Misplaced Pages:Deletion review

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 137.216.208.82 (talk) at 01:24, 5 March 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:24, 5 March 2006 by 137.216.208.82 (talk) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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

Content review

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

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

Proposed deletions

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

I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this but: can the Ubercode article (deleted here) be undeleted per a discussion on the Help desk? --Cherry blossom tree 12:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Undeleted and noted in Help Desk thread too. -Splash 03:36, 4 March 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

WP:DELREVD

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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.
Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Steps to list a new deletion review

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


1.	Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in `page` with the name of the page, `xfd_page` with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and `reason` with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, `article` is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 \|page=File:Foo.png \|xfd_page=Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png \|article=Foo \|reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: `{{subst:DRV notice\|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~`
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach `<noinclude>{{Delrev\|date=2024 December 28}}</noinclude>` to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use `<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd\|date=2024 December 28}}</noinclude>` If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use `<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd\|date=2024 December 28\|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>`

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

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)

4 March 2006

SNI

At User_talk:Colignatus and under the heading "The SNI article - Pathoschild", there is a discussion with User_talk:Pathoschild. The latter deleted an entry on the SNI, stating that it was "likely" copyrighted. Well, it isn't. In the mean time it is on wikinfo.

What is the next step ? Colignatus 00:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Jewfro

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

Keep deleted: No new information has come up that neccessitates an AFD relisting. Wh e re 19:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Endorse closure and keep deleted, noting the sock-fest at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jew-fro. Just zis Guy you know? 00:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I would point out that since the article was never deleted this review is out of process. The article was merged and therefore is now a redirect. It can can be undone at any time. -- JJay 00:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep deleted --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Gail (goldfish)

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

Keep deleted. While the speedy was technically improper due to there being no applicable CSD criteria, the end result is consistent with the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction). As I see the odds at 99% for a merge and 1% for deletion if this article was to be sent to AfD, there does not appear to be any reason to change the status quo. --Allen3 01:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

3 March 2006

Tom Dorsch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where would you propose we get an order of protection from? -Splash 03:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Strongly endorse closure, keep deleted and salt the earth. Here is the AFD debate, see also Sam Sloan's attack page and this thread on Usenet. It seems that the complainant may possibly have ownership issues and is very obviously anything but neutral. But since this is allegedly one of the most significant figures in chess it should be trivially easy to verify that significance. The assertion is not borne out by numerous well-argued "delete" statements in the (validly closed) AfD. Howcheng seems to have no prior involvement with the article, and is just the janitor here, closing a rather messy AfD but one with a decent number of contributions from which consensus can be established. Looking at the article and its history, and the AfD, I can quite believe that deletion might be followed by intense acrimony, but that is not Howcheng's doing. The content itself is an unpleasant mixture of snide innuendo and blatant attack, and very clearly has no place on Misplaced Pages in this form. Even pre-Seighenthaler we would have deleted or at least aggressively pruned this article, essentially to a stub of verifiable information (which verifiable information conspicuously fails to establish notability). Absent any willingness on the part of the subject's supporters to substantiate notability, and on the part of his detractors to allow WP:NPOV, I would say that this is best gone, and there is no doubt in my mind that this DRV is vexatious and should be speedily closed as such. Just zis Guy you know? 09:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I need to point out that two of the pages cited by Just zis Guy you know? were NOT written by me. There are at least two FAKE SAM SLOANS trolling Usenet, especially on rec.games.chess.politics . Regular readers of Usenet can quickly tell the difference between the real and the fake Sam Sloan's, but Misplaced Pages administrators probably will not be familiar with this problem and will not realize that they are reading something by an imposter.

