Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gairloch (talk | contribs) at 15:29, 8 March 2006 (Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:29, 8 March 2006 by Gairloch (talk | contribs) (Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.


Proposed deletions

Articles deleted under the Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion procedure (using the {{PROD}} tag) may be undeleted, without a vote, on reasonable request. Any admin can be asked to do this, alternatively a request may be made here. However, such undeleted articles are open to be speedy deleted or nominated for WP:AFD under the usual rules.

History only undeletion

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

Decisions to be reviewed

Shortcut

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.

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

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

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

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

8 March 2006

Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy

This was nominated at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy(2nd nomination) and was deleted and then protected against re-creation.

This article is not a hoax, and is a genuine article. In fact, high schools in Merseyside, Greater Manchester, Staffordshire and West Yorkshire have taught about this as part of their World War II history syllabus.

Please re-consider your deletion, this article is genuine and verifiable - and our history department can prove it.

--Gairloch 15:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

John Bambenek

This was nominated at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John Bambenek (2nd nomination). Sockpuppetry abounded on BOTH sides. The first nomination was a solid keep and was only about 2 months prior to this nomination with no recent changes. The original lister never participated in discussion and was a drive by hitter. It included shenanigans of a sysop deleting positive comments. The person in question has hundreds of unique google hits, has dozens of mentions by the media, and writes for an independed and self-financed paper of 20,000 a day (not include the columns that have gone out on the wire and been syndicated). I don't believe that this was seriously considered, there are no less than 4 different notablility criteria that this article meets and those were never considered. -- 12.203.38.138 13:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Undelete. The notability requirements are met and shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. First nomination to delete voted keep, nothing changed. -- Alpha269 15:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Kirven's

  • Seems to have been speedied out-of-process as an "nn dead department store". Frankly IMO all department stores are notable enough to be merged with wherever they are located, so newbie-biting and admin button abuse of this nature is not helpful. Kappa 14:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Content of the article was "Kirven's was a local department store exclusive to Columbus, GA. Originally downtown, the family-owned store relocated to ill-fated Columbus Square Mall in 1979 only to close a few years later." As this seems to be a short stub on a department store with a short life, I don't really think that it stands a very good chance on AFD, stores are usually deleted while store chains are often kept. Nonetheless, as this is a disputed speedy of an article which didn't really fit the speedy criteria I will have to say undelete and list on AFD if you still want this undeleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist per Sjakkalle -- Alpha269 15:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

7 March 2006

CommandN

Shown in a Superman comic, starring a co-host of an internationally-aired TV show, Frank Gehry-interviewing, heckofalot-more-notable-than-most-podcasts. Can we revive it? Here's my proposal redevelopment of the article... commandN/new. -- user:zanimum

Signa Vianen, Journalist

Page was proposed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for Creation on 2005-12-25. A page by that name was given the {{deletedpage}} tag on the same day. Another article, titled Signa Vianen was created the same day by User:Kappa and has since been expanded. I believe it would be okay to remove the protection from Signa Vianen, Journalist in favor of a redirect, or just an unprotected empty article. --Dystopos 20:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. -Splash 21:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

User:God of War/Tyranny and Fascism - Past and Present

This was nominated for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:God of War/Tyranny and Fascism - Past and Present and, mathematically, correctly closed as a 'no consensus'. However, regardless of the lack of consensus, WP:NOT a free web-host or a blog service. I don't want to censor anyone; openly declaring your POV may (arguably) assist in ensuring it doesn't subtly influencing your editing, but there is no way that posting political essays serves that purpose. At that point we have crossed the line from declaring POV, to pushing it. WP:NOT and WP:NPOV, and the strength of the argument in this debate, says overturn and delete. --Doc 17:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse Closure/keep kept I know this thing is of questionable merit, but is only the Declaration of Independence with a few words changed. Yes, it is probably a "waste of space" in very, very, very tiny way; but God Of War is an established editor, and I see no reason to delete something so utterly trivial if it pleased him. I voted Keep at MfD and reinforce here: this is a de minimis case -- just leave it be. Understand, whatever else, this is not a personal essay -- it is a politically-charged, but very minimally rephrased copy of the Declaration of Indepedence (United States). Xoloz 18:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep undeleted. Apart from the fact that I don't want to gratify God of War's ego by falling for the header which is practically beging for MFD, it is (a) a subpage and (b) very clearly labelled as POV. As such, it is helpful in setting out GoW's stall in respect of his biases when editing Misplaced Pages. I am firmly against trolling userboxes and other crap, but I think if a page is a subpage within the user space and has plentiful warnings the potential for harm is strictly limited. The MfD closure was valid, and I see no pressing reason for overturning it. Just zis Guy you know? 18:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Let be. JzG's argument is powerful. -ikkyu2 (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Endorse Closure. This is a rock/hard place situation. If it remains, Misplaced Pages creeps ever closer to becoming MySpace. If it's deleted, that gives the "omgz nazi admins!!!1one" crowd more ammo. Hopefully GoW will keep his word and "finish" this page, whatever it's supposed to be, and remove it from his user space as soon as possible. android79 03:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, there was no consensus sadly. Sometimes one just has to accept the losses and move on. It is not the end of the world that this thing was not deleted (it is almost, but not quite). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • As Doc doesn't seem to be disputing whether the debate was closed correctly, isn't this forum shopping? --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure per above -- Alpha269 15:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Bier Suppe

deletion details: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Bier_Suppe

"A webcomic with 41 pages, found here and largely written by the webcomic author, a User:C Labombard. Alexa shows no data for the website, and a google for "Bier Suppe" webcomic gives under 50 links. Is this website notable? I don't think so. Hahnchen 23:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)"

Alexa definitely shows Bier Suppe, and Google definitely shows more than 50 links. Also, the page itself specifies M.A. Labombard as being the primary author and illustrator, and not User:C Labombard. As can plainly be seen, C Labombard is the primary promoter and webmaster, therefore has the right of the author to promote this site. The author can be contacted through the e-mail address given on that site to confirm this. Please undelete this page!

Endorse closure, keep deleted. Yes, the total number of Googles is actually a bit over 500; that is still tiny, and only about 50 of them are unique, byt he looks of it, whihc is probably what was meant. And yes, Alexa Search finds it, but there is no traffic rank for the domain. Absent evidence of significant coverage from disinterested third parties, the article fails to demonstrate the sigificance of the subject. Just zis Guy you know? 15:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Endorse closure and keep deleted. Exactly what JZG said. If a website has no Alexa rank whatsoever, it isn't in the top 8 million or so websites, and therefore it's highly unlikely that it's making much of an impact whatsoever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The right to promote one's website does not extend to doing so on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not free advertising space. Endorse deletion absent any new information. -Splash 15:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Endorse closure per Splash. Xoloz 18:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Endorse closure. Unanimous AfD vote; several commenters on it cited relevant Misplaced Pages inclusion guidelines. No need to rehash the content of that discussion and those guidelines here, although Splash and JzG have done so courteously and eloquently. Suggest nom become more intimate with WP:WEB and WP:DP. -ikkyu2 (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Endorse closure per ikkyu2. gidonb 04:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Bashas'

The AfD closed with an 83% delete consensus (5/1/0), but Splash, who was closing, discounted all delete votes and closed with a no consensus because the final keep vote claimed that Bashas' was a big chain in Arizona and had over 100 locations. Splash's reasoning was that if the delete 'voters' had known about this claim (which he admits is unsubstantiated) the article would have been kept. I for one wouldn't have changed my vote to keep (I usually watch AfDs but was on wikibreak at the time). I can't speak for the other editors, but nor, I suggest, can Splash to this extent. Although Splash suggests a renomination, instant renominations are often speedy kept, so rather than wait I've come here to suggest overturn and delete. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawing. Thivierr has been adding some links and references to the article, which puts the store close enough to meeting WP:CORP that the original AfD is now unquestionably out-of-date. I'm still not sure whether that was the case when Splash closed it, but it's irrelevant. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Syrian Kurdistan

This area is not known by this name by any organisation. Last time it was put up for deletion it was meant to be renamed to Kurds in Syria, but this article already exists and is well sourced so no merge is needed.

Please Speedy delete this as per talk --MysticRum 18:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it can be speedied for that. But it can be made into a redirect... Just zis Guy you know? 18:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. If it isn't obvious, this matter is now moot. Objections to the redirect (I cannot imagine why there would be any) should go to RfD before coming here. Xoloz 18:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

6 March 2006

Effinhot

Article was deleted as spam an then protected. As the private owner of effinhot.com i would like to bring this article back online so that it can be edited and better developed to provide an overview of the site it was to represent. I did not creat the original wiki for this article so it was a suprise to me when i found someone has beat me to it and then deleted for spam

It was spam as written. Before you create it, have you read WP:WEB? It looks to me as if you might have some trouble meeting that. Just zis Guy you know? 15:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Llamacon

Article deleted with 5 respondents outside of nom. All delete votes came before mention of notability via WP:BIO-style guidelines of press coverage. As AfD isn't a vote, the idea of 1 anon with 3 total contribs (two to the AfD), one "weak delete" and one delete vote without regard/note of the panelists or media coverage questions this deletion. We do not have a current process or guideline regarding conventions that I'm aware of, and it more than meets the standards set forth in, say, a bio of an individual or a group. At the very least, overturn and relist. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

An anime convention held for the first time a couple of weeks back? What say we wait and see if the second convention generates any coverage? Or better still, the tenth. Just zis Guy you know? 17:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I share JzG's concerns, but since bdjeff's point regarding unconsidered new information introduced during the debate is valid, and he is a longtime contributor making a good-faith request, undelete and relist. It is possible AfD could support his argument, hence WP:SNOW doesn't apply. Xoloz 18:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
For any other situation, I would have never brought it here. The problem is a) the notable people in attendence, and b) the media coverage, which, combined with the poor turnout for the AfD, makes me feel a second look is warranted. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 23:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Undelete per nom. If it attracted three notable people in the field, as mentioned in the original AfD, I think it at least warrants a better AfD. Turnstep 22:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Undelete/relist. Good faith DRV request; WP guidelines are not precisely crystal-clear with respect to the questions raised. No harm done by relisting. -ikkyu2 (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ivan Cherevko

This article was deleted by User:Esteffect because of alleged recreation of deleted article, while it was (most probably) completely different from deleted one in content and topic and perhaps even about different people. Either way round, it was not identical to deleted one, so it do not fall under speedy deletion criteria. --Lucinor 21:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

  • As initiator of request, of course I vote undelete. --Lucinor 21:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, as deleting party. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ivan Cherevko. Cherevko created the original article himself, I'm sure, with ludacrious statements in it. Basically, it was a 13-year old's an ego-boosting bio. The article has been created and re-deleted several times in the past. The original AfD was infested with keep-voting sockpuppets. Cherevko claimed back then (under usernames such as Mykola Petrenko) that he was a child prodigy, adding himself to that article repeatedly. I think it should remain deleted per common sense. If restored, however, I will AfD it and provide a more full argument. Esteffect 21:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, note that the article I CSDed simply stated that he is a Ukrainian Children's Rights Ombudsman, and the first child to be given that position. Just how notable are children's rights ombudsmans? The original article, AfDed last year claimed he was a 13-year old studying at the University of Kyiv, who could read at the age of three and who had an IQ of over 200. Both stated Cherevko's DOB as 1991, though, so I completely believe that they are the same person. Esteffect 21:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Interesting. This version does not appear to be a simple reposting of the previously deleted content. Both content and style are different. Some new facts are also alleged. However, the previous AFD discussion raised some serious questions about whether this person even exists. During that discussion, there were several allegations of sockpuppetry and other attempts to abuse the decision-making process. Given the history, I'm inclined to request a verifiable cite supporting the latest version of the article. If such a cite can be provided here, I will recommend that we overturn the speedy-deletion and submit the article to a second AFD. Absent such a cite, leave it deleted. Rossami (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I got my information from TV broadcast, but I've found some info on the net - (Georgiy Gongadze's Center of Political Prognosing), that tells: "В цих умовах все актуальнішою стає ініціатива, запропонована Уповноваженим щодо створення дитячих омбудсманів з числа самих дітей. Тому Омбудсман України сьогодні своїм розпорядженням призначила на громадських засадах дитячими омбудсманами Крук Юлію, студентку 1-го курсу факультету міжнародного права Інституту міжнародних відносин Київського Національного університету ім. Т.Г.Шевченка та Івана Черевка, студента ІІІ-го курсу Національного університету “Києво-Могилянська академія”". (rough English translation: In that circumstances (of complete poverty and human rights ignorance - Lucinor 20:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)) Ombudsman's initiative of choosing children's rights ombudsmans from children themselves. So, Ukrainian Ombudsman today appointed Julia Kruk, freshman student of International Relations Instute and Ivan Cherevko, junior student of KM Academy to the office of children's rights ombudsman). --Lucinor 20:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • And another link - (Regional Party website, reprinting DAY newspaper article (DAY is quite influencial Ukrainian newspaper)): "8 декабря своим распоряжением я назначила на общественных началах детскими омбудсманами Крук Юлию, студентку первого курса факультета международного права Института международных отношений Киевского национального университета им. Т. Г. Шевченко, и Ивана Черевко, студента третьего курса Национального университета «Киево-Могилянская академия»." (translation: At December 8th by my decree I've appointed to the office of children's rights ombudsmans Julia Kruk, student of International Relations Institute and Ivan Cherevko, student of KM Academy). --Lucinor 20:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Moreover, TV broadcast, which I rely upon, was shown on Inter channel (one of two main TV channels in Ukraine), and told that Nina Karpachova, Ukrainian Ombudsman (minor reminder - in Ukraine Ombudsman's office is generally as influential as Premier-Minister's office) enrolled two children as her aides in children's rights questions, one 15-year old, Ivan Cherevko and one 16-year old, Julia Kruk. They are appointed as her Predstavnyk's (position almost equal to Cabinet member) and have to care about children's rights. --Lucinor 20:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and list on AfD. Articles are substantially different and additional claims to notability are made over the May 2005 AfD. Just zis Guy you know? 22:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted pending a trace of WP:Verification. No need to willingly restore previously deleted material that had hoax concerns. The previous AfD might have weak applicability in this case, but I do think it does have some. -Splash 23:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per WP:SNOW. With regard to the version by Lucinor: no reference is provided to confirm the statement that he holds the position of Ukrainian Children's Rights Ombudsman, or that he and Nina Karpachova (appointed jointly) are the first children to hold thatt position. These are the only claims made in the one-sentence article. I am completely baffled as to why Lucinor didn't provide a source. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry that I haven't in the first place. But you see, news broadcast was my primary source, and here in Ukraine, TV channels do not list their news in the Internet. --Lucinor 20:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. If not G4 its A7, as thre is no indication of what exactly Ukrainian Children's Rights Ombudsman is or why it's notable. -R. fiend 00:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted per Splash and Rossami. Without a source, this article seems... dubious, especially given the context of the previous AfD. Xoloz 19:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted as per Splash's arguments. The references above do not seem to assert notability. Turnstep 22:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Muslim Islamic jurists

This AfD request was closed because the main titular article was deleted per {{prod}}. However, there were four secondary articles attached to the AfD whose outcomes have yet to be determined. I don't want to create a completely new AfD as that will lose all the votes pertaining to the articles in question. And so, I'm asking that this be re-listed with the main article changed to one of the current secondary articles. joturner 21:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Anything you do here is going to be a mess, but I suggest that actually the only fair solution is to relist the other four, since it's unclear how many of the responses thus far are exclusive to the deleted article. Just zis Guy you know? 22:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There's no point relisting. The outcome is plainly no consensus. It's also not reasonable to ask for a mandate to do so here, since you're asking whoever carries out the relisting to work out which article and what nomination. You can make the relisting yourself if you like, but I don't think DRV is really capable of effectively doing so in this case. Just boldly merge them or something, and then revisit the deletion of the ones that turn out to be truly useless. That said, M0o should have been much more careful. -Splash 23:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

advisory capital

This article was deleted for alleged lack of context. In fact, the concept, although new, has recently been the topic of many blogs by well-read bloggers including Jeff Jarvis. technorati currently lists 106 posts in the last two weeks. Many of these blogs pointed to the wikipedia entry and the entry was intended to be a fulcrum for discussion and a place for the concept to involve. Tevslin 17:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

5 March 2006

Sean Ripple

A number of the votes for deletion at the deletion debate for this entry came before it was obvious that the Sean Ripple in question was Sean from The American Analog Set. I offer that this entry concerns a notable artist from a notable group, was possibly deleted due to miscommunication, and deletion should consequently be overturned — User:Adrian/zap2.js 04:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hunter Ellis

This was nominated along with a bunch of other biographies of genuinely non-notable individuals who were participants on the reality TV show "Survivor" (Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Joel_Klug, with other Survivor bios simultaneously listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Brady_Finta and Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Keith_Famie). These created some really ugly and confusing AFDs for admins to close, and as a result Ellis was deleted improperly. There wasn't a 2/3 majority to delete (63%), the nominator had attempted to withdraw his nomination of Ellis, and Ellis's notable non-Survivor accomplishments were overlooked by some editors who just voted for bulk actions on all the articles without reading more than a few. He was the host on two nationally televised weekly series for The History Channel, one of which is still active, and also hosts five-days-a-week TV program in Los Angeles.. I'd encourage people who can view deleted edits to look at the version I re-wrote, since it's a much more even-handed treatment of the subject. -Colin Kimbrell 17:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: I won't vote since I closed the AfD, but the recently deleted version looks alright to me. I don't see any reason for it to stay deleted.--Shanel 18:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The real problem seems to be listing them all together since in reality the subject of each article should be weighed independently for notability. I do not have the luxury of being able to see the recently deleted version so I don't feel qualified to comment on the same. However, the argument presented here is plenty enough for me to believe that Mr. Ellis is probably notable enough for his own article. -- Krash (Talk) 19:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, no point penalizing a legit TV host for having been a survivor contestant as well. Kappa 20:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, and if anyone complains give it a seperate slot on AFD. --kingboyk 21:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Request history-only undeletion with preservation of current redirect while this DRV remains open. -ikkyu2 (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist on AfD. As someone who's closed one of the AfDs mentioned above (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Keith Famie, in which Hunter Ellis was not listed), I can sympathise with this. I really, REALLY despise multiple nominations like this, because they're really hard to close if the various subjects have various degrees of notability. Since someone listing these articles on an AfD might not know exactly how notable all the subjects may be, they should not nominate multile articles in a single AfD unless they are clearly of the same degree of notability (ie, not biographies). That being said, the best way to determine what to do with this single article is to nominate it individually for an AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 06:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete Obviously nobody who voted delete actually read and researched each one. This is why merge/redirecting in these cases would be far more efficient and safer, as people can look at each article one-at-a-time, and undo any mistakes. Let editors who know something about the topic decide, and discard abusrd logic like "Delete vote em all off the island" (do we think this voter weighed each person). People weren't voting on notability, they were voting blindly based on their general opinion of reality TV. Separate AFD listings for each isn't as good at it sounds, as it's labour intensive. Minor contests can quickly be merged/redirected, and more signficant ones (or in this case, somebody who's notable for stuff outside the show), can have a stand-alone article (and redirects are easy to undo).--Rob 07:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, verifiable evidence of notability was shown, and delete votes after that point seem to have been based on the insufficient notability of the whole group's shared characteristic rather than individuals' outside accomplishments. Barno 19:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn, nom tried to withdraw, was not Afd'd properly. KillerChihuahua 19:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, agree with Bob. Plank 23:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, as the person who originally nominated the lot of Survivor bios at the time, I selected which I thought at the time was not notable outside of Survivor. After a few articles in the bundle came under my attention, and after some research. I've since attempted to withdraw and changed my votes for a few of the articles in the afds cited. -- Arnzy | Talk 13:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Undelete Hunter Ellis, since this article at the time was lumped with those voting delete for the lot without having a second look. Alternatively request history-only undeletion with the current re-direct in place as per ikkyu2. I didnt get to see Colin Kimbrell's edit, but I presume it did meet WP:BIO standards. -- Arnzy | Talk 13:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

4 March 2006

Sustainable National Income

The entry Sustainable National Income was deleted by User_talk:Pathoschild, stating that it was "likely" copyrighted. Well, it isn't. Or 'original research': no it is a review article. In the mean time it is on wikinfo. But now that is under threat of deletion too, since it would be too short. Please understand that I need to refer to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Colignatus (talk • contribs) 00:40, March 5, 2006.

  • Well, first you have to help us find what article you're talking about. SNI currently exists as a redirect to the National Intelligence Service of Brazil and has apparently never been deleted. Sustainable National Income exists as an active article (though was deleted twice, has been recreated and is now in the queue for PROD deletion). Please change the header to a link to the deleted article that you are asking the community to reconsider. If applicable, please also provide us a link to the relevant deletion discussion. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know how to link other than: At User_talk:Colignatus and under the heading "The SNI article - Pathoschild", there is a discussion with User_talk:Pathoschild Colignatus 23:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The relevant discussions are at User talk:Pathoschild#SNI and User talk:Colignatus#the_SNI_article, and the user has presented a more in-depth argument for his case at User talk:Colignatus#The_SNI_article_-_Pathoschild. // Pathoschild (admin / ) 05:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
        • To confirm, you are asking us to review the deletion of Sustainable National Income, correct? If so, you appear to have completely re-created that page. So technically, you are only requesting an undeletion of the article's history so the 10 deleted edits show up on the history page. Is that correct? Rossami (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Thanks for showing how to refer. Yes, I have created that page now from scratch, rephrasing the review of the topic as of new. I'm happy as it stands now. It is second best but it is ok, and there is a link to the original review text, so the really interested will find the superior introduction. I don't want to replace the current version with the deleted version, since that would destroy the current editting and links. Now, technically, I don't think that this what you say on the history is what I propose. I simply propose no deletion of the topic. I would also enjoy if all references to the idea that it should be deleted are deleted, so that no-one will get the idea that this something that still needs to be done. I would also enjoy that next time when I transfer an text of mine to the GNU environment, that people first ask questions before assuming all kinds of unfriendly things which I wouldn't do. Thanks for your care. Colignatus 22:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Given the clarification, I recommend a history only undeletion. The topic may well deserve scrutiny but if so, it should be done through an AFD nomination. Rossami (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Jewfro

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jewfro
See also the related article Jew-fro which is currently the subject of a deletion debate.

I believe Jewfro is deserving of its own page, based on the facts that it brings up a large # of hits on google, that i have yet to speak to a person who doesn;'t know what a jewfro is and that the afro, another hairstyle attributed to a certain group of people, has set a precedent. If jewfro can not have its own page then neither should afro, as they should both be listed in an article about hairstyles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.38.113 (talk • contribs) 18:28, March 4, 2006 (UTC)

Gail (goldfish)

I believe that Gail the goldfish (for those unfamiliar, a character on the television show The West Wing) deserves her own page not only because she used to have her own page (which was quite insightful yet concise), but also because her character has much more than a surface value. Gail's mere presence is used to foreshadow events happening later in the plot. Also, I would like to acknowledge the fact that you had some very useful links on Gail's old page that made people aware of goldfish in general. Please, at the very least, consider the fact that Gail, while never having any spoken lines, is and has been an influential character on The West Wing, not only in her presence but also in raising the awareness of the lack of care we take in the environment (you can call me crazy but I'm sticking by my platform). Thank you for taking the time to read this. --Penguincookie 22:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

3 March 2006

Tom Dorsch

User:Howcheng who admitted that he knew nothing about the subject matter of this article, which was chess, deleted my highly acclaimed and popular article about Tom Dorsch, who is one of the best known chess players in the world. Ever since, any time anybody does not like one of my articles, they write to User:Howcheng and he continues to harass me.

Prior to being deleted, my article on Tom Dorsch was modified by a dozen different editors who in some cases added more information. Therefore, I cannot simply reinstate the article I wrote. I need to recover what everybody else contributed.

In addition, User:Howcheng showed his utter ignorance of the people involved, with the following statement:

"User:Sam Sloan is free to request a review of the deletion at WP:DRV. I suppose I did not need to make the snarky comment about meatpuppets, but Mr Sloan clearly does not understand AfD is not a vote."

However, it is rather User:Howcheng who does not understand. Here is what User:Howcheng wrote at: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Dorsch

"The result of the debate was delete. When meatpuppets call for deletion, you know it's bad. howcheng {chat} 20:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)"

His reference to "meatpuppets" clearly referred to Randy Bauer. This is the problem when User:Howcheng intervenes not knowing the subject matter. Randy Bauer was the Budget Director of the State of Iowa. He ran against me for election to the USCF Executive Board. Here are the results of the election on July 22, 2005 (which can be found through an Internet search): Randy Bauer 1591 Sam Sloan 1064

The other supposed "meatpuppet" was Louis Blair, an Internet gadfly who attacks me all the time. In addition, User:Rook_wave, who made the deletion request, voted six times for deletion, and User:Billbrock who put me on a list of Pedophiles in Misplaced Pages voted three times for deletion. At the same time, there were a number of famous International Chess Masters and chess personalities who voted to keep the article. If you discount the six votes by Rook wave, the three votes by Billbrock and the other votes by persons who clearly dislike me or Dorsch, then a majority voted to keep the article.

The act by User:Howcheng to delete my Tom Dorsch article was clearly wrong. Every knowledgable person agrees that Tom Dorsch is a notable person. The fact that some people dislike me or dislike Tom Dorsch is not a proper grounds for deletion. Sam Sloan 03:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I need an order of protection telling User:Howcheng to stay from my articles until he learns something about chess. Sam Sloan 03:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Where would you propose we get an order of protection from? -Splash 03:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly endorse closure, keep deleted and salt the earth. Here is the AFD debate, see also Sam Sloan's attack page and this thread on Usenet. It seems that the complainant may possibly have ownership issues and is very obviously anything but neutral. But since this is allegedly one of the most significant figures in chess it should be trivially easy to verify that significance. The assertion is not borne out by numerous well-argued "delete" statements in the (validly closed) AfD. Howcheng seems to have no prior involvement with the article, and is just the janitor here, closing a rather messy AfD but one with a decent number of contributions from which consensus can be established. Looking at the article and its history, and the AfD, I can quite believe that deletion might be followed by intense acrimony, but that is not Howcheng's doing. The content itself is an unpleasant mixture of snide innuendo and blatant attack, and very clearly has no place on Misplaced Pages in this form. Even pre-Seighenthaler we would have deleted or at least aggressively pruned this article, essentially to a stub of verifiable information (which verifiable information conspicuously fails to establish notability). Absent any willingness on the part of the subject's supporters to substantiate notability, and on the part of his detractors to allow WP:NPOV, I would say that this is best gone, and there is no doubt in my mind that this DRV is vexatious and should be speedily closed as such. Just zis Guy you know? 09:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I need to point out that two of the pages cited by Just zis Guy you know? were NOT written by me. There are at least two FAKE SAM SLOANS trolling Usenet, especially on rec.games.chess.politics . Regular readers of Usenet can quickly tell the difference between the real and the fake Sam Sloan's, but Misplaced Pages administrators probably will not be familiar with this problem and will not realize that they are reading something by an imposter.
      Also, the article cited above at http://www.samsloan.com/tomswife.htm called "Sam Sloan's attack page" is not an attack at all. Tom Dorsch wrote that my mother was insane in California. My mother was a psychiatrist, treating insane people, and she was from Virginia and had never been to California. The attack by Tom Dorsch on me was apparently provoked by a posting from one of the Fake Sam Sloans. Back then, it was not as well known as it is now that there were fake Sam Sloans trolling around and Dorsch probably did not realize it. Sam Sloan 12:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, valid AfD per process. The funny thing is, even if you count all the invalid votes, you still get something like 17d 4k. I don't think we need to salt the earth on this one yet. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Sloan's spew about meatpuppets suggests he didn't read the link explaining what meatpuppets are. FWIW, Sloan's vendetta against Dorsch continues in Edward G. Winter where he says Dorsch wrote articles as "Edward Spring" . "Edward Spring" was a pseudonymous troll in a chess-related Usenet group several years ago (the name was an obvious take-off on Edward Winter). Sloan claimed in 2002 that "Spring" was Dorsch but that was nothing but conjecture, and others were skeptical. The Spring=Dorsch claim in the Winter article has been removed repeatedly by other editors but Sloan continues to restore it. Sloan seems to have latched onto Misplaced Pages as a new venue to carry on his ancient personal squabbles (Dorsch, an ex-roommate of Sloan from the 1960's, hasn't been heard from in years and Sloan continues to hound him). If Sloan insists on pursuing those petty dramas, that's his business, but it's best if he did it on his own site instead of on Misplaced Pages. Phr 20:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I hope that people will forgive me for intruding to correct one small point. Sam Sloan has repeatedly and falsely connected me with the decision to delete the Tom Dorsch article. I had no involvement in that decision. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Dorsch) - Louis Blair (4 March 2006)
  • Comment: Mr Sloan, please read WP:SOCK#.22Meatpuppets.22. In the case of Tom Dorsch, you clearly posted a message recruiting people to come and "vote to keep" . Thus, anyone who responded to your message and added to the discussion is by definition a meatpuppet. Now in 99.99% of all deletion discussions involving meatpuppets, they all attempt to have the article kept; in the case of Tom Dorsch, some of your meatpuppets argued for deletion, which is essentially unheard of 'round these parts. As for the claim of "Howcheng continues to harass me, believe me it would be my greatest pleasure to never have to deal with you again. After clearing up things on Talk:Chess Life back in January, I had no involvement with you until your request for arbitration, which was soundly rejected . I only stepped in on Talk:Edward G. Winter because I was asked to . You also keep insisting that because I know nothing about chess, I don't have the authority to act on those articles. Guess what, you're wrong. It's about time you learned this fact. howcheng {chat} 08:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted the editor requesting undeletion has a personal disagreement with the subject of the article, so while it's not autobiographical, I believe it still falls under the guideline of not writing about "subjects in which you are personally involved" as per WP:AUTO due to the same potential problems of bias, unverifibilty and OR. I don't think the "earth should be salted", in case in future, an editor, without any personal entanglements with the subject decides to write an article about this person. Regards, MartinRe 13:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. I agree with MartingRe, however, that there is not yet evidence to justify protection as a deletedpage. Rossami (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Howcheng is 100% wrong and refuses to admit it. There is no point to my "becoming an excellent Misplaced Pages editor on chess topics" as he suggests if a wide ranging free roving rogue Misplaced Pages administrator is going to be going here and there willy-nilly deleting all my postings. He states above that he has become involved in all my other contributions because "because I was asked to". Obviously, everybody who dislikes me is going to be forever going to User:Howcheng asking him to delete my stuff. You will notice that I have almost completely stopped posting to Misplaced Pages ever since he deleted the Tom Dorsch article, whereas prior to that I had posted more than one hundred biographies. I am a widely respected, published author. Why should I waste my time?
Your fellow administrators cannot do math. You need a remedial math course. One of your fellow administrators above said that the vote was 17-4 against me. Completely wrong. User:Rook_wave who initiated the AfD then voted 6 times to delete. Go and count them. User:Phr voted five times to delete. Go and count them. User:Billbrock voted three times to delete. Go and count them. Then, there were six anonymous votes to delete. Take a look at the bottom six votes at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Dorsch . All were anonymous. So there were at least 18 invalid votes. Meanwhile, six voters voted to keep and wrote long, detailed explanations about why Tom Dorsch is notable. So, the majority of VALID votes were in favor of keeping the article. Also, one of the votes to delete was Jurgen R., who posts from Germany and is one of the FAKE SAM SLOANS who impersonates me from time to time.
Then, he writes that I was recruiting "meatpuppets". What is the source for that statement? You cite a statement by User:Rook_wave. But meanwhile Rook_wave, who posts on rec.games.chess.politics as Ralf Callenberg <ralf.callenberg@web.de>, was over on the chess newsgroup rec.games.chess.politics recruiting people to vote to delete. Under the rules, as soon as he made the AfD he is supposed to stay out of it and not even vote. Instead, he voted six times and any time anybody voted to keep, he challenged or attacked him, either here or over on rec.games.chess.politics
How do you know the votes to keep or delete were my "meatpuppets" or his "sockpuppets"? What you fail to understand is that all of us chess players know each other. It is very unlikely that some completely unknown person is going to come in and post.
You should just admit your mistake, which puts the entire Misplaced Pages into disrepute, reinstate the article and allow somebody who is not biased to pass on it. Sam Sloan 14:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The only thing I deleted of "yours" (please see WP:OWN) was Tom Dorsch. I have not edited Chess Life or Edward G. Winter. Where is the link to any such message by Rook_wave on r.g.c.p.? Anyway, recounting the votes on the discussion page shows only one legitimate keep vote, which is Mgm and seven valid delete votes: Jareth, Phr, Olorin28, Titoxd, TheRingess, Parallel or Together, pgk. I did not count any votes by anonymous users, as well as Andrew Zito (who just had some weird anti-Misplaced Pages rant) and Billbrock, who has a history with you. howcheng {chat} 17:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
That I were recruiting people for the deletion process is a plain and blatant lie. I never did anything like this. This accusation is absurd. It was Sam Sloan who went over and asked for aid (Msg.Id = <43a79b7e.54167781@ca.news.verio.net>) because he was worried about the nearly 100% vote against him at this time. I made some comments about the whole topic and told those who announced (as an ironic response to Sam Sloan's request for voting) that they went over to vote for deletion, that anonymous ad homimen attacks don't make any sense in this process and shouldn't be done. I don't think that this could be regarded as "recruiting". That I voted six times is of course also just plain wrong. I made comments (like that in this ongoing vote), but only voted once, as can be easily verified. Rook wave 19:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Kamyar Cyrus Habib

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kamyar Cyrus Habib

Apparently being a blind Rhodes scholar from Iran (and recognized disability rights activist) is not notable enough to merit a Misplaced Pages entry, but being a hooker who's turned up on Howard Stern's show is (Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Air_Force_Amy). This hardly seems consistent with any rational elements of Misplaced Pages policy. Monicasdude 00:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I share your discomfort with the bias in deletion/inclusion decisions. However, the right answer is to raise the standards in areas where they are weak, not to lower them to the lowest common denominator. I see no process problems in this discussion. The evidence you presented during the deletion discussion was rebutted. Endorse closure. Rossami (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    Under Misplaced Pages:Undeletion_policy, even an in-process deletion can be reviewed and reversed "If the article has been wrongly deleted (i.e. that Misplaced Pages would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored). A request for undeletion on these grounds may happen . . . because the person making the undeletion request had objected to deletion on bona fide grounds but was improperly ignored." I don't think including Rhodes scholars lowers Misplaced Pages's inclusion standards; fewer than 100 are named each year, the achievements recognized are certainly not trivial, and the recognition is a good predictor of future achievement. (And I don't see any rebuttal of my argument/evidence. Unanimous rejection without explanation, yes; rebuttal, no.) Monicasdude 02:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure and keep deleted, valid AfD. My grandfather was a very good man. Hitler was a very bad man. Guess which one has an article? It might not seem to make sense, but that's okay. The morality or "goodness" of a person cannot be the determining factor for who gets articles and who doesn't. At 10-1 in favour of deletion, it's about as clear of a consensus as they get, and no new information has been presented. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted: I'm not sure how this could even be reconsidered. The Afd was a landslide of 10-1. The Air Force Amy argument is very weak. If you want a web site of just wonderful people, I'd recommend starting your own. This isn't the place. An encyclopedia wouldn't be of much use if it excluded everyone who was sleezy and evil. And it would be a real yawner if it included everyone like this. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    The argument is not that Playmates are "sleezy," evil, or immoral, but that they are inconsequential and interchangeable. As for the 10-1 vote, WP:NOT Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. Monicasdude 05:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    Well that's your opinion. I bet I could find a zillion 16-year old boys who would disagree with you in the most intense way. The not-a-democracy argument might hold water in a 7-4 vote --- 10-1 is a landslide no matter how you slice it. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    What's more, Air Force Amy is on a TV show on HBO. That's a pretty interesting bar to hit.  RasputinAXP  c 12:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure and keep deleted. And yes, let's remove all the fake "slebrities", pornstars and other nonentities as well. Just zis Guy you know? 13:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, valid AfD. --Deathphoenix 18:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist. Monicasdude's right - Rhodes scholars are inherently notable. No violation of process took place, closing admin performed properly, but I'm adding my voice to the nominator's that not enough people, and not the right people, saw this AfD, and it needs to be undeleted and relisted. To be perfectly clear, I believe Misplaced Pages would be a better encyclopedia with this article restored. No comment on the notability or lack thereof of Air Force Amy. -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure/keep deleted. I certainly dispute the assertion that all Rhodes scholars are notable. There have been many thousands of them and most haven't gone on to do anything particularly notable (although many have, and they're mentioned in the article). This, as of now, is a guy with a scholarship. Whoop-de-do. -R. fiend 21:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Rhodes Scholars are routinely profiled in major world news organs, including the New York Times, for no other reason than that they're Rhodes Scholars. (That almost satisfies WP:LIVING in and of itself.) They are not just people with a scholarship - to win such a scholarship, you have to convince a reputable committee of personal notability and notability of your lifetime works at the time of application. In other words, the determination of notability has been made for us. -ikkyu2 (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist User:Monicasdude makes a sound argument. If the decision really is so cut & dried as to be a landslide in favor of deletion, then we lose nothing by relisting. If further debate doesn't lead to deletion, we've gained something. — User:Adrian/zap2.js 10:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

2 March 2006

Demilich (band)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Demilich (band) This was posted in the wrong section by the author Johnson542. This article is barely similar to the original and is a current article in good standing in other languages. This is a page about the band Demilich, who created a unique style of death metal vocals. The reasons why the page should undeleted are: It has been the subject of unreasonable deletion for a long time. The article has been deleted in the past based on pure prejudice (the very rules of notability have been circumvented: the article was deleted in the past because "the artists did not have two or more albums," while there is a section of the rules of notability (WP:MUSIC or WP:BAND) that STATES "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, dj etc) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: (lists criteria)" It does NOT state that the band must have a particular criteria (Demilich falls into criteria in the "For performers outside of mass media traditions" section). THE RULES HAVE BEEN CIRCUMVENTED!! It meets the following tests: All Music Guide lists them as having created a unique vocal style. All Music Guide is an assistant in notability search, as listed at WP:MUSIC Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of distinguishable hits on Google or another well known search mechanism? YES Google Test Results Misplaced Pages Music notability, For performers outside of mass media traditions: -- Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre. YES Demilich have recorded many songs in the Death Metal genre, not just on official albums. I have more verifiable information. For example, Demilich is listed and reviewed at Anus.com (a publication devoted to a notable sub-culture) (which helps meet the criteria "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture" (another criteria listed at WP:MUSIC ) Note: There are now many sources listed on the band's discussion page. +Johnson542 12:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Deleted: Unless you can point out that something changed since the original Afd, I don't see any compelling reason to undelete. It was a unanimous 4-0 vote with one wanting to speedy, i.e., it wasn't even close. And, from the AllMusic.com bio, I don't read anything that implies they were any different than Cannibal Corpse or Obituary (band) which had each released three or four albums by the time this band released its only one. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist: For one, if I had seen this AfD, I likely would have voted keep had this evidence been weighed. There's nothing in the AfD link that seems to note that these points were weighed. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete (keep what's there undeleted, and undelete any useful history) - There's information that wasn't considered in the prior AFD (pressented here, the talk page, and the article). Hence, the prior AFD is moot. --Rob 17:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • From Allmusic: On their lone album, 1993's Nespithe, the quartet came up with a highly unconventional sound marrying intricate death metal riffs with impossibly low-end, gurgled vocals -- then topped it off with inscrutably overblown song titles such as "Erecshyrinol," "And you'll Remain...(In Pieces of Nothingness)" and "The Sixteenth Six-tooth Son of Fourteen Four Regional Dimensions"!!! Hardly ideal for the pop charts, these were at the very least unquestionably original. And hardly a ringing endorsement that this band, with one album, was notable beyond being over the top. The AfD was in process, and had 6 days for anyone involved in bringing the article up to standards to present some references. That said, the article itself has been re-created and is up for another AfD which looks like it will stick this time. This DRV may as well be closed.  RasputinAXP  c 17:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Leave to the new AFD. (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Demilich (band) (2nd nomination) Stifle 18:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This was a definitive bad AfD result. All of the information on the band that is at Allmusic and umpteen metal websites were there at the time of the AfD, but it was still deleted. I'm pleased to see that it has been recreated and is well on its way to a deservedly massive keep result. Unanimous votes can be (and frequently are) wrong. Each case must be considered on its own merits, not some pointless assessment of whether the process that resulted in the bad result was followed correctly. Processes are imperfect; there's no substitute for actually assessing the subject and the potential of the article. --Tony Sidaway 05:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Request: I put a redirect for the band's album Nespithe. Can an admin please restore the history for this as well (but leave the redirect). I doubt it warrants a stand-alone article, but it might have something useful to put in the band's article. --Rob 06:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

London Buses route 4

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 4

I was the one who created this article (and 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 96), and despite the result of the debate saying delete, I think that it should have been kept.

This bus route was created on 8th November 1961 as part of the trolleybus replacement scheme. Trolleybuses 521 (Holborn & North Finchley), 621 (Holborn & North Finchley), 609 (Moorgate & Barnet), and 641 (Moorgate & Winchmore Hill) were replaces by bus routes 4 (Waterloo & Finsbury Park), 43 (Friern Barnet & London Bridge), 104 (Moorgate & Barnet), 141 (Grove Park & Winchmore Hill), 141A (Grove Park & Finsbury Park), 168 (Putney & Turnpike Lane), 221 (Farringdon Street & North Finchley)

I understand that at the time the article didn't provide any evidence that this bus route is encyclopedic, but I was going to continue expanding this page once I'd gathered even more information. --sonicKAI 10:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I recommend you just recreate the article including this information, the AFD was based on it being a random bus route without any history. Kappa 11:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to userfy this so that Kai can work on it and establish why this route is outstanding? Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Sonic, you can create subpages of your user page to work on projects. See WP:USER. This lets you build up an article until it's ready, then you create the article and copy the finished version into it. This way you can work on half-finished pages without getting them tagged for deletion 10 minutes after you post version 1. Thatcher131 14:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Nothing wrong with re-creating it with historical information. Userfy if it helps him, though I remember it only having a list of stops and short description of the route. Trolley routes are certainly "notable", and bus routes that evolved from them should be too. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Nearly all London bus routes are encyclopedic. This one isn't quite as interesting as the Number 11, which was once commandeered by Metropolitan Police as a makeshift prison van to take dozens of anarchists to police cells arouns London--the anarchists later sued for wrongful arrest, and won! But this route has been around for yonks in one form or another and will have a history of some sort. So no, it shouldn't have been deleted. Undelete. --Tony Sidaway 06:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy per SPUI and Sjakkalle. Pilatus 12:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn per Tony Sidaway. Frankly the AfD debate on this was very misinformed. -- JJay 21:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I could argue that all passenger air travel routes are encyclopedic, but not as interesting as American Airlines Flight 11, but I won't, as that would be in poor taste. Oh yes, if you have time, don't forget to visit the Temple Church on Fleet Street before implying that I didn't read the article referenced above. I would suggest that, in the absence of major media coverage (i.e., grave calamity), information of this type should be merged into a summarizing article rather than left to morph into a travel brochure. — Mar. 3, '06 <freakofnurxture|talk>
    • Comment Well we'll have to undelete it in order to merge it within the GFDL :) Or else we could paraphrase the info and create a new redirect, which is just dumb. --Tony Sidaway 02:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted I am too weak-minded to be able to spot what, in the above nomination, justifies overturning this - what could be construed here as significant additional information? As it stands, the AfD was fine, the points well-taken. Eusebeus 12:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

1 March 2006

Math of Quran

  • This article was proposed for deletion as it did not have any references. And the article structure was also not good when it was proposed for the deletion, but the article was completely changed one day before it was deleted. I had all the references (Verifiable Sources), in the reference section. And it was very well structured too. Towards the deletion day many who had voted for deletion had changed their vote to Smerge, or keep. Please consider undelete of this article. It has very good potential to grow. (Mystic 15:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC))
  • Comment. If you think you've addressed all the concerns of folks from the previous AfD, just be bold and recreate the article in a form that addresses those concerns. Put a note on the talk page indicating that there was a prior AfD and a deletion review, and that you've addressed the concerns of the prior AfD by doing a, b, and c; that should prevent someone from coming along and doing a speedy delete (CSD G4) on it. It may go to AfD again, but if you've really addressed all the concerns, the new AfD won't have a leg to stand on. -ikkyu2 (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment as far as I can tell one user changed their recommendation from delete to weak delete because of the changes to the article. That's it. Either way, his changes did not seem to affect the trend, and there was a consensus for deletion. I've already told the user that if he thinks he can recreate the article in a way that addresses the concerns of those who recommended delete, then he's welcome to go for it. However, I'm concerned that he'll continue to almost exclusively cite primary sources, e.g. the Quran asnd the hadith, which would still leave the claims of original research unaddressed. He really needs to cite secondary sources that verify his claims about use of the number 19 in the Quran. I'm not sure I've gotten through to him regarding the difference between primary sources and secondary sources. Babajobu 17:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

out of six billion people on this planet five billion, believe in some sort of god.. I dont think it is wrong to use a religious script as a reference, as long as the article doesn't attack any other relgion or claims supremacy over the other. My article was only trying to explain the mathematical figures in the quran and nothing more to it. I cant recreate the article because I dont have any of the text I put on it. I will have to do it from scratch, if at all I recreate I will have to add little by little which is gonna attract admins who mercylessly delete articles if the content is poor ( and I dont oppose this). And the second thing is I simply dont have the time to redo it. The last article I did took me atleast 10 hours of reading and research to verify the source and the numbers my self. If you admins want the numbers to be verified you can download an electronic version of the quran at and easily do it your self. I again request the admins to consider restoring this article. (Mystic 10:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

Mystic/Arsath, I can only repeat what I have already explained on your talk page: it is absolutely fine to cite scripture in Misplaced Pages. However, if you are arguing that the number 19 has a hidden, special significance in the Quran, it is not enough to cite numerous places in the Quran where the number appears. You must also cite secondary sources that affirm your statement that the number 19 is especially significant in the Quran, otherwise you leave yourself open to claims of original research. This is why some voters in your AfD voted delete on grounds of original research. If you recreate the article, you must cite secondary sources, or the article is likely to be deleted again. Regardless, I will post the contents of the article to your talk page. Please do listen to what I have said about original research, primary sources, and secondary sources. Babajobu 14:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Article has been recreated as Mathematics of The Quran. Aecis 12:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Crying While Eating

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Crying While Eating

  • this article on the website cryingwhileeating.com was deleted for non-noteability. There was a strong consensus on the Afd page, but the site is notable, and the page recently underwent a major reconstruction to reflect this (only a day before deletion). I think with the new page, a vote for deletion will go the other way. please reconsider Spencerk 20:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm. I confess to fully expecting to find a rewrite that inadequately addressed the AFD's concerns. As it happens, Spencerk is correct to imply that the rewrite substantially met questions of 'notability'. There is a long piece concerning the website and its genesis on no less a publication than Slate. Further, Spencerk alludes in his rewrite to two other non-trivial publications (although the references weren't provided). I'd say there is sufficient independent external verification of the subject such that it can find a place somewhere in the encyclopedia. What form this takes is an editorial question; I think we'd be better off with mention of this in a larger article dealing with similar sites (that are similarly adequately referenced). However, an entry of its own wouldn't kill me, particularly if the article was significantly expanded (which should be possible, incidentally, given the length of the Slate piece and the alleged articles in the Canadian papers). I'd urge Spencerk to try his hand at it if it wouldn't be too much trouble. Note however that the correct title is Crying, While Eating (comma). Restore, in view of the addition of significant new information that was not considered by the AFD. —Encephalon 03:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The last-minute rewrite was substantial and I'm inclined to agree that it's impact was overlooked by the AFD discussion participants, none of whom returned to the discussion to either change or endorse their prior opinions. Overturn deletion but without prejudice against an immediate relisting if anyone thinks that's appropriate. Rossami (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn per Rossami and give this another shot. Or even just restore per Encephalon and leave it at that. (in either case without prejudice to lister or closing admin!) In no case to be construed as a Keep Deleted ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • overturn and unerase this please Yuckfoo 21:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Just a trifle, really, but we're not actually suggesting that we "overturn" this decision so much as "revisit" it, correct? No complaints about the way it was closed, etc etc. Also, I'd like to see some suggestions as to what we think the best way (as a closing admin) is to handle something like this. If MD has closed this as a keep, even with some Rossami-style well explained moves, I think that there would have been outcry. I might have done a re-list with a short note explaining why, or possibly pinged the other participants with "I was going to close this but..." Thoughts? - brenneman
    • It's a technical term, "overturn" is the term we use when a consensus (or majority) arises to reverse the decision. That can be for whatever reason, a mistake from the closer, or as here, unusual circumstances (in this case a late rewrite) without any criticism towards the closer. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles listed in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wilhelmina Sadrinna

In this AfD, only one user out of 16 voted to keep all of the articles. However, probably due to the use of confusing votes like "Keep the two with war crimes convictions; listify the others", this was closed as No Consensus, even though there seems to have been a clear consensus to delete at least those without war crimes convictions. --Philosophus 08:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse closure since not only is it a bit hard on the closing admin to expect them to do all that work, the desired end (merge & redirect) does not require admin intervention. All you need to do is listify the minor ones and change the articles to redirects. If you need the histories merging and the redirects deleted let me know, it takes time but can be done, but I think it's unnecessary in this case. So just be bold and do what the consensus supports. Just zis Guy you know? 11:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close, and go ahead and merge anything you want to merge as JzG said. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, on a strict vote count, I see nine deletes and seven non-deletes, which is a valid No consensus result. You don't need an AfD to perform a merge & redirect or a listify, so there's no need to overturn the AfD. --Deathphoenix 13:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems there was a consensus to me to delete all but the two with war crimes convictions, so I think that should be done. Those who say "listfy" don't indicate what "list" they should be included in. Are we going to have a Very selective list of a handful of the thousands of concentration camp guards during World War II? So delete all except whatever two were convicted. I'm not seeing sources for these either, by the way. -R. fiend 16:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User admins ignoring policy, again

Debate moved to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates. -Splash 19:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

SourceryForge

This was closed as a "no consensus" back in December, but the only reasons given for keeping it was "pending further discussion" and "fun name". We've now had months for further disucssion, and the article has not improved. The website does not appear to come anywhere close to meeting WP:WEB guidelines. No sources, alexa just over 1 million. To me, it's a clear delete, but I wasn't sure what folks thought about reviewing the previous deletion versus listing it again. Since it seems to obviously fail WP:WEB, I'm not sure another full Afd is desirable or neccessary. Friday (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • As the closing admin, I had to discount Jeffrey O. Gustafson's nomination, as it was a string of several nominations of wikis with "NN" or something to that effect as the reason. I didn't discount the non-notable reason, but I discounted the fact that he didn't give more reasoning or statements to support his stance. Jcuk's and HoodedMan's comments were very keepish in nature, which gave me a 4/3 no-consensus result. That said, I would not see any reason why it could not be renominated or deleted outright, nor I would oppose that. Titoxd 01:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

28 February 2006

Template:If defined (and others)

Original deletion debate

I can't say this any other way: Splash clearly ignored consensus (or, if you're charitable, the lack of consensus) to delete these templates. Further, he assumed bad faith per my remarks, and ignored the fact that (at least initially) the TFD nominations were malformed (Netoholic didn't even bother placing a TFD tag on the template talk pages or the templates themselves). If he has doubts about the motivations of editors votes, he should ask them instead of simply discounting them out of hand as he's done here.

  • Overturn and Undelete, totally flawed closure by an admin who ought to know better. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. They are unused, so keep them deleted. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    • This deletion review is not considering new information: this is reviewing the closing admins actions. The closing admin was wrong to discount comments as he did. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure - James S's vote was based on a false technical assumption. Locke Cole's (and the "per Locke Cole" votes) did not provide a solid rationale for preserving these templates... he chose to attack me and wiki-lawyer the nomination. -- Netoholic @ 04:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Excuse me? I provided a perfectly legitimate rationale. Splash's closure, OTOH, did not provide a reasonable explanation for discounting/ignoring legitimate concerns. He says that I hadn't done any work since the TFD nomination; had it not occurred to him that I was waiting to see if the rug was going to be pulled out from under me before I did said work? Further, he conditioned deletion of other templates on the outcome of this debate: it was highly inappropriate for him to then ignore consensus (or lack of consensus) and close it as delete. There is absolutely no reason or justification for the conclusion he came to. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Are you bolding your words above to try and confuse people? Splash closed the TFD with an excellent justification. You did not provide a reason for keeping other than commenting on what you interpret as my bad-faith nomination. It is up to the clsoing admin to weigh the result, which he did. -- Netoholic @ 04:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I believe I made my case with this comment in the original TFD debate: Netoholic is well aware that I intend to go through many of the templates he broke while WP:AUM was policy, and those templates will rely on these meta-templates (short of re-writing the logic used formerly to use {{qif}}). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • undelete, please. I don't see that they are not used. Rather, I'd like to see them made into redirects, as was suggested in the original discussion. Is there an inherent problem with these being redirects? Again, the result of the discussion was no consensus, not consensus to delete. ... aa:talk 04:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The effects of CSS hacks (click for full size image)
The same page with meta-templates in use (click for full size image)
  • Do we have any indication that any templates are actually broken because of this? Titoxd 05:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    • See the two images I've provided here. One uses CSS hacks, the other uses meta-templates (which remove unnecessary rows on the server side). It's been shown that some screen reading software (and non-CSS compliant browsers) break on these "CSS hacks". There is no such issue with meta-templates (or "conditional templates" like {{qif}}). —Locke Cole • t • c 07:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      • So, if I understand this correctly, all these templates are deprecated in favor of {{qif}}. So, why aren't they just replaced and we avoid all of this? Wouldn't that be much simpler? Titoxd 00:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Some of the templates were fairly complicated: having these around as a reference to what was going on would be useful (to me at least). As I say below, I'd be willing to have these userfied to discourage their use by new editors. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. My "per Locke Cole" vote was based on Cole's statement "I intend to go through many of the templates he broke while WP:AUM was policy, and those templates will rely on these meta-templates (short of re-writing the logic used formerly to use )". I do not see how this statement does not provide a solid rationale for preserving the templates, and therefore discounting my comment and my vote to keep is inappropriate. It seems to me to be unnecessarily destructive to break the dependant templates. Just put a notice on the template page stating that the templates are deprecated in favor of {{qif}} so that new templates are not created using these. – Doug Bell 05:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and replace known uses with Qif and then leave undeleted until the taxoboxes which use this template are all known to be subst'ed, i.e., after what-links-here is fixed. What was the reason for deletion in the first place? --James S. 07:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, and kill CSS hacks. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't say I'm surprised to see these turn up here. I repeat that those claiming the templates are in use are completely wrong. They are not. The Whatlinkshere links are all to user subpages, and templates are not removed from those prior to deletion since it does no damage to the encyclopedia to have them go red, and gives the user a good idea about what just happened. Undelete them if you like, or keep them deleted if you like, but I continue to think that the only reasons given for keeping in the TfD were flawed to the point of being invalid. I have no position on AUM as a whole. I just use whatever templates are around. -Splash 10:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Questions: Why not simply replace the faulty CSS code with {{qif}}? Do these templates provide functionality that {{qif}} lacks? If not, why do we need them? —David Levy 14:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't claim to be a template expert (though I'm picking up experience as I go)– having these around would make it easier to understand how templates worked prior to being moved to CSS hacks. Sort of like seeing the source code to a program is easier than guessing how it works under a disassembler. FWIW, the more I understand how {{qif}} works, the easier it is to just rewrite templates to use it directly (see, for example, Template:Infobox Software). To be absolutely clear, I am not suggesting we start using these templates again; I just want them around to look at if I need a reference. (I would even be happy with userfying them I suppose, to deter people from using them). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. As a process argument, there was a fairly strong set of keeps in the request, and the reason that so few references remained was an out of process replacement by technically clever (but practically problematic) CSS hacks. As a technical argument, while "qif" may do things more generally, it was "if defined" that I was trying to use, and would actually cause less potential stress on servers through fewer inclusions. Keep, it worked. --William Allen Simpson 15:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • temporarily undelete for the purpose of converting usage to {{qif}}. In the alternative, we could provide temporary substitutes in user sub-space for the duration of conversion works. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, of course; closing was flawed. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

  1. Mucky Pup re-created, speedy kept on AFD 09:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Blog Torrent restored and listed on afd 23:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. TimeSplitters: Future Perfect strategy guide has been transwikied properly now 23:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Glossary of Japanese film credit terms nominator appears happy with transwiki (right?) 23:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Template:Background, no majority to overturn 23:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Teenage Bestsellers 252 contested {{prod}}, reinstated and submitted to afd.
  7. Pokemon Kid deletion endorsed 00:49, 3 March 2006
  8. User:J1838 kept deleted 00:49, 3 March 2006
  9. Ashcroft Homes undeleted (already done)) 00:46, 3 March 2006
  10. List of Amstrad CPC games - keep endorsed 00:45, 3 March 2006
  11. The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny - no support for reversing afd or relisting (but a redirect doesn't need an afd or a drv); still support enough that i'll make it back into a redirect) 00:44, 3 March 2006
  12. Sincere expectation criterion - already relisted on afd and deleted there; this debate redundant 00:40, 3 March 2006
  13. pork (instant messenger) - deletion endorsed 00:40, 3 March 2006
  14. Category:Controversial television shows - deletion endorsed 00:39, 3 March 2006
  15. Judeofascism kept deleted+protected 00:36, 3 March 2006
  16. Llull voting system no action since question is editorial and reversal of AfD not supported 00:36, 3 March 2006
  17. Templates used for voting - out of scope to DRV really, and no majority for anything, but unclear that DRV has a mandate to reverse/endorse debates/deletion that never took plac 00:34, 3 March 2006
  18. Carrillo Dining Commons overturned and deleted by original closer (supported unanimously). 03:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  19. Category:Maine state highways rename endorsed (or no majority to overturn depending on Syrthiss's comment's status). 03:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  20. Eric Posner copyvio kept deleted. 03:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  21. User:Tezkah/uncensored kept deleted. 03:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  22. Progressive Labor Party (Saint Vincent) keep close endorsed. 03:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  23. Universism undeleted (already) relisted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Universism (4th nomination). 03:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  24. Eric wagliardo deletion endorsed. 03:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  25. Rory Conroy no majority to overturn, deletion endorsed. 02:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  26. LJ Drama deletion endorsed. 02:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  27. Andrew Allaby undeleted + relisted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Andrew Allaby (2nd nomination). 02:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  28. Level 4 Productions not overturned, but good rewriting probably ok. 02:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  29. Template:Void deletion-to-be endorsed. 02:49, 27 February 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.


Proposed deletions

Articles deleted under the Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion procedure (using the {{PROD}} tag) may be undeleted, without a vote, on reasonable request. Any admin can be asked to do this, alternatively a request may be made here. However, such undeleted articles are open to be speedy deleted or nominated for WP:AFD under the usual rules.

History only undeletion

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

Decisions to be reviewed

Shortcut

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.

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

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

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

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

8 March 2006

Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy

This was nominated at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy(2nd nomination) and was deleted and then protected against re-creation.

This article is not a hoax, and is a genuine article. In fact, high schools in Merseyside, Greater Manchester, Staffordshire and West Yorkshire have taught about this as part of their World War II history syllabus.

Please re-consider your deletion, this article is genuine and verifiable - and our history department can prove it.

--Gairloch 15:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

John Bambenek

This was nominated at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John Bambenek (2nd nomination). Sockpuppetry abounded on BOTH sides. The first nomination was a solid keep and was only about 2 months prior to this nomination with no recent changes. The original lister never participated in discussion and was a drive by hitter. It included shenanigans of a sysop deleting positive comments. The person in question has hundreds of unique google hits, has dozens of mentions by the media, and writes for an independed and self-financed paper of 20,000 a day (not include the columns that have gone out on the wire and been syndicated). I don't believe that this was seriously considered, there are no less than 4 different notablility criteria that this article meets and those were never considered. -- 12.203.38.138 13:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Undelete. The notability requirements are met and shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. First nomination to delete voted keep, nothing changed. -- Alpha269 15:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Kirven's

  • Seems to have been speedied out-of-process as an "nn dead department store". Frankly IMO all department stores are notable enough to be merged with wherever they are located, so newbie-biting and admin button abuse of this nature is not helpful. Kappa 14:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Content of the article was "Kirven's was a local department store exclusive to Columbus, GA. Originally downtown, the family-owned store relocated to ill-fated Columbus Square Mall in 1979 only to close a few years later." As this seems to be a short stub on a department store with a short life, I don't really think that it stands a very good chance on AFD, stores are usually deleted while store chains are often kept. Nonetheless, as this is a disputed speedy of an article which didn't really fit the speedy criteria I will have to say undelete and list on AFD if you still want this undeleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist per Sjakkalle -- Alpha269 15:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

7 March 2006

CommandN

Shown in a Superman comic, starring a co-host of an internationally-aired TV show, Frank Gehry-interviewing, heckofalot-more-notable-than-most-podcasts. Can we revive it? Here's my proposal redevelopment of the article... commandN/new. -- user:zanimum

Signa Vianen, Journalist

Page was proposed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for Creation on 2005-12-25. A page by that name was given the {{deletedpage}} tag on the same day. Another article, titled Signa Vianen was created the same day by User:Kappa and has since been expanded. I believe it would be okay to remove the protection from Signa Vianen, Journalist in favor of a redirect, or just an unprotected empty article. --Dystopos 20:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. -Splash 21:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

User:God of War/Tyranny and Fascism - Past and Present

This was nominated for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:God of War/Tyranny and Fascism - Past and Present and, mathematically, correctly closed as a 'no consensus'. However, regardless of the lack of consensus, WP:NOT a free web-host or a blog service. I don't want to censor anyone; openly declaring your POV may (arguably) assist in ensuring it doesn't subtly influencing your editing, but there is no way that posting political essays serves that purpose. At that point we have crossed the line from declaring POV, to pushing it. WP:NOT and WP:NPOV, and the strength of the argument in this debate, says overturn and delete. --Doc 17:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse Closure/keep kept I know this thing is of questionable merit, but is only the Declaration of Independence with a few words changed. Yes, it is probably a "waste of space" in very, very, very tiny way; but God Of War is an established editor, and I see no reason to delete something so utterly trivial if it pleased him. I voted Keep at MfD and reinforce here: this is a de minimis case -- just leave it be. Understand, whatever else, this is not a personal essay -- it is a politically-charged, but very minimally rephrased copy of the Declaration of Indepedence (United States). Xoloz 18:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep undeleted. Apart from the fact that I don't want to gratify God of War's ego by falling for the header which is practically beging for MFD, it is (a) a subpage and (b) very clearly labelled as POV. As such, it is helpful in setting out GoW's stall in respect of his biases when editing Misplaced Pages. I am firmly against trolling userboxes and other crap, but I think if a page is a subpage within the user space and has plentiful warnings the potential for harm is strictly limited. The MfD closure was valid, and I see no pressing reason for overturning it. Just zis Guy you know? 18:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Let be. JzG's argument is powerful. -ikkyu2 (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Endorse Closure. This is a rock/hard place situation. If it remains, Misplaced Pages creeps ever closer to becoming MySpace. If it's deleted, that gives the "omgz nazi admins!!!1one" crowd more ammo. Hopefully GoW will keep his word and "finish" this page, whatever it's supposed to be, and remove it from his user space as soon as possible. android79 03:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, there was no consensus sadly. Sometimes one just has to accept the losses and move on. It is not the end of the world that this thing was not deleted (it is almost, but not quite). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • As Doc doesn't seem to be disputing whether the debate was closed correctly, isn't this forum shopping? --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure per above -- Alpha269 15:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Bier Suppe

deletion details: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Bier_Suppe

"A webcomic with 41 pages, found here and largely written by the webcomic author, a User:C Labombard. Alexa shows no data for the website, and a google for "Bier Suppe" webcomic gives under 50 links. Is this website notable? I don't think so. Hahnchen 23:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)"

Alexa definitely shows Bier Suppe, and Google definitely shows more than 50 links. Also, the page itself specifies M.A. Labombard as being the primary author and illustrator, and not User:C Labombard. As can plainly be seen, C Labombard is the primary promoter and webmaster, therefore has the right of the author to promote this site. The author can be contacted through the e-mail address given on that site to confirm this. Please undelete this page!

Endorse closure, keep deleted. Yes, the total number of Googles is actually a bit over 500; that is still tiny, and only about 50 of them are unique, byt he looks of it, whihc is probably what was meant. And yes, Alexa Search finds it, but there is no traffic rank for the domain. Absent evidence of significant coverage from disinterested third parties, the article fails to demonstrate the sigificance of the subject. Just zis Guy you know? 15:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Endorse closure and keep deleted. Exactly what JZG said. If a website has no Alexa rank whatsoever, it isn't in the top 8 million or so websites, and therefore it's highly unlikely that it's making much of an impact whatsoever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The right to promote one's website does not extend to doing so on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not free advertising space. Endorse deletion absent any new information. -Splash 15:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Endorse closure per Splash. Xoloz 18:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Endorse closure. Unanimous AfD vote; several commenters on it cited relevant Misplaced Pages inclusion guidelines. No need to rehash the content of that discussion and those guidelines here, although Splash and JzG have done so courteously and eloquently. Suggest nom become more intimate with WP:WEB and WP:DP. -ikkyu2 (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Endorse closure per ikkyu2. gidonb 04:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Bashas'

The AfD closed with an 83% delete consensus (5/1/0), but Splash, who was closing, discounted all delete votes and closed with a no consensus because the final keep vote claimed that Bashas' was a big chain in Arizona and had over 100 locations. Splash's reasoning was that if the delete 'voters' had known about this claim (which he admits is unsubstantiated) the article would have been kept. I for one wouldn't have changed my vote to keep (I usually watch AfDs but was on wikibreak at the time). I can't speak for the other editors, but nor, I suggest, can Splash to this extent. Although Splash suggests a renomination, instant renominations are often speedy kept, so rather than wait I've come here to suggest overturn and delete. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawing. Thivierr has been adding some links and references to the article, which puts the store close enough to meeting WP:CORP that the original AfD is now unquestionably out-of-date. I'm still not sure whether that was the case when Splash closed it, but it's irrelevant. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Syrian Kurdistan

This area is not known by this name by any organisation. Last time it was put up for deletion it was meant to be renamed to Kurds in Syria, but this article already exists and is well sourced so no merge is needed.

Please Speedy delete this as per talk --MysticRum 18:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it can be speedied for that. But it can be made into a redirect... Just zis Guy you know? 18:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. If it isn't obvious, this matter is now moot. Objections to the redirect (I cannot imagine why there would be any) should go to RfD before coming here. Xoloz 18:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

6 March 2006

Effinhot

Article was deleted as spam an then protected. As the private owner of effinhot.com i would like to bring this article back online so that it can be edited and better developed to provide an overview of the site it was to represent. I did not creat the original wiki for this article so it was a suprise to me when i found someone has beat me to it and then deleted for spam

It was spam as written. Before you create it, have you read WP:WEB? It looks to me as if you might have some trouble meeting that. Just zis Guy you know? 15:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Llamacon

Article deleted with 5 respondents outside of nom. All delete votes came before mention of notability via WP:BIO-style guidelines of press coverage. As AfD isn't a vote, the idea of 1 anon with 3 total contribs (two to the AfD), one "weak delete" and one delete vote without regard/note of the panelists or media coverage questions this deletion. We do not have a current process or guideline regarding conventions that I'm aware of, and it more than meets the standards set forth in, say, a bio of an individual or a group. At the very least, overturn and relist. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

An anime convention held for the first time a couple of weeks back? What say we wait and see if the second convention generates any coverage? Or better still, the tenth. Just zis Guy you know? 17:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I share JzG's concerns, but since bdjeff's point regarding unconsidered new information introduced during the debate is valid, and he is a longtime contributor making a good-faith request, undelete and relist. It is possible AfD could support his argument, hence WP:SNOW doesn't apply. Xoloz 18:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
For any other situation, I would have never brought it here. The problem is a) the notable people in attendence, and b) the media coverage, which, combined with the poor turnout for the AfD, makes me feel a second look is warranted. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 23:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Undelete per nom. If it attracted three notable people in the field, as mentioned in the original AfD, I think it at least warrants a better AfD. Turnstep 22:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Undelete/relist. Good faith DRV request; WP guidelines are not precisely crystal-clear with respect to the questions raised. No harm done by relisting. -ikkyu2 (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ivan Cherevko

This article was deleted by User:Esteffect because of alleged recreation of deleted article, while it was (most probably) completely different from deleted one in content and topic and perhaps even about different people. Either way round, it was not identical to deleted one, so it do not fall under speedy deletion criteria. --Lucinor 21:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

  • As initiator of request, of course I vote undelete. --Lucinor 21:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, as deleting party. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ivan Cherevko. Cherevko created the original article himself, I'm sure, with ludacrious statements in it. Basically, it was a 13-year old's an ego-boosting bio. The article has been created and re-deleted several times in the past. The original AfD was infested with keep-voting sockpuppets. Cherevko claimed back then (under usernames such as Mykola Petrenko) that he was a child prodigy, adding himself to that article repeatedly. I think it should remain deleted per common sense. If restored, however, I will AfD it and provide a more full argument. Esteffect 21:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, note that the article I CSDed simply stated that he is a Ukrainian Children's Rights Ombudsman, and the first child to be given that position. Just how notable are children's rights ombudsmans? The original article, AfDed last year claimed he was a 13-year old studying at the University of Kyiv, who could read at the age of three and who had an IQ of over 200. Both stated Cherevko's DOB as 1991, though, so I completely believe that they are the same person. Esteffect 21:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Interesting. This version does not appear to be a simple reposting of the previously deleted content. Both content and style are different. Some new facts are also alleged. However, the previous AFD discussion raised some serious questions about whether this person even exists. During that discussion, there were several allegations of sockpuppetry and other attempts to abuse the decision-making process. Given the history, I'm inclined to request a verifiable cite supporting the latest version of the article. If such a cite can be provided here, I will recommend that we overturn the speedy-deletion and submit the article to a second AFD. Absent such a cite, leave it deleted. Rossami (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I got my information from TV broadcast, but I've found some info on the net - (Georgiy Gongadze's Center of Political Prognosing), that tells: "В цих умовах все актуальнішою стає ініціатива, запропонована Уповноваженим щодо створення дитячих омбудсманів з числа самих дітей. Тому Омбудсман України сьогодні своїм розпорядженням призначила на громадських засадах дитячими омбудсманами Крук Юлію, студентку 1-го курсу факультету міжнародного права Інституту міжнародних відносин Київського Національного університету ім. Т.Г.Шевченка та Івана Черевка, студента ІІІ-го курсу Національного університету “Києво-Могилянська академія”". (rough English translation: In that circumstances (of complete poverty and human rights ignorance - Lucinor 20:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)) Ombudsman's initiative of choosing children's rights ombudsmans from children themselves. So, Ukrainian Ombudsman today appointed Julia Kruk, freshman student of International Relations Instute and Ivan Cherevko, junior student of KM Academy to the office of children's rights ombudsman). --Lucinor 20:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • And another link - (Regional Party website, reprinting DAY newspaper article (DAY is quite influencial Ukrainian newspaper)): "8 декабря своим распоряжением я назначила на общественных началах детскими омбудсманами Крук Юлию, студентку первого курса факультета международного права Института международных отношений Киевского национального университета им. Т. Г. Шевченко, и Ивана Черевко, студента третьего курса Национального университета «Киево-Могилянская академия»." (translation: At December 8th by my decree I've appointed to the office of children's rights ombudsmans Julia Kruk, student of International Relations Institute and Ivan Cherevko, student of KM Academy). --Lucinor 20:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Moreover, TV broadcast, which I rely upon, was shown on Inter channel (one of two main TV channels in Ukraine), and told that Nina Karpachova, Ukrainian Ombudsman (minor reminder - in Ukraine Ombudsman's office is generally as influential as Premier-Minister's office) enrolled two children as her aides in children's rights questions, one 15-year old, Ivan Cherevko and one 16-year old, Julia Kruk. They are appointed as her Predstavnyk's (position almost equal to Cabinet member) and have to care about children's rights. --Lucinor 20:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and list on AfD. Articles are substantially different and additional claims to notability are made over the May 2005 AfD. Just zis Guy you know? 22:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted pending a trace of WP:Verification. No need to willingly restore previously deleted material that had hoax concerns. The previous AfD might have weak applicability in this case, but I do think it does have some. -Splash 23:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per WP:SNOW. With regard to the version by Lucinor: no reference is provided to confirm the statement that he holds the position of Ukrainian Children's Rights Ombudsman, or that he and Nina Karpachova (appointed jointly) are the first children to hold thatt position. These are the only claims made in the one-sentence article. I am completely baffled as to why Lucinor didn't provide a source. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry that I haven't in the first place. But you see, news broadcast was my primary source, and here in Ukraine, TV channels do not list their news in the Internet. --Lucinor 20:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. If not G4 its A7, as thre is no indication of what exactly Ukrainian Children's Rights Ombudsman is or why it's notable. -R. fiend 00:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted per Splash and Rossami. Without a source, this article seems... dubious, especially given the context of the previous AfD. Xoloz 19:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted as per Splash's arguments. The references above do not seem to assert notability. Turnstep 22:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Muslim Islamic jurists

This AfD request was closed because the main titular article was deleted per {{prod}}. However, there were four secondary articles attached to the AfD whose outcomes have yet to be determined. I don't want to create a completely new AfD as that will lose all the votes pertaining to the articles in question. And so, I'm asking that this be re-listed with the main article changed to one of the current secondary articles. joturner 21:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Anything you do here is going to be a mess, but I suggest that actually the only fair solution is to relist the other four, since it's unclear how many of the responses thus far are exclusive to the deleted article. Just zis Guy you know? 22:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There's no point relisting. The outcome is plainly no consensus. It's also not reasonable to ask for a mandate to do so here, since you're asking whoever carries out the relisting to work out which article and what nomination. You can make the relisting yourself if you like, but I don't think DRV is really capable of effectively doing so in this case. Just boldly merge them or something, and then revisit the deletion of the ones that turn out to be truly useless. That said, M0o should have been much more careful. -Splash 23:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

advisory capital

This article was deleted for alleged lack of context. In fact, the concept, although new, has recently been the topic of many blogs by well-read bloggers including Jeff Jarvis. technorati currently lists 106 posts in the last two weeks. Many of these blogs pointed to the wikipedia entry and the entry was intended to be a fulcrum for discussion and a place for the concept to involve. Tevslin 17:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

5 March 2006

Sean Ripple

A number of the votes for deletion at the deletion debate for this entry came before it was obvious that the Sean Ripple in question was Sean from The American Analog Set. I offer that this entry concerns a notable artist from a notable group, was possibly deleted due to miscommunication, and deletion should consequently be overturned — User:Adrian/zap2.js 04:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hunter Ellis

This was nominated along with a bunch of other biographies of genuinely non-notable individuals who were participants on the reality TV show "Survivor" (Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Joel_Klug, with other Survivor bios simultaneously listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Brady_Finta and Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Keith_Famie). These created some really ugly and confusing AFDs for admins to close, and as a result Ellis was deleted improperly. There wasn't a 2/3 majority to delete (63%), the nominator had attempted to withdraw his nomination of Ellis, and Ellis's notable non-Survivor accomplishments were overlooked by some editors who just voted for bulk actions on all the articles without reading more than a few. He was the host on two nationally televised weekly series for The History Channel, one of which is still active, and also hosts five-days-a-week TV program in Los Angeles.. I'd encourage people who can view deleted edits to look at the version I re-wrote, since it's a much more even-handed treatment of the subject. -Colin Kimbrell 17:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: I won't vote since I closed the AfD, but the recently deleted version looks alright to me. I don't see any reason for it to stay deleted.--Shanel 18:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The real problem seems to be listing them all together since in reality the subject of each article should be weighed independently for notability. I do not have the luxury of being able to see the recently deleted version so I don't feel qualified to comment on the same. However, the argument presented here is plenty enough for me to believe that Mr. Ellis is probably notable enough for his own article. -- Krash (Talk) 19:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, no point penalizing a legit TV host for having been a survivor contestant as well. Kappa 20:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, and if anyone complains give it a seperate slot on AFD. --kingboyk 21:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Request history-only undeletion with preservation of current redirect while this DRV remains open. -ikkyu2 (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist on AfD. As someone who's closed one of the AfDs mentioned above (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Keith Famie, in which Hunter Ellis was not listed), I can sympathise with this. I really, REALLY despise multiple nominations like this, because they're really hard to close if the various subjects have various degrees of notability. Since someone listing these articles on an AfD might not know exactly how notable all the subjects may be, they should not nominate multile articles in a single AfD unless they are clearly of the same degree of notability (ie, not biographies). That being said, the best way to determine what to do with this single article is to nominate it individually for an AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 06:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete Obviously nobody who voted delete actually read and researched each one. This is why merge/redirecting in these cases would be far more efficient and safer, as people can look at each article one-at-a-time, and undo any mistakes. Let editors who know something about the topic decide, and discard abusrd logic like "Delete vote em all off the island" (do we think this voter weighed each person). People weren't voting on notability, they were voting blindly based on their general opinion of reality TV. Separate AFD listings for each isn't as good at it sounds, as it's labour intensive. Minor contests can quickly be merged/redirected, and more signficant ones (or in this case, somebody who's notable for stuff outside the show), can have a stand-alone article (and redirects are easy to undo).--Rob 07:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, verifiable evidence of notability was shown, and delete votes after that point seem to have been based on the insufficient notability of the whole group's shared characteristic rather than individuals' outside accomplishments. Barno 19:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn, nom tried to withdraw, was not Afd'd properly. KillerChihuahua 19:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, agree with Bob. Plank 23:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, as the person who originally nominated the lot of Survivor bios at the time, I selected which I thought at the time was not notable outside of Survivor. After a few articles in the bundle came under my attention, and after some research. I've since attempted to withdraw and changed my votes for a few of the articles in the afds cited. -- Arnzy | Talk 13:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Undelete Hunter Ellis, since this article at the time was lumped with those voting delete for the lot without having a second look. Alternatively request history-only undeletion with the current re-direct in place as per ikkyu2. I didnt get to see Colin Kimbrell's edit, but I presume it did meet WP:BIO standards. -- Arnzy | Talk 13:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

4 March 2006

Sustainable National Income

The entry Sustainable National Income was deleted by User_talk:Pathoschild, stating that it was "likely" copyrighted. Well, it isn't. Or 'original research': no it is a review article. In the mean time it is on wikinfo. But now that is under threat of deletion too, since it would be too short. Please understand that I need to refer to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Colignatus (talk • contribs) 00:40, March 5, 2006.

  • Well, first you have to help us find what article you're talking about. SNI currently exists as a redirect to the National Intelligence Service of Brazil and has apparently never been deleted. Sustainable National Income exists as an active article (though was deleted twice, has been recreated and is now in the queue for PROD deletion). Please change the header to a link to the deleted article that you are asking the community to reconsider. If applicable, please also provide us a link to the relevant deletion discussion. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know how to link other than: At User_talk:Colignatus and under the heading "The SNI article - Pathoschild", there is a discussion with User_talk:Pathoschild Colignatus 23:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The relevant discussions are at User talk:Pathoschild#SNI and User talk:Colignatus#the_SNI_article, and the user has presented a more in-depth argument for his case at User talk:Colignatus#The_SNI_article_-_Pathoschild. // Pathoschild (admin / ) 05:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
        • To confirm, you are asking us to review the deletion of Sustainable National Income, correct? If so, you appear to have completely re-created that page. So technically, you are only requesting an undeletion of the article's history so the 10 deleted edits show up on the history page. Is that correct? Rossami (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Thanks for showing how to refer. Yes, I have created that page now from scratch, rephrasing the review of the topic as of new. I'm happy as it stands now. It is second best but it is ok, and there is a link to the original review text, so the really interested will find the superior introduction. I don't want to replace the current version with the deleted version, since that would destroy the current editting and links. Now, technically, I don't think that this what you say on the history is what I propose. I simply propose no deletion of the topic. I would also enjoy if all references to the idea that it should be deleted are deleted, so that no-one will get the idea that this something that still needs to be done. I would also enjoy that next time when I transfer an text of mine to the GNU environment, that people first ask questions before assuming all kinds of unfriendly things which I wouldn't do. Thanks for your care. Colignatus 22:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Given the clarification, I recommend a history only undeletion. The topic may well deserve scrutiny but if so, it should be done through an AFD nomination. Rossami (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Jewfro

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jewfro
See also the related article Jew-fro which is currently the subject of a deletion debate.

I believe Jewfro is deserving of its own page, based on the facts that it brings up a large # of hits on google, that i have yet to speak to a person who doesn;'t know what a jewfro is and that the afro, another hairstyle attributed to a certain group of people, has set a precedent. If jewfro can not have its own page then neither should afro, as they should both be listed in an article about hairstyles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.38.113 (talk • contribs) 18:28, March 4, 2006 (UTC)

Gail (goldfish)

I believe that Gail the goldfish (for those unfamiliar, a character on the television show The West Wing) deserves her own page not only because she used to have her own page (which was quite insightful yet concise), but also because her character has much more than a surface value. Gail's mere presence is used to foreshadow events happening later in the plot. Also, I would like to acknowledge the fact that you had some very useful links on Gail's old page that made people aware of goldfish in general. Please, at the very least, consider the fact that Gail, while never having any spoken lines, is and has been an influential character on The West Wing, not only in her presence but also in raising the awareness of the lack of care we take in the environment (you can call me crazy but I'm sticking by my platform). Thank you for taking the time to read this. --Penguincookie 22:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

3 March 2006

Tom Dorsch

User:Howcheng who admitted that he knew nothing about the subject matter of this article, which was chess, deleted my highly acclaimed and popular article about Tom Dorsch, who is one of the best known chess players in the world. Ever since, any time anybody does not like one of my articles, they write to User:Howcheng and he continues to harass me.

Prior to being deleted, my article on Tom Dorsch was modified by a dozen different editors who in some cases added more information. Therefore, I cannot simply reinstate the article I wrote. I need to recover what everybody else contributed.

In addition, User:Howcheng showed his utter ignorance of the people involved, with the following statement:

"User:Sam Sloan is free to request a review of the deletion at WP:DRV. I suppose I did not need to make the snarky comment about meatpuppets, but Mr Sloan clearly does not understand AfD is not a vote."

However, it is rather User:Howcheng who does not understand. Here is what User:Howcheng wrote at: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Dorsch

"The result of the debate was delete. When meatpuppets call for deletion, you know it's bad. howcheng {chat} 20:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)"

His reference to "meatpuppets" clearly referred to Randy Bauer. This is the problem when User:Howcheng intervenes not knowing the subject matter. Randy Bauer was the Budget Director of the State of Iowa. He ran against me for election to the USCF Executive Board. Here are the results of the election on July 22, 2005 (which can be found through an Internet search): Randy Bauer 1591 Sam Sloan 1064

The other supposed "meatpuppet" was Louis Blair, an Internet gadfly who attacks me all the time. In addition, User:Rook_wave, who made the deletion request, voted six times for deletion, and User:Billbrock who put me on a list of Pedophiles in Misplaced Pages voted three times for deletion. At the same time, there were a number of famous International Chess Masters and chess personalities who voted to keep the article. If you discount the six votes by Rook wave, the three votes by Billbrock and the other votes by persons who clearly dislike me or Dorsch, then a majority voted to keep the article.

The act by User:Howcheng to delete my Tom Dorsch article was clearly wrong. Every knowledgable person agrees that Tom Dorsch is a notable person. The fact that some people dislike me or dislike Tom Dorsch is not a proper grounds for deletion. Sam Sloan 03:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I need an order of protection telling User:Howcheng to stay from my articles until he learns something about chess. Sam Sloan 03:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Where would you propose we get an order of protection from? -Splash 03:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly endorse closure, keep deleted and salt the earth. Here is the AFD debate, see also Sam Sloan's attack page and this thread on Usenet. It seems that the complainant may possibly have ownership issues and is very obviously anything but neutral. But since this is allegedly one of the most significant figures in chess it should be trivially easy to verify that significance. The assertion is not borne out by numerous well-argued "delete" statements in the (validly closed) AfD. Howcheng seems to have no prior involvement with the article, and is just the janitor here, closing a rather messy AfD but one with a decent number of contributions from which consensus can be established. Looking at the article and its history, and the AfD, I can quite believe that deletion might be followed by intense acrimony, but that is not Howcheng's doing. The content itself is an unpleasant mixture of snide innuendo and blatant attack, and very clearly has no place on Misplaced Pages in this form. Even pre-Seighenthaler we would have deleted or at least aggressively pruned this article, essentially to a stub of verifiable information (which verifiable information conspicuously fails to establish notability). Absent any willingness on the part of the subject's supporters to substantiate notability, and on the part of his detractors to allow WP:NPOV, I would say that this is best gone, and there is no doubt in my mind that this DRV is vexatious and should be speedily closed as such. Just zis Guy you know? 09:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I need to point out that two of the pages cited by Just zis Guy you know? were NOT written by me. There are at least two FAKE SAM SLOANS trolling Usenet, especially on rec.games.chess.politics . Regular readers of Usenet can quickly tell the difference between the real and the fake Sam Sloan's, but Misplaced Pages administrators probably will not be familiar with this problem and will not realize that they are reading something by an imposter.
      Also, the article cited above at http://www.samsloan.com/tomswife.htm called "Sam Sloan's attack page" is not an attack at all. Tom Dorsch wrote that my mother was insane in California. My mother was a psychiatrist, treating insane people, and she was from Virginia and had never been to California. The attack by Tom Dorsch on me was apparently provoked by a posting from one of the Fake Sam Sloans. Back then, it was not as well known as it is now that there were fake Sam Sloans trolling around and Dorsch probably did not realize it. Sam Sloan 12:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, valid AfD per process. The funny thing is, even if you count all the invalid votes, you still get something like 17d 4k. I don't think we need to salt the earth on this one yet. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Sloan's spew about meatpuppets suggests he didn't read the link explaining what meatpuppets are. FWIW, Sloan's vendetta against Dorsch continues in Edward G. Winter where he says Dorsch wrote articles as "Edward Spring" . "Edward Spring" was a pseudonymous troll in a chess-related Usenet group several years ago (the name was an obvious take-off on Edward Winter). Sloan claimed in 2002 that "Spring" was Dorsch but that was nothing but conjecture, and others were skeptical. The Spring=Dorsch claim in the Winter article has been removed repeatedly by other editors but Sloan continues to restore it. Sloan seems to have latched onto Misplaced Pages as a new venue to carry on his ancient personal squabbles (Dorsch, an ex-roommate of Sloan from the 1960's, hasn't been heard from in years and Sloan continues to hound him). If Sloan insists on pursuing those petty dramas, that's his business, but it's best if he did it on his own site instead of on Misplaced Pages. Phr 20:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I hope that people will forgive me for intruding to correct one small point. Sam Sloan has repeatedly and falsely connected me with the decision to delete the Tom Dorsch article. I had no involvement in that decision. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Dorsch) - Louis Blair (4 March 2006)
  • Comment: Mr Sloan, please read WP:SOCK#.22Meatpuppets.22. In the case of Tom Dorsch, you clearly posted a message recruiting people to come and "vote to keep" . Thus, anyone who responded to your message and added to the discussion is by definition a meatpuppet. Now in 99.99% of all deletion discussions involving meatpuppets, they all attempt to have the article kept; in the case of Tom Dorsch, some of your meatpuppets argued for deletion, which is essentially unheard of 'round these parts. As for the claim of "Howcheng continues to harass me, believe me it would be my greatest pleasure to never have to deal with you again. After clearing up things on Talk:Chess Life back in January, I had no involvement with you until your request for arbitration, which was soundly rejected . I only stepped in on Talk:Edward G. Winter because I was asked to . You also keep insisting that because I know nothing about chess, I don't have the authority to act on those articles. Guess what, you're wrong. It's about time you learned this fact. howcheng {chat} 08:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted the editor requesting undeletion has a personal disagreement with the subject of the article, so while it's not autobiographical, I believe it still falls under the guideline of not writing about "subjects in which you are personally involved" as per WP:AUTO due to the same potential problems of bias, unverifibilty and OR. I don't think the "earth should be salted", in case in future, an editor, without any personal entanglements with the subject decides to write an article about this person. Regards, MartinRe 13:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. I agree with MartingRe, however, that there is not yet evidence to justify protection as a deletedpage. Rossami (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Howcheng is 100% wrong and refuses to admit it. There is no point to my "becoming an excellent Misplaced Pages editor on chess topics" as he suggests if a wide ranging free roving rogue Misplaced Pages administrator is going to be going here and there willy-nilly deleting all my postings. He states above that he has become involved in all my other contributions because "because I was asked to". Obviously, everybody who dislikes me is going to be forever going to User:Howcheng asking him to delete my stuff. You will notice that I have almost completely stopped posting to Misplaced Pages ever since he deleted the Tom Dorsch article, whereas prior to that I had posted more than one hundred biographies. I am a widely respected, published author. Why should I waste my time?
Your fellow administrators cannot do math. You need a remedial math course. One of your fellow administrators above said that the vote was 17-4 against me. Completely wrong. User:Rook_wave who initiated the AfD then voted 6 times to delete. Go and count them. User:Phr voted five times to delete. Go and count them. User:Billbrock voted three times to delete. Go and count them. Then, there were six anonymous votes to delete. Take a look at the bottom six votes at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Dorsch . All were anonymous. So there were at least 18 invalid votes. Meanwhile, six voters voted to keep and wrote long, detailed explanations about why Tom Dorsch is notable. So, the majority of VALID votes were in favor of keeping the article. Also, one of the votes to delete was Jurgen R., who posts from Germany and is one of the FAKE SAM SLOANS who impersonates me from time to time.
Then, he writes that I was recruiting "meatpuppets". What is the source for that statement? You cite a statement by User:Rook_wave. But meanwhile Rook_wave, who posts on rec.games.chess.politics as Ralf Callenberg <ralf.callenberg@web.de>, was over on the chess newsgroup rec.games.chess.politics recruiting people to vote to delete. Under the rules, as soon as he made the AfD he is supposed to stay out of it and not even vote. Instead, he voted six times and any time anybody voted to keep, he challenged or attacked him, either here or over on rec.games.chess.politics
How do you know the votes to keep or delete were my "meatpuppets" or his "sockpuppets"? What you fail to understand is that all of us chess players know each other. It is very unlikely that some completely unknown person is going to come in and post.
You should just admit your mistake, which puts the entire Misplaced Pages into disrepute, reinstate the article and allow somebody who is not biased to pass on it. Sam Sloan 14:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The only thing I deleted of "yours" (please see WP:OWN) was Tom Dorsch. I have not edited Chess Life or Edward G. Winter. Where is the link to any such message by Rook_wave on r.g.c.p.? Anyway, recounting the votes on the discussion page shows only one legitimate keep vote, which is Mgm and seven valid delete votes: Jareth, Phr, Olorin28, Titoxd, TheRingess, Parallel or Together, pgk. I did not count any votes by anonymous users, as well as Andrew Zito (who just had some weird anti-Misplaced Pages rant) and Billbrock, who has a history with you. howcheng {chat} 17:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
That I were recruiting people for the deletion process is a plain and blatant lie. I never did anything like this. This accusation is absurd. It was Sam Sloan who went over and asked for aid (Msg.Id = <43a79b7e.54167781@ca.news.verio.net>) because he was worried about the nearly 100% vote against him at this time. I made some comments about the whole topic and told those who announced (as an ironic response to Sam Sloan's request for voting) that they went over to vote for deletion, that anonymous ad homimen attacks don't make any sense in this process and shouldn't be done. I don't think that this could be regarded as "recruiting". That I voted six times is of course also just plain wrong. I made comments (like that in this ongoing vote), but only voted once, as can be easily verified. Rook wave 19:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Kamyar Cyrus Habib

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kamyar Cyrus Habib

Apparently being a blind Rhodes scholar from Iran (and recognized disability rights activist) is not notable enough to merit a Misplaced Pages entry, but being a hooker who's turned up on Howard Stern's show is (Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Air_Force_Amy). This hardly seems consistent with any rational elements of Misplaced Pages policy. Monicasdude 00:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I share your discomfort with the bias in deletion/inclusion decisions. However, the right answer is to raise the standards in areas where they are weak, not to lower them to the lowest common denominator. I see no process problems in this discussion. The evidence you presented during the deletion discussion was rebutted. Endorse closure. Rossami (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    Under Misplaced Pages:Undeletion_policy, even an in-process deletion can be reviewed and reversed "If the article has been wrongly deleted (i.e. that Misplaced Pages would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored). A request for undeletion on these grounds may happen . . . because the person making the undeletion request had objected to deletion on bona fide grounds but was improperly ignored." I don't think including Rhodes scholars lowers Misplaced Pages's inclusion standards; fewer than 100 are named each year, the achievements recognized are certainly not trivial, and the recognition is a good predictor of future achievement. (And I don't see any rebuttal of my argument/evidence. Unanimous rejection without explanation, yes; rebuttal, no.) Monicasdude 02:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure and keep deleted, valid AfD. My grandfather was a very good man. Hitler was a very bad man. Guess which one has an article? It might not seem to make sense, but that's okay. The morality or "goodness" of a person cannot be the determining factor for who gets articles and who doesn't. At 10-1 in favour of deletion, it's about as clear of a consensus as they get, and no new information has been presented. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted: I'm not sure how this could even be reconsidered. The Afd was a landslide of 10-1. The Air Force Amy argument is very weak. If you want a web site of just wonderful people, I'd recommend starting your own. This isn't the place. An encyclopedia wouldn't be of much use if it excluded everyone who was sleezy and evil. And it would be a real yawner if it included everyone like this. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    The argument is not that Playmates are "sleezy," evil, or immoral, but that they are inconsequential and interchangeable. As for the 10-1 vote, WP:NOT Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. Monicasdude 05:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    Well that's your opinion. I bet I could find a zillion 16-year old boys who would disagree with you in the most intense way. The not-a-democracy argument might hold water in a 7-4 vote --- 10-1 is a landslide no matter how you slice it. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    What's more, Air Force Amy is on a TV show on HBO. That's a pretty interesting bar to hit.  RasputinAXP  c 12:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure and keep deleted. And yes, let's remove all the fake "slebrities", pornstars and other nonentities as well. Just zis Guy you know? 13:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, valid AfD. --Deathphoenix 18:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist. Monicasdude's right - Rhodes scholars are inherently notable. No violation of process took place, closing admin performed properly, but I'm adding my voice to the nominator's that not enough people, and not the right people, saw this AfD, and it needs to be undeleted and relisted. To be perfectly clear, I believe Misplaced Pages would be a better encyclopedia with this article restored. No comment on the notability or lack thereof of Air Force Amy. -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure/keep deleted. I certainly dispute the assertion that all Rhodes scholars are notable. There have been many thousands of them and most haven't gone on to do anything particularly notable (although many have, and they're mentioned in the article). This, as of now, is a guy with a scholarship. Whoop-de-do. -R. fiend 21:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Rhodes Scholars are routinely profiled in major world news organs, including the New York Times, for no other reason than that they're Rhodes Scholars. (That almost satisfies WP:LIVING in and of itself.) They are not just people with a scholarship - to win such a scholarship, you have to convince a reputable committee of personal notability and notability of your lifetime works at the time of application. In other words, the determination of notability has been made for us. -ikkyu2 (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist User:Monicasdude makes a sound argument. If the decision really is so cut & dried as to be a landslide in favor of deletion, then we lose nothing by relisting. If further debate doesn't lead to deletion, we've gained something. — User:Adrian/zap2.js 10:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

2 March 2006

Demilich (band)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Demilich (band) This was posted in the wrong section by the author Johnson542. This article is barely similar to the original and is a current article in good standing in other languages. This is a page about the band Demilich, who created a unique style of death metal vocals. The reasons why the page should undeleted are: It has been the subject of unreasonable deletion for a long time. The article has been deleted in the past based on pure prejudice (the very rules of notability have been circumvented: the article was deleted in the past because "the artists did not have two or more albums," while there is a section of the rules of notability (WP:MUSIC or WP:BAND) that STATES "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, dj etc) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: (lists criteria)" It does NOT state that the band must have a particular criteria (Demilich falls into criteria in the "For performers outside of mass media traditions" section). THE RULES HAVE BEEN CIRCUMVENTED!! It meets the following tests: All Music Guide lists them as having created a unique vocal style. All Music Guide is an assistant in notability search, as listed at WP:MUSIC Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of distinguishable hits on Google or another well known search mechanism? YES Google Test Results Misplaced Pages Music notability, For performers outside of mass media traditions: -- Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre. YES Demilich have recorded many songs in the Death Metal genre, not just on official albums. I have more verifiable information. For example, Demilich is listed and reviewed at Anus.com (a publication devoted to a notable sub-culture) (which helps meet the criteria "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture" (another criteria listed at WP:MUSIC ) Note: There are now many sources listed on the band's discussion page. +Johnson542 12:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Deleted: Unless you can point out that something changed since the original Afd, I don't see any compelling reason to undelete. It was a unanimous 4-0 vote with one wanting to speedy, i.e., it wasn't even close. And, from the AllMusic.com bio, I don't read anything that implies they were any different than Cannibal Corpse or Obituary (band) which had each released three or four albums by the time this band released its only one. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist: For one, if I had seen this AfD, I likely would have voted keep had this evidence been weighed. There's nothing in the AfD link that seems to note that these points were weighed. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete (keep what's there undeleted, and undelete any useful history) - There's information that wasn't considered in the prior AFD (pressented here, the talk page, and the article). Hence, the prior AFD is moot. --Rob 17:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • From Allmusic: On their lone album, 1993's Nespithe, the quartet came up with a highly unconventional sound marrying intricate death metal riffs with impossibly low-end, gurgled vocals -- then topped it off with inscrutably overblown song titles such as "Erecshyrinol," "And you'll Remain...(In Pieces of Nothingness)" and "The Sixteenth Six-tooth Son of Fourteen Four Regional Dimensions"!!! Hardly ideal for the pop charts, these were at the very least unquestionably original. And hardly a ringing endorsement that this band, with one album, was notable beyond being over the top. The AfD was in process, and had 6 days for anyone involved in bringing the article up to standards to present some references. That said, the article itself has been re-created and is up for another AfD which looks like it will stick this time. This DRV may as well be closed.  RasputinAXP  c 17:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Leave to the new AFD. (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Demilich (band) (2nd nomination) Stifle 18:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This was a definitive bad AfD result. All of the information on the band that is at Allmusic and umpteen metal websites were there at the time of the AfD, but it was still deleted. I'm pleased to see that it has been recreated and is well on its way to a deservedly massive keep result. Unanimous votes can be (and frequently are) wrong. Each case must be considered on its own merits, not some pointless assessment of whether the process that resulted in the bad result was followed correctly. Processes are imperfect; there's no substitute for actually assessing the subject and the potential of the article. --Tony Sidaway 05:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Request: I put a redirect for the band's album Nespithe. Can an admin please restore the history for this as well (but leave the redirect). I doubt it warrants a stand-alone article, but it might have something useful to put in the band's article. --Rob 06:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

London Buses route 4

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 4

I was the one who created this article (and 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 96), and despite the result of the debate saying delete, I think that it should have been kept.

This bus route was created on 8th November 1961 as part of the trolleybus replacement scheme. Trolleybuses 521 (Holborn & North Finchley), 621 (Holborn & North Finchley), 609 (Moorgate & Barnet), and 641 (Moorgate & Winchmore Hill) were replaces by bus routes 4 (Waterloo & Finsbury Park), 43 (Friern Barnet & London Bridge), 104 (Moorgate & Barnet), 141 (Grove Park & Winchmore Hill), 141A (Grove Park & Finsbury Park), 168 (Putney & Turnpike Lane), 221 (Farringdon Street & North Finchley)

I understand that at the time the article didn't provide any evidence that this bus route is encyclopedic, but I was going to continue expanding this page once I'd gathered even more information. --sonicKAI 10:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I recommend you just recreate the article including this information, the AFD was based on it being a random bus route without any history. Kappa 11:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to userfy this so that Kai can work on it and establish why this route is outstanding? Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Sonic, you can create subpages of your user page to work on projects. See WP:USER. This lets you build up an article until it's ready, then you create the article and copy the finished version into it. This way you can work on half-finished pages without getting them tagged for deletion 10 minutes after you post version 1. Thatcher131 14:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Nothing wrong with re-creating it with historical information. Userfy if it helps him, though I remember it only having a list of stops and short description of the route. Trolley routes are certainly "notable", and bus routes that evolved from them should be too. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Nearly all London bus routes are encyclopedic. This one isn't quite as interesting as the Number 11, which was once commandeered by Metropolitan Police as a makeshift prison van to take dozens of anarchists to police cells arouns London--the anarchists later sued for wrongful arrest, and won! But this route has been around for yonks in one form or another and will have a history of some sort. So no, it shouldn't have been deleted. Undelete. --Tony Sidaway 06:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy per SPUI and Sjakkalle. Pilatus 12:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn per Tony Sidaway. Frankly the AfD debate on this was very misinformed. -- JJay 21:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I could argue that all passenger air travel routes are encyclopedic, but not as interesting as American Airlines Flight 11, but I won't, as that would be in poor taste. Oh yes, if you have time, don't forget to visit the Temple Church on Fleet Street before implying that I didn't read the article referenced above. I would suggest that, in the absence of major media coverage (i.e., grave calamity), information of this type should be merged into a summarizing article rather than left to morph into a travel brochure. — Mar. 3, '06 <freakofnurxture|talk>
    • Comment Well we'll have to undelete it in order to merge it within the GFDL :) Or else we could paraphrase the info and create a new redirect, which is just dumb. --Tony Sidaway 02:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted I am too weak-minded to be able to spot what, in the above nomination, justifies overturning this - what could be construed here as significant additional information? As it stands, the AfD was fine, the points well-taken. Eusebeus 12:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

1 March 2006

Math of Quran

  • This article was proposed for deletion as it did not have any references. And the article structure was also not good when it was proposed for the deletion, but the article was completely changed one day before it was deleted. I had all the references (Verifiable Sources), in the reference section. And it was very well structured too. Towards the deletion day many who had voted for deletion had changed their vote to Smerge, or keep. Please consider undelete of this article. It has very good potential to grow. (Mystic 15:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC))
  • Comment. If you think you've addressed all the concerns of folks from the previous AfD, just be bold and recreate the article in a form that addresses those concerns. Put a note on the talk page indicating that there was a prior AfD and a deletion review, and that you've addressed the concerns of the prior AfD by doing a, b, and c; that should prevent someone from coming along and doing a speedy delete (CSD G4) on it. It may go to AfD again, but if you've really addressed all the concerns, the new AfD won't have a leg to stand on. -ikkyu2 (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment as far as I can tell one user changed their recommendation from delete to weak delete because of the changes to the article. That's it. Either way, his changes did not seem to affect the trend, and there was a consensus for deletion. I've already told the user that if he thinks he can recreate the article in a way that addresses the concerns of those who recommended delete, then he's welcome to go for it. However, I'm concerned that he'll continue to almost exclusively cite primary sources, e.g. the Quran asnd the hadith, which would still leave the claims of original research unaddressed. He really needs to cite secondary sources that verify his claims about use of the number 19 in the Quran. I'm not sure I've gotten through to him regarding the difference between primary sources and secondary sources. Babajobu 17:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

out of six billion people on this planet five billion, believe in some sort of god.. I dont think it is wrong to use a religious script as a reference, as long as the article doesn't attack any other relgion or claims supremacy over the other. My article was only trying to explain the mathematical figures in the quran and nothing more to it. I cant recreate the article because I dont have any of the text I put on it. I will have to do it from scratch, if at all I recreate I will have to add little by little which is gonna attract admins who mercylessly delete articles if the content is poor ( and I dont oppose this). And the second thing is I simply dont have the time to redo it. The last article I did took me atleast 10 hours of reading and research to verify the source and the numbers my self. If you admins want the numbers to be verified you can download an electronic version of the quran at and easily do it your self. I again request the admins to consider restoring this article. (Mystic 10:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

Mystic/Arsath, I can only repeat what I have already explained on your talk page: it is absolutely fine to cite scripture in Misplaced Pages. However, if you are arguing that the number 19 has a hidden, special significance in the Quran, it is not enough to cite numerous places in the Quran where the number appears. You must also cite secondary sources that affirm your statement that the number 19 is especially significant in the Quran, otherwise you leave yourself open to claims of original research. This is why some voters in your AfD voted delete on grounds of original research. If you recreate the article, you must cite secondary sources, or the article is likely to be deleted again. Regardless, I will post the contents of the article to your talk page. Please do listen to what I have said about original research, primary sources, and secondary sources. Babajobu 14:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Article has been recreated as Mathematics of The Quran. Aecis 12:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Crying While Eating

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Crying While Eating

  • this article on the website cryingwhileeating.com was deleted for non-noteability. There was a strong consensus on the Afd page, but the site is notable, and the page recently underwent a major reconstruction to reflect this (only a day before deletion). I think with the new page, a vote for deletion will go the other way. please reconsider Spencerk 20:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm. I confess to fully expecting to find a rewrite that inadequately addressed the AFD's concerns. As it happens, Spencerk is correct to imply that the rewrite substantially met questions of 'notability'. There is a long piece concerning the website and its genesis on no less a publication than Slate. Further, Spencerk alludes in his rewrite to two other non-trivial publications (although the references weren't provided). I'd say there is sufficient independent external verification of the subject such that it can find a place somewhere in the encyclopedia. What form this takes is an editorial question; I think we'd be better off with mention of this in a larger article dealing with similar sites (that are similarly adequately referenced). However, an entry of its own wouldn't kill me, particularly if the article was significantly expanded (which should be possible, incidentally, given the length of the Slate piece and the alleged articles in the Canadian papers). I'd urge Spencerk to try his hand at it if it wouldn't be too much trouble. Note however that the correct title is Crying, While Eating (comma). Restore, in view of the addition of significant new information that was not considered by the AFD. —Encephalon 03:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The last-minute rewrite was substantial and I'm inclined to agree that it's impact was overlooked by the AFD discussion participants, none of whom returned to the discussion to either change or endorse their prior opinions. Overturn deletion but without prejudice against an immediate relisting if anyone thinks that's appropriate. Rossami (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn per Rossami and give this another shot. Or even just restore per Encephalon and leave it at that. (in either case without prejudice to lister or closing admin!) In no case to be construed as a Keep Deleted ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • overturn and unerase this please Yuckfoo 21:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Just a trifle, really, but we're not actually suggesting that we "overturn" this decision so much as "revisit" it, correct? No complaints about the way it was closed, etc etc. Also, I'd like to see some suggestions as to what we think the best way (as a closing admin) is to handle something like this. If MD has closed this as a keep, even with some Rossami-style well explained moves, I think that there would have been outcry. I might have done a re-list with a short note explaining why, or possibly pinged the other participants with "I was going to close this but..." Thoughts? - brenneman
    • It's a technical term, "overturn" is the term we use when a consensus (or majority) arises to reverse the decision. That can be for whatever reason, a mistake from the closer, or as here, unusual circumstances (in this case a late rewrite) without any criticism towards the closer. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles listed in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wilhelmina Sadrinna

In this AfD, only one user out of 16 voted to keep all of the articles. However, probably due to the use of confusing votes like "Keep the two with war crimes convictions; listify the others", this was closed as No Consensus, even though there seems to have been a clear consensus to delete at least those without war crimes convictions. --Philosophus 08:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse closure since not only is it a bit hard on the closing admin to expect them to do all that work, the desired end (merge & redirect) does not require admin intervention. All you need to do is listify the minor ones and change the articles to redirects. If you need the histories merging and the redirects deleted let me know, it takes time but can be done, but I think it's unnecessary in this case. So just be bold and do what the consensus supports. Just zis Guy you know? 11:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close, and go ahead and merge anything you want to merge as JzG said. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, on a strict vote count, I see nine deletes and seven non-deletes, which is a valid No consensus result. You don't need an AfD to perform a merge & redirect or a listify, so there's no need to overturn the AfD. --Deathphoenix 13:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems there was a consensus to me to delete all but the two with war crimes convictions, so I think that should be done. Those who say "listfy" don't indicate what "list" they should be included in. Are we going to have a Very selective list of a handful of the thousands of concentration camp guards during World War II? So delete all except whatever two were convicted. I'm not seeing sources for these either, by the way. -R. fiend 16:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User admins ignoring policy, again

Debate moved to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates. -Splash 19:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

SourceryForge

This was closed as a "no consensus" back in December, but the only reasons given for keeping it was "pending further discussion" and "fun name". We've now had months for further disucssion, and the article has not improved. The website does not appear to come anywhere close to meeting WP:WEB guidelines. No sources, alexa just over 1 million. To me, it's a clear delete, but I wasn't sure what folks thought about reviewing the previous deletion versus listing it again. Since it seems to obviously fail WP:WEB, I'm not sure another full Afd is desirable or neccessary. Friday (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • As the closing admin, I had to discount Jeffrey O. Gustafson's nomination, as it was a string of several nominations of wikis with "NN" or something to that effect as the reason. I didn't discount the non-notable reason, but I discounted the fact that he didn't give more reasoning or statements to support his stance. Jcuk's and HoodedMan's comments were very keepish in nature, which gave me a 4/3 no-consensus result. That said, I would not see any reason why it could not be renominated or deleted outright, nor I would oppose that. Titoxd 01:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

28 February 2006

Template:If defined (and others)

Original deletion debate

I can't say this any other way: Splash clearly ignored consensus (or, if you're charitable, the lack of consensus) to delete these templates. Further, he assumed bad faith per my remarks, and ignored the fact that (at least initially) the TFD nominations were malformed (Netoholic didn't even bother placing a TFD tag on the template talk pages or the templates themselves). If he has doubts about the motivations of editors votes, he should ask them instead of simply discounting them out of hand as he's done here.

  • Overturn and Undelete, totally flawed closure by an admin who ought to know better. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. They are unused, so keep them deleted. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    • This deletion review is not considering new information: this is reviewing the closing admins actions. The closing admin was wrong to discount comments as he did. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure - James S's vote was based on a false technical assumption. Locke Cole's (and the "per Locke Cole" votes) did not provide a solid rationale for preserving these templates... he chose to attack me and wiki-lawyer the nomination. -- Netoholic @ 04:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Excuse me? I provided a perfectly legitimate rationale. Splash's closure, OTOH, did not provide a reasonable explanation for discounting/ignoring legitimate concerns. He says that I hadn't done any work since the TFD nomination; had it not occurred to him that I was waiting to see if the rug was going to be pulled out from under me before I did said work? Further, he conditioned deletion of other templates on the outcome of this debate: it was highly inappropriate for him to then ignore consensus (or lack of consensus) and close it as delete. There is absolutely no reason or justification for the conclusion he came to. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Are you bolding your words above to try and confuse people? Splash closed the TFD with an excellent justification. You did not provide a reason for keeping other than commenting on what you interpret as my bad-faith nomination. It is up to the clsoing admin to weigh the result, which he did. -- Netoholic @ 04:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I believe I made my case with this comment in the original TFD debate: Netoholic is well aware that I intend to go through many of the templates he broke while WP:AUM was policy, and those templates will rely on these meta-templates (short of re-writing the logic used formerly to use {{qif}}). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • undelete, please. I don't see that they are not used. Rather, I'd like to see them made into redirects, as was suggested in the original discussion. Is there an inherent problem with these being redirects? Again, the result of the discussion was no consensus, not consensus to delete. ... aa:talk 04:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The effects of CSS hacks (click for full size image)
The same page with meta-templates in use (click for full size image)
  • Do we have any indication that any templates are actually broken because of this? Titoxd 05:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    • See the two images I've provided here. One uses CSS hacks, the other uses meta-templates (which remove unnecessary rows on the server side). It's been shown that some screen reading software (and non-CSS compliant browsers) break on these "CSS hacks". There is no such issue with meta-templates (or "conditional templates" like {{qif}}). —Locke Cole • t • c 07:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      • So, if I understand this correctly, all these templates are deprecated in favor of {{qif}}. So, why aren't they just replaced and we avoid all of this? Wouldn't that be much simpler? Titoxd 00:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Some of the templates were fairly complicated: having these around as a reference to what was going on would be useful (to me at least). As I say below, I'd be willing to have these userfied to discourage their use by new editors. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. My "per Locke Cole" vote was based on Cole's statement "I intend to go through many of the templates he broke while WP:AUM was policy, and those templates will rely on these meta-templates (short of re-writing the logic used formerly to use )". I do not see how this statement does not provide a solid rationale for preserving the templates, and therefore discounting my comment and my vote to keep is inappropriate. It seems to me to be unnecessarily destructive to break the dependant templates. Just put a notice on the template page stating that the templates are deprecated in favor of {{qif}} so that new templates are not created using these. – Doug Bell 05:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and replace known uses with Qif and then leave undeleted until the taxoboxes which use this template are all known to be subst'ed, i.e., after what-links-here is fixed. What was the reason for deletion in the first place? --James S. 07:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, and kill CSS hacks. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't say I'm surprised to see these turn up here. I repeat that those claiming the templates are in use are completely wrong. They are not. The Whatlinkshere links are all to user subpages, and templates are not removed from those prior to deletion since it does no damage to the encyclopedia to have them go red, and gives the user a good idea about what just happened. Undelete them if you like, or keep them deleted if you like, but I continue to think that the only reasons given for keeping in the TfD were flawed to the point of being invalid. I have no position on AUM as a whole. I just use whatever templates are around. -Splash 10:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Questions: Why not simply replace the faulty CSS code with {{qif}}? Do these templates provide functionality that {{qif}} lacks? If not, why do we need them? —David Levy 14:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't claim to be a template expert (though I'm picking up experience as I go)– having these around would make it easier to understand how templates worked prior to being moved to CSS hacks. Sort of like seeing the source code to a program is easier than guessing how it works under a disassembler. FWIW, the more I understand how {{qif}} works, the easier it is to just rewrite templates to use it directly (see, for example, Template:Infobox Software). To be absolutely clear, I am not suggesting we start using these templates again; I just want them around to look at if I need a reference. (I would even be happy with userfying them I suppose, to deter people from using them). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. As a process argument, there was a fairly strong set of keeps in the request, and the reason that so few references remained was an out of process replacement by technically clever (but practically problematic) CSS hacks. As a technical argument, while "qif" may do things more generally, it was "if defined" that I was trying to use, and would actually cause less potential stress on servers through fewer inclusions. Keep, it worked. --William Allen Simpson 15:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • temporarily undelete for the purpose of converting usage to {{qif}}. In the alternative, we could provide temporary substitutes in user sub-space for the duration of conversion works. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, of course; closing was flawed. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

  1. Mucky Pup re-created, speedy kept on AFD 09:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Blog Torrent restored and listed on afd 23:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. TimeSplitters: Future Perfect strategy guide has been transwikied properly now 23:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Glossary of Japanese film credit terms nominator appears happy with transwiki (right?) 23:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Template:Background, no majority to overturn 23:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Teenage Bestsellers 252 contested {{prod}}, reinstated and submitted to afd.
  7. Pokemon Kid deletion endorsed 00:49, 3 March 2006
  8. User:J1838 kept deleted 00:49, 3 March 2006
  9. Ashcroft Homes undeleted (already done)) 00:46, 3 March 2006
  10. List of Amstrad CPC games - keep endorsed 00:45, 3 March 2006
  11. The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny - no support for reversing afd or relisting (but a redirect doesn't need an afd or a drv); still support enough that i'll make it back into a redirect) 00:44, 3 March 2006
  12. Sincere expectation criterion - already relisted on afd and deleted there; this debate redundant 00:40, 3 March 2006
  13. pork (instant messenger) - deletion endorsed 00:40, 3 March 2006
  14. Category:Controversial television shows - deletion endorsed 00:39, 3 March 2006
  15. Judeofascism kept deleted+protected 00:36, 3 March 2006
  16. Llull voting system no action since question is editorial and reversal of AfD not supported 00:36, 3 March 2006
  17. Templates used for voting - out of scope to DRV really, and no majority for anything, but unclear that DRV has a mandate to reverse/endorse debates/deletion that never took plac 00:34, 3 March 2006
  18. Carrillo Dining Commons overturned and deleted by original closer (supported unanimously). 03:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  19. Category:Maine state highways rename endorsed (or no majority to overturn depending on Syrthiss's comment's status). 03:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  20. Eric Posner copyvio kept deleted. 03:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  21. User:Tezkah/uncensored kept deleted. 03:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  22. Progressive Labor Party (Saint Vincent) keep close endorsed. 03:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  23. Universism undeleted (already) relisted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Universism (4th nomination). 03:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  24. Eric wagliardo deletion endorsed. 03:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  25. Rory Conroy no majority to overturn, deletion endorsed. 02:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  26. LJ Drama deletion endorsed. 02:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  27. Andrew Allaby undeleted + relisted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Andrew Allaby (2nd nomination). 02:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  28. Level 4 Productions not overturned, but good rewriting probably ok. 02:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  29. Template:Void deletion-to-be endorsed. 02:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Categories: