point, nor was undeletion requested to do so. The template was simply created to reflect a significant view that a number of Wikipedians have, so that, if they choose to, they can express that view in a regulated userbox. It was made by request at Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Sexuality, and after a discussion on the matter. In my opinion, the main reason this template is under siege is knee-jerk reactions to any expression of a non-positive view of a minority, without stopping to consider the fact that the template is worded in a non-inflammatory, perfectly un-aggressive manner that does not actually attack homosexuals, but merely expresses a common religious belief regarding homosexual intercourse. The fact that that belief is wrong is certainly no reason to delete the template, else we'd have to delete "This user believes in reincarnation" and most other religious templates; nor does the fact that it expresses a negative view (i.e. "This user thinks X is bad" rather than "This user thinks X is good") intolerable, as there are dozens of similar userboxes that also don't attack say something like "This user thinks that Wikipedian homosexuals are immoral", etc. Nuances like that are being flagrantly ignored, as people attempt to turn this from a debate over whether or not people should be allowed to express an unpopular opinion in a userbox into a debate over the contents of the userbox and whether we agree with the opinion expressed there or not (which is patently ridiculous, as the template was created by a proud member of the LGBT community and a supporter thereof). Utterly besides the point. Whatever happened to disagreeing with what you say, but defending your right to say it? -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Could someone please clarify for me what point they think I was trying to prove and which of my actions was intended to disrupt Misplaced Pages? - AdelaMae 20:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted I can't see how a userbox questioning the morality of homosexual activity is an 'attack' any more than a 'pro-life' userbox questioning the morality of abortion. It is a statement of POV on morality, all be it not a very politically correct POV. However, I will not vote to undelete as I think (with Jimbo) that all such POV userboxes should be gone. --Doc 19:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Pro-life userbox just says: this user is pro-life. It would compare to a userbox: This user is a homophobe. Which would describe the user himself and not attack. -- Sneltrekker†My Talk 21:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  "homophobe" is still an externally-applied label; this is one reason why POV-advocating userboxes are harmful. "This user is verifiably straight." might be more analogous. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep deleted. Now becoming WP:POINT and saying any action is "immoral" is uncivil, creators personal circumstances don't come into it. Ian_ID:540053 20:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• The template does not say that any action is immoral. It says what the user of the template believes to be immoral. Vitally important distinction that you seem to have missed. -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  I haven't missed it. Ian_ID:540053 11:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• We have lots of pacifist templates that state that war is immoral. Would you vote to delete those on the grounds that they are uncivil to members of the military? Also, why is it okay for gay rights supporters to express their opinion, which undoubtedly offends many conservative Christian members of Misplaced Pages, but not okay for people who have a religiously motivated belief that homosexuality is "against God's plan" to express that opinion, which, by the way, is held by nearly half of all American adults? - AdelaMae 20:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted and delete the other hateboxes as well. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 20:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Template is a clear violation of civility policy. FCYTravis 20:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• How can an opinion, in itself, be incivil? Civility is a matter of how you express your opinions, not what your opinions are. It would be incivil to say "I HATE GAY PEOPLE THEY ARE STOOPID >:("—it is not incivil to say "This user considers homosexual intercourse to be immoral"; it's a statement of fact (that fact being that the user has the specified opinion). Let's clear the air here: are we talking about deleting this template because it's incivil, or because we disagree with what it says? Don't try to paint the latter as being the former, and don't try to use Misplaced Pages policy as a front for censorship of significant minority views (even when those views are disgusting and ignorant). -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• The opinion is not being debated (there is no move to mass-block homophobes). It is, however, not possible to express that opinion on Misplaced Pages without causing offence to a sizeable minority, therefore the userbox is uncivil. Or so my thinking goes, anwyay. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 17:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• The expression of the opinion is certainly being debated—people are arguing that it's incivil for people who hold this belief to talk about it in any way on Misplaced Pages, even though it's a common belief and is not any more offensive than dozens of other beliefs, like "This user believes that there is no God" (atheism) and "This user believes that people who don't agree with this user are going to Hell to suffer for eternity" (various religions) and "This user supports Hugo Chavez" and just about any other meaningful template or expression of opinion whatsoever. Offending anyone obviously isn't "incivil" (else you could argue for deleting anything you wanted just by claiming that it "offended" you), so what we're really saying is that offending the majority is "incivil", meaning that expressing any view which a majority of Misplaced Pages users disagrees with is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Is that really the message we want to send? Dissent, even when the opinion being dissented with is vastly, and aggressively, more popular, is not the same thing as an "attack template" or being "incivil". And even if they were, the place to discuss this is on TfD, where many more people can see it and voice their opinion on this clearly controversial matter; to delete it out-of-process like this, and then refuse to let it have more than an hour or two for discussion, is clearly an attempt at suppression, not at "civility". "Appeasing the majority" is not the definition of "civility". If there was a majority anti-homosexual sentiment on Misplaced Pages, would it be "incivility" to express pro-LGBT rights views? Of course not. So the reverse should also be the case; just because Misplaced Pages (like the Internet in general) happens to have an overwhelming number of minorities in proportion to the real world doesn't mean that we need to go out of our way to suppress opinions we don't like. Wikipedians don't have the right to "free speech", but they do have the right to be offensive, controversial, etc. on their user pages, as long as they don't violate any Misplaced Pages policies in doing so; we should promote openness and free discussion of issues like this, not enforce the will of the majority on everyone and mass-attack the templates of any opinions we disagree with strongly enough. -Silence 18:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per SCZenz. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion The only speedy criterion for "attacks" relates strictly to "articles", adn IMO this isn't an attack in any case, although i strongly disagree with the view it asserts. DES 21:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Jimbo's statement on polemical userboxes. Only userboxes that help build the encyclopedia should be allowed. --Cyde Weys 21:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• This template does help build the encyclopedia. It makes it clear that people who hold unpopular views are still permitted to be open and free about what they think, so long as they keep their views from influencing how they edit articles, and so long as they are tolerant of people who disagree with them. People should be permitted to say what they think (rather than forced to remain silent if the majority disagrees with them), and the dialogue should be kept open between disagreeing parties (rather than all disagreeing parties being kept silent, as though closing our eyes and ears to the problem will somehow make everyone with an unpleasant opinion go away), and people should be permitted to state their opinions on a matter even if it's not a positive one (i.e. allowing "I think the European Union is great", "I support George W. Bush", "I support LGBT righst", but never the opposite view, to let both sides state their mind?), and we should be allowed to draw on these types of people as a resource for when an article would be benefited by getting information from people with such an unusual view as "homosexual intercourse is unethical", who may be more familiar with the authors, documents, opinion nuances, Biblical passages, etc. that are relevant to the view. Before we rule absolutely that a certain type of template simply can't ever benefit the encyclopedia no matter what, why don't we give it a chance to benefit the encyclopedia? I don't see the huge tragedy that will ensue if we just calm down, think this through a little more, and give the template some time to see whether it can do any good. -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• KD, attack page. Radiant_>|< 22:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I'm starting to think userboxes are the most idiotic element of wikipedia. And that's saying alot. -R. fiend 22:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Don't necessarily disagree. There are a lot of inane ones out there. But this out-of-process, gang-up-on-the-unpopular-view-at-random speedy-deletion is not the way to deal with the issue. It's a way to hide from it. -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. It's not an attack but it doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme keep deleted. "This user is straight" and "This user is gay" do the job perfectly well, thank you. JIP | Talk 09:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• You obviously aren't very familiar with the LGBT-related userboxes. This was created as a counterpart to the half-dozen LGBT-support templates, etc. we have on the Sexuality page; it has absolutely nothing to do with the "gay" and "straight" templates. I've had debates in the past with both gay and straight people who have held the view very strongly that homosexual intercourse is immoral; maybe if more of the delete-voters had had the exposure to this ridiculous viewpoint that I've had, you'd understand that it's not as simple as "another 'straight' template" at all. -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment For the record, people can be straight and still not believe that homosexual intercourse is immoral. Therefore, your assertion that the userboxes which state sexual orientation "do the job" of this deleted one is specious. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Also true. -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted we already have heterosexual userboxes etc. if you want to mark yourself as 'not homosexual' then use those Cynical 18:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Again, a blatant misunderstanding of what this template, and all other Sexuality-related templates, actually mean. Your personal sexual orientation and your religious or ideological views on sexual intercourse are totally unrelated! The former has more to do with biology, the latter more to do with upbringing, and both can be very relevant to understanding fellow editors and to working in the company of people you disagree with (in fact, in many ways the opinion templates are infinitely more valuable than the sexual orientation ones, since they state a lot more about how the user will tend to behave, what his thought process are, and what his POV is than something like "sexual orientation", which might be significant if Misplaced Pages was an online orgy project, but isn't so important for an online encyclopedia project). -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn - While I don't agree with the opinion stated by this box, I don't think that deleting it will make that opinion go away. Anyway it doesn't matter because, as DES said, this does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This is not the place to make a judgement on the merits of the box - only on wheter on not the speedy deletion protocols were followed. Since they were not followed I believe this should be re-listed on TFD.--God of War 00:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Attack articles, etc. most certainly are covered by speedy deletion action. User:Zoe| 00:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• This is not an attack article. It is a statement of an opinion. The fact that that opinion offends some people certainly does not make it an "attack", in itself; if it did, we'd have deleted controversial articles like Scientology and George W. Bush long ago. Just as Misplaced Pages articles are permitted to offend (so long as they don't go out of their way to do so), so are user pages, and userboxes are purely a feature of userpages. -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. I can't see it, and I can't see the harm in it. It's a userbox, people! It won't harm you! Speedy deletion is not a toy. --Dschor 00:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn: inappropriate use of admin deletion functions; decision should not be made by the limited number of users capable of viewing removed revisions. DRV is not TFD. // paroxysm (n) 00:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Seems self evident - useful for hate and does not build unity Trödel&#149;talk 01:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist as per Misplaced Pages:Process is Important. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 13:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. To be consistant, pro-gay userboxes should go too. These all hurt the community. --Improv 13:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Then nominate them for deletion. Don't just vote for one and ignore the others, and thus promote inconsistency and bias. -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per Doc --- Charles Stewart 15:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted If personal attack userboxes get deleted, then so should these sort of userboxes - • Dussst • 15:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong overturn and relist. This template does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion; not only is it not a genuine "attack" template (and is only being painted as such as a way to censor an unpopular view), but even if it was, speedy-deleting an "attack" is only for something like List of reasons George W. Bush is an asshole, not for grey-area userbox disputes like this, and so this template certainly merits a full run on WP:TfD. What's so horrible about giving the template at least a few days rather than a couple of hours to let people talk (and think) it over, rather than trying to stifle and hide any discussion whatsoever on the matter? If it was so black-and-white and obvious that this is indisputably and beyond a shadow of a doubt an "attack" (rather than what it really is, a statement of an ignorant and horrible, but nonetheless commonplace and very significant, opinion), and nothing more, then the template wouldn't have had a majority for "keep" at the time the TfD was closed out of process. Obviously things aren't so simple. So let's take a step back, breathe, let the thing run its course on TfD, and then see what people think about it. I can understand why people would oppose a template like this, with its potential to cause controversy (though I think the benefit of showing that we allow people to hold and show that they have extremely unpopular opinions, so long as they don't let those opinions infect the articles they work on, outweighs the risk of allowing such an opinion to have its little colored box), but I can't understand why they'd go out of their way to violate Misplaced Pages's VfD process just because they don't like the template. Even templates that clearly were made "just to prove a point" (rather than genuine ones like this, see Misplaced Pages talk:Userboxes/Sexuality), like "This user hates Jews", were given a long run of time to accumulate plenty of votes and establish a real consensus! Why is this one, which is clearly much less of a pointed, aggressive "attack" template than the anti-Semitic one (both based on the context in which it was made and based on the actual text of the template), not being given the same amount of time and consideration? Why the double standard? No good can come of it. -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong overturn This is patently not an attack template; it states an opinion. Why is it that we can keep Template:User GWB and delete this? I would like to delete all political userboxes per Jimbo's suggestion, but it's totally unfair to keep most of them and delete this one. Ashibaka tock 17:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Relist, as there seems to be enough disagreement to warrent some sort of discussion. --AySz88^-^ 18:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Relist. Too much disagreement over the issue not to allow it a day in court through TfD. --StuffOfInterest 18:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, unacceptable attack on members of the community. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong overturn and relist per Silence and Crotalus horridus. --Aaron 09:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Silence - • Dussst • 12:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted what possible use is it in building an encylcopaedia?? --TimPope 12:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, everyone say it with me - DRV is Not TFD - You are supposed to be discussing whether the speedy deletion was appropiate, not whether or not the template should be kept after the tfd.--God of War 18:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Relist — CJewell (talk to me) 18:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong overturn — Deleting this template would make the Wikipedian pro-tolerance, anti-censorship stance appear one-sided and hypocritical.--Chris 16:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Although it seems nearly impossible to override the horde of users which wishes to turn Misplaced Pages into MySpace by playing along with their voting game, I do not wish my silence to be considered agreement. --Gmaxwell 17:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. It's not as clearcut a case as the KKK userbox, but I still think this has become WP:POINT. –Abe Dashiell 19:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why this is being considered WP:POINT. What point is it trying to prove, exactly? - AdelaMae 20:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it was assumed to be an exhibition of free-speech fundamentalism, like (probably) the KKK template. In fact, while the existence of KKK supporters in the Misplaced Pages is questionable, there are certainly hundreds of (for example) conservative Catholics who would agree with the content of this template, while being by their own standards not homophobes.--Chris 21:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion and reprimand the speedy deleting administrator. As a prior poster said, speedy deletion is not a toy! We operate on consensus here, not on unanimous decisions. The question here is not whether to keep or delete the template, but rather whether a discussion to decide it one way or another should even be permitted! This is Misplaced Pages, not Jdforresterpedia. D. G. 00:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-23

