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 FrankZappo (talk | contribs) at 14:22, 20 January 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:22, 20 January 2006 by FrankZappo (talk | contribs) (→[])(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 admins will honour requests to provide the content of a deleted article if asked politely. See Category:User undeletion.


History only undeletion

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

Decisions to be reviewed

Shortcut

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

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

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

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

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

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

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 December 28}}</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 28}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 December 28|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

2006-01-20

Karayana

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Karayana.

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

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

David Dom

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David Dom.

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

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

Aetherometry

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

  • Ho hum. I see I was the admin who closed the first AFD debate and there I did not see a consensus. The main argument against the article was that it was original research and that there were no reliable sources. I must admit, from reading the article, it did not look like original research to me. Also, a Google check shows that this is certainly a topic many people would be interested in finding out what is so I think that there should be an article here. Aetherometry appears to be a crackpot science theory which has received plenty of attention, like several other theories which have articles. (I might be stepping on some toes here, but I would classify creationism as one of those "crackpot theories".) There is quite a lot of material to work on here, and if anybody is interested in doing so I will have no problem with undeleting and moving to userspace for tinkering, fact-checking and verification of its status if not its validity. OK, I will Endorse closure without prejudice against a move to userspace or an improved article at a later time. Suggest a temporary undelete now so that people can review the content. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, I can't believe that this was deleted. Undelete just because it is too notable to be deleted. This is the first time I'm actually thinking of invoking IAR to undelete something.  Grue  09:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I suggest you look at the second vote (and the first too). Keeping this article sane was absorbing too much effort due to determined POV pushing by the pro-aetheometry people; the article was junk & people got sick of it. William M. Connolley 09:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
    Do you suggest deleting George W. Bush too, because it's vandalised often? There are appropriate tools, such as semi-protection and full protection. Deletion is not such a tool.  Grue  09:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    Bush is clearly notable. IMHO aetherometry isn't notable. It wasn't on your watchlist... And AFAIK, I'm not allowed to make the article sane then protect My Version. In an ideal world, wiki would have an aetherometry article which would be short and say "this is pseudoscience" and... well, read Dragonflights vote at VFD. In the real world, the pro-ae people kept pushing it. Having said that, there seems to have been a misunderstanding about verifiability in perhaps some of the votes, and probably in the closing: the verifiability criterion for pseduoscience is not published papers (of course; they don't) but links to their wacko websites, because thats all they have. William M. Connolley 10:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
  • Endorse (keep deleted) None of the above is germane to criteria for undeletion. The Afd was closed correctly, and no new arguments have arisen. The original article was deleted largely because this article is an OR soapbox for a fringe group. WP is not webhosting for every fringe idea that comes along. Vandalism has nothing to do with it so far as I am concerned. KillerChihuahua 10:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The article does indeed have a problem with reliable sources. That would probably be because it's hard to find a reliable source on pseudoscience. My suggestion would be to keep deleted, and create a new article covering ONLY those facts drawn from a reliable source (which is probably about 20% of what is now in the article) the protect for a while to get the POV pushers cooled down. Radiant_>|< 11:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • DumbA you are Radiant. Article already quoted only reliable sources there were.81.193.157.168
  • Undelete. I don't know anything about the subject at all, nor am I particularly interested to change that situation. But I fully agree with Grue that deletion should not be a tool against POV pushing. Lack of reliable sources? Phew! If we use thát as an argument, I believe we can quietely delete about 90 % of our articles. We have other tags for that! While I would endorse a cleanup of the article, it still needs to be undeleted in order to distill the 20% Radiant was talking about. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 11:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted somewhat sadly. I'm surprised this was deleted too, but it does look like a valid AfD. Perhaps some content could be placed in Reich's article, or one of the Orgone articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Either Undelete or recreate as per Radiant. As others have said, POV problems are not grounds for deletion. I have no problem with it remaining a protected stub. –Abe Dashiell 12:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: no vote yet, but I find it troubling that two of the voters who voted to delete the article in the second AFD were two of the editors most responsible for trying to legitimize this (in my opinion) pseudoscience. That they would suddenly argue for the article's deletion makes me suspicious. Since the article's talk page has not been deleted yet, voters can see for themselves without having to view the history of the deleted article. --Calton | Talk 13:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keeep deleted. ENOUGH OF THIS. Nobody is trying to legitimize anything. If you think that having an article in Misplaced Pages, and trying to keep it to verifiable claims, unjustly legitimizes Aetherometry, then you should be the first to want the article deleted. If you just want to recreate the article so as to be able to say it's "pseudoscience", then provide A SINGLE REPUTABLE REFERENCE IN A MAINSTREAM PUBLICATION that reviews the work and concludes it is "pseudoscience". If you want to recreate it for any other reason, then don't just talk; you need to propose how the verifiability problem should be solved. FrankZappo 14:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-19

Torc, P.A.C. Bloos

This article's AfD page was closed as no consensus, although a clear 4-1 vote in favor of delete, ignoring sock puppets. Can we please delete it? User:Zoe| 00:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete or rerun AfD per Zoe. Ignoring sockuppets/meatpuppets is a vital part of closing an AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obvious puppet show. Postdlf 01:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete although it may be worth a relisting on AfD due to the low participation. Agree with Postdlf that the sockpuppetry is obvious and their votes should be disregarded. David | Talk 01:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Delete it due to obvious bad close and sockpuppetry... WhiteNight 01:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: To me, the subject of this article was a person who is involved a in very small community but seemed in fact notable within that community. Thus, the guidelines set in WP:BIO might not actually apply (that's why they're guidelines and not policy). Yes, there are some sock votes, but I felt it was best to leave the determination of notability of druids to people who actually have knowledge of druids. I noted that User:Aneirin voted to delete some druid-related articles and keep others, from which I inferred s/he was in a position to determine said notability. I left it as no consensus in order to leave the possibility of a future deletion, especially considering how the article (and other druid-related articles that I also closed as no consensus: Karayana, David Dom) doesn't cite any verifiable sources. If the decision is to overturn and delete, that's fine with me as I have no stake in this or other druid articles. However, I resent the implication that I don't know what I'm doing when closing these debates, as I've been willing to tackle some with really long/complex discussions as well as those filled with puppets. howcheng {chat} 01:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • These are all pretty fair comments. The first few could have been a bit more gentle, but aren't unreasonable. The above would have been well done had it been placed on the AfD. Anytime that there is a not crystal clear outcome, more text is better than less. Relist. - brenneman 02:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete - per nomination. No chance of passing a non-socked AfD. FCYTravis 08:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete. Don't allow those pushing an agenda to stuff a ballot box that doesn't exist. The closing admin is not bound merely by a vote count as seems to have happened here. Also see #Karayana and #David Dom deletion reviews which were closed in the same way having the same features as this article. -Splash 13:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Causes célèbres

Back on June 11, 2005, Category:Causes célèbres was nominated for deletion and after a debate, it was consensus that the category was vague, but there was a suggestion that it might be acceptable if the vagueness was removed. I liked the category but accepted the consensus. A few months later I had an idea about how a similarly named categorisation might be created in a way which removed the vagueness, and eventually created in good faith three specifically-named categories which I have been trying to maintain and keep restricted to genuine issues which are regarded as Cause célèbres. I understand some people do not like the term, but it is a well-known French phrase used in English.

Today, without any discussion with me (or anyone else), Postdlf and Kbdank71 speedily deleted all three subcategories and the new parent category under the criteria of recreation of previous deleted material. I am seeking consensus as to whether this actually does meet the criteria of being "substantially identical" to that which was deleted, given that I was specifically trying to overcome the criticism of vagueness. My position is that a new CfD debate should be held in order to gain community consensus and that the deletions were out of process. David | Talk 23:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I took this up on the Administrator's Noticeboard because it seemed to me to be a clear case of a misuse of admin powers. I note the speedy deleting admin User:Postdlf here makes clear his view on the content - admin powers should not be used for content disputes. However since it has been moved here, I will follow through this process. My vote is therefore for overturn and list on WP:CFD to enable the issues to be debated afresh. David | Talk 00:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Proper CFD, followed by a proper and unsuccessful DRV, and subsequently proper CSD. As I have also discussed at length on my talk page, I find Dbiv's position without merit that the recreation of Category:Causes célèbres was not in fact a recreation of the category that was voted for deletion here and failed undeletion, also on his nomination, here. The identical category names are not coincidental because both are centered around the concept defined at Causes célèbres, and therefore more than "substantially identical" as required for speedy deletion under CSD #4 (general). Adding the vague and arbitrary qualifiers under Category:Legal causes célèbres, Category:Social causes célèbres, and Category:Political causes célèbres have done nothing to truly differentiate these from Category:Causes célèbres, as the category description of something "raising legal issues which became Causes célèbres" (or "social issues", etc) clearly indicates. Fooian X is not different from X when all members are obviously Xs, and especially if all Xs are probably Fooian to begin with (what doesn't "raise" social, legal, and political "issues" that people have called causes célèbres?). These are substantially identical to the parent, and hence also covered by the deletion decision. Dbiv's attempt to characterize my position on this as a mere content dispute is disingenuous. Postdlf 00:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
It has always been the case that if problems identified in a deletion debate can be solved, then it is not necessary to go to Deletion Review to start the new article - one simply reads be bold and creates the new article. This was a good faith attempt to solve the problems and help users by creating a new category. Postdlf's reasoning for why the categories should not be created is his honest view about the content of the categories. If it is his position that this is not a content dispute, then why raise it? And if it isn't a content dispute, ought I to take further the issue of his questionable use of admin powers of speedy deletion? Well I for one don't want to, so let us settle this fairly in CFD. David | Talk 00:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
For the record, Kbdank71 speedy deleted the categories, not I, so you might want to wait for his rationale before you call that "use of admin powers" "questionable." My own "honest view about the content of the categories" is that the content was "substantially identical" to the one that was deleted by consensus, which is why I pointed them out to him in the first place. Postdlf 00:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Have the articles been removed from the categories? If not, I'd like to temporarily undelete the categories so we can navigate them and work out whether they're useful. In principle I cannot think of a good reason for deleting such categories--for instance I'd expect to see items as diverse as Watergate, Dreyfus, Saccho and Vanzetti, the Birmingham Six and whatnot linked by such categories because of the massive and prolonged public controversies that they raised. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete per Tony and Dbiv. By all means permit the community to re-examine the matter. Mackensen (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, we have another VexLit. Seriously though, this category cannot be described in an objective way, as obviously stated in the deletion debate. Radiant_>|< 00:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The claims of admin abuse and the threats of RfCs are so far off target, I'm slightly shocked. The admin(s) speedied a recreation, a perfectly reasonable, non-abusive thing to do. That you wish they hadn't doesn't make them abusive. No opinion on the category, except to observe it should probably be categorised within itself now. -Splash 01:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

OpenGCL

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/OpenGCL

This GIS Software tool is quite unique in that it is entirely written in Java and for Java, and is the first GIS software that has the full functionality of much more expensive, more famous software.

It is listed and reviewed in various magazines, and is being used by the Government of Canada.

This was deleted even though it was simply in need of more expansion. I move that it be undeleted.

Drini, an overzealous admin, noticed that my username was blocked, and decided that it was the end of my articles.

My username has subsequently been unblocked, and I move that OpenGCL be allowed to prove its notability, as well as be able to expand on the article.

OpenInfo 22:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Projectplace (software)

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Projectplace (software)

Projectplace is the biggest online project management tool in Europe. The page was deleted for the reasons:

  • gets lots of Google hits (?)
  • Seems commercial
  • no difference from other PM software

I think all of these reasons are invalid for this page. Getting a lot of Google hits doesn't mean it shouldn't be in Misplaced Pages? There are fundamental differences between the product in this page and other PM packages (ASP, integrated with different modules, did you even bother to LOOK at the page?). The page was not commercial (I wrote the first version and I'm not a sales guy for this company), it was barely describing what was possible with the service. Just like the page about MS Project and other PM software pages in Misplaced Pages. In later versions the page could have user reviews and screenshots.

--Zpeed 10:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • undelete and relist on afd. Only three contributors to original debate, claims of notability do seem genuine. I think it deserves a wider hearing. Thryduulf 12:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just to clarify, Kappa made the comment about "lots of Google hits" as justification for his removal of the speedy-delete tag and his decision to move the discussion over to the full AFD process. He did not make that comment as a justification for deletion. In fact, as far as I can tell, he deliberately abstained from the decision. Rossami (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I read over that Google hits comment in the "discussion", it seems that it was a contra argument, instead of an argument for removal. It's a valid and pretty big online service that shouldn't be removed from listing I think.

--Zpeed 17:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse We do assume people looked at the page. As for "Projectplace is the biggest online project management tool in Europe" could you please provide a WP:CITE for that? Otherwise there seems to be no reason to run through this again as the arguments do not seem new. WhiteNight 18:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse unless someone has a better cited assertion of notability. Also, one should generally not write articles about things you're personally involved with. Radiant_>|< 18:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. I really suspect an error here. The deletion debate seems to have proceeded without one single person involved visiting the website of the company and noticing that they claim to have as their customers names like Atos Origin, Capgemini, Fujitsu Siemens Computers, SAS Institute, and Toshiba. Are they lying? Possibly, but if so this can be investigated and the article nominated for deletion on that basis. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Company sales literature about customer-base is a notoriously unreliable guage of anything. They can truthfully list Capgemini as a customer if a single branch office buys a copy. It provides no reliable evidence of degree of penetration, market share or influence. I'm open to relisting if reliable new evidence is presented. However, the company's own sales literature is not sufficient for me to overturn an AFD decision. I see no evidence that the participants of the first discussion failed to do their due diligence. Endorse closure for now, at least. Rossami (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh I thought you were heavily into process? It really would be nice to see people actually engaged in the process known as research. It's used by London Borough of Camden, estimated population 210,0000 (ONS, 2003) for workplace communications. BP Upstream in Abderdeen used the product to coordinate the bid process for the Clair Oilfield. West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust is using the service to construct the business case for a £323M hospital refurbishment. Those are just three examples I found. I couldn't give a toss what its market penetration is, but if you've got a company with this kind of customer doing this kind of thing there is probably something to write about. All the rest is just fetishization of statistics. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
        • The catering company that I at one stage ran out of my home kitchen had some big clients, too. Ones that justifiably have articles on wikipedia. I suppose I could put that up on a website, and it would in fact be verifiable, if with difficulty. Do I really need to deconstruct this straw man any further? Endorse closure with, as usual, no prejudice to a brand new article being written. By the way, that's actually brand new, not just with "USO" tagged onto one paragraph. - brenneman 02:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
        • That doesn't make any sense. Did any of these big clients use you for all their catering needs, as Camden uses this company for its workplace communication? Did they use your catering company's services directly in making important strategic decisions, as West Hertfordshire NHS Trust and BP Upstream did? If not, then I don't see how your catering company can be compared to this admittedly small company. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I am a strong supporter of process. I also have content knowledge in the area of evaluating (and writing) sales literature for technology consulting companies. I notice that you are basing your analysis solely on the company's self-reported case studies. Their own sales literature fails to convince me, although a careful reading does provide some perspective. Let's take BP's Clair project for example. This tool was used by a group of 150 people. BP's workforce is well over 10,000. This was hardly an enterprise-wide deployment. In fact, the case study itself describes it as "a trial". To call it a strategic initiative is generous - the sort of fluff I'd expect in sales literature but would never rely upon. Interestingly, the last date listed in the case study was 2000. Five+ years later, they don't say that the tool has been deployed any wider than the first pilot. Is that a failure to update the website or evidence that this was a one-off test by BP? Just looking at the company's own website, we can't know.
            Looking at the Camden case study, you are correct that Camden has a population above 200k. That is, however, irrelevant since this tool is not used by the general population - it was used by the Council and more specifically, only that portion of the Council employees involved in their IT upgrade. Given their size and budget, I'd estimate the usage to be in the dozens, maximum. And by the way, it supplemented, not replaced their existing communications tools. Again, hardly a strategic decision. The other case studies on the company's website are equally unhelpful. They provide nothing verifiable.
            So let's look at the usual independent researchers in this space. Neither Gartner Group nor Forrester Research have published anything on them. They show up in none of the Project Management trade journals that I generally follow. If there is any independent coverage, it's at such a low level that I can't find it. No change of vote. (Apologies for the long-winded rebuttal.) Rossami (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This seems kind of silly. This is obviously a big company, or a massive, complex, multi-year corporate scam, and either way worthy of coverage. Out of curiosity, I looked around for some sort of "credible" confirmation of the claims on their site. Here's something, a press release on a joint venture with "TietoEnator ... one of the leading architects in building a more efficient information society. With close to 15 000 experts and annual net sales about EUR 1.5 billion, we are the largest IT services company in the Nordic countries": TietoEnator and Projectplace announce joint solution for distributed projects TietoEnator Corporation Press release 25 May 2004 10.00 am, from the TietoEnator web site. Then again, maybe TietoEnator should be an AfD candidate as well... --Tsavage 04:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Part of the problem is that you're fundementally misunderstanding the purpose of this page. Write a shiny new article, complete with citation demonstrating notability from reputable sources and there is no drama. Then you can probably get a history undeletion as well. - brenneman 05:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not obvious at all that this is a big company. Large, well-known companies enter "strategic partnerships" all the time with small shops. Usually, it's a sales ploy - a way to get some mutual advertising. The size of TietoEnator is irrelevant. Projectplace's 2004 annual report, however, lists them at a mere 46.3 million SEK (approx $6 million) and 34 employees. Rossami (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Teagames