Also, the article cited above at http://www.samsloan.com/tomswife.htm called "Sam Sloan's attack page" is not an attack at all. Tom Dorsch wrote that my mother was insane in California. My mother was a psychiatrist, treating insane people, and she was from Virginia and had never been to California. The attack by Tom Dorsch on me was apparently provoked by a posting from one of the Fake Sam Sloans. Back then, it was not as well known as it is now that there were fake Sam Sloans trolling around and Dorsch probably did not realize it. Sam Sloan 12:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted, valid AfD per process. The funny thing is, even if you count all the invalid votes, you still get something like 17d 4k. I don't think we need to salt the earth on this one yet. --D e athphoenix ʕ 14:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Sloan's spew about meatpuppets suggests he didn't read the link explaining what meatpuppets are. FWIW, Sloan's vendetta against Dorsch continues in Edward G. Winter where he says Dorsch wrote articles as "Edward Spring" . "Edward Spring" was a pseudonymous troll in a chess-related Usenet group several years ago (the name was an obvious take-off on Edward Winter). Sloan claimed in 2002 that "Spring" was Dorsch but that was nothing but conjecture, and others were skeptical. The Spring=Dorsch claim in the Winter article has been removed repeatedly by other editors but Sloan continues to restore it. Sloan seems to have latched onto Misplaced Pages as a new venue to carry on his ancient personal squabbles (Dorsch, an ex-roommate of Sloan from the 1960's, hasn't been heard from in years and Sloan continues to hound him). If Sloan insists on pursuing those petty dramas, that's his business, but it's best if he did it on his own site instead of on Misplaced Pages. Phr 20:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I hope that people will forgive me for intruding to correct one small point. Sam Sloan has repeatedly and falsely connected me with the decision to delete the Tom Dorsch article. I had no involvement in that decision. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Dorsch) - Louis Blair (4 March 2006)

Kamyar Cyrus Habib

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kamyar Cyrus Habib

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

I share your discomfort with the bias in deletion/inclusion decisions. However, the right answer is to raise the standards in areas where they are weak, not to lower them to the lowest common denominator. I see no process problems in this discussion. The evidence you presented during the deletion discussion was rebutted. Endorse closure. Rossami (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Under Misplaced Pages:Undeletion_policy, even an in-process deletion can be reviewed and reversed "If the article has been wrongly deleted (i.e. that Misplaced Pages would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored). A request for undeletion on these grounds may happen . . . because the person making the undeletion request had objected to deletion on bona fide grounds but was improperly ignored." I don't think including Rhodes scholars lowers Misplaced Pages's inclusion standards; fewer than 100 are named each year, the achievements recognized are certainly not trivial, and the recognition is a good predictor of future achievement. (And I don't see any rebuttal of my argument/evidence. Unanimous rejection without explanation, yes; rebuttal, no.) Monicasdude 02:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Endorse closure and keep deleted, valid AfD. My grandfather was a very good man. Hitler was a very bad man. Guess which one has an article? It might not seem to make sense, but that's okay. The morality or "goodness" of a person cannot be the determining factor for who gets articles and who doesn't. At 10-1 in favour of deletion, it's about as clear of a consensus as they get, and no new information has been presented. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep deleted: I'm not sure how this could even be reconsidered. The Afd was a landslide of 10-1. The Air Force Amy argument is very weak. If you want a web site of just wonderful people, I'd recommend starting your own. This isn't the place. An encyclopedia wouldn't be of much use if it excluded everyone who was sleezy and evil. And it would be a real yawner if it included everyone like this. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The argument is not that Playmates are "sleezy," evil, or immoral, but that they are inconsequential and interchangeable. As for the 10-1 vote, WP:NOT Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. Monicasdude 05:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Well that's your opinion. I bet I could find a zillion 16-year old boys who would disagree with you in the most intense way. The not-a-democracy argument might hold water in a 7-4 vote --- 10-1 is a landslide no matter how you slice it. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
What's more, Air Force Amy is on a TV show on HBO. That's a pretty interesting bar to hit. RasputinAXP c 12:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Endorse closure and keep deleted. And yes, let's remove all the fake "slebrities", pornstars and other nonentities as well. Just zis Guy you know? 13:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep deleted, valid AfD. --D e ath phoenix 18:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Relist. Monicasdude's right - Rhodes scholars are inherently notable. No violation of process took place, closing admin performed properly, but I'm adding my voice to the nominator's that not enough people, and not the right people, saw this AfD, and it needs to be undeleted and relisted. To be perfectly clear, I believe Misplaced Pages would be a better encyclopedia with this article restored. No comment on the notability or lack thereof of Air Force Amy. -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Endorse closure/keep deleted. I certainly dispute the assertion that all Rhodes scholars are notable. There have been many thousands of them and most haven't gone on to do anything particularly notable (although many have, and they're mentioned in the article). This, as of now, is a guy with a scholarship. Whoop-de-do. -R. fiend 21:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

2 March 2006

Demilich (band)

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

Keep Deleted: Unless you can point out that something changed since the original Afd, I don't see any compelling reason to undelete. It was a unanimous 4-0 vote with one wanting to speedy, i.e., it wasn't even close. And, from the AllMusic.com bio, I don't read anything that implies they were any different than Cannibal Corpse or Obituary (band) which had each released three or four albums by the time this band released its only one. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Undelete and relist: For one, if I had seen this AfD, I likely would have voted keep had this evidence been weighed. There's nothing in the AfD link that seems to note that these points were weighed. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Undelete (keep what's there undeleted, and undelete any useful history) - There's information that wasn't considered in the prior AFD (pressented here, the talk page, and the article). Hence, the prior AFD is moot. --Rob 17:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

From Allmusic: On their lone album, 1993's Nespithe, the quartet came up with a highly unconventional sound marrying intricate death metal riffs with impossibly low-end, gurgled vocals -- then topped it off with inscrutably overblown song titles such as "Erecshyrinol," "And you'll Remain...(In Pieces of Nothingness)" and "The Sixteenth Six-tooth Son of Fourteen Four Regional Dimensions"!!! Hardly ideal for the pop charts, these were at the very least unquestionably original. And hardly a ringing endorsement that this band, with one album, was notable beyond being over the top. The AfD was in process, and had 6 days for anyone involved in bringing the article up to standards to present some references. That said, the article itself has been re-created and is up for another AfD which looks like it will stick this time. This DRV may as well be closed. RasputinAXP c 17:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Leave to the new AFD. (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Demilich (band) (2nd nomination) Stifle 18:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
This was a definitive bad AfD result. All of the information on the band that is at Allmusic and umpteen metal websites were there at the time of the AfD, but it was still deleted. I'm pleased to see that it has been recreated and is well on its way to a deservedly massive keep result. Unanimous votes can be (and frequently are) wrong. Each case must be considered on its own merits, not some pointless assessment of whether the process that resulted in the bad result was followed correctly. Processes are imperfect; there's no substitute for actually assessing the subject and the potential of the article. --Tony Sidaway 05:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Request: I put a redirect for the band's album Nespithe. Can an admin please restore the history for this as well (but leave the redirect). I doubt it warrants a stand-alone article, but it might have something useful to put in the band's article. --Rob 06:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Restored. I've restored the history and left the redirect in place. --D e ath phoenix 16:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

London Buses route 4

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 4

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

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

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

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

1 March 2006

Math of Quran

This article was proposed for deletion as it did not have any references. And the article structure was also not good when it was proposed for the deletion, but the article was completely changed one day before it was deleted. I had all the references (Verifiable Sources), in the reference section. And it was very well structured too. Towards the deletion day many who had voted for deletion had changed their vote to Smerge, or keep. Please consider undelete of this article. It has very good potential to grow. (Mystic 15:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC))
Comment. If you think you've addressed all the concerns of folks from the previous AfD, just be bold and recreate the article in a form that addresses those concerns. Put a note on the talk page indicating that there was a prior AfD and a deletion review, and that you've addressed the concerns of the prior AfD by doing a, b, and c; that should prevent someone from coming along and doing a speedy delete (CSD G4) on it. It may go to AfD again, but if you've really addressed all the concerns, the new AfD won't have a leg to stand on. -ikkyu2 (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment as far as I can tell one user changed their recommendation from delete to weak delete because of the changes to the article. That's it. Either way, his changes did not seem to affect the trend, and there was a consensus for deletion. I've already told the user that if he thinks he can recreate the article in a way that addresses the concerns of those who recommended delete, then he's welcome to go for it. However, I'm concerned that he'll continue to almost exclusively cite primary sources, e.g. the Quran asnd the hadith, which would still leave the claims of original research unaddressed. He really needs to cite secondary sources that verify his claims about use of the number 19 in the Quran. I'm not sure I've gotten through to him regarding the difference between primary sources and secondary sources. Babajobu 17:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. Bear in mind you're editing the Misplaced Pages, the 💕 that anyone can edit. It's so free that it's worth the price of admission. -ikkyu2 (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  - Huh? Babajobu 07:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Hi guys I'am qouting User_talk:King_of_Hearts here when checked with him he confirmed that I could use the Quran, Bible and Tora or any other religious script as reference.

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

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

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

Crying While Eating

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Crying While Eating

this article on the website cryingwhileeating.com was deleted for non-noteability. There was a strong consensus on the Afd page, but the site is notable, and the page recently underwent a major reconstruction to reflect this (only a day before deletion). I think with the new page, a vote for deletion will go the other way. please reconsider Spencerk 20:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. I confess to fully expecting to find a rewrite that inadequately addressed the AFD's concerns. As it happens, Spencerk is correct to imply that the rewrite substantially met questions of 'notability'. There is a long piece concerning the website and its genesis on no less a publication than Slate. Further, Spencerk alludes in his rewrite to two other non-trivial publications (although the references weren't provided). I'd say there is sufficient independent external verification of the subject such that it can find a place somewhere in the encyclopedia. What form this takes is an editorial question; I think we'd be better off with mention of this in a larger article dealing with similar sites (that are similarly adequately referenced). However, an entry of its own wouldn't kill me, particularly if the article was significantly expanded (which should be possible, incidentally, given the length of the Slate piece and the alleged articles in the Canadian papers). I'd urge Spencerk to try his hand at it if it wouldn't be too much trouble. Note however that the correct title is Crying, While Eating (comma). Restore, in view of the addition of significant new information that was not considered by the AFD. —Encephalon 03:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks Encephalon, I'll do what i can Spencerk 08:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The last-minute rewrite was substantial and I'm inclined to agree that it's impact was overlooked by the AFD discussion participants, none of whom returned to the discussion to either change or endorse their prior opinions. Overturn deletion but without prejudice against an immediate relisting if anyone thinks that's appropriate. Rossami (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Overturn per Rossami and give this another shot. Or even just restore per Encephalon and leave it at that. (in either case without prejudice to lister or closing admin!) In no case to be construed as a Keep Deleted ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
overturn and unerase this please Yuckfoo 21:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Template:User admins ignoring policy, again

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

SourceryForge

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

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

28 February 2006

Template:If defined (and others)

Template:If defined (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:If defined call (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Unless defined (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Original deletion debate

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

Overturn and Undelete, totally flawed closure by an admin who ought to know better. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Endorse closure. They are unused, so keep them deleted. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- This deletion review is not considering new information: this is reviewing the closing admins actions. The closing admin was wrong to discount comments as he did. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Endorse closure - James S's vote was based on a false technical assumption. Locke Cole's (and the "per Locke Cole" votes) did not provide a solid rationale for preserving these templates... he chose to attack me and wiki-lawyer the nomination. -- Netoholic @ 04:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Excuse me? I provided a perfectly legitimate rationale. Splash's closure, OTOH, did not provide a reasonable explanation for discounting/ignoring legitimate concerns. He says that I hadn't done any work since the TFD nomination; had it not occurred to him that I was waiting to see if the rug was going to be pulled out from under me before I did said work? Further, he conditioned deletion of other templates on the outcome of this debate: it was highly inappropriate for him to then ignore consensus (or lack of consensus) and close it as delete. There is absolutely no reason or justification for the conclusion he came to. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  - Are you bolding your words above to try and confuse people? Splash closed the TFD with an excellent justification. You did not provide a reason for keeping other than commenting on what you interpret as my bad-faith nomination. It is up to the clsoing admin to weigh the result, which he did. -- Netoholic @ 04:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    - I believe I made my case with this comment in the original TFD debate: Netoholic is well aware that I intend to go through many of the templates he broke while WP:AUM was policy, and those templates will rely on these meta-templates (short of re-writing the logic used formerly to use {{qif}}). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
undelete, please. I don't see that they are not used. Rather, I'd like to see them made into redirects, as was suggested in the original discussion. Is there an inherent problem with these being redirects? Again, the result of the discussion was no consensus, not consensus to delete. ... aa:talk 04:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Do we have any indication that any templates are actually broken because of this? Titoxd 05:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- See the two images I've provided here. One uses CSS hacks, the other uses meta-templates (which remove unnecessary rows on the server side). It's been shown that some screen reading software (and non-CSS compliant browsers) break on these "CSS hacks". There is no such issue with meta-templates (or "conditional templates" like {{qif}}). —Locke Cole • t • c 07:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  - So, if I understand this correctly, all these templates are deprecated in favor of {{qif}}. So, why aren't they just replaced and we avoid all of this? Wouldn't that be much simpler? Titoxd 00:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    - Some of the templates were fairly complicated: having these around as a reference to what was going on would be useful (to me at least). As I say below, I'd be willing to have these userfied to discourage their use by new editors. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Undelete. My "per Locke Cole" vote was based on Cole's statement "I intend to go through many of the templates he broke while WP:AUM was policy, and those templates will rely on these meta-templates (short of re-writing the logic used formerly to use )". I do not see how this statement does not provide a solid rationale for preserving the templates, and therefore discounting my comment and my vote to keep is inappropriate. It seems to me to be unnecessarily destructive to break the dependant templates. Just put a notice on the template page stating that the templates are deprecated in favor of {{qif}} so that new templates are not created using these. – Doug Bell 05:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- The deletion of these has broken no templates. Splash, I am sure, was careful in that respect. They are deprecated, and are no longer needed. -- Netoholic @ 07:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  - They are needed to undo the damage you did when you used WP:AUM as a hammer to force people to convert to ill-advised CSS hacks which, even today, introduce unnecessary clutter for our readers who require special accessibility attention. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    - Ah, the real agenda... You aren't actually complaining about a deletion process problem, but rather you are upset these were deleted because they are ammunition in your on-going campaign. -- Netoholic @ 08:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      - At least we agree there was a deletion process problem. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Undelete and replace known uses with Qif and then leave undeleted until the taxoboxes which use this template are all known to be subst'ed, i.e., after what-links-here is fixed. What was the reason for deletion in the first place? --James S. 07:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- These are not in active use on any live templates. -- Netoholic @ 08:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  - These aren't used because you moved a ton of templates to CSS hacks (which, I think anyone would agree from the pictures above, are a bad idea). —Locke Cole • t • c 08:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    - "Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question", nor is it here to argue about WP:AUM. These were deleted within process. -- Netoholic @ 08:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      - Right, and Splash's deletion was not warranted by the opinions expressed at the debate. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Undelete, and kill CSS hacks. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Template:Qif is the direct replacement for these templates. Please keep your comments to discussion about the deleteion process, not the content of the page. -- Netoholic @ 08:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't say I'm surprised to see these turn up here. I repeat that those claiming the templates are in use are completely wrong. They are not. The Whatlinkshere links are all to user subpages, and templates are not removed from those prior to deletion since it does no damage to the encyclopedia to have them go red, and gives the user a good idea about what just happened. Undelete them if you like, or keep them deleted if you like, but I continue to think that the only reasons given for keeping in the TfD were flawed to the point of being invalid. I have no position on AUM as a whole. I just use whatever templates are around. -Splash 10:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Questions: Why not simply replace the faulty CSS code with {{qif}}? Do these templates provide functionality that {{qif}} lacks? If not, why do we need them? —David Levy 14:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't claim to be a template expert (though I'm picking up experience as I go)– having these around would make it easier to understand how templates worked prior to being moved to CSS hacks. Sort of like seeing the source code to a program is easier than guessing how it works under a disassembler. FWIW, the more I understand how {{qif}} works, the easier it is to just rewrite templates to use it directly (see, for example, Template:Infobox Software). To be absolutely clear, I am not suggesting we start using these templates again; I just want them around to look at if I need a reference. (I would even be happy with userfying them I suppose, to deter people from using them). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Undelete. As a process argument, there was a fairly strong set of keeps in the request, and the reason that so few references remained was an out of process replacement by technically clever (but practically problematic) CSS hacks. As a technical argument, while "qif" may do things more generally, it was "if defined" that I was trying to use, and would actually cause less potential stress on servers through fewer inclusions. Keep, it worked. --William Allen Simpson 15:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
temporarily undelete for the purpose of converting usage to {{qif}}. In the alternative, we could provide temporary substitutes in user sub-space for the duration of conversion works. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Undelete, of course; closing was flawed. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

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

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