Template:Background

deletion history

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

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/June 2005
• Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/July 2005

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

--William Allen Simpson 00:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

2006-01-20

Karayana

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Karayana.

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

• Why not link this one and the next one to the Torc debate? They plainly involve exactly the same issues. David | Talk 13:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • People somtimes object to group nominations. They are clearly identical questions, however. -Splash 13:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. There are a number of admins who are (quite commendably) ensuring AfD's are closed within hours of time. However, I think the (perhaps slightly competitive) rush is leading to some ill-considered mathematical decisions. Perhaps slow it down.--Doc 13:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete or run again. Closing admins should always ignore sockpuppet/meatpuppet votes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

• Endorse close. Discounting only the IP user, there ios nothign like a delete consensus. Id soem of the other voters are to be discounted for sockpuppetry or other reasons, fairly clear evidence of the reason should be presented, I see none in the AfD debate and none in this discussion. DES 16:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Aneirin and Ravenlady both have edits solely to these 3 articles, their AfDs and DRVs. Ravenlady has a grand total of 3 edits ever. -Splash 17:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, 4-1 vote for deletion. User:Zoe| 17:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oh it's such a negligible article anyway that it should be merged to New Order of Druids. If we're keeping an article about that we may as well add information about council members. Irrespective of the sockery I don't see this as a deletion candidate unless (and I suppose it's possible) this person's existence and membership of the council is not verifiable from the Order's own literature or website. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • So you're suggesting that WP:V be expanded to accepting this as a Reliable source? - brenneman 14:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: For what I can see there are 3 debates on the same subject for 3 different articles (Torc, P.A.C. Bloos, David Dom and Karayana) that are related to one another through the article New Order of Druids. One would think it would be easier to discuss them as a group and not individually. For example if one is placed under one guideline (such as WP:V as is being questioned above) then it would also end up applying to the other articles by default.
• Relist. Two of the keeps were Ravenlady (talk · contribs) and 143.129.120.37 (talk · contribs) - strike those two and it's 4-2 delete, which is a 2/3 majority, but a long way from what anybody could reasonably call consensus. We need to address the issue of insufficient votes on AfD, I guess. Anyway, you could call it either way, so I'd relist. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 17:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

David Dom

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David Dom.

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

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

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

• Overturn and delete, would accept relist. Only one keep from anyone with a genuine edit history, but not many deletes either. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 15:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Relist, there were only 3-1 delete votes, this isn't quite a consensus. User:Zoe| 17:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Numerically, that's 3/4... -Splash 17:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I wasn't counting the people with very few edits. User:Zoe| 21:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I hope a relisting won't turn into the same puppetfest as Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Expansion Fleet (2nd nomination), the deletion nomination of David Dom's other website besides New Order of Druids. Kusma (討論) 14:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Aetherometry

• Keep deleted: 13
• Undelete: 9

Counted by Ashibaka tock 00:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aetherometry
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aetherometry (second nomination)

I was reading the Wilhelm Reich article and noticed Aetherometry was a red link, which surprised me, because I could've sworn I remembered seeing an article on that at some point in the past. Well, I checked and found that there were something like 1100 (!) deleted revisions, and a AfD vote that just concluded yesterday. The margin looked pretty narrow, so taking that in combination with the huge number of edits and the fact that this is also mentioned in Reich's article (which would seem to suggest some notability), I think this one deserves a review. Personally, I don't know enough to vote on it, but I figure it deserves a second chance regardless. Everyking 07:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Ho hum. I see I was the admin who closed the first AFD debate and there I did not see a consensus. The main argument against the article was that it was original research and that there were no reliable sources. I must admit, from reading the article, it did not look like original research to me. Also, a Google check shows that this is certainly a topic many people would be interested in finding out what is so I think that there should be an article here. Aetherometry appears to be a crackpot science theory which has received plenty of attention, like several other theories which have articles. (I might be stepping on some toes here, but I would classify creationism as one of those "crackpot theories".) There is quite a lot of material to work on here, and if anybody is interested in doing so I will have no problem with undeleting and moving to userspace for tinkering, fact-checking and verification of its status if not its validity. OK, I will Endorse closure without prejudice against a move to userspace or an improved article at a later time. Suggest a temporary undelete now so that people can review the content. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Excuse me, but if you think aetherometry has received plenty of attention, please quote single scientific journal article about it. If many people are interested to find out about aetherometry, they can go to aetherometry website. For scientific article in encyclopedia, even to say something is "crackpot", you need more than your opinion and interest of many people. You need reputable references. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 16:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, I can't believe that this was deleted. Undelete just because it is too notable to be deleted. This is the first time I'm actually thinking of invoking IAR to undelete something.  Grue  09:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • DRV is for reviewing process decisions, not content. Do you find anything mistakes in my closing of the AfD? 209.74.96.60 17:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC) Oops, that's me. Cookie must have expired right when I was editing this. howcheng {chat} 17:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This is not true. This page is for the review of deletions as a whole. Process can be followed yet an article deleted that should not have been. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 06:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I quote from #Purpose, above: This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some information pertaining to the debate that did not receive an airing during the AfD debate (perhaps because the information was not available at that time). This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content. howcheng {chat} 06:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• I suggest you look at the second vote (and the first too). Keeping this article sane was absorbing too much effort due to determined POV pushing by the pro-aetheometry people; the article was junk & people got sick of it. William M. Connolley 09:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC).

  Do you suggest deleting George W. Bush too, because it's vandalised often? There are appropriate tools, such as semi-protection and full protection. Deletion is not such a tool.  Grue  09:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  Bush is clearly notable. IMHO aetherometry isn't notable. It wasn't on your watchlist... And AFAIK, I'm not allowed to make the article sane then protect My Version. In an ideal world, wiki would have an aetherometry article which would be short and say "this is pseudoscience" and... well, read Dragonflights vote at VFD. In the real world, the pro-ae people kept pushing it. Having said that, there seems to have been a misunderstanding about verifiability in perhaps some of the votes, and probably in the closing: the verifiability criterion for pseduoscience is not published papers (of course; they don't) but links to their wacko websites, because thats all they have. William M. Connolley 10:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC).

• Endorse (keep deleted) None of the above is germane to criteria for undeletion. The Afd was closed correctly, and no new arguments have arisen. The original article was deleted largely because this article is an OR soapbox for a fringe group. WP is not webhosting for every fringe idea that comes along. Vandalism has nothing to do with it so far as I am concerned. KillerChihuahua 10:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• The article does indeed have a problem with reliable sources. That would probably be because it's hard to find a reliable source on pseudoscience. My suggestion would be to keep deleted, and create a new article covering ONLY those facts drawn from a reliable source (which is probably about 20% of what is now in the article) the protect for a while to get the POV pushers cooled down. Radiant_>|< 11:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • DumbA you are Radiant. Article already quoted only reliable sources there were.81.193.157.168
• Undelete. I don't know anything about the subject at all, nor am I particularly interested to change that situation. But I fully agree with Grue that deletion should not be a tool against POV pushing. Lack of reliable sources? Phew! If we use thát as an argument, I believe we can quietely delete about 90 % of our articles. We have other tags for that! While I would endorse a cleanup of the article, it still needs to be undeleted in order to distill the 20% Radiant was talking about. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 11:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted somewhat sadly. I'm surprised this was deleted too, but it does look like a valid AfD. Perhaps some content could be placed in Reich's article, or one of the Orgone articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Either Undelete or recreate as per Radiant. As others have said, POV problems are not grounds for deletion. I have no problem with it remaining a protected stub. –Abe Dashiell 12:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: no vote yet, but I find it troubling that two of the voters who voted to delete the article in the second AFD were two of the editors most responsible for trying to legitimize this (in my opinion) pseudoscience. That they would suddenly argue for the article's deletion makes me suspicious. Since the article's talk page has not been deleted yet, voters can see for themselves without having to view the history of the deleted article. --Calton | Talk 13:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Calton. I know your name, you are one of people who was many times putting aetherometry article in category "pseudoscience". Now you correctly say "this is my opinion". But you know, you cannot just put opinion in encyclopedia as if it is fact. Can you quote published scientific articles that aetherometry is in violation of scientific method? If not, then dont you think that putting category in, as if it was known opinion of scientific majority, is not honorable and not responsible? Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 16:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Chatty Cathy, I was trying to be polite. It's pseudoscience by any reasonable definition; my actual opinion is that it's a complete load of half-baked crap being pushed by glory-seeking self-promoters not talented, knowledgable, or smart enough to get published or noticed by actual scientists or actual peer-reviewed journals, and who are using sockpuppets/meatpuppets/gullible cohorts to use Misplaced Pages to promote their views and sell their self-published books -- but that would take too long to type. And might I point out that this isn't an article you're reading right now?: it's in Misplaced Pages space, and I can express any (non-libellous, non-personal, and non-slanderous) opinion I care to. And as for your challenge to provide a peer-reviewed source that calls it pseudoscience; well, to steal from Wolfgang Pauli, "that's not right; that's not even wrong." --Calton | Talk 02:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Calton. There couldn't be a more eloquent argument for keeping the Aetherometry entry deleted. FrankZappo 03:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Calton, that was a lot of fulmination for something you misread! Pgio 20:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keeep deleted. ENOUGH OF THIS. Nobody is trying to legitimize anything. If you think that having an article in Misplaced Pages, and trying to keep it to verifiable claims, unjustly legitimizes Aetherometry, then you should be the first to want the article deleted. If you just want to recreate the article so as to be able to say it's "pseudoscience", then provide A SINGLE REPUTABLE REFERENCE IN A MAINSTREAM PUBLICATION that reviews the work and concludes it is "pseudoscience". If you want to recreate it for any other reason, then don't just talk; you need to propose how the verifiability problem should be solved. FrankZappo 14:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Editors might wonder about the commenter's sudden change of heart, compared to this or this. I'm thinking parallels to the Sollog article, here. --Calton | Talk 02:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You're thinking? Wow. I wouldn't have called it that. FrankZappo 03:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have to say that I find it absolutely disgusting when the people who have, day in and day out, tried to provide content for the article, and without whom there couldn't even be an Aetherometry article, are referred to contemptuously as "POV pushers" or "legitimizers" in the very same breath in which it is suggested that the article should stay in Misplaced Pages. What are you running here, a plantation on which "niggers" should provide content while you subject them to contempt and ridicule? Is this how you run a utopian encyclopedic establishment? FrankZappo 14:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure with full recognition of the heroic work done by some editors in trying to provide a balanced coverage of what is, according to my reading of the evidence, a crackpot theory aggressively promoted by its proponents; in the end, though the fundamental problem is that as a supposedly scientific subject it is unverifiable from reliable sources since neither the theory nor the rebuttals are presented in peer-reviewed journals. It was asserted that citations could be provided, but none were. Much of the argument on the AfD ignored this (to me) fundamental point. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 15:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is different case than article on Bush. Claims in aetherometry article, on both sides, were presented as scientific. Claims of aetherometry were presented as scientific claims, and opinions of Misplaced Pages administrators about it were presented as judgement of scientific majority. If a claim is presented in scientific context in encyclopedia, you must quote in support reputable scientific sources. Even in Bush article, you would not report something as majority opinion simply because it is opinion held by most Misplaced Pages administrators who are watching article. You would quote published polls or other reputable outside sources. For aetherometry, no such sources exist. If you want to know what aetherometry claims, just go to aetherometry website at www.aetherometry.com. But in encyclopedia that wants to educate public, scientific claims, for minority or majority, should not be published if they cannot be verified. If other Misplaced Pages articles refer to aetherometry article, this is easy to change. They can refer to aetherometry website instead, or not refer at all. Sincerely, Janusz Karpinski. Januszkarp 16:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and slap an NPOV tag, slap a disputed tag, slap a cleanup tag. The subject is interesting and I would that our readers would want and expect such an article to be in Misplaced Pages, knowing that the subject is contentious, is disputed, etc, etc, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If the subject is interesting and your readers want and expect such an article in Misplaced Pages, then you must institute policies by which the people who know something about the subject are treated with respect, as providers of a valuable service, not as "POV pushers", "aggressive promoters" and "cranks" who are "pushing their crackpot theory". I am sorry, but unless Misplaced Pages can guarantee respectful treatment to the people who have studied the subject and can provide information about it, it is disingenous to call the subject "interesting" and argue that the article should be kept. FrankZappo 17:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I am sorry, I need to make another comment, because this is really too much and I need you all to know and understand that it is, and why it is, too much. In June 2005, there was an actual request in Misplaced Pages for an article on Aetherometry, in the category "Applied Sciences". I don't know what misguided, ignorant or malicious soul created this request, but I didn't know anything about Misplaced Pages, saw the request, and took it at face value. I pointed it out to Dr. Askanas, who then did a lot of hard work to fulfill this request and supply the article. Ever since then, Dr. Askanas, Pgio, myself, DrHyde, and everybody else who tried to contribute to the article from first-hand knowledge of the primary sources, has received nothing but scorn and derision. When we provide information, we are called "POV pushers", "snake-oil vendors", and "aggressive promoters"; when we remove claims that are nothing but expressions of bias and cannot be verified, or are simply incorrect, we are called "vandals" and reverted; and when we vote to have the article deleted, this is called "suspicious" and claimed to be a good reason to keep the article. No, there is nothing suspicious about us wanting the article deleted. This has to stop. It was a mistake to respond to the request to create the entry in the first place. The entry, as has been proven by over half a year of completely futile wrangling, does not belong in Misplaced Pages. There is nothing suspicious about having had enough, about no longer wanting to spend every day of our lives trying to "keep the article sane" - i.e., to the best of our knowledge, accurate and verifiable - when there are no acceptable secondary mainstream sources for the contentions of either side. I am sorry to say this, but it is not only frivolous, but de facto malicious - even if the malice is unintentional - to simply say that the article should be undeleted. Either you can, right here and now, propose a concrete, viable way to make this article sane, verifiable, and acceptable to all the main contributors, or the people who have been, since June 2005, locked in an unresolvable conflict with each other trying to make this article viable, need to be released from bondage and permitted to live their lives. FrankZappo 17:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Without serious consideration and clear address of the comment above (FrankZappo 17:54, 20 January 2006), the function and purpose of Misplaced Pages will remain suspect. TTLightningRod 18:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Misplaced Pages need not have an article on every fringe idea. Put a paragraph into Aether theories or some other Misplaced Pages article (iff there is a good reference) and move on. --JWSchmidt 04:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted --Philosophus 07:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Pet peeve, but please provide a reason, even if something as short as "per user XXX above" Turnstep 05:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• I agree that this topic may be notable enough and important enough and interesting enough to warrant an article. I agree that the article as it stood had a lot of issues. I agree that a new article, free of unverifiable claims and POV, that reported on the history and existance of this theory, what it claims, and what the various findings of mainstream science are, and what media attention it has received, would be a good, encylopedic, important article. But none of that is what DRV is about. DRV is about process. I looked over the discussion, and it was long and contentious, and relatively new admin User:howcheng had a hard job to slog through it. But I think he called the consensus correctly. The consensus was delete and I see nothing wrong with the process. Keep Deleted. If someone were to write a new article with the content outlined above so that it did not fall afoul of the "recreation of deleted content" rule, that would be a good and noble thing in my view. But it strikes me as (if some of the comments here are indicative of what those trying to write NPOVly had to face) rather an arduous and thankless task and I pity whoever tries it. ++Lar: t/c 20:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted I was one of the principle authors. If you check the Talk page edit logs you'll see that I broached the topic of VfD this time around, because I'm tired of this whole dispute. Contrary to WMC's revisionism above, the article was not junk. It accurately states the claims of the science involved. WMC and Calton and others were the ones pushing POV by applying the pseudoscience category without references, as if it was self-evident. Until such time as either side can produce acceptable second-party references, I don't see how this article has a place in Misplaced Pages at all. That's what people decided in the VfD. Pgio 20:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to also request a temporary undeletion. Turnstep 05:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, does this discussion not begin to remind a bit of absurdist farce? It was now said twice that deletion review is for reviewing procedure, and not content. Was this incorrect claim? Because if correct, then why should you, Turnstep, request temporary undeletion? The absence of "why" is even more funny because you just told Philosophus that not providing reasons for votes was your "pet peeve". And then if your idea is to try create new article, it seems to me you should work from published mainstream sources, not old article. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 06:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Temporary undeletion is a valid request, in order to allow transfer to user space. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 17:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Undeletion helps me to understand the voter's rationales and thus allows me to evaluate how well the closing admin did at gauging consensus and arriving at the proper conclusion. I certainly have no interest in creating a new article, I don't know why you would think that. Turnstep 16:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted This article was original research and totally useless. The POV problems involved with it were unresolvable for lack of scientific references. No other article referenced it: see Special:Whatlinkshere/Aetherometry. (note: I just removed it from 3 pages that linked to Aetherometry in the "See also" section, check the rest of those links for cleanup) Ashibaka tock 21:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Due to the almost complete failure of anyone to produce source citations on either side, this article did not meet our verifiability policy. Verifiability has always supposedly been our policy, and it says so right under the edit box I'm typing in right now. The article can be re-created without prejudice at any time when anyone can produce substantial source citations showing that aetherometry is a real theory—not a proven theory, but a real theory—that is receiving significant public discussion, for and against, outside a very small circle of people. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, probable original research and very likely unverifiable. I searched journal databases (admittedly doing so fairly quickly) and was unable to find a single academic article on the matter. That, combined with all this above, does not bode well. Lord Bob 21:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete obviously. Very depressing to read the arguments in favour of ridding us of yet another potentially interesting article. It's one of the pluses of Misplaced Pages that it covers crackpot theories. You scientist types get to bully the writers and fill the articles full of your POV as it is. Now you resort to deleting the articles? As for the undue weight provision, that would apply if the debate was about including material about "aetherometry" in a general article on physics, but it's scarcely unduly weighting a crackpot theory to have an article about it, given the many articles about mainstream physics. Grace Note 03:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Grace, the material was deleted for this very example; The phrase "...crackpot theories", used in a comment to undelete material, without citation.Cutaow 13:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and clean thoroughly. There is undoubtedly something called "Aetherometry" on which we should have an article: simply deleting it because some people don't like the current content is hardly conducive to creating a reputable encyclopedia; that's what {{cleanup}} and {{npov}} and all their little friends are for. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Phil, if Misplaced Pages was able to find any citable, reputable reference sources upon which to build the content, specifically the "counter" and "critical" arguments against the material.... you would already have a reputable encyclopedia. Without any such reference, the use of "crack-pot" and "pseudo" is what "some people don't like".Cutaow 13:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. Misplaced Pages has a lot of information about pseudoscience. As someone who's worked on keeping some of those articles NPOV, I know it's a pain, but we can't hold that against having an article at all. To say we should have no article at all on these guys is just plain silly, so the deletion was an error. -- SCZenz 16:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Good. In light of your previous experience, I am sure you will be able to put on the table, right here and now, a proposal for a concrete, viable way to make the Aetherometry article sane, verifiable, and acceptable to all the main contributors. FrankZappo 16:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It can't be done to the satisfaction of all the main contributors, because a small number of them have a vested interest. However, because they have a vested interest, NPOV allows their input to be ignored. User:Dragon's Flight has made one suggestion that would work, along the lines that Aetherometry is a theory advanced by X that claims Y. It has no significant support in the scientific community as verified by its failure to appear in abstract database Z. Some specific claims are A, B, C; as acknowledged by aetherometry's advocates these conflict with established scientific principles D, E, F. Then lock the sucker. But my main reason for voting delete was that the keep arguments were so often framed in terms of the importance of Misplaced Pages as a source for debunking / discussing this topic, in a way not doen elsewhere. I'm probably not the only one for whom that raises red flags; absent reliable sources verification is a real problem. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 21:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Who are the contributors that are said to have a vested interest? That's the first I hear about this. Certainly neither Pgio nor myself. Or does "vested interest" mean that we are interested in the topic? FrankZappo 22:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Helicoid William M. Connolley 22:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"To have a vested interest in something" means to stand to gain from it, yes? From what exactly, and in what form, is Dr. Askanas alleged to stand to gain? FrankZappo 23:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, how in the world is locking the entry supposed to help? Locking does not protect against editing by administrators. So how do you-all propose to protect the entry against the toxic zeal of bigoted administrators like Connolley who are so full of themselves that they equate their own bias with a "scientific point of view" and don't care whether the commentary they put in the entry violates the verifiability policy? Or do you-all simply not care? FrankZappo 22:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and attach whatever framing text or disclaimer tags are necessary to keep the article from looking like an endorsement of unsubstantiated theories. It is obvious that some people seeking insight into the meaning of the term would appreciate information. Possibly redirect to some information merged into the general Reich article? Ben Kidwell 01:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Just because it's kookery that doesn't mean it's invalid for Misplaced Pages to have an article on it. Misplaced Pages runs on notability, not whether it's loony or not. Wiwaxia

Comment. Hi, this is Janusz Karpinski. Looking at this voting process makes me want to ask about underlying Misplaced Pages ideas. Let me explain. My idea of meaning of "community" is that when people vote on community affairs, they have obligation to listen to each other. They dont just say something random and go away, but they contribute to progress in communal thinking by thinking carefully about arguments of others and joining their own thinking powers to them. This is also my idea of meaning of "consensus": it is something that can only arise from rational discussion, where participants listen and consider what others say. This is to me difference between consensus and statistical majority opinion, where opinion can be completely uninformed. But here in this voting I observe that many people just come in and say something random, with no connection to how issue was defined and previous arguments that were presented. They throw something in, with no responsibility, as if they are throwing coin into collection box. And from what I observe this is considered OK, and equally good as votes of people who thought about issue with responsibility and made effort to provide arguments. Does Misplaced Pages notion of community and consensus not contain obligation of mutual response and careful, thoughtful consideration? I am curious about underlying philosophy. Sorry that this is off topic, but I think we are not any longer on any topic here anyway. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 14:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. For months everybody does nothing but jeer and throw garbage at the bloody thing, and now suddenly the world can't live without it? You've got to be kidding. And what's the deal with the undeletion policy that was quoted by Howcheng? "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning - but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some information pertaining to the debate that did not receive an airing during the AfD debate (perhaps because the information was not available at that time). This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content." Was the debate interpreted incorrectly by the closer? Or if not, what's the new information that desperately needed to get aired? That Everyking was reading the entry on Wilhelm Reich and suddenly, to Everyking's surprise, the Aetherometry link was red? And because of Everyking's traumatic experience, the article "deserves a second chance"? A second chance at what, having more garbage thrown at it? Give us all a break, people. DrHyde 05:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Moreover, I this it is appropriate to give a little history review here. I was the original author of the article. Very soon after my misguided creation of the article in response to some poor sod's, or malicious sod's, request for an Aetheropmetry entry, it became very clear to me that the article was created mistakenly. And as this became clear to me, I voted delete in the first VfD. Now, as you can read in ], one of the situations that qualify an article for speedy deletion is when

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

Since the article had at the time been edited only by me (and I do not regard as "editing" attempts at caricaturing, misinformation, and unsubstantiated disparagements), my vote to delete, according to the policy, should have been counted as the deciding vote. And you know what? Even if there was no policy saying so, anybody deciding the vote with fairness and in good faith should have regarded the wishes of the original and only author as binding. But none of this happened - and when I then in fact did blank the article and replaced it with a note saying that the original author wishes the article deleted, this was called "vandalism" and my deletion was reverted. The conclusion is obvious: these decision were not made with fairness and in good faith, but with malice and an intent to harm - the same malice and intent to harm that Natalina formulated in the second AfD when she voted "keep" because "well, because currently we're one of the top search results when you search for it on google, and we can actually impart some unbiased information. The aetherometrists in fact, (as of the last afd), want this deleted, because it disparages their theory. We even classify it as pseudophysics (by cat'ing it as aether theories)..." There it is: malicious intent to harm, hypocritically and disingenuously paraded as the desire to "impart unbiased information". It's the same "unbiased information" that the talented Calton so generously poured upon this here page when he explained that Aetherometry was "a complete load of half-baked crap being pushed by glory-seeking self-promoters not talented, knowledgable, or smart enough to get published or noticed by actual scientists or actual peer-reviewed journals, and who are using sockpuppets/meatpuppets/gullible cohorts to use Misplaced Pages to promote their views and sell their self-published books". And this brings our little story to its next event, which is the second AfD. In the second AfD, both the author of the first version of the article (me) and the author of the second version (Pgio) voted to delete. Once again, this should have been taken as the deciding factor and it should have been the long-overdue end of the story. And yet here we are, voting for the third time. Why? Well, obviously yet again for the very reason that was so clearly articulated by Natalina and Calton - there are people who don't want to let go of the article because they are very fond of making it a vehicle of hurt, libel, misinformation, and disparagement. And yet that very same policy page I quoted above, ], lists the following as yet another category qualifying for speedy deletion:

Attack pages. Articles which serve no purpose but to disparage their subject (e.g., "John Citizen is a moron").

To summarize: both authors of the article want the article deleted. Therefore, by policy, the article should be deleted. The only reason to want to oppose the wishes of the authors is if one wants to use the article as a vehicle of disparagement. Therefore, by policy, the article should be deleted. Helicoid 05:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

1. Template:User against Saud and Template:User Nepal Maoists. Both restored. 30 January 2006
2. Teagames. Restored and relisted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Teagames (2nd nomination) 27 January 2006.
3. Greenlighting. Undeleted and relisted for deletion. 16:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Misplaced Pages:Title Neutrality and Misplaced Pages:Conspiracy theory titles - kept userfied. 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Chiens Sans Frontiers - speedy undeleted; listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chiens Sans Frontiers; deleted there. 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Linked pages from Crooked Timber - Henry Farrell (political scientist) (AfD discussion) and Eszter Hargittai (AfD discussion) speedy undeleted, afd'd, and kept; John Holbo, Tom Runnacles, Micah Schwartzman, Belle Waring deletion endorsed. 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
7. 24SevenOffice - kept deleted. 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Zoner, Inc. - relisted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zoner, Inc. (2nd nomination). 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Yafinsint: Nomination withdrawn, admitted hoax. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
10. NATARS: Kept deleted. 23:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Holy Father: Not a deletion issue. Article now stands as a dab. 23:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
12. LUEshi: Closure of "keep" upheld. 04:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Ninjah Pendragon: Kept deleted. 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Pussy_City_Pimps : Kept deleted. 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Weishampel exchange : Kept deleted. 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
16. Template:User allow fairuse : Kept deleted. 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
17. Circumcision fetish: Kept deleted. 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
18. Pedelec: Kept deleted (something about mediation??? no a DRV matter anyway). 17:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
19. Game Central Network: Kept deleted. 17:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
20. Ludvig Strigeus: Relisted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ludvig Strigeus (second nomination). 17:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages deletion
• Misplaced Pages maintenance