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Teagames

Some of the voting was mixed up with Teacon, which is just a convention for Teagames. Two of the delete votes were especially for Teacon. Teacon should stay deleted. However Teagames gets a high Alexa rank of 2,736 and seems popular on google -- Astrokey44|talk 04:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Alexa rank is quite high, I support undeletion.  ALKIVAR™ 17:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Looking at the article content (or rather, shortage thereof), I can understand why people wanted to delete it. However, if you can do better than that, by all means do it (and undelete if you need that info). Also, please redirect Teacon to Teagames, and add a section on the con. Radiant_>|< 17:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll temporarily undelete this for the purpose of cleanup if requested. There seems to be no problem here that couldn't be dealt with by a little cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and cleanup with a chainsaw - per nomination and Alexa rank. FCYTravis 08:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm. On the one hand, DRV is strictly only to do undeletions where due process was not followed, or someone miscounted the votes etc., or new information is provided. On the other hand, it would appear that the site meets WP:WEB. My original vote to delete was based partially on Dmnkn1ght's comment which made it appear very non-notable.
    On the other hand, I think I'm going to ignore that for the moment, particularly because lumping Teacon in with Teagames did cause a bit of confusion, and vote for a cautious overturn and undelete, on condition that WhiteNight or AstroKey44 will go and clean it up. Stifle 08:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

NATARS

The article was speedied for being nonsense (and, I suspect, for being only one sentence long). I am not the author of this article, but I inserted a {{hangon}} template while I checked to see whether the article was a stub written in a foreign language. In spite of the template insertion, the page was deleted. It appears to have been written in Persian. I can't say exactly what the page contained, but it does not appear to be patent nonsense, and should at least have been reviewed or waited on to see whether the author was going to add more, or to translate. Request to undelete and list on AfD. -- MatthewDBA 19:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh, come on. The entire article consisted of four words, one of which was the title word. Is it really worth the futile ceremony of an AfD for a four-word article? For what it's worth, I think "natars" means something like romance or love. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, actually. I was probably just annoyed that someone had deleted it while I was checking to see if it could have been the start of something legitimate. It's not that big a deal for me. -- MatthewDBA 19:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's in Farsi. Probably not that important. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, it does seem to be. In the original script it's...

عاشق ...and I'm almost certain it means either love, romance, affection, or something like that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-18

Ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny

I believe that this flash validates a page. That is exactly why I use Misplaced Pages. It has articles on virtually everything. Yes the flash is kind of stupid, but I saw it and wanted to know more about it. Again, the whole purpose of an encylopedia. The flash can be seen here. Please consider undeleting it. schyler 01:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The flash is becoming to widely popular, and there a lot of things to be said about it... ah hell... it'd just be cool if it had an article. It has Chuck Norris. You must comply. -supercubedude

I believe the song on itself isn' entitled to an article; put it with Neil's main artical, okay? Kobayen 00:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that there are several people who have requested it to be undeleted, I believe someone with sysop rights should now restore it, or, like kobayen said, create a section on it on the page of it's author.schyler 13:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Article was never deleted. Instead the article was changed to a redirect. --Allen3  13:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • the article was made a redirect but the page it is redirected to has no information on it at all.schyler 22:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That's an issue to be sorted out on the respective Talk pages (and, if necessary, through the Request for Comment process). The Deletion Review process has no jurisdiction over or special capabilities to sort out that kind of editorial decision. Neither the page nor the content were ever deleted. Rossami (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
      • How can it be said that the article's content was never deleted? The page was completely changed from a respectable wikipedia page to a redirect. Somewhat different, I think. schyler 03:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
        • In the Misplaced Pages Deletion policy and related pages, we use the word "deletion" only describe the act of removing content from the edit history. If you can go to the article's history tab and roll back to the prior version, then it's not "deletion" as we use that word. What happened here was an editorial decision to be sorted out on Talk. Rossami (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Digging through the list of redirects to Neil Cicierega, it appears that there are three possible articles that you might be referring to:
    1. Ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny — has never been deleted.
    2. Ultimate showdown — An AfD was opened on this article on January 2 and the article was changed to a redirect to The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny in the middle of the AfD.
    3. The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny — This article was deleted on January 9 as a result of the AfD for Ultimate showdown (closing admin apparently did not spot the redirect). Article has been recreated and deleted several times, most recently due to a copyright violation.
Undelete most recent non-copyvio version of The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny and AfD. Due to the creation of the redirect in the middle of the AfD for Ultimate showdown, it is not clear which specific article comments in the AfD were meant for. The redirects should also be pointed to the undeleted article in a hope that this mess will not be repeated. --Allen3  04:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Title Neutrality and Misplaced Pages:Conspiracy theory titles

After 3 months of work by editors on both sides of the issue this proposal was illegitimately speedy deleted just as voting was beginning, first at Misplaced Pages:Title Neutrality, then at Misplaced Pages:Conspiracy theory titles. Moving a proposal to userspace is equivalent to a deletion and should be reviewed. The deleters have and likely will falsely claim the proposal failed twice. zen master T 20:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Response Comment: That is untrue for multiple reasons. The voting on version 2.0 of the proposal at Misplaced Pages talk:Title Neutrality was speedy deleted along with everything else, so it's inaccurate to say the proposal was voted on. Also, since the proposal was significantly updated resubmittal is allowed, especially since this is 6.5 months after version 1.0 voting closed. The challenge to defend the phrase "conspiracy theory" from a charge of being non-neutral remains unresponded to. zen master T 20:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

aladin

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aladin (2nd nomination)

This is an unusual case. The vote was closed "keep, no consensus". But some editors keep turning the article into a redirect to a completely different topic. This effectively means that the topic in question is being deleted against the closing decision. The closing admin refuses to recognize the problem. See also my suggestion in Misplaced Pages talk:Deletion policy#"Redirect" option. There is a hole in the policy no one wants to discuss. Mukadderat 18:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the statement "The closing admin refuses to recognize the problem." is complete deception, as the closing admin saw what you were saying but pointed out to you that it was against policy and all common sense. People voting "keep" to preserve the page history and the talk page comments but specifically wanting the page redirected cannot by any sane, honest description be called votes to preserve the article as is. The clear consensus was to get rid of the article itself but keep the talk page and history, which is something that happens on articles ALL THE TIME. It sucks that you can come here and totally misrepresent events and get some people here to discuss the issue without knowing full details or looking into them. I have redirect thr page again. Stop ignoring the clear consensus of the voters and trying to pull in people with no knowledge of the events. DreamGuy 00:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No action redirect targeting is not an issue for Deletion Review as it isn't really deletion. In this case, the redirect sounds reasonable to me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    Please explain how a redirect to a totally different topic, with absolutely no common content may sound reasonable? Did you take a look into Misplaced Pages talk:Deletion policy#"Redirect" option? Mukadderat 19:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    Simply put, because the vast majority of people who type "aladin" in as a search phrase are actually looking for "Aladdin". Therefore, it is a useful redirect. However, there's nothing at all stopping you from making aladin (magician) or something similar, and then linking to it from the Aladdin disambiguation page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Concur with Andrew. Radiant_>|< 20:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can we please stop misspelling "Aladdin" here? -- nae'blis (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comment: I'm not sure the article is worth bringing back, partly because of the hijinks on the talk page, but it is disingenuous to say that redirecting aladin (magician) to Aladdin is not the same as a straight keep. Maybe the proponents should start a new article per Andrew and try to establish something encyclopedic there. (probably for GFDL that means we should Move the current article there, establish history, and then create the spelling-based redirect at the old name). -- nae'blis (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I would favor a move to aladin (magician), with the redir going to either Aladdin (with a proper "otheruses" hatnote), or to Aladdin (disambiguation). DES 21:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment They're two different things, in the way of Aladdin and Aladin... I'm too tired to bother with a third vote, or to convey that point so I'll leave it to other more determined people to do the job. I must highlight though, that this article is the target of a personal vendetta by a group of friends. Either way, I think it's obvious where my opinion lies in this snafu... --RBlowes 22:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please not that on the discussion on the talk page and on the vote for deletion, there wsa CLEAR CLEAR copnsensus that the article should be redirected, but that the talk page and edit history should be preserved and therefore not deleted. If it weren;t for the vote for redirecting it would have been deleted outright. Redirecting is just doing what the editors there decided. Moving the article does not in any way go along with what the editors involved decided. The comments above show only a cursory glance at the article and no understanding of the reasons for the vote. One person here deciding to move it in no way validates going against the consensus of those involved. I have restored the redirect, undoing that, as DES has done is sheer cowboyism without any knowledge of the long history of the article and the decisions that were made. DreamGuy 23:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    And a wheel war is supposed to help clarify this? There was no consensus in the second AfD, therefore your references to some sort of holy decision from on high are unwarranted. The redirect 'decision' sidesteps the fact that there are two different folks being discussed here. -- nae'blis (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    I note that the article aladin (magician) article now redirects to Aladdin (disambiguation), making the link to same on the disambiguation page kinda pointless, yes? Wouldn't it be better to leave the content at aladin (magician), have "aladin" redirect to either Aladdin or Aladdin (disambiguation), and then have a VfD for "aladin (magician)" if the content is still objectionable? Powers 00:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    I think that would be sensible, but DreamGuy has now restored the redir after my reversion. i don't want to get into a revert war or a wheel war. I don't think the consensus is as clear as he contends. But perhaps i am wrong DES 00:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • (after edit conflict) I have been following this matter for some time, i have read the AfD, and the talk page in full. I shouldn't have used the roll-back button, i apologize for that, but not for reverting. IMO there was NOT clear consensus for simply convertign this to a redirect,a dn there surely is not now. Please etiehr let the separate page stand, or take it back to AfD for a decission on whether the current content should remain. I object to the comments above about "no understanding of the reasons" show a failure to assume good faith, IMO -- but perhaps my reversion did also, although i did discuss the amtter on the talk page, and here and on DG's talk page at once. DES 00:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't a deletion question. Sort it out by obtaining consensus on the talk page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

SuperOffice and Tally Solutions Ltd

Old AFD here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/SuperOffice. Unilaterally undeleted by Tony Sidaway; if he can't be bothered to bring it here I guess I'll have to do it for him. If it's as obvious a keep as he seems to think it is, he shouldn't have any trouble getting a majority in favor of undeletion. No vote from me. -R. fiend 04:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse closure (re-delete as re-created content). The article is unchanged from the version which was discussed in the AFD. Merely being a publicly traded company is not one of our generally accepted inclusion standards. No new evidence has been presented to justify overturning the AFD decision. Rossami (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Rossami. One can always rewrite the article so it doesn't qualify as a substantail recreation with new sources if the subject warrants. WhiteNight 04:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I have redeleted this article and blocked Tony Sidaway for unilaterally undeleting this article out of process twice. I will abstain from this DRV debate otherwise. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've added Tally (accounting). See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tally (accounting). - brenneman 08:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Rossami. Proper work from here as ever. Strongly endorse Sjakkalle. About time someone had the balls to show that consensus counts. Grace Note 08:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore SuperOffice. Sidaway claims that SuperOffice had sales of 30 million Euros and the article states it has 11,000 customers, as does their website. . I wasn't able to dig up as much on Tally and all I see is a redirect anyway, so Keep Deleted on that one.--MONGO 09:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • reluctantly restore as bad-faith nom and apparent failure of diligence in AfD, since both assert significant (90% of Indian SME market, if that can be verified; 11,000 customers ditto). Very tempting to endorse, mind, since there was 100% consensus to delete, but with only three votes in both cases and at least some assertion of notability I suspect I would have relisted rather than closing. This should not be interpreted as endorsing Tony Sidaway's unilateral undeletion, which I think sets an extremely bad precedent and is just begging for a whole new round of wheel wars, but this is about the articles not about Tony. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 10:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I understand they've been rewritten, so relist on AFD. If there is a consensus to delete them again, they should be protected, though. -R. fiend 14:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • relist per R. fiend, and if possible, could the originals from before the AFD be posted somewhere for comparison? Note that Tony says he rewrote at least one of the articles between the AFD and the actual deletion, so I'd look for a copy dated on or before the AFD was opened. InkSplotch 15:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Alright, I have, with some doubts, restored the histories. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: When I first saw this, I compared the deleted version (dated 05:32, 9 January 2006) against the then-current version (dated 16:40, 17 January 2006). Since the history has now been restored (I hope only temporarily), it can be reviewed here. The "rewrite" consisted of the removal of the AFD template and the addition of the words "as SOU" in the last paragraph. Since then, the text has been rewritten but not, in my opinion, in a way that meaningfully addresses the concerns raised in the AFD discussion. I still don't see any new evidence that this company meets the recommended criteria at WP:CORP. Rossami (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's true that the SuperOffice required no rewrite; I've no idea why it was deleted in the first place. The version of the Tally article that was deleted by Sjakkalle, however, was substantially my own material. It's possible that that article was only originally deleted because nobody who read the AfD did any research. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep rewritten articles, notable. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 18:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure (admin was right to delete) and keep undeleted (Tony was right to undelete). Question entire DRV (and AFD) process, as no review was necessary. If In Doubt, Don't Delete, WP:NOT a bureaucracy Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore and if need be relist. I agree with JZG (and folks, please read about 24SevenOffice for some necessary perspective). --kingboyk 23:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure and keep deleted. I note Tony Sidaway's inconsistency in arguing elsewhere for "absolute harshness" in upholding policies he favors, while showing absolute disdain for the ones he doesn't like. SlimVirgin 02:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist the close was obviously acceptable but the bad faith allegations have some legs, plus they are rewritten, so I'd say just to relist them, possibly even relist with the previous comments. I also agree with R. fiend, as always. WhiteNight 04:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. Nandesuka 05:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist. Sure, let Tony's versions have a chance at AfD despite his heavy-handed methods of getting to this point. It's not obvious to me whether we should have an article on a company with 185 employees but I'm willing to hear arguments either way. - Haukur 13:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist I don't like the way thsi was handled, adn i am far from convinced of the celar notability of the subjects. But with only three votes on the AfD (even though all three were to delete) and with at least soem evidence of notability presented above that was not discussed on teh AfD, relist for incresed discussion and hopefully broader consensus. DES 17:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. Seriously you want to keep every article on a company with 180 employees? If we only considered 500 million people in the workforce in world and averaged it that would mean 3 million articles on companies. I don't think there are quite that many, but keeping based on this is weak anyway. - Taxman 18:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • KD and whack Tony with a wet trout. Second Slim's remark about his blatant double standards. Radiant_>|< 18:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • And I'll third that. In fact, I'm considering changing my vote; if Tony can't even defend these articles here I see no compelling reason to give these another go. I'm assuming as much good faith as I can (about the merit of these articles, not Tony's undeletions of them). There's a good chance I'll just vote to delete them on the second AFD anyway. -R. fiend 18:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Does that threat read "Either you come here and participate in our broken process or we will damage the encyclopedia?" That's how I read it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
        • No, I'm just not convinced a company with less than 200 people is notable, but I'm willing to give it another go on AFD, as of now. I just resent Tony's assertion that everything he does is so fucking beneficial to the encyclopedia that he can ignore the consensus whenever he pleases. Deleting an article on some random company isn't going to damage anything. If he wanted them undeleted, he should have brought them here; he participates in this "broken" process often enough. I did it for him when I could have just redeleted the articles and blocked him (as another user did). I assumd he'd at least try to make a case for why these should be kept, but it doesn't seem as worthwhile to him, so maybe the whole point of his actions was just to be a dick. I don't know. -R. fiend 20:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
        • On whether a company with X number of employees can be notable, the answer is "yes" and this is especially true of software companies, and Apple Computer famously made computing history with a few friends in bedrooms and garage space. But SuperOffice isn't just one man and his dog, and it has a public listing so we know its turnover, market capitalization, expenditure and profits, which are all reasonable. Somebody hearing about this company or its products may want some neutral information about them. Gosh, here's an idea, why not put that information into an encyclopedia! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist per DES --- Charles Stewart 18:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh two obvious keeps. There seems to be a lot of moaning on this discussion but we've got two companies, one listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange and having half a dozen European national branches and a couple of wholly owned subsidiaries, and the other with half a dozen prestigious customers in India and its products widely used in the UK and the middle east. The articles shouldn't have been deleted and the moaning seems to be largely due to the fact that I didn't think I needed DRV to tell me that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there some reason that almost no one stating an opinion here is piping up at the respective AfDs? Not that this is a call to arms, but if these are kept because we're a bit lazy, than this will be seen a de facto justification for these antics. Please do get over there, have a look at the articles, and speak your mind. Keep, merge, burn with fire, whatever but let's not be apathetic. - brenneman 05:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-17

Chiens Sans Frontiers

Afded as part of the User:Timecop/The_war_on_blogs - however, it was speedily deleted after less than a day on afd as "unverifiable blogcruft", which last time I checked wasn't as CSD criteria. Also, there was a keep and merge (mine being the merge) opinion in the debate as well. WhiteNight 22:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree - with speedy undeletion based on faulty CSD, relisting on AfD, and deletion as unverifiable blogcruft :-) Should we close this? Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 11:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What a waste of time. This is obviously not going to survive an afd - recreating it is just nonsense process protection. If the admin has made a mistake, correct him for the future. If he's unrepentent then go to ANI, RfC etc. DON'T recreate rubbish to make your point. Adding something to wikipedia, which you know doesn't belong there is just plain vandalism, whatever the motives. --Doc 11:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I have a couple of problems with that statement. For one, the blog is varafiable to a small extent as The Guardian (alexa 330) mentioned it specifically as a blog during the tsunami events here, and there could very well be useful information from someone in the debate - maybe not enough to keep the article but more on the article itself, perhaps. Second, if I wasn't interested in process I would have just undeleted it myself - but I like to think what I did here was the responsable thing. Anyway, I thank Splash for his due diligence as always. WhiteNight 11:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • At the time I reopened the AfD, there were already 3 non-deletes in the debate, from editors who did not appear to be on either side of the war on blogs and who were making decent points. The article was not a speedy, and its deletion, even before coming here, was not unchallenged. That's why I restored it. I'm afraid I do not agree that my restoration was vandalism. -Splash 13:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, over-reacted. Not vandalism, I just don't things should be restored unless the restorer genuinely believes that the item belongs in an encyclopedia. Protect process, but not at the expense of product. If the thing is worthy, someone else will restore it. --Doc 18:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


Linked pages from Crooked Timber

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

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

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

Henry Farrell (political scientist)

Eszter Hargittai

John Holbo

Tom Runnacles

Micah Schwartzman

Belle Waring

JQ 08:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  • Endorse speedies. These were all speedy deleted under criteria A7 (Unremarkable people or groups). Being a college professor who happens to contribute to a web log is not usually considered a claim of notability. If any of the individuals meet the guidelines at WP:BIO, there is nothing preventing recreation of these articles. --Allen3  16:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorese speedies In the versions just prior to deletion, all look like valid WP:CSDA7 (nn-bio) deletions. Each stated the person'd profession, in soem cases the person's research intersts, adn that the person contributed to this blog and in some cases to other blogs. Contributign to a blog, even a notable blog, as not in itself a claim of notability, IMO. Neither is being an academing in a particualr field, nor a lawyer, nor a journalist. if any of these people have doen soemthing notable, or are notable for some other reason, recreate the article about that person with that info included -- preferably sourced. If anyone wants to do that an needs the text of one the above deleted stubs (and they all were stubs) I'll be glad to put a copy in anyone's userspace. DES 17:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I knew of Henry Farrell before I heard of Crooked Timber: I have a feeling there may be a case for his notability. John Quiggin is a name as a left-leaning Australian economist: I think an articlke on him would have a good chance of surviving an AfD. I'll do a spot more research, and see what I can dig up. --- --- Charles Stewart 18:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - A couple of observations: The articles in question were all created in response to redlinks on the original CT article. Is there some sort of procedure to warn people against doing this when the result is likely to be deletion? Second, the criteria proposed here seem to be inconsistent with common Misplaced Pages practice in relation to both group and individual blogs, see for example Volokh Conspiracy, and numerous individual bloggers listed in addition to their blogs. (BTW, I hope this observation doesn't lead to further deletions in the interests of consistency) JQ 04:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Holy Father

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

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

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

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

Comment: since the article exists, I don't think deletion review is the right place. For what it's worth I think it should be a disambiguation page, to God and Pope, since it is used to mean either (depending on which church you belong to). - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 11:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I quote TCC from Talk:Holy Father, "The redirect was discussed in the AfD, and this has not expired as you seem to think. It's you who should discuss the issue before replacing content. It's an important subject to me only because I've gotten involved. It wasn't before. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)". Seems like TCC is being spiteful and redirecting spitefully. Tony Sidaway or any administrator, please clear this up for us. Are we allowed to take out the redirect now? --jeolmeun 01:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I would like to add that critics of the article were saying the title is usually (if not mostly) used for the rcc's pope, but according to the cia, religions in the usa are "Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)". Also, when the AfD took place, someone mentioned the article was like a "dicdef", but the AfD took place after an "anonymous" user stripped the article. --jeolmeun 01:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Update: User:Musical_Linguist, ("is fully (and joyfully) obedient to Pope Benedict XVI"), reverted the article to redirect to the rcc's pope's article without participating in the discussion of the article. Csernica and brenneman seem to have a group of rc patrollers. If I revert against them, would my reverts count towrds a 3RR? --jeolmeun 01:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • My obedience to Pope Benedict is not relevant to this discussion. I reverted because the edit history seemed to show that the articles for deletion decision was to redirect to Pope, and that Jeolmeun was going against consensus. And yes, Jeolmeun, your reverts are in violation of WP:3RR. You've already broken it. I'm not going to block you, but someone else may. You might like to take advantage of the opportunity to revert yourself in order to avoid this. AnnH 01:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-16

2120s and 2140s

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

24SevenOffice

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

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

  • Note that all of these pages (many of which you will notice have been deleted) are either software products or software companies, the same as 24SevenOffice. Note that User:Sleepyhead81 added a note to his/her userpage on August 10th in which he/she identified himself/herself as an employee of 24SevenOffice . Note that User:Sleepyhead81's history of nominating articles for deletion was minimal until 24SevenOffice was nominated for AFD a second time, after which all of the above listed nominations were made. Almost as if User:Sleepyhead81 was motivated by something other than pure altruism and a desire to improve Misplaced Pages. Note that earlier today, User:Sleepyhead81 removed the statement identifying himself/herself as an employee of 24SevenOffice from his/her userpage, shortly after listing 24SevenOffice here on DRV . Perhaps he/she is no longer with the company, but still feels like the company deserves a Misplaced Pages article. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 11:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. No new information is being presented. This is a small company with no evidence of significance, was added to various articles pparently asserting parity with salesforce.com and Google Earth among others (which is patently absurd). Was stated to meet WP:CORP as being used to calculate a market index; this claim was false as it is a whole-market index. Was asserted to meet WP:CORP on the basis of press coverage; this was false as the press coverage was a press release. Is now asserted to meet WP:CORP on the basis of the Syndey Morning Herald article, but that is simply a namecheck (and notes that there are around 12,000 similar companies). Nominator and article author is associated with the company (always a bad idea). I see no evidence of process irregularity. Motives for creating the article have been questioned, whether fairly or not (e.g. Personally I don't really care about the article itself, but I'm sick of having to revert the addition of a link to this article into other articles where it doesn't belong. As far as I can see, the authors worked out that a link to their homepage would survive a lot longer if they wrapped an article around it., Rufous (talk · contribs)). Unless an independent party wishes to challenge this I see no merit in reopening a debate which ended in clear consensus. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 11:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The list of articles that i nominated for deletion is a way to show the inconsistance of votes in regards to which articles are kept and which ones are deleted. Centraview is a perfect example of this. JzG's vote was based on an article on a website called vnunet.com where CentraView is listed as an example of an open source application. But an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, which is a much more respectable source than vnunet.com, is not a reason for the 24SevenOffice article to be kept according to JzG. I find that the vote here does not reflect the facts presented in this case. Whether the 24SevenOffice article should be kept should be based on the notability of 24SevenOffice in the same as CentraView and others alike. Not based on my relation to 24SevenOffice, my edits or any others subjective votes in regards to the article. Other contributors can edit the article. I really feel that votes in deletion debates are based on whether people like the article or not. Thus open source projects, linux based software and other projects who share characteristics with Misplaced Pages are always kept while commerical products are always deleted. Advertising applies just as much to open source projects as they do with products. Also in regards to the CentraView debate there was three votes for delete and two for keep. The keep votes was JzG reason as above and the other for 'being open source'. --Sleepyhead 14:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I suspect it was listed for deletion because as a "Company with revenues of around $1m and 30 employees - well below the levels in WP:CORP" the nominator (that would be me) thought it might be spam, especially given the creator's linkspamming of the article, combined with their acknowledged employment by the subject company. No evidence was presented of it meeting a single one of the categories in WP:CORP, and although that is not policy, it is a reasonable benchmark of whether a company will gain enough reliable independent third-party coverage to enable the community to verify both the content and the neutrality of its presentation. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 21:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm taking the liberty of undeleting one of two of the other articles because their deletion was silly. Tally (accounting) is about a well established Indian company with numerous major clients in its native country and representation as far afield as the UK, and SuperOffice is a public listed company with a turnover of around Euro 30m . --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Funny, I didn't see it either, so I've re-deleted them. If someone wants an article undeleted isn't there some sort of page for listing such things? I could have sworn there was some sort of deletion review process; I wonder where I could find it? -R. fiend 23:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-15

Michael E. Berumen

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michael E. Berumen

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

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

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

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

2006-01-14

Circumcision fetish

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

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

Further info,

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

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

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

2006-01-13

Template:User allow fairuse

TFD discussion

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

  • Keep deleted. What the deleting admin did was he subsituted the template in the userspace, so those who wish to use the template still can, but not in the actual template name space. Zach 23:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted - but as this one raised some pseudolegal questions, I'd say if you want to push it for undeletion, get onto Jimbo and ask. BigStabbyStick 23:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I endorse the decision of the person who closed it (note that I was the person who deleted the template based on his decision). While the percentage of people voting was somewhat less than what is normally considered a rough consensus, discussions aren't votes, and I feel that the people who voted delete generally made more persuasive arguments than those that voted keep. JYolkowski // talk 23:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. This template does not help us make an encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 23:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Alot of users don't help us make an encyclopedia either, that doesn't mean we just delete them. Karmafist 02:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Let it stay dead and delete anything similar. It advocates something that would expose the Foundation, for reasons that do not help the encyclopedia in any way. If editors want to break the law, they should find a web host and try to persuade the host company to permit them to do so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Closing admin has discretion. He had justification, in my opinion, to discount many keep votes that were not well-reasoned—but at the same time, he probably ought to have explained his decision better. -- SCZenz 00:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Undelete Final vote was 51-36, 58% for deletion, which I doubt meets anyone's threshold for consensus unless you're in a Democracy, which we're not. Add to that the resounding amount of strawman WP:NLT and WP:CIVIL vios in terms of those who wished to delete this in the first place makes leaving this deleted into a precedent that bullying people with legal boogiemen is acceptable behavior. karmafist 00:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • overturn close This was nowhere near consensus. DES 00:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Per Tony Sidaway, and others. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted those who want this are still free to create it on their userpage. --Doc 01:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy and there was clear consensus to delete, despite raw mechanical vote counting. There's a reason we don't use bots to close deletion discussions. —Cryptic (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: It's pretty rare for Jimbo to get involved in a deletion dispute. He was the first person to delete it saying "we do not get to vote here on copyright law". Then 15 min later he restored it. Has anyone asked him for his reasoning? Was this discussed in some other channel? Rossami (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Once again I see that people are voting on the userbox and not the process under which it was deleted. There was no-consensus there - it does not matter how many people don't like the userbox here, that is not what we are supposed to discussing.--God of War 04:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - Process is here to help us write the encyclopedia. When process does not help us write the encyclopedia, it may be discarded. How many times does that have to be explained? WP:NOT a bureaucracy. FCYTravis 05:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted as per FCYTravis and others. Jtkiefer ---- 06:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Per FCYTravis and others. Also, consensus is not based on raw vote counts. Carbonite | Talk 16:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Still think this is a very strange thing for a userbox template. It's slightly like saying "This user would vote to give Misplaced Pages the right to sentence users to death" - all very well, but it would still be illegal. David | Talk 17:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure - sockpuppeteering aside, the userbox was a non-starter for the reasons Jimbo and others mentioned. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn Closing admin should have at least given a better explanation for their decision, given the size and activity of the discussion. Saying "rather weak thou" is ambiguous to me -- do they mean it was a close call on a simple vote count? If so, I'd certainly remind people that *fD is more than a simple vote count, and that even when it is a vote count, the rule is not generally a simply majority. Closers have a responsibility to explain their decision: since I do not think this was done here, overturn and relist. Turnstep 00:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete Yes, the viewpoint it expresses is retarded and is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages metapolicy and civil law. No, it doesn't matter what those expressing that viewpoint think. Undelete it anyway. Kurt Weber 06:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, we cannot vote on what the law requires of us. User:Zoe| 00:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, or overturn and Speedy Delete per WP:IAR. We don't vote on copyright policy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn closure and undelete - We shouldn't have this template, the keep case was stacked with lousy "templates are free expression" arguments, but that doesn't mean that we can misrepresent a no consensus as a consensus to delete. User:Nrcprm2026 counted 43 valid delete ballots against 34 to keep: we'd need to discount 12 keep votes to bend this into a delete consensus. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, but it is important to the smooth functioning of this site that administrative actions are conducted with the broad support of the wider WP community. We should wait a little, argue the case that these sorts of template are illegitimate on the userbox policy and resubmit a new TfD with a better prepared case. We should also look for evidence of poll-stacking. --- --- Charles Stewart 18:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and note who's eager to expose Misplaced Pages to financial harm ➥the Epopt 05:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. There appears to be broad enough support here. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Even if it is not - a vote can't change what is best for wikipedia. Trödel&#149;talk 02:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Weishampel exchange

speedied by User:Linuxbeak

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

  • Keep deleted certainly a neologism, likely also an attack/hoax. 0 Google hits. If nominator's research includes evidence to the contrary, feel free to share it with us. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Starblind. -- SCZenz 00:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Certainly a neologism and very likely a hoax but nothing in the versions I reviewed could be considered at "attack". I would definitely vote to delete this in a regular AFD but I can not endorse its speedy-deletion. Restore and immediately list on AFD for regular deletion. Yes, I know that Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy but we have to stop this inappropriate stretching of the speedy "attack" criterion. Rossami (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The talk page seemed to indicate that it was an attack on a college professor named Weishampel. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Don't use that as a criterion. That was wild speculation on my part. I mean, it's obvious the article was crap, especially given the number of times the year of creation was changed, but I've zero evidence it was a prank or an attack. Powers 03:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore and immediately list on AFD as per Rossami. Powers 04:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ick. KD per Andrew, unless somebody is able to cite a source on this. Radiant_>|< 02:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, Linuxbeak also protected the article from recreation. I can find no justification for that protection. Protection is generally reserved for those pages which have been repeatedly recreated and deleted. This article shows no such history. Nor do the participants here or on the Talk page show any such inclination to abuse the process. I am returning this to an unprotected redlink. Rossami (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, I would like to add that this was the subject of a letter to the Help Desk mailing list, in which the emailer contended that it was created as a joke. User:Zoe| 00:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. If this were a run-of-the-mill hoax neologism I would be with Rossami here because we should try to stay within the confines of WP:CSD. But this neologism has a sexual tone to it, and it seems to be made entirely with the intention of insulting someone named Weishampel. My suspicion is that it's made by schoolchildren being mean. I endorse deleting this speedily as vandalism. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn speedy and list on AfD. This is not in any sense an attack page. Speedy competely out-of-process. Whether it will pass AfD is another matter altogether. DES 22:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and take to AfD, as above. Speedy deletion of this article is evidently contentious, also speedy was per db-attack, which as far as I can tell it was not (even if the contents as deleted appears to be complete bollocks) - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 11:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Pussy_City_Pimps

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Pussy_City_Pimps

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

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

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

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

2006-01-12

Ninjah Pendragon

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

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

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

I have speedy deleted a template with the following words:

This user thinks the House of Saud should be overthrown

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

  • I'm not interested in the whole userbox theatrics thing, but I am wondering you delete first and then ask questions, rather than the other way around. It should be safe enough to presume that asking first will produce the same result. -Splash 16:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This is how speedy deletions are done. It is my opinion that attacks of this nature have no place on Misplaced Pages. You're welcome to object to this as policy, as we don't yet have any policy on this and I'm just taking action that I believe is necessary to safeguard the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
      • No, if we are sure a speedy is right, we don't have to ask questions afterwards. I've never listed my own speedies after deleting them, because if I knew I was going to do that, I'd have xfD'd them instead. Deletion review is not the forum for establishing a policy - the discussion running elsewhere is. If you believe the action is necessary, you don't need to come here (a forum you consider irrelevant, anyway) to make sure. Someone else need bring it here if (and only if) they would disagree with it. -Splash 17:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Not by a long shot is this "how speedy deletions are done". Normally they're just done and in the vast majority of cases there is no discussion on them here, certainly not inititated by the sysop performing the deletions. As I noted on your talk page, however, I do appreciate that bringing the issue up here gives it another audience than it would have on TfD. - Haukur 17:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I disagree (though as a non-admin, take it for what it's worth): Speedy deletions of 'attacks' are warranted, just as a review of them may be warranted. Tony's bringing his own deletions here for review is unorthodox, but if he didn't bring them here, you can bet there'd be screams of bloody murder from his opponents. Damned if you do, damned if you don't... -- nae'blis (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and don't speedy any more of these pending a clear policy on user boxes or a new CSD (which is under discusson). DES 16:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and nominate for deletion where I will happily vote to delete them. And continue work on expanding CSD to include stuff like this, which I also support. And continue work on deletion reform in general :) And try to have a dialogue with the users creating these templates and convince them that they should voluntarily refrain from creating them - stop pulling the rug from under their feet, there are enough bad feelings about this already. There is no emergency here which warrants taking action out of process. Nor is out-of-process action required to draw more attention to this issue - it has enough attention already and then some. - Haukur 17:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Would it be okay if someone created a template advocating the overthrow of the government of your country? It may be that you think that is an appropriate use of Misplaced Pages resources; I do not. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
      • It is an inappropriate use of Misplaced Pages resources and I support deleting templates like that. I just don't think this is an emergency which warrants out-of-process action. And I try to overthrow the government of my country every four years. No luck so far. - Haukur 17:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As others, Keep Undeleted, send to TFD, and quit trying to create new policy by fiat. Dragons flight 18:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree with Dragons flight's suggestion that making policy through action is unacceptable (see Tuesday's discussions for a good counter-example). I have undeleted these templates and edited one to remove the attack on the Nepal government, and sent the User against Saud one to tfd. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and list on TfD - I don't think that this is a good userbox, but it is not an attack directed at other editors, so I do not see the case for urgent action. I think that Tony's approach to userboxes is responsible, and is helping us find a middle ground. Pace Dragon's flight, making policy through action is the wiki spirit. --- Charles Stewart 19:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted all templates which disparage or criticize their subject. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted all attack templates. User:Zoe| 23:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and list on TfD if it hadn't been done already. This is not how things are done. Clearly there are reasonable differences of opinion, and thus speedy deletion is not applicable. Speedy deletion is for clear and unambigious deletions only. - brenneman 23:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: since the User against Saud entry has been moved to TfD and the other undeleted, shouldn't this debate be edited/closed? -- nae'blis (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Leave it undeleted. Does not meet any speedy criteria. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and inform tony of the tfd procedure.--God of War 20:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Tony and User:Zoe Trödel&#149;talk 02:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-11

LUEshi

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

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

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

Pedelec

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

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


Game Central Network

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thepcnerd 17:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


Ludvig Strigeus

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ludvig Strigeus

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

  • The nomination was made on 6 Jan. The delete votes were made on 6 and 7 Jan. The article was expanded on 8 Jan. The person who did the expansion was the only keep voter. The discussion was closed on 12 Jan. While many people had the opportunity to revisit the article and the discussion, apparently none chose to do so. Looking at the expanded article itself, I don't think that this person yet meets the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. I am inclined to endorse the closure (keep deleted) even though the nominator may be right that the original discussion paricipants may not have re-evaluated their decisions after the expansion. Note: This decision is without prejudice against re-creation if the subject of the article goes on to do more notable work and does eventually become eligible under our inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This may be a case where the nominator should simply recreate the *expanded* article, per policy, and be ready to defend it better when/if it gets renominated. Turnstep 17:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. The closer did not take into account the fact that the article was substantially improved and that no delete votes followed the expansion. The subject is the original developer of three reasonably famous pieces of software that have their own Misplaced Pages articles: MTorrent, ScummVM and OpenTTD. Thus the close was wrong on process and (most important) made the wrong decision for Misplaced Pages by deleting good content. I agree with Turnstep's proposal and if User:WP or anyone else makes a good faith request for a temporary undelete for that purpose I will grant it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Is every person who votes delete in the early stages of a discussion to be disenfranchised, or must they keep checking back on every article they've already reviewed on a daily basis to go back to the discussion and say, "Nope, despite the edits made since the last time, my vote stands."? The fact that there were no further delete votes after the expansion may well be due to the fact that everyone who came to the discussion saw sufficient delete votes and didn't feel like adding any more. User:Zoe| 00:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist. It appears the article was judged on its initial stubby content. I believe that being an important contributor to 4 software projects makes one notable. I think there's enough new information added to warrant a reevaluation of the deletion debate. - Mgm| 09:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist. Zoe's point is well-taken, but it's an assumption. It could just as easily have been the case where others, seeing the delete votes, did not bother to investigate the article after its expansion. howcheng {chat} 19:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As a comprimise what about just doing a normal relisting with the other comments intact? WhiteNight 01:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist. AFDs tend to get only sparse attention after one or two days and the rewrite probably adressed some of the major concerns with this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-11

Valhalla Legends

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

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

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

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

Harrym 11:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harrym 14:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - I found the AfD flawed: clearly this page and BNLS are closely related, since BNLS is only used on vH, but the question of how the information then contained in the two articles should best be covered was thought out by few of the participants. I'm leaning towards undelete and list together with BNLS. I'd also say that I think that developer communities are pretty much inherently more noteworthy participant than fancruftish gamer communities, certainly the two sorts of community should not be confused. --- Charles Stewart 15:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. If this is more than just a gaming clan, then most of the delete votes should be given less weight. Combined with the overlooked "keep" vote of user Oscarthecat, this is probably a no-consensus. Undelete and give it a chance to get cleaned up, with some information on how it is not merely a gaming clan, before tossing it back to AfD. I'm not convinced it will survive an AfD even then, but I think the new information warrants giving it another shot without the "gamecruft" voters. Turnstep 03:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That is the problem, because as far as I can see it is a gaming clan - at least from the linked site -
    "Valhalla Legends is a Battle.Net clan that wears the tag . The purpose of the clan is to provide for its members a single place to gather and talk"
  • Not only that but the basically same argument given here is the same one that replaced the nomination halfway through (), so I think the users had more than enough time to look at. I'll give JIP a message though and endorse whatever (s)he says. WhiteNight 04:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is a gaming clan aspect to the site, but according to the posting distribution it is principally a developer's forum . It appears to be much more than a gaming clan. --- Charles Stewart 17:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know... it still appears to me like a gaming clan that does occasional development, which was highlighted during the debate. I'll admit that I can understand how it could be taken differently, I just don't know if this is a somewhat clever attempt to make it appear as something different then it really is. If we do undelete this I think (re)listing both of them as you say is the best way to go. WhiteNight 00:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • These kinds of content issues are best sorted out on AfD anyway: all that is needed to go back to AfD is to think that there is a high probablity that it will result in a different outcome to the one that resulted in the appeal here. I think we are likely to keep vL and delete BNLS. --- Charles Stewart 00:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Alright, Undelete and (re)list both WhiteNight 00:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, relist and list BNLS on AfD - My, I convinced RN before I convinced myself! --- Charles Stewart 01:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Thanks. I think this is a good decision. I'll clarify the above poster's concern over tags: Battle.net was, and still is to some extent, the place where most of the clan members congregate and talk. Of course, many members do play games. That, however, is not the primary purpose of the clan. Harrym 10:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete --
I am not opposed to it being re-listed if necessary, and if that is the appropriate forum (I find it odd that we have to go through the hoops to have this undeleted and then re-debate whether it should be deleted, but as with Harry, being somewhat inexperienced, I will defer to others if appropriate), then fine.
During AfD discussion there was comment that BNLS should be merged with Valhalla Legends, or that one or both should be merged with Battle.net. I find both merges to be inappropriate at best. Merging vL with Battle.net would be like merging Macromedia with Microsoft Windows simply because Macromedia produces software that works in Windows. Generally, I believe that it's erroneous to include information about a third party in an article about a first-party product, short of being a "See Also" section. Further, BNLS is extremely notable (in its niche) for the number of users it has seen during its lifetime and the accessibility it provided for other users within the community to develop their own clients.
Note that the article was not originally contributed by members (a non-member informed us that he had posted it), but a couple of us corrected information and wikified it. It seemed that only after the corrections were made that the article was listed for deletion (or perhaps it was once I listed it for a Request for Renaming -- it was originally called "Valhalla legends," but should have had the second word capitalized). Thanks. Robert Paveza 20:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-09

2006-01-07

Category:List of Christian Entertainers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well this is the problem with categories http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Richard_Kiel&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Richard_Kiel What good does a category do if the resistance is so great that a name cannot be added, even after offering evidence it belongs?For this reason a list was much better, as it did not require altering the person's page.If it was shut down prematurely as Christopher Parham suggested, I would be interested in learning why. California 12011:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:German-American mobsters

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

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

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

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

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




2006-01-05

Zoner, Inc.

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

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

Recently concluded

  1. Eszter Hargittai: Rewritten. 19:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Henry Farrell (political scientist): Rewritten, currently at: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Henry Farrell (political scientist). 19:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Gallery of motorized bicycles: Userfied for transwiki. 23:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. The Ditherals: speedy overturned; AFD reopened at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Ditherals. 19:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Badawiya HOTEL: Kept deleted as copyvio. 19:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Pms clan: Relisted at AFD and kept (moved to PMS Clan). 18:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Online Gaming League: Kept deleted. 17:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. TRANGO real-time embedded hypervisor: Undeleted and relisted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/TRANGO real-time embedded hypervisor 2. 17:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Template:User noie : Redirected to Template:User browser:Other. 17:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Interflop: Renominated and again deleted. 17:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. EUROFUTURES: Kept deleted. 16:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. More attack templates: see below. 16:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Various attack templates: Various. Most are currently undeleted in some form and being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Proposed policy on userboxes. 16:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. User talk:Jim Apple/deeceevoice departure: Kept deleted (protected). 16:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Template:User against scientology: Kept deleted. 16:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Virago: Kept deleted (2nd nom was indisputably valid), and recreated as a disambiguation page. 16:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. LUElinks: Kept deleted (protected). There was some support for a protected redirect, but no consensus. 16:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. List of anti-heroes: Kept deleted. 23:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Saugeen Stripper: Undeleted, relisted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Saugeen Stripper 2. 17:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: Kept deleted. 17:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Godcasting: Relisted, now at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Godcasting 2 (closed, kept). 20:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Seth Ravin: Relisted, now at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Seth Ravin 2. 20:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. DND: Never deleted, was moved and has been moved back. 01:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Content review

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

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


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 28}}</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 28}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 December 28|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

2006-01-20

Karayana

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Karayana.

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

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

David Dom

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David Dom.

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

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

Aetherometry

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

  • Ho hum. I see I was the admin who closed the first AFD debate and there I did not see a consensus. The main argument against the article was that it was original research and that there were no reliable sources. I must admit, from reading the article, it did not look like original research to me. Also, a Google check shows that this is certainly a topic many people would be interested in finding out what is so I think that there should be an article here. Aetherometry appears to be a crackpot science theory which has received plenty of attention, like several other theories which have articles. (I might be stepping on some toes here, but I would classify creationism as one of those "crackpot theories".) There is quite a lot of material to work on here, and if anybody is interested in doing so I will have no problem with undeleting and moving to userspace for tinkering, fact-checking and verification of its status if not its validity. OK, I will Endorse closure without prejudice against a move to userspace or an improved article at a later time. Suggest a temporary undelete now so that people can review the content. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, I can't believe that this was deleted. Undelete just because it is too notable to be deleted. This is the first time I'm actually thinking of invoking IAR to undelete something.  Grue  09:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I suggest you look at the second vote (and the first too). Keeping this article sane was absorbing too much effort due to determined POV pushing by the pro-aetheometry people; the article was junk & people got sick of it. William M. Connolley 09:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
    Do you suggest deleting George W. Bush too, because it's vandalised often? There are appropriate tools, such as semi-protection and full protection. Deletion is not such a tool.  Grue  09:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    Bush is clearly notable. IMHO aetherometry isn't notable. It wasn't on your watchlist... And AFAIK, I'm not allowed to make the article sane then protect My Version. In an ideal world, wiki would have an aetherometry article which would be short and say "this is pseudoscience" and... well, read Dragonflights vote at VFD. In the real world, the pro-ae people kept pushing it. Having said that, there seems to have been a misunderstanding about verifiability in perhaps some of the votes, and probably in the closing: the verifiability criterion for pseduoscience is not published papers (of course; they don't) but links to their wacko websites, because thats all they have. William M. Connolley 10:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
  • Endorse (keep deleted) None of the above is germane to criteria for undeletion. The Afd was closed correctly, and no new arguments have arisen. The original article was deleted largely because this article is an OR soapbox for a fringe group. WP is not webhosting for every fringe idea that comes along. Vandalism has nothing to do with it so far as I am concerned. KillerChihuahua 10:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The article does indeed have a problem with reliable sources. That would probably be because it's hard to find a reliable source on pseudoscience. My suggestion would be to keep deleted, and create a new article covering ONLY those facts drawn from a reliable source (which is probably about 20% of what is now in the article) the protect for a while to get the POV pushers cooled down. Radiant_>|< 11:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • DumbA you are Radiant. Article already quoted only reliable sources there were.81.193.157.168
  • Undelete. I don't know anything about the subject at all, nor am I particularly interested to change that situation. But I fully agree with Grue that deletion should not be a tool against POV pushing. Lack of reliable sources? Phew! If we use thát as an argument, I believe we can quietely delete about 90 % of our articles. We have other tags for that! While I would endorse a cleanup of the article, it still needs to be undeleted in order to distill the 20% Radiant was talking about. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 11:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted somewhat sadly. I'm surprised this was deleted too, but it does look like a valid AfD. Perhaps some content could be placed in Reich's article, or one of the Orgone articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Either Undelete or recreate as per Radiant. As others have said, POV problems are not grounds for deletion. I have no problem with it remaining a protected stub. –Abe Dashiell 12:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: no vote yet, but I find it troubling that two of the voters who voted to delete the article in the second AFD were two of the editors most responsible for trying to legitimize this (in my opinion) pseudoscience. That they would suddenly argue for the article's deletion makes me suspicious. Since the article's talk page has not been deleted yet, voters can see for themselves without having to view the history of the deleted article. --Calton | Talk 13:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keeep deleted. ENOUGH OF THIS. Nobody is trying to legitimize anything. If you think that having an article in Misplaced Pages, and trying to keep it to verifiable claims, unjustly legitimizes Aetherometry, then you should be the first to want the article deleted. If you just want to recreate the article so as to be able to say it's "pseudoscience", then provide A SINGLE REPUTABLE REFERENCE IN A MAINSTREAM PUBLICATION that reviews the work and concludes it is "pseudoscience". If you want to recreate it for any other reason, then don't just talk; you need to propose how the verifiability problem should be solved. FrankZappo 14:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-19

Torc, P.A.C. Bloos

This article's AfD page was closed as no consensus, although a clear 4-1 vote in favor of delete, ignoring sock puppets. Can we please delete it? User:Zoe| 00:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete or rerun AfD per Zoe. Ignoring sockuppets/meatpuppets is a vital part of closing an AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obvious puppet show. Postdlf 01:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete although it may be worth a relisting on AfD due to the low participation. Agree with Postdlf that the sockpuppetry is obvious and their votes should be disregarded. David | Talk 01:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Delete it due to obvious bad close and sockpuppetry... WhiteNight 01:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: To me, the subject of this article was a person who is involved a in very small community but seemed in fact notable within that community. Thus, the guidelines set in WP:BIO might not actually apply (that's why they're guidelines and not policy). Yes, there are some sock votes, but I felt it was best to leave the determination of notability of druids to people who actually have knowledge of druids. I noted that User:Aneirin voted to delete some druid-related articles and keep others, from which I inferred s/he was in a position to determine said notability. I left it as no consensus in order to leave the possibility of a future deletion, especially considering how the article (and other druid-related articles that I also closed as no consensus: Karayana, David Dom) doesn't cite any verifiable sources. If the decision is to overturn and delete, that's fine with me as I have no stake in this or other druid articles. However, I resent the implication that I don't know what I'm doing when closing these debates, as I've been willing to tackle some with really long/complex discussions as well as those filled with puppets. howcheng {chat} 01:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • These are all pretty fair comments. The first few could have been a bit more gentle, but aren't unreasonable. The above would have been well done had it been placed on the AfD. Anytime that there is a not crystal clear outcome, more text is better than less. Relist. - brenneman 02:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete - per nomination. No chance of passing a non-socked AfD. FCYTravis 08:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete. Don't allow those pushing an agenda to stuff a ballot box that doesn't exist. The closing admin is not bound merely by a vote count as seems to have happened here. Also see #Karayana and #David Dom deletion reviews which were closed in the same way having the same features as this article. -Splash 13:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Causes célèbres

Back on June 11, 2005, Category:Causes célèbres was nominated for deletion and after a debate, it was consensus that the category was vague, but there was a suggestion that it might be acceptable if the vagueness was removed. I liked the category but accepted the consensus. A few months later I had an idea about how a similarly named categorisation might be created in a way which removed the vagueness, and eventually created in good faith three specifically-named categories which I have been trying to maintain and keep restricted to genuine issues which are regarded as Cause célèbres. I understand some people do not like the term, but it is a well-known French phrase used in English.

Today, without any discussion with me (or anyone else), Postdlf and Kbdank71 speedily deleted all three subcategories and the new parent category under the criteria of recreation of previous deleted material. I am seeking consensus as to whether this actually does meet the criteria of being "substantially identical" to that which was deleted, given that I was specifically trying to overcome the criticism of vagueness. My position is that a new CfD debate should be held in order to gain community consensus and that the deletions were out of process. David | Talk 23:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I took this up on the Administrator's Noticeboard because it seemed to me to be a clear case of a misuse of admin powers. I note the speedy deleting admin User:Postdlf here makes clear his view on the content - admin powers should not be used for content disputes. However since it has been moved here, I will follow through this process. My vote is therefore for overturn and list on WP:CFD to enable the issues to be debated afresh. David | Talk 00:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Proper CFD, followed by a proper and unsuccessful DRV, and subsequently proper CSD. As I have also discussed at length on my talk page, I find Dbiv's position without merit that the recreation of Category:Causes célèbres was not in fact a recreation of the category that was voted for deletion here and failed undeletion, also on his nomination, here. The identical category names are not coincidental because both are centered around the concept defined at Causes célèbres, and therefore more than "substantially identical" as required for speedy deletion under CSD #4 (general). Adding the vague and arbitrary qualifiers under Category:Legal causes célèbres, Category:Social causes célèbres, and Category:Political causes célèbres have done nothing to truly differentiate these from Category:Causes célèbres, as the category description of something "raising legal issues which became Causes célèbres" (or "social issues", etc) clearly indicates. Fooian X is not different from X when all members are obviously Xs, and especially if all Xs are probably Fooian to begin with (what doesn't "raise" social, legal, and political "issues" that people have called causes célèbres?). These are substantially identical to the parent, and hence also covered by the deletion decision. Dbiv's attempt to characterize my position on this as a mere content dispute is disingenuous. Postdlf 00:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
It has always been the case that if problems identified in a deletion debate can be solved, then it is not necessary to go to Deletion Review to start the new article - one simply reads be bold and creates the new article. This was a good faith attempt to solve the problems and help users by creating a new category. Postdlf's reasoning for why the categories should not be created is his honest view about the content of the categories. If it is his position that this is not a content dispute, then why raise it? And if it isn't a content dispute, ought I to take further the issue of his questionable use of admin powers of speedy deletion? Well I for one don't want to, so let us settle this fairly in CFD. David | Talk 00:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
For the record, Kbdank71 speedy deleted the categories, not I, so you might want to wait for his rationale before you call that "use of admin powers" "questionable." My own "honest view about the content of the categories" is that the content was "substantially identical" to the one that was deleted by consensus, which is why I pointed them out to him in the first place. Postdlf 00:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Have the articles been removed from the categories? If not, I'd like to temporarily undelete the categories so we can navigate them and work out whether they're useful. In principle I cannot think of a good reason for deleting such categories--for instance I'd expect to see items as diverse as Watergate, Dreyfus, Saccho and Vanzetti, the Birmingham Six and whatnot linked by such categories because of the massive and prolonged public controversies that they raised. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete per Tony and Dbiv. By all means permit the community to re-examine the matter. Mackensen (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, we have another VexLit. Seriously though, this category cannot be described in an objective way, as obviously stated in the deletion debate. Radiant_>|< 00:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The claims of admin abuse and the threats of RfCs are so far off target, I'm slightly shocked. The admin(s) speedied a recreation, a perfectly reasonable, non-abusive thing to do. That you wish they hadn't doesn't make them abusive. No opinion on the category, except to observe it should probably be categorised within itself now. -Splash 01:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

OpenGCL

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/OpenGCL

This GIS Software tool is quite unique in that it is entirely written in Java and for Java, and is the first GIS software that has the full functionality of much more expensive, more famous software.

It is listed and reviewed in various magazines, and is being used by the Government of Canada.

This was deleted even though it was simply in need of more expansion. I move that it be undeleted.

Drini, an overzealous admin, noticed that my username was blocked, and decided that it was the end of my articles.

My username has subsequently been unblocked, and I move that OpenGCL be allowed to prove its notability, as well as be able to expand on the article.

OpenInfo 22:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Projectplace (software)

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Projectplace (software)

Projectplace is the biggest online project management tool in Europe. The page was deleted for the reasons:

  • gets lots of Google hits (?)
  • Seems commercial
  • no difference from other PM software

I think all of these reasons are invalid for this page. Getting a lot of Google hits doesn't mean it shouldn't be in Misplaced Pages? There are fundamental differences between the product in this page and other PM packages (ASP, integrated with different modules, did you even bother to LOOK at the page?). The page was not commercial (I wrote the first version and I'm not a sales guy for this company), it was barely describing what was possible with the service. Just like the page about MS Project and other PM software pages in Misplaced Pages. In later versions the page could have user reviews and screenshots.

--Zpeed 10:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • undelete and relist on afd. Only three contributors to original debate, claims of notability do seem genuine. I think it deserves a wider hearing. Thryduulf 12:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just to clarify, Kappa made the comment about "lots of Google hits" as justification for his removal of the speedy-delete tag and his decision to move the discussion over to the full AFD process. He did not make that comment as a justification for deletion. In fact, as far as I can tell, he deliberately abstained from the decision. Rossami (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I read over that Google hits comment in the "discussion", it seems that it was a contra argument, instead of an argument for removal. It's a valid and pretty big online service that shouldn't be removed from listing I think.

--Zpeed 17:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse We do assume people looked at the page. As for "Projectplace is the biggest online project management tool in Europe" could you please provide a WP:CITE for that? Otherwise there seems to be no reason to run through this again as the arguments do not seem new. WhiteNight 18:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse unless someone has a better cited assertion of notability. Also, one should generally not write articles about things you're personally involved with. Radiant_>|< 18:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. I really suspect an error here. The deletion debate seems to have proceeded without one single person involved visiting the website of the company and noticing that they claim to have as their customers names like Atos Origin, Capgemini, Fujitsu Siemens Computers, SAS Institute, and Toshiba. Are they lying? Possibly, but if so this can be investigated and the article nominated for deletion on that basis. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Company sales literature about customer-base is a notoriously unreliable guage of anything. They can truthfully list Capgemini as a customer if a single branch office buys a copy. It provides no reliable evidence of degree of penetration, market share or influence. I'm open to relisting if reliable new evidence is presented. However, the company's own sales literature is not sufficient for me to overturn an AFD decision. I see no evidence that the participants of the first discussion failed to do their due diligence. Endorse closure for now, at least. Rossami (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh I thought you were heavily into process? It really would be nice to see people actually engaged in the process known as research. It's used by London Borough of Camden, estimated population 210,0000 (ONS, 2003) for workplace communications. BP Upstream in Abderdeen used the product to coordinate the bid process for the Clair Oilfield. West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust is using the service to construct the business case for a £323M hospital refurbishment. Those are just three examples I found. I couldn't give a toss what its market penetration is, but if you've got a company with this kind of customer doing this kind of thing there is probably something to write about. All the rest is just fetishization of statistics. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
        • The catering company that I at one stage ran out of my home kitchen had some big clients, too. Ones that justifiably have articles on wikipedia. I suppose I could put that up on a website, and it would in fact be verifiable, if with difficulty. Do I really need to deconstruct this straw man any further? Endorse closure with, as usual, no prejudice to a brand new article being written. By the way, that's actually brand new, not just with "USO" tagged onto one paragraph. - brenneman 02:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
        • That doesn't make any sense. Did any of these big clients use you for all their catering needs, as Camden uses this company for its workplace communication? Did they use your catering company's services directly in making important strategic decisions, as West Hertfordshire NHS Trust and BP Upstream did? If not, then I don't see how your catering company can be compared to this admittedly small company. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I am a strong supporter of process. I also have content knowledge in the area of evaluating (and writing) sales literature for technology consulting companies. I notice that you are basing your analysis solely on the company's self-reported case studies. Their own sales literature fails to convince me, although a careful reading does provide some perspective. Let's take BP's Clair project for example. This tool was used by a group of 150 people. BP's workforce is well over 10,000. This was hardly an enterprise-wide deployment. In fact, the case study itself describes it as "a trial". To call it a strategic initiative is generous - the sort of fluff I'd expect in sales literature but would never rely upon. Interestingly, the last date listed in the case study was 2000. Five+ years later, they don't say that the tool has been deployed any wider than the first pilot. Is that a failure to update the website or evidence that this was a one-off test by BP? Just looking at the company's own website, we can't know.
            Looking at the Camden case study, you are correct that Camden has a population above 200k. That is, however, irrelevant since this tool is not used by the general population - it was used by the Council and more specifically, only that portion of the Council employees involved in their IT upgrade. Given their size and budget, I'd estimate the usage to be in the dozens, maximum. And by the way, it supplemented, not replaced their existing communications tools. Again, hardly a strategic decision. The other case studies on the company's website are equally unhelpful. They provide nothing verifiable.
            So let's look at the usual independent researchers in this space. Neither Gartner Group nor Forrester Research have published anything on them. They show up in none of the Project Management trade journals that I generally follow. If there is any independent coverage, it's at such a low level that I can't find it. No change of vote. (Apologies for the long-winded rebuttal.) Rossami (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This seems kind of silly. This is obviously a big company, or a massive, complex, multi-year corporate scam, and either way worthy of coverage. Out of curiosity, I looked around for some sort of "credible" confirmation of the claims on their site. Here's something, a press release on a joint venture with "TietoEnator ... one of the leading architects in building a more efficient information society. With close to 15 000 experts and annual net sales about EUR 1.5 billion, we are the largest IT services company in the Nordic countries": TietoEnator and Projectplace announce joint solution for distributed projects TietoEnator Corporation Press release 25 May 2004 10.00 am, from the TietoEnator web site. Then again, maybe TietoEnator should be an AfD candidate as well... --Tsavage 04:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Part of the problem is that you're fundementally misunderstanding the purpose of this page. Write a shiny new article, complete with citation demonstrating notability from reputable sources and there is no drama. Then you can probably get a history undeletion as well. - brenneman 05:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not obvious at all that this is a big company. Large, well-known companies enter "strategic partnerships" all the time with small shops. Usually, it's a sales ploy - a way to get some mutual advertising. The size of TietoEnator is irrelevant. Projectplace's 2004 annual report, however, lists them at a mere 46.3 million SEK (approx $6 million) and 34 employees. Rossami (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Teagames

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Teagames

Some of the voting was mixed up with Teacon, which is just a convention for Teagames. Two of the delete votes were especially for Teacon. Teacon should stay deleted. However Teagames gets a high Alexa rank of 2,736 and seems popular on google -- Astrokey44|talk 04:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Alexa rank is quite high, I support undeletion.  ALKIVAR™ 17:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Looking at the article content (or rather, shortage thereof), I can understand why people wanted to delete it. However, if you can do better than that, by all means do it (and undelete if you need that info). Also, please redirect Teacon to Teagames, and add a section on the con. Radiant_>|< 17:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll temporarily undelete this for the purpose of cleanup if requested. There seems to be no problem here that couldn't be dealt with by a little cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and cleanup with a chainsaw - per nomination and Alexa rank. FCYTravis 08:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm. On the one hand, DRV is strictly only to do undeletions where due process was not followed, or someone miscounted the votes etc., or new information is provided. On the other hand, it would appear that the site meets WP:WEB. My original vote to delete was based partially on Dmnkn1ght's comment which made it appear very non-notable.
    On the other hand, I think I'm going to ignore that for the moment, particularly because lumping Teacon in with Teagames did cause a bit of confusion, and vote for a cautious overturn and undelete, on condition that WhiteNight or AstroKey44 will go and clean it up. Stifle 08:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

NATARS

The article was speedied for being nonsense (and, I suspect, for being only one sentence long). I am not the author of this article, but I inserted a {{hangon}} template while I checked to see whether the article was a stub written in a foreign language. In spite of the template insertion, the page was deleted. It appears to have been written in Persian. I can't say exactly what the page contained, but it does not appear to be patent nonsense, and should at least have been reviewed or waited on to see whether the author was going to add more, or to translate. Request to undelete and list on AfD. -- MatthewDBA 19:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh, come on. The entire article consisted of four words, one of which was the title word. Is it really worth the futile ceremony of an AfD for a four-word article? For what it's worth, I think "natars" means something like romance or love. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, actually. I was probably just annoyed that someone had deleted it while I was checking to see if it could have been the start of something legitimate. It's not that big a deal for me. -- MatthewDBA 19:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's in Farsi. Probably not that important. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, it does seem to be. In the original script it's...

عاشق ...and I'm almost certain it means either love, romance, affection, or something like that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-18

Ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny

I believe that this flash validates a page. That is exactly why I use Misplaced Pages. It has articles on virtually everything. Yes the flash is kind of stupid, but I saw it and wanted to know more about it. Again, the whole purpose of an encylopedia. The flash can be seen here. Please consider undeleting it. schyler 01:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The flash is becoming to widely popular, and there a lot of things to be said about it... ah hell... it'd just be cool if it had an article. It has Chuck Norris. You must comply. -supercubedude

I believe the song on itself isn' entitled to an article; put it with Neil's main artical, okay? Kobayen 00:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that there are several people who have requested it to be undeleted, I believe someone with sysop rights should now restore it, or, like kobayen said, create a section on it on the page of it's author.schyler 13:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Article was never deleted. Instead the article was changed to a redirect. --Allen3  13:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • the article was made a redirect but the page it is redirected to has no information on it at all.schyler 22:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That's an issue to be sorted out on the respective Talk pages (and, if necessary, through the Request for Comment process). The Deletion Review process has no jurisdiction over or special capabilities to sort out that kind of editorial decision. Neither the page nor the content were ever deleted. Rossami (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
      • How can it be said that the article's content was never deleted? The page was completely changed from a respectable wikipedia page to a redirect. Somewhat different, I think. schyler 03:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
        • In the Misplaced Pages Deletion policy and related pages, we use the word "deletion" only describe the act of removing content from the edit history. If you can go to the article's history tab and roll back to the prior version, then it's not "deletion" as we use that word. What happened here was an editorial decision to be sorted out on Talk. Rossami (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Digging through the list of redirects to Neil Cicierega, it appears that there are three possible articles that you might be referring to:
    1. Ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny — has never been deleted.
    2. Ultimate showdown — An AfD was opened on this article on January 2 and the article was changed to a redirect to The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny in the middle of the AfD.
    3. The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny — This article was deleted on January 9 as a result of the AfD for Ultimate showdown (closing admin apparently did not spot the redirect). Article has been recreated and deleted several times, most recently due to a copyright violation.
Undelete most recent non-copyvio version of The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny and AfD. Due to the creation of the redirect in the middle of the AfD for Ultimate showdown, it is not clear which specific article comments in the AfD were meant for. The redirects should also be pointed to the undeleted article in a hope that this mess will not be repeated. --Allen3  04:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Title Neutrality and Misplaced Pages:Conspiracy theory titles

After 3 months of work by editors on both sides of the issue this proposal was illegitimately speedy deleted just as voting was beginning, first at Misplaced Pages:Title Neutrality, then at Misplaced Pages:Conspiracy theory titles. Moving a proposal to userspace is equivalent to a deletion and should be reviewed. The deleters have and likely will falsely claim the proposal failed twice. zen master T 20:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Response Comment: That is untrue for multiple reasons. The voting on version 2.0 of the proposal at Misplaced Pages talk:Title Neutrality was speedy deleted along with everything else, so it's inaccurate to say the proposal was voted on. Also, since the proposal was significantly updated resubmittal is allowed, especially since this is 6.5 months after version 1.0 voting closed. The challenge to defend the phrase "conspiracy theory" from a charge of being non-neutral remains unresponded to. zen master T 20:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

aladin

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aladin (2nd nomination)

This is an unusual case. The vote was closed "keep, no consensus". But some editors keep turning the article into a redirect to a completely different topic. This effectively means that the topic in question is being deleted against the closing decision. The closing admin refuses to recognize the problem. See also my suggestion in Misplaced Pages talk:Deletion policy#"Redirect" option. There is a hole in the policy no one wants to discuss. Mukadderat 18:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the statement "The closing admin refuses to recognize the problem." is complete deception, as the closing admin saw what you were saying but pointed out to you that it was against policy and all common sense. People voting "keep" to preserve the page history and the talk page comments but specifically wanting the page redirected cannot by any sane, honest description be called votes to preserve the article as is. The clear consensus was to get rid of the article itself but keep the talk page and history, which is something that happens on articles ALL THE TIME. It sucks that you can come here and totally misrepresent events and get some people here to discuss the issue without knowing full details or looking into them. I have redirect thr page again. Stop ignoring the clear consensus of the voters and trying to pull in people with no knowledge of the events. DreamGuy 00:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No action redirect targeting is not an issue for Deletion Review as it isn't really deletion. In this case, the redirect sounds reasonable to me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    Please explain how a redirect to a totally different topic, with absolutely no common content may sound reasonable? Did you take a look into Misplaced Pages talk:Deletion policy#"Redirect" option? Mukadderat 19:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    Simply put, because the vast majority of people who type "aladin" in as a search phrase are actually looking for "Aladdin". Therefore, it is a useful redirect. However, there's nothing at all stopping you from making aladin (magician) or something similar, and then linking to it from the Aladdin disambiguation page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Concur with Andrew. Radiant_>|< 20:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can we please stop misspelling "Aladdin" here? -- nae'blis (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comment: I'm not sure the article is worth bringing back, partly because of the hijinks on the talk page, but it is disingenuous to say that redirecting aladin (magician) to Aladdin is not the same as a straight keep. Maybe the proponents should start a new article per Andrew and try to establish something encyclopedic there. (probably for GFDL that means we should Move the current article there, establish history, and then create the spelling-based redirect at the old name). -- nae'blis (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I would favor a move to aladin (magician), with the redir going to either Aladdin (with a proper "otheruses" hatnote), or to Aladdin (disambiguation). DES 21:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment They're two different things, in the way of Aladdin and Aladin... I'm too tired to bother with a third vote, or to convey that point so I'll leave it to other more determined people to do the job. I must highlight though, that this article is the target of a personal vendetta by a group of friends. Either way, I think it's obvious where my opinion lies in this snafu... --RBlowes 22:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please not that on the discussion on the talk page and on the vote for deletion, there wsa CLEAR CLEAR copnsensus that the article should be redirected, but that the talk page and edit history should be preserved and therefore not deleted. If it weren;t for the vote for redirecting it would have been deleted outright. Redirecting is just doing what the editors there decided. Moving the article does not in any way go along with what the editors involved decided. The comments above show only a cursory glance at the article and no understanding of the reasons for the vote. One person here deciding to move it in no way validates going against the consensus of those involved. I have restored the redirect, undoing that, as DES has done is sheer cowboyism without any knowledge of the long history of the article and the decisions that were made. DreamGuy 23:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    And a wheel war is supposed to help clarify this? There was no consensus in the second AfD, therefore your references to some sort of holy decision from on high are unwarranted. The redirect 'decision' sidesteps the fact that there are two different folks being discussed here. -- nae'blis (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    I note that the article aladin (magician) article now redirects to Aladdin (disambiguation), making the link to same on the disambiguation page kinda pointless, yes? Wouldn't it be better to leave the content at aladin (magician), have "aladin" redirect to either Aladdin or Aladdin (disambiguation), and then have a VfD for "aladin (magician)" if the content is still objectionable? Powers 00:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    I think that would be sensible, but DreamGuy has now restored the redir after my reversion. i don't want to get into a revert war or a wheel war. I don't think the consensus is as clear as he contends. But perhaps i am wrong DES 00:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • (after edit conflict) I have been following this matter for some time, i have read the AfD, and the talk page in full. I shouldn't have used the roll-back button, i apologize for that, but not for reverting. IMO there was NOT clear consensus for simply convertign this to a redirect,a dn there surely is not now. Please etiehr let the separate page stand, or take it back to AfD for a decission on whether the current content should remain. I object to the comments above about "no understanding of the reasons" show a failure to assume good faith, IMO -- but perhaps my reversion did also, although i did discuss the amtter on the talk page, and here and on DG's talk page at once. DES 00:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't a deletion question. Sort it out by obtaining consensus on the talk page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

SuperOffice and Tally Solutions Ltd

Old AFD here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/SuperOffice. Unilaterally undeleted by Tony Sidaway; if he can't be bothered to bring it here I guess I'll have to do it for him. If it's as obvious a keep as he seems to think it is, he shouldn't have any trouble getting a majority in favor of undeletion. No vote from me. -R. fiend 04:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse closure (re-delete as re-created content). The article is unchanged from the version which was discussed in the AFD. Merely being a publicly traded company is not one of our generally accepted inclusion standards. No new evidence has been presented to justify overturning the AFD decision. Rossami (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Rossami. One can always rewrite the article so it doesn't qualify as a substantail recreation with new sources if the subject warrants. WhiteNight 04:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I have redeleted this article and blocked Tony Sidaway for unilaterally undeleting this article out of process twice. I will abstain from this DRV debate otherwise. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've added Tally (accounting). See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tally (accounting). - brenneman 08:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Rossami. Proper work from here as ever. Strongly endorse Sjakkalle. About time someone had the balls to show that consensus counts. Grace Note 08:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore SuperOffice. Sidaway claims that SuperOffice had sales of 30 million Euros and the article states it has 11,000 customers, as does their website. . I wasn't able to dig up as much on Tally and all I see is a redirect anyway, so Keep Deleted on that one.--MONGO 09:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • reluctantly restore as bad-faith nom and apparent failure of diligence in AfD, since both assert significant (90% of Indian SME market, if that can be verified; 11,000 customers ditto). Very tempting to endorse, mind, since there was 100% consensus to delete, but with only three votes in both cases and at least some assertion of notability I suspect I would have relisted rather than closing. This should not be interpreted as endorsing Tony Sidaway's unilateral undeletion, which I think sets an extremely bad precedent and is just begging for a whole new round of wheel wars, but this is about the articles not about Tony. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 10:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I understand they've been rewritten, so relist on AFD. If there is a consensus to delete them again, they should be protected, though. -R. fiend 14:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • relist per R. fiend, and if possible, could the originals from before the AFD be posted somewhere for comparison? Note that Tony says he rewrote at least one of the articles between the AFD and the actual deletion, so I'd look for a copy dated on or before the AFD was opened. InkSplotch 15:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Alright, I have, with some doubts, restored the histories. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: When I first saw this, I compared the deleted version (dated 05:32, 9 January 2006) against the then-current version (dated 16:40, 17 January 2006). Since the history has now been restored (I hope only temporarily), it can be reviewed here. The "rewrite" consisted of the removal of the AFD template and the addition of the words "as SOU" in the last paragraph. Since then, the text has been rewritten but not, in my opinion, in a way that meaningfully addresses the concerns raised in the AFD discussion. I still don't see any new evidence that this company meets the recommended criteria at WP:CORP. Rossami (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's true that the SuperOffice required no rewrite; I've no idea why it was deleted in the first place. The version of the Tally article that was deleted by Sjakkalle, however, was substantially my own material. It's possible that that article was only originally deleted because nobody who read the AfD did any research. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep rewritten articles, notable. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 18:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure (admin was right to delete) and keep undeleted (Tony was right to undelete). Question entire DRV (and AFD) process, as no review was necessary. If In Doubt, Don't Delete, WP:NOT a bureaucracy Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore and if need be relist. I agree with JZG (and folks, please read about 24SevenOffice for some necessary perspective). --kingboyk 23:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure and keep deleted. I note Tony Sidaway's inconsistency in arguing elsewhere for "absolute harshness" in upholding policies he favors, while showing absolute disdain for the ones he doesn't like. SlimVirgin 02:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist the close was obviously acceptable but the bad faith allegations have some legs, plus they are rewritten, so I'd say just to relist them, possibly even relist with the previous comments. I also agree with R. fiend, as always. WhiteNight 04:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. Nandesuka 05:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist. Sure, let Tony's versions have a chance at AfD despite his heavy-handed methods of getting to this point. It's not obvious to me whether we should have an article on a company with 185 employees but I'm willing to hear arguments either way. - Haukur 13:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist I don't like the way thsi was handled, adn i am far from convinced of the celar notability of the subjects. But with only three votes on the AfD (even though all three were to delete) and with at least soem evidence of notability presented above that was not discussed on teh AfD, relist for incresed discussion and hopefully broader consensus. DES 17:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. Seriously you want to keep every article on a company with 180 employees? If we only considered 500 million people in the workforce in world and averaged it that would mean 3 million articles on companies. I don't think there are quite that many, but keeping based on this is weak anyway. - Taxman 18:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • KD and whack Tony with a wet trout. Second Slim's remark about his blatant double standards. Radiant_>|< 18:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • And I'll third that. In fact, I'm considering changing my vote; if Tony can't even defend these articles here I see no compelling reason to give these another go. I'm assuming as much good faith as I can (about the merit of these articles, not Tony's undeletions of them). There's a good chance I'll just vote to delete them on the second AFD anyway. -R. fiend 18:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Does that threat read "Either you come here and participate in our broken process or we will damage the encyclopedia?" That's how I read it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
        • No, I'm just not convinced a company with less than 200 people is notable, but I'm willing to give it another go on AFD, as of now. I just resent Tony's assertion that everything he does is so fucking beneficial to the encyclopedia that he can ignore the consensus whenever he pleases. Deleting an article on some random company isn't going to damage anything. If he wanted them undeleted, he should have brought them here; he participates in this "broken" process often enough. I did it for him when I could have just redeleted the articles and blocked him (as another user did). I assumd he'd at least try to make a case for why these should be kept, but it doesn't seem as worthwhile to him, so maybe the whole point of his actions was just to be a dick. I don't know. -R. fiend 20:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
        • On whether a company with X number of employees can be notable, the answer is "yes" and this is especially true of software companies, and Apple Computer famously made computing history with a few friends in bedrooms and garage space. But SuperOffice isn't just one man and his dog, and it has a public listing so we know its turnover, market capitalization, expenditure and profits, which are all reasonable. Somebody hearing about this company or its products may want some neutral information about them. Gosh, here's an idea, why not put that information into an encyclopedia! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist per DES --- Charles Stewart 18:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh two obvious keeps. There seems to be a lot of moaning on this discussion but we've got two companies, one listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange and having half a dozen European national branches and a couple of wholly owned subsidiaries, and the other with half a dozen prestigious customers in India and its products widely used in the UK and the middle east. The articles shouldn't have been deleted and the moaning seems to be largely due to the fact that I didn't think I needed DRV to tell me that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there some reason that almost no one stating an opinion here is piping up at the respective AfDs? Not that this is a call to arms, but if these are kept because we're a bit lazy, than this will be seen a de facto justification for these antics. Please do get over there, have a look at the articles, and speak your mind. Keep, merge, burn with fire, whatever but let's not be apathetic. - brenneman 05:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-17

Chiens Sans Frontiers

Afded as part of the User:Timecop/The_war_on_blogs - however, it was speedily deleted after less than a day on afd as "unverifiable blogcruft", which last time I checked wasn't as CSD criteria. Also, there was a keep and merge (mine being the merge) opinion in the debate as well. WhiteNight 22:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree - with speedy undeletion based on faulty CSD, relisting on AfD, and deletion as unverifiable blogcruft :-) Should we close this? Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 11:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What a waste of time. This is obviously not going to survive an afd - recreating it is just nonsense process protection. If the admin has made a mistake, correct him for the future. If he's unrepentent then go to ANI, RfC etc. DON'T recreate rubbish to make your point. Adding something to wikipedia, which you know doesn't belong there is just plain vandalism, whatever the motives. --Doc 11:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I have a couple of problems with that statement. For one, the blog is varafiable to a small extent as The Guardian (alexa 330) mentioned it specifically as a blog during the tsunami events here, and there could very well be useful information from someone in the debate - maybe not enough to keep the article but more on the article itself, perhaps. Second, if I wasn't interested in process I would have just undeleted it myself - but I like to think what I did here was the responsable thing. Anyway, I thank Splash for his due diligence as always. WhiteNight 11:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • At the time I reopened the AfD, there were already 3 non-deletes in the debate, from editors who did not appear to be on either side of the war on blogs and who were making decent points. The article was not a speedy, and its deletion, even before coming here, was not unchallenged. That's why I restored it. I'm afraid I do not agree that my restoration was vandalism. -Splash 13:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, over-reacted. Not vandalism, I just don't things should be restored unless the restorer genuinely believes that the item belongs in an encyclopedia. Protect process, but not at the expense of product. If the thing is worthy, someone else will restore it. --Doc 18:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


Linked pages from Crooked Timber

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

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

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

Henry Farrell (political scientist)

Eszter Hargittai

John Holbo

Tom Runnacles

Micah Schwartzman

Belle Waring

JQ 08:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  • Endorse speedies. These were all speedy deleted under criteria A7 (Unremarkable people or groups). Being a college professor who happens to contribute to a web log is not usually considered a claim of notability. If any of the individuals meet the guidelines at WP:BIO, there is nothing preventing recreation of these articles. --Allen3  16:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorese speedies In the versions just prior to deletion, all look like valid WP:CSDA7 (nn-bio) deletions. Each stated the person'd profession, in soem cases the person's research intersts, adn that the person contributed to this blog and in some cases to other blogs. Contributign to a blog, even a notable blog, as not in itself a claim of notability, IMO. Neither is being an academing in a particualr field, nor a lawyer, nor a journalist. if any of these people have doen soemthing notable, or are notable for some other reason, recreate the article about that person with that info included -- preferably sourced. If anyone wants to do that an needs the text of one the above deleted stubs (and they all were stubs) I'll be glad to put a copy in anyone's userspace. DES 17:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I knew of Henry Farrell before I heard of Crooked Timber: I have a feeling there may be a case for his notability. John Quiggin is a name as a left-leaning Australian economist: I think an articlke on him would have a good chance of surviving an AfD. I'll do a spot more research, and see what I can dig up. --- --- Charles Stewart 18:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - A couple of observations: The articles in question were all created in response to redlinks on the original CT article. Is there some sort of procedure to warn people against doing this when the result is likely to be deletion? Second, the criteria proposed here seem to be inconsistent with common Misplaced Pages practice in relation to both group and individual blogs, see for example Volokh Conspiracy, and numerous individual bloggers listed in addition to their blogs. (BTW, I hope this observation doesn't lead to further deletions in the interests of consistency) JQ 04:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Holy Father

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

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

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

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

Comment: since the article exists, I don't think deletion review is the right place. For what it's worth I think it should be a disambiguation page, to God and Pope, since it is used to mean either (depending on which church you belong to). - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 11:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I quote TCC from Talk:Holy Father, "The redirect was discussed in the AfD, and this has not expired as you seem to think. It's you who should discuss the issue before replacing content. It's an important subject to me only because I've gotten involved. It wasn't before. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)". Seems like TCC is being spiteful and redirecting spitefully. Tony Sidaway or any administrator, please clear this up for us. Are we allowed to take out the redirect now? --jeolmeun 01:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I would like to add that critics of the article were saying the title is usually (if not mostly) used for the rcc's pope, but according to the cia, religions in the usa are "Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)". Also, when the AfD took place, someone mentioned the article was like a "dicdef", but the AfD took place after an "anonymous" user stripped the article. --jeolmeun 01:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Update: User:Musical_Linguist, ("is fully (and joyfully) obedient to Pope Benedict XVI"), reverted the article to redirect to the rcc's pope's article without participating in the discussion of the article. Csernica and brenneman seem to have a group of rc patrollers. If I revert against them, would my reverts count towrds a 3RR? --jeolmeun 01:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • My obedience to Pope Benedict is not relevant to this discussion. I reverted because the edit history seemed to show that the articles for deletion decision was to redirect to Pope, and that Jeolmeun was going against consensus. And yes, Jeolmeun, your reverts are in violation of WP:3RR. You've already broken it. I'm not going to block you, but someone else may. You might like to take advantage of the opportunity to revert yourself in order to avoid this. AnnH 01:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-16

2120s and 2140s

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

24SevenOffice

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

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

  • Note that all of these pages (many of which you will notice have been deleted) are either software products or software companies, the same as 24SevenOffice. Note that User:Sleepyhead81 added a note to his/her userpage on August 10th in which he/she identified himself/herself as an employee of 24SevenOffice . Note that User:Sleepyhead81's history of nominating articles for deletion was minimal until 24SevenOffice was nominated for AFD a second time, after which all of the above listed nominations were made. Almost as if User:Sleepyhead81 was motivated by something other than pure altruism and a desire to improve Misplaced Pages. Note that earlier today, User:Sleepyhead81 removed the statement identifying himself/herself as an employee of 24SevenOffice from his/her userpage, shortly after listing 24SevenOffice here on DRV . Perhaps he/she is no longer with the company, but still feels like the company deserves a Misplaced Pages article. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 11:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. No new information is being presented. This is a small company with no evidence of significance, was added to various articles pparently asserting parity with salesforce.com and Google Earth among others (which is patently absurd). Was stated to meet WP:CORP as being used to calculate a market index; this claim was false as it is a whole-market index. Was asserted to meet WP:CORP on the basis of press coverage; this was false as the press coverage was a press release. Is now asserted to meet WP:CORP on the basis of the Syndey Morning Herald article, but that is simply a namecheck (and notes that there are around 12,000 similar companies). Nominator and article author is associated with the company (always a bad idea). I see no evidence of process irregularity. Motives for creating the article have been questioned, whether fairly or not (e.g. Personally I don't really care about the article itself, but I'm sick of having to revert the addition of a link to this article into other articles where it doesn't belong. As far as I can see, the authors worked out that a link to their homepage would survive a lot longer if they wrapped an article around it., Rufous (talk · contribs)). Unless an independent party wishes to challenge this I see no merit in reopening a debate which ended in clear consensus. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 11:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The list of articles that i nominated for deletion is a way to show the inconsistance of votes in regards to which articles are kept and which ones are deleted. Centraview is a perfect example of this. JzG's vote was based on an article on a website called vnunet.com where CentraView is listed as an example of an open source application. But an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, which is a much more respectable source than vnunet.com, is not a reason for the 24SevenOffice article to be kept according to JzG. I find that the vote here does not reflect the facts presented in this case. Whether the 24SevenOffice article should be kept should be based on the notability of 24SevenOffice in the same as CentraView and others alike. Not based on my relation to 24SevenOffice, my edits or any others subjective votes in regards to the article. Other contributors can edit the article. I really feel that votes in deletion debates are based on whether people like the article or not. Thus open source projects, linux based software and other projects who share characteristics with Misplaced Pages are always kept while commerical products are always deleted. Advertising applies just as much to open source projects as they do with products. Also in regards to the CentraView debate there was three votes for delete and two for keep. The keep votes was JzG reason as above and the other for 'being open source'. --Sleepyhead 14:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I suspect it was listed for deletion because as a "Company with revenues of around $1m and 30 employees - well below the levels in WP:CORP" the nominator (that would be me) thought it might be spam, especially given the creator's linkspamming of the article, combined with their acknowledged employment by the subject company. No evidence was presented of it meeting a single one of the categories in WP:CORP, and although that is not policy, it is a reasonable benchmark of whether a company will gain enough reliable independent third-party coverage to enable the community to verify both the content and the neutrality of its presentation. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 21:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm taking the liberty of undeleting one of two of the other articles because their deletion was silly. Tally (accounting) is about a well established Indian company with numerous major clients in its native country and representation as far afield as the UK, and SuperOffice is a public listed company with a turnover of around Euro 30m . --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Funny, I didn't see it either, so I've re-deleted them. If someone wants an article undeleted isn't there some sort of page for listing such things? I could have sworn there was some sort of deletion review process; I wonder where I could find it? -R. fiend 23:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-15

Michael E. Berumen

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michael E. Berumen

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

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

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

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

2006-01-14

Circumcision fetish

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

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

Further info,

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

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

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

2006-01-13

Template:User allow fairuse

TFD discussion

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

  • Keep deleted. What the deleting admin did was he subsituted the template in the userspace, so those who wish to use the template still can, but not in the actual template name space. Zach 23:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted - but as this one raised some pseudolegal questions, I'd say if you want to push it for undeletion, get onto Jimbo and ask. BigStabbyStick 23:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I endorse the decision of the person who closed it (note that I was the person who deleted the template based on his decision). While the percentage of people voting was somewhat less than what is normally considered a rough consensus, discussions aren't votes, and I feel that the people who voted delete generally made more persuasive arguments than those that voted keep. JYolkowski // talk 23:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. This template does not help us make an encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 23:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Alot of users don't help us make an encyclopedia either, that doesn't mean we just delete them. Karmafist 02:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Let it stay dead and delete anything similar. It advocates something that would expose the Foundation, for reasons that do not help the encyclopedia in any way. If editors want to break the law, they should find a web host and try to persuade the host company to permit them to do so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Closing admin has discretion. He had justification, in my opinion, to discount many keep votes that were not well-reasoned—but at the same time, he probably ought to have explained his decision better. -- SCZenz 00:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Undelete Final vote was 51-36, 58% for deletion, which I doubt meets anyone's threshold for consensus unless you're in a Democracy, which we're not. Add to that the resounding amount of strawman WP:NLT and WP:CIVIL vios in terms of those who wished to delete this in the first place makes leaving this deleted into a precedent that bullying people with legal boogiemen is acceptable behavior. karmafist 00:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • overturn close This was nowhere near consensus. DES 00:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Per Tony Sidaway, and others. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted those who want this are still free to create it on their userpage. --Doc 01:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy and there was clear consensus to delete, despite raw mechanical vote counting. There's a reason we don't use bots to close deletion discussions. —Cryptic (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: It's pretty rare for Jimbo to get involved in a deletion dispute. He was the first person to delete it saying "we do not get to vote here on copyright law". Then 15 min later he restored it. Has anyone asked him for his reasoning? Was this discussed in some other channel? Rossami (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Once again I see that people are voting on the userbox and not the process under which it was deleted. There was no-consensus there - it does not matter how many people don't like the userbox here, that is not what we are supposed to discussing.--God of War 04:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - Process is here to help us write the encyclopedia. When process does not help us write the encyclopedia, it may be discarded. How many times does that have to be explained? WP:NOT a bureaucracy. FCYTravis 05:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted as per FCYTravis and others. Jtkiefer ---- 06:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Per FCYTravis and others. Also, consensus is not based on raw vote counts. Carbonite | Talk 16:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Still think this is a very strange thing for a userbox template. It's slightly like saying "This user would vote to give Misplaced Pages the right to sentence users to death" - all very well, but it would still be illegal. David | Talk 17:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure - sockpuppeteering aside, the userbox was a non-starter for the reasons Jimbo and others mentioned. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn Closing admin should have at least given a better explanation for their decision, given the size and activity of the discussion. Saying "rather weak thou" is ambiguous to me -- do they mean it was a close call on a simple vote count? If so, I'd certainly remind people that *fD is more than a simple vote count, and that even when it is a vote count, the rule is not generally a simply majority. Closers have a responsibility to explain their decision: since I do not think this was done here, overturn and relist. Turnstep 00:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete Yes, the viewpoint it expresses is retarded and is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages metapolicy and civil law. No, it doesn't matter what those expressing that viewpoint think. Undelete it anyway. Kurt Weber 06:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, we cannot vote on what the law requires of us. User:Zoe| 00:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, or overturn and Speedy Delete per WP:IAR. We don't vote on copyright policy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn closure and undelete - We shouldn't have this template, the keep case was stacked with lousy "templates are free expression" arguments, but that doesn't mean that we can misrepresent a no consensus as a consensus to delete. User:Nrcprm2026 counted 43 valid delete ballots against 34 to keep: we'd need to discount 12 keep votes to bend this into a delete consensus. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, but it is important to the smooth functioning of this site that administrative actions are conducted with the broad support of the wider WP community. We should wait a little, argue the case that these sorts of template are illegitimate on the userbox policy and resubmit a new TfD with a better prepared case. We should also look for evidence of poll-stacking. --- --- Charles Stewart 18:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and note who's eager to expose Misplaced Pages to financial harm ➥the Epopt 05:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. There appears to be broad enough support here. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Even if it is not - a vote can't change what is best for wikipedia. Trödel&#149;talk 02:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Weishampel exchange

speedied by User:Linuxbeak

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

  • Keep deleted certainly a neologism, likely also an attack/hoax. 0 Google hits. If nominator's research includes evidence to the contrary, feel free to share it with us. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Starblind. -- SCZenz 00:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Certainly a neologism and very likely a hoax but nothing in the versions I reviewed could be considered at "attack". I would definitely vote to delete this in a regular AFD but I can not endorse its speedy-deletion. Restore and immediately list on AFD for regular deletion. Yes, I know that Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy but we have to stop this inappropriate stretching of the speedy "attack" criterion. Rossami (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The talk page seemed to indicate that it was an attack on a college professor named Weishampel. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Don't use that as a criterion. That was wild speculation on my part. I mean, it's obvious the article was crap, especially given the number of times the year of creation was changed, but I've zero evidence it was a prank or an attack. Powers 03:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore and immediately list on AFD as per Rossami. Powers 04:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ick. KD per Andrew, unless somebody is able to cite a source on this. Radiant_>|< 02:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, Linuxbeak also protected the article from recreation. I can find no justification for that protection. Protection is generally reserved for those pages which have been repeatedly recreated and deleted. This article shows no such history. Nor do the participants here or on the Talk page show any such inclination to abuse the process. I am returning this to an unprotected redlink. Rossami (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, I would like to add that this was the subject of a letter to the Help Desk mailing list, in which the emailer contended that it was created as a joke. User:Zoe| 00:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. If this were a run-of-the-mill hoax neologism I would be with Rossami here because we should try to stay within the confines of WP:CSD. But this neologism has a sexual tone to it, and it seems to be made entirely with the intention of insulting someone named Weishampel. My suspicion is that it's made by schoolchildren being mean. I endorse deleting this speedily as vandalism. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn speedy and list on AfD. This is not in any sense an attack page. Speedy competely out-of-process. Whether it will pass AfD is another matter altogether. DES 22:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and take to AfD, as above. Speedy deletion of this article is evidently contentious, also speedy was per db-attack, which as far as I can tell it was not (even if the contents as deleted appears to be complete bollocks) - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 11:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Pussy_City_Pimps

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Pussy_City_Pimps

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

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

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

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

2006-01-12

Ninjah Pendragon

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

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

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

I have speedy deleted a template with the following words:

This user thinks the House of Saud should be overthrown

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

  • I'm not interested in the whole userbox theatrics thing, but I am wondering you delete first and then ask questions, rather than the other way around. It should be safe enough to presume that asking first will produce the same result. -Splash 16:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This is how speedy deletions are done. It is my opinion that attacks of this nature have no place on Misplaced Pages. You're welcome to object to this as policy, as we don't yet have any policy on this and I'm just taking action that I believe is necessary to safeguard the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
      • No, if we are sure a speedy is right, we don't have to ask questions afterwards. I've never listed my own speedies after deleting them, because if I knew I was going to do that, I'd have xfD'd them instead. Deletion review is not the forum for establishing a policy - the discussion running elsewhere is. If you believe the action is necessary, you don't need to come here (a forum you consider irrelevant, anyway) to make sure. Someone else need bring it here if (and only if) they would disagree with it. -Splash 17:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Not by a long shot is this "how speedy deletions are done". Normally they're just done and in the vast majority of cases there is no discussion on them here, certainly not inititated by the sysop performing the deletions. As I noted on your talk page, however, I do appreciate that bringing the issue up here gives it another audience than it would have on TfD. - Haukur 17:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I disagree (though as a non-admin, take it for what it's worth): Speedy deletions of 'attacks' are warranted, just as a review of them may be warranted. Tony's bringing his own deletions here for review is unorthodox, but if he didn't bring them here, you can bet there'd be screams of bloody murder from his opponents. Damned if you do, damned if you don't... -- nae'blis (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and don't speedy any more of these pending a clear policy on user boxes or a new CSD (which is under discusson). DES 16:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and nominate for deletion where I will happily vote to delete them. And continue work on expanding CSD to include stuff like this, which I also support. And continue work on deletion reform in general :) And try to have a dialogue with the users creating these templates and convince them that they should voluntarily refrain from creating them - stop pulling the rug from under their feet, there are enough bad feelings about this already. There is no emergency here which warrants taking action out of process. Nor is out-of-process action required to draw more attention to this issue - it has enough attention already and then some. - Haukur 17:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Would it be okay if someone created a template advocating the overthrow of the government of your country? It may be that you think that is an appropriate use of Misplaced Pages resources; I do not. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
      • It is an inappropriate use of Misplaced Pages resources and I support deleting templates like that. I just don't think this is an emergency which warrants out-of-process action. And I try to overthrow the government of my country every four years. No luck so far. - Haukur 17:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As others, Keep Undeleted, send to TFD, and quit trying to create new policy by fiat. Dragons flight 18:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree with Dragons flight's suggestion that making policy through action is unacceptable (see Tuesday's discussions for a good counter-example). I have undeleted these templates and edited one to remove the attack on the Nepal government, and sent the User against Saud one to tfd. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and list on TfD - I don't think that this is a good userbox, but it is not an attack directed at other editors, so I do not see the case for urgent action. I think that Tony's approach to userboxes is responsible, and is helping us find a middle ground. Pace Dragon's flight, making policy through action is the wiki spirit. --- Charles Stewart 19:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted all templates which disparage or criticize their subject. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted all attack templates. User:Zoe| 23:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and list on TfD if it hadn't been done already. This is not how things are done. Clearly there are reasonable differences of opinion, and thus speedy deletion is not applicable. Speedy deletion is for clear and unambigious deletions only. - brenneman 23:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: since the User against Saud entry has been moved to TfD and the other undeleted, shouldn't this debate be edited/closed? -- nae'blis (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Leave it undeleted. Does not meet any speedy criteria. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and inform tony of the tfd procedure.--God of War 20:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Tony and User:Zoe Trödel&#149;talk 02:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-11

LUEshi

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

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

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

Pedelec

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

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


Game Central Network

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thepcnerd 17:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


Ludvig Strigeus

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ludvig Strigeus

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

  • The nomination was made on 6 Jan. The delete votes were made on 6 and 7 Jan. The article was expanded on 8 Jan. The person who did the expansion was the only keep voter. The discussion was closed on 12 Jan. While many people had the opportunity to revisit the article and the discussion, apparently none chose to do so. Looking at the expanded article itself, I don't think that this person yet meets the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. I am inclined to endorse the closure (keep deleted) even though the nominator may be right that the original discussion paricipants may not have re-evaluated their decisions after the expansion. Note: This decision is without prejudice against re-creation if the subject of the article goes on to do more notable work and does eventually become eligible under our inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This may be a case where the nominator should simply recreate the *expanded* article, per policy, and be ready to defend it better when/if it gets renominated. Turnstep 17:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. The closer did not take into account the fact that the article was substantially improved and that no delete votes followed the expansion. The subject is the original developer of three reasonably famous pieces of software that have their own Misplaced Pages articles: MTorrent, ScummVM and OpenTTD. Thus the close was wrong on process and (most important) made the wrong decision for Misplaced Pages by deleting good content. I agree with Turnstep's proposal and if User:WP or anyone else makes a good faith request for a temporary undelete for that purpose I will grant it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Is every person who votes delete in the early stages of a discussion to be disenfranchised, or must they keep checking back on every article they've already reviewed on a daily basis to go back to the discussion and say, "Nope, despite the edits made since the last time, my vote stands."? The fact that there were no further delete votes after the expansion may well be due to the fact that everyone who came to the discussion saw sufficient delete votes and didn't feel like adding any more. User:Zoe| 00:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist. It appears the article was judged on its initial stubby content. I believe that being an important contributor to 4 software projects makes one notable. I think there's enough new information added to warrant a reevaluation of the deletion debate. - Mgm| 09:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist. Zoe's point is well-taken, but it's an assumption. It could just as easily have been the case where others, seeing the delete votes, did not bother to investigate the article after its expansion. howcheng {chat} 19:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As a comprimise what about just doing a normal relisting with the other comments intact? WhiteNight 01:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist. AFDs tend to get only sparse attention after one or two days and the rewrite probably adressed some of the major concerns with this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-11

Valhalla Legends

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

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

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

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

Harrym 11:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harrym 14:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - I found the AfD flawed: clearly this page and BNLS are closely related, since BNLS is only used on vH, but the question of how the information then contained in the two articles should best be covered was thought out by few of the participants. I'm leaning towards undelete and list together with BNLS. I'd also say that I think that developer communities are pretty much inherently more noteworthy participant than fancruftish gamer communities, certainly the two sorts of community should not be confused. --- Charles Stewart 15:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. If this is more than just a gaming clan, then most of the delete votes should be given less weight. Combined with the overlooked "keep" vote of user Oscarthecat, this is probably a no-consensus. Undelete and give it a chance to get cleaned up, with some information on how it is not merely a gaming clan, before tossing it back to AfD. I'm not convinced it will survive an AfD even then, but I think the new information warrants giving it another shot without the "gamecruft" voters. Turnstep 03:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That is the problem, because as far as I can see it is a gaming clan - at least from the linked site -
    "Valhalla Legends is a Battle.Net clan that wears the tag . The purpose of the clan is to provide for its members a single place to gather and talk"
  • Not only that but the basically same argument given here is the same one that replaced the nomination halfway through (), so I think the users had more than enough time to look at. I'll give JIP a message though and endorse whatever (s)he says. WhiteNight 04:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is a gaming clan aspect to the site, but according to the posting distribution it is principally a developer's forum . It appears to be much more than a gaming clan. --- Charles Stewart 17:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know... it still appears to me like a gaming clan that does occasional development, which was highlighted during the debate. I'll admit that I can understand how it could be taken differently, I just don't know if this is a somewhat clever attempt to make it appear as something different then it really is. If we do undelete this I think (re)listing both of them as you say is the best way to go. WhiteNight 00:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • These kinds of content issues are best sorted out on AfD anyway: all that is needed to go back to AfD is to think that there is a high probablity that it will result in a different outcome to the one that resulted in the appeal here. I think we are likely to keep vL and delete BNLS. --- Charles Stewart 00:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Alright, Undelete and (re)list both WhiteNight 00:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, relist and list BNLS on AfD - My, I convinced RN before I convinced myself! --- Charles Stewart 01:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Thanks. I think this is a good decision. I'll clarify the above poster's concern over tags: Battle.net was, and still is to some extent, the place where most of the clan members congregate and talk. Of course, many members do play games. That, however, is not the primary purpose of the clan. Harrym 10:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete --
I am not opposed to it being re-listed if necessary, and if that is the appropriate forum (I find it odd that we have to go through the hoops to have this undeleted and then re-debate whether it should be deleted, but as with Harry, being somewhat inexperienced, I will defer to others if appropriate), then fine.
During AfD discussion there was comment that BNLS should be merged with Valhalla Legends, or that one or both should be merged with Battle.net. I find both merges to be inappropriate at best. Merging vL with Battle.net would be like merging Macromedia with Microsoft Windows simply because Macromedia produces software that works in Windows. Generally, I believe that it's erroneous to include information about a third party in an article about a first-party product, short of being a "See Also" section. Further, BNLS is extremely notable (in its niche) for the number of users it has seen during its lifetime and the accessibility it provided for other users within the community to develop their own clients.
Note that the article was not originally contributed by members (a non-member informed us that he had posted it), but a couple of us corrected information and wikified it. It seemed that only after the corrections were made that the article was listed for deletion (or perhaps it was once I listed it for a Request for Renaming -- it was originally called "Valhalla legends," but should have had the second word capitalized). Thanks. Robert Paveza 20:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-09

2006-01-07

Category:List of Christian Entertainers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well this is the problem with categories http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Richard_Kiel&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Richard_Kiel What good does a category do if the resistance is so great that a name cannot be added, even after offering evidence it belongs?For this reason a list was much better, as it did not require altering the person's page.If it was shut down prematurely as Christopher Parham suggested, I would be interested in learning why. California 12011:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:German-American mobsters

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

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

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

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

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




2006-01-05

Zoner, Inc.

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

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

Recently concluded

  1. Eszter Hargittai: Rewritten. 19:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Henry Farrell (political scientist): Rewritten, currently at: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Henry Farrell (political scientist). 19:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Gallery of motorized bicycles: Userfied for transwiki. 23:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. The Ditherals: speedy overturned; AFD reopened at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Ditherals. 19:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Badawiya HOTEL: Kept deleted as copyvio. 19:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Pms clan: Relisted at AFD and kept (moved to PMS Clan). 18:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Online Gaming League: Kept deleted. 17:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. TRANGO real-time embedded hypervisor: Undeleted and relisted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/TRANGO real-time embedded hypervisor 2. 17:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Template:User noie : Redirected to Template:User browser:Other. 17:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Interflop: Renominated and again deleted. 17:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. EUROFUTURES: Kept deleted. 16:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. More attack templates: see below. 16:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Various attack templates: Various. Most are currently undeleted in some form and being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Proposed policy on userboxes. 16:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. User talk:Jim Apple/deeceevoice departure: Kept deleted (protected). 16:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Template:User against scientology: Kept deleted. 16:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Virago: Kept deleted (2nd nom was indisputably valid), and recreated as a disambiguation page. 16:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. LUElinks: Kept deleted (protected). There was some support for a protected redirect, but no consensus. 16:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. List of anti-heroes: Kept deleted. 23:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Saugeen Stripper: Undeleted, relisted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Saugeen Stripper 2. 17:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: Kept deleted. 17:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Godcasting: Relisted, now at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Godcasting 2 (closed, kept). 20:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Seth Ravin: Relisted, now at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Seth Ravin 2. 20:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. DND: Never deleted, was moved and has been moved back. 01:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 Categories: