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 22:24, 27 January 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:24, 27 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 administrators will honour requests to provide the content of a deleted article if asked politely. See Category:User undeletion.

January 27, 2006, Tony Sidaway has decided to take all good faith requests for undeletion on this page as de facto requests for temporary undeletion for the purpose of debate, and to honor such requests, unless the content is defamatory, copyright, a personal attack, or otherwise unsuitable for publication, for the duration of the debate. This offer will be withdrawn if there is reason to suspect that it is being abused. Pages undeleted for this purpose will be clearly marked with a link to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review.

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".

2006-01-27

Greenlighting

This article was deleted by... yours truly, back in July 2005 as a result of a clear delete consensus at this AFD debate. From looking at the Undelete screen, I see that Snowspinner undeleted one revision on August 1, and that R. Fiend speedy deleted this as a recreation several months later, on December 19. Now, I would have had no complaints about the deletion as recreation, but for the fact that there was another AFD debate in October, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Greenlighting (2nd nomination) which ended without consensus. I think that a second AFD debate ending in a keep should override the CSD G4. Requesting a review on this now and vote Overturn deletion, and keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Undelete and Keep. Good eye to catch that one. Well done. --Dschor 12:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh provisionally keep deleted or merge to Something Awful. Was it really that significant? I see absolutely no mention of the thing on the current copy of the Something Awful article. I'm looking at the article now (I've undeleted it temporarily so that others can do the same) and I see the Slate reference, which I suppose makes it verifiable, but does this in itself tell us that the incident went beyond the small "Something Awful" community? A very senior policeman once made some postings on Urban 75, and this had ramifications in the real world that went to the Home Office and beyond, but I'm really not that certain that the incident, which played out over weeks, has its own article. I'd like to see this merged if it's really that significant. If it definitely has a meaning beyond a single Slate article and an apparently forgotten "Something Awful" hoax then I suppose it should be restored permanently as an article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It was never a CSD G4, since it was new material, and, actually, not even on the same topic - the original article was a hoax, the second an article about a hoax. That, combined with its survival of an AfD makes it, to my mind, a clear Undelete. Phil Sandifer 15:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep undeleted, as per the second AfD -- if anyone thinks that a merge of future deeltion is warrented, those should be persued through normal editing or discussion for a merge, or with another AfD. If any content from the current revision is or might be from any of the deleted revisions, I think a history undelte would be in order -- i haven't checked as yet. DES 16:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist; bad deletion process, but article is totally non-notable. Ashibaka tock 22:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy of computer science

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

2006-01-26

Maria Pia Braganza and Rosario Poidimani

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

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

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

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


Category:Ambiguous five-letter acronyms

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

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

2006-01-25

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

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

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

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

Category:Lists in the Misplaced Pages namespace

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

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

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

  • Overturn and relist a nom with no further discussion is not consensus by any reasonble standard IMO. I don't know what I would say on such a relisted discusion. DES 18:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Note. Unless stated otherwise, I view the nomination as the nominator's choice. In this case, one person wanted to delete the category, and nobody objected. --Kbdank71 20:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure - nomination counts as vote. --- Charles Stewart 21:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes it does, but one vote can not IMO be reasonably called "consensus". DES 21:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I think it can be: to say there is a consensus is to say there is no serious dispute. Of course raising it here does make a dispute, but that is no objection to how the CfD was closed. I don't think the nomination has indicated any value to the category at all, only listed some dubious principles that, if we accepted, would lead us to keep the category. --- Charles Stewart 21:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Seems like a valid Misplaced Pages namespace category to me. --Cyde Weys 21:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse and delete, nearly half of nominations on CFD are procedural and do not get many votes. This is a good thing because it prevents CFD from becoming a tarpit of negativity like AFD. CFD is heavily watched and if anybody wanted to object, they would have. And remember that CFD is not a vote. Radiant_>|< 22:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, this is not a meaningful categorisation. The cat contains pages in Wikispace that (1) are about lists, but those should go in the manual of style, and (2) happen to have the form of a list, which is not a defining characteristic, and those pages should go in a more appropriate cat. I've recategorized both pages Herostratus mentioned. Radiant_>|< 01:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment from nominator. I don't have a huge problem with the way the original CfD was handled. Nomination does count as 1 delete vote, and hey, not one person spoke up to support the category. The closing admin could have relisted, but hey we're busy; no support at all, I can see how he would have just closed. I guess it's kind of a borderline case, I happened to come across it, happen to want to keep the category, so I think as a borderline case -- and on an internal category at that -- it would be proper to relist it. (And I realize I should not have listed my reasons for keeping the category here, but in a relisted CfD (if there is one), which is also where all debate about the category should go. Deletion review should be mainly about the process, and I'm sorry for opening up that can of worms.) I still think that as a borderline case it should be re-listed more-or-less on request unless the closing admin thinks there no real support for that. Or, if the closing admin thinks that a close is a close unless clearly out of process (not just borderline), I would accept that though not agree.Herostratus 17:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User homosexual-no

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

Keep Deleted. It is an attack template. As I commented, why would a "this user is straight" userbox not suffice to oppose the "this user is gay" userboxes? I don't see any gay boxes claim that straigth intercourse as it would be put, is immoral. -- Sneltrekker†My Talk 19:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
To those who say this is an attack template, I have one question: If someone wrote "I believe homosexual intercourse to be immoral" on a talk page, would it be a personal attack? If so, there are a lot of things needing deleted on Misplaced Pages. - AdelaMae 02:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't see the significance. The template was not created to make a point, nor was undeletion requested to do so. The template was simply created to reflect a significant view that a number of Wikipedians have, so that, if they choose to, they can express that view in a regulated userbox. It was made by request at Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Sexuality, and after a discussion on the matter. In my opinion, the main reason this template is under siege is knee-jerk reactions to any expression of a non-positive view of a minority, without stopping to consider the fact that the template is worded in a non-inflammatory, perfectly un-aggressive manner that does not actually attack homosexuals, but merely expresses a common religious belief regarding homosexual intercourse. The fact that that belief is wrong is certainly no reason to delete the template, else we'd have to delete "This user believes in reincarnation" and most other religious templates; nor does the fact that it expresses a negative view (i.e. "This user thinks X is bad" rather than "This user thinks X is good") intolerable, as there are dozens of similar userboxes that also don't attack say something like "This user thinks that Wikipedian homosexuals are immoral", etc. Nuances like that are being flagrantly ignored, as people attempt to turn this from a debate over whether or not people should be allowed to express an unpopular opinion in a userbox into a debate over the contents of the userbox and whether we agree with the opinion expressed there or not (which is patently ridiculous, as the template was created by a proud member of the LGBT community and a supporter thereof). Utterly besides the point. Whatever happened to disagreeing with what you say, but defending your right to say it? -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted I can't see how a userbox questioning the morality of homosexual activity is an 'attack' any more than a 'pro-life' userbox questioning the morality of abortion. It is a statement of POV on morality, all be it not a very politically correct POV. However, I will not vote to undelete as I think (with Jimbo) that all such POV userboxes should be gone. --Doc 19:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    Pro-life userbox just says: this user is pro-life. It would compare to a userbox: This user is a homophobe. Which would describe the user himself and not attack. -- Sneltrekker†My Talk 21:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    "homophobe" is still an externally-applied label; this is one reason why POV-advocating userboxes are harmful. "This user is verifiably straight." might be more analogous. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep deleted. Now becoming WP:POINT and saying any action is "immoral" is uncivil, creators personal circumstances don't come into it. IanID:540053 20:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The template does not say that any action is immoral. It says what the user of the template believes to be immoral. Vitally important distinction that you seem to have missed. -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • How can an opinion, in itself, be incivil? Civility is a matter of how you express your opinions, not what your opinions are. It would be incivil to say "I HATE GAY PEOPLE THEY ARE STOOPID >:("—it is not incivil to say "This user considers homosexual intercourse to be immoral"; it's a statement of fact (that fact being that the user has the specified opinion). Let's clear the air here: are we talking about deleting this template because it's incivil, or because we disagree with what it says? Don't try to paint the latter as being the former, and don't try to use Misplaced Pages policy as a front for censorship of significant minority views (even when those views are disgusting and ignorant). -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This template does help build the encyclopedia. It makes it clear that people who hold unpopular views are still permitted to be open and free about what they think, so long as they keep their views from influencing how they edit articles, and so long as they are tolerant of people who disagree with them. People should be permitted to say what they think (rather than forced to remain silent if the majority disagrees with them), and the dialogue should be kept open between disagreeing parties (rather than all disagreeing parties being kept silent, as though closing our eyes and ears to the problem will somehow make everyone with an unpleasant opinion go away), and people should be permitted to state their opinions on a matter even if it's not a positive one (i.e. allowing "I think the European Union is great", "I support George W. Bush", "I support LGBT righst", but never the opposite view, to let both sides state their mind?), and we should be allowed to draw on these types of people as a resource for when an article would be benefited by getting information from people with such an unusual view as "homosexual intercourse is unethical", who may be more familiar with the authors, documents, opinion nuances, Biblical passages, etc. that are relevant to the view. Before we rule absolutely that a certain type of template simply can't ever benefit the encyclopedia no matter what, why don't we give it a chance to benefit the encyclopedia? I don't see the huge tragedy that will ensue if we just calm down, think this through a little more, and give the template some time to see whether it can do any good. -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't necessarily disagree. There are a lot of inane ones out there. But this out-of-process, gang-up-on-the-unpopular-view-at-random speedy-deletion is not the way to deal with the issue. It's a way to hide from it. -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You obviously aren't very familiar with the LGBT-related userboxes. This was created as a counterpart to the half-dozen LGBT-support templates, etc. we have on the Sexuality page; it has absolutely nothing to do with the "gay" and "straight" templates. I've had debates in the past with both gay and straight people who have held the view very strongly that homosexual intercourse is immoral; maybe if more of the delete-voters had had the exposure to this ridiculous viewpoint that I've had, you'd understand that it's not as simple as "another 'straight' template" at all. -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment For the record, people can be straight and still not believe that homosexual intercourse is immoral. Therefore, your assertion that the userboxes which state sexual orientation "do the job" of this deleted one is specious. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Again, a blatant misunderstanding of what this template, and all other Sexuality-related templates, actually mean. Your personal sexual orientation and your religious or ideological views on sexual intercourse are totally unrelated! The former has more to do with biology, the latter more to do with upbringing, and both can be very relevant to understanding fellow editors and to working in the company of people you disagree with (in fact, in many ways the opinion templates are infinitely more valuable than the sexual orientation ones, since they state a lot more about how the user will tend to behave, what his thought process are, and what his POV is than something like "sexual orientation", which might be significant if Misplaced Pages was an online orgy project, but isn't so important for an online encyclopedia project). -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn - While I don't agree with the opinion stated by this box, I don't think that deleting it will make that opinion go away. Anyway it doesn't matter because, as DES said, this does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This is not the place to make a judgement on the merits of the box - only on wheter on not the speedy deletion protocols were followed. Since they were not followed I believe this should be re-listed on TFD.--God of War 00:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not an attack article. It is a statement of an opinion. The fact that that opinion offends some people certainly does not make it an "attack", in itself; if it did, we'd have deleted controversial articles like Scientology and George W. Bush long ago. Just as Misplaced Pages articles are permitted to offend (so long as they don't go out of their way to do so), so are user pages, and userboxes are purely a feature of userpages. -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Doc --- Charles Stewart 15:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted If personal attack userboxes get deleted, then so should these sort of userboxes - • Dussst • 15:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong overturn and relist. This template does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion; not only is it not a genuine "attack" template (and is only being painted as such as a way to censor an unpopular view), but even if it was, speedy-deleting an "attack" is only for something like List of reasons George W. Bush is an asshole, not for grey-area userbox disputes like this, and so this template certainly merits a full run on WP:TfD. What's so horrible about giving the template at least a few days rather than a couple of hours to let people talk (and think) it over, rather than trying to stifle and hide any discussion whatsoever on the matter? If it was so black-and-white and obvious that this is indisputably and beyond a shadow of a doubt an "attack" (rather than what it really is, a statement of an ignorant and horrible, but nonetheless commonplace and very significant, opinion), and nothing more, then the template wouldn't have had a majority for "keep" at the time the TfD was closed out of process. Obviously things aren't so simple. So let's take a step back, breathe, let the thing run its course on TfD, and then see what people think about it. I can understand why people would oppose a template like this, with its potential to cause controversy (though I think the benefit of showing that we allow people to hold and show that they have extremely unpopular opinions, so long as they don't let those opinions infect the articles they work on, outweighs the risk of allowing such an opinion to have its little colored box), but I can't understand why they'd go out of their way to violate Misplaced Pages's VfD process just because they don't like the template. Even templates that clearly were made "just to prove a point" (rather than genuine ones like this, see Misplaced Pages talk:Userboxes/Sexuality), like "This user hates Jews", were given a long run of time to accumulate plenty of votes and establish a real consensus! Why is this one, which is clearly much less of a pointed, aggressive "attack" template than the anti-Semitic one (both based on the context in which it was made and based on the actual text of the template), not being given the same amount of time and consideration? Why the double standard? No good can come of it. -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong overturn This is patently not an attack template; it states an opinion. Why is it that we can keep Template:User GWB and delete this? I would like to delete all political userboxes per Jimbo's suggestion, but it's totally unfair to keep most of them and delete this one. Ashibaka tock 17:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist, as there seems to be enough disagreement to warrent some sort of discussion. --AySz88^-^ 18:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist. Too much disagreement over the issue not to allow it a day in court through TfD. --StuffOfInterest 18:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-24

Category:Western science fiction

I nominated this for moving to Category:Science fiction Westerns and it was closed as "no consensus", despite there being 1 delete vote, 1 keep vote and 6 renames. See Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 14#Category:Western science fiction to Category:Science fiction Westerns. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn and rename per clear consensus. howcheng {chat} 23:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename as 6-to-1 is good enough of a consensus for darn near anything. And renaming doesn't even need a vote anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's the norm for categories, though, as they're not renameable as such, only deleteable, recreateable under a different name, and move-all-the-contents-one-at-a-time-able. Consensus indeed seems clear, though: I've left a note on the talk of the closing admin, this may not need the whole "process" here. (And is it the right one, come to that?) Alai 04:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: you could try Category:Western-based science fiction or maybe Category:Western-themed science fiction? There's no doubt that there is consensus that the current name is ambiguous, so something needs to be done. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and do whatever best meets the original consensus. --FloNight 11:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment from closing admin: It wasn't a 6-1 decision, it was 6 to rename, 2 to keep, 1 to delete. It could have gone either way, in my opinion, and I chose to give it no consensus based upon the discussion (we don't count votes, anyway). If this (or another CFD) gives it a better consensus, great. --Kbdank71 14:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    I can't see two keep votes. Could you list who you are referring to? Talrias (t | e | c) 15:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    I like Blindingly Glowing's idea below better. PeaceInside. --Kbdank71 18:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. I agree with the count, while "Peace inside" did not bold a vote, that user celarly wanted to keep without rename. There were actually seven "votes" for rename, but one was from an anon. i find the arguamets for reanme persuasive, amnd the ones for keep overly formalist. 6/3 seems like consensus, even if you group delete and keep together. Of those who wanted to keep 6/2 is 3 to 1 in favor of a rename, which seesm like celar consensus. I would simply overturn to a rename, but a realisting would not be amiss. (If it is relisted I plan to comment.) DES 18:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    For the record, I will never decide consensus by stating anything like "if you take out the delete votes...you get a clear consensus". Too many people, in my opinion, feel the need to have a clear "x of one, y of the other" decisions, and can't understand why many three(or more)-way results are called no consensus. Keep, rename, and delete are different things. Can't be combined. And removing one to gain consensus is unfair to the people whose opinions suddenly don't matter. I apologize if this seems like it's a rant directed toward DES. It's not. Just trying to explain my reasoning, as it's clear people are confused. --Kbdank71 20:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    I see your point. But when two thirds of those registered users who expressed an opnion chose the same option, I think there is consensus regardless of how the remaining votes were split. that (plus my view of the relative strength of the reasons, as opposed to the numerical count of "votes") is my primary view. My seconary analys went soemthing like this: all but one person wanted it kept, so obviously it won't be deleted. Of thsoe who wanted it kept, the opnions went 3 to 1 in favor of the rename, and the person who wanted it deleted didn't express any view on what name it should be at if it were to be kept. I might add that the term "SF-Western" is a not uncommon one among SF fans, going back all the way to "Bat Durstan, Space Marshal" in the 1950s. Such obvious "translations" were indeed called 'Bat Durstans" for a time. That is a point I will bring up more fully if this is relisted, or of this is left to stand, when I re-nominate it for renaming, as I will once the DRV discussion closes. It is of less relevance to DRV, however. DES 21:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and do the needful. Sci-fi westerns is how they are referred to in the literature I've read, too. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 20:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. By the way, it is a travesty that this category does not have Firefly or Cowboy Bebop in it. --Cyde Weys 21:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and move. OK, there's a stealth "no-move", but 6-2 is a darn good consensus. Counting "delete" on a renaming nomination as an "oppose" a) doesn't make any sense, and b) still gives an adequate consensus. If someone wants to vote delete-else-don't--move, that's perfectly fine, but an unqualified delete is simply a "neutral" on the name. Alai 08:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Copyright examinations

Marked for merging with Category:Possible copyright violations after a CFD based on an apparent misunderstanding of its purpose. I've demarked it for merging pending review here. --Nick Boalch 22:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a very common misunderstanding. Copyright examination process ends always immediately, if the discussed content is included into Misplaced Pages. Examination requests on content already in Misplaced Pages are rejected with no exception. The examined content is never in Misplaced Pages and can thus never be a copyright violation. (any suggestions on avoidance of this misunderstanding are welcome) --Easyas12c 23:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

R@ygold etc.

On January 8 User:Brendanconway deleted, without consensus or AFD, the following pages:

The reason given was: "Delete as gives info useful to child pornographers". However, being useful to alleged "child pornographers" is not a criterion for speedy deletion. There is probably some questions concerning notability, especially of terms aside from "r@ygold," and at the very least all of these keyword pages should be merged, but I'd like to request the undeletion of all of these pages and possibly an AFD. I would contact Brendanconway but he is on wikibreak.

It should also probably be noted that "r@ygold" was part of a request for comment (see Talk:R@ygold). // paroxysm (n) 22:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Deleted and protect pages to prevent them from coming back. Seems to be a valid example of the Ignoring All Rules concept. Note that the above do not describe persons, concepts, or even pictures... just keywords supposedly used to find smut on file sharing networks. It's kind of like having an article titled "Stephen King" books +Amazon with the text "Stephen King" books +Amazon is a search phrase used on Google to find Stephen King's books for sale on Amazon.com. Setting aside the morality of child pornography, these articles are simply not encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    Mmm. But they were deleted out of process and whether or not they should be included is for the entire community to decide, not just administrators who can view deleted revisions. // paroxysm (n) 23:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Starblind. David | Talk 23:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What the fuck. Speedy undelete. I have recently seen the term r@ygold joked about on IRC several times recently (thus making it a reasonable popular internet meme). I went here to check it out, and there was a decent-length article explaining the term. (A while ago I got O RLY? unprotected and started a new article after someone commented that Misplaced Pages usually has decent coverage of memes, but only a {{deletedpage}} for that one.) I haven't seen the other terms or their articles, so I have no idea if they are "notable", but given the fact that r@ygold was speedied in the same batch, I wouldn't be surprised if they were. This is the kind of shit that drives away editors. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - with a slight merge to Child pornography - i.e., mention that these types of keywords exist. We don't need to list every word ever used by someone to search for kiddie pr0n. FCYTravis 01:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. I hardly think people looking for porn (legal or illegal) are going to be helped by Misplaced Pages. There's plenty of search engines for such things, and if some of these are legitimate mems per SPUI, then definitely undelete. I have no problem with nominating them for AfD, or speedying under our exiting criteria. Turnstep 05:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I checked and couldn't find a single source in any of the articles. Further, I don't see how it's likely that any reliable sources would have info on them. Without reliable sources they are unverifiable. The concept of internet memes may be notable, but few actual memes are either notable or verifiable. -Will Beback 08:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Starblind and Will Beback. Search strings are unencyclopedic and these particular ones are unverifiable as well. Besides, Misplaced Pages doesn't promote illegal activities so we shouldn't store keywords that allow people to search for child pornography. I doubt there's any place in the world where doing so is legal. - Mgm| 10:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It all hinges on verifiability. SPUI has appealed on Wikien-l and I've told him that if he can come up with decent citation for at least one of the terms I'll undelete the relevant articles temporarily with a view to discussing how to write this information up in Misplaced Pages--a merge to some suitable article is likely more use than individual articles which unnecessarily duplicate information. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn to undelete and merge some content to recognize this social phenomena. --FloNight 11:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn all lack of cources and possible lack of verifiability is not a speedy reason, it is an AfD reason. As for legality, ther is AFAIK no US law in any way preventing discussion of how people do and do not seach for allegedly illegal content, and if there were any such law would be clearly unconsitutional. I don't know what laws may exist in other countries, but I would be very suprised if any jurisdiction with anything like a free speech tradition (I exclude highly repressive and censor-prone regimes) would ever prosecute a statemetn that merely discussed how some people labeled illegal content, even if this might helps soem people find such content. This may not be verifiable. If it is, the content should probably be merged into a singel article of soem sort, and notability might be debated. But the content should be restored for normal editing or in-process deletion. DES 18:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Endorse and delete Talk:R@ygold (which I'm tempted to do myself...). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Tony. There really is no reason why these should be undeleted other than a slavish following of process. OK, maybe they shouldn't have been speedy-deleted. That doesn't mean that they should be undeleted for a charade of an AfD. Sam Korn 19:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse and keep deleted. The community of child porn users is so small that what is verifiable is both unencyclopaedically insignificant and probably already known to anyone likely to be interested. Plus, to state what I suspect others are thinking, they are sick fucks who should be castrated with a blunt saw and pegged out to be eaten alive by vultures. Not sure how to put that in properly NPOV terms, though. Legally? I don't care. WP:ISNOT censored, but some things are well beyond the usual porncruft (much of which is only verifiable by rference to other porn anyway). - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 20:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • KD but redirect the lot of them to the appropriate pornography article, as plausible search terms. Radiant_>|< 22:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Even if those ought be deleted (and if no-one comes up with a source then they probably should) there is no reason to take non-admins out of the deletion discussion with an out-of-process speedy-deletion. Having those things linger around a few more days while an informed deletion discussion takes place won't do any harm. I'm undeleting the lot and merging them into one article as many have suggested and seems obvious. If someone speedy-deletes again I will not wheel-war. - Haukur 22:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    There. I undeleted the lot and turned them into redirects to Child pornography search terms which I just created. Now non-admins can view the history of the articles and make an informed recommendation on whether we should keep them or delete them. My own opinion is that if no sources are provided we have little choice but to delete again. - Haukur 23:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    Sources for at least one of the terms have now been provided and an AfD started at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Child pornography search terms. - Haukur 23:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Of no use to the encyclopedia. This is not the dictionary of internet slang. --JWSchmidt 22:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can I ask WHY these articles have been re-created, and the article child pornography search terms has been created? The consensus is obviously to keep these pages off of Misplaced Pages. I am on the verge of re-deleting all of these myself. I am not even for redirects for the above articles, but regardless of that there should not be an article about child pornography search terms. -- goatasaur 23:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    AFD it, then; don't abuse your admin powers to delete things above policy. It's not a speedy candidate. That means you can't speedy it. // paroxysm (n) 23:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    I listed the page on AFD immediately after making the above post. -- goatasaur 23:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per arguments to delete Child pornography search terms. The articles listed above are in themselves useless because one needs to know the terms in order to directly display the article. On the other hand, clicking "what links here" lists these terms. Therefore: delete, (1) mostly useless (2) useful only to find child pornography - if it's easy to see why possible/probable libel has to be removed from WP bios, it's exceedingly easy to see why helping people find definitely illegal child pornography (in most countries meaning photos and videos of children engaging in sexual acts) is illegal in itself and has to be removed from Misplaced Pages. The point is that the ONLY use is illegal, unlike, for example, information about how to build weapons. AvB ÷ talk 09:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    Libel is illegal. Saying "some pedophiles use zzz and yyy to find kiddie porn" isn't.
    The redirects can be found otherwise: for example, if you do a search for anything in Limewire you're liable to find files labelled with long "ebony rape teens young r@ygold rape" etc. nonsense, and they might want to see what "r@ygold" means. Human curiousity. // paroxysm (n) 20:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
It is a problem when the same org (in this case Misplaced Pages) lists and advertises the entire thing one click away from the Misplaced Pages search Child pornography search terms. AvB ÷ talk 05:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Criminal behavior on Misplaced Pages

Sorry people, I've been looking a bit deeper and this really really stinks. Just look at the bottom line of this diff. And there's much more. I will now leave it to those of you in the US or so (it's night here) but if no-one else escalates this to Jimbo now, I will do so tomorrow. This really cannot be allowed. And it needs to be reported to the police. AvB ÷ talk 04:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: I think it's at least a little bit sick and perverted that Wikipedians are interested enough in this subject to keep coming up with articles about keywords used to find kiddie porn, and I doubt that any of them are sufficiently notable to get separate articles (though perhaps some passing mention of this sort of use of nonsense keyword would be appropriate in an article on "child pornography" or some such thing). On the other hand, I don't think such mentions are themselves illegal, especially given that (as noted in the various articles) by the time the keywords are well-known enough to make it into places like this, they're already being "abused" by so many fake porn sites, and the authorities probably know about them thus discouraging the real kiddie porn sites from using them, that they're probably useless for finding actual material of that sort. *Dan T.* 05:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Considering the comments in this discussion and the AfD as well as WP:SNOW I think we might as well delete most of the articles/redirects again. Hopefully those interested have now had a chance to look at the histories and make an informed recommendation. Only one of the keywords has been strongly sourced and we tend to enforce WP:V strictly in cases like this. Would anyone object to a redeletion of everything except the gold word? - Haukur 09:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh I've thought about this and I think they should remain as redirects simply to forestall future independent creation as articles. The ones I checked do seem to be used as some kind child porn keyword by pornography providers who want to select those interested in child porn, but their provenance is as yet unverified--that's an editorial matter now. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
*shrug* If you say so. But there are some edit summaries in there that are upsetting our friend above. If someone can be troubled to clean this up then that's probably a good thing. In any case I won't interfere with any deletions. - Haukur 09:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Louisiana Baptist University people

The article was deleted by User:Howcheng. There were 42 delete votes, 29 keep votes, and 12 merge votes. Clearly, consensus wasn't reached. There was also verifiable misconduct (not alleged, but verifiable). Here is a list:

  1. . The closing admin miscounted the votes. He didn't just avoid counting some, but he actually miscounted them as well.
  2. . User:Aaron_Brenneman arbitrarily moved certain comments to another page. However, he also left certain comments that influenced the vote.
  3. . User:Cyde disrupted the voting by posting a large warning notice with a graphic on the top of the page. This stayed on the page for the remainder of the voting and influenced the vote.
Proof of claim: Numerous people who voted to delete mentioned how their voting was influenced by the (inappropriate) "warning" on the top of the page and other factors that had nothing to do with the actual strength of the entry.
Solution: Overturn and keep the article. --Dr. Turtleton 21:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
For those of you who might have trouble finding the record of this AFD (read: me), here it is. · Katefan0/mrp 22:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted valid (if messy) AfD. Closer wrote a very good explanation of why it was closed the way it was. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. After slogging through all the votes, it looks to me like howcheng did it correctly. Well within his discretion. · Katefan0/mrp 22:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. What a crap article. -R. fiend 22:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: You're right, I did miscount. After recounting, it's 41/21/12 in terms of valid votes, which still means 53/75 (more than 66%) don't think the article should exist. I also miscounted the number of people I excluded for either being new or not really giving a reason (9K/1D). I even felt I was generous in including the votes by people who were called in solely to vote-stack (otherwise it would have been 41/11/8). I repeat, this was a whole lot of yelling and arguing about a relatively short list of people. Merging is the obvious solution which keeps the content in Misplaced Pages. Can someone explain to me why there is so much opposition to that? howcheng {chat} 23:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
You shouldn't discount people for being new or not stating their reason for their vote. If you reconsider this criteria of yours, there is barely a 50% vote for deletion; not to mention the reasons stated for many have to do with being influenced by User:Cyde's message on the top of the page, which you could discount those as well. All in all, there is clearly no consensus.
A discussion needs to ensue about the misconduct of the users who altered the nomination page and hence, the vote of many.
If by "merge" you mean move some notable alumni to the LBU page, then don't worry. That will happen with or without a vote to merge. All one has to do is add a couple more alumni that they feel are notable to that page.
Note: there are 68 other universities that have a university list of people like this one. --Dr. Turtleton 00:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Discounting new voters (likelihood of sock/meatpuppetry) is common practice, and discounting votes that give no valid rationale is not unheard of; both are well within howcheng's discretion as the closing admin. · Katefan0/mrp 00:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no evidence of sock or meat puppetry. Everyone who came and voted had participated on Misplaced Pages before. Plus, we should assume good faith and not jump to conclusions about alleged sock/meat puppets. --Dr. Turtleton 18:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Talking of evidence of sockpuppetry, Dr._Turtleton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Congratulations on finding Deletion Review a speedy 33 minutes after first registering, and having taken no part in the process under review at that! - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 20:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the characterization of moving comments to the Talk page as "misconduct." In each case, a link was provided to the exact section where the content was moved. Nothing was lost and anyone who was interested in reading it just had to follow the link. In addition, content that was likely to influence one's decision in either direction (pro or con) got moved. The {{afdnewbies}} template (the "large warning notice") is standard practice to tell people to keep their arguments based on policy and that this is not a simple vote. It does not push opinion either way. howcheng {chat} 00:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
In and of itself, it wasn't a bad thing to do. However, since only selected comments were moved, it was misconduct. Doesn't it look a tad unfair to move certain comments and not others? --Dr. Turtleton 18:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Question for Dr. Turtleton: of those 68 other universities with lists of alumni, how many are accredited and how many unaccredited? How many are limited to a single subject area? I suppose one could just about count MIT there, although "technology" is a pretty broad category. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 20:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). The closer's decision was carefully considered and well documented. The decision was well within reasonable discretion for the determination of "rough consensus". Rossami (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It was also made after miscounting the votes, totally discounting many valid keep votes, moving selected comments to the talk page, and having not only the afdnewbies tag on the top, but also a statement about other alleged misbehavior. --Dr. Turtleton 18:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse closure. Closing admin did a good job at determining consensus in a very messy AfD. I probably would have voted keep myself :) but I see no problem with the process here. Turnstep 05:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. Many of the merge votes were conditional on this thing being merged, and after looking at the article I think that would clutter up the main LBU article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure It's not a vote, it's a sense of the community. The comments endore delete. --FloNight 11:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This looks like an obvious merge to me--leave it up to the editors of the main article to decide which names to merge in. If someone asks nicely I'll history-undelete so that the merge can be tried. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore - after reading through the discussions, I get the feeling it was too messy to lead to deletion. Larix 13:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. Well-detailed and proper closure. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:05, Jan. 25, 2006
  • Restore and AFD again with an unbiased closer. Or, simply merge the useful content. While the content may be useful, it doesn't necessarily need its own article. — 0918 • 2006-01-25 17:10
  • Keep deleted - Guettarda 17:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. The vote was not "disrupted" by such standard measures as moving rants to the talk page and posting notices for new users. What nonsense. Gamaliel 17:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure - I wouldn't have counted all the merge votes towards delete votes, since several appear to be regular merge votes. But I would have discounted the keep votes given the poll-stacking operation, and I generally think HowCheng has gone about this closing in an exemplary manner. --- Charles Stewart 17:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure', keep deleted, noting that most of the ones likely to survive AfD are already in the LBU article anyway, and thank Howcheng for taking on one of the most sock-riddled AfDs I've come across. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 20:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. MWOT. This is at best borderline. Sadly, there were irregularities on both sides, but in terms of building an encyclopedia there is no case for undeletion, nor for criticising the action the closing admin took which is not the issue here anyway. I'll say again, if you want to make our job easier (and gain our sympathy in the process, we're human), follow the procedures, especially when others don't. There's no need to point out the obvious, and even less need to use bold notices, boxes, emphasis, strange indents, long inline quotes etc etc etc to do it. Keep it simple, and uncluttered, and informative. Please. Andrewa 22:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore. You know, the votes weren't too far from one another, and this article contains a lot of well known and notable people in them, including Jerry Falwell. Don't keep deleted. Эйрон Кинни 22:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure per virtually everyone above. KillerChihuahua 22:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore and Keep There was a miscount. Admins abused their powers to ban people from the discussion. There were multiple violations of wikipedia guidelines, yet only users who voted "keep" were deleted. There were lies that were stated as fact. The whole thing was handed POORLY. 66% is not a concensus, wikipedia is not a dictatorship of the majority. Itake 23:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep --Hayson 23:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted FeloniousMonk 23:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure/Keep deleted. Howcheng's action was well within the range of administrator's judgement and was very carefully explained. Given the strong indications of vote-stacking, administrator's judgement was needed, and performed appropriately. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore and AFD again like I had mentioned in my comments on RfC/Jason_Gastrich, this AfD should be re-ran, and the reasons should have to do with policy alone, and not with all the personal attacks from both sides. As for the closer, User:Howcheng did fine, afaiac.--Azathar 06:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn - just because people were informed about the vote by email/talkpage messages (what you call 'vote stacking') does not make their votes any less valid - not everyone has the time to constantly check Afd themselves! The rules are clear on this - where there is no consensus, no action is taken (ie in the case of Afd, the article is kept). The admin in question seems to have forgotten this rule (or pretended to have forgotten it). Cynical 09:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure/keep deleted/set it on fire and burn it to the ground A divisive one-man sockpuppet/meatpuppet campaign, which all the wikilawyering the world can't obscure. The closing admin certainly remembered THAT. --Calton | Talk 12:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure and congratulate the closing admin for taking on this thankless task. --kingboyk 03:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The Bible According To

From the deletion log: 09:53, 24 January 2006 Mushroom deleted "The Bible According To" (Hoax). "Hoax" is not a speedy delete criterion, for good reason. Furthermore, while this articel celarly needs attention, and may be a hoax or at least contain incorrect information, that is not clear enough to determine off-hand, IMO. Overturn speedy and relist. DES 19:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted. Nothing there. If we send every poorly written, contextless, useless piece of crap to AFD it'll be swamped. Nothing of value lost. Good riddance. -R. fiend 19:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist not only is hoax not a criterion for speedy, this isn't even a hoax. It appears to be listcruft, but if merits a debate. --Doc 19:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist as per Doc glasgow. --Allen3  19:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist. I agree here: it should have gone through AfD. I should have followed the CSD more strictly. Mushroom 19:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted as G3 or even G1: I had forgot that I deleted it while I was reverting 217.205.250.130's vandalism. "Hoax" = "Vandalism". Definitely keep deleted. Mushroom 20:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn speedy deletion and list for regular deletion. "Hoax" is not and never has been a valid criterion for speedy-deletion due to the high incidence of false positives (articles tagged as hoaxes which turned out to be real though obscure and/or poorly written). It also fails to qualify as patent nonsense in the very narrow way we use that term. That leaves only the claim of vandalism. The speedy deletion criterion is written to only apply to patently obvious cases of vandalism where every edit was by the vandal. This is too close to the line. Five days on AFD is not an unreasonable cost. Rossami (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, patent nonsense, no content, pick one. User:Zoe| 22:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted as part of a pattern of vandalism (G3). howcheng {chat} 23:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and list on AfD. Unfortunately. First, there's no urgency at all about deleting hoaxes; tagging them with a "hoax" template and an "AfD" template is more than sufficient to protect readers against believing the content during the AfD period. I honestly think it's an important point of process that suspect hoaxes get community inspection before deletion. And this article is a case in point! It's not a hoax. I just did an Amazon "advanced search" on "Bible according to" and the books, or at least many of them, actually exist. It's unsourced listcruft, but it's not a hoax, and the titles could be verified, although... the burden is on the contributor to do this, the unsourced items could be removed. It's unencyclopedic listcruft, and deletable as a completely idiosyncratic non-topic, but it's not a hoax. I won't shed any tears if it's kept deleted, however. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed vote: Keep deleted per R. fiend, SCZenz, and WP:IAR. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. No coherent content; write a new one if you want. -- SCZenz 08:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Not a valid speedy criterion. Owen× ☎ 20:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per WP:SNOW but Mushroom has made some very questionable calls, so needs to be reined in. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 20:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per R. fiend --OntarioQuizzer 21:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • KD per WP:SNOW. Radiant_>|< 22:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and send to AFD. Does not meet the speedy criteria. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • O/T & AfD. An example of the need for at least educational efforts re meaning of at least G1, & perhaps G3. Unwarranted G1s and G3s strike at the roots of CSD & are the weakest lk in the trust for admin's discretion. Even if this were a snowball (in which case we'd not hear discussion of rescuing the candidate), the continuing claims of G1 & G3 would require the clarity of going to AfD lest those claims seem plausible.
    --Jerzy•t 13:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Adam and andrew

This article was deleted according to non-notability by User:Mushroom . I gave many examples of the notability of this band on the article itself. If you were to somehow check the roll for California Polytechnic, you will find Adam Christensen and Andrew Portner residing there. There is also http://www.adamandandrew.com/, http://www.thefunny.org/ and many other sites. Myspace recognises them as Musicians and several thousand Myspace members have requested to become friends with them on their myspace area http://www.myspace.com/adamandandrew/. Also my article for Emo Kid(song) was removed for the same reason. You will find many of the preceding pages also contain information on the songs. 19:07 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Haggle4me.com

Accordign to the deletion log: 12:22, 24 January 2006 Mushroom deleted "Haggle4me.com" (non-notable). The person who speedy taged this gave as the reason "advertisement". Thsi was an articel about a web site. It may well fail to meet WP:WEB, but that can't be reliably determined without further checking. This doesn't meet any of the speedy criteria and IMO should have been sent through AfD. Overturn speedy and relist. DES 18:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

{{Oregon-State-Highway-stub}} and associated category Category:Oregon State Highway stubs

Was speedy deleted, with no criteria supporting this deletion. Author was not notified, no notice was put on template... in fact the only notice of this deletion was put on WP:WSS/D. There are some articles that could have been tagged with this too. I believe that this should have been sent to WP:SFD instead. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The deletion log says: 20:23, 23 January 2006 Alai deleted "Template:Oregon-State-Highway-stub" (speedied as unused for 24h). I don't see anything on WP:CSD that supports such a speedy. Overturn and list on SfD unless Some reason for speedy supplied. I wiull notify Alai of this discussion. DES 18:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the notification. As I understand it, the long-standing practice of categories that're empty for 24h being speedied has been explicitly extended to stub categories that're empty-aside-from-only-a-stub-template, as was this one (well, aside from its transclusion in the wikiproject-page-of-many-road-stub-types, which I assume isn't for categorisation purposes as such). Empty for a week, actually. Keep deleted, on that basis, and common sense. Note that this turned up on as a discovery rather than as a proposal (which IMO would be a better place to take this than here). Alai 19:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Is there any policy page that documents that "long standing practice"? WP:CSD C1 says "Empty categories (no articles or subcategories for at least four days)". If "empty for 24 hours" is the rule we will follow in future it ought to be documented somewhere. I am inclined to think it is a poor idea for stub types in particular. DES 21:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
      • My bad on the one day vs. four, it seems. I must work out where what Chinese whispers route I'd gotten that one from. In this case, though, those were the only contents for (more than) four days. And given that's as empty as a well-formed stub type is ever going to get, of its own accord, that seems exactly within the spirit of C1. We really ought to see about the letter... Alai 22:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Ah, here we are. I've no idea if this is a deliberate variance from CSD C1, I'm guessing not. I've suggested that the former be brought explicitly into line with the latter. Alai 22:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I agree that the various policy pages should agree and C1 ahoule either explictly not apply to stub types, or else it shoudl explicitly apply to stub types containing no articles. This is probably not the place to debate which. DES 22:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • There were other options the deleting admin could have taken rather than speedy deletion... such as finding stubs for this cat or delegating the task to someone else? Or taking it to SFD. It's like one of those "problems that may not require deletion" at WP:DP --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'll grant you that those are other options. But why would either of those have been preferable? There's no cohort of unsorted Oregon road stubs (unless they're lurking someplace, entirely untagged), and indeed many of state routes for OR already have full articles (or longer than stubs, at least); taking it to SFD would be an exercise in spending seven days debating whether or not to follow the stub deletion criteria. ("Let's not" is often a popular option, I'll also grant.) If at some point in the future there's a number of these appropriate to the creation of a stub category, it can easily be undeleted/recreated (ideally after actually having been proposed), but it's not stub-sorting practice to create undersized -- much less, completely articleless -- categories in anticipation of possible, future need. It was my judgement that deletion was firstly, a permissible option, and secondly, the optimal one. Of course I'm open to correction on either point. Alai 03:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • change of view' (as per discussion on my talk page) in this particular case, since this was a newly created (and non-proposed) stub, not a formerly used stub that became empty, and since it is unlekly to be kept at SFD, and since the "empty for 24 hours" provision in the SFD header, and the "empty for 4 days" CSD were both arguably complied with, I withdrraw my objections to this. Allow to remain deleted. We need to get the various policyn pages consistant on this sort of thin, but ther is no need to hold up this example. DES 17:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Jackarandah Productions

This article appears to have been speedied by Lucky 6.9 while on AFD without meeting any of the WP:CSD. Requesting a relist. Stifle 23:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-23

Smoky's Fine Cigars

Was listed under Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Smoky's Fine Cigars and then speedied by User:Mushroom. It's definitely not CSD A7, the criterion used for its deletion. --M@thwiz2020 21:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted, WP:SNOW, WP:NOT. It is not an A7, but comes close to the "lack of content" CSD criterion. Radiant_>|< 21:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • While certainly deletable, this fails to meet the deliberately narrow CSD criteria. It is definitely not an example of case A7. I also have to disagree with the assertion that it qualifies under case A3 which requires that there be "No content whatsoever." Undelete and reopen the AFD. Allow the AFD to conclude on schedule. Rossami (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This wasn't a speedy either, although it doesn't have a prayer. We have time and again rejected the notion of advertising as a speedy and this was certianly not an A7. Invoking A3 on this is creative, but plainly wrong given the very wording of the criterion! I'm tempted to speedy undelete at least the two below this one. Quickly resuming the AfDs is the best way to avoid procedural hacking later. -Splash 22:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I do believe the store is not notable enough for wikipedia, but I'm not sure it's non-notable enough for a speedy deletion. I won't object to undeleting and reopening the AfD, and I won't object to keeping the article deleted. Neutral for now, but I'm willing to be convinced either way. Aecis 23:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, consensus sufficiently established. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and reopen AFD. Not a speedy candidate, one idea behind the July expansion of CSD was meant to stop these slightly out of process speedies. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • very, very weak Undelete and relist I guess, since it has been challenged, but I'd have been sorely tempted to do the same because in the end Radiant is absolutely right, this doesn't have a prayer on AfD so it really does seem like a waste of everyone's time. There is merit in the idea of avoiding creep, which in the end persuades me, but only just. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 11:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You know, I'd argue that using common sense in such deletions is the opposite of instruction creep, as opposed to rigidly obeying the letter of the law. In any casekeep deleted. Let's not waste our time. 12/0 in favor of deletion (several voted for a speedy) when the voting was closed, and an obvious delete candidate. Is anyone who voted to undelete going to actually vote to keep it? If not we're just making a lot more work to get the same result. Save DRV for cases where a mistake might actually have been made. -R. fiend 18:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Chide User:Mushroom but keep deleted. Remember, Be bold is a guideline, too. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist, there were no reasons to speedy delete it. Mushroom 20:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn per Splash. Owen× ☎ 20:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist. It just might be famous enough to deserve it. Wiwaxia 09:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist. Not a speedy candidate. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 14:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Gfxvoid

Was listed under Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gfxvoid and then speedied by User:Mushroom. "Non-notabled, spam" is not a CSD criterion. --M@thwiz2020 21:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted, WP:SNOW. "Article on a group that does not assert the importance of its subject" is a CSD criterion. Radiant_>|< 21:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and allow the AFD to conclude. This group is too large to qualify for the amended reading of speedy deletion case A7. Furthermore, the claims of usership in the article did qualify as assertions of significance. The AFD discussion can rightly determine that those claims are unverifiable or insufficient, but that is a matter for the AFD to decide during the five-day discussion period. Closing the discussion early as a speedy-deletion was inappropriate. Rossami (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, don't invent speedies, and don't try to extend 'group' to be a website when that is very clearly not part of the criterion. -Splash 22:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - per WP:IAR and product over process. The article will *CLEARLY* be deleted by AfD consensus and there's no need to go around being more bureaucratic than we have to be. I favor more speedy keeps and speedy deletes. FCYTravis 22:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • There are fora better than DRV for giving effect to that kind of suggestion, though. -Splash 23:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
      • There's been a discussion on the mailing list about making deletion less bureaucratic - through the use of more speedy keeps and speedy deletes. I'm one of several who are trying to give effect to that discussion. If an article clearly fails notability guidelines for Web sites AND draws nothing but delete votes, with not a single vote to keep, WHY does it need to be bureaucratically shoved through process? Same goes for an article which clearly has a consensus to keep. No reason to hold it to a process fetish. This article WILL be deleted through AfD process anyway, so WHY WASTE EVERYONE'S TIME? We're writing an encyclopedia, not a procedures manual. FCYTravis 23:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I filter out most after "mailing list" because of the amount of slime that goes on there. It will surprise some regular mailing listers to discover that the mailing list isn't Wiki, and, respectfully, you've no business importing undiscussed, unproposed, unagreed to ideas from it. If the mailing list is oh-so-right as it thinks it is, it should have no trouble demonstrating so with a bit of talking on-Wiki. The reason to 'waste time' with it is that there are many who would dispose of CSD altogether and abusing it, as all 3 articles here undoubtedly do, simply hands them ammunition. -Splash 23:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
          • You need hardly fear that CSD would be disposed of. It will *never* happen, as it's what allows admins to clean up after the firehose of crap articles which get created. FCYTravis 23:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
        • The reason to run the full AFD discussion period is that many articles are rescued as a result of the AFD nomination. It is not at all uncommon for an article to get "delete" votes early then have the entire tenor of the debate change when a new participant either brings new facts to the discussion or rewrites the article. The CSD cases define situations where there is no reasonable probability that this will occur. I don't know if it would have or not in this case, but allowing five days for discussion is hardly a waste of everyone's time. Interestingly, closing AFD discussions early, whether as speedy keep or speedy delete, has not yet been shown to actually reduce time or effort in the vast majority of cases. Endlessly having these discussions about the creep of the CSD cases, however, is a waste of time - waste that would be avoided if we stuck to the cases. Rossami (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, consensus sufficiently established. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and reopen AFD per Rossami. Not a speedy candidate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • very weak relist. AfD is packed to the gunwales, and this does not stand a snowball's chance, it had already garnered more "votes" than a lot of articles which run the full course (and incidentally I don't think the small number of "votes" on many AfDs is good, far from it), and every one was either delete or speedy delete; there is no assertion that it passes WP:WEB, Alexa rank is >300,000 and the forum only has 2,500 members of which an unknown proportion are active, but in the end Rossami is right and articles are often rescued during AfD. This is a learning process for me, I have early-closed a few and I think I will be more reluctant to do so now unless they clearly meet CSD criteria. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 11:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong overturn. Speedy deltes for articels about companies are particularly poor practice IMO, This is an area where information ewstablishing celar notability can and often does appear during an AfD, which is why there is no speedy criterion that remotely supports such a speedy delete. This may well wind up delted, but without extensive research i can't be sure, and neither can anyone else. WP:SNOW does NOT apply here. DES 18:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. I support an expansion of A7 but I shouldn't have deleted it. Mushroom 20:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn per Splash. Owen× ☎ 20:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Complete bloody waste of time. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - should not have been speedied (bad admin!) but no point in undeleting crap (bad DRV) --Doc 09:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sanchez Raful Sicard & Polanco

Was listed under Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sanchez Raful Sicard & Polanco and then speedied by User:Mushroom. "Spam" is not a CSD criterion. --M@thwiz2020 21:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Saugeen Stripper

I list this here due to the fact that I disagree with the fact that the VfD discussion was ruled no consensus after 40 Delete votes (to only 20 Keep and 6 Merge+Redirect). If that's not consensus, I don't know what is. Overturn. --OntarioQuizzer 18:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Note: Please only discuss process and whether you think consensus had been reached.

  • 40 of 66 is only 60%. Is it close? Yes. Is it deletable? I believe no. The fact is, this article has been through the wringer since the day it was created. AfD...deletion review...AfD....now another deletion review. Processes have been manipulated all along the way. In this case, let's do the right thing and stick with it. You can always delete later. In fact, it probably will be easier to get support for the deletion when the issue is less current. Endorse the keep, and let the issue rest for a couple months. If, in April, the article has no legs, it can be re AfD'd. On a related note, there may be cause to protect the page temporarily, at least until this deleltion review is settled, as it seems there are a number of lone rangers who are attempting to self police the situation. Phantasmo 18:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure with the understanding that a no-consensus keep doesn't mean people come along and spam it with #REDIRECT. Wait a month or so and renominate it. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Closure is to do what the consensus said... 46 to 20 to get rid of it clear consensus, well above the 2/3 regularly needed. It certainly doesn't mean the keep as a full article people come along and try to have their way even though they lost quite dramatically. And redirects certainly are not "spam", if you are going to toss inflammatory language around, at least get the definitions correct. DreamGuy 19:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
      • You are inventing policy. Closure on this page, in this stage of the process, is to endorse the closure decision of the closing admin, which was non con/keep. Phantasmo 20:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't a matter for DRV but I'm going to redirect it (again). About 75% at the AFD did not think there should be an article at Saugeen Stripper, that much there is a consensus for. A "no consensus" means the article is not deleted, it is perfectly allowable to redirect. -R. fiend 19:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse the closure and let the redirect/keep issue be hashed out on the talk page. There's a lot of agendas being batted about here... -- nae'blis (talk)
  • Endorse close. This is well below even the most liberal threshold for deletion, which is really all that afd has jurisdiction over. That people are still fighting over whether to merge it or not shows there's no consensus on that front, either. An afd discussion is not a club to bludgeon other folks into submission. —Cryptic (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse, read the consensus over the bureaucracy. Radiant_>|< 21:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure with the clear understanding that "keep" does not automatically mean "keep as is". The decision whether or not to redirect should be thrashed out on the respective Talk pages. Note: I would consider it reasonable in that discussion to consider all the "delete" votes as opponents of an independent article. Rossami (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed that a no-consensus keep doesn't mean to leave the article as-is (I'm assuming, given the wording of your comment, you were sort-of responding to me). But discussion would be nice before revert warring over whether it's a redirect or not. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. No consensus was reached, process was followed. Now it's time for a civilized Talk page discussion on whether to keep/expand or merge/redirect. -- Jonel | Speak 01:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse as no consensus reached, although I still think it is trivia, current events, and amounts to "students get up to pranks in halls", which scarcely requires an encyclopaedia article - plus the content is still largely unverified from any reliable source, with everything coming back to hearsay and blogs. We we don't even have names (a hall full of students and nobody has blabbed the name? Really? I'd say this could have been staged, and staged anywhere). But I digress. At present it seems to be a redirect with a para in the middle of the main article on Saugeen-Maitland Hall, which I would say is reasonable, but if someone wants to restore a separate article we have to go with the flow. For my money we should not even consider including things like this until at least a year after they happen - the difference between an internet meme and a nine-days-wonder is awfully hard to determine while it's still current. I am absolutely sure that this will never approach AYB in notoriety. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 11:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment -- We do have a name, but it's not going into the article out of Seigenthaler concerns. --OntarioQuizzer 18:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
If there is a name verifiable from reliable sources then there can be no Siegenthaler concerns, surely? - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 21:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The comments I have seen on the talk page cite rumors and other less-than-reliable sources for the name. Some individuals who state that they are students at the college claim personal knowledge of the name, but that is at least technically Original Research if there are no published or otherwise verifiable and reliable sources. There might, of course, be a source i am not aware of. DES 21:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Larry Hama

Hama is a noted comic-book professional and should be included in Wiki. However, even after my deletion of a "Legacy" section filled with such self-aggrandizing and evidently self-written hype as

The significance of Larry Hama's work has yet to be fully recognized by his generation ... for the role it played in the molding of the generations to follow.

this clearly autobiographical piece of work by the living author violates Misplaced Pages:Avoid peacock terms, Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:Autobiography, and Misplaced Pages:No original research.

It is also a huge article, and without citations as to what is established fact and what is original research, it would be difficult if not impossible to fix. Read it for yourself. Go back to the History page, and read the Legacy section for yourself.

I strongly suggest it be deleted and that someone in Wikiproject:Comics write an objective entry. -- Tenebrae 14:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think WP:DRV is the forum for this. Larry Hama has never been deleted, nor has a AFD on it resulted in a disputed "keep" result. Start by using the article's talkpage to resolve disputes, and if that fails try an article WP:RFC. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Background

deletion history

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will McWhinney, Jr.

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Will McWhinney, Jr.
Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment_-_Jonah_Ayers.2FBiff_Rose

article deals with current events and significant figure i the sierra club and its internal immigration reform movement sturggle, and subject is also the son of a noted entry.Jonah Ayers 00:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-22

Prinsessakerho

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Prinsessakerho

The article didn't get a fair trial. I think the club is notable enought to have an article. The club members include artists, musicians, pornstars who are notable in Finland. And it did win an award. --Easyas12c 21:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted, valid AfD. Aecis 23:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Valid AfD, non-notable club with only 14 members. David | Talk 12:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. Even though all 14 members "have membership cards". Members include porn stars, eh? I spy porncruft. And a quick Google reveals that they do indeed wear, as the article states, tiaras and T-shirts; also thongs, which supports my suspicions. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 11:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Aren't articles that bind notable people to each other important, because they are part of each persons definition and give them social context? --Easyas12c 23:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that Finnish porn scene is quite small, and these two pornstar members are probably the most well known female pornstars in Finland. They are known by many who don't watch porn at all. --Easyas12c 23:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, valid AfD. Judging by the comments on the AfD discussion, it seems almost like Easyas12c was the only one who had even heard of this club before he wrote an article about it. If it has coverage in the City magazine then it's somewhat notable but I'm not going to contest the AfD consensus over it. JIP | Talk 13:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Phish phood

I tagged this article for speedy deletion. After it was deleted, its creator, User:Nathanmlynch, requested a copy of the article on my talk page. I am requesting the article's temporary undeletion, as described in "Reasons why an article might be requested for undeletion", on his behalf (in order to expedite the process) so that its text can be quickly retrieved. If an admin can do this, I think leaving the former article's contents on Nathanmlynch's user page or user talk page before re-deleting should suffice. If there are any other details to this process, please let me know. Thanks. –Sommers 00:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-21

Caspian James Crichton-Stuart IV (Joshua Adam Gardner), 5th Duke of Cleveland

See Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Wikipedia_vandal_is_sex_offender

In the light of reecent events, perhaps this article should be brought back to life with major modifications, but the ariginal article content somewhat intact? →AzaToth 19:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • A biography of the hoaxer is already available at Joshua Gardner (subject to AfD). Perhaps you meant this to be a request for a history-only undeletion, or a quick viewing of exactly what it was he put up there? I don't see any case for recreating an article under this title. David | Talk 19:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • So that gives us what, four redirects for an article with no article space links to it (okay, maybe 1)? Seems the only reason to have that redirect is so any relevent info can be merged into the Gardner article. That involves undeletion, not just a redirect. Shall I go ahead and do it? -R. fiend 21:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


2006-01-20

Karayana

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Karayana.

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

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

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

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

David Dom

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David Dom.

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

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

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

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)
Hi. Excuse me, but if you think aetherometry has received plenty of attention, please quote single scientific journal article about it. If many people are interested to find out about aetherometry, they can go to aetherometry website. For scientific article in encyclopedia, even to say something is "crackpot", you need more than your opinion and interest of many people. You need reputable references. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 16:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, I can't believe that this was deleted. Undelete just because it is too notable to be deleted. This is the first time I'm actually thinking of invoking IAR to undelete something.  Grue  09:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • DRV is for reviewing process decisions, not content. Do you find anything mistakes in my closing of the AfD? 209.74.96.60 17:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC) Oops, that's me. Cookie must have expired right when I was editing this. howcheng {chat} 17:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
      • This is not true. This page is for the review of deletions as a whole. Process can be followed yet an article deleted that should not have been. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 06:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I quote from #Purpose, above: This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some information pertaining to the debate that did not receive an airing during the AfD debate (perhaps because the information was not available at that time). This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content. howcheng {chat} 06:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I suggest you look at the second vote (and the first too). Keeping this article sane was absorbing too much effort due to determined POV pushing by the pro-aetheometry people; the article was junk & people got sick of it. William M. Connolley 09:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
    Do you suggest deleting George W. Bush too, because it's vandalised often? There are appropriate tools, such as semi-protection and full protection. Deletion is not such a tool.  Grue  09:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    Bush is clearly notable. IMHO aetherometry isn't notable. It wasn't on your watchlist... And AFAIK, I'm not allowed to make the article sane then protect My Version. In an ideal world, wiki would have an aetherometry article which would be short and say "this is pseudoscience" and... well, read Dragonflights vote at VFD. In the real world, the pro-ae people kept pushing it. Having said that, there seems to have been a misunderstanding about verifiability in perhaps some of the votes, and probably in the closing: the verifiability criterion for pseduoscience is not published papers (of course; they don't) but links to their wacko websites, because thats all they have. William M. Connolley 10:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
  • Endorse (keep deleted) None of the above is germane to criteria for undeletion. The Afd was closed correctly, and no new arguments have arisen. The original article was deleted largely because this article is an OR soapbox for a fringe group. WP is not webhosting for every fringe idea that comes along. Vandalism has nothing to do with it so far as I am concerned. KillerChihuahua 10:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The article does indeed have a problem with reliable sources. That would probably be because it's hard to find a reliable source on pseudoscience. My suggestion would be to keep deleted, and create a new article covering ONLY those facts drawn from a reliable source (which is probably about 20% of what is now in the article) the protect for a while to get the POV pushers cooled down. Radiant_>|< 11:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • DumbA you are Radiant. Article already quoted only reliable sources there were.81.193.157.168
  • Undelete. I don't know anything about the subject at all, nor am I particularly interested to change that situation. But I fully agree with Grue that deletion should not be a tool against POV pushing. Lack of reliable sources? Phew! If we use thát as an argument, I believe we can quietely delete about 90 % of our articles. We have other tags for that! While I would endorse a cleanup of the article, it still needs to be undeleted in order to distill the 20% Radiant was talking about. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 11:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted somewhat sadly. I'm surprised this was deleted too, but it does look like a valid AfD. Perhaps some content could be placed in Reich's article, or one of the Orgone articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Either Undelete or recreate as per Radiant. As others have said, POV problems are not grounds for deletion. I have no problem with it remaining a protected stub. –Abe Dashiell 12:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: no vote yet, but I find it troubling that two of the voters who voted to delete the article in the second AFD were two of the editors most responsible for trying to legitimize this (in my opinion) pseudoscience. That they would suddenly argue for the article's deletion makes me suspicious. Since the article's talk page has not been deleted yet, voters can see for themselves without having to view the history of the deleted article. --Calton | Talk 13:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Calton. I know your name, you are one of people who was many times putting aetherometry article in category "pseudoscience". Now you correctly say "this is my opinion". But you know, you cannot just put opinion in encyclopedia as if it is fact. Can you quote published scientific articles that aetherometry is in violation of scientific method? If not, then dont you think that putting category in, as if it was known opinion of scientific majority, is not honorable and not responsible? Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 16:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, Chatty Cathy, I was trying to be polite. It's pseudoscience by any reasonable definition; my actual opinion is that it's a complete load of half-baked crap being pushed by glory-seeking self-promoters not talented, knowledgable, or smart enough to get published or noticed by actual scientists or actual peer-reviewed journals, and who are using sockpuppets/meatpuppets/gullible cohorts to use Misplaced Pages to promote their views and sell their self-published books -- but that would take too long to type. And might I point out that this isn't an article you're reading right now?: it's in Misplaced Pages space, and I can express any (non-libellous, non-personal, and non-slanderous) opinion I care to. And as for your challenge to provide a peer-reviewed source that calls it pseudoscience; well, to steal from Wolfgang Pauli, "that's not right; that's not even wrong." --Calton | Talk 02:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Mr. Calton. There couldn't be a more eloquent argument for keeping the Aetherometry entry deleted. FrankZappo 03:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Ha! Calton, that was a lot of fulmination for something you misread! Pgio 20:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keeep deleted. ENOUGH OF THIS. Nobody is trying to legitimize anything. If you think that having an article in Misplaced Pages, and trying to keep it to verifiable claims, unjustly legitimizes Aetherometry, then you should be the first to want the article deleted. If you just want to recreate the article so as to be able to say it's "pseudoscience", then provide A SINGLE REPUTABLE REFERENCE IN A MAINSTREAM PUBLICATION that reviews the work and concludes it is "pseudoscience". If you want to recreate it for any other reason, then don't just talk; you need to propose how the verifiability problem should be solved. FrankZappo 14:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have to say that I find it absolutely disgusting when the people who have, day in and day out, tried to provide content for the article, and without whom there couldn't even be an Aetherometry article, are referred to contemptuously as "POV pushers" or "legitimizers" in the very same breath in which it is suggested that the article should stay in Misplaced Pages. What are you running here, a plantation on which "niggers" should provide content while you subject them to contempt and ridicule? Is this how you run a utopian encyclopedic establishment? FrankZappo 14:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure with full recognition of the heroic work done by some editors in trying to provide a balanced coverage of what is, according to my reading of the evidence, a crackpot theory aggressively promoted by its proponents; in the end, though the fundamental problem is that as a supposedly scientific subject it is unverifiable from reliable sources since neither the theory nor the rebuttals are presented in peer-reviewed journals. It was asserted that citations could be provided, but none were. Much of the argument on the AfD ignored this (to me) fundamental point. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 15:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. This is different case than article on Bush. Claims in aetherometry article, on both sides, were presented as scientific. Claims of aetherometry were presented as scientific claims, and opinions of Misplaced Pages administrators about it were presented as judgement of scientific majority. If a claim is presented in scientific context in encyclopedia, you must quote in support reputable scientific sources. Even in Bush article, you would not report something as majority opinion simply because it is opinion held by most Misplaced Pages administrators who are watching article. You would quote published polls or other reputable outside sources. For aetherometry, no such sources exist. If you want to know what aetherometry claims, just go to aetherometry website at www.aetherometry.com. But in encyclopedia that wants to educate public, scientific claims, for minority or majority, should not be published if they cannot be verified. If other Misplaced Pages articles refer to aetherometry article, this is easy to change. They can refer to aetherometry website instead, or not refer at all. Sincerely, Janusz Karpinski. Januszkarp 16:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and slap an NPOV tag, slap a disputed tag, slap a cleanup tag. The subject is interesting and I would that our readers would want and expect such an article to be in Misplaced Pages, knowing that the subject is contentious, is disputed, etc, etc, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
If the subject is interesting and your readers want and expect such an article in Misplaced Pages, then you must institute policies by which the people who know something about the subject are treated with respect, as providers of a valuable service, not as "POV pushers", "aggressive promoters" and "cranks" who are "pushing their crackpot theory". I am sorry, but unless Misplaced Pages can guarantee respectful treatment to the people who have studied the subject and can provide information about it, it is disingenous to call the subject "interesting" and argue that the article should be kept. FrankZappo 17:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am sorry, I need to make another comment, because this is really too much and I need you all to know and understand that it is, and why it is, too much. In June 2005, there was an actual request in Misplaced Pages for an article on Aetherometry, in the category "Applied Sciences". I don't know what misguided, ignorant or malicious soul created this request, but I didn't know anything about Misplaced Pages, saw the request, and took it at face value. I pointed it out to Dr. Askanas, who then did a lot of hard work to fulfill this request and supply the article. Ever since then, Dr. Askanas, Pgio, myself, DrHyde, and everybody else who tried to contribute to the article from first-hand knowledge of the primary sources, has received nothing but scorn and derision. When we provide information, we are called "POV pushers", "snake-oil vendors", and "aggressive promoters"; when we remove claims that are nothing but expressions of bias and cannot be verified, or are simply incorrect, we are called "vandals" and reverted; and when we vote to have the article deleted, this is called "suspicious" and claimed to be a good reason to keep the article. No, there is nothing suspicious about us wanting the article deleted. This has to stop. It was a mistake to respond to the request to create the entry in the first place. The entry, as has been proven by over half a year of completely futile wrangling, does not belong in Misplaced Pages. There is nothing suspicious about having had enough, about no longer wanting to spend every day of our lives trying to "keep the article sane" - i.e., to the best of our knowledge, accurate and verifiable - when there are no acceptable secondary mainstream sources for the contentions of either side. I am sorry to say this, but it is not only frivolous, but de facto malicious - even if the malice is unintentional - to simply say that the article should be undeleted. Either you can, right here and now, propose a concrete, viable way to make this article sane, verifiable, and acceptable to all the main contributors, or the people who have been, since June 2005, locked in an unresolvable conflict with each other trying to make this article viable, need to be released from bondage and permitted to live their lives. FrankZappo 17:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Without serious consideration and clear address of the comment above (FrankZappo 17:54, 20 January 2006), the function and purpose of Misplaced Pages will remain suspect. TTLightningRod 18:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Misplaced Pages need not have an article on every fringe idea. Put a paragraph into Aether theories or some other Misplaced Pages article (iff there is a good reference) and move on. --JWSchmidt 04:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted --Philosophus 07:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that this topic may be notable enough and important enough and interesting enough to warrant an article. I agree that the article as it stood had a lot of issues. I agree that a new article, free of unverifiable claims and POV, that reported on the history and existance of this theory, what it claims, and what the various findings of mainstream science are, and what media attention it has received, would be a good, encylopedic, important article. But none of that is what DRV is about. DRV is about process. I looked over the discussion, and it was long and contentious, and relatively new admin User:howcheng had a hard job to slog through it. But I think he called the consensus correctly. The consensus was delete and I see nothing wrong with the process. Keep Deleted. If someone were to write a new article with the content outlined above so that it did not fall afoul of the "recreation of deleted content" rule, that would be a good and noble thing in my view. But it strikes me as (if some of the comments here are indicative of what those trying to write NPOVly had to face) rather an arduous and thankless task and I pity whoever tries it. ++Lar: t/c 20:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted I was one of the principle authors. If you check the Talk page edit logs you'll see that I broached the topic of VfD this time around, because I'm tired of this whole dispute. Contrary to WMC's revisionism above, the article was not junk. It accurately states the claims of the science involved. WMC and Calton and others were the ones pushing POV by applying the pseudoscience category without references, as if it was self-evident. Until such time as either side can produce acceptable second-party references, I don't see how this article has a place in Misplaced Pages at all. That's what people decided in the VfD. Pgio 20:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to also request a temporary undeletion. Turnstep 05:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, does this discussion not begin to remind a bit of absurdist farce? It was now said twice that deletion review is for reviewing procedure, and not content. Was this incorrect claim? Because if correct, then why should you, Turnstep, request temporary undeletion? The absence of "why" is even more funny because you just told Philosophus that not providing reasons for votes was your "pet peeve". And then if your idea is to try create new article, it seems to me you should work from published mainstream sources, not old article. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 06:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Temporary undeletion is a valid request, in order to allow transfer to user space. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 17:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Undeletion helps me to understand the voter's rationales and thus allows me to evaluate how well the closing admin did at gauging consensus and arriving at the proper conclusion. I certainly have no interest in creating a new article, I don't know why you would think that. Turnstep 16:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted This article was original research and totally useless. The POV problems involved with it were unresolvable for lack of scientific references. No other article referenced it: see Special:Whatlinkshere/Aetherometry. (note: I just removed it from 3 pages that linked to Aetherometry in the "See also" section, check the rest of those links for cleanup) Ashibaka tock 21:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Due to the almost complete failure of anyone to produce source citations on either side, this article did not meet our verifiability policy. Verifiability has always supposedly been our policy, and it says so right under the edit box I'm typing in right now. The article can be re-created without prejudice at any time when anyone can produce substantial source citations showing that aetherometry is a real theory—not a proven theory, but a real theory—that is receiving significant public discussion, for and against, outside a very small circle of people. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, probable original research and very likely unverifiable. I searched journal databases (admittedly doing so fairly quickly) and was unable to find a single academic article on the matter. That, combined with all this above, does not bode well. Lord Bob 21:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete obviously. Very depressing to read the arguments in favour of ridding us of yet another potentially interesting article. It's one of the pluses of Misplaced Pages that it covers crackpot theories. You scientist types get to bully the writers and fill the articles full of your POV as it is. Now you resort to deleting the articles? As for the undue weight provision, that would apply if the debate was about including material about "aetherometry" in a general article on physics, but it's scarcely unduly weighting a crackpot theory to have an article about it, given the many articles about mainstream physics. Grace Note 03:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Grace, the material was deleted for this very example; The phrase "...crackpot theories", used in a comment to undelete material, without citation.Cutaow 13:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and clean thoroughly. There is undoubtedly something called "Aetherometry" on which we should have an article: simply deleting it because some people don't like the current content is hardly conducive to creating a reputable encyclopedia; that's what {{cleanup}} and {{npov}} and all their little friends are for. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Phil, if Misplaced Pages was able to find any citable, reputable reference sources upon which to build the content, specifically the "counter" and "critical" arguments against the material.... you would already have a reputable encyclopedia. Without any such reference, the use of "crack-pot" and "pseudo" is what "some people don't like".Cutaow 13:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Misplaced Pages has a lot of information about pseudoscience. As someone who's worked on keeping some of those articles NPOV, I know it's a pain, but we can't hold that against having an article at all. To say we should have no article at all on these guys is just plain silly, so the deletion was an error. -- SCZenz 16:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Good. In light of your previous experience, I am sure you will be able to put on the table, right here and now, a proposal for a concrete, viable way to make the Aetherometry article sane, verifiable, and acceptable to all the main contributors. FrankZappo 16:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
It can't be done to the satisfaction of all the main contributors, because a small number of them have a vested interest. However, because they have a vested interest, NPOV allows their input to be ignored. User:Dragon's Flight has made one suggestion that would work, along the lines that Aetherometry is a theory advanced by X that claims Y. It has no significant support in the scientific community as verified by its failure to appear in abstract database Z. Some specific claims are A, B, C; as acknowledged by aetherometry's advocates these conflict with established scientific principles D, E, F. Then lock the sucker. But my main reason for voting delete was that the keep arguments were so often framed in terms of the importance of Misplaced Pages as a source for debunking / discussing this topic, in a way not doen elsewhere. I'm probably not the only one for whom that raises red flags; absent reliable sources verification is a real problem. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 21:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Who are the contributors that are said to have a vested interest? That's the first I hear about this. Certainly neither Pgio nor myself. Or does "vested interest" mean that we are interested in the topic? FrankZappo 22:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, how in the world is locking the entry supposed to help? Locking does not protect against editing by administrators. So how do you-all propose to protect the entry against the toxic zeal of bigoted administrators like Connolley who are so full of themselves that they equate their own bias with a "scientific point of view" and don't care whether the commentary they put in the entry violates the verifiability policy? Or do you-all simply not care? FrankZappo 22:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and attach whatever framing text or disclaimer tags are necessary to keep the article from looking like an endorsement of unsubstantiated theories. It is obvious that some people seeking insight into the meaning of the term would appreciate information. Possibly redirect to some information merged into the general Reich article? Ben Kidwell 01:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Just because it's kookery that doesn't mean it's invalid for Misplaced Pages to have an article on it. Misplaced Pages runs on notability, not whether it's loony or not. Wiwaxia

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

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)
    • If you read my explanation above, I was not going simply by vote count, but basing my decision on the criterion that people know about druids are in the best position to determine if these particular druids are notable within the druid world. Again, however, I'm fine with them being deleted on the basis of their being unverifiable from reliable sources. howcheng {chat} 16:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  • Overturn and delete, my sympathies to Howcheng for having to deal with a sockfest, a real no-win situation.
A closing admin is perfectly entitled to take into account the edit history (or lack of) of each person in an AfD debate. Also, a closing admin is entitled to discount arm-waving: if an article fails to establish notability, unevidenced assertions of notability in AfDs are moot. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 16:19, 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)
  • Keep deleted. This was deleted via CFD last year. The DRV was unsuccessful. It was recreated, virtually the same as when it was deleted. This is not a content dispute. Recreations of deleted categories are eligible for speedy. The community has examined the matter already. The community has re-examined the matter already. The community has decided to delete it and keep it deleted. Why are we here again? --Kbdank71 14:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Because no deletion vote can prevent the creation of substantially different material. The deletion vote did not say that no category can ever be created that uses the term "Causes célèbres". This was a good faith attempt to solve the problems raised in the initial CfD and your reaction begins to look a bad faith attempt to use admin powers to enforce your view on a content issue. Just like any other user I am perfectly at liberty to start a categorisation scheme for Causes célèbres. Why are you so afraid of having this issue debated at CfD? David | Talk 15:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
      • "Substantially different material" is key. What you put back is not different at all. And as such, this issue was already debated at CfD, with a decision to delete. --Kbdank71 16:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Please help me out on this. What proposal would you make for a categorisation scheme of individuals and issues which are generally ascribed as being causes célèbres such that it would be substantially different and overcome the problems which some users saw in the CfD? Let's work together and help the encyclopaedia. David | Talk 16:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I think one of the major stumbling blocks to creating/recreating the category in question is the "famous" aspect of it. Categories with Famous in the title are routinely deleted at CFD for being POV. Is there something like a Current Events category that might work? --Kbdank71 17:12, 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)

I merely asked that OpenInfo and OpenGCL not be accused of fraud (one editor used the term "vapourware"). This was a deliberate attempt by an editor to devalue a commercial product, and therefore those comments should have been removed. OpenGCL is notable, however the article was deleted while it was still a stub (work in progress). I merely ask for a few weeks time to build up the article. There are many PRINT references that can be cited. The Internet is not always the only place to look for citations.

  • Comment To mdescribe a product as "Vaporware" is an expression of opnion, and so cannot be slander or libel. It is certianly not an accustation of fraud. The legal threats issued durign the AfD are probably sufficent to call for at elast a temporary block of then suer issuign them. There seem to have been several other irregualritys in the Afd, with pro-deltion comments being removed, etc. DES 21:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • endorese close ()keep deleted). The AfD seems to have been proper, the articel at the teim it was deelted was quite promotional in tone, and did not include citations establishign its notability. Notability was debated in the AfD, and views differed, no evidence cited seems compellign to me one way or ther other, so i am content to go with the much more numerous delte views. If OpenInfo wants to developp a better article that includes citations clearly establishing notability, let that happen in user space. If that user needs a copy of the original article moved to userspace i will be glad to do so, for the purpose of attempting to build a proper, verifiabel article. DES 21:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would need a copy of the original article to work with. TY. OpenInfo 04:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I did NOT realized you were blocked nor I decided on YOUR articles (articles aren't owned by single wikipedians) I jsut closed the afd, it was nothing personal against you. I resent you portraying me as a bad guy trying to discredit you or taking unfair advantage. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Endorse closure', valid AfD, no "keepers" at all that I can see. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 00:40, 26 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)
            • I think you're abusing the term verifiable if you claim that the quotes from named representatives of customers are unverifiable. Of course they're verifiable--just go to the customers and ask! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
            • As we all apologize, sorry for extending this further, BUT, what about this, from the UK gov Office of Government Commerce: OGC Projectplace, which for some internal use selected Projectplace: "The results of the demonstrations and suppliers’ responses to the request for quotation (RFQ), which included bids on usage and licence fees, were evaluated using Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT) as the award criteria. ... a registered user could view a Project plan written using Microsoft Project software even if they did not have Microsoft Project software installed on their PC." Doesn't this demonstrate some level of competition in the PM field, where PP was judged superior by a notable end-user (UK gov), and relate it also to a well-known product MS Project? That concretely demonstrates a degree of unique value and noteworthiness, of this particular application, within the PM space, that could be profitably explained in WP. We do cover software, don't we? I'm not clear on the bar here... --Tsavage 19:45, 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)
      • You may be right, at least, I know I'm not up on the nuances of AfD. However, I was commenting on existing comments here (which is perhaps out of process, but seems to be done...regularly, so is really...part of the process). More fundamentally, I'm interested in the use of speedy anythings, which are quite self-evident when applied. Here it seems, the speedy was moved to AfD because someone didn't understand why it was speedied, and then, it was deleted because it was found unnoteworthy (based on the AfD comments). The Deletion Review summary I think mistakes the reasons for relisting from speedy (e.g. Google hits was cited as a possible reason agaisnt (speedy) deletion). In any case, the company seems adequately noteworthy on at the very least a common sense basis. Deleting it would then lower the chances of other editors seeing it and expanding on it. No drama, I'm learning the intricacies of the system, while trying to remain...practical. :) --Tsavage 19:12, 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)
      • It's certainly a small company--much smaller than, say, SuperOffice. This doesn't mean it isn't an important company. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I gave that example as a measure of proof that the substantial client claims made on the Projectplace site have some basis (otherwise, we're assuming they fabricated the list and case studies). I read the WP:CORP guideline and it obviously needs work. We can't exclude corporations (which are entities, like people) if they're not "big" in a financial sense. A "smaller" company can be extremely noteworthy, in a way that cannot be ascribed to individuals in that company. And in a case like this, many client companies will not make mention one of the products they use internally, so it can be difficult to get client-side or media-reported sources. Here, do Google Books and there are at least three print titles on PM s/w, all available through Amazon, that cite Projectplace... (Sorry to clutter this debate, if I'm so doing...I'll figure it out.) --Tsavage 19:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I was the one writing the original page about this company / service. I do know the company very well (but as I wrote, I'm not a sales guy for it). It's a 50 man company, with official annual reports, websites in 5 languages, 200.000 registered users and quite a lot of (big) customers who use this for project management, intra/extranet, knowledge management. There is an IPO in the planning and it IS the leading provider for online collaboration in Europa. Anyone working with online PM tools should have at least heard of it, especially in the Nordic region. Now I read back here after a few days I see claims of possible corporate scams and questions if the customer cases on the website are actually real. It's ridiculous, like denying BMW actually makes real cars. I say: let's just leave it here. Keep the page out of WP, let's not waste any time on this. I don't feel like updating this page or the information about Projectplace anymore. --Zpeed 22:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn (undelete) The article was put through two an out-of-process deletions. It was first marked for speedy deleted without reason (no comment provided). To correct this procedural error, an admin undeleted it and posted it to AfD, again with no grounds for deletion cited (in fact, it was listed with possible reasons for keeping, e.g. significant Google hits). There were only three votes, including one from the speedy deleter, and no additional substantive reasoning against it. In this Review, additional support for the notability of the topic has been presented. The article should not have been placed on AfD as a remedy for the faulty speedy. (I think I got that right? Now...?) --Tsavage 03:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • To clarify, it was never speedy deleted, it was tagged for deletion, but I saw it in CSD before that happened. It didn't look like an obvious delete, or an obvious keep, so I took it to AFD instead. Kappa 03:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Possibly relist on AFD. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 06:22, 23 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)
  • It's a misconception, and sadly a widely held and relentlessly promoted one, that we aren't allowed to undelete good content if the AfD was in order. See the undeletion policy: we're mandated to undelete stuff in the case of "Article wrongly deleted (ie that Misplaced Pages would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored)." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Slightly more precisely, that's given as a reason for why undeletion might be requested (as the section header says) i.e. what a good reason to bring up as part of your request might be. It's not a mandate to simply decide for oneself to reverse a decision one happens to disagree with. -Splash 03:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Not sure what you're saying here. You think we can't resurrect good stuff that has been wrongly deleted by a formally valid AfD? If so, I assure that we can do so, old chap, and we've got two perfectly good company articles waltzing gaily through their second AfDs right now. It's possible that you're saying something else entirely and I've misunderstood--in which case please elaborate. Why would we have a deletion policy encouraging people to bring good articles here because they've been wrongly deleted, if what Stifle says were true: DRV is strictly only to do undeletions where due process was not followed? I contend that that is rubbish, and our mandate is to pick up the good stuff that AfD has wrongly deleted. Process sometimes gets it wrong, so here we should say loudly and clearly, where appropriate: fuck process, this is a good article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
      • One man's "good article" in another man's speedy deletion. The reason that we have these much-maligned "processes" is that, as our community grows, it is necessary to place some structure on our conversations to insure that people's voices are heard in an equitable manner. Without "process" where by we all contribute our ideas in a civil and rational manner, we are left at the mercy of those with the most free time, the thickest skin, and the least regard for the opinons of others. In almost every case, when an individual is screaming that "process" is screwing things up, it is because they are unable to use that process to get the results that they want. As such, the complaints regarding the "brokeness" of process are actually an indication that it works - it's making almost everyone happy. The very simple facts are that well written, well sourced articles about notable entities are almost never deleted, the vast majority of deletions (speedy and otherwise) are uncontested, and the vast majority of Wikipedians find that working within the process is fine for them. - brenneman 06:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree with you that One man's "good article" in another man's speedy deletion, but this doesn't mean we cannot make a judgement on content and undelete good articles that have been wrongly deleted. Processes sometimes have the wrong result even if all the t's are crossed and all the i's are dotted. So we need some way of fixing that. I don't mind what does it, as long as it's done. As for well written, well souced articles almost never being deleted, I suspect that I'll be bringing just such an article here in a couple of days withh a view to getting it undeleted. Take note. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist just to avoid any ambiguity. The two were sufficiently dissimilar as to make a joint AfD (which I normally actively support) problematic in this case. I still think it's gamecruft, but what do I know? - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 17:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, relist if needed. Some votes were not for the article in question and the Alexa rank (which is reason enough on its own to undelete) was mentioned so late in the process, it's unlikely to have been considered by earlier voters. I think this warrants a new discussion with all the facts included upfront. - Mgm| 10:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This seems pretty much unanimous to me so I'm undeleting now. Anybody who thinks it ought to be relisted should do so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-18

The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny (corrected title Jan 25)

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)
Undelete and AfD per above. Too much confusion to be assured that everybody was talking about the same article. For the record I still think it should be a merge and redirect, and if the author would prefer to boldly merge instead of AfDin that would work for me too. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 15:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment/Apology/Question The article had no AfD notice when I moved (IIRC) Ultimate showdown to either Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny or The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny; if it was me, I aplogize for causing the mess, though I think it was clear to the participants that the article was what was being referred to. I only discovered the AfD when I looked at the What Links Here page checking for double redirects. There have been several reposts and re-speedy-deletes since then; I've posted in the talk page several times to try to stop it. I'm not sure whether enough time as passed to convince people of its notabilty: if the article fails AfD again, can it be relisted again in the future? --AySz88^-^ 06:52, 25 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)


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)
  • Hmm, JQ asked me to have a look. I restored Henry Farrell (political scientist). Why is this speedy? The article does assert his importance. VFD it if you must, but speedy appears to be very dubious. William M. Connolley 20:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC).
    I speedy-deleted Henry Farrell (political scientist); in my view, the assertion of notability made in that article ranked with "this person is notable because he writes on a website which is cool." If there's disagreement on that, though, I have no problem with it going through the regular AFD process. —Cleared as filed. 23:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    It is still a candidate for speedy deletion. There is no claim of notability there. And WMC, when three admins think something is a speedy, it's pretty bold to reverse it while discussion are ongoing. Additionally, don't restore and then say "AfD it if you must", have the courage of your convictions and nominate it youself while abstaining. - brenneman 00:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    It was probably over-bold of me; apologies. We'll see how VFD pans out. William M. Connolley 10:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC).
  • Now that Henry Farrell (political scientist) is up again, I've edited it to include a more detailed claim to notability, based on media coverage. Sorry if this is a breach of Misplaced Pages etiquette, but, as I said, I'm new to this deletion business. In any case, I'd appreciate it if someone could advise whether this kind of evidence is sufficient for a claim of notability JQ 02:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • And now this: 17:53, 19 January 2006 Alkivar restored "Eszter Hargittai". This is, again, bad form. If there is a reason for restoration, present it here. I also do not see any evidence that the original speedy was invalid, nor that Mel was notified that his speedy was reversed. That's actually required per Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy#Exception. It might be good if we actually started following these policies. - brenneman 05:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    It may be bad form but its probably the right answer. Erdos number of 3 is notable. William M. Connolley 11:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
    Look per WP:BIO standards she qualifies, she was the recipient of a prestigious award not bestowed on many people, she has made numerous major media appearances, and appears to be an expert in her field. As such this did not fit speedy guidelines. I am not however opposed to it being listed individually on AFD. Let the masses decide, I see no reason 7 days of discussion cant agree on a solution. The rest of these do not appear to pass the WP:BIO standards as I see them and although I will not oppose their speedy I still think it was in poor form. This is precicely what AFD was created for. In cases when your unsure if you'll catch flack over it... dont speedy afd it.  ALKIVAR™ 19:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    Why are you arguing with me? I agree with you! No, it wasn't a joke. William M. Connolley 19:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
    Sorry I was referring to Aaron... damn talk nesting.  ALKIVAR™ 21:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm still unhappy about the speedy deletions. I would have thought that someone doing a speedy delete ought to be pretty confident that an AfD discussion would go overwhelmingly in favor of deletion, and hence be a waste of time. This hasn't been the case with Henry Farrell (political scientist) and I think it won't be if Eszter Hargittai is disputed either. As I read the guidelines, a disputed assertion of notability is not sufficient grounds for speedy deletion.
  • Alkivar's responses to my attempts to clean up Eszter Hargittai have been aggressive and emotional; I think that there's more going on here than a minor disagreement about whether the articles meet the criteria. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • My emotional response is due to people speedy deleting articles on a whim ... what part of the Kelly Martin fiasco did you miss? Per CSD A7 If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. This in a nutshell is the problem... people speedy stuff as A7 regularly without even so much as a google search. As per my talk page Eszter Hargittai (a quite unique and uncommon spelled name) gets more google hits than JIMBO when you exclude pages hosted by wikipedia.org... nuff said.  ALKIVAR™ 21:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Again, you assume bad faith. I deleted the article because it didn't assert the notability of its subject, as the Misplaced Pages criteria state; in what sense is that deleting "on a whim"? I don't Google every one of the hundreds of articles that meet those criteria (and I don't think much of Google as a criterion of notability, skewed as it is towards people and things on the Web, giving non-notable bloggers ridiculous prominence). The article that I deleted was this; I stand my by view that it was speediable; I don't see much there now to change my opinion, frankly, but I have made no attempt (despiote your accusations and insinuations) to redelete it or to persuade others to do so. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not opposed to its deletion... i'm opposed to its SPEEDY deletion... there is a significant difference. Feel free to relist it on AFD... I just want it to be given the time to have the community decide whether or not she is in fact notable... My google searches and fact checking shows that she is but 1 of 4 "Wilson Scholars" awarded that year... Subjects of awards (especially with that small of a pool of recipients) from a major organization are by themselves notable... Hell there are more Oscar recipients than Wilson Scholars. My problem is not with you Mel, its with ANYONE who speedies borderline/questionable bios without at least a simple fact check... when they should instead be AFDing them and letting the community do said notibility/fact checking.  ALKIVAR™ 22:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


2006-01-16

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

2006-01-13

2006-01-12

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)
  • Keep Deleted per Tony --Improv 03:03, 22 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)


2006-01-07

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)

See Misplaced Pages:Categories. You'te not supposed to just drop the cat on; you should enter the facts which show he's a Christian into the text, with sources and everything, and then add the cat. Septentrionalis 21:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Endorse closure and keep deleted, categories are better for this precisely because the editors on individual articles won't allow them to be added without evidence, whereas they may not notice addition to a list somewhere else. The debate is a tough call: one who looks like a keep is actually sayiong keep a different article (i.e. one with all those whose entertainment is explicitly Christian, not secular), which the list as deleted was not. There is nothing wrong with a category for Catholics, Baptists, Methylated Wesletarians or whatever as subcats, with the unclassifiable in the root cat. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 17:30, 24 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)
Undelete per Durova. Wiwaxia 10:19, 27 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. Yafinsint: Nomination withdrawn, admitted hoax. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. NATARS: Kept deleted. 23:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Holy Father: Not a deletion issue. Article now stands as a dab. 23:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. LUEshi: Closure of "keep" upheld. 04:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Ninjah Pendragon: Kept deleted. 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Pussy_City_Pimps : Kept deleted. 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Weishampel exchange : Kept deleted. 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Template:User allow fairuse : Kept deleted. 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Circumcision fetish: Kept deleted. 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Pedelec: Kept deleted (something about mediation??? no a DRV matter anyway). 17:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Game Central Network: Kept deleted. 17:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Ludvig Strigeus: Relisted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ludvig Strigeus (second nomination). 17:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. 2120s and 2140s : Redirected. 20:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. aladin: Never deleted. Moved and now listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aladin (magician). 20:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. SuperOffice: Undeleted by Tony Sidaway, relisted and kept 07:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Tally Solutions Ltd: Undeleted by Tony Sidaway, relisted and kept 07:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Eszter Hargittai: Rewritten, currently at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eszter Hargittai. 19:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Henry Farrell (political scientist): Rewritten, kept. 19:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Content review

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

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

January 27, 2006, Tony Sidaway has decided to take all good faith requests for undeletion on this page as de facto requests for temporary undeletion for the purpose of debate, and to honor such requests, unless the content is defamatory, copyright, a personal attack, or otherwise unsuitable for publication, for the duration of the debate. This offer will be withdrawn if there is reason to suspect that it is being abused. Pages undeleted for this purpose will be clearly marked with a link to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review.

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".

2006-01-27

Greenlighting

This article was deleted by... yours truly, back in July 2005 as a result of a clear delete consensus at this AFD debate. From looking at the Undelete screen, I see that Snowspinner undeleted one revision on August 1, and that R. Fiend speedy deleted this as a recreation several months later, on December 19. Now, I would have had no complaints about the deletion as recreation, but for the fact that there was another AFD debate in October, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Greenlighting (2nd nomination) which ended without consensus. I think that a second AFD debate ending in a keep should override the CSD G4. Requesting a review on this now and vote Overturn deletion, and keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Undelete and Keep. Good eye to catch that one. Well done. --Dschor 12:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh provisionally keep deleted or merge to Something Awful. Was it really that significant? I see absolutely no mention of the thing on the current copy of the Something Awful article. I'm looking at the article now (I've undeleted it temporarily so that others can do the same) and I see the Slate reference, which I suppose makes it verifiable, but does this in itself tell us that the incident went beyond the small "Something Awful" community? A very senior policeman once made some postings on Urban 75, and this had ramifications in the real world that went to the Home Office and beyond, but I'm really not that certain that the incident, which played out over weeks, has its own article. I'd like to see this merged if it's really that significant. If it definitely has a meaning beyond a single Slate article and an apparently forgotten "Something Awful" hoax then I suppose it should be restored permanently as an article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It was never a CSD G4, since it was new material, and, actually, not even on the same topic - the original article was a hoax, the second an article about a hoax. That, combined with its survival of an AfD makes it, to my mind, a clear Undelete. Phil Sandifer 15:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep undeleted, as per the second AfD -- if anyone thinks that a merge of future deeltion is warrented, those should be persued through normal editing or discussion for a merge, or with another AfD. If any content from the current revision is or might be from any of the deleted revisions, I think a history undelte would be in order -- i haven't checked as yet. DES 16:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist; bad deletion process, but article is totally non-notable. Ashibaka tock 22:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy of computer science

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

2006-01-26

Maria Pia Braganza and Rosario Poidimani

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

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

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

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


Category:Ambiguous five-letter acronyms

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

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

2006-01-25

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

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

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

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

Category:Lists in the Misplaced Pages namespace

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

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

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

  • Overturn and relist a nom with no further discussion is not consensus by any reasonble standard IMO. I don't know what I would say on such a relisted discusion. DES 18:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Note. Unless stated otherwise, I view the nomination as the nominator's choice. In this case, one person wanted to delete the category, and nobody objected. --Kbdank71 20:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure - nomination counts as vote. --- Charles Stewart 21:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes it does, but one vote can not IMO be reasonably called "consensus". DES 21:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I think it can be: to say there is a consensus is to say there is no serious dispute. Of course raising it here does make a dispute, but that is no objection to how the CfD was closed. I don't think the nomination has indicated any value to the category at all, only listed some dubious principles that, if we accepted, would lead us to keep the category. --- Charles Stewart 21:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Seems like a valid Misplaced Pages namespace category to me. --Cyde Weys 21:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse and delete, nearly half of nominations on CFD are procedural and do not get many votes. This is a good thing because it prevents CFD from becoming a tarpit of negativity like AFD. CFD is heavily watched and if anybody wanted to object, they would have. And remember that CFD is not a vote. Radiant_>|< 22:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, this is not a meaningful categorisation. The cat contains pages in Wikispace that (1) are about lists, but those should go in the manual of style, and (2) happen to have the form of a list, which is not a defining characteristic, and those pages should go in a more appropriate cat. I've recategorized both pages Herostratus mentioned. Radiant_>|< 01:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment from nominator. I don't have a huge problem with the way the original CfD was handled. Nomination does count as 1 delete vote, and hey, not one person spoke up to support the category. The closing admin could have relisted, but hey we're busy; no support at all, I can see how he would have just closed. I guess it's kind of a borderline case, I happened to come across it, happen to want to keep the category, so I think as a borderline case -- and on an internal category at that -- it would be proper to relist it. (And I realize I should not have listed my reasons for keeping the category here, but in a relisted CfD (if there is one), which is also where all debate about the category should go. Deletion review should be mainly about the process, and I'm sorry for opening up that can of worms.) I still think that as a borderline case it should be re-listed more-or-less on request unless the closing admin thinks there no real support for that. Or, if the closing admin thinks that a close is a close unless clearly out of process (not just borderline), I would accept that though not agree.Herostratus 17:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User homosexual-no

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

Keep Deleted. It is an attack template. As I commented, why would a "this user is straight" userbox not suffice to oppose the "this user is gay" userboxes? I don't see any gay boxes claim that straigth intercourse as it would be put, is immoral. -- Sneltrekker†My Talk 19:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
To those who say this is an attack template, I have one question: If someone wrote "I believe homosexual intercourse to be immoral" on a talk page, would it be a personal attack? If so, there are a lot of things needing deleted on Misplaced Pages. - AdelaMae 02:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't see the significance. The template was not created to make a point, nor was undeletion requested to do so. The template was simply created to reflect a significant view that a number of Wikipedians have, so that, if they choose to, they can express that view in a regulated userbox. It was made by request at Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Sexuality, and after a discussion on the matter. In my opinion, the main reason this template is under siege is knee-jerk reactions to any expression of a non-positive view of a minority, without stopping to consider the fact that the template is worded in a non-inflammatory, perfectly un-aggressive manner that does not actually attack homosexuals, but merely expresses a common religious belief regarding homosexual intercourse. The fact that that belief is wrong is certainly no reason to delete the template, else we'd have to delete "This user believes in reincarnation" and most other religious templates; nor does the fact that it expresses a negative view (i.e. "This user thinks X is bad" rather than "This user thinks X is good") intolerable, as there are dozens of similar userboxes that also don't attack say something like "This user thinks that Wikipedian homosexuals are immoral", etc. Nuances like that are being flagrantly ignored, as people attempt to turn this from a debate over whether or not people should be allowed to express an unpopular opinion in a userbox into a debate over the contents of the userbox and whether we agree with the opinion expressed there or not (which is patently ridiculous, as the template was created by a proud member of the LGBT community and a supporter thereof). Utterly besides the point. Whatever happened to disagreeing with what you say, but defending your right to say it? -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted I can't see how a userbox questioning the morality of homosexual activity is an 'attack' any more than a 'pro-life' userbox questioning the morality of abortion. It is a statement of POV on morality, all be it not a very politically correct POV. However, I will not vote to undelete as I think (with Jimbo) that all such POV userboxes should be gone. --Doc 19:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    Pro-life userbox just says: this user is pro-life. It would compare to a userbox: This user is a homophobe. Which would describe the user himself and not attack. -- Sneltrekker†My Talk 21:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    "homophobe" is still an externally-applied label; this is one reason why POV-advocating userboxes are harmful. "This user is verifiably straight." might be more analogous. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep deleted. Now becoming WP:POINT and saying any action is "immoral" is uncivil, creators personal circumstances don't come into it. IanID:540053 20:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The template does not say that any action is immoral. It says what the user of the template believes to be immoral. Vitally important distinction that you seem to have missed. -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • How can an opinion, in itself, be incivil? Civility is a matter of how you express your opinions, not what your opinions are. It would be incivil to say "I HATE GAY PEOPLE THEY ARE STOOPID >:("—it is not incivil to say "This user considers homosexual intercourse to be immoral"; it's a statement of fact (that fact being that the user has the specified opinion). Let's clear the air here: are we talking about deleting this template because it's incivil, or because we disagree with what it says? Don't try to paint the latter as being the former, and don't try to use Misplaced Pages policy as a front for censorship of significant minority views (even when those views are disgusting and ignorant). -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This template does help build the encyclopedia. It makes it clear that people who hold unpopular views are still permitted to be open and free about what they think, so long as they keep their views from influencing how they edit articles, and so long as they are tolerant of people who disagree with them. People should be permitted to say what they think (rather than forced to remain silent if the majority disagrees with them), and the dialogue should be kept open between disagreeing parties (rather than all disagreeing parties being kept silent, as though closing our eyes and ears to the problem will somehow make everyone with an unpleasant opinion go away), and people should be permitted to state their opinions on a matter even if it's not a positive one (i.e. allowing "I think the European Union is great", "I support George W. Bush", "I support LGBT righst", but never the opposite view, to let both sides state their mind?), and we should be allowed to draw on these types of people as a resource for when an article would be benefited by getting information from people with such an unusual view as "homosexual intercourse is unethical", who may be more familiar with the authors, documents, opinion nuances, Biblical passages, etc. that are relevant to the view. Before we rule absolutely that a certain type of template simply can't ever benefit the encyclopedia no matter what, why don't we give it a chance to benefit the encyclopedia? I don't see the huge tragedy that will ensue if we just calm down, think this through a little more, and give the template some time to see whether it can do any good. -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't necessarily disagree. There are a lot of inane ones out there. But this out-of-process, gang-up-on-the-unpopular-view-at-random speedy-deletion is not the way to deal with the issue. It's a way to hide from it. -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You obviously aren't very familiar with the LGBT-related userboxes. This was created as a counterpart to the half-dozen LGBT-support templates, etc. we have on the Sexuality page; it has absolutely nothing to do with the "gay" and "straight" templates. I've had debates in the past with both gay and straight people who have held the view very strongly that homosexual intercourse is immoral; maybe if more of the delete-voters had had the exposure to this ridiculous viewpoint that I've had, you'd understand that it's not as simple as "another 'straight' template" at all. -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment For the record, people can be straight and still not believe that homosexual intercourse is immoral. Therefore, your assertion that the userboxes which state sexual orientation "do the job" of this deleted one is specious. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Again, a blatant misunderstanding of what this template, and all other Sexuality-related templates, actually mean. Your personal sexual orientation and your religious or ideological views on sexual intercourse are totally unrelated! The former has more to do with biology, the latter more to do with upbringing, and both can be very relevant to understanding fellow editors and to working in the company of people you disagree with (in fact, in many ways the opinion templates are infinitely more valuable than the sexual orientation ones, since they state a lot more about how the user will tend to behave, what his thought process are, and what his POV is than something like "sexual orientation", which might be significant if Misplaced Pages was an online orgy project, but isn't so important for an online encyclopedia project). -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn - While I don't agree with the opinion stated by this box, I don't think that deleting it will make that opinion go away. Anyway it doesn't matter because, as DES said, this does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This is not the place to make a judgement on the merits of the box - only on wheter on not the speedy deletion protocols were followed. Since they were not followed I believe this should be re-listed on TFD.--God of War 00:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not an attack article. It is a statement of an opinion. The fact that that opinion offends some people certainly does not make it an "attack", in itself; if it did, we'd have deleted controversial articles like Scientology and George W. Bush long ago. Just as Misplaced Pages articles are permitted to offend (so long as they don't go out of their way to do so), so are user pages, and userboxes are purely a feature of userpages. -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Doc --- Charles Stewart 15:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted If personal attack userboxes get deleted, then so should these sort of userboxes - • Dussst • 15:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong overturn and relist. This template does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion; not only is it not a genuine "attack" template (and is only being painted as such as a way to censor an unpopular view), but even if it was, speedy-deleting an "attack" is only for something like List of reasons George W. Bush is an asshole, not for grey-area userbox disputes like this, and so this template certainly merits a full run on WP:TfD. What's so horrible about giving the template at least a few days rather than a couple of hours to let people talk (and think) it over, rather than trying to stifle and hide any discussion whatsoever on the matter? If it was so black-and-white and obvious that this is indisputably and beyond a shadow of a doubt an "attack" (rather than what it really is, a statement of an ignorant and horrible, but nonetheless commonplace and very significant, opinion), and nothing more, then the template wouldn't have had a majority for "keep" at the time the TfD was closed out of process. Obviously things aren't so simple. So let's take a step back, breathe, let the thing run its course on TfD, and then see what people think about it. I can understand why people would oppose a template like this, with its potential to cause controversy (though I think the benefit of showing that we allow people to hold and show that they have extremely unpopular opinions, so long as they don't let those opinions infect the articles they work on, outweighs the risk of allowing such an opinion to have its little colored box), but I can't understand why they'd go out of their way to violate Misplaced Pages's VfD process just because they don't like the template. Even templates that clearly were made "just to prove a point" (rather than genuine ones like this, see Misplaced Pages talk:Userboxes/Sexuality), like "This user hates Jews", were given a long run of time to accumulate plenty of votes and establish a real consensus! Why is this one, which is clearly much less of a pointed, aggressive "attack" template than the anti-Semitic one (both based on the context in which it was made and based on the actual text of the template), not being given the same amount of time and consideration? Why the double standard? No good can come of it. -Silence 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong overturn This is patently not an attack template; it states an opinion. Why is it that we can keep Template:User GWB and delete this? I would like to delete all political userboxes per Jimbo's suggestion, but it's totally unfair to keep most of them and delete this one. Ashibaka tock 17:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist, as there seems to be enough disagreement to warrent some sort of discussion. --AySz88^-^ 18:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist. Too much disagreement over the issue not to allow it a day in court through TfD. --StuffOfInterest 18:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-24

Category:Western science fiction

I nominated this for moving to Category:Science fiction Westerns and it was closed as "no consensus", despite there being 1 delete vote, 1 keep vote and 6 renames. See Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 14#Category:Western science fiction to Category:Science fiction Westerns. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn and rename per clear consensus. howcheng {chat} 23:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename as 6-to-1 is good enough of a consensus for darn near anything. And renaming doesn't even need a vote anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's the norm for categories, though, as they're not renameable as such, only deleteable, recreateable under a different name, and move-all-the-contents-one-at-a-time-able. Consensus indeed seems clear, though: I've left a note on the talk of the closing admin, this may not need the whole "process" here. (And is it the right one, come to that?) Alai 04:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: you could try Category:Western-based science fiction or maybe Category:Western-themed science fiction? There's no doubt that there is consensus that the current name is ambiguous, so something needs to be done. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and do whatever best meets the original consensus. --FloNight 11:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment from closing admin: It wasn't a 6-1 decision, it was 6 to rename, 2 to keep, 1 to delete. It could have gone either way, in my opinion, and I chose to give it no consensus based upon the discussion (we don't count votes, anyway). If this (or another CFD) gives it a better consensus, great. --Kbdank71 14:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    I can't see two keep votes. Could you list who you are referring to? Talrias (t | e | c) 15:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    I like Blindingly Glowing's idea below better. PeaceInside. --Kbdank71 18:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. I agree with the count, while "Peace inside" did not bold a vote, that user celarly wanted to keep without rename. There were actually seven "votes" for rename, but one was from an anon. i find the arguamets for reanme persuasive, amnd the ones for keep overly formalist. 6/3 seems like consensus, even if you group delete and keep together. Of those who wanted to keep 6/2 is 3 to 1 in favor of a rename, which seesm like celar consensus. I would simply overturn to a rename, but a realisting would not be amiss. (If it is relisted I plan to comment.) DES 18:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    For the record, I will never decide consensus by stating anything like "if you take out the delete votes...you get a clear consensus". Too many people, in my opinion, feel the need to have a clear "x of one, y of the other" decisions, and can't understand why many three(or more)-way results are called no consensus. Keep, rename, and delete are different things. Can't be combined. And removing one to gain consensus is unfair to the people whose opinions suddenly don't matter. I apologize if this seems like it's a rant directed toward DES. It's not. Just trying to explain my reasoning, as it's clear people are confused. --Kbdank71 20:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    I see your point. But when two thirds of those registered users who expressed an opnion chose the same option, I think there is consensus regardless of how the remaining votes were split. that (plus my view of the relative strength of the reasons, as opposed to the numerical count of "votes") is my primary view. My seconary analys went soemthing like this: all but one person wanted it kept, so obviously it won't be deleted. Of thsoe who wanted it kept, the opnions went 3 to 1 in favor of the rename, and the person who wanted it deleted didn't express any view on what name it should be at if it were to be kept. I might add that the term "SF-Western" is a not uncommon one among SF fans, going back all the way to "Bat Durstan, Space Marshal" in the 1950s. Such obvious "translations" were indeed called 'Bat Durstans" for a time. That is a point I will bring up more fully if this is relisted, or of this is left to stand, when I re-nominate it for renaming, as I will once the DRV discussion closes. It is of less relevance to DRV, however. DES 21:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and do the needful. Sci-fi westerns is how they are referred to in the literature I've read, too. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 20:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. By the way, it is a travesty that this category does not have Firefly or Cowboy Bebop in it. --Cyde Weys 21:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and move. OK, there's a stealth "no-move", but 6-2 is a darn good consensus. Counting "delete" on a renaming nomination as an "oppose" a) doesn't make any sense, and b) still gives an adequate consensus. If someone wants to vote delete-else-don't--move, that's perfectly fine, but an unqualified delete is simply a "neutral" on the name. Alai 08:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Copyright examinations

Marked for merging with Category:Possible copyright violations after a CFD based on an apparent misunderstanding of its purpose. I've demarked it for merging pending review here. --Nick Boalch 22:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a very common misunderstanding. Copyright examination process ends always immediately, if the discussed content is included into Misplaced Pages. Examination requests on content already in Misplaced Pages are rejected with no exception. The examined content is never in Misplaced Pages and can thus never be a copyright violation. (any suggestions on avoidance of this misunderstanding are welcome) --Easyas12c 23:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

R@ygold etc.

On January 8 User:Brendanconway deleted, without consensus or AFD, the following pages:

The reason given was: "Delete as gives info useful to child pornographers". However, being useful to alleged "child pornographers" is not a criterion for speedy deletion. There is probably some questions concerning notability, especially of terms aside from "r@ygold," and at the very least all of these keyword pages should be merged, but I'd like to request the undeletion of all of these pages and possibly an AFD. I would contact Brendanconway but he is on wikibreak.

It should also probably be noted that "r@ygold" was part of a request for comment (see Talk:R@ygold). // paroxysm (n) 22:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Deleted and protect pages to prevent them from coming back. Seems to be a valid example of the Ignoring All Rules concept. Note that the above do not describe persons, concepts, or even pictures... just keywords supposedly used to find smut on file sharing networks. It's kind of like having an article titled "Stephen King" books +Amazon with the text "Stephen King" books +Amazon is a search phrase used on Google to find Stephen King's books for sale on Amazon.com. Setting aside the morality of child pornography, these articles are simply not encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    Mmm. But they were deleted out of process and whether or not they should be included is for the entire community to decide, not just administrators who can view deleted revisions. // paroxysm (n) 23:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Starblind. David | Talk 23:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What the fuck. Speedy undelete. I have recently seen the term r@ygold joked about on IRC several times recently (thus making it a reasonable popular internet meme). I went here to check it out, and there was a decent-length article explaining the term. (A while ago I got O RLY? unprotected and started a new article after someone commented that Misplaced Pages usually has decent coverage of memes, but only a {{deletedpage}} for that one.) I haven't seen the other terms or their articles, so I have no idea if they are "notable", but given the fact that r@ygold was speedied in the same batch, I wouldn't be surprised if they were. This is the kind of shit that drives away editors. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - with a slight merge to Child pornography - i.e., mention that these types of keywords exist. We don't need to list every word ever used by someone to search for kiddie pr0n. FCYTravis 01:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. I hardly think people looking for porn (legal or illegal) are going to be helped by Misplaced Pages. There's plenty of search engines for such things, and if some of these are legitimate mems per SPUI, then definitely undelete. I have no problem with nominating them for AfD, or speedying under our exiting criteria. Turnstep 05:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I checked and couldn't find a single source in any of the articles. Further, I don't see how it's likely that any reliable sources would have info on them. Without reliable sources they are unverifiable. The concept of internet memes may be notable, but few actual memes are either notable or verifiable. -Will Beback 08:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Starblind and Will Beback. Search strings are unencyclopedic and these particular ones are unverifiable as well. Besides, Misplaced Pages doesn't promote illegal activities so we shouldn't store keywords that allow people to search for child pornography. I doubt there's any place in the world where doing so is legal. - Mgm| 10:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It all hinges on verifiability. SPUI has appealed on Wikien-l and I've told him that if he can come up with decent citation for at least one of the terms I'll undelete the relevant articles temporarily with a view to discussing how to write this information up in Misplaced Pages--a merge to some suitable article is likely more use than individual articles which unnecessarily duplicate information. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn to undelete and merge some content to recognize this social phenomena. --FloNight 11:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn all lack of cources and possible lack of verifiability is not a speedy reason, it is an AfD reason. As for legality, ther is AFAIK no US law in any way preventing discussion of how people do and do not seach for allegedly illegal content, and if there were any such law would be clearly unconsitutional. I don't know what laws may exist in other countries, but I would be very suprised if any jurisdiction with anything like a free speech tradition (I exclude highly repressive and censor-prone regimes) would ever prosecute a statemetn that merely discussed how some people labeled illegal content, even if this might helps soem people find such content. This may not be verifiable. If it is, the content should probably be merged into a singel article of soem sort, and notability might be debated. But the content should be restored for normal editing or in-process deletion. DES 18:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Endorse and delete Talk:R@ygold (which I'm tempted to do myself...). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Tony. There really is no reason why these should be undeleted other than a slavish following of process. OK, maybe they shouldn't have been speedy-deleted. That doesn't mean that they should be undeleted for a charade of an AfD. Sam Korn 19:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse and keep deleted. The community of child porn users is so small that what is verifiable is both unencyclopaedically insignificant and probably already known to anyone likely to be interested. Plus, to state what I suspect others are thinking, they are sick fucks who should be castrated with a blunt saw and pegged out to be eaten alive by vultures. Not sure how to put that in properly NPOV terms, though. Legally? I don't care. WP:ISNOT censored, but some things are well beyond the usual porncruft (much of which is only verifiable by rference to other porn anyway). - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 20:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • KD but redirect the lot of them to the appropriate pornography article, as plausible search terms. Radiant_>|< 22:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Even if those ought be deleted (and if no-one comes up with a source then they probably should) there is no reason to take non-admins out of the deletion discussion with an out-of-process speedy-deletion. Having those things linger around a few more days while an informed deletion discussion takes place won't do any harm. I'm undeleting the lot and merging them into one article as many have suggested and seems obvious. If someone speedy-deletes again I will not wheel-war. - Haukur 22:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    There. I undeleted the lot and turned them into redirects to Child pornography search terms which I just created. Now non-admins can view the history of the articles and make an informed recommendation on whether we should keep them or delete them. My own opinion is that if no sources are provided we have little choice but to delete again. - Haukur 23:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    Sources for at least one of the terms have now been provided and an AfD started at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Child pornography search terms. - Haukur 23:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Of no use to the encyclopedia. This is not the dictionary of internet slang. --JWSchmidt 22:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can I ask WHY these articles have been re-created, and the article child pornography search terms has been created? The consensus is obviously to keep these pages off of Misplaced Pages. I am on the verge of re-deleting all of these myself. I am not even for redirects for the above articles, but regardless of that there should not be an article about child pornography search terms. -- goatasaur 23:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    AFD it, then; don't abuse your admin powers to delete things above policy. It's not a speedy candidate. That means you can't speedy it. // paroxysm (n) 23:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    I listed the page on AFD immediately after making the above post. -- goatasaur 23:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per arguments to delete Child pornography search terms. The articles listed above are in themselves useless because one needs to know the terms in order to directly display the article. On the other hand, clicking "what links here" lists these terms. Therefore: delete, (1) mostly useless (2) useful only to find child pornography - if it's easy to see why possible/probable libel has to be removed from WP bios, it's exceedingly easy to see why helping people find definitely illegal child pornography (in most countries meaning photos and videos of children engaging in sexual acts) is illegal in itself and has to be removed from Misplaced Pages. The point is that the ONLY use is illegal, unlike, for example, information about how to build weapons. AvB ÷ talk 09:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    Libel is illegal. Saying "some pedophiles use zzz and yyy to find kiddie porn" isn't.
    The redirects can be found otherwise: for example, if you do a search for anything in Limewire you're liable to find files labelled with long "ebony rape teens young r@ygold rape" etc. nonsense, and they might want to see what "r@ygold" means. Human curiousity. // paroxysm (n) 20:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
It is a problem when the same org (in this case Misplaced Pages) lists and advertises the entire thing one click away from the Misplaced Pages search Child pornography search terms. AvB ÷ talk 05:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Criminal behavior on Misplaced Pages

Sorry people, I've been looking a bit deeper and this really really stinks. Just look at the bottom line of this diff. And there's much more. I will now leave it to those of you in the US or so (it's night here) but if no-one else escalates this to Jimbo now, I will do so tomorrow. This really cannot be allowed. And it needs to be reported to the police. AvB ÷ talk 04:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: I think it's at least a little bit sick and perverted that Wikipedians are interested enough in this subject to keep coming up with articles about keywords used to find kiddie porn, and I doubt that any of them are sufficiently notable to get separate articles (though perhaps some passing mention of this sort of use of nonsense keyword would be appropriate in an article on "child pornography" or some such thing). On the other hand, I don't think such mentions are themselves illegal, especially given that (as noted in the various articles) by the time the keywords are well-known enough to make it into places like this, they're already being "abused" by so many fake porn sites, and the authorities probably know about them thus discouraging the real kiddie porn sites from using them, that they're probably useless for finding actual material of that sort. *Dan T.* 05:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Considering the comments in this discussion and the AfD as well as WP:SNOW I think we might as well delete most of the articles/redirects again. Hopefully those interested have now had a chance to look at the histories and make an informed recommendation. Only one of the keywords has been strongly sourced and we tend to enforce WP:V strictly in cases like this. Would anyone object to a redeletion of everything except the gold word? - Haukur 09:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh I've thought about this and I think they should remain as redirects simply to forestall future independent creation as articles. The ones I checked do seem to be used as some kind child porn keyword by pornography providers who want to select those interested in child porn, but their provenance is as yet unverified--that's an editorial matter now. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
*shrug* If you say so. But there are some edit summaries in there that are upsetting our friend above. If someone can be troubled to clean this up then that's probably a good thing. In any case I won't interfere with any deletions. - Haukur 09:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Louisiana Baptist University people

The article was deleted by User:Howcheng. There were 42 delete votes, 29 keep votes, and 12 merge votes. Clearly, consensus wasn't reached. There was also verifiable misconduct (not alleged, but verifiable). Here is a list:

  1. . The closing admin miscounted the votes. He didn't just avoid counting some, but he actually miscounted them as well.
  2. . User:Aaron_Brenneman arbitrarily moved certain comments to another page. However, he also left certain comments that influenced the vote.
  3. . User:Cyde disrupted the voting by posting a large warning notice with a graphic on the top of the page. This stayed on the page for the remainder of the voting and influenced the vote.
Proof of claim: Numerous people who voted to delete mentioned how their voting was influenced by the (inappropriate) "warning" on the top of the page and other factors that had nothing to do with the actual strength of the entry.
Solution: Overturn and keep the article. --Dr. Turtleton 21:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
For those of you who might have trouble finding the record of this AFD (read: me), here it is. · Katefan0/mrp 22:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted valid (if messy) AfD. Closer wrote a very good explanation of why it was closed the way it was. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. After slogging through all the votes, it looks to me like howcheng did it correctly. Well within his discretion. · Katefan0/mrp 22:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. What a crap article. -R. fiend 22:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: You're right, I did miscount. After recounting, it's 41/21/12 in terms of valid votes, which still means 53/75 (more than 66%) don't think the article should exist. I also miscounted the number of people I excluded for either being new or not really giving a reason (9K/1D). I even felt I was generous in including the votes by people who were called in solely to vote-stack (otherwise it would have been 41/11/8). I repeat, this was a whole lot of yelling and arguing about a relatively short list of people. Merging is the obvious solution which keeps the content in Misplaced Pages. Can someone explain to me why there is so much opposition to that? howcheng {chat} 23:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
You shouldn't discount people for being new or not stating their reason for their vote. If you reconsider this criteria of yours, there is barely a 50% vote for deletion; not to mention the reasons stated for many have to do with being influenced by User:Cyde's message on the top of the page, which you could discount those as well. All in all, there is clearly no consensus.
A discussion needs to ensue about the misconduct of the users who altered the nomination page and hence, the vote of many.
If by "merge" you mean move some notable alumni to the LBU page, then don't worry. That will happen with or without a vote to merge. All one has to do is add a couple more alumni that they feel are notable to that page.
Note: there are 68 other universities that have a university list of people like this one. --Dr. Turtleton 00:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Discounting new voters (likelihood of sock/meatpuppetry) is common practice, and discounting votes that give no valid rationale is not unheard of; both are well within howcheng's discretion as the closing admin. · Katefan0/mrp 00:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no evidence of sock or meat puppetry. Everyone who came and voted had participated on Misplaced Pages before. Plus, we should assume good faith and not jump to conclusions about alleged sock/meat puppets. --Dr. Turtleton 18:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Talking of evidence of sockpuppetry, Dr._Turtleton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Congratulations on finding Deletion Review a speedy 33 minutes after first registering, and having taken no part in the process under review at that! - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 20:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the characterization of moving comments to the Talk page as "misconduct." In each case, a link was provided to the exact section where the content was moved. Nothing was lost and anyone who was interested in reading it just had to follow the link. In addition, content that was likely to influence one's decision in either direction (pro or con) got moved. The {{afdnewbies}} template (the "large warning notice") is standard practice to tell people to keep their arguments based on policy and that this is not a simple vote. It does not push opinion either way. howcheng {chat} 00:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
In and of itself, it wasn't a bad thing to do. However, since only selected comments were moved, it was misconduct. Doesn't it look a tad unfair to move certain comments and not others? --Dr. Turtleton 18:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Question for Dr. Turtleton: of those 68 other universities with lists of alumni, how many are accredited and how many unaccredited? How many are limited to a single subject area? I suppose one could just about count MIT there, although "technology" is a pretty broad category. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 20:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). The closer's decision was carefully considered and well documented. The decision was well within reasonable discretion for the determination of "rough consensus". Rossami (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It was also made after miscounting the votes, totally discounting many valid keep votes, moving selected comments to the talk page, and having not only the afdnewbies tag on the top, but also a statement about other alleged misbehavior. --Dr. Turtleton 18:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse closure. Closing admin did a good job at determining consensus in a very messy AfD. I probably would have voted keep myself :) but I see no problem with the process here. Turnstep 05:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. Many of the merge votes were conditional on this thing being merged, and after looking at the article I think that would clutter up the main LBU article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure It's not a vote, it's a sense of the community. The comments endore delete. --FloNight 11:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This looks like an obvious merge to me--leave it up to the editors of the main article to decide which names to merge in. If someone asks nicely I'll history-undelete so that the merge can be tried. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore - after reading through the discussions, I get the feeling it was too messy to lead to deletion. Larix 13:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. Well-detailed and proper closure. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:05, Jan. 25, 2006
  • Restore and AFD again with an unbiased closer. Or, simply merge the useful content. While the content may be useful, it doesn't necessarily need its own article. — 0918 • 2006-01-25 17:10
  • Keep deleted - Guettarda 17:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. The vote was not "disrupted" by such standard measures as moving rants to the talk page and posting notices for new users. What nonsense. Gamaliel 17:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure - I wouldn't have counted all the merge votes towards delete votes, since several appear to be regular merge votes. But I would have discounted the keep votes given the poll-stacking operation, and I generally think HowCheng has gone about this closing in an exemplary manner. --- Charles Stewart 17:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure', keep deleted, noting that most of the ones likely to survive AfD are already in the LBU article anyway, and thank Howcheng for taking on one of the most sock-riddled AfDs I've come across. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 20:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. MWOT. This is at best borderline. Sadly, there were irregularities on both sides, but in terms of building an encyclopedia there is no case for undeletion, nor for criticising the action the closing admin took which is not the issue here anyway. I'll say again, if you want to make our job easier (and gain our sympathy in the process, we're human), follow the procedures, especially when others don't. There's no need to point out the obvious, and even less need to use bold notices, boxes, emphasis, strange indents, long inline quotes etc etc etc to do it. Keep it simple, and uncluttered, and informative. Please. Andrewa 22:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore. You know, the votes weren't too far from one another, and this article contains a lot of well known and notable people in them, including Jerry Falwell. Don't keep deleted. Эйрон Кинни 22:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure per virtually everyone above. KillerChihuahua 22:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore and Keep There was a miscount. Admins abused their powers to ban people from the discussion. There were multiple violations of wikipedia guidelines, yet only users who voted "keep" were deleted. There were lies that were stated as fact. The whole thing was handed POORLY. 66% is not a concensus, wikipedia is not a dictatorship of the majority. Itake 23:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep --Hayson 23:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted FeloniousMonk 23:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure/Keep deleted. Howcheng's action was well within the range of administrator's judgement and was very carefully explained. Given the strong indications of vote-stacking, administrator's judgement was needed, and performed appropriately. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore and AFD again like I had mentioned in my comments on RfC/Jason_Gastrich, this AfD should be re-ran, and the reasons should have to do with policy alone, and not with all the personal attacks from both sides. As for the closer, User:Howcheng did fine, afaiac.--Azathar 06:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn - just because people were informed about the vote by email/talkpage messages (what you call 'vote stacking') does not make their votes any less valid - not everyone has the time to constantly check Afd themselves! The rules are clear on this - where there is no consensus, no action is taken (ie in the case of Afd, the article is kept). The admin in question seems to have forgotten this rule (or pretended to have forgotten it). Cynical 09:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure/keep deleted/set it on fire and burn it to the ground A divisive one-man sockpuppet/meatpuppet campaign, which all the wikilawyering the world can't obscure. The closing admin certainly remembered THAT. --Calton | Talk 12:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure and congratulate the closing admin for taking on this thankless task. --kingboyk 03:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The Bible According To

From the deletion log: 09:53, 24 January 2006 Mushroom deleted "The Bible According To" (Hoax). "Hoax" is not a speedy delete criterion, for good reason. Furthermore, while this articel celarly needs attention, and may be a hoax or at least contain incorrect information, that is not clear enough to determine off-hand, IMO. Overturn speedy and relist. DES 19:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted. Nothing there. If we send every poorly written, contextless, useless piece of crap to AFD it'll be swamped. Nothing of value lost. Good riddance. -R. fiend 19:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist not only is hoax not a criterion for speedy, this isn't even a hoax. It appears to be listcruft, but if merits a debate. --Doc 19:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist as per Doc glasgow. --Allen3  19:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist. I agree here: it should have gone through AfD. I should have followed the CSD more strictly. Mushroom 19:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted as G3 or even G1: I had forgot that I deleted it while I was reverting 217.205.250.130's vandalism. "Hoax" = "Vandalism". Definitely keep deleted. Mushroom 20:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn speedy deletion and list for regular deletion. "Hoax" is not and never has been a valid criterion for speedy-deletion due to the high incidence of false positives (articles tagged as hoaxes which turned out to be real though obscure and/or poorly written). It also fails to qualify as patent nonsense in the very narrow way we use that term. That leaves only the claim of vandalism. The speedy deletion criterion is written to only apply to patently obvious cases of vandalism where every edit was by the vandal. This is too close to the line. Five days on AFD is not an unreasonable cost. Rossami (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, patent nonsense, no content, pick one. User:Zoe| 22:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted as part of a pattern of vandalism (G3). howcheng {chat} 23:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and list on AfD. Unfortunately. First, there's no urgency at all about deleting hoaxes; tagging them with a "hoax" template and an "AfD" template is more than sufficient to protect readers against believing the content during the AfD period. I honestly think it's an important point of process that suspect hoaxes get community inspection before deletion. And this article is a case in point! It's not a hoax. I just did an Amazon "advanced search" on "Bible according to" and the books, or at least many of them, actually exist. It's unsourced listcruft, but it's not a hoax, and the titles could be verified, although... the burden is on the contributor to do this, the unsourced items could be removed. It's unencyclopedic listcruft, and deletable as a completely idiosyncratic non-topic, but it's not a hoax. I won't shed any tears if it's kept deleted, however. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed vote: Keep deleted per R. fiend, SCZenz, and WP:IAR. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. No coherent content; write a new one if you want. -- SCZenz 08:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Not a valid speedy criterion. Owen× ☎ 20:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per WP:SNOW but Mushroom has made some very questionable calls, so needs to be reined in. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 20:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per R. fiend --OntarioQuizzer 21:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • KD per WP:SNOW. Radiant_>|< 22:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and send to AFD. Does not meet the speedy criteria. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • O/T & AfD. An example of the need for at least educational efforts re meaning of at least G1, & perhaps G3. Unwarranted G1s and G3s strike at the roots of CSD & are the weakest lk in the trust for admin's discretion. Even if this were a snowball (in which case we'd not hear discussion of rescuing the candidate), the continuing claims of G1 & G3 would require the clarity of going to AfD lest those claims seem plausible.
    --Jerzy•t 13:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Adam and andrew

This article was deleted according to non-notability by User:Mushroom . I gave many examples of the notability of this band on the article itself. If you were to somehow check the roll for California Polytechnic, you will find Adam Christensen and Andrew Portner residing there. There is also http://www.adamandandrew.com/, http://www.thefunny.org/ and many other sites. Myspace recognises them as Musicians and several thousand Myspace members have requested to become friends with them on their myspace area http://www.myspace.com/adamandandrew/. Also my article for Emo Kid(song) was removed for the same reason. You will find many of the preceding pages also contain information on the songs. 19:07 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Haggle4me.com

Accordign to the deletion log: 12:22, 24 January 2006 Mushroom deleted "Haggle4me.com" (non-notable). The person who speedy taged this gave as the reason "advertisement". Thsi was an articel about a web site. It may well fail to meet WP:WEB, but that can't be reliably determined without further checking. This doesn't meet any of the speedy criteria and IMO should have been sent through AfD. Overturn speedy and relist. DES 18:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

{{Oregon-State-Highway-stub}} and associated category Category:Oregon State Highway stubs

Was speedy deleted, with no criteria supporting this deletion. Author was not notified, no notice was put on template... in fact the only notice of this deletion was put on WP:WSS/D. There are some articles that could have been tagged with this too. I believe that this should have been sent to WP:SFD instead. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The deletion log says: 20:23, 23 January 2006 Alai deleted "Template:Oregon-State-Highway-stub" (speedied as unused for 24h). I don't see anything on WP:CSD that supports such a speedy. Overturn and list on SfD unless Some reason for speedy supplied. I wiull notify Alai of this discussion. DES 18:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the notification. As I understand it, the long-standing practice of categories that're empty for 24h being speedied has been explicitly extended to stub categories that're empty-aside-from-only-a-stub-template, as was this one (well, aside from its transclusion in the wikiproject-page-of-many-road-stub-types, which I assume isn't for categorisation purposes as such). Empty for a week, actually. Keep deleted, on that basis, and common sense. Note that this turned up on as a discovery rather than as a proposal (which IMO would be a better place to take this than here). Alai 19:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Is there any policy page that documents that "long standing practice"? WP:CSD C1 says "Empty categories (no articles or subcategories for at least four days)". If "empty for 24 hours" is the rule we will follow in future it ought to be documented somewhere. I am inclined to think it is a poor idea for stub types in particular. DES 21:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
      • My bad on the one day vs. four, it seems. I must work out where what Chinese whispers route I'd gotten that one from. In this case, though, those were the only contents for (more than) four days. And given that's as empty as a well-formed stub type is ever going to get, of its own accord, that seems exactly within the spirit of C1. We really ought to see about the letter... Alai 22:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Ah, here we are. I've no idea if this is a deliberate variance from CSD C1, I'm guessing not. I've suggested that the former be brought explicitly into line with the latter. Alai 22:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I agree that the various policy pages should agree and C1 ahoule either explictly not apply to stub types, or else it shoudl explicitly apply to stub types containing no articles. This is probably not the place to debate which. DES 22:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • There were other options the deleting admin could have taken rather than speedy deletion... such as finding stubs for this cat or delegating the task to someone else? Or taking it to SFD. It's like one of those "problems that may not require deletion" at WP:DP --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'll grant you that those are other options. But why would either of those have been preferable? There's no cohort of unsorted Oregon road stubs (unless they're lurking someplace, entirely untagged), and indeed many of state routes for OR already have full articles (or longer than stubs, at least); taking it to SFD would be an exercise in spending seven days debating whether or not to follow the stub deletion criteria. ("Let's not" is often a popular option, I'll also grant.) If at some point in the future there's a number of these appropriate to the creation of a stub category, it can easily be undeleted/recreated (ideally after actually having been proposed), but it's not stub-sorting practice to create undersized -- much less, completely articleless -- categories in anticipation of possible, future need. It was my judgement that deletion was firstly, a permissible option, and secondly, the optimal one. Of course I'm open to correction on either point. Alai 03:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • change of view' (as per discussion on my talk page) in this particular case, since this was a newly created (and non-proposed) stub, not a formerly used stub that became empty, and since it is unlekly to be kept at SFD, and since the "empty for 24 hours" provision in the SFD header, and the "empty for 4 days" CSD were both arguably complied with, I withdrraw my objections to this. Allow to remain deleted. We need to get the various policyn pages consistant on this sort of thin, but ther is no need to hold up this example. DES 17:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Jackarandah Productions

This article appears to have been speedied by Lucky 6.9 while on AFD without meeting any of the WP:CSD. Requesting a relist. Stifle 23:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-23

Smoky's Fine Cigars

Was listed under Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Smoky's Fine Cigars and then speedied by User:Mushroom. It's definitely not CSD A7, the criterion used for its deletion. --M@thwiz2020 21:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted, WP:SNOW, WP:NOT. It is not an A7, but comes close to the "lack of content" CSD criterion. Radiant_>|< 21:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • While certainly deletable, this fails to meet the deliberately narrow CSD criteria. It is definitely not an example of case A7. I also have to disagree with the assertion that it qualifies under case A3 which requires that there be "No content whatsoever." Undelete and reopen the AFD. Allow the AFD to conclude on schedule. Rossami (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This wasn't a speedy either, although it doesn't have a prayer. We have time and again rejected the notion of advertising as a speedy and this was certianly not an A7. Invoking A3 on this is creative, but plainly wrong given the very wording of the criterion! I'm tempted to speedy undelete at least the two below this one. Quickly resuming the AfDs is the best way to avoid procedural hacking later. -Splash 22:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I do believe the store is not notable enough for wikipedia, but I'm not sure it's non-notable enough for a speedy deletion. I won't object to undeleting and reopening the AfD, and I won't object to keeping the article deleted. Neutral for now, but I'm willing to be convinced either way. Aecis 23:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, consensus sufficiently established. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and reopen AFD. Not a speedy candidate, one idea behind the July expansion of CSD was meant to stop these slightly out of process speedies. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • very, very weak Undelete and relist I guess, since it has been challenged, but I'd have been sorely tempted to do the same because in the end Radiant is absolutely right, this doesn't have a prayer on AfD so it really does seem like a waste of everyone's time. There is merit in the idea of avoiding creep, which in the end persuades me, but only just. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 11:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You know, I'd argue that using common sense in such deletions is the opposite of instruction creep, as opposed to rigidly obeying the letter of the law. In any casekeep deleted. Let's not waste our time. 12/0 in favor of deletion (several voted for a speedy) when the voting was closed, and an obvious delete candidate. Is anyone who voted to undelete going to actually vote to keep it? If not we're just making a lot more work to get the same result. Save DRV for cases where a mistake might actually have been made. -R. fiend 18:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Chide User:Mushroom but keep deleted. Remember, Be bold is a guideline, too. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist, there were no reasons to speedy delete it. Mushroom 20:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn per Splash. Owen× ☎ 20:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist. It just might be famous enough to deserve it. Wiwaxia 09:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist. Not a speedy candidate. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 14:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Gfxvoid

Was listed under Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gfxvoid and then speedied by User:Mushroom. "Non-notabled, spam" is not a CSD criterion. --M@thwiz2020 21:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted, WP:SNOW. "Article on a group that does not assert the importance of its subject" is a CSD criterion. Radiant_>|< 21:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and allow the AFD to conclude. This group is too large to qualify for the amended reading of speedy deletion case A7. Furthermore, the claims of usership in the article did qualify as assertions of significance. The AFD discussion can rightly determine that those claims are unverifiable or insufficient, but that is a matter for the AFD to decide during the five-day discussion period. Closing the discussion early as a speedy-deletion was inappropriate. Rossami (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, don't invent speedies, and don't try to extend 'group' to be a website when that is very clearly not part of the criterion. -Splash 22:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - per WP:IAR and product over process. The article will *CLEARLY* be deleted by AfD consensus and there's no need to go around being more bureaucratic than we have to be. I favor more speedy keeps and speedy deletes. FCYTravis 22:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • There are fora better than DRV for giving effect to that kind of suggestion, though. -Splash 23:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
      • There's been a discussion on the mailing list about making deletion less bureaucratic - through the use of more speedy keeps and speedy deletes. I'm one of several who are trying to give effect to that discussion. If an article clearly fails notability guidelines for Web sites AND draws nothing but delete votes, with not a single vote to keep, WHY does it need to be bureaucratically shoved through process? Same goes for an article which clearly has a consensus to keep. No reason to hold it to a process fetish. This article WILL be deleted through AfD process anyway, so WHY WASTE EVERYONE'S TIME? We're writing an encyclopedia, not a procedures manual. FCYTravis 23:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I filter out most after "mailing list" because of the amount of slime that goes on there. It will surprise some regular mailing listers to discover that the mailing list isn't Wiki, and, respectfully, you've no business importing undiscussed, unproposed, unagreed to ideas from it. If the mailing list is oh-so-right as it thinks it is, it should have no trouble demonstrating so with a bit of talking on-Wiki. The reason to 'waste time' with it is that there are many who would dispose of CSD altogether and abusing it, as all 3 articles here undoubtedly do, simply hands them ammunition. -Splash 23:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
          • You need hardly fear that CSD would be disposed of. It will *never* happen, as it's what allows admins to clean up after the firehose of crap articles which get created. FCYTravis 23:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
        • The reason to run the full AFD discussion period is that many articles are rescued as a result of the AFD nomination. It is not at all uncommon for an article to get "delete" votes early then have the entire tenor of the debate change when a new participant either brings new facts to the discussion or rewrites the article. The CSD cases define situations where there is no reasonable probability that this will occur. I don't know if it would have or not in this case, but allowing five days for discussion is hardly a waste of everyone's time. Interestingly, closing AFD discussions early, whether as speedy keep or speedy delete, has not yet been shown to actually reduce time or effort in the vast majority of cases. Endlessly having these discussions about the creep of the CSD cases, however, is a waste of time - waste that would be avoided if we stuck to the cases. Rossami (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, consensus sufficiently established. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and reopen AFD per Rossami. Not a speedy candidate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • very weak relist. AfD is packed to the gunwales, and this does not stand a snowball's chance, it had already garnered more "votes" than a lot of articles which run the full course (and incidentally I don't think the small number of "votes" on many AfDs is good, far from it), and every one was either delete or speedy delete; there is no assertion that it passes WP:WEB, Alexa rank is >300,000 and the forum only has 2,500 members of which an unknown proportion are active, but in the end Rossami is right and articles are often rescued during AfD. This is a learning process for me, I have early-closed a few and I think I will be more reluctant to do so now unless they clearly meet CSD criteria. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 11:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong overturn. Speedy deltes for articels about companies are particularly poor practice IMO, This is an area where information ewstablishing celar notability can and often does appear during an AfD, which is why there is no speedy criterion that remotely supports such a speedy delete. This may well wind up delted, but without extensive research i can't be sure, and neither can anyone else. WP:SNOW does NOT apply here. DES 18:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. I support an expansion of A7 but I shouldn't have deleted it. Mushroom 20:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn per Splash. Owen× ☎ 20:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Complete bloody waste of time. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - should not have been speedied (bad admin!) but no point in undeleting crap (bad DRV) --Doc 09:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sanchez Raful Sicard & Polanco

Was listed under Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sanchez Raful Sicard & Polanco and then speedied by User:Mushroom. "Spam" is not a CSD criterion. --M@thwiz2020 21:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Saugeen Stripper

I list this here due to the fact that I disagree with the fact that the VfD discussion was ruled no consensus after 40 Delete votes (to only 20 Keep and 6 Merge+Redirect). If that's not consensus, I don't know what is. Overturn. --OntarioQuizzer 18:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Note: Please only discuss process and whether you think consensus had been reached.

  • 40 of 66 is only 60%. Is it close? Yes. Is it deletable? I believe no. The fact is, this article has been through the wringer since the day it was created. AfD...deletion review...AfD....now another deletion review. Processes have been manipulated all along the way. In this case, let's do the right thing and stick with it. You can always delete later. In fact, it probably will be easier to get support for the deletion when the issue is less current. Endorse the keep, and let the issue rest for a couple months. If, in April, the article has no legs, it can be re AfD'd. On a related note, there may be cause to protect the page temporarily, at least until this deleltion review is settled, as it seems there are a number of lone rangers who are attempting to self police the situation. Phantasmo 18:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure with the understanding that a no-consensus keep doesn't mean people come along and spam it with #REDIRECT. Wait a month or so and renominate it. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Closure is to do what the consensus said... 46 to 20 to get rid of it clear consensus, well above the 2/3 regularly needed. It certainly doesn't mean the keep as a full article people come along and try to have their way even though they lost quite dramatically. And redirects certainly are not "spam", if you are going to toss inflammatory language around, at least get the definitions correct. DreamGuy 19:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
      • You are inventing policy. Closure on this page, in this stage of the process, is to endorse the closure decision of the closing admin, which was non con/keep. Phantasmo 20:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't a matter for DRV but I'm going to redirect it (again). About 75% at the AFD did not think there should be an article at Saugeen Stripper, that much there is a consensus for. A "no consensus" means the article is not deleted, it is perfectly allowable to redirect. -R. fiend 19:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse the closure and let the redirect/keep issue be hashed out on the talk page. There's a lot of agendas being batted about here... -- nae'blis (talk)
  • Endorse close. This is well below even the most liberal threshold for deletion, which is really all that afd has jurisdiction over. That people are still fighting over whether to merge it or not shows there's no consensus on that front, either. An afd discussion is not a club to bludgeon other folks into submission. —Cryptic (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse, read the consensus over the bureaucracy. Radiant_>|< 21:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure with the clear understanding that "keep" does not automatically mean "keep as is". The decision whether or not to redirect should be thrashed out on the respective Talk pages. Note: I would consider it reasonable in that discussion to consider all the "delete" votes as opponents of an independent article. Rossami (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed that a no-consensus keep doesn't mean to leave the article as-is (I'm assuming, given the wording of your comment, you were sort-of responding to me). But discussion would be nice before revert warring over whether it's a redirect or not. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. No consensus was reached, process was followed. Now it's time for a civilized Talk page discussion on whether to keep/expand or merge/redirect. -- Jonel | Speak 01:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse as no consensus reached, although I still think it is trivia, current events, and amounts to "students get up to pranks in halls", which scarcely requires an encyclopaedia article - plus the content is still largely unverified from any reliable source, with everything coming back to hearsay and blogs. We we don't even have names (a hall full of students and nobody has blabbed the name? Really? I'd say this could have been staged, and staged anywhere). But I digress. At present it seems to be a redirect with a para in the middle of the main article on Saugeen-Maitland Hall, which I would say is reasonable, but if someone wants to restore a separate article we have to go with the flow. For my money we should not even consider including things like this until at least a year after they happen - the difference between an internet meme and a nine-days-wonder is awfully hard to determine while it's still current. I am absolutely sure that this will never approach AYB in notoriety. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 11:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment -- We do have a name, but it's not going into the article out of Seigenthaler concerns. --OntarioQuizzer 18:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
If there is a name verifiable from reliable sources then there can be no Siegenthaler concerns, surely? - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 21:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The comments I have seen on the talk page cite rumors and other less-than-reliable sources for the name. Some individuals who state that they are students at the college claim personal knowledge of the name, but that is at least technically Original Research if there are no published or otherwise verifiable and reliable sources. There might, of course, be a source i am not aware of. DES 21:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Larry Hama

Hama is a noted comic-book professional and should be included in Wiki. However, even after my deletion of a "Legacy" section filled with such self-aggrandizing and evidently self-written hype as

The significance of Larry Hama's work has yet to be fully recognized by his generation ... for the role it played in the molding of the generations to follow.

this clearly autobiographical piece of work by the living author violates Misplaced Pages:Avoid peacock terms, Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:Autobiography, and Misplaced Pages:No original research.

It is also a huge article, and without citations as to what is established fact and what is original research, it would be difficult if not impossible to fix. Read it for yourself. Go back to the History page, and read the Legacy section for yourself.

I strongly suggest it be deleted and that someone in Wikiproject:Comics write an objective entry. -- Tenebrae 14:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think WP:DRV is the forum for this. Larry Hama has never been deleted, nor has a AFD on it resulted in a disputed "keep" result. Start by using the article's talkpage to resolve disputes, and if that fails try an article WP:RFC. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Background

deletion history

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will McWhinney, Jr.

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Will McWhinney, Jr.
Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment_-_Jonah_Ayers.2FBiff_Rose

article deals with current events and significant figure i the sierra club and its internal immigration reform movement sturggle, and subject is also the son of a noted entry.Jonah Ayers 00:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-22

Prinsessakerho

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Prinsessakerho

The article didn't get a fair trial. I think the club is notable enought to have an article. The club members include artists, musicians, pornstars who are notable in Finland. And it did win an award. --Easyas12c 21:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted, valid AfD. Aecis 23:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Valid AfD, non-notable club with only 14 members. David | Talk 12:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. Even though all 14 members "have membership cards". Members include porn stars, eh? I spy porncruft. And a quick Google reveals that they do indeed wear, as the article states, tiaras and T-shirts; also thongs, which supports my suspicions. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 11:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Aren't articles that bind notable people to each other important, because they are part of each persons definition and give them social context? --Easyas12c 23:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that Finnish porn scene is quite small, and these two pornstar members are probably the most well known female pornstars in Finland. They are known by many who don't watch porn at all. --Easyas12c 23:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, valid AfD. Judging by the comments on the AfD discussion, it seems almost like Easyas12c was the only one who had even heard of this club before he wrote an article about it. If it has coverage in the City magazine then it's somewhat notable but I'm not going to contest the AfD consensus over it. JIP | Talk 13:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Phish phood

I tagged this article for speedy deletion. After it was deleted, its creator, User:Nathanmlynch, requested a copy of the article on my talk page. I am requesting the article's temporary undeletion, as described in "Reasons why an article might be requested for undeletion", on his behalf (in order to expedite the process) so that its text can be quickly retrieved. If an admin can do this, I think leaving the former article's contents on Nathanmlynch's user page or user talk page before re-deleting should suffice. If there are any other details to this process, please let me know. Thanks. –Sommers 00:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-21

Caspian James Crichton-Stuart IV (Joshua Adam Gardner), 5th Duke of Cleveland

See Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Wikipedia_vandal_is_sex_offender

In the light of reecent events, perhaps this article should be brought back to life with major modifications, but the ariginal article content somewhat intact? →AzaToth 19:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • A biography of the hoaxer is already available at Joshua Gardner (subject to AfD). Perhaps you meant this to be a request for a history-only undeletion, or a quick viewing of exactly what it was he put up there? I don't see any case for recreating an article under this title. David | Talk 19:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • So that gives us what, four redirects for an article with no article space links to it (okay, maybe 1)? Seems the only reason to have that redirect is so any relevent info can be merged into the Gardner article. That involves undeletion, not just a redirect. Shall I go ahead and do it? -R. fiend 21:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


2006-01-20

Karayana

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Karayana.

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

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

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

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

David Dom

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David Dom.

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

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

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

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)
Hi. Excuse me, but if you think aetherometry has received plenty of attention, please quote single scientific journal article about it. If many people are interested to find out about aetherometry, they can go to aetherometry website. For scientific article in encyclopedia, even to say something is "crackpot", you need more than your opinion and interest of many people. You need reputable references. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 16:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, I can't believe that this was deleted. Undelete just because it is too notable to be deleted. This is the first time I'm actually thinking of invoking IAR to undelete something.  Grue  09:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • DRV is for reviewing process decisions, not content. Do you find anything mistakes in my closing of the AfD? 209.74.96.60 17:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC) Oops, that's me. Cookie must have expired right when I was editing this. howcheng {chat} 17:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
      • This is not true. This page is for the review of deletions as a whole. Process can be followed yet an article deleted that should not have been. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 06:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I quote from #Purpose, above: This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some information pertaining to the debate that did not receive an airing during the AfD debate (perhaps because the information was not available at that time). This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content. howcheng {chat} 06:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I suggest you look at the second vote (and the first too). Keeping this article sane was absorbing too much effort due to determined POV pushing by the pro-aetheometry people; the article was junk & people got sick of it. William M. Connolley 09:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
    Do you suggest deleting George W. Bush too, because it's vandalised often? There are appropriate tools, such as semi-protection and full protection. Deletion is not such a tool.  Grue  09:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    Bush is clearly notable. IMHO aetherometry isn't notable. It wasn't on your watchlist... And AFAIK, I'm not allowed to make the article sane then protect My Version. In an ideal world, wiki would have an aetherometry article which would be short and say "this is pseudoscience" and... well, read Dragonflights vote at VFD. In the real world, the pro-ae people kept pushing it. Having said that, there seems to have been a misunderstanding about verifiability in perhaps some of the votes, and probably in the closing: the verifiability criterion for pseduoscience is not published papers (of course; they don't) but links to their wacko websites, because thats all they have. William M. Connolley 10:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
  • Endorse (keep deleted) None of the above is germane to criteria for undeletion. The Afd was closed correctly, and no new arguments have arisen. The original article was deleted largely because this article is an OR soapbox for a fringe group. WP is not webhosting for every fringe idea that comes along. Vandalism has nothing to do with it so far as I am concerned. KillerChihuahua 10:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The article does indeed have a problem with reliable sources. That would probably be because it's hard to find a reliable source on pseudoscience. My suggestion would be to keep deleted, and create a new article covering ONLY those facts drawn from a reliable source (which is probably about 20% of what is now in the article) the protect for a while to get the POV pushers cooled down. Radiant_>|< 11:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • DumbA you are Radiant. Article already quoted only reliable sources there were.81.193.157.168
  • Undelete. I don't know anything about the subject at all, nor am I particularly interested to change that situation. But I fully agree with Grue that deletion should not be a tool against POV pushing. Lack of reliable sources? Phew! If we use thát as an argument, I believe we can quietely delete about 90 % of our articles. We have other tags for that! While I would endorse a cleanup of the article, it still needs to be undeleted in order to distill the 20% Radiant was talking about. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 11:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted somewhat sadly. I'm surprised this was deleted too, but it does look like a valid AfD. Perhaps some content could be placed in Reich's article, or one of the Orgone articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Either Undelete or recreate as per Radiant. As others have said, POV problems are not grounds for deletion. I have no problem with it remaining a protected stub. –Abe Dashiell 12:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: no vote yet, but I find it troubling that two of the voters who voted to delete the article in the second AFD were two of the editors most responsible for trying to legitimize this (in my opinion) pseudoscience. That they would suddenly argue for the article's deletion makes me suspicious. Since the article's talk page has not been deleted yet, voters can see for themselves without having to view the history of the deleted article. --Calton | Talk 13:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Calton. I know your name, you are one of people who was many times putting aetherometry article in category "pseudoscience". Now you correctly say "this is my opinion". But you know, you cannot just put opinion in encyclopedia as if it is fact. Can you quote published scientific articles that aetherometry is in violation of scientific method? If not, then dont you think that putting category in, as if it was known opinion of scientific majority, is not honorable and not responsible? Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 16:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, Chatty Cathy, I was trying to be polite. It's pseudoscience by any reasonable definition; my actual opinion is that it's a complete load of half-baked crap being pushed by glory-seeking self-promoters not talented, knowledgable, or smart enough to get published or noticed by actual scientists or actual peer-reviewed journals, and who are using sockpuppets/meatpuppets/gullible cohorts to use Misplaced Pages to promote their views and sell their self-published books -- but that would take too long to type. And might I point out that this isn't an article you're reading right now?: it's in Misplaced Pages space, and I can express any (non-libellous, non-personal, and non-slanderous) opinion I care to. And as for your challenge to provide a peer-reviewed source that calls it pseudoscience; well, to steal from Wolfgang Pauli, "that's not right; that's not even wrong." --Calton | Talk 02:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Mr. Calton. There couldn't be a more eloquent argument for keeping the Aetherometry entry deleted. FrankZappo 03:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Ha! Calton, that was a lot of fulmination for something you misread! Pgio 20:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keeep deleted. ENOUGH OF THIS. Nobody is trying to legitimize anything. If you think that having an article in Misplaced Pages, and trying to keep it to verifiable claims, unjustly legitimizes Aetherometry, then you should be the first to want the article deleted. If you just want to recreate the article so as to be able to say it's "pseudoscience", then provide A SINGLE REPUTABLE REFERENCE IN A MAINSTREAM PUBLICATION that reviews the work and concludes it is "pseudoscience". If you want to recreate it for any other reason, then don't just talk; you need to propose how the verifiability problem should be solved. FrankZappo 14:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have to say that I find it absolutely disgusting when the people who have, day in and day out, tried to provide content for the article, and without whom there couldn't even be an Aetherometry article, are referred to contemptuously as "POV pushers" or "legitimizers" in the very same breath in which it is suggested that the article should stay in Misplaced Pages. What are you running here, a plantation on which "niggers" should provide content while you subject them to contempt and ridicule? Is this how you run a utopian encyclopedic establishment? FrankZappo 14:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure with full recognition of the heroic work done by some editors in trying to provide a balanced coverage of what is, according to my reading of the evidence, a crackpot theory aggressively promoted by its proponents; in the end, though the fundamental problem is that as a supposedly scientific subject it is unverifiable from reliable sources since neither the theory nor the rebuttals are presented in peer-reviewed journals. It was asserted that citations could be provided, but none were. Much of the argument on the AfD ignored this (to me) fundamental point. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 15:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. This is different case than article on Bush. Claims in aetherometry article, on both sides, were presented as scientific. Claims of aetherometry were presented as scientific claims, and opinions of Misplaced Pages administrators about it were presented as judgement of scientific majority. If a claim is presented in scientific context in encyclopedia, you must quote in support reputable scientific sources. Even in Bush article, you would not report something as majority opinion simply because it is opinion held by most Misplaced Pages administrators who are watching article. You would quote published polls or other reputable outside sources. For aetherometry, no such sources exist. If you want to know what aetherometry claims, just go to aetherometry website at www.aetherometry.com. But in encyclopedia that wants to educate public, scientific claims, for minority or majority, should not be published if they cannot be verified. If other Misplaced Pages articles refer to aetherometry article, this is easy to change. They can refer to aetherometry website instead, or not refer at all. Sincerely, Janusz Karpinski. Januszkarp 16:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and slap an NPOV tag, slap a disputed tag, slap a cleanup tag. The subject is interesting and I would that our readers would want and expect such an article to be in Misplaced Pages, knowing that the subject is contentious, is disputed, etc, etc, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
If the subject is interesting and your readers want and expect such an article in Misplaced Pages, then you must institute policies by which the people who know something about the subject are treated with respect, as providers of a valuable service, not as "POV pushers", "aggressive promoters" and "cranks" who are "pushing their crackpot theory". I am sorry, but unless Misplaced Pages can guarantee respectful treatment to the people who have studied the subject and can provide information about it, it is disingenous to call the subject "interesting" and argue that the article should be kept. FrankZappo 17:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am sorry, I need to make another comment, because this is really too much and I need you all to know and understand that it is, and why it is, too much. In June 2005, there was an actual request in Misplaced Pages for an article on Aetherometry, in the category "Applied Sciences". I don't know what misguided, ignorant or malicious soul created this request, but I didn't know anything about Misplaced Pages, saw the request, and took it at face value. I pointed it out to Dr. Askanas, who then did a lot of hard work to fulfill this request and supply the article. Ever since then, Dr. Askanas, Pgio, myself, DrHyde, and everybody else who tried to contribute to the article from first-hand knowledge of the primary sources, has received nothing but scorn and derision. When we provide information, we are called "POV pushers", "snake-oil vendors", and "aggressive promoters"; when we remove claims that are nothing but expressions of bias and cannot be verified, or are simply incorrect, we are called "vandals" and reverted; and when we vote to have the article deleted, this is called "suspicious" and claimed to be a good reason to keep the article. No, there is nothing suspicious about us wanting the article deleted. This has to stop. It was a mistake to respond to the request to create the entry in the first place. The entry, as has been proven by over half a year of completely futile wrangling, does not belong in Misplaced Pages. There is nothing suspicious about having had enough, about no longer wanting to spend every day of our lives trying to "keep the article sane" - i.e., to the best of our knowledge, accurate and verifiable - when there are no acceptable secondary mainstream sources for the contentions of either side. I am sorry to say this, but it is not only frivolous, but de facto malicious - even if the malice is unintentional - to simply say that the article should be undeleted. Either you can, right here and now, propose a concrete, viable way to make this article sane, verifiable, and acceptable to all the main contributors, or the people who have been, since June 2005, locked in an unresolvable conflict with each other trying to make this article viable, need to be released from bondage and permitted to live their lives. FrankZappo 17:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Without serious consideration and clear address of the comment above (FrankZappo 17:54, 20 January 2006), the function and purpose of Misplaced Pages will remain suspect. TTLightningRod 18:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Misplaced Pages need not have an article on every fringe idea. Put a paragraph into Aether theories or some other Misplaced Pages article (iff there is a good reference) and move on. --JWSchmidt 04:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted --Philosophus 07:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that this topic may be notable enough and important enough and interesting enough to warrant an article. I agree that the article as it stood had a lot of issues. I agree that a new article, free of unverifiable claims and POV, that reported on the history and existance of this theory, what it claims, and what the various findings of mainstream science are, and what media attention it has received, would be a good, encylopedic, important article. But none of that is what DRV is about. DRV is about process. I looked over the discussion, and it was long and contentious, and relatively new admin User:howcheng had a hard job to slog through it. But I think he called the consensus correctly. The consensus was delete and I see nothing wrong with the process. Keep Deleted. If someone were to write a new article with the content outlined above so that it did not fall afoul of the "recreation of deleted content" rule, that would be a good and noble thing in my view. But it strikes me as (if some of the comments here are indicative of what those trying to write NPOVly had to face) rather an arduous and thankless task and I pity whoever tries it. ++Lar: t/c 20:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted I was one of the principle authors. If you check the Talk page edit logs you'll see that I broached the topic of VfD this time around, because I'm tired of this whole dispute. Contrary to WMC's revisionism above, the article was not junk. It accurately states the claims of the science involved. WMC and Calton and others were the ones pushing POV by applying the pseudoscience category without references, as if it was self-evident. Until such time as either side can produce acceptable second-party references, I don't see how this article has a place in Misplaced Pages at all. That's what people decided in the VfD. Pgio 20:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to also request a temporary undeletion. Turnstep 05:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, does this discussion not begin to remind a bit of absurdist farce? It was now said twice that deletion review is for reviewing procedure, and not content. Was this incorrect claim? Because if correct, then why should you, Turnstep, request temporary undeletion? The absence of "why" is even more funny because you just told Philosophus that not providing reasons for votes was your "pet peeve". And then if your idea is to try create new article, it seems to me you should work from published mainstream sources, not old article. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 06:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Temporary undeletion is a valid request, in order to allow transfer to user space. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 17:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Undeletion helps me to understand the voter's rationales and thus allows me to evaluate how well the closing admin did at gauging consensus and arriving at the proper conclusion. I certainly have no interest in creating a new article, I don't know why you would think that. Turnstep 16:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted This article was original research and totally useless. The POV problems involved with it were unresolvable for lack of scientific references. No other article referenced it: see Special:Whatlinkshere/Aetherometry. (note: I just removed it from 3 pages that linked to Aetherometry in the "See also" section, check the rest of those links for cleanup) Ashibaka tock 21:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Due to the almost complete failure of anyone to produce source citations on either side, this article did not meet our verifiability policy. Verifiability has always supposedly been our policy, and it says so right under the edit box I'm typing in right now. The article can be re-created without prejudice at any time when anyone can produce substantial source citations showing that aetherometry is a real theory—not a proven theory, but a real theory—that is receiving significant public discussion, for and against, outside a very small circle of people. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, probable original research and very likely unverifiable. I searched journal databases (admittedly doing so fairly quickly) and was unable to find a single academic article on the matter. That, combined with all this above, does not bode well. Lord Bob 21:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete obviously. Very depressing to read the arguments in favour of ridding us of yet another potentially interesting article. It's one of the pluses of Misplaced Pages that it covers crackpot theories. You scientist types get to bully the writers and fill the articles full of your POV as it is. Now you resort to deleting the articles? As for the undue weight provision, that would apply if the debate was about including material about "aetherometry" in a general article on physics, but it's scarcely unduly weighting a crackpot theory to have an article about it, given the many articles about mainstream physics. Grace Note 03:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Grace, the material was deleted for this very example; The phrase "...crackpot theories", used in a comment to undelete material, without citation.Cutaow 13:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and clean thoroughly. There is undoubtedly something called "Aetherometry" on which we should have an article: simply deleting it because some people don't like the current content is hardly conducive to creating a reputable encyclopedia; that's what {{cleanup}} and {{npov}} and all their little friends are for. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Phil, if Misplaced Pages was able to find any citable, reputable reference sources upon which to build the content, specifically the "counter" and "critical" arguments against the material.... you would already have a reputable encyclopedia. Without any such reference, the use of "crack-pot" and "pseudo" is what "some people don't like".Cutaow 13:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Misplaced Pages has a lot of information about pseudoscience. As someone who's worked on keeping some of those articles NPOV, I know it's a pain, but we can't hold that against having an article at all. To say we should have no article at all on these guys is just plain silly, so the deletion was an error. -- SCZenz 16:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Good. In light of your previous experience, I am sure you will be able to put on the table, right here and now, a proposal for a concrete, viable way to make the Aetherometry article sane, verifiable, and acceptable to all the main contributors. FrankZappo 16:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
It can't be done to the satisfaction of all the main contributors, because a small number of them have a vested interest. However, because they have a vested interest, NPOV allows their input to be ignored. User:Dragon's Flight has made one suggestion that would work, along the lines that Aetherometry is a theory advanced by X that claims Y. It has no significant support in the scientific community as verified by its failure to appear in abstract database Z. Some specific claims are A, B, C; as acknowledged by aetherometry's advocates these conflict with established scientific principles D, E, F. Then lock the sucker. But my main reason for voting delete was that the keep arguments were so often framed in terms of the importance of Misplaced Pages as a source for debunking / discussing this topic, in a way not doen elsewhere. I'm probably not the only one for whom that raises red flags; absent reliable sources verification is a real problem. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 21:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Who are the contributors that are said to have a vested interest? That's the first I hear about this. Certainly neither Pgio nor myself. Or does "vested interest" mean that we are interested in the topic? FrankZappo 22:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, how in the world is locking the entry supposed to help? Locking does not protect against editing by administrators. So how do you-all propose to protect the entry against the toxic zeal of bigoted administrators like Connolley who are so full of themselves that they equate their own bias with a "scientific point of view" and don't care whether the commentary they put in the entry violates the verifiability policy? Or do you-all simply not care? FrankZappo 22:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and attach whatever framing text or disclaimer tags are necessary to keep the article from looking like an endorsement of unsubstantiated theories. It is obvious that some people seeking insight into the meaning of the term would appreciate information. Possibly redirect to some information merged into the general Reich article? Ben Kidwell 01:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Just because it's kookery that doesn't mean it's invalid for Misplaced Pages to have an article on it. Misplaced Pages runs on notability, not whether it's loony or not. Wiwaxia

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

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)
    • If you read my explanation above, I was not going simply by vote count, but basing my decision on the criterion that people know about druids are in the best position to determine if these particular druids are notable within the druid world. Again, however, I'm fine with them being deleted on the basis of their being unverifiable from reliable sources. howcheng {chat} 16:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  • Overturn and delete, my sympathies to Howcheng for having to deal with a sockfest, a real no-win situation.
A closing admin is perfectly entitled to take into account the edit history (or lack of) of each person in an AfD debate. Also, a closing admin is entitled to discount arm-waving: if an article fails to establish notability, unevidenced assertions of notability in AfDs are moot. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 16:19, 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)
  • Keep deleted. This was deleted via CFD last year. The DRV was unsuccessful. It was recreated, virtually the same as when it was deleted. This is not a content dispute. Recreations of deleted categories are eligible for speedy. The community has examined the matter already. The community has re-examined the matter already. The community has decided to delete it and keep it deleted. Why are we here again? --Kbdank71 14:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Because no deletion vote can prevent the creation of substantially different material. The deletion vote did not say that no category can ever be created that uses the term "Causes célèbres". This was a good faith attempt to solve the problems raised in the initial CfD and your reaction begins to look a bad faith attempt to use admin powers to enforce your view on a content issue. Just like any other user I am perfectly at liberty to start a categorisation scheme for Causes célèbres. Why are you so afraid of having this issue debated at CfD? David | Talk 15:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
      • "Substantially different material" is key. What you put back is not different at all. And as such, this issue was already debated at CfD, with a decision to delete. --Kbdank71 16:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Please help me out on this. What proposal would you make for a categorisation scheme of individuals and issues which are generally ascribed as being causes célèbres such that it would be substantially different and overcome the problems which some users saw in the CfD? Let's work together and help the encyclopaedia. David | Talk 16:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I think one of the major stumbling blocks to creating/recreating the category in question is the "famous" aspect of it. Categories with Famous in the title are routinely deleted at CFD for being POV. Is there something like a Current Events category that might work? --Kbdank71 17:12, 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)

I merely asked that OpenInfo and OpenGCL not be accused of fraud (one editor used the term "vapourware"). This was a deliberate attempt by an editor to devalue a commercial product, and therefore those comments should have been removed. OpenGCL is notable, however the article was deleted while it was still a stub (work in progress). I merely ask for a few weeks time to build up the article. There are many PRINT references that can be cited. The Internet is not always the only place to look for citations.

  • Comment To mdescribe a product as "Vaporware" is an expression of opnion, and so cannot be slander or libel. It is certianly not an accustation of fraud. The legal threats issued durign the AfD are probably sufficent to call for at elast a temporary block of then suer issuign them. There seem to have been several other irregualritys in the Afd, with pro-deltion comments being removed, etc. DES 21:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • endorese close ()keep deleted). The AfD seems to have been proper, the articel at the teim it was deelted was quite promotional in tone, and did not include citations establishign its notability. Notability was debated in the AfD, and views differed, no evidence cited seems compellign to me one way or ther other, so i am content to go with the much more numerous delte views. If OpenInfo wants to developp a better article that includes citations clearly establishing notability, let that happen in user space. If that user needs a copy of the original article moved to userspace i will be glad to do so, for the purpose of attempting to build a proper, verifiabel article. DES 21:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would need a copy of the original article to work with. TY. OpenInfo 04:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I did NOT realized you were blocked nor I decided on YOUR articles (articles aren't owned by single wikipedians) I jsut closed the afd, it was nothing personal against you. I resent you portraying me as a bad guy trying to discredit you or taking unfair advantage. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Endorse closure', valid AfD, no "keepers" at all that I can see. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 00:40, 26 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)
            • I think you're abusing the term verifiable if you claim that the quotes from named representatives of customers are unverifiable. Of course they're verifiable--just go to the customers and ask! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
            • As we all apologize, sorry for extending this further, BUT, what about this, from the UK gov Office of Government Commerce: OGC Projectplace, which for some internal use selected Projectplace: "The results of the demonstrations and suppliers’ responses to the request for quotation (RFQ), which included bids on usage and licence fees, were evaluated using Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT) as the award criteria. ... a registered user could view a Project plan written using Microsoft Project software even if they did not have Microsoft Project software installed on their PC." Doesn't this demonstrate some level of competition in the PM field, where PP was judged superior by a notable end-user (UK gov), and relate it also to a well-known product MS Project? That concretely demonstrates a degree of unique value and noteworthiness, of this particular application, within the PM space, that could be profitably explained in WP. We do cover software, don't we? I'm not clear on the bar here... --Tsavage 19:45, 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)
      • You may be right, at least, I know I'm not up on the nuances of AfD. However, I was commenting on existing comments here (which is perhaps out of process, but seems to be done...regularly, so is really...part of the process). More fundamentally, I'm interested in the use of speedy anythings, which are quite self-evident when applied. Here it seems, the speedy was moved to AfD because someone didn't understand why it was speedied, and then, it was deleted because it was found unnoteworthy (based on the AfD comments). The Deletion Review summary I think mistakes the reasons for relisting from speedy (e.g. Google hits was cited as a possible reason agaisnt (speedy) deletion). In any case, the company seems adequately noteworthy on at the very least a common sense basis. Deleting it would then lower the chances of other editors seeing it and expanding on it. No drama, I'm learning the intricacies of the system, while trying to remain...practical. :) --Tsavage 19:12, 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)
      • It's certainly a small company--much smaller than, say, SuperOffice. This doesn't mean it isn't an important company. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I gave that example as a measure of proof that the substantial client claims made on the Projectplace site have some basis (otherwise, we're assuming they fabricated the list and case studies). I read the WP:CORP guideline and it obviously needs work. We can't exclude corporations (which are entities, like people) if they're not "big" in a financial sense. A "smaller" company can be extremely noteworthy, in a way that cannot be ascribed to individuals in that company. And in a case like this, many client companies will not make mention one of the products they use internally, so it can be difficult to get client-side or media-reported sources. Here, do Google Books and there are at least three print titles on PM s/w, all available through Amazon, that cite Projectplace... (Sorry to clutter this debate, if I'm so doing...I'll figure it out.) --Tsavage 19:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I was the one writing the original page about this company / service. I do know the company very well (but as I wrote, I'm not a sales guy for it). It's a 50 man company, with official annual reports, websites in 5 languages, 200.000 registered users and quite a lot of (big) customers who use this for project management, intra/extranet, knowledge management. There is an IPO in the planning and it IS the leading provider for online collaboration in Europa. Anyone working with online PM tools should have at least heard of it, especially in the Nordic region. Now I read back here after a few days I see claims of possible corporate scams and questions if the customer cases on the website are actually real. It's ridiculous, like denying BMW actually makes real cars. I say: let's just leave it here. Keep the page out of WP, let's not waste any time on this. I don't feel like updating this page or the information about Projectplace anymore. --Zpeed 22:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn (undelete) The article was put through two an out-of-process deletions. It was first marked for speedy deleted without reason (no comment provided). To correct this procedural error, an admin undeleted it and posted it to AfD, again with no grounds for deletion cited (in fact, it was listed with possible reasons for keeping, e.g. significant Google hits). There were only three votes, including one from the speedy deleter, and no additional substantive reasoning against it. In this Review, additional support for the notability of the topic has been presented. The article should not have been placed on AfD as a remedy for the faulty speedy. (I think I got that right? Now...?) --Tsavage 03:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • To clarify, it was never speedy deleted, it was tagged for deletion, but I saw it in CSD before that happened. It didn't look like an obvious delete, or an obvious keep, so I took it to AFD instead. Kappa 03:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Possibly relist on AFD. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 06:22, 23 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)
  • It's a misconception, and sadly a widely held and relentlessly promoted one, that we aren't allowed to undelete good content if the AfD was in order. See the undeletion policy: we're mandated to undelete stuff in the case of "Article wrongly deleted (ie that Misplaced Pages would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored)." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Slightly more precisely, that's given as a reason for why undeletion might be requested (as the section header says) i.e. what a good reason to bring up as part of your request might be. It's not a mandate to simply decide for oneself to reverse a decision one happens to disagree with. -Splash 03:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Not sure what you're saying here. You think we can't resurrect good stuff that has been wrongly deleted by a formally valid AfD? If so, I assure that we can do so, old chap, and we've got two perfectly good company articles waltzing gaily through their second AfDs right now. It's possible that you're saying something else entirely and I've misunderstood--in which case please elaborate. Why would we have a deletion policy encouraging people to bring good articles here because they've been wrongly deleted, if what Stifle says were true: DRV is strictly only to do undeletions where due process was not followed? I contend that that is rubbish, and our mandate is to pick up the good stuff that AfD has wrongly deleted. Process sometimes gets it wrong, so here we should say loudly and clearly, where appropriate: fuck process, this is a good article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
      • One man's "good article" in another man's speedy deletion. The reason that we have these much-maligned "processes" is that, as our community grows, it is necessary to place some structure on our conversations to insure that people's voices are heard in an equitable manner. Without "process" where by we all contribute our ideas in a civil and rational manner, we are left at the mercy of those with the most free time, the thickest skin, and the least regard for the opinons of others. In almost every case, when an individual is screaming that "process" is screwing things up, it is because they are unable to use that process to get the results that they want. As such, the complaints regarding the "brokeness" of process are actually an indication that it works - it's making almost everyone happy. The very simple facts are that well written, well sourced articles about notable entities are almost never deleted, the vast majority of deletions (speedy and otherwise) are uncontested, and the vast majority of Wikipedians find that working within the process is fine for them. - brenneman 06:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree with you that One man's "good article" in another man's speedy deletion, but this doesn't mean we cannot make a judgement on content and undelete good articles that have been wrongly deleted. Processes sometimes have the wrong result even if all the t's are crossed and all the i's are dotted. So we need some way of fixing that. I don't mind what does it, as long as it's done. As for well written, well souced articles almost never being deleted, I suspect that I'll be bringing just such an article here in a couple of days withh a view to getting it undeleted. Take note. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist just to avoid any ambiguity. The two were sufficiently dissimilar as to make a joint AfD (which I normally actively support) problematic in this case. I still think it's gamecruft, but what do I know? - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 17:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, relist if needed. Some votes were not for the article in question and the Alexa rank (which is reason enough on its own to undelete) was mentioned so late in the process, it's unlikely to have been considered by earlier voters. I think this warrants a new discussion with all the facts included upfront. - Mgm| 10:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This seems pretty much unanimous to me so I'm undeleting now. Anybody who thinks it ought to be relisted should do so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-18

The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny (corrected title Jan 25)

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)
Undelete and AfD per above. Too much confusion to be assured that everybody was talking about the same article. For the record I still think it should be a merge and redirect, and if the author would prefer to boldly merge instead of AfDin that would work for me too. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 15:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment/Apology/Question The article had no AfD notice when I moved (IIRC) Ultimate showdown to either Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny or The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny; if it was me, I aplogize for causing the mess, though I think it was clear to the participants that the article was what was being referred to. I only discovered the AfD when I looked at the What Links Here page checking for double redirects. There have been several reposts and re-speedy-deletes since then; I've posted in the talk page several times to try to stop it. I'm not sure whether enough time as passed to convince people of its notabilty: if the article fails AfD again, can it be relisted again in the future? --AySz88^-^ 06:52, 25 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)


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)
  • Hmm, JQ asked me to have a look. I restored Henry Farrell (political scientist). Why is this speedy? The article does assert his importance. VFD it if you must, but speedy appears to be very dubious. William M. Connolley 20:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC).
    I speedy-deleted Henry Farrell (political scientist); in my view, the assertion of notability made in that article ranked with "this person is notable because he writes on a website which is cool." If there's disagreement on that, though, I have no problem with it going through the regular AFD process. —Cleared as filed. 23:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    It is still a candidate for speedy deletion. There is no claim of notability there. And WMC, when three admins think something is a speedy, it's pretty bold to reverse it while discussion are ongoing. Additionally, don't restore and then say "AfD it if you must", have the courage of your convictions and nominate it youself while abstaining. - brenneman 00:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    It was probably over-bold of me; apologies. We'll see how VFD pans out. William M. Connolley 10:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC).
  • Now that Henry Farrell (political scientist) is up again, I've edited it to include a more detailed claim to notability, based on media coverage. Sorry if this is a breach of Misplaced Pages etiquette, but, as I said, I'm new to this deletion business. In any case, I'd appreciate it if someone could advise whether this kind of evidence is sufficient for a claim of notability JQ 02:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • And now this: 17:53, 19 January 2006 Alkivar restored "Eszter Hargittai". This is, again, bad form. If there is a reason for restoration, present it here. I also do not see any evidence that the original speedy was invalid, nor that Mel was notified that his speedy was reversed. That's actually required per Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy#Exception. It might be good if we actually started following these policies. - brenneman 05:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    It may be bad form but its probably the right answer. Erdos number of 3 is notable. William M. Connolley 11:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
    Look per WP:BIO standards she qualifies, she was the recipient of a prestigious award not bestowed on many people, she has made numerous major media appearances, and appears to be an expert in her field. As such this did not fit speedy guidelines. I am not however opposed to it being listed individually on AFD. Let the masses decide, I see no reason 7 days of discussion cant agree on a solution. The rest of these do not appear to pass the WP:BIO standards as I see them and although I will not oppose their speedy I still think it was in poor form. This is precicely what AFD was created for. In cases when your unsure if you'll catch flack over it... dont speedy afd it.  ALKIVAR™ 19:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    Why are you arguing with me? I agree with you! No, it wasn't a joke. William M. Connolley 19:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
    Sorry I was referring to Aaron... damn talk nesting.  ALKIVAR™ 21:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm still unhappy about the speedy deletions. I would have thought that someone doing a speedy delete ought to be pretty confident that an AfD discussion would go overwhelmingly in favor of deletion, and hence be a waste of time. This hasn't been the case with Henry Farrell (political scientist) and I think it won't be if Eszter Hargittai is disputed either. As I read the guidelines, a disputed assertion of notability is not sufficient grounds for speedy deletion.
  • Alkivar's responses to my attempts to clean up Eszter Hargittai have been aggressive and emotional; I think that there's more going on here than a minor disagreement about whether the articles meet the criteria. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • My emotional response is due to people speedy deleting articles on a whim ... what part of the Kelly Martin fiasco did you miss? Per CSD A7 If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. This in a nutshell is the problem... people speedy stuff as A7 regularly without even so much as a google search. As per my talk page Eszter Hargittai (a quite unique and uncommon spelled name) gets more google hits than JIMBO when you exclude pages hosted by wikipedia.org... nuff said.  ALKIVAR™ 21:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Again, you assume bad faith. I deleted the article because it didn't assert the notability of its subject, as the Misplaced Pages criteria state; in what sense is that deleting "on a whim"? I don't Google every one of the hundreds of articles that meet those criteria (and I don't think much of Google as a criterion of notability, skewed as it is towards people and things on the Web, giving non-notable bloggers ridiculous prominence). The article that I deleted was this; I stand my by view that it was speediable; I don't see much there now to change my opinion, frankly, but I have made no attempt (despiote your accusations and insinuations) to redelete it or to persuade others to do so. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not opposed to its deletion... i'm opposed to its SPEEDY deletion... there is a significant difference. Feel free to relist it on AFD... I just want it to be given the time to have the community decide whether or not she is in fact notable... My google searches and fact checking shows that she is but 1 of 4 "Wilson Scholars" awarded that year... Subjects of awards (especially with that small of a pool of recipients) from a major organization are by themselves notable... Hell there are more Oscar recipients than Wilson Scholars. My problem is not with you Mel, its with ANYONE who speedies borderline/questionable bios without at least a simple fact check... when they should instead be AFDing them and letting the community do said notibility/fact checking.  ALKIVAR™ 22:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


2006-01-16

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

2006-01-13

2006-01-12

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)
  • Keep Deleted per Tony --Improv 03:03, 22 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)


2006-01-07

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)

See Misplaced Pages:Categories. You'te not supposed to just drop the cat on; you should enter the facts which show he's a Christian into the text, with sources and everything, and then add the cat. Septentrionalis 21:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Endorse closure and keep deleted, categories are better for this precisely because the editors on individual articles won't allow them to be added without evidence, whereas they may not notice addition to a list somewhere else. The debate is a tough call: one who looks like a keep is actually sayiong keep a different article (i.e. one with all those whose entertainment is explicitly Christian, not secular), which the list as deleted was not. There is nothing wrong with a category for Catholics, Baptists, Methylated Wesletarians or whatever as subcats, with the unclassifiable in the root cat. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 17:30, 24 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)
Undelete per Durova. Wiwaxia 10:19, 27 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. Yafinsint: Nomination withdrawn, admitted hoax. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. NATARS: Kept deleted. 23:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Holy Father: Not a deletion issue. Article now stands as a dab. 23:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. LUEshi: Closure of "keep" upheld. 04:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Ninjah Pendragon: Kept deleted. 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Pussy_City_Pimps : Kept deleted. 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Weishampel exchange : Kept deleted. 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Template:User allow fairuse : Kept deleted. 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Circumcision fetish: Kept deleted. 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Pedelec: Kept deleted (something about mediation??? no a DRV matter anyway). 17:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Game Central Network: Kept deleted. 17:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Ludvig Strigeus: Relisted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ludvig Strigeus (second nomination). 17:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. 2120s and 2140s : Redirected. 20:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. aladin: Never deleted. Moved and now listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aladin (magician). 20:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. SuperOffice: Undeleted by Tony Sidaway, relisted and kept 07:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Tally Solutions Ltd: Undeleted by Tony Sidaway, relisted and kept 07:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Eszter Hargittai: Rewritten, currently at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eszter Hargittai. 19:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Henry Farrell (political scientist): Rewritten, kept. 19:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Categories: