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 Aaron Brenneman (talk | contribs) at 01:32, 13 February 2006 (→[]: Please, just {{tl|sofixit}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:32, 13 February 2006 by Aaron Brenneman (talk | contribs) (→[]: Please, just {{tl|sofixit}}.)(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.

List of software companies

Was deleted on 6 Jan, 2006 (Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_software_companies). This was a useful list where software companies were sectioned based on country. I had created it way back in 2003 and was using it as a reference ever since. Today I went to the page to find out the list of software companies of a particular country, and found that it has been deleted. There is no corresponding Category on "software companies by country" either. I understand that all standalone lists have to be moved into categories, but since we don't have the "Category:Software companies by country" category yet, I request to undelete the list so that the category can be created using the info available in the list. Jay 18:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds convincing, undelete. Pcb21 Pete 19:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Wait a minute, aren't you an admin? Can't you just access the article yourself? Johnleemk | Talk 19:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
You're right I'm a sysop and can access the contents, but non-sysops can't. The categorization work has to be done by all kinds of users, even anon users. Jay 10:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Just one question: if there is a need to sub-categorise by country (which I don't dispute), surely it's easiest just to work through the existing category? Half the companies on the original list were redlinked anyway. Not that I have a problem with undeleting this and moving to a user subpage, I'm just puzzled as to why there's a need. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 20:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. I cannot imagine what possessed anyone to list this article for deletion, or the closing administrator to delete it. --Tony Sidaway 22:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Listcruft. Not convincing? How about spam magnet? Categories are nice because they catalog things with actual articles (or which are worthy of articles). This thing was filled with redlinks to companies I couldn't find anywhere. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete so we can categorize the companies, then can be brought back to AfD after categorizing takes place if someone so chooses, as list will probably not be useful after category is created.VegaDark 22:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Now that it's been userfied in order to create the category, I don't see a need for this list, and it was deleted through due process. Keep Deleted. VegaDark 01:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've moved this to "content review" since that was what was being requested. I've also placed {{tempundelete}} and listed the page on WP:RFPP. There is currently no consensus for fully restoring articles for editing when on deletion review, especially when all that's required is access to the contents. - brenneman 01:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, unless temporarily undeleted for the purposes of category creation, but delete again when finished. This thing was a spam MAGNET. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfied to User:Jay/List of software companies as this is clearly what is wanted, including by those requesting undeletion. Redirect deleted. -Splash 04:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted as unmaintainable listcruft. A category would be much more suitable, and avoid the problems of red-links, vanity entries, and site-spam. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:26, Feb. 12, 2006
  • Undelete - valid listing. Just because no one is quite bold enough to expand upon an article, does not give it justification for deletion. An overhall and some research is needed here. -Zero 09:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, validly deleted in process. Userfying meets Jay stated need. Inspection of deleted article shows more than half the content to be redlinked entries with no source citations, hence not in compliance with the verifiability policy. On inspecting the history, I agree that was a spam magnet. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

moshzilla

I would like to have this undeleted mometarely. I started the internet phenomena, moshzilla, and own moshzilla.com, I would like to move the contents of the moshzilla entry onto the moshzilla site if possible. User:joshhighland

  • Comment - Moved to content review section. --- Charles Stewart 20:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, no. Since you don't own the copyright to the material and have never edited the article, you can't drop the material into a website that does not use the GFDL to license its content. -Splash 00:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • There's nothing to stop him having a section of his site which is GFDL and which contains the cotnent from the deletd article. There's no shortage of mirrors who do this sort of thing, and as long as it's properly attributed and stated that it is GFDL it's fine. -- AJR | Talk 17:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • For the record, this user has a copy of the deleted content. He/she used it on 9 Feb 06 to recreate the deleted page. I am having trouble assuming good faith about this request. Rossami (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Colonel Xu

Hello, and thanks in advance for your reply(ies). A couple months ago, my classmates created a page on WP called "Colonel Xu." It was mocking our Mandarin teacher as a Communist spy. (It's simplified chinese, what else can you expect? =P) She took it in stride, being the cool person she is. However, they didn't preserve any copies of it, and knowing I was a WP junkie, requested that I help them try to get a copy of it. Could an administrator please let me view it, and then print it out, or to move the "article" to my userspace? If it is moved to my user space, can I keep it there? I'll be checking here and on my Talk page every couple mins. THanks! -Copysan 23:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

History only undeletion

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

Decisions to be reviewed

Shortcut

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.

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

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

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Temporary_undeletion

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

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

12 February 2006

Template:User no Rand

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates.

Lowbrow.com

Nobody seems to like this article. Every time I come back here, it's gone. Why is this? What makes the likes of Ebaum's World or other sites any more special? Lowbrow.com is a large website with a pretty massive community. Why someone would want to keep information about it from this encyclopedia is beyond me, and it is very frustrating. I am requesting that this article be undeleted. Thank you.

--Spank fusion 00:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lowbrow.com for one thing, where a consensus to delete the article was first reached. It seems subsequent recreations of the article have all been deleted because they were deemed sufficiently similar to the original deleted version, which is allowed under the criteria for speedy deletion. It does look quite similar every time. You might also see the WP:WEB guidelines for website article inclusion. At any rate I think rather than deletion review you should talk to the admin who protected the page to see about recreating it. --W.marsh 00:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    Hi. I'm that admin, and I sent User:Spank fusion here, as the appropriate place to contest a deletion, rather than than just recreating the article repeatedly. If there's a way to recreate the article so that it meets our inclusion guidelines, this is the place where that should be determined, if I understand correctly. -GTBacchus 01:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

List of interesting or unusual place names

(now at Misplaced Pages:List of interesting or unusual place names)

This article was deleted out of process, then during the resulting debates, recreated and moved to the Misplaced Pages: namespace. It does not belong there; all similar lists (List of city listings by country, List of misleading place names, &c) are in the article namespace. (The only parallel I saw someone mention in the Misplaced Pages: namespace is Misplaced Pages:Unusual articles which is clearly a meta-page about Misplaced Pages and therefore belongs in that namespace.) The article was then placed here for review, and the result was not handled by the book.

The article should be 'undeleted' and restored to its original title -- and then perhaps put up once more for AfD. A second AfD nomination ran for two days, generating over 30 votes, predominantly to keep it; but was closed early for process-lawyering reasons -- that is, because the same discussion should be had here. +sj +

NB: There were good debates raised about how to determine whether a name is unusual or interesting; these are useful to have, and hopefully good revisions of the list will come from them. Undeletion and restoration of the original title should in no way to minimize those debates. +sj + 00:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Here's why. The first AFD was a perfectly valid delete. The user who brought it to DRV the first time used erroneous numbers to justify it (which shouldn't matter, as AFD is not a vote). The article was moved to the WP namespace (as suggested by several users, both in the AFD and the dRV), and the DRV was closed (by me) endorsing this move. It was then recreated in the article space out of process. Furthermore the article itseld is falwed beyond belief. Allow me to elaborate.
This article is downright ridiculous. Despite all these assertions I keep hearing that it is "easily verifiable", no one has cited sources for these (with very; few exceptions, and only very recently). When asked what exactly it is that makes these "interesting" or "unusual" it seems the only answer we ever hear is "Listen! This place is called fucking, Austria!!!!!! Get it??? FUCKING!!!! Isn’t that a hoot???" Um, maybe, but it’s not a source, and the article has this aura of having been partially written by Beavis and Butthead (huh-huh huh-huh "Dix Hills", huh-huh-. They said "Dicks", huh-huh-huh). Can hardly believe they missed Uruguay ("U-R-Gay", get it?), moronic? Absolutely, but, unlike almost every other name in the article, I can actually find a source for that one. I know we have some pre-pubescent editors here, but do we need to advertise that to the world? And as long as we’re loading up the article with juvenile humor, where's Johnson, Tennessee (FYI "Johnson" means "penis" (titter))?
And the problems go on. I mean, do we really want to include street names? Of all the millions and millions of streets in the world I’m sure we can find thousands that will get your average six-year-old in hysterics (which seems to be among the inclusion criteria here). Do you really want me to find a "Pu Street" somewhere on the planet? Because I bet I can. He same goes for informal names of neighborhoods. Alphabet City? It even actually makes sense for a neighborhood defined by lettered streets, so what’s so interesting or unusual about that anyway? And then there are those that just confound me.
Lolita: would that be interesting if it weren’t the name of a Nabokov novel? If someone publishes a book called “Meriden” do we get to include Meriden, Connecticut? Vader: let me guess, if we imagine the word "Darth" in front of it… Mashpee: sounds a little strange to anyone who doesn’t live in a part of the country where every other town is some Indian word, to those of us who do, utterly unremarkable. Sandwich: you do realize that the food item was indirectly named after the place, right? Ware, Massachusetts? Because it’s a homophone of "Where?" Well, get that spelling and that question mark at the end and you might be on the right track, but that is just retarded (how about Wareham (as in “where’s the ham?”)). Lough Neagh: is there anything even slightly interesting or unusual about that? Anything with the name of an animal is unusual? Guess what? That used to name things after animals all the time! Oxford? Oxen used to ford there. I can’t think of anything ‘’less’’ unusual. And, to top it off, what people try to pass off as a source is that another flawed Misplaced Pages article insists that these words are, by definition, downright ‘’hilarious’’! That’s not a source.
And there’s the opposites that make the list: words that are too much common English words (Beer, Commerce, Drain, Eagle) make the list, and those that don’t sound like English words at all make it too (Ouagadougou, Schenectady). Well guess what, there’s tons of places in foreign countries that sound odd to English speakers, they may even sound (get ready)….foreign. Let’s take out my trusty atlas and look at Sumatra as a somewhat random example. I see places named: Pasirpangarayan, Pulaupunjung, Talanglambangantir Kutacane (WHY do they insist on cutting their canes there. That’s just CRRRAZY!), Baganslapiapi, and so on and that’s without even really trying. Do some of those sound atypical to those of us who live in places like Carson City? Sure. Are we going to include half the continent of Asia? I sure hope not.
At least some of the worst offenders have been removed (Amarillo? Bagdad, Arizona (but not Moscow Idaho?)), but that they were ever included is pretty sad. And I bet some which are included actually could be verified by a third party source (Truth or Consequences comes to mind) but no one has bothered to. People seem to think "Oh yeah, we could so verify the shit out of these if we wanted to"; is the same as actual verification. It is not. Some people have compared this to articles such as Films considered the worst ever, but we must keep in mind that that article, imperfect as it is, really went out of its way to get verifiable sources. This one fails utterly in that regard. Trying to pass this off as an encyclopedia article is an insult to every encyclopedia on the planet; mostly this one. -R. fiend 00:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore to / Retain in Article namespace R. fiend has made a valiant attempt to defend deletion above. I am going to attempt to put the case for retention/restoration; hopefully I will do this justice but if not I apologise ... it's past midnight now here in the UK.
There seem to be two main things that are causing problems:
First, that the article title contains the word "interesting" and that this makes the article subjective. I have to say that this is a fair point. However, I would ask - why does this one word invalidate the whole article? I've been a Misplaced Pages editor for about a year now, and I notice a recurring pattern in deletion discussions, which is that often there is just one thing about an article that an editor takes a dislike to, and from this comes a recommendation to delete, without a pause to think whether there is anything worth salvaging in the article. Clearly, from the amount of support that retention of this article is getting (and yes, I agree that polls are evil too, but ...) there is a good case that the article has at least something in it of (encyclopaedic) merit. Instead of just going for the "nuke it" option, we should all be trying hard to see each other's point of view and identify what in the article is worthy of inclusion, and what isn't, and tidy it up accordingly. I have proposed, in each of these debates, that we try to agree some criteria for inclusion, and assess the list against that. I appear to be being told that that is impossible, but without any arguments as to why that is the case. I agree that is is difficult but in the interest of community harmony, it has to be worth a go?
Second, the arguments that the article lacks sources and is POV. Among the people who are espousing these arguments are some very experienced editors, and so I can't just dismiss this view out of hand, but I really do think that people have got into some quite muddled thinking on this. I think that the cause of this is that the article is presented as a list. Because of that, proponents of deletion are insisting on a higher standard of verifiability than they would for any other article. Specifically, not only are sources for the existence of the place names being asked for, sources to justify inclusion of the names in the article are being asked for. We DO NOT do this for any other kind of content. If an article is written as a piece of prose, not in list form, then the inclusion of content that is obviously relevant to the article's subject, without editors having to find a source which proves that it is relevant, is widely accepted. Sometimes there may be items of content that are perhaps peripheral and these are then debated by editors, but by and large we don't have a problem here i.e. we don't have those debates over EVERY sentence in EVERY article. Just because this article is presented as a list, I don't see why we have to treat it differently. The Misplaced Pages policy on citing sources exists, as I understand it, to ensure that Misplaced Pages doesn't end up full of errors (accidental or deliberate), and not as a means of imposing a rigid and bureaucratic editorial process when one isn't needed.
So in summary, if we drop the word interesting from this article's title, agree some inclusion criteria, and then assess the article's content against these, we have the basis for a perfectly valid article (with no need for factcheck notes on every line) in the article namespace. Parallels exist — English words with uncommon properties for instance (note: this one is written as prose) — I think that attempting a solution along these lines has to be a better way forward than continuing with the divisive mess we're currently in? SP-KP 01:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course we need sources to justify inclusion of each and every single entry, because inclusion in a list of things which are allegedly "interesting" or "unusual" requires that someone else call them "interesting" or "unusual." Misplaced Pages editors cannot just insert things in the list that they find "interesting" or "unusual" - that is prima facie original research, something which is specifically prohibited by policy. Please see Films considered the worst ever. "The movies listed have achieved a notable level of infamy, through critical and popular consensus." That is an acceptable way of doing things - each entry is sourced with reasons why it is among the worst ever - ratings from movie critics, box-office figures, fan votes on IMDb, etc. This list has none of the above - it's just a list of any name someone ever laughed at. That's not encyclopedically acceptable. FCYTravis 01:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Please, just {{sofixit}}. Until then, it should stay out of mainspace. I've deleted and protected the cross-namespace redirect and noted that at WP:ANI, while we're talking about it. - brenneman 01:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User-AmE-0

Discussion moved to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates.

Quasi-gummi

This article appears to have been deleted on 16 December 2005 by User:Snowspinner without due process of any sort. Its most recent version before deletion has references and appears to describe a valid type of confection. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Undelete and send to AFD. I have a feeling it's a neologism and should probably be deleted, but let's send it through the process. -R. fiend 06:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per WP:SNOW since on checking the supposed "references" neither actually supported the term and I can't find any English-language Googles which are not mirrors. From a process point of view this was wrong, but since actually the project is all about content I can't see a lot of point wasting any more time on this. Normally I would userfy and/or invite the creator to repairing these problems, but the creator is missing in action. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 10:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist at AfD so a proper discussion can take place. ComputerJoe 13:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted Yes, it has been deleted out of process - 'bad Snowspinner, bad admin - slap!'. But it is obviously unreferenced crap, so there is nothing to be gained by undeleting it. If this is about repremanding the admin, then puting crap back into the encyclopedia, because a form wasn't filled in, is not the way to go about it--Doc 18:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and AFD - Hmm, well, I'll be an inclusionist here, seems like a term which could have some use in describing some sorts of candy. Worthy of a shot, at least. FCYTravis 19:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I thought that too - it does seem like a term applying to a type of candy, but I couldn't verify it. Nothing to stop others trying, I guess, but I have a terrible suspicion this is going to be a waste of everyone's time. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 21:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

11 February 2006

Heathian anarchism

This article's final AfD tally was 3 deletes, 2 merges closely edging on delete, and 1 keep, from the author of the page. The final decision made was to "keep", which I don't understand. Since the best merge suggestion offered is to an article that does not exist, and what is presently in this article would be insufficient for creating a new article, we're stuck in the meantime with what is a completely OR page. My suggestion would be either to delete it or move it to the creator's userspace. In the meantime we're legitimizing a topic that doesn't even exist. Sarge Baldy 19:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Relist - true, the only person asking for it to be kept as-is was the creator, and most others wanted it gone or gone, but there were not many contributors overall. I would have relisted for further debate rather than closing. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 20:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • This approach to relisting is becoming a little concerning to me. Having "no consensus" as an outcome (call it keep if you prefer) is absolutely fine. People seem to be relisting enthusiastically just because there was no Absolute Outcome in the hopes of generating one. If that is what an editor wants, then they should carry out the relisting as an editorial matter, and not in the manner used on DRV which implies a rejection of the earlier debate's closure. -Splash 20:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Hmmm. I agree up to a point, but I don't think a couple of comments is sufficient to determine consensus, and I don't see why it should be a problem relisting where there are very few comments. Relisting because it's 20k/20m/20d is clearly nonsensical, but I don't recall that happening. I've seen several which have been kept after relisting when closing as delete would have been valid (a couple of deletes and nothing else). But I am becoming somewhat disillusioned with the whole process - nominate a web forum and every member will be along to vote keep, nominate a school at your peril, however bad the article and no matter that it is a commercial enterprise not a school, and so on. Ah well. I'm sure that once the Gastrich-induced cynicism has worn off I'll return to my usual sunny self, and maybe it'll improve with the Pareto effect of {PROD}. There is a slightly more pressing problem with this article: with zero Googles and no cited sources it appears to be unverifiable. Where's that list of templates? - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 21:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Getting 6 participants is more than substantially many debates (see WP:AFD100 for statistics on this). AfD is (still) overloaded, and sending minor articles back there just because we hope for 7 participants rather than 6 seems a little, well, pointless. -Splash 21:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close, clearly. This doesn't even shake a finger at a consensus to delete. There is no need to relist since there is clearly discussion to be had elsewhere about what, precisely, should be done. Having 6 people in an AfD is enough, and there is no quorum for AfD and there never has been. The only reason to relist would be a lack of participation or a supposition that relisting would produce a different result because of problems with the first listing. Noone cites any problems with this listing, apart from its outcome, and so I see neither a case to relist nor overturn. -Splash 20:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe if you're just looking at the numbers, and not reading what people have to say. There does appear to be a 5-1 consensus that this article should no longer exist. That it's divided by people who think it needs to be merged and to be deleted seems irrelevant. Sarge Baldy 21:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant to what? To the question of deletion or not, no. To the question of exactly what state it should remain is as a result of the AfD? Largely, yes. People can decide whether to keep, merge or redirect for themselves in the case of an unclear AfD, and it is not the business of DRV to direct them on that. -Splash 21:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying it needs to be deleted. I'm saying it shouldn't continue to exist where it does now. "Heathian anarchism" is a term coined by the creator of the article. And right now we're pretending it exists. Sarge Baldy 21:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • What's there to discuss? This article is about something that doesn't exist. He might as well have written at the top of the page that the term was coined by Hogeye of Misplaced Pages. If you think that's a stretch, he actually DID put his name as a source in the article on anarchist economics. Sarge Baldy 21:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • In that case, you might wait a short while in case something turns up and then make a fresh AfD nomination with a much more compelling nomination than last time. "Not notable", whilst shorthand for a number of things is much less likely to win favour than "doesn't exist", "unverifiable", "original research" etc. Also, you did not at any point return to that AfD during the debate — it's necessary to do so when things aren't going as you intended, in much the way that you have intervened here. However, DRV is unlikely to make a purely content based decision and is equally unlikely, if not more so, to overturn that AfD debate into a deletion. -Splash 22:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, it's not completely unreferenced, as it names the book from which this guy's philosophy is outlined: Citadel, Market and Altar. The problem I just discovered is that that book gets 101 unique googles (pretty small for a book that's allegedly the foundation of a notable philosophy) and doesn't seem to appear at Amazon. Is this guy just another self-published crank? I think we should move it (as proposed in the AFD), re-examine, and perhaps re-AFD, based on any new facts that come to life (such as "this guy is a self-published crank", if it turns out to be true). We shoudl also keep in mind that the anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, etc pages have been the scene of ongoing edit wars for eons, and POV, forking, and the like fly about all over the place. anythign connected to these topics deserves special scrutiny. -R. fiend 21:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The content dispute, and under what name the article should end up residing, should be settled on the talk page, not AfD or here on DRV. There was clearly no consensus to delete... I said keep because of a few reasons, but ultimately does it make a difference here if I said "keep" or "no consensus"? --W.marsh 21:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Depends who you ask. Some folks don't like to see "result keep" when the result was no consensus and more people want rid of it than want it kept. Does it matter? Not to me, I guess. But I move this DRV be closed since R. Fiend has it absolutely right - this should be moved, cleaned up a bit and then re-assessed, which is in broadly line with what most people on the AfD seemed on the whole to want. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 10:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You know it's my opinion that all AFDs should be kept open until there can be some sort of declared resolution, either a rough consensus to delete (ie 65-70%) or a simple majority to keep. Until that time, I think we can pretty well state the matter is unresolved, and shouldn't be closed. I'm sure people will see this as some sort of deletionist plot, but I think it makes perfect sense. As long as between 50% and 65% want an article deleted, its a bit silly to call the matter settled. We still have it weighted towards keeping, as it only require a simple majority, and we can avoid arbitrary and highly controversial closings much of the time. There is no reason we can't keep those AFDs that meet this criteria open almost indefinitely, after all, the article is still there while the debate goes on, so there's a default to keep anyway. And any time more than half the participants think an article should be deleted, it may not be a consensus, but it is an indication that the article has problems which will not automatically go away after 5 days and a "no consensus, default keep" result is given. Of course, this would largely mean AFD is a vote, but it nearly always comes down to the numbers anyway. -R. fiend 21:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Anti-UN

Debate moved to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates

Template:User Anti-ACLU

Debate moved to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates

10 February 2006

Montfort Realschule Zell

This article's AfD nomination had 3 delete comments and just one keep (User:Jcuk's only comment was "of course"). If we were going straight vote style that gives 75% delete. After weighting arguments and comments I'd say the deletes have it. I respect MarkGallagher's decision to keep (the article did change a bit mid-vote) and normally I'd just let it go, but I just don't like this article (admitably I am deletionist scum). BrokenSegue 21:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Which does not address the issue that articles which suck, suck. Whatever the subject. It's not like we have to keep their seats warm until a better one comes along, after all. Me, I'd merge the stubs and wait for more information, but that's against some people's religion. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 23:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User against Iraq War

Debate moved to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates

Template:User USA Police State

Debate moved to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates

Hootenanny (store)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hootenanny (store). 6 delete, 5 merge and or keep votes. Closing admin seems to think that votes he disagrees with can be discounted because "AFD is a debate, not a vote". He also overlooked the argument that it has a notable corporate parent, so he can't have examined the debate very closely. Kappa 13:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing to stop someone creating a redirect right now. Endorse close, no reason given for keeping this.--Doc 14:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I just did. Endorse close, we want to get to a million articles, but not like this. Physchim62 (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, we don't all want to get to a million articles. -R. fiend 07:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Endorse status quo, which is currently merge and redirect by the looks of it, since I don't actually care that much what went on given that the result is a decent-sized article. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 14:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Endorse status quo. -- Jonel | Speak 21:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Endorse closing Closing editor's action fine. A borderline-nn. Somebody has to do the closing on these borderline-nn. We're not drowning kittens! --FloNight 15:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Not as such, no. Looking at the deleted history, there is very little there. There might be a small amount of trivia missing from the main article, but arguably it is not Misplaced Pages's place to list the brands stocked by a local store, especially since that might change at any time. Do we list all the brands sold out of Macy's? If anyone actually does care that much I will get the additional text out of the deleted history for them, but in my view it's too crufty to be worth the effort. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 15:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Like Kappa, I found the AfD to be less than well closed. The case for merging was made and supported, but in the tiresome inclusionist-deletionist catfight, the keepers and deleters failed to raise any serious grounds against the suggestion. Closing admins have a responsibility to find the outcome that best fits the discussion, and there's a fine line between doing this and finding an interpretation of the AfD that best fits one's own opinion. Johnleemk may understand that, but this exceptional closing does not provide evidence of it. --- Charles Stewart 15:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    Undelete per Kappa. The nomination was little more than a display of aggressive ignorance; the nominator used the same justification to nominate a well-known and well-established specialty retailer (SFFH bookstore) for deletion, claiming there were "two dozen" like it in his neighborhood. The discussion there ] shows pretty clearly that the nominator didn't know what a specialty retailer was, and should have led the closing admin to discount his "vote" (and the "votes" that simply cited the nominator). Note also that the nominator, in that discussion, used the fact that he'd never heard of many of the notable authors who were associated with the retailer as support for his claim. Misplaced Pages should be guided by the knowledge of its editors, not the ignorance of its editors. I don't know whether this particular specialty retailer is Misplaced Pages-notable, but the parent business certainly is, and has something of a track record for creating distinctive/notable enterprises. Monicasdude 16:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete the history The closure was not perfectly in-process, but a redirect/merge is a satisfactory result as far as content-merit is concerned. Let the history be complete, however, as this does no harm, and satisfies those with a process grievance. Xoloz 16:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure per FloNight. --Kbdank71 19:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep redirected. No real need to undelete history, as there's hardly anything to undelete, though there's no harm in undeleting it either. The original closer maybe should have done the redirect himself, but there was certainly no call for a flat out keep. I don't think anyone takes Kurt Weber's comments in AFDs seriously (at least I hope they don't), and no one else gave a single reason for keeping it. -R. fiend 19:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete history - since it is harmless. Despite my reservations about the close, I am happy with the status quo. --- Charles Stewart 19:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete or just Recreate at will and back up off site after recurrent redeletions: You want the breakdown of policy, you've got it. This page is full of examples, this article being one of them. Karmafist 21:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete per Karmafist. --Aaron 22:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User admins ignoring policy

Decbate moved to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates

9 February 2006

User:SPUI

I totally disagree with deleting this user page. Reverting and protection would have done just as well. I would like to request that this be undeleted, reverted to a satisfactory revision and protected. As I know that SPUI was definitely violating WP:POINT I won't reverse the decision, but I do think that we should not just delete the page arbitrarily. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

8 Feb 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was restored per request of Thryduulf by Physchim62. Aaron 22:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia

This was spedily deleted by Physchim62 as "G7 (author requested deletion)" (emphasis orginal). However, even though the author did request deletion it is not eligable for speedy deletion under this criterion:

Criterion G7: "Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page was edited only by its author and was mistakenly created. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." (emphasis mine).

The page was not mistakenly created, as evidenced by all the previous discussion. In addition to its author (Herostratus), it has also been edited by Dschor, Zoe, and user:DanielCD in its current location and Paroxysm, Silent War and Jelligraze in its original location (move was a copy and paste that I was going to repair later this evening when I had time).

If there was a clear consensus to delete then I would not be worried by the breach of process, but when it was closed there were 8 votes to delete and to 6 keep (plus stuck out votes and no votes) with strong arguments on both sides - clearly no consensus. I am not asking for permanent undeletion but I am asking for a full hearing at MfD, rather than the ~16 hours it did get. Thryduulf 18:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Dschor was editing in violation of an ArbCom injunction (see CSD G5); Zoe merely added an MfD tag, which does not cont as an edit for the purposes of CSD G7; DanielCD merely removed his name from the participants list in accordance with his stated intention of ceasing to edit on pedophilia-related issues. I wasn't aware that this was a cut-and-paste move, but G7 does appear to apply. The author of the page requested deletion in the light of current events and has removed his name from the participants list. If other users wish to create a WikiProject Pedophilia (as has existed in the past on Misplaced Pages, before this project), I would not consider this a recreation of deleted material. However I think that the wishes of the page author should be respected in this case, especially given the current tensions surrounding the subject. Physchim62 (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn speedy and let the MfD play itself out. As noted, this was a cut-and-paste move so not all the authors can be seen. I'm sympathetic to the fact that this WikiProject and its members knew nothing about the wheel war, and I suspect this WikiProject wouldn't have been involved at all if it wasn't for Dschor signing up for it and creating the userbox template for this WikiProject. However, the damage is likely already done: the main participants in the project have decided to leave because they don't want to be involved. --Deathphoenix 20:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and allow process. Considering changing my vote on the MfD. The Land 21:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

7 Feb 2006

Brian Peppers

Was deleted and protected by User:UninvitedCompany despite the previous failure to remove via AFD. Uninvited's reasoning was as follows: "I have deleted this page at the request of a family member of its subject. I do not believe that this page should be recreated without careful legal review. The subject does not appear to be a public figure." (See Talk:Brian_Peppers.) While I am certain that Uninvited was acting in good faith, I fear that it sets a dubious precedent to allow articles to be deleted because the article subject, or representatives of the subject, complained. If the information is uncited, it should of course be removed; if evidence is shown that it is libelous, it should also be removed. However, there's no evidence any of this was the case here. The mugshot is a public record, accessible to anyone, and is available through many websites other than Misplaced Pages, so removing it from here in no way even increases the subject's privacy. And this particular individual has been widely discussed on the Internet. Although Uninvited says that "privacy laws" may outlaw the publishing of this photo, no specific law was cited, and I find it difficult to believe that any law prohibiting the publication of crime-related information (like this mugshot) would withstand constitutional scrutiny. AFAIK, even laws prohibiting the publication of rape victims' names have been struck down. I suggest that this deletion be reconsidered. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted (in the strongest terms possible). The last AfD followed several successful AfD deletions and recreations. It was my opinion at the time that the article should never be allowed to be created, and I was utterly shocked at some people's lack of appreciation of how unencyclopedic the article was. The article was recreated and kept through an AfD, in my strong opinion, due to recreation/AfD gaming; it should die a permanent death. --Nlu (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and plow a ton of salt under - There is nothing encyclopedic to say about this person, and the content of the article was essentially "ha ha look at this guy he's funny-looking and he's a sex offender, OMGWTFBBQ LOLLERSKATES." It's a juvenile and pathetic attack page. Beyond that, this is a case where the potential harm to the encyclopedia, as expressed by UninvitedCompany, far outweighs the infinitesimal "contribution" made by the article to the "sum total of human knowledge." FCYTravis 18:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak and reluctant overturn (and relist, if you could stomach a 6th nomination). The last time this was AfDed (for the 5th time), it was no consensus (which, while grounds for a keep, still means that there's some serious doubts about whether it should be kept), and I voted Keep because I felt it was a notable Internet meme and the article text at the 5th nomination wasn't a copyvio, nor was it a recreation of what was previously deleted. I feel that the article as written violated no privacy laws as it made use of information already available to the public and contained nothing that could lead the anything dangerous happening to the subject. It does not contain a photo of said individual, nor does it contain any problematic details such as the offender's contact details. However, this article is just a wheel war waiting to happen. Uninvited Company likely deleted this for a very good reason. If UC will bring some good reasons to this discussion (such as, say, the family's lawyer calling with a cease and desist), I'll likely change my vote. OTOH, if it was just family members calling and saying that they don't like the article, I probably won't. --Deathphoenix 19:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If there is a legal issue here, it should certainly be addressed, though I have my doubts that there is, or it would likely affect hundreds of other somewhat similar articles. Does the wikimedia foundation have a lawyer who could straighten this out? Absent anything else, I'd have to go along with undeletion. While I'm certainly no fan of it, and likely would have voted to delete it at the AFD, there does seem to be a weak consensus to keep it. -R. fiend 19:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Lest anyone should have counted that as a vote to undelete, it no longer is. My only concerns were respecting consensus, so I do not want to stand in the way of a better consensus being formed here. -R. fiend 19:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If the guy looked like an average Joe we would not even be having this conversation; those who want to look up this puerile fad can do so elsewhere. Ask yourself: WWJD? Keep deleted. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 20:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have voted (an extremely reluctant) keep in AfD debates for this article on the grounds that the internet fad was just about notable enough. However, assuming that UninvitedCompany is acting honourably (which I am certain he was) then the deletion should stand. Keep deleted. David | Talk 20:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I also voted keep in the last AfD. I do question the extent to which privacy laws protect against the dissemination of photographs taken from a public sex-offender registry. In at least some jurisdictions, dissemination of such information is specifically exempted from privacy laws. Nevertheless, taking Uninvited Company at his word, with sympathy for Mr. Peppers, I'll vote Keep Deleted here. Xoloz 20:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete Unless you can argue that there is a legal issue, it was wrongfully deleted. It should be undeleted, and you can then continue the discussion in AFD. It is silly to argue the articles merits, when the majority of us cannot see it. Jonatan 21:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. I am somewhat reluctant since I did talk to UninvitedCompany and he claimed there was too much on the Misplaced Pages legal back burner and this needed to be done. But it seems more appropriate for us to have a AFD, especially considering all of the information present in the article was accurate and sourced. I do not feel it serves as a juvenile attack page. If anything, it serves to prevent such things from occuring by providing accurate facts about the man.--Aleron235 22:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Another AFD would be utterly pointless and get nobody anywhere in particular. The article has already gone through, what, six of them, five of which were delete and the sixth no-consensus? FCYTravis 22:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, unless the Wikimedia lawyers actually believe it to be a problem, in which case we should remove the possibly illegal portions. SNOPES has a fucking article on it - the legal argument is dubious at best. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted I have no reason to doubt User:UninvitedCompany's statement that the deletion was by family request, and it has historically been our stance that their privacy concern takes precedence over a minor article. Observing basic courtesy enhances the project and enables us to move on with self respect to create a better encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 22:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    Are you proposing we set a precedent to delete all pages (even if factually accurate) on a questionable public figure if someone e-mails Misplaced Pages claiming to be a family member of the subject of the article? Sounds like a new way for trolls to get articles deleted off Misplaced Pages. I'm sure there are hundreds if not thousands of like-pages that this could be done for. VegaDark 02:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    I don't think it would be a precedent. I'm sure we've pulled articles like this on request through OTRS--I may well have deleted one or two in this way myself. We're not robots, so it's unlikely that trolls would have much success using complaints as a tactic to get rid of good articles with which they have no personal connections. --Tony Sidaway 08:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    Yet the trolls seem to be having success here. As pointed out elsewhere, someone has recently been going around claiming to be a relative of Brian Peppers, which has then turned out to be a hoax. So Occam's Razor suggests that this request is bogus as well. Turnstep 12:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, as deletion policy does not trump privacy law, and there is a dubious argument for this person being a "public person" according to the legal definition (IANAL, though.) However, it would be nice for UninvitedCompany to tell us more of the background of this issue, if ethically possible. Titoxd 23:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, par Jonatan. --Bky1701 23:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • There is an excellent reason this page should remain deleted. It is this: I have deleted this page at the request of a family member of its subject. I do not believe that this page should be recreated without careful legal review. The subject does not appear to be a public figure. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC) See also . Regards ENCEPHALON 23:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, both per Tony and because I endorse UninvitedCompany's judgment on this. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Its resurrection after it had been deleted four times already was bad enough already. Pilatus 23:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • To be fair, the first delete was valid, but the next two were G4 speedies, not AFDs. It was later returned to AFD quite properly through a valid DRV, and its consequent vote was a sizeable majority for keep (far from a "close but no-consensus" vote, which I would have balked at overriding an earlier delete consensus). I'm ambivalent about this, and I would like something made clear before I make a final decision here: are we looking at keeping it deleted for legal reasons or as a courtesy? -R. fiend 23:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm pleased to see this go because this kind of stuff has the power to bring the project in disrepute. The article should never have been re-created. As I see it, you can defend obscenity in the name of an encyclopedia but not discourtesy. Pilatus gets of his soapbox now. Pilatus 00:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted Thank-you UninvitedCompany! --FloNight 23:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and keep protected from recreation. This person did not choose to become a public figure. Privacy requests are entirely reasonable and should be honored in such cases. Also keep deleted for all the reasons I (and others) presented in the prior discussions. There's just no encyclopedia article here - not in the latest version nor in any prior version. Rossami (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. The article was sourced and verifiable - he has an entry on Snopes. I think assuming good faith is fine in principle, but not when it comes to deleting an article that survived an AfD. How does UninvitedCompany know the person he spoke to was truly a family member? Even if so, why should that have any effect on us making a NPOV encylopedia? I seem to recall that recently some congressional staffers were caught removing text from articles on members of Congress that, while objectively true, presumably the Congresspeople did not want on the page. Should we extend a courtesy to them if they call an admin and ask that the material be deleted from the page? This page should either meet our guidelines, or it does not. And the previous AfD seems to indicate that it does meet our guidelines. Since I did not see the article show up here on DR, I an only assume that nobody felt strongly that the AfD was conducted improperly. Therefore, undelete. Raise an objection on the talk page, start another AfD with new information, but do not speedy delete. Turnstep 00:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete if snopes keeps an article on him with no fear of lawsuit, we can too. The meme has turned him into a public figure. Meme notwithstanding... he is still a public figure due to listings on a public sex offender registry. This should never have been given 5 afd's in such a short period, that smacks of WP:POINT. Overturn and cleanup drastically.  ALKIVAR™ 00:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Being on a sex offender registry does not necessarily make someone a public figure. "A fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate a person to public figure status. Typically, they must either be: a public figure, pervasively involved in public affairs, or a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination" is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public figure, which can be variously interpreted." There is nothing to suggest that Mr. Peppers would ever be ruled even a limited purpose public figure. Having a bunch of morons post your picture on forums does not make you an involuntary public figure, either. FCYTravis 01:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Undelete. The last revision I saw wasn't derogatory at all, but simply listing undisputable facts. This survived it's last AfD with a 44-21 vote in favor to keep, showing that the majority of people who voted feel this article should stay on Misplaced Pages. "Brian Peppers" gets 154,000 Google hits. As far as I know that qualifies as being notable, and thus qualifies him to have a Misplaced Pages article. Also, there used to be mainstream news links relating to this, but were deleted. This could probably be found on the web archive if one looked hard enough. This person was newsworthy after the meme came about. Preferably I'd like this reviewed by Jimbo and/or the board but until that happens I have to say that Misplaced Pages must include this article if we want our enycylopedia to be the best it can be. We have an article on Henry Earl whom is no more notable than Brian peppers. VegaDark 00:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Mr. Earl appears to have participated in his own fame, becoming at least a limited purpose public figure by virtue of his (obviously voluntary) appearances on talk shows and news channels. That is not the case for Mr. Peppers, who has never appeared on television, has never given an interview, and whose "fame" is entirely related to asshats posting his picture on the Internet and laughing at it. FCYTravis 01:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
And? I am not necessarily saying he falls into the public figure category. I am informing people of his notability, and feel the old article on him was not something Misplaced Pages could be sued over, as it stated facts alone. AFAIK Misplaced Pages can (and should) have articles on notable people, public figures or not. We just have to be more carful on what we say for those who aren't public figures. The latest revision of Brian Peppers' page was about as neutral and pure fact based as it can get.VegaDark 01:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not his fame is voluntary doesn't matter a single bit. Most serial killers probably never wanted to become famous. I'm sure Terri Schiavo wasn't voluntary, either.--Josh 04:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Peppers is not a serial killer, nor is he the focus of a major, precedent-setting legal case taken to the United States Supreme Court. Your attempts at comparison fail in every single possible way. FCYTravis 04:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and salt the earth behind it/protect from re-creation. Enough is enough. --Calton | Talk 01:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Brian Peppers has never sought publicity and his family has asked for privacy. Let's treat the man with the dignity he deserves, and obviously hasn't gotten. Durova 02:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Having a strange appearance is not a criterion for Misplaced Pages notability. And Misplaced Pages shouldn't be a party to the morally handicapped mocking the physically handicapped. Monicasdude 02:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and never, ever, ever create this page again. Thunderbunny 03:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Undelete. If Snopes.com has an article then Misplaced Pages should have an article about this infamous man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.174.32 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep deleted, as you might well imagine from my prior actions on this article. For the record, I have not yet received any reply from the individual who wrote to info-en@ and brought this matter to my attention in the first place. Though it's only been a day, I too am suspicious of their claim that they are a family member. I share this because it may incline some voters to see this matter in a different light, though I myself do not; derogatory information about a private figure remains unlawful (and inappropriate for Misplaced Pages independent of what the law might say) and that is the principal basis for my deletion. Others have already linked my prior comments on the talk page of the deleted article, which remain valid. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted - I have mixed feelings on this. Procedure-wise, there's a case of undeleting/relisting. But I think its damaging to allow this to appear on Misplaced Pages, even temporarily. Leaving this on, sets a really bad precident, not just for others on a registry, but for any private person who gets their picture passed around on web sites for looking peculiar. If mainstream media picked this up widely and substantially (hopefully they won't), and they turn him in to a public figure, then we might be stuck with an article on him. But they haven't, and we should ignore this like they do. --Rob 09:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Too many claims, not enough legal evidence. Notable for being a meme, not for being deformed. And as far as I can see, there's nothing derogatory here, and if there is, we can fix it. // paroxysm (n) 21:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You think the "meme" would exist if the guy looked like you or me? - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 22:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    No, and I don't see how this should affect my vote. We're documenting the meme because it itself is notable; Brian Peppers is not notable for being deformed. He's notable for being the subject of a popular meme because he's deformed.
    Likewise, there's nothing inherently notable about the phrase "Kilroy was here." Nevertheless, we document it because of the notability of its popularity. // paroxysm (n) 23:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I see a distinction in Misplaced Pages's guidelines for biographies of living persons. Durova 04:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
And I see a distinction in that Kilroy is remembered nearly a hundred years after it was first seen, whereas there is little verifiable evidence of Peppers' story being taken up by any mainstream media. He's a disabled guy with a congenital deformity convicted of a technical offence because he touched up his nurse. I'm not given to quoting scripture but this calls to mind proverbs 1:26: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh. I hold no brief for convicted sex offenders, but I really think that this amounts to kicking a guy when he's down, and I don't see that we should be taking any part of it. Anyone who wants the information can get it readily from other sources. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 10:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's Misplaced Pages policy for "Anyone who wants the information can get it readily from other sources" just because someone feels sorry for the subject of the article. I feel sorry for him as well, but I think Misplaced Pages having an article on him will actually better his situation- Many times his picture comes along with "You're gonna get raped" or "child molestor" etc. etc. I think Misplaced Pages having an unbiased, NPOV non degrading article on him listing facts alone is for the better for him and for Misplaced Pages. People should be able to come here and find out that those are false accusations instead of seeing a "this article has been deleted" message and keep their misconceptions about him. I know I first came to Misplaced Pages to look him up, and was happy to find an article on him. I hope others will get that same chance instead of seeing a "this article has been deleted" message. VegaDark 05:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's a fair compromise: Undelete, edit down, and merge/redirect to a list of popular Internet Memes. That way, his contributions to popular culture are archived, but he doesn't get his own (derogatory) article. I won't take sides in this one, since there is already a war going on, I believe an article about him would be offensive, but I am also a reader of YTMND. Crazyswordsman 05:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I would agree to that, all other then the "edit down" part. The debate going on before the deletion was if more should be added, it seems unnecessary and unreasonable to edit it down given that. If anything, some small things should be removed and other notes should be added and it should be merged and redirected. --Bky1701 08:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, and unilaterally burninate any more users trying to resurrect this article. Ral315 (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Undelete, i think the post above me proves that if Trogdor the Burninator gets his own wiki aritcle, then this popular internet meme should be allowed its own. the attempt to delete this article from is flagrant wikipedia censorship of a topic that makes some people uncomfortable. sparsefarce 11:04am, 9 feb 2006 (PT)
  • Undelete per Jonatan. Gene Nygaard 19:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong undelete. Unilateral deletion should never occur under such circumstances. This should have been relisted on AfD and the legal issue discussed. The fact that family members requested its deletion is in and of itself irrelevant. Allowing this to stand sets an awful precedent. Postdlf 02:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Um, yeah, without changing my opinion about deleting based on family requests, I just noticed how many times this had been validly AFD'd (I have a fever right now, please forgive the illness-induced carelessness). Keep deleted only as a recreation of previously deleted material. The last AfD should have been aborted at the outset because no undeletion consensus had first been reached (from what I can see); I believe that AfD accordingly lacked "jurisdiction." Postdlf 02:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
This first went through AfD with a consensus to delete, right when the meme was new and was not notable enough for Misplaced Pages. It went through 3 AfD's after that, which all ended up as a speedy delete due to a re-creation of previosuly deleted content - not due to people voting. It's latest AfD (December) was officially declared no consensus, yet there was a 44-21 vote in favor to keep, enough for the admin to have officially declared keep. Don't you think that says something? Also, we are going through an undeletion process right now- not an AfD. If you think the article should be kept or deleted, you should just say why here. If we kept it undeleted based on it being recreation of deleted material, we would have to submit another deletion review for Brian Peppers to be ruled as something worthy of undeletion- hence you might as well just state your opinion now. VegaDark 02:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The original AfD was valid. I've seen no reason to question that. Postdlf 03:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
You can't just pick *one* of the AfDs - the latest one always trumps the others. And as I pointed out above, it's not like anyone brought the latest AfD here to DR. Turnstep 04:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong undelete. He's famous, and often referenced to online. People who see all the talk of Brian Peppers and do not understand should be able to come here and find out. He definitely has significance. Most, importantly, this person has already been the victim of someone pretending to be his brother. A man claiming to be "Allen Peppers" posted a dishonest letter asking people to leave Brian alone. Therefore, my guess is that the person who requested that this article be deleted was probably not related to the subject in any way. Someone unrelated to Brian probably did this out of sympathy towards him, (likely caused by the "Truth About Brian Peppers" YTMND, which ironically made him even more noteworthy,) or someone who found humor in the idea of pretending to be Peppers' brother, like "Allen" before him.--Josh 04:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I hate to break it to you, but this guy isn't "famous." He's a target of derision, mockery and laughter from infantile, puerile teenagers on teh intarweb. That doesn't make him "famous." FCYTravis 04:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
This "intarweb" you're mocking is what you're spending your time on right now, jackass. You're not the only one, either. An enormous percent of the world spends time on the Internet every day, and Brian Peppers is very well known on it. He's even been featured in mass media, in a story by FOX Toledo. Someone covered on that scale, who is known of by at least a quarter-million people, is undeniably notable. To deny his notability just because you think people are mean would be straight-up dishonest.
--Josh 07:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 14:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Dude, you have a massively inflated view of what the Internet is and what it isn't. Teh intarweb is not the world. In fact, it is only a very bare tiny percent of the world. Look outside your bedroom window. Get outside. Walk around. Talk to people. Real people who don't spend their pathetic lives on some silly "humor" site mocking some guy who bears the cross of some sort of disfiguring birth defect. Go to the supermarket. Ask 100 people who Brian Peppers is. If you're lucky, you'll find one. Maybe. Getting coverage by "FOX Toledo" is ridiculously simple. TV news is always looking for some sensationalistic tabloid trash. Yet that's THE ONLY media hit you can point to. That's pathetic. Utterly pathetic. I'll leave you with this. Last year, a national sports car magazine with a circulation of more than 70,000 ran a full-page feature article on me. I'm still not notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article. Call me back when Brian Peppers hits Newsweek or The New York Times or even FOX News Channel. I'd even count Salon.com. But see, they aren't covering it. Why? There's *no story* here. None. Zip. Zilch. Just the fact that some poor guy got nailed for some minor sex crime and got put on probation, and some "jackass," to use your word, found his picture and went LOL LOL HEZ ULGY LOL SEX MOLESTSAR ZOMG ROFL and posted it on some more Internet boards where more groupthink mental midgets laughed at it. That's not newsworthy. That's not encyclopedic. That's just sad. FCYTravis 09:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm torn on this one...normally, I'd say the guy meets a minimum notability standard for inclusion, but at the same time, I feel kinda bad for the guy. In the end, I'm going to have to say undelete it. His Misplaced Pages article is not going to have anything except neutral, notable and fully verifiable information. I feel the odds of a significant number of people wanting to read an article on Peppers are pretty high, given the level of internet fame he has acquired, and the desire to provide the information in that instance is probably the most important thing here. Everyking 08:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete - This one should be a no-brainer. We have no verifiable evidence regarding this claim that the family members want the article deleted; and even if they did, so what? There's a lot of information on Misplaced Pages some people don't want to see the light of day (see the U.S. Congress's editing of various articles for further details), but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be around. This page certainly doesn't meet speedy deletion criteria. If you want to undelete it and then relist it for AfD (again) then go ahead. But this page certainly didn't merit speedy deletion like that. --Cyde Weys 21:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - Forget about the previous five AfDs; how about the rationale for creating the article in the first place? This basically boils down to "Hey look, we've got a picture of a really deformed guy; let's gin up a reason to humiliate him more than he already has been by the Internet community just for the hell of it." Brian Peppers has done nothing of notability. Nothing. Maybe it's time to start a policy discussion about creating a "basic humanitarian decency" criterion for speedy deletes? --Aaron 22:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I would support that. I guess that the Interweb is so pervasive and so much a part of determining what is verifiable and significant in the real world that we kind of forget that it is the real world we're supposed to be documenting. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 23:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion for broader discussion as this was deleted outside of process. If a law is being violated by allowing this material on Misplaced Pages, please cite the law and I will reconsider my vote. Best regards, Hall Monitor 23:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Undelete People (thank God) dont apply the same reasoning to other internet memes so in my opinion people only want this deleted because they feel sorry for him (understandable) and want to vent out their anger by having the page deleted. It get's aroung 80,000 hits on google for Christ's sake I think it would be notable Johhny-turbo 00:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. This deletion defies both process and common sense. Silensor 00:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Enough, please, of the misleading "He gets 15 zillion Google hits!" argument. If you remove the dozens of YTMND pages about him, he gets exactly 516 unique Google hits, and the last 20 or so of those are nothing but porno spam pages that inserted his name randomly. He's non-notable. --Aaron 00:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Well Microsoft gets 436 uniques. So, 516 isn't that bad. So, the unique count is about as worthless as the total hit count. --Rob 00:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and Comment Thanks, User:Thivierr, for saving me the hassle of pointing out why unique google hits don't mean anything here. Look, it's unfortunate that this fellow is mocked by some, unfortunate that he's ridiculed, unfortunate that his family has to deal with this. But the standard here is -- he's a public figure. If I were writing something up for the paper, I'd have no compunctions about mentioning his name, and we cannot set a precedent for the disinclusion of information just because someone objects to it. What about Daniel Brandt? Boris Floricic? Why do we do for Brian Peppers, but not for them? Show consistency, and don't put us in awkward positions by semi-randomly deleting content by request. User:Adrian/zap2.js 01:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Nobody has demonstrated why this man is a public figure. He has not been the subject of any public controversy. He has not injected himself into the public square. He has not been featured in any major mass media. He's an object of derision on an Internet humor site. That does *not* make him a public figure under the law. The other two people you cited have both been repeatedly the subject of reporting by major mainstream media outlets, including television, newsmagazines, newspapers and even books. The only thing that can be pointed to for this guy is one two-paragraph blurb on a local TV station Web site, and a Snopes entry. That's *it.* That is all. If someone wanted to write something on this for The Advocate, as a senior editor I'd circular-file that "story idea" in 10 seconds flat. There's a little something called journalistic ethics that precludes us from making a mockery of someone for no other reason than to be insensitive and depraved. This deletion is one small victory for culture and class over the juvenile schoolyard antics of immature idiots. FCYTravis 01:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm almost as surprised that you'd argue that Mr. Peppers is not a public figure as I am that you'd imply that the only way Mr. Peppers can be covered is by abandoning journalistic ethics. If we want to go for the misguided sympathy factor on this, then I invite you to consider the following: There are thousands of sites that mention Mr. Peppers. How many of them do you think will ever get updated if he does something good, notable, or respectable? One. Misplaced Pages. Otherwise, for the rest of his life, he's just that goofy guy from the photo. That's all. Deciding this by your sympathy doesn't help Misplaced Pages, and it doesn't help Peppers. I'm at a loss as to what good deletion would do. Ultimately, deletion, if upheld, would be a victory for the same tear-jerking appeals to emotion that sour much of mass media. User:Adrian/zap2.js 02:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Deletion means we don't repeat this nonsensical and asinine 'fad' and allow it to die a natural death as the people who laugh at this poor schlub grow out of their infantile amusement. BTW, how can you argue that Peppers *is* a public figure? Can you please point to the coverage? Anything? Bueller? Bueller? If this guy's truly a public figure, surely there's more out there than a now-deleted blurb on FOX Toledo and a Snopes entry. So where's the beef? Oh, that's right. There isn't any. This isn't an appeal to emotion. It's an appeal to reason and ethics. FCYTravis 02:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how I could argue otherwise. He's quite evidently an involuntary, limited-purpose, deeply-unfortunate public figure, based on extensive rehashing of his case in the public eye. Or did you mean that only the media can create public figures? That'd be a bit elitist of us as journalists, no? As for laughing at Mr. Peppers, I think you do a disservice to Misplaced Pages. I think it can handle this topic without cruelty or malice, and paint Peppers for what he is -- an unfortunate man, who's made mistakes, and still has a life ahead of him. I firmly believe deleting his entry is unethical. It deprives him of the one online resource that might keep track of any positive achievements of his, and says, basically, that we're going to sweep him under the rug, that we see him as so deeply pathetic that he's unsuitable for coverage. That isn't reasonable *or* ethical. User:Adrian/zap2.js 02:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • How can I argue otherwise? The fact that *virtually nothing* has been said about this person anywhere outside juvenile morons laughing at his appearance on blogs and Web forums. Being laughed at does not make one a public figure. No reporting outside of that, at all. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Zip. I keep waiting for someone to show me some evidence of notability other than juvenile morons laughing at him. Nobody's presented any. We don't know that Peppers is an unfortunate man. We don't know what mistakes he's made. We don't know what his life is like or what it will be. Therefore, we at Misplaced Pages cannot say any of that. The only verifiable fact here is that he's some guy who got laughed at on the Internet, and I'll be damned if everything anyone ever laughed at on the Internet is encyclopedic. FCYTravis 02:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Your assertions are incorrect on at least two counts. The man's had legal and medical misfortune; this much is established. He's made mistakes, per the rulings of the courts. If your issue is the lack of detail, we don't delete articles because detail isn't present, we develop them. Would you like this researched? We can always bring it back to DRV if I find anything worth publishing in a WP:NOT-worthy periodical. It'd make a fantastic human-interest piece. User:Adrian/zap2.js 02:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. He is an odd-looking sex offender; this shouldn't qualify one for a Misplaced Pages article. We should respect his family's wishes. Rhobite 02:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Compromise per Crazyswordsman (ie, cleanup, and merge/redirect to a list of popular Internet Memes). He clearly is notable, but I also feel we should respect the wishes of him and his family. Then again, we didn't do that for Daniel Brandt... --Blu Aardvark | 05:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Undelete Hes notible. Its his own fault if he does not want a page... No one forced him down the road he took. Jwissick 06:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • He is distinctly not notable for anything that he did. He is only notable for his appearance. --

Hamiltonian 21:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

He is notable for being the subject of a notable internet meme, which was directly related to his appearance and the fact that he is a sex offender. However, the reason for notability is irrelevant, as long as notability is recognized he should have an article on Misplaced Pages. VegaDark 22:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete Without the ability to view the page that was deleted I can only comment on what I know. Editors, and even sysops, should not be the point of contact for the legal status of an article, very few of us are lawyers, and those that are do not represent Wikipeida (afaik). Misplaced Pages was not sued or even threated legally by Mr. Peppers. If this were to happen we would hear about it and the decision would not me one the editors of Misplaced Pages would be making, it would be up to the board. I am voting undelete because a precedence for an article being deleted based on legal dealings with an editor would be a very poor one to set. —A 11:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, wikipedia articles should not be deleted this way, and he is notable enough. bbx 13:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion and sow fields with salt. And may I say I sympathise with whatever poor closing Admin has to sort through this mess, you have my sincere appreciation. KillerChihuahua 23:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Leave it Deleted. I'm not seeing the need for this page. Also, the closing admin may want to note the vote-solicitation going on here. -Colin Kimbrell 07:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. This is absurd. I don't believe Brian Peppers' notability can be seriously debated. He has his own article on Snopes, for crying out loud. And if a person is notable, I see absolutely no provision for us to delete an article on that person. If the article was hateful, exploitative, or POV, then it should be rewritten, NOT deleted. The wishes of the subject himself or his family are largely irrelevant. The article on Uri Geller isn't very complimentary, and yet I don't recall anyone asking the man whether he wanted an article. Furthermore (and perhaps most importantly), the article was removed unilaterally, and against process. This is unacceptable. --Ashenai 20:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Once again, specious comparisons. Uri Geller has been the subject of major mass media coverage for his outlandish claims. I am still waiting for someone, anyone to point me to a single major mass media discussion of Mr. Peppers. Nothing? Yeah, that's what I thought. FCYTravis 21:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The comparison was not specious; it was meant to address the mistaken belief that the subject of an article has to be okay with it. I'm not aware of any notability guidelines that say that the subject of an article has to have been the subject of major mass media coverage. Barbara Schwarz and Ashida Kim would both fail your proposed test, yet the community has affirmed their noteworthiness several times. --Ashenai 21:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Did you read either of those articles? Barbara Schwarz was reported on in the Salt Lake Tribune, a major-market newspaper, as having filed more FOIA requests than any other person, and Ashida Kim is a repeatedly-published author of notable books. FCYTravis 22:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Good point re: Schwarz. Regarding Ashida Kim, however, I feel there's some goalpost-moving going on. So persons without major media coverage are not notable... wait, unless they published books, then they are. Any other super sekret guidelines I should know about? Why is the Google test, plus the fact that he has an article on Snopes, not sufficient? --Ashenai 22:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The guidelines are not "super sekret" - they're all right there in WP:BIO. "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more" are generally considered notable. The Google test and the "Snopes" article fail to take into account that this is a living person who is not a public figure, and thus has a general claim to privacy. Being a sex offender is not notable. Being laughed at on the Internet by people is not notable. The fact that he is a sex offender who people laughed at is, thus, unencyclopedic. FCYTravis 22:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
"This is not intended to be an exclusionary list. Just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." Neither the Google test nor Snopes is "being laughed at on the Internet". Furthermore, why is being laughed at on the Internet non-notable, if enough people do it? --Ashenai 22:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Whatever "higher authority" may consider this should be mindful that if we delete this guy, essentially on request, it'll be a minor miracle if Daniel Brandt or someone like him doesn't litigate. User:Adrian/zap2.js 01:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the Bible

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Bible

Discussion was closed, concluding "no consensus." I count 24 votes for deletion, 3 weak deletes, 5 redirects, 1 to merge, and 5 keeps. It seems to me there is a very clear consensus that this article should be deleted and any valuable content merged into one or more other articles. --Leifern 16:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It has been redirected now. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Wait a minute. Now you've changed the title of the article in your nomination. What article and specifically what AFD discussion are you requesting that we review? Rossami (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Ahh... Simultaneous nominations. Now sorted out. Please post the link to the AFD discussion directly when making the nomination.
  • This reflects a basic misunderstanding of how AfD works. I'm reposting a message I've already sent to two other people who asked me about this:
    AfD is not a vote.
    When votecounters try to impose their rigid definition of consensus on AfD, the minimum standard is 2/3rds or 66%.
    Delete, merge, and redirect are three different outcomes; if there is no consensus, the solution is for the AfD participants to hash out a consensus (whether to merge or redirect or resubmit to AfD) on the talk.
    In addition, merging and deleting is illegal under the GFDL, which requires the page history to be retained if the content is retained. VOTECOUNTING IS BAD so I find it ridiculous that this is being brought up. Johnleemk | Talk 16:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and DRV is for reviewing deletions only; that's why exists (users can't see the content of deleted articles, so they need to request admins on DRV to undelete them). Anything else can be handled by resubmitting to AfD or discussion on the talk page. Johnleemk | Talk 17:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You think it's ridiculous? Reading the guidelines on deletion, it is pretty apparent that your duty as the admin is to summarize your findings and determine a course of action. In this regard, you have pretty plainly been negligent. It seems that a rough consensus has been achieved - there are only 5 who want to keep it as it is, and 32 to get rid of it one way or another. By your standard, no article would ever be deleted as long as some group of people want to keep it. That is plainly not the case. --Leifern 17:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Surprise, surprise — this is the standard most AfD-closing admins adhere to. This is not a process worked out overnight; on a Wiki, there is no consensus if a group of people strongly oppose a particular decision. (If I make an edit you don't like, but you don't revert it, there's consensus — if you revert it, there's no consensus. That's how consensus is defined on a wiki.) It is not my job to make a decision if a large number of people have reviewed a particular article and cannot come to consensus on what to do with it. No consensus is no consensus. It is not an endorsement or a disendorsement of a particular outcome, and defaults to keep unless the admin (in an editorial capacity) decides to merge and/or redirect. Ask pretty much any regular AfD closer (MarkGallagher (talk · contribs), The Land (talk · contribs), Splash (talk · contribs), et al) and they'll tell you the same thing. Johnleemk | Talk 17:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I dunno, I read the relevant guidelines, and what I read is a call for rough consensus not absolute consensus. If I rounded up three other editors and worked together on an article called Why everyone from Sunnmøre has bad breath, (an absurd, non-noteworthy, blatantly POV, rhetorically fallacious article) we'd probably get 300 "votes" to delete within a few minutes, and I somehow doubt that we as a group who opposed the deletion would get our way. Nor should we. --Leifern 17:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure (no consensus). --Kbdank71 17:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If the numbers given at the top are accurate, and I haven't checked to see if they are (and I have noticed in manmy of these reviews that they are not), we have 27 delete votes and 11 non-deletes. That's a rough consensus to delete in the eyes of most admins. I now it's not supposed to be a vote, but somehow it always comes down to a vote count anyway. And the idea that "there is no consensus if a group of people strongly oppose a particular decision" is just not true. There is almost always some sort of small minority who oppose anything, they don't trump everyone else. But in any case keep redirected and if anything is to be merged it should be a content dispute at the target page. -R. fiend 20:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close - but keep redirected (and I voted to delete) --Doc 20:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close as correctly-made decision, and concur with Johnleemk (talk · contribs)'s comments above. Support his redirect and reasoning as proper organic editing practice. -- Jonel | Speak 21:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Count me in on the "endorse redirect" bandwagon, although there's a pretty clear consensus that the article should have been deleted first and then recreated as a redirect. Tomer 22:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • A comment on merging and deleting is illegal under the GFDL - this action can be made GFDL comliant, it's just a pain. - brenneman 00:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, and AfD is not a vote. If all you have to say for yourself is the vote tally, your argument is far too weak. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in the Bible

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Inconsistencies in the Bible

Discussion was closed, concluding "no consensus." I count 26 votes for deletion, 4 to keep, and 10 to merge. It seems to me there is a very clear consensus that this article should be deleted and any valuable content merged into one or more other articles. --Leifern 16:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • It seems like a clear consensus to delete. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • (edit conflicts) I'm not sure how you tallied that or who you think should have been excluded. A cursory review gave me a tally of 28 deletes, 11 merges (with redirect specified or implied), 2 redirect only and 3 keep as is. That certainly seems to be within reasonable discretion for the closer to consider this a "no consensus" decision. Good arguments were made during the discussion but votes continued to come in on both side, indicating that the subsequent participants did not find one side's arguments onerwhelmingly compelling. I endorse the closure (leave as no consensus). Rossami (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • See above. Johnleemk | Talk 16:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep. Just boldly merge, that fits the bill. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 17:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure (no consensus). --Kbdank71 17:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Clear consensus is to get rid of the article, either as a complete Delete or as an attempt to find any redeemable portions and Merge elsewhere. Let's follow consensus, schedule the article for deletion, and let those in favor of a Merge pull out any non-duplicated material and put it elsewhere. Why keep the article in the face of such overwhelming consenus for elimination. We've voted to kill this article; the only question is the method. Alansohn 17:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You don't need DRV for this, as I said. There's a little thing called the talk page, you know. Or you could just be bold or something. But I forgot. Misplaced Pages is about process, not editing! Johnleemk | Talk 17:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • There wasn't a quorum for full deletion. If you want to merge the article, you don't need DRV to do that. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I just boldly redirected it. Anything that anyone wants to merge can be pulled out of the edit history by anyone at any time. There was an obvious consensus not to keep the article, so keeping it as is should be out of the question. Unfortunately, there are always a few confused souls who think that a no consensus means that the article must stay as is. Since that is complete and utter BS, this redirect should at least partially solve the prpblem. This argument can now contimue as a content dispute over at Internal consistency and the Bible. -R. fiend 18:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Like most other people here: Yes, there is probably a consensus to merge it. However, there was not a clear consensus to delete the article. 'Endorse the closer's decision. The Land
  • Endorse close but redirect/merge (and I voted to delete) --Doc 20:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close as obviously correct. AfD discussion suggests that mergeing would be the best outcome, but discussion may continue of the talk page. --- Charles Stewart 20:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close as correctly-made decision, and concur with Johnleemk (talk · contribs)'s comments above. Support R. fiend (talk · contribs)'s redirect and reasoning as proper organic editing practice. -- Jonel | Speak 21:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Reserve my spot on the closure endorsement, although my judgment would have been to have said quite clearly that the consensus was to merge and delete (possibly redirect), rather than that there is no consensus. I would like to encourage Johnleemk to read comments accompanying votes more carefully when making decisions of this sort in the future. It's also a good idea to ask a couple other uninvolved admins when closing contentious AfDs and the like. It may seem like a pain in the hinder, but it can go a long way toward reducing future hinderpains. Tomer 22:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - From Misplaced Pages:Merging and moving pages: "Merging should always leave a redirect in place." Merge and delete causes GFDL problems. Having read the comments, I would say that those saying merge did indeed have the strongest arguments; however, given the number of those recommending deletion and noting that they have valid issues, as well as those recommending keeping or redirecting, I would say that there is no consensus and that John made the right call. -- Jonel | Speak 02:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I fail to understand the point you're trying to make. Merging the miniscule amount of decent information and then deleting the crap content (by getting rid of the article) and thereafter recreating the article as a redirect do the article into which the useful content has been merged is what I mean by "merge and delete". The "possibly redirect" was meant as "possibly redirect without deleting first, after the content has been merged". That said, I wasn't "revoting", I was simply saying that I think that Johnleemk's interpretation of "no consensus" was in error, and saying what I would have said the consensus was instead. Tomer 06:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment on "merge and delete": The scenario you describe violates the requirement in GFDL to preserve the attribution history of whatever usable information which you did choose to merge. We normally satisfy the attribution requirement by not deleting the history and by leaving a redirect behind. Yes, there are other ways to satisfy the attribution requirement but they are all tedious, complex and error-prone. That's why many of us take the default position that "merge and delete" is an invalid recommendation (or at least not a cost-effective one). Rossami (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
          • That can be worked around by deleting and restoring only the useful edits, and then blanking in favor of a redirect. Tomer 20:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
            • comment continues: For all but the shortest of edit histories, investigating a page's history edit by edit and restoring "only the useful edits" is a great example of "possible but tedious, complex and error-prone". If you have time and the inclination to do that kind of work, more power to you. I think, however, that as a general rule, that is not a reasonable expectation on a volunteer discussion closer. Unless someone explicitly volunteers to come back and do that work him/herself after the discussion is closed, I will continue to interpret "merge and delete" as an incompatible opinion. Rossami (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Reopened by howcheng. Aaron 18:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Ted's_Kiddush

I believe this article should not have been speedy deleted. The reason User:Jon513 offered for his deletion suggestion was that he lives in Jerusalem and has never heard of the club. This is not a valid reason. I too live in Jerusalem and can confirm that the club is very real, and in fact has an active mailing list. User:Listedit25 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There were three votes for deletion and none to keep it. Valid AfD discussion. Keep deleted. User:Zoe| 17:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anti-vaccinationists

was closed prior to the 5-day period. I am requesting that the question be kept open for the regular period. A number of comments have been made about the future of the article beyond the keep and delete votes, and nobody has summarized them yet. I will certainly accept the results of the vote; I am simply asking that it not be a speedy keep. As it is, the vote tally is 5 clear deletes, 1 anonymous delete, 10 clear keeps, 3 keeps with comments, and 3 comments. To me this is not an overwhelming consensus, and people obviously have a lot to say about the article. I should also point out that when I protested against the premature closing, I was threatened with blocking. I do not think that asking for a process to run its course is unreasonable. --Leifern 15:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Sigh. This had run for several days, and a clear consensus had emerged to keep the article. Worse, it had turned into a slug-fest with people accusing other people of bad faith, puppetry, etc, so I invoked Misplaced Pages:Deletion_policy#Early_closings. It was also clear that while people felt the article should not be deleted, they also felt that it needed drastic cleanup, and it appeared from the history and talk pages, that said cleanup was already underway. Since things were already going in the right direction, I didn't see what good would come from letting the brawl continue for another couple of days. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If the early close is contested in good faith (and the request above certainly seems to qualify) then almost by definition there was not the required "clear consensus". The standard necessary for early closing is virtual unanimity and even that has been controversial at times. The fact that the discussion has degenerated is, unfortunately, not enough reason to close the discussion early. Beg people to be more civil in the discussion but let the discussion run its course. By the way, it looks like the AFD discussion only had another 24 hours to go so the early closure seems to have backfired and is now extending rather than shortening the controversy. Rossami (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure doesn't look like a "clear consensus" to me, especially if it would only have taken two or three more delete votes to change that consensus. It should not have been closed early, let it run its course. User:Zoe| 17:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I counted 17 Keep to 4 Delete. I just went back and recounted and came up with the same sums. How do you get "two or three more delete votes to change that consensus" from that? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm involved in two debates on this page today, one in which an admin is arguing that consensus has to be absolutely overwhelming to be called for purposes of deletion; another in which another admin is arguing that a weak consensus is adequate to close a discussion. In both cases, we are dealing with admins who feel that their judgment is the determining factor. I think that if there is a bias to keep articles in one case, the same bias should apply for keeping the discussion going. Just my $.02, but maybe the admins who proclaim themselves judge and jury on the process for deletion should discuss among themselves rather than try to preach to us lowly editors. --Leifern 19:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
        • If I'm looking at the same two discussions, the difference is between a regular close (at the end of the 5-day discussion period and which requires only "rough consensus") and an early close (which requires "clear consensus" and which has been interpreted as a much higher standard). Failure to qualify for "clear consensus" only means that discussion continues until the 5-day period runs out. The 5-day rule is a practical compromise set to ensure that the system doesn't get completely stalled. If you're looking at something else, though, please send a specific question to my Talk page and I'll try to help. Rossami (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Looking through the discussion, it looks like a keep consensus to me (not a "no consensus: default to keep", but an actual consensus to keep, which is actually kind of rare). Unless someone can point out that most of those votes are sockpuppets (I didn't recognize a bunch of the names, but nothing made me suspicious of them, and I didn't check their edit histories) I don't see any harm in closing this after 4 days instead of 5 when the result was so obvious, and the discussion was just dragging on and on. endorse closure. -R. fiend 18:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure I'm with R. fiend here. While there is some dispute, the harm in reducing from 5-days to 4-days a debate which was 17k-4d is de minimis. Especially considering the article might as always be AfD'ed again, after a reasonable time, there is no reason to reopen immediately a debate that had become somewhat heated. Xoloz 20:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see any point in attempting early closures in cases where there is any significant dispute. Let them run their course. The article has a big, conspicuous "deletion" tag on it, no reader is going to be in any doubt about its status. It's one thing when you have a borderline CSD that gets eight deletes and no keeps in two days... or a borderline vanity page that gets a solid string of deletes and the author of the page asks that the page be deleted (to spare him further embarrassment, although they don't usually put it that way). I sometimes think "when in doubt, don't delete" is taken to an extreme, but certainly "when there's any serious doubt, don't attempt an early close." Dpbsmith (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - it appears that the premature close was allowed to stand. I'm just curious: is there something like precedence here? Does this mean that we can close a discussion whenever we like the way the votes are going, provided there's lots of debate about it? This is the only conclusion we can draw from this decision. Congratulations. --Leifern 02:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • As Xoloz says, I'd say it was interpreted as a de minimis case of an error in judgement by the speedy closing admin. The outcome–keeping the article–wasn't in doubt, as you acknowledged: . An extra day on AfD wouldn't have materially affected the outcome, so give RoySmith a little slap on the wrists for jumping the gun and move on. Short of a change in the deletion policy, I would discourage other admins from closing contested AfDs early–even when the outcome is a clear keep–but there's no point to doing anything further with this article. Everybody agrees that the outcome we've achieved (the article is to be kept) is the one that the process would have generated had policy been followed to the letter; the spirit of the process hasn't been frustrated. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I accept my wrist-slap, and in the best tradition of Bart's chalkboard gags on The Simpsons, I hereby atone for my sin against wiki-process:
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.

-- RoySmith (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


4 February 2006

Template:Commonsgallery

Despite its TfD discussion attracting 3 votes for delete and 4 keeps, plus a keep from an anon who has a few non-project contributions, User:MarkSweep closed the discussion as a delete on the grounds that "The result of the debate was better arguments for deletion than for keeping it." I dispute this decision on two grounds:

  1. That is not the admin's call; the deletion discussions may not be votes, but closing admins are, as far as I've gathered from my experience on AfD, not court judges, there to decide which side 'won'; they are there to decide what the community thinks. It renders the whole 'discussion' thing slightly pointless otherwise.
  2. Even if I'm wrong on the above point, MarkSweep's decision that there were better arguments for deletion is still extremely shaky IMO. None of the delete voters ever tried to argue the counterpoints the keep voters made against their arguments. These arguments included the fact that the template supposedly advertised for Olympus (it had a picture of a camera, far too small to make out the model). --Malthusian (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • As the closing admin, let me explain my reasoning in more detail. First, we'll have to discount one keep "vote" from an anon. Second, Nickj is using his "vote" as a vehicle for something unrelated, namely improving or changing Template:Commons. Nickj wrote: "That's why my vote is "keep", and it will continue to be "keep" until such time as Template:commons is improved." That's not a reason to keep Template:Commonsgallery. You don't go about changing Template:Commons by forking it and then voting to keep when the fork is nominated for deletion. Third, "Keep, useful template" by Ryan Delaney is fine, but it's not a relevant argument: Template:Commonsgallery was nominated here because it was a fork of an already existing maintenance template: and precisely because it is a fork of a useful template, it is of course useful, but that's not what this debate was seeking to establish. Fourth, there were three delete votes (by Netoholic, Petaholmes, and Phil Boswell) arguing that template forks are bad. The two serious votes in favor of keeping never properly addressed why the forked templates is needed. I completely ignored the bit about the Olympus ad as tangential to the discussion. Fifth, even if we regard the outcome of this debate as "no consensus", it makes no sense to default to keep in the Template namespace: templates, unlike articles, are tools which facilitate and enable; they should only be kept when they are truly needed. As I've said in my comments when I closed this discussion, I was much more swayed by the arguments for deletion, and in the end this is a discussion, not a vote. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - on the principle that forks are bad. FCYTravis 20:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Mark seems to be under the impression that the people behind the template have not bothered to explain what it is for, which is false: it has been extensively explained at Template_talk:Commons and the TfD. Briefly (I don't know why I'm bothering as I thought DRV was about process and not content, but FCYTravis has indicated otherwise): some of us believe the links to Commons galleries would look better if accompanied by a picture explaining what it was going to (e.g. a camera for a gallery of pictures). No-one's yet tried to claim otherwise, the only argument for deletion that's been put forward has been 'standardisation and maintenance'.
  • I don't see how this was a 'fork' any more than {{test-n}} is a fork of {{test}}. Both do the same thing, but {{test-n}} does it slightly better in a certain context. Same with this. I admit that the name of the template does scream 'fork', being a redundancy; that was a mistake on my part. I was expecting to move the template to {{commonsimage}} as soon as the TfD was closed. --Malthusian (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Moreover, I'm not going to reply to MarkSweep's responses to why he discounted most of the votes on one side one by one (I've already explained why the 'serious voters' had, in fact, "properly addressed why the forked templates is needed"). But I will say that I think that if the arguments of a certain 'side' in a discussion are weak, it should be explained why they are weak at the time, rather than the closing admin waiting for the discussion period to end, discounting them, then waiting for someone to bring the TfD to DRV to explain why they were weak enough for the editors' opinions to be ignored. If nothing else it would save time. --Malthusian (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • TfD is a debate about the merits of templates. Rather than talking about "sides" one should talk about the outcomes of that debate and the arguments advanced in favor of them. If I see a weak argument or an argument that does not even address the central question of the debate, I call it as I see it. As for commenting on the merits of the various arugments before closing the debate: what do you want me to do? I didn't even know of this particular debate until I started to do my share in trying to clear out the TfD backlog. And if I had been aware of it and commented on it earlier, I wouldn't be in a position to close it. And by the way, I wasn't waiting for someone to bring this here. If you're only interested in saving time, then let it go and work on changing Template:Commons through the customary channels. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
      • *sigh* I'm going to have to surrender on any further discussion - I tried to reply to Mark's last post but couldn't manage to string three separate counterpoints together in a way that made any sense. I'm just going to say that I used the word 'side' in the sense of 'those who voted one particular way', not 'side' in the sense of 'cabal'. I think it would be worthwhile to have more illustrative {{commons}} templates, but if it gets shot down, well, c'est la vie. If I die in my sleep tonight and St Peter asks me 'And how did you spend your life?' I don't want to have to tell him that my last night was spent fighting a rearguard action over diversifying a Misplaced Pages template. --Malthusian (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted — MarkSweep is surely right in both principle and detail. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have forked templates many times, as it is sometimes the only way to switch over from one design to another. I was not aware the cabal disapproved of it. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Mel Etitis. --Kbdank71 05:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. The fact that {{commons}} is seemingly perma-protected pushed me over the edge. If one cannot edit the template without going through various bureaucracy (requesting unprotection and hoping that succeeds, or getting consensus on the talk page - so much for being bold!), then forking may be the best option. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. MarkSweep's repeated violations of deletion process are becoming more and more disruptive. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. - How can you can get an result of 5 to keep, and 3 to delete, and decide that "delete" is the right outcome? It makes a complete and total mockery of the concept of consensus. Secondly, for Mark Sweep's "reasoning" that he can disregard my vote, and the votes of others: I wasn't aware that we had ceded complete dictatorial powers to Mark Sweep, so if someone could point to the relevant official wiki guideline outlining his new overlord status, that would be super, thanks. Third, I note that none of the votes to delete were disregarded, so it's good to see that the fine example of Florida lives on! Fourth, the reasons for changing this were outlined extensively on the Commons talk page, and have still not been addressed. Fifth, the commons template is still protected - so, given that anything related get deleted, and the originally seems to be permanently protected, how, exactly, is anything about these templates ever supposed to be improved? Frankly, this really is an appalling decision. If you're going to ignore what the community says, then why even have a deletion process? I mean, really, why bother? Just unilaterally delete whatever you like, irrespective of consensus - it'll give the same result, but without wasting everyone's time by giving the illusion of wanting community input and general agreement. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Mark's justification here. However these exceptional closes should be explained when closing. Pace the squeals of outrage, please note that: (i) TfD does not have a clear numerical criteria for assessing when there is a concensus and (ii) the kind of carefully justified discounting Mark has undertaken here would, if done when closing the *fD dsicussion, be a good thing for the health of *fDs: if you object to these vote discounts, what discounts would you agree with? --- Charles Stewart 01:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Seconded with a pat on the back and a kiss on the cheek. A great many of the discussions that take place on DRV could be avoided if closers took more care with explaining their thinking when they close. Rossami, in particular, provides clear evidence that he has thought about the arguments presented, and I've seen closes of his run to two paragraphs. This is a good thing, and should be more widespread. - brenneman 02:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much for the feedback. You have a good point, and I've added my above comments to the TfD page. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist on TfD. Whilst Mark's arguments to delete are convincing, and convinced me that it should be deleted, there seems to be enough dissension to warrant a re-examination of the decision. 5 votes to keep against 3 to delete is not a decent consensus to keep, parituclarly given that the last two votes to keep were a) from an IP and b) two words, but I would have thought that this would be enough for the Template to remain pending further discussion. Deleting it was against the principle of consensus on deletion. If Mark makes the same excellently clear and cogent arguments to delete then I'm sure people will make the appropriate decision. And I think Nickj's reason for keeping is entirely valid - if he believes the template si necessary until the commons template itself is fixed, then that is a valid reason for him to believe the commonsgallery one should be kept. Proto||type 13:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Reverse and Keep as per the consensus what was the point of the votes if the deciding admin was going to maket he call anyway? Some nerve.Gator (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Hey look, I lied, one more comment. MarkSweep's reasons for discounting most of the delete votes may make sense on the outside, but to me there seems to be equally good reasons for discounting the delete votes. One said "performs the same function as {{commons}}" (none of the counter-arguments to that here, on the TfD and on Template_talk:Commons have ever been addressed), another said (paraphrasing for brevity) 'template forks are evil, and advertises for Olympus'. Of that last post, the first argument is not an argument, the second rather nonsensical (maybe it was in jest, but Mark talks about "serious votes"). Why not discount those arguments too?
  • Now at this point I think we can agree that it becomes ridiculous, having unilaterally discarded almost the entire debate, which is why I disagree with vote discounting on principle in all but the most obvious cases (sockpuppetry/trolling), for two reasons: 1) If an argument is weak, someone should say so at the time so its proponent can respond to the criticism without having to do it at WP:DRV, and 2) If the overall case for one 'side' (ooer, used that word again) is weak, then people will read it, be unconvinced, vote delete and the article will be deleted by an actual consensus (not just a consensus of "serious voters"). If the reason for the *fD not getting enough delete 'votes' was because it didn't get enough attention, then relist it. --Malthusian (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Closing admin properly discounted "votes" which did not comply with policy directions; TFD page expressly says Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement. Voting standards were clear, and closing admin quite properly followed them rather than disregarding them. Monicasdude 21:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but my vote/comment/preference was discounted because of my mistake in pointing something out, not because of my reasons. My reasons are that the newer template is (in my opinion) clearer, easier to understand (both in language and visually), and more exact than the commons template. My conclusion therefore was keep. My mistake was apparently in saying that there would be no reason for commonsgallery if commons could be improved (but unfortunately, that seems to be impossible), and that in that situation I would most likely change my vote. Furthermore, it should be noted that this template doesn't even seem to pass the tests of whether it should be proposed for deletion: Is it helpful? Yes. Is it redundant? No, I don't think it is (see reasons above). Is it used? Yes. Is it NPOV? Yes. Was it a candidate for speed deletion? No. Therefore, it doesn't even seem to fulfil the basic criteria for being listed on TfD, let alone the criteria to actually be deleted. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, I do not see the difficulty to simply construct an independent userbox in one's own userspace. Less controversial, and quite sensical. The same can be said for many other userbox tempaltes. -Zero 09:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Are articles in the main space allowed to use templates from a user's namespace? I thought I read somewhere that this was a no-no, but I could be wrong. If it's allowed, then that's exactly what I will do, and I thank for suggesting this. However, if it's not allowed, then I would please ask that you reconsider your position because it means the problem cannot be solved by the method you propose. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

  1. Best blond joke ever and/or Best blonde joke ever kept deleted and now exist as redirects. 23:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Template:User pedo: Kept deleted. 23:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sin (musician): Kept deleted. 23:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Marianne Curan: Kept deleted, better re-written from scratch. 23:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Christopher Howard: Kept deleted. 23:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Armand Traoré: Kept deleted. 23:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. The Foxymorons: Withdrawn, new stub to be written. 22:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Template:User Antiracist hitler: Speedy deletion endorsed. 17:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Template:GermanGov: Kept deleted. 17:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C.: Original keep closure endorsed. 17:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. User:KJVTRUTH: kept undeleted, user subsequently blocked as sockpuppet. 17:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. Category:Ambiguous five-letter acronyms: Moot request, kept deleted. 17:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. The Better Mod: Speedy undeleted, listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Better Mod. 23:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. Clay Sun Union: Undeleted. As the deletion seemed to be in error (the members were AFDed, not the band) there is no reason for an automatic listing at AFD. It is free to be nominated by any user, however. 23:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. Template:User no Rand: Undeleted, now listed at WP:TFD. 18:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. Good Thing, Bad Thing, Right Thing, and Wrong Thing: Latter 2 merged. Any other issues are a content dispute, not DRV. 18:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  17. List_of_interesting_or_unusual_place_names: Moved to wikipedia namespace. 18:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC) R. Fiend
  18. Jason Ward-Recording Engineer/Producer: Kept deleted. 17:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  19. Vampires F.C.: rdirected to Crouch End Vampires F.C.. 17:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  20. London Welsh F.C.: Undeleted (consensus seemed to be AFD was not automatically warranted, but it is open to an AFD nomination by any user). 17:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  21. Lee Hotti: Kept deleted (protected). 17:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  22. Gazeebow Unit: Kept deleted. 17:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  23. Patrick Alexander (cartoonist): Kept deleted. 17:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  24. Mesh Computers: Undeleted; out of process deletion, relisted for deletion and deleted on same day, should have remained relisted for five days per Misplaced Pages:Deletion process 10:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  25. SNK Boss Syndrome: Kept deleted. 19:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  26. Colony5: Undeleted, currently listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Colony5 (2nd nomination). 18:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  27. Maria Pia Braganza and Rosario Poidimani : former redirected, latter kept deleted (protected). 18:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  28. David Dom and Karayana , overturned, narrowly missed deletion, now at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Karayana and David Dom. - 01:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  29. Male bikini-wearing speedily kept deleted. - 01:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  30. Philosophy of computer science, kept deleted. - 23:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  31. Template:User_ku_klux, kept deleted. - 23:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  32. Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks: City of New York, kept deleted and saw several like it sent to AfD. - 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  33. Category:Lists in the Misplaced Pages namespace, kept deleted. - 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  34. Template:User homosexual-no, kept deleted but with recomendations that people use TfD in future. - 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  35. Aetherometry, kept deleted. 05:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. How to make a computer virus, kept deleted. 22:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Valhalla legends: undel+re-AfD'd, and BNLS AfD'd with it, per recommendations here. 01:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Category:German-American mobsters: can be recreated, but there are no articles in it at present. 01:29, 30 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.

List of software companies

Was deleted on 6 Jan, 2006 (Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_software_companies). This was a useful list where software companies were sectioned based on country. I had created it way back in 2003 and was using it as a reference ever since. Today I went to the page to find out the list of software companies of a particular country, and found that it has been deleted. There is no corresponding Category on "software companies by country" either. I understand that all standalone lists have to be moved into categories, but since we don't have the "Category:Software companies by country" category yet, I request to undelete the list so that the category can be created using the info available in the list. Jay 18:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds convincing, undelete. Pcb21 Pete 19:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Wait a minute, aren't you an admin? Can't you just access the article yourself? Johnleemk | Talk 19:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
You're right I'm a sysop and can access the contents, but non-sysops can't. The categorization work has to be done by all kinds of users, even anon users. Jay 10:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Just one question: if there is a need to sub-categorise by country (which I don't dispute), surely it's easiest just to work through the existing category? Half the companies on the original list were redlinked anyway. Not that I have a problem with undeleting this and moving to a user subpage, I'm just puzzled as to why there's a need. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 20:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. I cannot imagine what possessed anyone to list this article for deletion, or the closing administrator to delete it. --Tony Sidaway 22:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Listcruft. Not convincing? How about spam magnet? Categories are nice because they catalog things with actual articles (or which are worthy of articles). This thing was filled with redlinks to companies I couldn't find anywhere. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete so we can categorize the companies, then can be brought back to AfD after categorizing takes place if someone so chooses, as list will probably not be useful after category is created.VegaDark 22:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Now that it's been userfied in order to create the category, I don't see a need for this list, and it was deleted through due process. Keep Deleted. VegaDark 01:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've moved this to "content review" since that was what was being requested. I've also placed {{tempundelete}} and listed the page on WP:RFPP. There is currently no consensus for fully restoring articles for editing when on deletion review, especially when all that's required is access to the contents. - brenneman 01:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, unless temporarily undeleted for the purposes of category creation, but delete again when finished. This thing was a spam MAGNET. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfied to User:Jay/List of software companies as this is clearly what is wanted, including by those requesting undeletion. Redirect deleted. -Splash 04:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted as unmaintainable listcruft. A category would be much more suitable, and avoid the problems of red-links, vanity entries, and site-spam. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:26, Feb. 12, 2006
  • Undelete - valid listing. Just because no one is quite bold enough to expand upon an article, does not give it justification for deletion. An overhall and some research is needed here. -Zero 09:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, validly deleted in process. Userfying meets Jay stated need. Inspection of deleted article shows more than half the content to be redlinked entries with no source citations, hence not in compliance with the verifiability policy. On inspecting the history, I agree that was a spam magnet. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

moshzilla

I would like to have this undeleted mometarely. I started the internet phenomena, moshzilla, and own moshzilla.com, I would like to move the contents of the moshzilla entry onto the moshzilla site if possible. User:joshhighland

  • Comment - Moved to content review section. --- Charles Stewart 20:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, no. Since you don't own the copyright to the material and have never edited the article, you can't drop the material into a website that does not use the GFDL to license its content. -Splash 00:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • There's nothing to stop him having a section of his site which is GFDL and which contains the cotnent from the deletd article. There's no shortage of mirrors who do this sort of thing, and as long as it's properly attributed and stated that it is GFDL it's fine. -- AJR | Talk 17:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • For the record, this user has a copy of the deleted content. He/she used it on 9 Feb 06 to recreate the deleted page. I am having trouble assuming good faith about this request. Rossami (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Colonel Xu

Hello, and thanks in advance for your reply(ies). A couple months ago, my classmates created a page on WP called "Colonel Xu." It was mocking our Mandarin teacher as a Communist spy. (It's simplified chinese, what else can you expect? =P) She took it in stride, being the cool person she is. However, they didn't preserve any copies of it, and knowing I was a WP junkie, requested that I help them try to get a copy of it. Could an administrator please let me view it, and then print it out, or to move the "article" to my userspace? If it is moved to my user space, can I keep it there? I'll be checking here and on my Talk page every couple mins. THanks! -Copysan 23:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

History only undeletion

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

Decisions to be reviewed

Shortcut

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.

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

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

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Temporary_undeletion

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

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

12 February 2006

Template:User no Rand

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates.

Lowbrow.com

Nobody seems to like this article. Every time I come back here, it's gone. Why is this? What makes the likes of Ebaum's World or other sites any more special? Lowbrow.com is a large website with a pretty massive community. Why someone would want to keep information about it from this encyclopedia is beyond me, and it is very frustrating. I am requesting that this article be undeleted. Thank you.

--Spank fusion 00:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lowbrow.com for one thing, where a consensus to delete the article was first reached. It seems subsequent recreations of the article have all been deleted because they were deemed sufficiently similar to the original deleted version, which is allowed under the criteria for speedy deletion. It does look quite similar every time. You might also see the WP:WEB guidelines for website article inclusion. At any rate I think rather than deletion review you should talk to the admin who protected the page to see about recreating it. --W.marsh 00:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    Hi. I'm that admin, and I sent User:Spank fusion here, as the appropriate place to contest a deletion, rather than than just recreating the article repeatedly. If there's a way to recreate the article so that it meets our inclusion guidelines, this is the place where that should be determined, if I understand correctly. -GTBacchus 01:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

List of interesting or unusual place names

(now at Misplaced Pages:List of interesting or unusual place names)

This article was deleted out of process, then during the resulting debates, recreated and moved to the Misplaced Pages: namespace. It does not belong there; all similar lists (List of city listings by country, List of misleading place names, &c) are in the article namespace. (The only parallel I saw someone mention in the Misplaced Pages: namespace is Misplaced Pages:Unusual articles which is clearly a meta-page about Misplaced Pages and therefore belongs in that namespace.) The article was then placed here for review, and the result was not handled by the book.

The article should be 'undeleted' and restored to its original title -- and then perhaps put up once more for AfD. A second AfD nomination ran for two days, generating over 30 votes, predominantly to keep it; but was closed early for process-lawyering reasons -- that is, because the same discussion should be had here. +sj +

NB: There were good debates raised about how to determine whether a name is unusual or interesting; these are useful to have, and hopefully good revisions of the list will come from them. Undeletion and restoration of the original title should in no way to minimize those debates. +sj + 00:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Here's why. The first AFD was a perfectly valid delete. The user who brought it to DRV the first time used erroneous numbers to justify it (which shouldn't matter, as AFD is not a vote). The article was moved to the WP namespace (as suggested by several users, both in the AFD and the dRV), and the DRV was closed (by me) endorsing this move. It was then recreated in the article space out of process. Furthermore the article itseld is falwed beyond belief. Allow me to elaborate.
This article is downright ridiculous. Despite all these assertions I keep hearing that it is "easily verifiable", no one has cited sources for these (with very; few exceptions, and only very recently). When asked what exactly it is that makes these "interesting" or "unusual" it seems the only answer we ever hear is "Listen! This place is called fucking, Austria!!!!!! Get it??? FUCKING!!!! Isn’t that a hoot???" Um, maybe, but it’s not a source, and the article has this aura of having been partially written by Beavis and Butthead (huh-huh huh-huh "Dix Hills", huh-huh-. They said "Dicks", huh-huh-huh). Can hardly believe they missed Uruguay ("U-R-Gay", get it?), moronic? Absolutely, but, unlike almost every other name in the article, I can actually find a source for that one. I know we have some pre-pubescent editors here, but do we need to advertise that to the world? And as long as we’re loading up the article with juvenile humor, where's Johnson, Tennessee (FYI "Johnson" means "penis" (titter))?
And the problems go on. I mean, do we really want to include street names? Of all the millions and millions of streets in the world I’m sure we can find thousands that will get your average six-year-old in hysterics (which seems to be among the inclusion criteria here). Do you really want me to find a "Pu Street" somewhere on the planet? Because I bet I can. He same goes for informal names of neighborhoods. Alphabet City? It even actually makes sense for a neighborhood defined by lettered streets, so what’s so interesting or unusual about that anyway? And then there are those that just confound me.
Lolita: would that be interesting if it weren’t the name of a Nabokov novel? If someone publishes a book called “Meriden” do we get to include Meriden, Connecticut? Vader: let me guess, if we imagine the word "Darth" in front of it… Mashpee: sounds a little strange to anyone who doesn’t live in a part of the country where every other town is some Indian word, to those of us who do, utterly unremarkable. Sandwich: you do realize that the food item was indirectly named after the place, right? Ware, Massachusetts? Because it’s a homophone of "Where?" Well, get that spelling and that question mark at the end and you might be on the right track, but that is just retarded (how about Wareham (as in “where’s the ham?”)). Lough Neagh: is there anything even slightly interesting or unusual about that? Anything with the name of an animal is unusual? Guess what? That used to name things after animals all the time! Oxford? Oxen used to ford there. I can’t think of anything ‘’less’’ unusual. And, to top it off, what people try to pass off as a source is that another flawed Misplaced Pages article insists that these words are, by definition, downright ‘’hilarious’’! That’s not a source.
And there’s the opposites that make the list: words that are too much common English words (Beer, Commerce, Drain, Eagle) make the list, and those that don’t sound like English words at all make it too (Ouagadougou, Schenectady). Well guess what, there’s tons of places in foreign countries that sound odd to English speakers, they may even sound (get ready)….foreign. Let’s take out my trusty atlas and look at Sumatra as a somewhat random example. I see places named: Pasirpangarayan, Pulaupunjung, Talanglambangantir Kutacane (WHY do they insist on cutting their canes there. That’s just CRRRAZY!), Baganslapiapi, and so on and that’s without even really trying. Do some of those sound atypical to those of us who live in places like Carson City? Sure. Are we going to include half the continent of Asia? I sure hope not.
At least some of the worst offenders have been removed (Amarillo? Bagdad, Arizona (but not Moscow Idaho?)), but that they were ever included is pretty sad. And I bet some which are included actually could be verified by a third party source (Truth or Consequences comes to mind) but no one has bothered to. People seem to think "Oh yeah, we could so verify the shit out of these if we wanted to"; is the same as actual verification. It is not. Some people have compared this to articles such as Films considered the worst ever, but we must keep in mind that that article, imperfect as it is, really went out of its way to get verifiable sources. This one fails utterly in that regard. Trying to pass this off as an encyclopedia article is an insult to every encyclopedia on the planet; mostly this one. -R. fiend 00:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore to / Retain in Article namespace R. fiend has made a valiant attempt to defend deletion above. I am going to attempt to put the case for retention/restoration; hopefully I will do this justice but if not I apologise ... it's past midnight now here in the UK.
There seem to be two main things that are causing problems:
First, that the article title contains the word "interesting" and that this makes the article subjective. I have to say that this is a fair point. However, I would ask - why does this one word invalidate the whole article? I've been a Misplaced Pages editor for about a year now, and I notice a recurring pattern in deletion discussions, which is that often there is just one thing about an article that an editor takes a dislike to, and from this comes a recommendation to delete, without a pause to think whether there is anything worth salvaging in the article. Clearly, from the amount of support that retention of this article is getting (and yes, I agree that polls are evil too, but ...) there is a good case that the article has at least something in it of (encyclopaedic) merit. Instead of just going for the "nuke it" option, we should all be trying hard to see each other's point of view and identify what in the article is worthy of inclusion, and what isn't, and tidy it up accordingly. I have proposed, in each of these debates, that we try to agree some criteria for inclusion, and assess the list against that. I appear to be being told that that is impossible, but without any arguments as to why that is the case. I agree that is is difficult but in the interest of community harmony, it has to be worth a go?
Second, the arguments that the article lacks sources and is POV. Among the people who are espousing these arguments are some very experienced editors, and so I can't just dismiss this view out of hand, but I really do think that people have got into some quite muddled thinking on this. I think that the cause of this is that the article is presented as a list. Because of that, proponents of deletion are insisting on a higher standard of verifiability than they would for any other article. Specifically, not only are sources for the existence of the place names being asked for, sources to justify inclusion of the names in the article are being asked for. We DO NOT do this for any other kind of content. If an article is written as a piece of prose, not in list form, then the inclusion of content that is obviously relevant to the article's subject, without editors having to find a source which proves that it is relevant, is widely accepted. Sometimes there may be items of content that are perhaps peripheral and these are then debated by editors, but by and large we don't have a problem here i.e. we don't have those debates over EVERY sentence in EVERY article. Just because this article is presented as a list, I don't see why we have to treat it differently. The Misplaced Pages policy on citing sources exists, as I understand it, to ensure that Misplaced Pages doesn't end up full of errors (accidental or deliberate), and not as a means of imposing a rigid and bureaucratic editorial process when one isn't needed.
So in summary, if we drop the word interesting from this article's title, agree some inclusion criteria, and then assess the article's content against these, we have the basis for a perfectly valid article (with no need for factcheck notes on every line) in the article namespace. Parallels exist — English words with uncommon properties for instance (note: this one is written as prose) — I think that attempting a solution along these lines has to be a better way forward than continuing with the divisive mess we're currently in? SP-KP 01:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course we need sources to justify inclusion of each and every single entry, because inclusion in a list of things which are allegedly "interesting" or "unusual" requires that someone else call them "interesting" or "unusual." Misplaced Pages editors cannot just insert things in the list that they find "interesting" or "unusual" - that is prima facie original research, something which is specifically prohibited by policy. Please see Films considered the worst ever. "The movies listed have achieved a notable level of infamy, through critical and popular consensus." That is an acceptable way of doing things - each entry is sourced with reasons why it is among the worst ever - ratings from movie critics, box-office figures, fan votes on IMDb, etc. This list has none of the above - it's just a list of any name someone ever laughed at. That's not encyclopedically acceptable. FCYTravis 01:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Please, just {{sofixit}}. Until then, it should stay out of mainspace. I've deleted and protected the cross-namespace redirect and noted that at WP:ANI, while we're talking about it. - brenneman 01:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User-AmE-0

Discussion moved to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates.

Quasi-gummi

This article appears to have been deleted on 16 December 2005 by User:Snowspinner without due process of any sort. Its most recent version before deletion has references and appears to describe a valid type of confection. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Undelete and send to AFD. I have a feeling it's a neologism and should probably be deleted, but let's send it through the process. -R. fiend 06:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per WP:SNOW since on checking the supposed "references" neither actually supported the term and I can't find any English-language Googles which are not mirrors. From a process point of view this was wrong, but since actually the project is all about content I can't see a lot of point wasting any more time on this. Normally I would userfy and/or invite the creator to repairing these problems, but the creator is missing in action. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 10:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist at AfD so a proper discussion can take place. ComputerJoe 13:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted Yes, it has been deleted out of process - 'bad Snowspinner, bad admin - slap!'. But it is obviously unreferenced crap, so there is nothing to be gained by undeleting it. If this is about repremanding the admin, then puting crap back into the encyclopedia, because a form wasn't filled in, is not the way to go about it--Doc 18:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and AFD - Hmm, well, I'll be an inclusionist here, seems like a term which could have some use in describing some sorts of candy. Worthy of a shot, at least. FCYTravis 19:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I thought that too - it does seem like a term applying to a type of candy, but I couldn't verify it. Nothing to stop others trying, I guess, but I have a terrible suspicion this is going to be a waste of everyone's time. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 21:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

11 February 2006

Heathian anarchism

This article's final AfD tally was 3 deletes, 2 merges closely edging on delete, and 1 keep, from the author of the page. The final decision made was to "keep", which I don't understand. Since the best merge suggestion offered is to an article that does not exist, and what is presently in this article would be insufficient for creating a new article, we're stuck in the meantime with what is a completely OR page. My suggestion would be either to delete it or move it to the creator's userspace. In the meantime we're legitimizing a topic that doesn't even exist. Sarge Baldy 19:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Relist - true, the only person asking for it to be kept as-is was the creator, and most others wanted it gone or gone, but there were not many contributors overall. I would have relisted for further debate rather than closing. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 20:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • This approach to relisting is becoming a little concerning to me. Having "no consensus" as an outcome (call it keep if you prefer) is absolutely fine. People seem to be relisting enthusiastically just because there was no Absolute Outcome in the hopes of generating one. If that is what an editor wants, then they should carry out the relisting as an editorial matter, and not in the manner used on DRV which implies a rejection of the earlier debate's closure. -Splash 20:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Hmmm. I agree up to a point, but I don't think a couple of comments is sufficient to determine consensus, and I don't see why it should be a problem relisting where there are very few comments. Relisting because it's 20k/20m/20d is clearly nonsensical, but I don't recall that happening. I've seen several which have been kept after relisting when closing as delete would have been valid (a couple of deletes and nothing else). But I am becoming somewhat disillusioned with the whole process - nominate a web forum and every member will be along to vote keep, nominate a school at your peril, however bad the article and no matter that it is a commercial enterprise not a school, and so on. Ah well. I'm sure that once the Gastrich-induced cynicism has worn off I'll return to my usual sunny self, and maybe it'll improve with the Pareto effect of {PROD}. There is a slightly more pressing problem with this article: with zero Googles and no cited sources it appears to be unverifiable. Where's that list of templates? - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 21:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Getting 6 participants is more than substantially many debates (see WP:AFD100 for statistics on this). AfD is (still) overloaded, and sending minor articles back there just because we hope for 7 participants rather than 6 seems a little, well, pointless. -Splash 21:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close, clearly. This doesn't even shake a finger at a consensus to delete. There is no need to relist since there is clearly discussion to be had elsewhere about what, precisely, should be done. Having 6 people in an AfD is enough, and there is no quorum for AfD and there never has been. The only reason to relist would be a lack of participation or a supposition that relisting would produce a different result because of problems with the first listing. Noone cites any problems with this listing, apart from its outcome, and so I see neither a case to relist nor overturn. -Splash 20:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe if you're just looking at the numbers, and not reading what people have to say. There does appear to be a 5-1 consensus that this article should no longer exist. That it's divided by people who think it needs to be merged and to be deleted seems irrelevant. Sarge Baldy 21:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant to what? To the question of deletion or not, no. To the question of exactly what state it should remain is as a result of the AfD? Largely, yes. People can decide whether to keep, merge or redirect for themselves in the case of an unclear AfD, and it is not the business of DRV to direct them on that. -Splash 21:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying it needs to be deleted. I'm saying it shouldn't continue to exist where it does now. "Heathian anarchism" is a term coined by the creator of the article. And right now we're pretending it exists. Sarge Baldy 21:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • What's there to discuss? This article is about something that doesn't exist. He might as well have written at the top of the page that the term was coined by Hogeye of Misplaced Pages. If you think that's a stretch, he actually DID put his name as a source in the article on anarchist economics. Sarge Baldy 21:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • In that case, you might wait a short while in case something turns up and then make a fresh AfD nomination with a much more compelling nomination than last time. "Not notable", whilst shorthand for a number of things is much less likely to win favour than "doesn't exist", "unverifiable", "original research" etc. Also, you did not at any point return to that AfD during the debate — it's necessary to do so when things aren't going as you intended, in much the way that you have intervened here. However, DRV is unlikely to make a purely content based decision and is equally unlikely, if not more so, to overturn that AfD debate into a deletion. -Splash 22:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, it's not completely unreferenced, as it names the book from which this guy's philosophy is outlined: Citadel, Market and Altar. The problem I just discovered is that that book gets 101 unique googles (pretty small for a book that's allegedly the foundation of a notable philosophy) and doesn't seem to appear at Amazon. Is this guy just another self-published crank? I think we should move it (as proposed in the AFD), re-examine, and perhaps re-AFD, based on any new facts that come to life (such as "this guy is a self-published crank", if it turns out to be true). We shoudl also keep in mind that the anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, etc pages have been the scene of ongoing edit wars for eons, and POV, forking, and the like fly about all over the place. anythign connected to these topics deserves special scrutiny. -R. fiend 21:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The content dispute, and under what name the article should end up residing, should be settled on the talk page, not AfD or here on DRV. There was clearly no consensus to delete... I said keep because of a few reasons, but ultimately does it make a difference here if I said "keep" or "no consensus"? --W.marsh 21:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Depends who you ask. Some folks don't like to see "result keep" when the result was no consensus and more people want rid of it than want it kept. Does it matter? Not to me, I guess. But I move this DRV be closed since R. Fiend has it absolutely right - this should be moved, cleaned up a bit and then re-assessed, which is in broadly line with what most people on the AfD seemed on the whole to want. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 10:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You know it's my opinion that all AFDs should be kept open until there can be some sort of declared resolution, either a rough consensus to delete (ie 65-70%) or a simple majority to keep. Until that time, I think we can pretty well state the matter is unresolved, and shouldn't be closed. I'm sure people will see this as some sort of deletionist plot, but I think it makes perfect sense. As long as between 50% and 65% want an article deleted, its a bit silly to call the matter settled. We still have it weighted towards keeping, as it only require a simple majority, and we can avoid arbitrary and highly controversial closings much of the time. There is no reason we can't keep those AFDs that meet this criteria open almost indefinitely, after all, the article is still there while the debate goes on, so there's a default to keep anyway. And any time more than half the participants think an article should be deleted, it may not be a consensus, but it is an indication that the article has problems which will not automatically go away after 5 days and a "no consensus, default keep" result is given. Of course, this would largely mean AFD is a vote, but it nearly always comes down to the numbers anyway. -R. fiend 21:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Anti-UN

Debate moved to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates

Template:User Anti-ACLU

Debate moved to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates

10 February 2006

Montfort Realschule Zell

This article's AfD nomination had 3 delete comments and just one keep (User:Jcuk's only comment was "of course"). If we were going straight vote style that gives 75% delete. After weighting arguments and comments I'd say the deletes have it. I respect MarkGallagher's decision to keep (the article did change a bit mid-vote) and normally I'd just let it go, but I just don't like this article (admitably I am deletionist scum). BrokenSegue 21:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Which does not address the issue that articles which suck, suck. Whatever the subject. It's not like we have to keep their seats warm until a better one comes along, after all. Me, I'd merge the stubs and wait for more information, but that's against some people's religion. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 23:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User against Iraq War

Debate moved to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates

Template:User USA Police State

Debate moved to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates

Hootenanny (store)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hootenanny (store). 6 delete, 5 merge and or keep votes. Closing admin seems to think that votes he disagrees with can be discounted because "AFD is a debate, not a vote". He also overlooked the argument that it has a notable corporate parent, so he can't have examined the debate very closely. Kappa 13:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing to stop someone creating a redirect right now. Endorse close, no reason given for keeping this.--Doc 14:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I just did. Endorse close, we want to get to a million articles, but not like this. Physchim62 (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, we don't all want to get to a million articles. -R. fiend 07:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Endorse status quo, which is currently merge and redirect by the looks of it, since I don't actually care that much what went on given that the result is a decent-sized article. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 14:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Endorse status quo. -- Jonel | Speak 21:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Endorse closing Closing editor's action fine. A borderline-nn. Somebody has to do the closing on these borderline-nn. We're not drowning kittens! --FloNight 15:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Not as such, no. Looking at the deleted history, there is very little there. There might be a small amount of trivia missing from the main article, but arguably it is not Misplaced Pages's place to list the brands stocked by a local store, especially since that might change at any time. Do we list all the brands sold out of Macy's? If anyone actually does care that much I will get the additional text out of the deleted history for them, but in my view it's too crufty to be worth the effort. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 15:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Like Kappa, I found the AfD to be less than well closed. The case for merging was made and supported, but in the tiresome inclusionist-deletionist catfight, the keepers and deleters failed to raise any serious grounds against the suggestion. Closing admins have a responsibility to find the outcome that best fits the discussion, and there's a fine line between doing this and finding an interpretation of the AfD that best fits one's own opinion. Johnleemk may understand that, but this exceptional closing does not provide evidence of it. --- Charles Stewart 15:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    Undelete per Kappa. The nomination was little more than a display of aggressive ignorance; the nominator used the same justification to nominate a well-known and well-established specialty retailer (SFFH bookstore) for deletion, claiming there were "two dozen" like it in his neighborhood. The discussion there ] shows pretty clearly that the nominator didn't know what a specialty retailer was, and should have led the closing admin to discount his "vote" (and the "votes" that simply cited the nominator). Note also that the nominator, in that discussion, used the fact that he'd never heard of many of the notable authors who were associated with the retailer as support for his claim. Misplaced Pages should be guided by the knowledge of its editors, not the ignorance of its editors. I don't know whether this particular specialty retailer is Misplaced Pages-notable, but the parent business certainly is, and has something of a track record for creating distinctive/notable enterprises. Monicasdude 16:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete the history The closure was not perfectly in-process, but a redirect/merge is a satisfactory result as far as content-merit is concerned. Let the history be complete, however, as this does no harm, and satisfies those with a process grievance. Xoloz 16:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure per FloNight. --Kbdank71 19:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep redirected. No real need to undelete history, as there's hardly anything to undelete, though there's no harm in undeleting it either. The original closer maybe should have done the redirect himself, but there was certainly no call for a flat out keep. I don't think anyone takes Kurt Weber's comments in AFDs seriously (at least I hope they don't), and no one else gave a single reason for keeping it. -R. fiend 19:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete history - since it is harmless. Despite my reservations about the close, I am happy with the status quo. --- Charles Stewart 19:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete or just Recreate at will and back up off site after recurrent redeletions: You want the breakdown of policy, you've got it. This page is full of examples, this article being one of them. Karmafist 21:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete per Karmafist. --Aaron 22:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User admins ignoring policy

Decbate moved to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates

9 February 2006

User:SPUI

I totally disagree with deleting this user page. Reverting and protection would have done just as well. I would like to request that this be undeleted, reverted to a satisfactory revision and protected. As I know that SPUI was definitely violating WP:POINT I won't reverse the decision, but I do think that we should not just delete the page arbitrarily. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

8 Feb 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was restored per request of Thryduulf by Physchim62. Aaron 22:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia

This was spedily deleted by Physchim62 as "G7 (author requested deletion)" (emphasis orginal). However, even though the author did request deletion it is not eligable for speedy deletion under this criterion:

Criterion G7: "Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page was edited only by its author and was mistakenly created. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." (emphasis mine).

The page was not mistakenly created, as evidenced by all the previous discussion. In addition to its author (Herostratus), it has also been edited by Dschor, Zoe, and user:DanielCD in its current location and Paroxysm, Silent War and Jelligraze in its original location (move was a copy and paste that I was going to repair later this evening when I had time).

If there was a clear consensus to delete then I would not be worried by the breach of process, but when it was closed there were 8 votes to delete and to 6 keep (plus stuck out votes and no votes) with strong arguments on both sides - clearly no consensus. I am not asking for permanent undeletion but I am asking for a full hearing at MfD, rather than the ~16 hours it did get. Thryduulf 18:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Dschor was editing in violation of an ArbCom injunction (see CSD G5); Zoe merely added an MfD tag, which does not cont as an edit for the purposes of CSD G7; DanielCD merely removed his name from the participants list in accordance with his stated intention of ceasing to edit on pedophilia-related issues. I wasn't aware that this was a cut-and-paste move, but G7 does appear to apply. The author of the page requested deletion in the light of current events and has removed his name from the participants list. If other users wish to create a WikiProject Pedophilia (as has existed in the past on Misplaced Pages, before this project), I would not consider this a recreation of deleted material. However I think that the wishes of the page author should be respected in this case, especially given the current tensions surrounding the subject. Physchim62 (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn speedy and let the MfD play itself out. As noted, this was a cut-and-paste move so not all the authors can be seen. I'm sympathetic to the fact that this WikiProject and its members knew nothing about the wheel war, and I suspect this WikiProject wouldn't have been involved at all if it wasn't for Dschor signing up for it and creating the userbox template for this WikiProject. However, the damage is likely already done: the main participants in the project have decided to leave because they don't want to be involved. --Deathphoenix 20:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and allow process. Considering changing my vote on the MfD. The Land 21:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

7 Feb 2006

Brian Peppers

Was deleted and protected by User:UninvitedCompany despite the previous failure to remove via AFD. Uninvited's reasoning was as follows: "I have deleted this page at the request of a family member of its subject. I do not believe that this page should be recreated without careful legal review. The subject does not appear to be a public figure." (See Talk:Brian_Peppers.) While I am certain that Uninvited was acting in good faith, I fear that it sets a dubious precedent to allow articles to be deleted because the article subject, or representatives of the subject, complained. If the information is uncited, it should of course be removed; if evidence is shown that it is libelous, it should also be removed. However, there's no evidence any of this was the case here. The mugshot is a public record, accessible to anyone, and is available through many websites other than Misplaced Pages, so removing it from here in no way even increases the subject's privacy. And this particular individual has been widely discussed on the Internet. Although Uninvited says that "privacy laws" may outlaw the publishing of this photo, no specific law was cited, and I find it difficult to believe that any law prohibiting the publication of crime-related information (like this mugshot) would withstand constitutional scrutiny. AFAIK, even laws prohibiting the publication of rape victims' names have been struck down. I suggest that this deletion be reconsidered. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted (in the strongest terms possible). The last AfD followed several successful AfD deletions and recreations. It was my opinion at the time that the article should never be allowed to be created, and I was utterly shocked at some people's lack of appreciation of how unencyclopedic the article was. The article was recreated and kept through an AfD, in my strong opinion, due to recreation/AfD gaming; it should die a permanent death. --Nlu (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and plow a ton of salt under - There is nothing encyclopedic to say about this person, and the content of the article was essentially "ha ha look at this guy he's funny-looking and he's a sex offender, OMGWTFBBQ LOLLERSKATES." It's a juvenile and pathetic attack page. Beyond that, this is a case where the potential harm to the encyclopedia, as expressed by UninvitedCompany, far outweighs the infinitesimal "contribution" made by the article to the "sum total of human knowledge." FCYTravis 18:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak and reluctant overturn (and relist, if you could stomach a 6th nomination). The last time this was AfDed (for the 5th time), it was no consensus (which, while grounds for a keep, still means that there's some serious doubts about whether it should be kept), and I voted Keep because I felt it was a notable Internet meme and the article text at the 5th nomination wasn't a copyvio, nor was it a recreation of what was previously deleted. I feel that the article as written violated no privacy laws as it made use of information already available to the public and contained nothing that could lead the anything dangerous happening to the subject. It does not contain a photo of said individual, nor does it contain any problematic details such as the offender's contact details. However, this article is just a wheel war waiting to happen. Uninvited Company likely deleted this for a very good reason. If UC will bring some good reasons to this discussion (such as, say, the family's lawyer calling with a cease and desist), I'll likely change my vote. OTOH, if it was just family members calling and saying that they don't like the article, I probably won't. --Deathphoenix 19:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If there is a legal issue here, it should certainly be addressed, though I have my doubts that there is, or it would likely affect hundreds of other somewhat similar articles. Does the wikimedia foundation have a lawyer who could straighten this out? Absent anything else, I'd have to go along with undeletion. While I'm certainly no fan of it, and likely would have voted to delete it at the AFD, there does seem to be a weak consensus to keep it. -R. fiend 19:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Lest anyone should have counted that as a vote to undelete, it no longer is. My only concerns were respecting consensus, so I do not want to stand in the way of a better consensus being formed here. -R. fiend 19:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If the guy looked like an average Joe we would not even be having this conversation; those who want to look up this puerile fad can do so elsewhere. Ask yourself: WWJD? Keep deleted. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 20:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have voted (an extremely reluctant) keep in AfD debates for this article on the grounds that the internet fad was just about notable enough. However, assuming that UninvitedCompany is acting honourably (which I am certain he was) then the deletion should stand. Keep deleted. David | Talk 20:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I also voted keep in the last AfD. I do question the extent to which privacy laws protect against the dissemination of photographs taken from a public sex-offender registry. In at least some jurisdictions, dissemination of such information is specifically exempted from privacy laws. Nevertheless, taking Uninvited Company at his word, with sympathy for Mr. Peppers, I'll vote Keep Deleted here. Xoloz 20:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete Unless you can argue that there is a legal issue, it was wrongfully deleted. It should be undeleted, and you can then continue the discussion in AFD. It is silly to argue the articles merits, when the majority of us cannot see it. Jonatan 21:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. I am somewhat reluctant since I did talk to UninvitedCompany and he claimed there was too much on the Misplaced Pages legal back burner and this needed to be done. But it seems more appropriate for us to have a AFD, especially considering all of the information present in the article was accurate and sourced. I do not feel it serves as a juvenile attack page. If anything, it serves to prevent such things from occuring by providing accurate facts about the man.--Aleron235 22:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Another AFD would be utterly pointless and get nobody anywhere in particular. The article has already gone through, what, six of them, five of which were delete and the sixth no-consensus? FCYTravis 22:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, unless the Wikimedia lawyers actually believe it to be a problem, in which case we should remove the possibly illegal portions. SNOPES has a fucking article on it - the legal argument is dubious at best. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted I have no reason to doubt User:UninvitedCompany's statement that the deletion was by family request, and it has historically been our stance that their privacy concern takes precedence over a minor article. Observing basic courtesy enhances the project and enables us to move on with self respect to create a better encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 22:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    Are you proposing we set a precedent to delete all pages (even if factually accurate) on a questionable public figure if someone e-mails Misplaced Pages claiming to be a family member of the subject of the article? Sounds like a new way for trolls to get articles deleted off Misplaced Pages. I'm sure there are hundreds if not thousands of like-pages that this could be done for. VegaDark 02:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    I don't think it would be a precedent. I'm sure we've pulled articles like this on request through OTRS--I may well have deleted one or two in this way myself. We're not robots, so it's unlikely that trolls would have much success using complaints as a tactic to get rid of good articles with which they have no personal connections. --Tony Sidaway 08:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    Yet the trolls seem to be having success here. As pointed out elsewhere, someone has recently been going around claiming to be a relative of Brian Peppers, which has then turned out to be a hoax. So Occam's Razor suggests that this request is bogus as well. Turnstep 12:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, as deletion policy does not trump privacy law, and there is a dubious argument for this person being a "public person" according to the legal definition (IANAL, though.) However, it would be nice for UninvitedCompany to tell us more of the background of this issue, if ethically possible. Titoxd 23:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, par Jonatan. --Bky1701 23:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • There is an excellent reason this page should remain deleted. It is this: I have deleted this page at the request of a family member of its subject. I do not believe that this page should be recreated without careful legal review. The subject does not appear to be a public figure. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC) See also . Regards ENCEPHALON 23:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, both per Tony and because I endorse UninvitedCompany's judgment on this. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Its resurrection after it had been deleted four times already was bad enough already. Pilatus 23:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • To be fair, the first delete was valid, but the next two were G4 speedies, not AFDs. It was later returned to AFD quite properly through a valid DRV, and its consequent vote was a sizeable majority for keep (far from a "close but no-consensus" vote, which I would have balked at overriding an earlier delete consensus). I'm ambivalent about this, and I would like something made clear before I make a final decision here: are we looking at keeping it deleted for legal reasons or as a courtesy? -R. fiend 23:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm pleased to see this go because this kind of stuff has the power to bring the project in disrepute. The article should never have been re-created. As I see it, you can defend obscenity in the name of an encyclopedia but not discourtesy. Pilatus gets of his soapbox now. Pilatus 00:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted Thank-you UninvitedCompany! --FloNight 23:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and keep protected from recreation. This person did not choose to become a public figure. Privacy requests are entirely reasonable and should be honored in such cases. Also keep deleted for all the reasons I (and others) presented in the prior discussions. There's just no encyclopedia article here - not in the latest version nor in any prior version. Rossami (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. The article was sourced and verifiable - he has an entry on Snopes. I think assuming good faith is fine in principle, but not when it comes to deleting an article that survived an AfD. How does UninvitedCompany know the person he spoke to was truly a family member? Even if so, why should that have any effect on us making a NPOV encylopedia? I seem to recall that recently some congressional staffers were caught removing text from articles on members of Congress that, while objectively true, presumably the Congresspeople did not want on the page. Should we extend a courtesy to them if they call an admin and ask that the material be deleted from the page? This page should either meet our guidelines, or it does not. And the previous AfD seems to indicate that it does meet our guidelines. Since I did not see the article show up here on DR, I an only assume that nobody felt strongly that the AfD was conducted improperly. Therefore, undelete. Raise an objection on the talk page, start another AfD with new information, but do not speedy delete. Turnstep 00:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete if snopes keeps an article on him with no fear of lawsuit, we can too. The meme has turned him into a public figure. Meme notwithstanding... he is still a public figure due to listings on a public sex offender registry. This should never have been given 5 afd's in such a short period, that smacks of WP:POINT. Overturn and cleanup drastically.  ALKIVAR™ 00:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Being on a sex offender registry does not necessarily make someone a public figure. "A fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate a person to public figure status. Typically, they must either be: a public figure, pervasively involved in public affairs, or a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination" is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public figure, which can be variously interpreted." There is nothing to suggest that Mr. Peppers would ever be ruled even a limited purpose public figure. Having a bunch of morons post your picture on forums does not make you an involuntary public figure, either. FCYTravis 01:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Undelete. The last revision I saw wasn't derogatory at all, but simply listing undisputable facts. This survived it's last AfD with a 44-21 vote in favor to keep, showing that the majority of people who voted feel this article should stay on Misplaced Pages. "Brian Peppers" gets 154,000 Google hits. As far as I know that qualifies as being notable, and thus qualifies him to have a Misplaced Pages article. Also, there used to be mainstream news links relating to this, but were deleted. This could probably be found on the web archive if one looked hard enough. This person was newsworthy after the meme came about. Preferably I'd like this reviewed by Jimbo and/or the board but until that happens I have to say that Misplaced Pages must include this article if we want our enycylopedia to be the best it can be. We have an article on Henry Earl whom is no more notable than Brian peppers. VegaDark 00:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Mr. Earl appears to have participated in his own fame, becoming at least a limited purpose public figure by virtue of his (obviously voluntary) appearances on talk shows and news channels. That is not the case for Mr. Peppers, who has never appeared on television, has never given an interview, and whose "fame" is entirely related to asshats posting his picture on the Internet and laughing at it. FCYTravis 01:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
And? I am not necessarily saying he falls into the public figure category. I am informing people of his notability, and feel the old article on him was not something Misplaced Pages could be sued over, as it stated facts alone. AFAIK Misplaced Pages can (and should) have articles on notable people, public figures or not. We just have to be more carful on what we say for those who aren't public figures. The latest revision of Brian Peppers' page was about as neutral and pure fact based as it can get.VegaDark 01:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not his fame is voluntary doesn't matter a single bit. Most serial killers probably never wanted to become famous. I'm sure Terri Schiavo wasn't voluntary, either.--Josh 04:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Peppers is not a serial killer, nor is he the focus of a major, precedent-setting legal case taken to the United States Supreme Court. Your attempts at comparison fail in every single possible way. FCYTravis 04:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and salt the earth behind it/protect from re-creation. Enough is enough. --Calton | Talk 01:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Brian Peppers has never sought publicity and his family has asked for privacy. Let's treat the man with the dignity he deserves, and obviously hasn't gotten. Durova 02:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Having a strange appearance is not a criterion for Misplaced Pages notability. And Misplaced Pages shouldn't be a party to the morally handicapped mocking the physically handicapped. Monicasdude 02:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and never, ever, ever create this page again. Thunderbunny 03:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Undelete. If Snopes.com has an article then Misplaced Pages should have an article about this infamous man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.174.32 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep deleted, as you might well imagine from my prior actions on this article. For the record, I have not yet received any reply from the individual who wrote to info-en@ and brought this matter to my attention in the first place. Though it's only been a day, I too am suspicious of their claim that they are a family member. I share this because it may incline some voters to see this matter in a different light, though I myself do not; derogatory information about a private figure remains unlawful (and inappropriate for Misplaced Pages independent of what the law might say) and that is the principal basis for my deletion. Others have already linked my prior comments on the talk page of the deleted article, which remain valid. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted - I have mixed feelings on this. Procedure-wise, there's a case of undeleting/relisting. But I think its damaging to allow this to appear on Misplaced Pages, even temporarily. Leaving this on, sets a really bad precident, not just for others on a registry, but for any private person who gets their picture passed around on web sites for looking peculiar. If mainstream media picked this up widely and substantially (hopefully they won't), and they turn him in to a public figure, then we might be stuck with an article on him. But they haven't, and we should ignore this like they do. --Rob 09:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Too many claims, not enough legal evidence. Notable for being a meme, not for being deformed. And as far as I can see, there's nothing derogatory here, and if there is, we can fix it. // paroxysm (n) 21:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You think the "meme" would exist if the guy looked like you or me? - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 22:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    No, and I don't see how this should affect my vote. We're documenting the meme because it itself is notable; Brian Peppers is not notable for being deformed. He's notable for being the subject of a popular meme because he's deformed.
    Likewise, there's nothing inherently notable about the phrase "Kilroy was here." Nevertheless, we document it because of the notability of its popularity. // paroxysm (n) 23:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I see a distinction in Misplaced Pages's guidelines for biographies of living persons. Durova 04:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
And I see a distinction in that Kilroy is remembered nearly a hundred years after it was first seen, whereas there is little verifiable evidence of Peppers' story being taken up by any mainstream media. He's a disabled guy with a congenital deformity convicted of a technical offence because he touched up his nurse. I'm not given to quoting scripture but this calls to mind proverbs 1:26: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh. I hold no brief for convicted sex offenders, but I really think that this amounts to kicking a guy when he's down, and I don't see that we should be taking any part of it. Anyone who wants the information can get it readily from other sources. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 10:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's Misplaced Pages policy for "Anyone who wants the information can get it readily from other sources" just because someone feels sorry for the subject of the article. I feel sorry for him as well, but I think Misplaced Pages having an article on him will actually better his situation- Many times his picture comes along with "You're gonna get raped" or "child molestor" etc. etc. I think Misplaced Pages having an unbiased, NPOV non degrading article on him listing facts alone is for the better for him and for Misplaced Pages. People should be able to come here and find out that those are false accusations instead of seeing a "this article has been deleted" message and keep their misconceptions about him. I know I first came to Misplaced Pages to look him up, and was happy to find an article on him. I hope others will get that same chance instead of seeing a "this article has been deleted" message. VegaDark 05:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's a fair compromise: Undelete, edit down, and merge/redirect to a list of popular Internet Memes. That way, his contributions to popular culture are archived, but he doesn't get his own (derogatory) article. I won't take sides in this one, since there is already a war going on, I believe an article about him would be offensive, but I am also a reader of YTMND. Crazyswordsman 05:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I would agree to that, all other then the "edit down" part. The debate going on before the deletion was if more should be added, it seems unnecessary and unreasonable to edit it down given that. If anything, some small things should be removed and other notes should be added and it should be merged and redirected. --Bky1701 08:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, and unilaterally burninate any more users trying to resurrect this article. Ral315 (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Undelete, i think the post above me proves that if Trogdor the Burninator gets his own wiki aritcle, then this popular internet meme should be allowed its own. the attempt to delete this article from is flagrant wikipedia censorship of a topic that makes some people uncomfortable. sparsefarce 11:04am, 9 feb 2006 (PT)
  • Undelete per Jonatan. Gene Nygaard 19:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong undelete. Unilateral deletion should never occur under such circumstances. This should have been relisted on AfD and the legal issue discussed. The fact that family members requested its deletion is in and of itself irrelevant. Allowing this to stand sets an awful precedent. Postdlf 02:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Um, yeah, without changing my opinion about deleting based on family requests, I just noticed how many times this had been validly AFD'd (I have a fever right now, please forgive the illness-induced carelessness). Keep deleted only as a recreation of previously deleted material. The last AfD should have been aborted at the outset because no undeletion consensus had first been reached (from what I can see); I believe that AfD accordingly lacked "jurisdiction." Postdlf 02:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
This first went through AfD with a consensus to delete, right when the meme was new and was not notable enough for Misplaced Pages. It went through 3 AfD's after that, which all ended up as a speedy delete due to a re-creation of previosuly deleted content - not due to people voting. It's latest AfD (December) was officially declared no consensus, yet there was a 44-21 vote in favor to keep, enough for the admin to have officially declared keep. Don't you think that says something? Also, we are going through an undeletion process right now- not an AfD. If you think the article should be kept or deleted, you should just say why here. If we kept it undeleted based on it being recreation of deleted material, we would have to submit another deletion review for Brian Peppers to be ruled as something worthy of undeletion- hence you might as well just state your opinion now. VegaDark 02:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The original AfD was valid. I've seen no reason to question that. Postdlf 03:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
You can't just pick *one* of the AfDs - the latest one always trumps the others. And as I pointed out above, it's not like anyone brought the latest AfD here to DR. Turnstep 04:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong undelete. He's famous, and often referenced to online. People who see all the talk of Brian Peppers and do not understand should be able to come here and find out. He definitely has significance. Most, importantly, this person has already been the victim of someone pretending to be his brother. A man claiming to be "Allen Peppers" posted a dishonest letter asking people to leave Brian alone. Therefore, my guess is that the person who requested that this article be deleted was probably not related to the subject in any way. Someone unrelated to Brian probably did this out of sympathy towards him, (likely caused by the "Truth About Brian Peppers" YTMND, which ironically made him even more noteworthy,) or someone who found humor in the idea of pretending to be Peppers' brother, like "Allen" before him.--Josh 04:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I hate to break it to you, but this guy isn't "famous." He's a target of derision, mockery and laughter from infantile, puerile teenagers on teh intarweb. That doesn't make him "famous." FCYTravis 04:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
This "intarweb" you're mocking is what you're spending your time on right now, jackass. You're not the only one, either. An enormous percent of the world spends time on the Internet every day, and Brian Peppers is very well known on it. He's even been featured in mass media, in a story by FOX Toledo. Someone covered on that scale, who is known of by at least a quarter-million people, is undeniably notable. To deny his notability just because you think people are mean would be straight-up dishonest.
--Josh 07:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 14:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Dude, you have a massively inflated view of what the Internet is and what it isn't. Teh intarweb is not the world. In fact, it is only a very bare tiny percent of the world. Look outside your bedroom window. Get outside. Walk around. Talk to people. Real people who don't spend their pathetic lives on some silly "humor" site mocking some guy who bears the cross of some sort of disfiguring birth defect. Go to the supermarket. Ask 100 people who Brian Peppers is. If you're lucky, you'll find one. Maybe. Getting coverage by "FOX Toledo" is ridiculously simple. TV news is always looking for some sensationalistic tabloid trash. Yet that's THE ONLY media hit you can point to. That's pathetic. Utterly pathetic. I'll leave you with this. Last year, a national sports car magazine with a circulation of more than 70,000 ran a full-page feature article on me. I'm still not notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article. Call me back when Brian Peppers hits Newsweek or The New York Times or even FOX News Channel. I'd even count Salon.com. But see, they aren't covering it. Why? There's *no story* here. None. Zip. Zilch. Just the fact that some poor guy got nailed for some minor sex crime and got put on probation, and some "jackass," to use your word, found his picture and went LOL LOL HEZ ULGY LOL SEX MOLESTSAR ZOMG ROFL and posted it on some more Internet boards where more groupthink mental midgets laughed at it. That's not newsworthy. That's not encyclopedic. That's just sad. FCYTravis 09:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm torn on this one...normally, I'd say the guy meets a minimum notability standard for inclusion, but at the same time, I feel kinda bad for the guy. In the end, I'm going to have to say undelete it. His Misplaced Pages article is not going to have anything except neutral, notable and fully verifiable information. I feel the odds of a significant number of people wanting to read an article on Peppers are pretty high, given the level of internet fame he has acquired, and the desire to provide the information in that instance is probably the most important thing here. Everyking 08:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete - This one should be a no-brainer. We have no verifiable evidence regarding this claim that the family members want the article deleted; and even if they did, so what? There's a lot of information on Misplaced Pages some people don't want to see the light of day (see the U.S. Congress's editing of various articles for further details), but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be around. This page certainly doesn't meet speedy deletion criteria. If you want to undelete it and then relist it for AfD (again) then go ahead. But this page certainly didn't merit speedy deletion like that. --Cyde Weys 21:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - Forget about the previous five AfDs; how about the rationale for creating the article in the first place? This basically boils down to "Hey look, we've got a picture of a really deformed guy; let's gin up a reason to humiliate him more than he already has been by the Internet community just for the hell of it." Brian Peppers has done nothing of notability. Nothing. Maybe it's time to start a policy discussion about creating a "basic humanitarian decency" criterion for speedy deletes? --Aaron 22:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I would support that. I guess that the Interweb is so pervasive and so much a part of determining what is verifiable and significant in the real world that we kind of forget that it is the real world we're supposed to be documenting. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 23:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion for broader discussion as this was deleted outside of process. If a law is being violated by allowing this material on Misplaced Pages, please cite the law and I will reconsider my vote. Best regards, Hall Monitor 23:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Undelete People (thank God) dont apply the same reasoning to other internet memes so in my opinion people only want this deleted because they feel sorry for him (understandable) and want to vent out their anger by having the page deleted. It get's aroung 80,000 hits on google for Christ's sake I think it would be notable Johhny-turbo 00:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. This deletion defies both process and common sense. Silensor 00:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Enough, please, of the misleading "He gets 15 zillion Google hits!" argument. If you remove the dozens of YTMND pages about him, he gets exactly 516 unique Google hits, and the last 20 or so of those are nothing but porno spam pages that inserted his name randomly. He's non-notable. --Aaron 00:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Well Microsoft gets 436 uniques. So, 516 isn't that bad. So, the unique count is about as worthless as the total hit count. --Rob 00:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and Comment Thanks, User:Thivierr, for saving me the hassle of pointing out why unique google hits don't mean anything here. Look, it's unfortunate that this fellow is mocked by some, unfortunate that he's ridiculed, unfortunate that his family has to deal with this. But the standard here is -- he's a public figure. If I were writing something up for the paper, I'd have no compunctions about mentioning his name, and we cannot set a precedent for the disinclusion of information just because someone objects to it. What about Daniel Brandt? Boris Floricic? Why do we do for Brian Peppers, but not for them? Show consistency, and don't put us in awkward positions by semi-randomly deleting content by request. User:Adrian/zap2.js 01:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Nobody has demonstrated why this man is a public figure. He has not been the subject of any public controversy. He has not injected himself into the public square. He has not been featured in any major mass media. He's an object of derision on an Internet humor site. That does *not* make him a public figure under the law. The other two people you cited have both been repeatedly the subject of reporting by major mainstream media outlets, including television, newsmagazines, newspapers and even books. The only thing that can be pointed to for this guy is one two-paragraph blurb on a local TV station Web site, and a Snopes entry. That's *it.* That is all. If someone wanted to write something on this for The Advocate, as a senior editor I'd circular-file that "story idea" in 10 seconds flat. There's a little something called journalistic ethics that precludes us from making a mockery of someone for no other reason than to be insensitive and depraved. This deletion is one small victory for culture and class over the juvenile schoolyard antics of immature idiots. FCYTravis 01:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm almost as surprised that you'd argue that Mr. Peppers is not a public figure as I am that you'd imply that the only way Mr. Peppers can be covered is by abandoning journalistic ethics. If we want to go for the misguided sympathy factor on this, then I invite you to consider the following: There are thousands of sites that mention Mr. Peppers. How many of them do you think will ever get updated if he does something good, notable, or respectable? One. Misplaced Pages. Otherwise, for the rest of his life, he's just that goofy guy from the photo. That's all. Deciding this by your sympathy doesn't help Misplaced Pages, and it doesn't help Peppers. I'm at a loss as to what good deletion would do. Ultimately, deletion, if upheld, would be a victory for the same tear-jerking appeals to emotion that sour much of mass media. User:Adrian/zap2.js 02:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Deletion means we don't repeat this nonsensical and asinine 'fad' and allow it to die a natural death as the people who laugh at this poor schlub grow out of their infantile amusement. BTW, how can you argue that Peppers *is* a public figure? Can you please point to the coverage? Anything? Bueller? Bueller? If this guy's truly a public figure, surely there's more out there than a now-deleted blurb on FOX Toledo and a Snopes entry. So where's the beef? Oh, that's right. There isn't any. This isn't an appeal to emotion. It's an appeal to reason and ethics. FCYTravis 02:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how I could argue otherwise. He's quite evidently an involuntary, limited-purpose, deeply-unfortunate public figure, based on extensive rehashing of his case in the public eye. Or did you mean that only the media can create public figures? That'd be a bit elitist of us as journalists, no? As for laughing at Mr. Peppers, I think you do a disservice to Misplaced Pages. I think it can handle this topic without cruelty or malice, and paint Peppers for what he is -- an unfortunate man, who's made mistakes, and still has a life ahead of him. I firmly believe deleting his entry is unethical. It deprives him of the one online resource that might keep track of any positive achievements of his, and says, basically, that we're going to sweep him under the rug, that we see him as so deeply pathetic that he's unsuitable for coverage. That isn't reasonable *or* ethical. User:Adrian/zap2.js 02:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • How can I argue otherwise? The fact that *virtually nothing* has been said about this person anywhere outside juvenile morons laughing at his appearance on blogs and Web forums. Being laughed at does not make one a public figure. No reporting outside of that, at all. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Zip. I keep waiting for someone to show me some evidence of notability other than juvenile morons laughing at him. Nobody's presented any. We don't know that Peppers is an unfortunate man. We don't know what mistakes he's made. We don't know what his life is like or what it will be. Therefore, we at Misplaced Pages cannot say any of that. The only verifiable fact here is that he's some guy who got laughed at on the Internet, and I'll be damned if everything anyone ever laughed at on the Internet is encyclopedic. FCYTravis 02:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Your assertions are incorrect on at least two counts. The man's had legal and medical misfortune; this much is established. He's made mistakes, per the rulings of the courts. If your issue is the lack of detail, we don't delete articles because detail isn't present, we develop them. Would you like this researched? We can always bring it back to DRV if I find anything worth publishing in a WP:NOT-worthy periodical. It'd make a fantastic human-interest piece. User:Adrian/zap2.js 02:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. He is an odd-looking sex offender; this shouldn't qualify one for a Misplaced Pages article. We should respect his family's wishes. Rhobite 02:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Compromise per Crazyswordsman (ie, cleanup, and merge/redirect to a list of popular Internet Memes). He clearly is notable, but I also feel we should respect the wishes of him and his family. Then again, we didn't do that for Daniel Brandt... --Blu Aardvark | 05:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Undelete Hes notible. Its his own fault if he does not want a page... No one forced him down the road he took. Jwissick 06:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • He is distinctly not notable for anything that he did. He is only notable for his appearance. --

Hamiltonian 21:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

He is notable for being the subject of a notable internet meme, which was directly related to his appearance and the fact that he is a sex offender. However, the reason for notability is irrelevant, as long as notability is recognized he should have an article on Misplaced Pages. VegaDark 22:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete Without the ability to view the page that was deleted I can only comment on what I know. Editors, and even sysops, should not be the point of contact for the legal status of an article, very few of us are lawyers, and those that are do not represent Wikipeida (afaik). Misplaced Pages was not sued or even threated legally by Mr. Peppers. If this were to happen we would hear about it and the decision would not me one the editors of Misplaced Pages would be making, it would be up to the board. I am voting undelete because a precedence for an article being deleted based on legal dealings with an editor would be a very poor one to set. —A 11:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, wikipedia articles should not be deleted this way, and he is notable enough. bbx 13:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion and sow fields with salt. And may I say I sympathise with whatever poor closing Admin has to sort through this mess, you have my sincere appreciation. KillerChihuahua 23:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Leave it Deleted. I'm not seeing the need for this page. Also, the closing admin may want to note the vote-solicitation going on here. -Colin Kimbrell 07:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. This is absurd. I don't believe Brian Peppers' notability can be seriously debated. He has his own article on Snopes, for crying out loud. And if a person is notable, I see absolutely no provision for us to delete an article on that person. If the article was hateful, exploitative, or POV, then it should be rewritten, NOT deleted. The wishes of the subject himself or his family are largely irrelevant. The article on Uri Geller isn't very complimentary, and yet I don't recall anyone asking the man whether he wanted an article. Furthermore (and perhaps most importantly), the article was removed unilaterally, and against process. This is unacceptable. --Ashenai 20:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Once again, specious comparisons. Uri Geller has been the subject of major mass media coverage for his outlandish claims. I am still waiting for someone, anyone to point me to a single major mass media discussion of Mr. Peppers. Nothing? Yeah, that's what I thought. FCYTravis 21:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The comparison was not specious; it was meant to address the mistaken belief that the subject of an article has to be okay with it. I'm not aware of any notability guidelines that say that the subject of an article has to have been the subject of major mass media coverage. Barbara Schwarz and Ashida Kim would both fail your proposed test, yet the community has affirmed their noteworthiness several times. --Ashenai 21:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Did you read either of those articles? Barbara Schwarz was reported on in the Salt Lake Tribune, a major-market newspaper, as having filed more FOIA requests than any other person, and Ashida Kim is a repeatedly-published author of notable books. FCYTravis 22:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Good point re: Schwarz. Regarding Ashida Kim, however, I feel there's some goalpost-moving going on. So persons without major media coverage are not notable... wait, unless they published books, then they are. Any other super sekret guidelines I should know about? Why is the Google test, plus the fact that he has an article on Snopes, not sufficient? --Ashenai 22:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The guidelines are not "super sekret" - they're all right there in WP:BIO. "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more" are generally considered notable. The Google test and the "Snopes" article fail to take into account that this is a living person who is not a public figure, and thus has a general claim to privacy. Being a sex offender is not notable. Being laughed at on the Internet by people is not notable. The fact that he is a sex offender who people laughed at is, thus, unencyclopedic. FCYTravis 22:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
"This is not intended to be an exclusionary list. Just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." Neither the Google test nor Snopes is "being laughed at on the Internet". Furthermore, why is being laughed at on the Internet non-notable, if enough people do it? --Ashenai 22:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Whatever "higher authority" may consider this should be mindful that if we delete this guy, essentially on request, it'll be a minor miracle if Daniel Brandt or someone like him doesn't litigate. User:Adrian/zap2.js 01:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the Bible

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Bible

Discussion was closed, concluding "no consensus." I count 24 votes for deletion, 3 weak deletes, 5 redirects, 1 to merge, and 5 keeps. It seems to me there is a very clear consensus that this article should be deleted and any valuable content merged into one or more other articles. --Leifern 16:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It has been redirected now. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Wait a minute. Now you've changed the title of the article in your nomination. What article and specifically what AFD discussion are you requesting that we review? Rossami (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Ahh... Simultaneous nominations. Now sorted out. Please post the link to the AFD discussion directly when making the nomination.
  • This reflects a basic misunderstanding of how AfD works. I'm reposting a message I've already sent to two other people who asked me about this:
    AfD is not a vote.
    When votecounters try to impose their rigid definition of consensus on AfD, the minimum standard is 2/3rds or 66%.
    Delete, merge, and redirect are three different outcomes; if there is no consensus, the solution is for the AfD participants to hash out a consensus (whether to merge or redirect or resubmit to AfD) on the talk.
    In addition, merging and deleting is illegal under the GFDL, which requires the page history to be retained if the content is retained. VOTECOUNTING IS BAD so I find it ridiculous that this is being brought up. Johnleemk | Talk 16:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and DRV is for reviewing deletions only; that's why exists (users can't see the content of deleted articles, so they need to request admins on DRV to undelete them). Anything else can be handled by resubmitting to AfD or discussion on the talk page. Johnleemk | Talk 17:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You think it's ridiculous? Reading the guidelines on deletion, it is pretty apparent that your duty as the admin is to summarize your findings and determine a course of action. In this regard, you have pretty plainly been negligent. It seems that a rough consensus has been achieved - there are only 5 who want to keep it as it is, and 32 to get rid of it one way or another. By your standard, no article would ever be deleted as long as some group of people want to keep it. That is plainly not the case. --Leifern 17:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Surprise, surprise — this is the standard most AfD-closing admins adhere to. This is not a process worked out overnight; on a Wiki, there is no consensus if a group of people strongly oppose a particular decision. (If I make an edit you don't like, but you don't revert it, there's consensus — if you revert it, there's no consensus. That's how consensus is defined on a wiki.) It is not my job to make a decision if a large number of people have reviewed a particular article and cannot come to consensus on what to do with it. No consensus is no consensus. It is not an endorsement or a disendorsement of a particular outcome, and defaults to keep unless the admin (in an editorial capacity) decides to merge and/or redirect. Ask pretty much any regular AfD closer (MarkGallagher (talk · contribs), The Land (talk · contribs), Splash (talk · contribs), et al) and they'll tell you the same thing. Johnleemk | Talk 17:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I dunno, I read the relevant guidelines, and what I read is a call for rough consensus not absolute consensus. If I rounded up three other editors and worked together on an article called Why everyone from Sunnmøre has bad breath, (an absurd, non-noteworthy, blatantly POV, rhetorically fallacious article) we'd probably get 300 "votes" to delete within a few minutes, and I somehow doubt that we as a group who opposed the deletion would get our way. Nor should we. --Leifern 17:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure (no consensus). --Kbdank71 17:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If the numbers given at the top are accurate, and I haven't checked to see if they are (and I have noticed in manmy of these reviews that they are not), we have 27 delete votes and 11 non-deletes. That's a rough consensus to delete in the eyes of most admins. I now it's not supposed to be a vote, but somehow it always comes down to a vote count anyway. And the idea that "there is no consensus if a group of people strongly oppose a particular decision" is just not true. There is almost always some sort of small minority who oppose anything, they don't trump everyone else. But in any case keep redirected and if anything is to be merged it should be a content dispute at the target page. -R. fiend 20:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close - but keep redirected (and I voted to delete) --Doc 20:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close as correctly-made decision, and concur with Johnleemk (talk · contribs)'s comments above. Support his redirect and reasoning as proper organic editing practice. -- Jonel | Speak 21:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Count me in on the "endorse redirect" bandwagon, although there's a pretty clear consensus that the article should have been deleted first and then recreated as a redirect. Tomer 22:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • A comment on merging and deleting is illegal under the GFDL - this action can be made GFDL comliant, it's just a pain. - brenneman 00:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, and AfD is not a vote. If all you have to say for yourself is the vote tally, your argument is far too weak. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in the Bible

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Inconsistencies in the Bible

Discussion was closed, concluding "no consensus." I count 26 votes for deletion, 4 to keep, and 10 to merge. It seems to me there is a very clear consensus that this article should be deleted and any valuable content merged into one or more other articles. --Leifern 16:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • It seems like a clear consensus to delete. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • (edit conflicts) I'm not sure how you tallied that or who you think should have been excluded. A cursory review gave me a tally of 28 deletes, 11 merges (with redirect specified or implied), 2 redirect only and 3 keep as is. That certainly seems to be within reasonable discretion for the closer to consider this a "no consensus" decision. Good arguments were made during the discussion but votes continued to come in on both side, indicating that the subsequent participants did not find one side's arguments onerwhelmingly compelling. I endorse the closure (leave as no consensus). Rossami (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • See above. Johnleemk | Talk 16:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep. Just boldly merge, that fits the bill. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / 17:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure (no consensus). --Kbdank71 17:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Clear consensus is to get rid of the article, either as a complete Delete or as an attempt to find any redeemable portions and Merge elsewhere. Let's follow consensus, schedule the article for deletion, and let those in favor of a Merge pull out any non-duplicated material and put it elsewhere. Why keep the article in the face of such overwhelming consenus for elimination. We've voted to kill this article; the only question is the method. Alansohn 17:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You don't need DRV for this, as I said. There's a little thing called the talk page, you know. Or you could just be bold or something. But I forgot. Misplaced Pages is about process, not editing! Johnleemk | Talk 17:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • There wasn't a quorum for full deletion. If you want to merge the article, you don't need DRV to do that. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I just boldly redirected it. Anything that anyone wants to merge can be pulled out of the edit history by anyone at any time. There was an obvious consensus not to keep the article, so keeping it as is should be out of the question. Unfortunately, there are always a few confused souls who think that a no consensus means that the article must stay as is. Since that is complete and utter BS, this redirect should at least partially solve the prpblem. This argument can now contimue as a content dispute over at Internal consistency and the Bible. -R. fiend 18:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Like most other people here: Yes, there is probably a consensus to merge it. However, there was not a clear consensus to delete the article. 'Endorse the closer's decision. The Land
  • Endorse close but redirect/merge (and I voted to delete) --Doc 20:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close as obviously correct. AfD discussion suggests that mergeing would be the best outcome, but discussion may continue of the talk page. --- Charles Stewart 20:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close as correctly-made decision, and concur with Johnleemk (talk · contribs)'s comments above. Support R. fiend (talk · contribs)'s redirect and reasoning as proper organic editing practice. -- Jonel | Speak 21:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Reserve my spot on the closure endorsement, although my judgment would have been to have said quite clearly that the consensus was to merge and delete (possibly redirect), rather than that there is no consensus. I would like to encourage Johnleemk to read comments accompanying votes more carefully when making decisions of this sort in the future. It's also a good idea to ask a couple other uninvolved admins when closing contentious AfDs and the like. It may seem like a pain in the hinder, but it can go a long way toward reducing future hinderpains. Tomer 22:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - From Misplaced Pages:Merging and moving pages: "Merging should always leave a redirect in place." Merge and delete causes GFDL problems. Having read the comments, I would say that those saying merge did indeed have the strongest arguments; however, given the number of those recommending deletion and noting that they have valid issues, as well as those recommending keeping or redirecting, I would say that there is no consensus and that John made the right call. -- Jonel | Speak 02:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I fail to understand the point you're trying to make. Merging the miniscule amount of decent information and then deleting the crap content (by getting rid of the article) and thereafter recreating the article as a redirect do the article into which the useful content has been merged is what I mean by "merge and delete". The "possibly redirect" was meant as "possibly redirect without deleting first, after the content has been merged". That said, I wasn't "revoting", I was simply saying that I think that Johnleemk's interpretation of "no consensus" was in error, and saying what I would have said the consensus was instead. Tomer 06:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment on "merge and delete": The scenario you describe violates the requirement in GFDL to preserve the attribution history of whatever usable information which you did choose to merge. We normally satisfy the attribution requirement by not deleting the history and by leaving a redirect behind. Yes, there are other ways to satisfy the attribution requirement but they are all tedious, complex and error-prone. That's why many of us take the default position that "merge and delete" is an invalid recommendation (or at least not a cost-effective one). Rossami (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
          • That can be worked around by deleting and restoring only the useful edits, and then blanking in favor of a redirect. Tomer 20:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
            • comment continues: For all but the shortest of edit histories, investigating a page's history edit by edit and restoring "only the useful edits" is a great example of "possible but tedious, complex and error-prone". If you have time and the inclination to do that kind of work, more power to you. I think, however, that as a general rule, that is not a reasonable expectation on a volunteer discussion closer. Unless someone explicitly volunteers to come back and do that work him/herself after the discussion is closed, I will continue to interpret "merge and delete" as an incompatible opinion. Rossami (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Reopened by howcheng. Aaron 18:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Ted's_Kiddush

I believe this article should not have been speedy deleted. The reason User:Jon513 offered for his deletion suggestion was that he lives in Jerusalem and has never heard of the club. This is not a valid reason. I too live in Jerusalem and can confirm that the club is very real, and in fact has an active mailing list. User:Listedit25 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There were three votes for deletion and none to keep it. Valid AfD discussion. Keep deleted. User:Zoe| 17:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anti-vaccinationists

was closed prior to the 5-day period. I am requesting that the question be kept open for the regular period. A number of comments have been made about the future of the article beyond the keep and delete votes, and nobody has summarized them yet. I will certainly accept the results of the vote; I am simply asking that it not be a speedy keep. As it is, the vote tally is 5 clear deletes, 1 anonymous delete, 10 clear keeps, 3 keeps with comments, and 3 comments. To me this is not an overwhelming consensus, and people obviously have a lot to say about the article. I should also point out that when I protested against the premature closing, I was threatened with blocking. I do not think that asking for a process to run its course is unreasonable. --Leifern 15:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Sigh. This had run for several days, and a clear consensus had emerged to keep the article. Worse, it had turned into a slug-fest with people accusing other people of bad faith, puppetry, etc, so I invoked Misplaced Pages:Deletion_policy#Early_closings. It was also clear that while people felt the article should not be deleted, they also felt that it needed drastic cleanup, and it appeared from the history and talk pages, that said cleanup was already underway. Since things were already going in the right direction, I didn't see what good would come from letting the brawl continue for another couple of days. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If the early close is contested in good faith (and the request above certainly seems to qualify) then almost by definition there was not the required "clear consensus". The standard necessary for early closing is virtual unanimity and even that has been controversial at times. The fact that the discussion has degenerated is, unfortunately, not enough reason to close the discussion early. Beg people to be more civil in the discussion but let the discussion run its course. By the way, it looks like the AFD discussion only had another 24 hours to go so the early closure seems to have backfired and is now extending rather than shortening the controversy. Rossami (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure doesn't look like a "clear consensus" to me, especially if it would only have taken two or three more delete votes to change that consensus. It should not have been closed early, let it run its course. User:Zoe| 17:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I counted 17 Keep to 4 Delete. I just went back and recounted and came up with the same sums. How do you get "two or three more delete votes to change that consensus" from that? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm involved in two debates on this page today, one in which an admin is arguing that consensus has to be absolutely overwhelming to be called for purposes of deletion; another in which another admin is arguing that a weak consensus is adequate to close a discussion. In both cases, we are dealing with admins who feel that their judgment is the determining factor. I think that if there is a bias to keep articles in one case, the same bias should apply for keeping the discussion going. Just my $.02, but maybe the admins who proclaim themselves judge and jury on the process for deletion should discuss among themselves rather than try to preach to us lowly editors. --Leifern 19:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
        • If I'm looking at the same two discussions, the difference is between a regular close (at the end of the 5-day discussion period and which requires only "rough consensus") and an early close (which requires "clear consensus" and which has been interpreted as a much higher standard). Failure to qualify for "clear consensus" only means that discussion continues until the 5-day period runs out. The 5-day rule is a practical compromise set to ensure that the system doesn't get completely stalled. If you're looking at something else, though, please send a specific question to my Talk page and I'll try to help. Rossami (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Looking through the discussion, it looks like a keep consensus to me (not a "no consensus: default to keep", but an actual consensus to keep, which is actually kind of rare). Unless someone can point out that most of those votes are sockpuppets (I didn't recognize a bunch of the names, but nothing made me suspicious of them, and I didn't check their edit histories) I don't see any harm in closing this after 4 days instead of 5 when the result was so obvious, and the discussion was just dragging on and on. endorse closure. -R. fiend 18:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure I'm with R. fiend here. While there is some dispute, the harm in reducing from 5-days to 4-days a debate which was 17k-4d is de minimis. Especially considering the article might as always be AfD'ed again, after a reasonable time, there is no reason to reopen immediately a debate that had become somewhat heated. Xoloz 20:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see any point in attempting early closures in cases where there is any significant dispute. Let them run their course. The article has a big, conspicuous "deletion" tag on it, no reader is going to be in any doubt about its status. It's one thing when you have a borderline CSD that gets eight deletes and no keeps in two days... or a borderline vanity page that gets a solid string of deletes and the author of the page asks that the page be deleted (to spare him further embarrassment, although they don't usually put it that way). I sometimes think "when in doubt, don't delete" is taken to an extreme, but certainly "when there's any serious doubt, don't attempt an early close." Dpbsmith (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - it appears that the premature close was allowed to stand. I'm just curious: is there something like precedence here? Does this mean that we can close a discussion whenever we like the way the votes are going, provided there's lots of debate about it? This is the only conclusion we can draw from this decision. Congratulations. --Leifern 02:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • As Xoloz says, I'd say it was interpreted as a de minimis case of an error in judgement by the speedy closing admin. The outcome–keeping the article–wasn't in doubt, as you acknowledged: . An extra day on AfD wouldn't have materially affected the outcome, so give RoySmith a little slap on the wrists for jumping the gun and move on. Short of a change in the deletion policy, I would discourage other admins from closing contested AfDs early–even when the outcome is a clear keep–but there's no point to doing anything further with this article. Everybody agrees that the outcome we've achieved (the article is to be kept) is the one that the process would have generated had policy been followed to the letter; the spirit of the process hasn't been frustrated. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I accept my wrist-slap, and in the best tradition of Bart's chalkboard gags on The Simpsons, I hereby atone for my sin against wiki-process:
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
        • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.

-- RoySmith (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


4 February 2006

Template:Commonsgallery

Despite its TfD discussion attracting 3 votes for delete and 4 keeps, plus a keep from an anon who has a few non-project contributions, User:MarkSweep closed the discussion as a delete on the grounds that "The result of the debate was better arguments for deletion than for keeping it." I dispute this decision on two grounds:

  1. That is not the admin's call; the deletion discussions may not be votes, but closing admins are, as far as I've gathered from my experience on AfD, not court judges, there to decide which side 'won'; they are there to decide what the community thinks. It renders the whole 'discussion' thing slightly pointless otherwise.
  2. Even if I'm wrong on the above point, MarkSweep's decision that there were better arguments for deletion is still extremely shaky IMO. None of the delete voters ever tried to argue the counterpoints the keep voters made against their arguments. These arguments included the fact that the template supposedly advertised for Olympus (it had a picture of a camera, far too small to make out the model). --Malthusian (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • As the closing admin, let me explain my reasoning in more detail. First, we'll have to discount one keep "vote" from an anon. Second, Nickj is using his "vote" as a vehicle for something unrelated, namely improving or changing Template:Commons. Nickj wrote: "That's why my vote is "keep", and it will continue to be "keep" until such time as Template:commons is improved." That's not a reason to keep Template:Commonsgallery. You don't go about changing Template:Commons by forking it and then voting to keep when the fork is nominated for deletion. Third, "Keep, useful template" by Ryan Delaney is fine, but it's not a relevant argument: Template:Commonsgallery was nominated here because it was a fork of an already existing maintenance template: and precisely because it is a fork of a useful template, it is of course useful, but that's not what this debate was seeking to establish. Fourth, there were three delete votes (by Netoholic, Petaholmes, and Phil Boswell) arguing that template forks are bad. The two serious votes in favor of keeping never properly addressed why the forked templates is needed. I completely ignored the bit about the Olympus ad as tangential to the discussion. Fifth, even if we regard the outcome of this debate as "no consensus", it makes no sense to default to keep in the Template namespace: templates, unlike articles, are tools which facilitate and enable; they should only be kept when they are truly needed. As I've said in my comments when I closed this discussion, I was much more swayed by the arguments for deletion, and in the end this is a discussion, not a vote. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - on the principle that forks are bad. FCYTravis 20:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Mark seems to be under the impression that the people behind the template have not bothered to explain what it is for, which is false: it has been extensively explained at Template_talk:Commons and the TfD. Briefly (I don't know why I'm bothering as I thought DRV was about process and not content, but FCYTravis has indicated otherwise): some of us believe the links to Commons galleries would look better if accompanied by a picture explaining what it was going to (e.g. a camera for a gallery of pictures). No-one's yet tried to claim otherwise, the only argument for deletion that's been put forward has been 'standardisation and maintenance'.
  • I don't see how this was a 'fork' any more than {{test-n}} is a fork of {{test}}. Both do the same thing, but {{test-n}} does it slightly better in a certain context. Same with this. I admit that the name of the template does scream 'fork', being a redundancy; that was a mistake on my part. I was expecting to move the template to {{commonsimage}} as soon as the TfD was closed. --Malthusian (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Moreover, I'm not going to reply to MarkSweep's responses to why he discounted most of the votes on one side one by one (I've already explained why the 'serious voters' had, in fact, "properly addressed why the forked templates is needed"). But I will say that I think that if the arguments of a certain 'side' in a discussion are weak, it should be explained why they are weak at the time, rather than the closing admin waiting for the discussion period to end, discounting them, then waiting for someone to bring the TfD to DRV to explain why they were weak enough for the editors' opinions to be ignored. If nothing else it would save time. --Malthusian (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • TfD is a debate about the merits of templates. Rather than talking about "sides" one should talk about the outcomes of that debate and the arguments advanced in favor of them. If I see a weak argument or an argument that does not even address the central question of the debate, I call it as I see it. As for commenting on the merits of the various arugments before closing the debate: what do you want me to do? I didn't even know of this particular debate until I started to do my share in trying to clear out the TfD backlog. And if I had been aware of it and commented on it earlier, I wouldn't be in a position to close it. And by the way, I wasn't waiting for someone to bring this here. If you're only interested in saving time, then let it go and work on changing Template:Commons through the customary channels. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
      • *sigh* I'm going to have to surrender on any further discussion - I tried to reply to Mark's last post but couldn't manage to string three separate counterpoints together in a way that made any sense. I'm just going to say that I used the word 'side' in the sense of 'those who voted one particular way', not 'side' in the sense of 'cabal'. I think it would be worthwhile to have more illustrative {{commons}} templates, but if it gets shot down, well, c'est la vie. If I die in my sleep tonight and St Peter asks me 'And how did you spend your life?' I don't want to have to tell him that my last night was spent fighting a rearguard action over diversifying a Misplaced Pages template. --Malthusian (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted — MarkSweep is surely right in both principle and detail. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have forked templates many times, as it is sometimes the only way to switch over from one design to another. I was not aware the cabal disapproved of it. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Mel Etitis. --Kbdank71 05:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. The fact that {{commons}} is seemingly perma-protected pushed me over the edge. If one cannot edit the template without going through various bureaucracy (requesting unprotection and hoping that succeeds, or getting consensus on the talk page - so much for being bold!), then forking may be the best option. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. MarkSweep's repeated violations of deletion process are becoming more and more disruptive. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. - How can you can get an result of 5 to keep, and 3 to delete, and decide that "delete" is the right outcome? It makes a complete and total mockery of the concept of consensus. Secondly, for Mark Sweep's "reasoning" that he can disregard my vote, and the votes of others: I wasn't aware that we had ceded complete dictatorial powers to Mark Sweep, so if someone could point to the relevant official wiki guideline outlining his new overlord status, that would be super, thanks. Third, I note that none of the votes to delete were disregarded, so it's good to see that the fine example of Florida lives on! Fourth, the reasons for changing this were outlined extensively on the Commons talk page, and have still not been addressed. Fifth, the commons template is still protected - so, given that anything related get deleted, and the originally seems to be permanently protected, how, exactly, is anything about these templates ever supposed to be improved? Frankly, this really is an appalling decision. If you're going to ignore what the community says, then why even have a deletion process? I mean, really, why bother? Just unilaterally delete whatever you like, irrespective of consensus - it'll give the same result, but without wasting everyone's time by giving the illusion of wanting community input and general agreement. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Mark's justification here. However these exceptional closes should be explained when closing. Pace the squeals of outrage, please note that: (i) TfD does not have a clear numerical criteria for assessing when there is a concensus and (ii) the kind of carefully justified discounting Mark has undertaken here would, if done when closing the *fD dsicussion, be a good thing for the health of *fDs: if you object to these vote discounts, what discounts would you agree with? --- Charles Stewart 01:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Seconded with a pat on the back and a kiss on the cheek. A great many of the discussions that take place on DRV could be avoided if closers took more care with explaining their thinking when they close. Rossami, in particular, provides clear evidence that he has thought about the arguments presented, and I've seen closes of his run to two paragraphs. This is a good thing, and should be more widespread. - brenneman 02:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much for the feedback. You have a good point, and I've added my above comments to the TfD page. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist on TfD. Whilst Mark's arguments to delete are convincing, and convinced me that it should be deleted, there seems to be enough dissension to warrant a re-examination of the decision. 5 votes to keep against 3 to delete is not a decent consensus to keep, parituclarly given that the last two votes to keep were a) from an IP and b) two words, but I would have thought that this would be enough for the Template to remain pending further discussion. Deleting it was against the principle of consensus on deletion. If Mark makes the same excellently clear and cogent arguments to delete then I'm sure people will make the appropriate decision. And I think Nickj's reason for keeping is entirely valid - if he believes the template si necessary until the commons template itself is fixed, then that is a valid reason for him to believe the commonsgallery one should be kept. Proto||type 13:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Reverse and Keep as per the consensus what was the point of the votes if the deciding admin was going to maket he call anyway? Some nerve.Gator (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Hey look, I lied, one more comment. MarkSweep's reasons for discounting most of the delete votes may make sense on the outside, but to me there seems to be equally good reasons for discounting the delete votes. One said "performs the same function as {{commons}}" (none of the counter-arguments to that here, on the TfD and on Template_talk:Commons have ever been addressed), another said (paraphrasing for brevity) 'template forks are evil, and advertises for Olympus'. Of that last post, the first argument is not an argument, the second rather nonsensical (maybe it was in jest, but Mark talks about "serious votes"). Why not discount those arguments too?
  • Now at this point I think we can agree that it becomes ridiculous, having unilaterally discarded almost the entire debate, which is why I disagree with vote discounting on principle in all but the most obvious cases (sockpuppetry/trolling), for two reasons: 1) If an argument is weak, someone should say so at the time so its proponent can respond to the criticism without having to do it at WP:DRV, and 2) If the overall case for one 'side' (ooer, used that word again) is weak, then people will read it, be unconvinced, vote delete and the article will be deleted by an actual consensus (not just a consensus of "serious voters"). If the reason for the *fD not getting enough delete 'votes' was because it didn't get enough attention, then relist it. --Malthusian (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Closing admin properly discounted "votes" which did not comply with policy directions; TFD page expressly says Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement. Voting standards were clear, and closing admin quite properly followed them rather than disregarding them. Monicasdude 21:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but my vote/comment/preference was discounted because of my mistake in pointing something out, not because of my reasons. My reasons are that the newer template is (in my opinion) clearer, easier to understand (both in language and visually), and more exact than the commons template. My conclusion therefore was keep. My mistake was apparently in saying that there would be no reason for commonsgallery if commons could be improved (but unfortunately, that seems to be impossible), and that in that situation I would most likely change my vote. Furthermore, it should be noted that this template doesn't even seem to pass the tests of whether it should be proposed for deletion: Is it helpful? Yes. Is it redundant? No, I don't think it is (see reasons above). Is it used? Yes. Is it NPOV? Yes. Was it a candidate for speed deletion? No. Therefore, it doesn't even seem to fulfil the basic criteria for being listed on TfD, let alone the criteria to actually be deleted. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, I do not see the difficulty to simply construct an independent userbox in one's own userspace. Less controversial, and quite sensical. The same can be said for many other userbox tempaltes. -Zero 09:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Are articles in the main space allowed to use templates from a user's namespace? I thought I read somewhere that this was a no-no, but I could be wrong. If it's allowed, then that's exactly what I will do, and I thank for suggesting this. However, if it's not allowed, then I would please ask that you reconsider your position because it means the problem cannot be solved by the method you propose. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

  1. Best blond joke ever and/or Best blonde joke ever kept deleted and now exist as redirects. 23:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Template:User pedo: Kept deleted. 23:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sin (musician): Kept deleted. 23:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Marianne Curan: Kept deleted, better re-written from scratch. 23:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Christopher Howard: Kept deleted. 23:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Armand Traoré: Kept deleted. 23:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. The Foxymorons: Withdrawn, new stub to be written. 22:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Template:User Antiracist hitler: Speedy deletion endorsed. 17:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Template:GermanGov: Kept deleted. 17:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C.: Original keep closure endorsed. 17:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. User:KJVTRUTH: kept undeleted, user subsequently blocked as sockpuppet. 17:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. Category:Ambiguous five-letter acronyms: Moot request, kept deleted. 17:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. The Better Mod: Speedy undeleted, listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Better Mod. 23:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. Clay Sun Union: Undeleted. As the deletion seemed to be in error (the members were AFDed, not the band) there is no reason for an automatic listing at AFD. It is free to be nominated by any user, however. 23:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. Template:User no Rand: Undeleted, now listed at WP:TFD. 18:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. Good Thing, Bad Thing, Right Thing, and Wrong Thing: Latter 2 merged. Any other issues are a content dispute, not DRV. 18:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  17. List_of_interesting_or_unusual_place_names: Moved to wikipedia namespace. 18:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC) R. Fiend
  18. Jason Ward-Recording Engineer/Producer: Kept deleted. 17:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  19. Vampires F.C.: rdirected to Crouch End Vampires F.C.. 17:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  20. London Welsh F.C.: Undeleted (consensus seemed to be AFD was not automatically warranted, but it is open to an AFD nomination by any user). 17:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  21. Lee Hotti: Kept deleted (protected). 17:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  22. Gazeebow Unit: Kept deleted. 17:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  23. Patrick Alexander (cartoonist): Kept deleted. 17:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  24. Mesh Computers: Undeleted; out of process deletion, relisted for deletion and deleted on same day, should have remained relisted for five days per Misplaced Pages:Deletion process 10:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  25. SNK Boss Syndrome: Kept deleted. 19:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  26. Colony5: Undeleted, currently listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Colony5 (2nd nomination). 18:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  27. Maria Pia Braganza and Rosario Poidimani : former redirected, latter kept deleted (protected). 18:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  28. David Dom and Karayana , overturned, narrowly missed deletion, now at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Karayana and David Dom. - 01:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  29. Male bikini-wearing speedily kept deleted. - 01:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  30. Philosophy of computer science, kept deleted. - 23:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  31. Template:User_ku_klux, kept deleted. - 23:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  32. Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks: City of New York, kept deleted and saw several like it sent to AfD. - 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  33. Category:Lists in the Misplaced Pages namespace, kept deleted. - 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  34. Template:User homosexual-no, kept deleted but with recomendations that people use TfD in future. - 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  35. Aetherometry, kept deleted. 05:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. How to make a computer virus, kept deleted. 22:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Valhalla legends: undel+re-AfD'd, and BNLS AfD'd with it, per recommendations here. 01:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Category:German-American mobsters: can be recreated, but there are no articles in it at present. 01:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Categories: