Wikipedia:Deletion review: Difference between revisions

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 Wikipedia talk:Administrators. If you nominate an article here, be sure to make a note on the sysop's user talk page regarding your nomination. A template, {{subst:DRVNote}} is available to make this easier.

Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.

Proposed deletions

Articles deleted under the Wikipedia: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.

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

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=Wikipedia: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 November 6}}</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 November 6}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 November 6|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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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".

08 June 2006

Church of Reality

(See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of reality.) --66.28.20.178 15:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Church of Reality website

The Church of Reality is a religion, based on what is tangible and real. Somehow, for some reason, its article (and even its talk page) was deleted, with little to no apparent reason. This is really no different from deleting an article on any other religion, which is unfair censorship. I'm asking whoever deleted it to either give a truly good reason as to why it should stay deleted, or undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.178.151 (talk • contribs) 06:59 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, close discussion, protect from recreation. This cruft was deleted twice via AfD, and recreated/speedy deleted lots of times thereafter. Process was followed at all times. Sandstein 08:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and protect per Sandstein. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 10:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a forum for self-promotion in the name of free speech. 72, please see WP:NOT and WP:N. Endorse deletion, yea, now and forever, amen. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no version of any of the incarnations of this article is anything other than self-promotion for a group with, as far as I can tell, no claim of notability being present in any case. Just zis Guy you know? 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion valid AfD with a massively overwhelming consensus to delete, no evidence that circumstances have changed since then. Alexa rank of offical site linked to above is 456,440. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and protect from recreation per every reason expressed above. Postdlf 16:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, protect from recreation and bury with a stake through its heart. This has wasted enough time. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Delete. Keep deleted. Protect. Ban the next person who tries to recreate it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It's hard to review something if you don't know what it said.--mboverload@ 20:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Sufficient insight is available from the two AfD links above, as well the fun-and-games of the last time this came to DRV, which appears to have found a copy of itself on the talk page of the latter of the two linked to at the top of this review. -Splash - tk 21:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Allow recreation if it is a real religion AND the recreation can be done in a non-bias way that is similar to other articles on religion, and not just recreated as a self-endorsement.--Azathar 01:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Heinen's

• Strong Overturn, Undelete. A top 100 Ohio business; clearly passes WP:CORP; was already cited on Supermarkets in the United States, therefore clearly notable (and meant to be given a wikipedia page); not to mention has MORE stores in its chain, has a HIGHER sales volume, occupies a LARGER region, and has MORE information supplied than many businesses that have ALREADY been given Wikipedia pages: Westborn Market, Woodman's Food Market, Strack and Van Til, Scolari's, Magruder's, Felpausch, and many more. AS CREATOR OF THE ARTICLE, I would also like to comment on my extremely upsetting experience in posting this article. I have already given all of these reasons NUMEROUS times in defense of my article, and I have proven in my previous posts that my article should be granted a Wikipedia page. It was speedily deleted without hardly any consideration or supplied reason except that more people had posted DELETE than had posted KEEP - a 1 vote majority in fact (yes 1 vote). NO OTHER REASONING was provided to account for its deletion! I spent a great deal of time describing the business and how it is definately influential and notable. My arguments it seems were not considered at all and were simply left out of the matter. My article was not biased, and it was not created as advertising. PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS ARTICLE as it clearly deserves a Wikipedia page. [1]. If the article is undeleted, I WILL add to it. Bluebul1989 06:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• In terms of pure numbers (standard disclaimer AfD is not a vote etc), the close was borderline, with 66% or 60% for deletion, depending on whether Bluebul1989's opinion is counted (as a new user who has so far only edited in relation to this article and is the sole editor to do so, the admin can choose to do so or not). That would often be closed as 'no consensus', defaulting to keep, but it is very much within the admin's discretion. However, in this case, I don't think the reasons to delete are that pressing. I don't believe that the article was created as self-promotion - if I had I would certainly endorse deletion. Bluebul claims to be a 16-year-old Ohian on WP:NEW and this is supported by a Google search for his username. Although I find the WP:CORP claim to notability dubious (the top 100 companies in every state of the USA being automatically notable sounds rather Americentric), DRV is not the place to debate that, and the other arguments for it being notable sound reasonable. Therefore, I suggest overturn as a no consensus and undelete without prejudice against a further AfD to gain a clearer consensus in a fortnight or so after Bluebul has improved it further. P.S. Bluebul, you don't need to shout. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. A 66% delete vote is insufficient to delete, better to have no consensus'ed it and see what happens from there. THE KING 18:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • AfD is not a vote. 66% can be sufficient to delete if the reasoning to delete is compelling enough. In this case I think the reasoning isn't compelling enough, but this misconception needs to be challenged wherever it appears. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn IMO, important enough for a reasonable article to be written. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr. BB Sinha

For clarity here is the article log[2].

This article was originally just a thin article that was nothing and was speedily deleted. Later the article was recreated, and I assisted in the overall betterment of the article. Again, the article was proposed for deletion, but on the grounds of a repost. However, Mike Rosoft restored the article stating, "Sufficiently different content from deleted material to warrant a new discussion/vote." The article remained standing and again was nominated for speedy in which I placed a hangon tag, another admin (I don't whom exactly, and I don't want to place names) agreed with the previous decision and stated that it was an entirely new article and deserved to stay up. Today, the article was deleted by Eskog for being a "repost." I am challenging this decision and request for undelete. The article is vastly stronger and signifies notability. Also, the repost decision was overturned before. It doesn't seem logical just to eliminate it for just that. Respectfully, Yanksox 05:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have already restored, as I was the speedying admin. I didn't notice that Mike Rosoft had already rejected the "repost" argument. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Mending Wall

This article was deleted by User:Royboycrashfan without any discussion. As far as I understand the deletion process, this is not wikipedia policy.

I am happy to resolve any copyvio problems. Tomandlu 11:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Restore, tentatively pending an explanation for this from Royboycrashfan—no explanation is obvious at the moment. I do not see what grounds there were for speedy deletion. There may be copyright issues, although I am not certain because the poem dates from 1915, but an article that old should not have been speedied without discussion. -- SCZenz 13:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Royboycrashfan does not object to restoration if Tomandlu investigates the copyright issues, so I have restored this. -- SCZenz 18:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I have listed it on AfD, suggesting it be transwikied to Wikisource. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

07 June 2006

Template:User Not in metric

This longstanding, tongue-in-cheek, satirical userbox was in line with other tongue-in-cheek, satirical user boxes. Administrator Tony Sidaway deleted this page citing its apparently inflammatory content. (See his talk page.) This userbox is clearly humorous and should not have been arbitrarily deleted like this. An example of this userbox is on my talk page. Nova SS 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering that you are the only person who has that userbox included on the userpage, does it really matter? I don't really think it's a T1 candidate, but the content was not really very useful either. I think the thing is OK to leave subst:ed on your userpage. Neutral. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Endorse deletion, it may be satirical but it's also divisive and inflammatory to a much higher degree than User Satanism or any of the other endorsed userboxes have been. I actually agree with its view to a certain extent, but delete as valid T1. (Just like User Intercal) --tjstrf 06:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per above. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as a valid T1 deletion (am I really saying that about a userbox?) as I would consider it as having inflammatory content. In either case, it has been userfied and someone could transclude/subst it from there. On a side note, mine would probably be something along the lines of "This user thinks in terms of inches, metres, stones & pounds (what's an ounce?), pints, litres, british imperial gallons and Kilobytes (not to be confused with Kilobytes) and celcius (unless it's hot today)"... blame the '80s. Hmmm, is the actual name of the template Template:User metric-sucks or Template:User Not in metric? TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 12:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Divisive. -- The Anome 12:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - if you really want it, keep it on your userpage. Not good enough for template: space. -- 9cds^(talk) 13:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. It's in your userspace - find something better to do, for the love of God. Proto||type 13:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, it actually is T1. Will (^E_@) T 16:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist at TfD. I didn't agree with the speedy delete. I have seen userboxes that were much worse. Let the community at-large decide at TfD. MJCdetroit 16:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• (I guess I need to cast my vote!) Relist at TfD. I agree with MJCdetroit. Nova SS 17:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Is it dead? Yes it is (well, almost). So keep it that way. Misza13 ^{T C} 17:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Forget T1; this is a template in use on one single page. Longstanding convention is to subst and delete such templates. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Included in only one page? I would say "subst and delete" on a TFD, so the proper thing was done here. Keep deleted. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Cancer Bats

This article on a band was properly deleted as non-notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cancer Bats. However, I'm listing for reconsideration here in the light of subsequent developments that may alter that judgment, namely the release of an album under (what appears to be) a major label.[3] The article's original author also claims the following additional facts (which I have not verified myself):

• Released a sampler, an EP and an album
• Album is sold in Sunrise Records and HMV
• Video recieves rotation on MuchLoud (a show on MuchMusic)
• Had an interview and played a live show on MTV Canada Live
• Appeared on The Edge 102.1 (CFNY-FM) and the single was played at least once.
• Played with bands such as The Bled, Protest The Hero, will play with NOFX and Silverstein summer of '06
• Signed to same indie label as The Bled and Alexisonfire
• Has toured across Canada and is already on tour again with destinations from Moncton NB to Vancouver BC

I am not voting at this time, just facilitating. Postdlf 23:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Overturn, undelete. Has anything new been presented? Not...really. The band has recently been featured in Canada's Exclaim! magazine, not small potatoes, as well as a feature on Canadian 106.7 FM. It's important to note that the band met WP:MUSIC guidelines BEFORE the AfD, and that was ignored. The prior meeting of the necessary guideline in the first AfD and further media mentions since then more than mean the deletion should be overturned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Undelete -- the evidence above seems to show sufficient notability. -- The Anome 12:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong Overturn, Undelete. The album is out, theyve made more public appearances and the tour scedule has been updated to include a cross country tour with some major bands. I was ignored during the first vote, please dont ignore me now. All claims can be verified on these websites: [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8]. They have met more than 1 of the notability claims. Avenged Evanfold 23:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak undelete playing on MTV Live (Canada) has to have some notability along with some magazine mentions. THe amazon link is not impressive, but ASIN B000FKOZLA is funny. What kind of viewship does MuchLoud/Music get? Our stub is not helpful. Kotepho 01:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cum On Her Face

Very popular porn site I really dont know why was it deleted. Luka Jačov 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong undelete - Luka Jačov 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete - per Luka. --Pockey 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• The article was speedied as an A7 (person or organization with no claim of notability). It's actually more of a website than an organization, and although I doubt it meets WP:WEB, that doesn't make it speediable. I don't think we're going to find any good independent reliable sources. Still, why not give it its day on AfD? Undelete and list at AfD. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• List on AfD if we must, but I really see no need for this article. It's just another porn site, of which there is surely no dearth, and I really can't imagine anybody actually coming to Wikipedia for information on it. Just zis Guy you know? 22:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Change to endorse, per Sam. I had not spotted that it was unsourced as well as the other issues. Just zis Guy you know? 06:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and list on AfD per GTBacchus. Endorse Deletion per Sam Blanning (below) TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no assertion of notability, proper A7. "Recognized worldwide" is, like "good chess player", not an assertion of notability. An assertion of notability is claiming to have won a significant chess tournament or "Best Cumshot Website of 2006" at the World Porn Awards. And don't bother relisting until someone turns up a reliable source to base an article on. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak endorse per CSD A3 and WP:NOT a web directory. Did not actually say anything about the site that wouldn't be pretty obvious from the name. Permit recreation (subject to WP:WEB) if something encyclopedic can be written about the subject. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion until someone can evidence notability. per Sam Blanning. Bastique▼^parler _voir 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong endorse per Sam Blanning clearly violates WP:NOT Whispering 00:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Ilmari; the article didn't inform beyond describing the practice that is the website's obvious subject matter. Though there's no reason why this shouldn't just be blandly listed, without elaboration, in a list article of porn sites somewhere. Something can be notable yet insubstantial, and so like the good information scientists we are we should ensure it gets incorporated into the proper place rather than trying to write a separate treatise on it. Postdlf 00:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• No list either please, Wikipedia is not a web directory. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion -- Drini 00:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam Blanning--WilliamThweatt 02:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion no evidence provided in favor of notability. `'mikka (t) 04:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam Homestarmy 04:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as per Sam above. -- The Anome 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion on its face. Why is it that every page with the word 'cum' in the title is usually created by a troll and then dragged through DRV? Proto||type 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete - --Goran.Smith2 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per sam. No convincing reason given to undelete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam Blanning. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

AlternC

An extension from Control panel (Web hosting) The administrator Zoe deleted this page on account of advertising, however I'm not affiliated with AlternC nor do I advise/condone its use, I am simply noting the control panel along with a list of many other noteworthy control panels. I am not advertising in any way, I believe it is a misunderstanding.

Manny 17:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• The article made absolutely no assertion of encyclopaedic notability. Feel free to try again, giving citations from reliable sources to back its significance per the WP:SOFTWARE guidelines. Just zis Guy you know? 19:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• It was written as an ad, whatever your motivation. If you want to discuss what it is, when it was created, who uses it, and can document it, that's fine, I have no problem with a re-creation, but as it stood, all it did was to extoll its features. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for the clarification! Manny 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Tiffany Holiday

Short and Good [9] article speedy deleted by User:Drini and User:Golbez, edit summaries were "csd nnbio" and "[empty]". There was no vote. Many many results on Google, has an IMDb and AFDb profiles and also pass Wikipedia:Notability (erotic actors) for having a recored of around 100 films --Haham hanuka 14:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Somehow, this ended up at page bottom today (June 7); not sure why it's dated earlier, but I have moved it for consideration. Xoloz 15:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Judging by the answers.com link, I think the fact the stub is short, and contains a poorly sourced negative claim, means it should not be restored. Instead, anybody who wishes, can create, a new original article, which clearly explains her notability, and which is well sourced. --Rob 16:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So this negative claim will be removed, that's not the reason it was deleted. --Haham hanuka 18:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; I do not see any claim of notability in the article. Removal of potential libel of a possibly non-notable person is a bonus. No prejudice about recreation at this point. - Liberatore(T) 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. As above, no claim of notability (one bit part in a real film, balance is the usual no-budget porn churned out at the rate of several a day by some "studios"). No reliable sources for any of the bio data (IAFD is not, unlike IMDB, a reliable source per WP:RS). Redux: dime-a-dozen porn "star". Take it to Wikiporn. Just zis Guy you know? 19:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • [10] - 147,000 result on Google, [11] many results on Google Images. --Haham hanuka 20:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • All active porn performers generate thousands of Google hits, due to the almost infinite crosslinkspamming of the online porn business. Not really meaningful. Fan1967 20:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Comment on process, not about content, this should be restored immediately as an improper speedy deletion. Holiday appears to be a more than notable enough actress for inclusion, we do not delete articles outright because they contain an unverified or unverifiable claim. Silensor 20:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - per nomination. Luka Jačov 21:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Not notable. Wikipedia: Notability (erotic actors) is only a proposed guideline. WarpstarRider 23:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. If it doesn't qualify for an A7 speedy, it does qualify as an A6, an attack page. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. `'mikka (t) 04:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion, which was entirely in process - Silensor is misinformed. Proto||type 13:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - per Silensor and nomination --Haham hanuka 15:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Yet another porn "star", and no good reasons for undeletion have been advanced beyond that. --Calton | Talk 20:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Shane Cubis

This page has been continually deleted, because the initial article was created by the feature of the article himself, Shane Cubis. While the initial article may have been vanity or vandalism, he enlisted a group of his followers to create a real article in Wikipedia. His page has since been listed as a protected deleted pages, and his talk page is routinely deleted preventing a fair discussion of the deletion.

Shane Cubis does not fail WP:Bio and thus never really qualified for WP:AfD. Just because the article started as vandalism or vanity, it does not take away from the fact an actual compliant article could be at this entry, Shane Cubis. At the very least there should have been a discussion on the talk page, and not a speedy deletion into Protected deleted pages. JustOneJake 11:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn Shane Cubis is a notable Australian journalist, being a major contributor to an important Australian media group, The Chaser. The Chaser has made itself an important part of Australia's culture, being read by politicians, mainstream journalists and ordinary Australians. Shane's weekly columns attract large amounts of reads and discussion. His work for People magazine, while not being as well known, has attracted large amounts of attention from mainstream Australia. JoshT 220.237.79.202 12:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion under case A7. The entire contents of the longest version of the article read "Shane Cubis (born 1980) is a writer, originally from Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. Shane's first article was a Teri Weigel porn review in the Tertangala, Wollongong University's student newspaper. Since then he's contributed to a variety of gaming magazines including Pyramid, Knights of the Dinner Table and the Silven Trumpeter. He currently has a weekly column in The Chaser and works for Australia's People Magazine." and one external link. Writers are part of a respected profession but are no more automatically notable than engineers or doctors of equivalent experience or standing. No assertion has been made that this writer is particularly significant or that he does qualify under our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. By the way, the deleted history shows that the only significant contributor to this page was user:Rubikcubis, supporting the assumption that this was an inappropriate autobiography. The user's subsequent edits to other pages do not insprire me to good faith. Rossami (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse per Rossami's excellent reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse indeed. Syrthiss 17:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, it's clear from Cubis's own website that he was the original author, and he's encouraging people to come here to recreate it and complain. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse - per WP:VAIN. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, and recommend that keen editors take the usual steps to moderate the inclusion of the subject's name and its variants in Wikipedia. There's is much outrage, followed by subterfuge, at the deletions. -Splash - tk 18:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion with thanks to Rossami for presenting a solid case. Just zis Guy you know? 19:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn: while the original article may be questionable as vanity, there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance and fame in the Australian political journalism / satire sphere that one of his fans should be allowed to create a page with information about him. The defacement of other pages with his name is consistent with the style of humour The_Chaser is famous for in Australia, not an indication that there is any lack of merit in the need for a "Shane Cubis" page on Wikipedia. "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is". Malthius 03:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC) User's first edit
  • there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance... Guy, since that's the very issue in question, you're begging the question. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. No new information, and the old information was unconvincing to begin with. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn While no-one is denying that the original source of the article was Shane himself, that does not necessarily invalidate the merit of the article itself, and was more a function of the humour that has made him popular. Regardless of the American or British-centric knowledge of the original two administrators who deleted the article, their ignorance of the Australian media and in particular the satirical politcal area which is the expertise of the article subject in question does not mean it lacks significance. As an Australian, I guess I might equally wonder why something so incredibly minor and unimportant as a 3 year old racehorse such as Like_Now without even a particularly impressive record demands its own Wikipedia page, where a published journalist does not. U.Pseudonopoulos 09:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • User's only edit. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry. I was under the impression that this was a logical discussion and the weight of our argument would count for more than how many edits we had made to this website. Is this how all discussions are settled on Wikipedia? We simply get out our 'edit counts' and compare them, with the larger number winning? Perhaps we could both get out our wangs and compare those as well? Or do you want to try and actually add some value to the debate? Could you perhaps explain to me why Shane Cubis is less notable than the nag of a racehorse I have linked above? Is it simply because one is American and the other Australian, regardless of species? Are angsty teenagers with a lack of knowledge of other countries really fit to determine what adds to the grand sum of human knowledge? U.Pseudonopoulos 00:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Please see Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy#Suffrage. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Noted, and I can see the idea behind such in some cases, particularly where people are simply putting a vote without reasoning or detailed comment. I still hold that it has no relationship to the validity of the argument presented. "There are no strict rules for this, the admin closing a discussion is expected to use common sense", and in this case the only people voting without significant reasoning are the 'endorsers'. I find it irrelevant to the arguments that I and others have offered whether it is our only edits or not. The arguments should still be treated on the merit of what it presented itself. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• strong overturn Shane Cubis is notable within the fan base of The Chaser. He is a major columnist for the site and well respected author in a variety of other media. His other edits on Wiki have surely not affected his notability or his work as a writer/comedian. Gisellehobbs 10:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • User's only edits are to this page and The Chaser. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong overturn If for no other reason than his fellow journalists Chas_Licciardello, Chris_Taylor and Craig_Reucassel all have their own pages that provide just as much (or little, depending on how one is to view it) information about them. Is there any proof that these other journalists didn't write the articles themselves? Perhaps Shane Cubis is being punished for making a simple mistake - he wrote the article about himself in first person instead of third. Any of his fans would be happy to write the article to prevent it from remaining vanity if that is the main complaint, but he is certainly famous and/or popular enough to warrant an entry. Purpleorb (for clarity sake, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.177.2 (talk • contribs) )
• Endorse deletion per Rossami. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion CSD A7 -- The Anome 13:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Yes, Mr. Cubis may have originally written the article as a vanity piece for his article. That does not mean a compliant article could not be written. It is clear many people here are willing to write an article in the confines of Wikipedia policy. Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth, as he is drawing support from his article at The Chaser and his Antiwikipedia entry. As it stands now the page is protected deleted. Why not unprotect it and give someone a chance to write a compliant article? 63.225.118.147 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth. Is that a threat? User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Based on the discussions on the forums at his article and the actions members of that forum have taken (silly vandalism to both here and the Wiktionary, I'd say that it's clearly a threat. Metros232 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you guys kidding? It’s no threat; it is an assessment of the facts. These people want a real article, and if there is a real article they will have less to complain about. Furthermore, do the actions of people unto Wikipedia affect the notability status of Cubis? Most of the discussion here is completely irrelevant to the facts. I am sure the guys at Britannica or Funk and Wagnalls never sat down and talked about their hate mail when deciding to include an entry. This man is at least as noteworthy as some of the other people on Wikipedia, and he deserves an article regardless of the actions of himself or others. 63.225.118.147 02:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. Sounds notable enough. TruthbringerToronto 20:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Rossami. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion no verifiable notability proof presented. `'mikka (t) 00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Shane is one of only three weekly column writers for The Chaser. The Chaser is a very popular website in Australia, very much similar to The_Onion in terms of content and (local) popularity. It is important to note that, as a columnist, Shane writes articles which are put on the website under his own name. He is not writing anonymously, but offering his opinion under his name. As such, it is expected that people will want to find information about the author, so as to get background to form a view on the validity of his opinion. As such, I feel the author is notable and, as such, an appropriate page on the author should not be prevented from being created. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainty principle

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle

Proponents say:

• The certainty principle is a mathematical theorem. The proof is available for everybody.
• It was officially published in the established peer-reviewed journal. It will not be published second time. The journal was registered in Russia, and this is Russian government who has to know about the journal, not Google.
• Nobody has objections against scientific content of the papers. (Really no objections.)
• If the theorem is true, its notability cannot be questioned, because it generalizes (not contradicts!) the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
• The certainty principle is too young (1 year) to be known as widely as uncertainty principle.
• The certainty principle is old enough to take it seriously. Links to it were put in WP almost year ago and a great amount of people have checked it, including highly qualified editors of the uncertainty principle.
• The questoin of "reputability" of the journal is anyway subjective and should be discussed only if some specialists in the subject have objections against the certainty principle.

Opponents say:

• We are not specialists in the subject, and cannot judge the principle from purely scientific point of view. But we want to protect WP from pseudo-science.
• Google says that the certainty principle is not widely cited.
• The journal, where the papers were published, is not "reputable", and can be considered as a self-publication.

What should we do in this situation? The conflict is going to become a war. Hryun 15:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Article exists under both Certainty principle and Certainty Principle in various forms. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle, which deleted this content as original research. I re-deleted this article because although this content was not identical, the original reason for deletion was unchanged. User:Hryun has claimed that the article is published in a Russian journal, but several physicist Wikipedians have looked for signs of this publication (or indeed the existence of the named journal) and found nothing; Hryun refuses to provide further details. You can see discussion of these issues, as well as more threats by User:Hryun, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Certainty principle. -- SCZenz 15:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Taking off my admin hat, and putting on my WikiProject Physics hat, I would like to note that this issue has all the hallmarks of original research. A very pushy series of editors, most of them with very similar editing styles, have been pushing to have this subject mentioned in about 8-10 different physics articles. A discovery of the claimed magnitude would have many, many citations in places that would be very easy to find, and this does not. The only document that can be located by any of the usual methods—which are essentially universal for all physics publications worldwide, is the paper itself on the ArXiv and related servers—which are not peer-reviewed in any way. No publication information is given there. -- SCZenz 15:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • SCZenz, for what reason do you lie here? (1) The Certainty Principle article was created by Slicky. I am not Slicky neither in WP nor in the real life. Ask for user-checking, if you do not believe. I just re-created the article under proper name, Certainty principle. There was no cheating in it. (2) You did not ask for "further details" of the journal, you asked for information that can be seen in the Internet. Hryun 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Please be civil. I don't think you are Slicky, but I do strongly suspect you're editing under a couple of other usernames. I do not believe that there are any reputable physics journals with no information available on the internet, however—Russian journals are tracked in the same places as all the others. -- SCZenz
• Keep deleted until the concept gets taken up by someone other than the original auther. We'll watch CiteBase. --Pjacobi 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The AfD clearly labeled this material as original research and despite the requester's allusions no evidence to contradict this determination has been provided. The AfD should stand until citations to appropriate peer-reviewed sources are provided. --Allen3 ^talk 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted - Based on the information on hand, this is OR. If this is indeed a valid scientific theory, material will be peer reviewed and can be verified.. There should be no rush to have a wiki article on a subject (re "the material is too new to have been properly circulated" above); its not like we are going anywhere. Syrthiss 16:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per WP:NOR. As Syrthiss says, we can afford to wait until this is independently sourced. Rossami (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, for reasons above. This does not presently return anything on CiteSeer or citebase. It's important to be sure that authors are not inserting their own, non-peer-reviewed work to Wikipedia, or it would quickly become a repository for anything unpublished and unpublishable. There is further the fact that, if this were really what it is claimed to be, that it would probably already have been picked up by some very well known, reputable and reliable publications. At that point, inclusion would be a no-brainer. -Splash - tk 17:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted. As far as I can tell, both the term "Certainty principle" and the concept are original research, as we define it. When the article is published — or even referenced — in a peer-reviewed journal, we can reconsider. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse - per above. Wait for it to be peer-reviewed by someone who knows. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. When the work becomes well-known and the author is hailed as the great theorist he claims to be then I'll happily enjoy contributing on a million articles about him and his great work. Until then it goes into the "makes very large claims that nobody in-the-know seems to take seriously" bin. I also don't appreciate "Hyun"'s threats about waging a "war" against Wikipedia if he doesn't get his article included.[12][13][14] --Fastfission 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Two well-informed editors reviewed this and found it to be WP:OR, no evidence is provided to contradict this conclusion. No citations to reputable peer-reviewed journals, for example. Just zis Guy you know? 20:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as per Jacobi. --Improv 21:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Mathematical deletion endorsement -- Drini 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion agreeing with everything said above. Hyun, it will only become a war if you make it so and do not accept WP process. You have stated that there is no consensus. I think the above is a very clear consensus. Nobody agrees with you. Please accept this until and if this principle is widely accepted and discussed in many reputable places. If this is as important as the claims made for it, it would have been discussed by now in "Nature", Scientific American", "New Scientist" and so on, along with references in "Reviews of Modern Physics" and similar journals. This is not yet WP material and may never be. --Bduke 02:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Are all of us who endorse this deletion going to receive the Uncertain Elephant Award as those of us who supported the original deletion, or indeed were in any way involved with it, did? --Bduke 04:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If I receive an uncertain elephant, the user who places it will likely receive a certain block. Syrthiss 13:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

06 June 2006

Big Brother 7 chronology

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Brother 7 Chronology

This page had more people wanting to keep it then people wanting to delete it. It has been wronlgy deleted by someone who was against the page from its existence. As soon as it was created, this user marked it for deletion. It was wrongly deleted and I campaign for it to be restored... Ellisjm 16:06 UTC 6 June 06

• Overturn: At least have the page there until the series is over and the page can be condensed. --JD^talk_email 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why was the page deleted? Celestianpower says at the top of the page that the result of the debate was deleted. The results were: 6 for "delete"; 11 for "keep"; 1 for "weak keep" and 1 for "strong delete"!!! I think it's pretty obvious that more people want to keep the page than delete it!! Ellisjm 16:36 UTC 6 June 06
    • AfD is not a vote. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • That may be true, but good reasons for having the page stay were still brought up. Even if only until the end of the series, the page is worth having in peoples' opinions. --JD^talk_email 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. People who wanted the article deleted seem to have more grounds than those who wanted the article kept. — FireFox • 16:44, 06 June '06
• Endorse deletion per FireFox. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Reasons given for deletion were in line with WP policies and guidelines; reasons given for keep were mostly "But I want to keep it" variety. Process was followed, deletion is valid. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn for violation of process. I would have voted "delete", as this does look like non-notable TV cruft, but the result of the debate was no consensus. The keep voters may have been uninformed, but Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators allows only disregarding bad faith votes when establishing consensus, and few such are apparent here. I know of no policy that allows the closing administrator to determine consensus on the basis of which side they agree with. Sandstein 17:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The guidelines say that for example comments made in bad faith may be ignored. In general, the guidelines say admins should use their common sense to determine if a rough consensus exists and should try to remain as objective as possible — they don't provide strict rules for doing this, since no such rule can exists. (Anyway, it's not a "vote".) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and close as no consensus. Neither side had arguments that were all that compelling, and closer was not at all clear as to his/her rationale for the decision. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse- this was a reasonable decision. Possibly the DRV could have been avoided tho, if the closer had given more reasoning about why they closed the way they did. Friday (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, a level of detail far in excess of anything which could possibly be justified by any encyclopaedic purpose. BB7 is more than adequately covered in the main article. This is a fan blog and belongs on a fan site: it is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information.. Just zis Guy you know? 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not meant to be a blog; it's meant to keep the main article small. --JD^talk_email 19:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there some objective measure you're using to make this statement? At what point is it not excessive anymore? Why is detail bad? etc etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I'm measuring it by the articles for other comparable series. We're a couple of weeks in and already it's longer than many articles on entire series. And this is BB7, not BB1, so it is less notable in the first place. What we have here is a blog, a day-by-day log of events. That's one of the things Wikipedia is not. I have nothing against logging this info at a user subpage for later distillation into an actual article, but speaking as a Brit and part of the target audience this is considerably beyond the defensible encyclopaedic content. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • So instead of editing it down, deletion is the answer? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, because WP:NOT a blog. We already have an article on BB7. Just zis Guy you know? 22:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: am I correcting in thinking that people think this article is necessary so that at the end of the show it can be reduced into something encyclopedic? That seems to be what was being said at the AfD, but I just want to verify that before making a decision. Metros232 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That was the plan. --JD^talk_email 19:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Then you should store it somewhere else and repost it when it's encyclopidic. WP isn't a dumping ground for random information. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, then in that case, restore and move to user space. Put it someone's user space so it can be worked on as a future article rather than having it in the mainspace as an actual article. Metros232 19:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse and keep deleted - Wikipedia is not a democracy. The closer based his decision of the strengh of the arguments, not the amount. I agree with User:Friday that the closer should have stated this more clearly. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Per above, restoring to the userspace would also be quite acceptable. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn the result of the discussion was keep and not by a small margin. I completely agree with Ellisjm that the article was wrongly deleted.

-- JAB^[T]_[C] 20:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and Undelete for being out-of-process. --Rob 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak endorse, closure seems to have been within acceptable bounds of discretion. Most of the arguments provided by either side in the debate were rather weak, but some of the arguments for deletion were slightly less weak that the arguments against it. I'm quite willing, however, to userfy the deleted content upon request (a possibility some of the participants in the original debate appear to have been unaware of). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It just makes more sense to have the page in the main Wikipedia area while it exists, because it still has the information that many people may find useful. If that ends up being the only other option, then it may end up happening. But I'm sure you can see what I'm trying to say. --JD^talk_email 23:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem is, if it were in the main namespace it would have to satisfy the Wikipedia policies regarding article content. As it is, it seems to have trouble meeting several, including no original research, reliable sources and several parts of what Wikipedia is not. In short, it is unencyclopedic. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy somewhere by all means but keep deleted per above. Metamagician3000 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. I would rather delete this article but the discussion was at most a "no consensus", not a "delete". --Metropolitan90 02:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. AfD is not a vote, Wikipedia is not a free web host for TV blogs, no-one even attempted to argue that this information belonged in an encyclopaedia, process was correctly followed. If it doesn't belong on the main BB7 page then it doesn't belong anywhere. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The things is, that's exactly the point - people do think it belongs on the main article page. But the people that think it belongs there don't want it to be anywhere else. They don't care about how big the main article could become with that information on it. --JD^talk_email 11:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion--cj | talk 09:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/deletion, administrator has the right—nay, the obligation—to evaluate the merit of the arguments in terms of the goal of the project. When such a decision is not obvious, however, it should be explained in detail. -- SCZenz 12:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per KillerChihuahua. What's the point in having an article just for it to be deleted in a few weeks time (i.e. 'keep until the end of the series'). This does not belong on Wikipedia. It is fancruft of the worst sort. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist Closing admin pretty much ignored the entire AfD process, sending the message to everyone that he valued only his own input on the subject. That's not how AfD is supposed to work. --Hyperbole 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. A severely inadequate closure method, but the right decision nevertheless. This was plainly not encyclopedia material, being essentially a diary of some people traipsing around a building for a few weeks. -Splash - tk 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as within reasonable admin discretion. However, close decisions like this deserve more than just "The decision was delete" in the closure of the discussion. This argument could largely have been avoided if the closing admin had taken the time to fully lay out his/her reasoning. Rossami (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - As the closing admin on this AfD, I apologise for any extra trouble this has caused. Clearly I should have put forward my reasoning in the summary/the decision field: "When closing this AfD, despite there being more "keep" votes than "delete", the strength of arguments from the delete camp seems much stronger. WP:NOT is policy and this seems a clear case of 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information', as many voters pointed out. Also, AfD is not a vote: vote counts aren't everything". Once again, I apologise and will learn for next time. Regards, — Celestianpower ^háblame 18:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - Strength of arguments needs to be balanced with number of arguers, and it seems reasonable to disregard input that lacks any reasoning. --Improv 04:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remain Deleted The AfD itself was filled with people who were rabid fans on the show, with all their arguements being all the minute details(read: minor, incidental things) be left off of the television show's main page. Pages were being used to hold any info about show and daily summaries like it were a fan page. That's not what wikipedia is about. Kevin_b_er 04:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Celestianpower made a completely correct decision. Proto||type 13:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:WikiPâques.png

Image:WikiPâques.png was deleted in February on the basis it was an orphan. Well, of course it was an orphan - it was February and the image was an Easter Wikipedia logo, so it'll only be unorphaned when it's Easter. I see no valid reason to delete this. Users may still want it on their user page at Easter. It's also causing red links in older revisions. See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 February 14 for the listing on IfD. There's a copy here if the deletion is overturned and someone wants to reupload it. Angela. 08:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Re-upload to Commons, so any project can use it, and Commons is outside of enwiki's jurisdiction. --Rory096 08:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

National Hockey League player lists

List of every NHL player NHL players A NHL players B NHL players C NHL players D NHL players E NHL players F NHL players G NHL players H NHL players I

NHL players J NHL players K NHL players L NHL players M NHL players N NHL players O NHL players P NHL players Q NHL players R

NHL players S NHL players T NHL players U NHL players V NHL players W NHL players X NHL players Y NHL players Z

Relist. They were improperly speedy deleted out of process for "already have lists of hockey players. don't need two" . Although they were posted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHL players A, I was not given an opportunity to state some reasons as to why they should be kept, such as (briefly):

• They follow Wikipedia:List guideline
• They can be cleaned up. We can remove the external spam links, but add some dates and stats to each entry.
• There are other similar list pages thay list sports players in alphabetical order such as List of retired American football players, List of Major League Baseball players, List of National Basketball Association players, List of English footballers, List of footballers (Rugby Union), etc.
• In fact, there are many, many other lists of people on Wikipedia that are just lists of names in alphabetical order.

Because of these reasons, there is really no basis for speedy deletion -- they were out of process Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, bring the lists back. They were the best way of keeping tabs on hockey player articles so that duplicate articles weren't created and so that disambigs are easier. Masterhatch 07:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Bring them back! This is not link-farming or spamming. Although it's not always 100% accurate, as far as being a simple and comprehensive directory of statistics Hockeydb is the best site I've seen. Criticizing them for having advertisements is absurd -- apart from Wikipedia, almost every other site on the web does too! And like Masterhatch said, the list itself was invaluable for keeping track of NHL player articles. — GT 09:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:EL. Internal links are fine, and an external link to Hockeydb on each individual article is fine, too, but the point of WP lists is not to link to external articles on each of a number of related subjects, and the removal of external links from list articles is very common practice supported by policy and guidelines. As far as the lists themselves are concerned, they would be worth having if there are many redlinks, otherwise I can't see what this adds to a (self-maintaining) category. Just zis Guy you know? 10:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My recollection is that the majority of players who played before last decade do not have articles. That's why these pages were so useful -- you could browse them and see if a player you recognized didn't yet have an article. The nice thing about having the Hockeydb links right there was that you could instantly see the "story" behind each red-linked player as represented by his career statistics (which often tells you as much as you care to know about him). As far as not obeying WP:EL, I disagree as the point of the page was to be a list of players, and the external links served a secondary purpose. — GT 16:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, having the external link right beside each player helped keep people from adding their own name as a vanity article. hockeydb.com is, as far as i know, the most complete list of hockey players and their stats on the net and it because really easy to see if an added name is a vanity article or a real player. Masterhatch 17:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So why not make an infobox template with a parameter for the hockeydb entry? A Wikipedia list with external links (first!) and predominantly redlinks for the internal links is practically begging for deletion. External links are for references in articles. Just zis Guy you know? 19:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What's taking so long to get A through G back? Masterhatch 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I put everything back. Another admin deleted them again. Go talk to him. pschemp | talk 17:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Tagged as A3: article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections); deleted as such (i.e. in-process, as this is a valid speedy criterion). I didn't see any evidence that the deleting admin was aware of this debate.

• I have reopened the AfD and restored the deleted ones, as valid but contested speedy deletions. These are bare lists of links. The list of mainly redlinks may serve a purpose; perhaps it would be better to have these in Project space as part of a wikiproject's work list? Bare lists with no other data are an abomination unto Nuggan and should be shunned into oblivion; if dates and other encyclopaedic information are added then these are defensible (without, obviously, the external links). I have removed the external links to make this less like a mirror of HockeyDB with one or two Wikipedia articles added Just zis Guy you know? 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

05 June 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it or delete 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 Keep.~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 19:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja

With respect to the Original Undelete request by me, I have composed the following article in my userspace which meets (as far as I can tell) the requirements of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:Notability, etc.

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja (Userspace draft)

I, do,once again, request request undeletion per original request:

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja, undelete request by PHDrillSergeant. This web comic has grown in poularity since the last time it was deleted through AFD, and although the site's archive has 'only three entries', each of those entries has about 20-40 pages, which adds up to over 100 pages total including the current storyline. This comic is extremely funny and is important, especially one who wishes to know more about this odd character and his adventures. I think this comic should get another chance. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 23:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 21:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Is there any evidence that it has grown significantly in popularity? The Alexa rating is five digits, and a quick scan of Google turns up lots of self- and friend-promotion, but not much analysis or commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question Has there been any stories, interviews, or other coverage in mainstream or semi-mainstream press (not counting simple lists of webcomics)? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• What has changed since deletion? As noted above, the fundamental problem was a lack of evident encyclopaedic notability. Just zis Guy you know? 10:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
    • The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
      • WebComicList (a non-trivial published site that is independent of the site itself) has its own article, stated in the external links section. The web comic has ablso been the subject of debate on multiple community-based forums, such as eBaum's World Forums, SNAFU Comics Forums, and VG Cats Forums. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 17:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
        • That article on WebComicList is one sentence, as part of a list of webcomics. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, then, since this is a single trivial reference rather than multiple non-trivial references. We have no deadline to meet, we can afford to wait until it is genuinely notable and has atracted enough external attention to allow a verifiably neutral article to be written. Just zis Guy you know? 16:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Categorical undelete. This article has had very poor defense in the past. I did not see it mentioned that Dr. McNinja is a member of Dayfree Press, a very well-known collective in the webcomics community and therefore a peer to heavyweights such as Questionable Content and Dinosaur Comics. It has been brought up on the talk page that extreme bias has been built up against this article because of its rocky faring in the past. I would point out that there is no shame in accepting it now -- it does not undermine Wikipedia or any of the users who have criticized it; rather, it is a testament to our sometimes rigorous standards. It is now due time to recognize this professional-level webcomic, as anyone vaguely familiar with this online community must know of its near meteoric rise. Let's not be reactionary or snobbish; much lesser topics have their due recognition already. --BDD 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I was unaware that this comic was under Dayfree Press, yet this information seems to strengthen my resolve even more. Remember: if you can read it, if you can comprehend it, if you can learn from it...it isn't trivial. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 22:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I seem to remember (though I can't find the proper documentation, and it's possible that this was changed) a policy that members of the most prominent webcomic collectives merited articles. It's a sound policy. --BDD 00:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I'm the one who locked McNinja down as a {{deletedpage}}, but I agree with BDD. We may want to table this until the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards come out next month. I think there's a good chance McNinja will win one, and if it does, there won't be any question it will have met WP:WEB. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: I havn't read much of it, but I have seen references to it in other webcomics such as Bunny [15]. Also undelete per Abe. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Definitely notable per talk of deleted page.--Eloquence* 11:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Cory kennedy

My article on Cory kennedy was deleted via speedy deletion. I think this was a wrong move. Cory Kennedy is a becoming a huge internet phenenomenon. She has found a cult following on myspace, livejournal, and the cobra snake - as well as a place in current pop culture. This is the digital age. People are going to be looking her up. There is no reason for this article to have been deleted. This site should provide the most information possible - even about "internet celebrities." In fact, internet phenenomenons are particularly relevent on wikipedia because this IS the internet! I am requesting that this article be placed back up. I put in quite a bit of useful, accurate information about a person who is becoming very well known on the internet. Cory was also recently featured in Nylon magazine. Please review this. ~user:sleepyasthesouth

• Endorse speedy - As the deleting admin, it looked to be a nn-bio. The references were not reliable sources (blogs and livejournal). I deleted it first on a csd placed by another editor, then as a recreation (sleepyasthesouth recreated it including the notability and csd tags) and salted the earth. Syrthiss 12:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per Syrthiss. From the speedy tag: "it is an article about a person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)" There is no evidence that The Cobra Snake is itself a notable website, or that the parties she attends are notable, so all the more there cannot be evidence that she is notable for being on The Cobra Snake or for attending parties. Johnleemk | Talk 12:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• ADD-ON : I now understand why is was deleted. However, Isn't Cory Kennedy notable for suddenly having so many "fans" and finding herself all over the internet so quickly? What would qualify as a notable source? Would her feature in Nylon magazine qualify? Even if the information in the wikipedia article did not contain more than what is provided in the Nylon article? ~user:sleepyasthesouth
• Undelete and list on AfD As a contested speedy and the presence in Nylon constitutes a minimal claim to notability. JoshuaZ 16:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse / keep deleted As far as "internet phenomenon" qualifications go, I get 207 unique Google hits and the vast majority of those seem to be about other people by that name, among them a male bodybuilder, a soccer player, a congressional staff member, and a volleyball player. If she's an internet phenomenon, the internet doesn't really seem to be aware of that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Cory has only recently exploded on the internet over the past few weeks and it has been almost entirely on myspace, blogs and livejournal - places that will not really end up in google. A community was made for her on livejournal and in just over a week there are already over 200 members.
    However, if that's the final word - fine. I imagine soon she'll be on the site because her popularity seems to be only increasing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.205.176 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Above comment is misinformed. Those sites are very heavily indexed by google. Fan1967 18:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • comment A lot of absolute bullshit is heavily indexed by google, too. Being indexed by google doesn't make something a reliable source. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment I'm aware of that. However, the anon was trying to argue there was more attention being paid to this person in myspace and such sites that google wouldn't pick up. Google picks up pretty much everything there, so there's no hidden trove of notability. Fan1967 20:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, I typed that early this morning, apparently before things started to make sense. Reading it now, yes, you're right. I agree that if google can't see you; you aren't much of an internet phenomenon.
• Endorse deletion, quite blatantly there are no reliable sources for this. And 'contested speedy' is not a reason to restore (unlike contested PROD). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Well, I think the article definitely should have been deleted, however, I do not believe that it met the deliberately narrow speedy deletion criteria. I believe quite strongly that Sam is incorrect. A speedy-deletion that is contested in good faith is to be immediately restored and listed to AFD. That was a requirement set up when the speedy-deletion process was first established. Much as I hate to be a process wonk, we have to keep our own process creep under control. Overturn speedy and list to AFD. Being unsourced may be a deletion criteria but it is not a speedy-deletion criterion. Rossami (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you mind telling me where it says that contested speedy deletions get automatically sent to AfD, Rossami? Because I've never heard that, there's nothing in any of the obvious places saying that (e.g. next to the section on contested WP:PRODs on this very page), and if it ever was true, the widespread acceptance of WP:SNOW appears to contradict it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:CSD:A7 says "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead.". Also WP:SNOW has the text "If an issue raises no controversy, and ...", and therefor can't be used in disputed or controversial cases. --Rob 23:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Though I think that practically, the bar for 'disputed' there is significantly higher than for PRODs. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Widespread acceptance? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Paragraph 3 of the current header of WP:CSD reads "When there is reasonable doubt whether a page does [fall under a given criterion], discussion is recommended using one of the other methods under Wikipedia:deletion policy." That wording applies to all speedy-deletion criteria, not merely case A7. The wording has been tweaked over time but in my experience has always been interpreted as a requirement to undelete and use xFD when there is any good-faith objection to speedy-deletion. Rossami (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. There's no sourced claim of notability. Hence, CSD A7. The recourse for contested speedy deletions is this page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Valid speedy A7, and stands no chance whatsoever at AfD Just zis Guy you know? 21:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You can see the future here? WP:SNOW is never appropriate, specifically in a discussion about a speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yup, I can see the future fairly accurately here. Articles on vapid pseudo-celebrities with no objective claim to notability get daleted almost without exception. Most likely it would be tagged and speedied as A7 almost immediately it was listed. Somewhere I have a postcard with a picture of Michael Fish and the caption"I Predict The Future: Weatherman's Amazing Claim"... Just zis Guy you know? 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion sort of reluctantly. Rossami and Thieverr are quite right that this wasn't a good choice for speedy deletion, and for a dozen reasons it's better to err on the side of AfD - worst thing that happens is someone speedies it from there anyway. But... I dunno. These darn internet meme and internet meme wannabe articles are such pains, because there tends to be a crowd willing to stonewall against policy on them every time, and then we end up back at DRV. It would never be kept by a proper AfD, but it probably won't ever see one either, so it's best to keep it dead once it's dead. If the girl actually sticks around, there'll be media, and you can rewrite the article about her then. Does it really hurt that much if the interweb's flavor of the month doesn't automatically get a Wikipedia article? There's something to be said for standards. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per others and per WP:SNOW.
• Endorse deletion: Websites generate huge numbers for anything and everything, but it would be very wrong to call these numbers "fans." Further, it's all about the effect on the recorded world, the verifiable world. Anything that vanishes when the power goes out is less reliable than anything that needs a flood to destroy it. Geogre 13:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow! Geogre's Second Law!  :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics

User:Thebainer requested me to file this request below. The article has been speedied, because User:Rgulerdem allegedly edited it after he was indefinitely banned. Even if that allegation is correct, WP:CSD G5 only allows pages to be speedied, if they were created by banned users while they were banned. Irregular edits can easily be reverted instead. Raphael1 12:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Pointless rulelawyering is the only reason given to undelete, and does not address the original reason this page was tagged with the speedy tag: "rejected 'policy'. This page has become a permanently banned user magnet, please review history." (Oh, and did anyone mention that essentially the same page already exists at Wikipedia:Wikiethics?) Johnleemk | Talk 12:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know of any policy, which prohibits to copy a rejected policy to user space. Any why do you care so much, whether permanently banned users edit on a user space page? Would you rather want them to edit Wikipedia:Wikiethics? Raphael1 13:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Because userpages don't belong to users. Johnleemk | Talk 13:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • That's a non sequitur. I've never stated, that User:Rgulerdem or myself owned that page. Raphael1 13:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, a permanently banned user coming back to edit on a page in the previous user space accorded him is bad. This is not an allegation but indeed was what occurred as User:Rgulerdem again used an IP address or two that started with 216. which was previously reported on the RFCU confirming his sockpuppetry and left editorial commentary corresponding to his use of IP addresses as he returned to edit. Better that the page be kept deleted to discourage the return of the banned editor. Netscott 13:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question - what's the actual argument for this page's existence? Does it help bulid the encyclopedia? -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This page has been created to work on the prematurely polled proposal (5 days after the first draft has been created). Its location in user space has been suggested by User:Johntex to avoid controversy with opposing parties.[16] Raphael1 13:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well now that User:Rgulerdem is banned, the logic necessitating his usage of a subpage is no longer applicable. Regardless, he did come back via an anon IP address to edit on it and that's reason enough alone to delete it and keep it deleted. Netscott 14:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • As you know, I'd like to take over Rgulerdems work. What's your problem with that? Raphael1 16:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • My problem is that you are setting yourself up to act as a proxy to edit for a banned editor. This is bad. Netscott 17:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Netscott, at this point, how do you distinguish Raphael1's own ideas from ideas that are a banned editor's by proxy? Can nobody ever propose a similar policy, now that whatsisname is banned? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
            • GTBacchus, thank you for expressing your concerns. I have one question. Have you been following the discussion occurring on the Wikipedia mailing-list WikiEn-I? If you had you would instantly know that User:Raphael1 is acting as a proxy for User:Rgulerdem (particularly when Raphael1 started Resid Gulerdem's now G5 speedy deleted WP:OURS proposal). That is why I have proxy concerns. Banned editors should not have proxies working on their behalf, or am I wrong in making that statement? Netscott 20:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
              • I haven't been following WikiEn-I. I've never actually figured out how to subscribe to that. Nevertheless, I was pretty much aware that Raphael was trying to run with Rgulerdem's ideas. I guess what you're telling me is that there's no question that Raphael isn't acting based on his own initiative at all, but just acting for Rgulerdem, end of story. I don't know how you know that, but I'm willing to take your word for it. I also confess to not really getting what they're driving at with this proposed policy, but I guess it's neither here nor there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am Sam, Sam I am.

I do not like this censor sham.

Keep deleted in user space.

Keep deleted in any place.

Keep deleted from the socks.

Keep deleted says userbox.

Keep deleted here or there,

Keep deleted anywhere. --Dr. Blanning 16:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious. Kotepho 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Unsure why do we need a copy of this in User: and Wikipedia:? why is this so harmful or worthless that it must be deleted? Kotepho 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • May I congratulate you on your instincts? You've definitely asked the right question: "Why is this so harmful or worthless that it must be deleted?" Nobody here will be able to answer that question, because it's neither harmful nor is it worthless (at least not any more worthless, than most other stuff lying around in user space). Raphael1 02:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Sam I Am. --Cyde↔Weys 20:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. How many copies of a comprehensively rejected proposal do we need? Just zis Guy you know? 21:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment What exactly did the proposal contain in the first place? Even if it's already been voted down, couldn't it be kept and tagged as a rejected proposal or some such? --tjstrf 02:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Isn't that at Wikipedia:Wikiethics already? --Rory096 06:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and stop flogging a dead horse. Metamagician3000 06:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Nuke from orbit. Raphael has been openly communicating with a banned user on wikipedia-en-l to continue said banned editors interests. Shell ^babelfish 14:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, we don't need a banned user's disruptive attempt at policy-making resurrected in anybody's userspace. —Stormie 21:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Rgulerdem forfeited his user space when he got himself blocked. Many people warned him to stop wasting other people's time pushing this proposal. Rhobite 21:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Banned user. Unwelcome. Big Blue Marble 01:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. If he wants it to survive, keep on his computer drive. --Calton | Talk 04:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

04 June 2006

List of midnight movies

This article was tagged for speedy deletion as "patent nonsense," which I felt was unjustified. I placed a "hangon" tag on the article, and stated my reasoning on the article's talk page. I was going to list it on AfD and propose that it be merged with the main Midnight Movies article. I never got the opportunity to do so, however, since the article was, and I think rather precipitously, deleted. I propose, therefore, that the speedy deletion be reversed, the article be listed on AfD and suggest it's merger as stated above. ---Charles 03:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• The article was tagged for speedy deletion with that reason. I agree that it was not patent nonsense in the very specific and narrow way that we use the term here on Wikipedia. It the actual reason given for the deletion, however, was "WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information". Unfortunately, that is not an accepted criteria for speedy-deletion. I see little redeeming value to this list but as a procedural matter, it should have been AFD'd, not speedy-deleted. Rossami (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, undelete and send to AfD. No legitimate speedy reason given. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undeleted without prejudice, if someone wants to send this to AFD they can (obviously). --Cyde↔Weys 13:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• I have carried out a rough merger and redirect, which seems the best fate for the list's content. Xoloz 23:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yar

I would appreciate opinions/education on the deletion of Yar. I understand the Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, it would seem that certain concepts, which may be expressed in a single word, have some merit to their explanation. For a very similar use-case, see Gemütlichkeit. Thanks. --Incarnate

• Endorse deletion. Certainly, there is merit to there explanation of a word. That's what a dictionary is for. There was nothing in any version of this page that even attempted to be more than a definition. Please try creating it at Wiktionary.
  I'll note, however, that this particular word doesn't actually appear in any dictionary I could quickly put my hands on. (Merriam Webster had an entry as a variant spelling of "yare" but the definition given has nothing to do with any of the definitions on the deleted page.) Be prepared to offer some verifiable sources for the alleged definitions when you do so. Rossami (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks much for the clarification. I was uncertain of where the line might exist between the definition of a "word" and the definition of a "concept" (ie, definition of the word "cottage" versus a cottage) Additionally, the original article was based on my own experience, which is probably a better reason for deletion per the standards of articles (which I do support). Formal definitions are virtually nonexistent, only cropping up occasionally in film or TV as a truncated reference to boating. I'll give up and leave it be, thanks again for the appraisal. Incarnate 03:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, if you take it to Wiktionary be sure to give some evidence of attestation. One mention in The Simpsons does not make a valid yachting term. Maybe it's US-specific and that's why I have never heard it (I have many yachting friends including one who recently returned from sailing run d the world and another who teaches yachtmasters but they are all British). Just zis Guy you know? 08:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, with no prejudice against recreation if it can be made into something more than a dicdef. Apparently there is a real nautical term to be found under all the noise (see [17] and [18]) — however, that in itself makes it eligible for Wiktionary, not for Wikipedia. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. Dicdef. It's a real nautical word (may be spelled yar or yare), figures heavily in a section of dialog from The Philadelphia Story ([19]), but there's not much else to say about it. Fan1967 15:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• I've been bold and recreated this as a redirect to Tasha Yar, Denise Crosby's infamous Star Trek: The Next Generation character. Xoloz 18:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The Skin of Evil would be proud! Syrthiss 19:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

AK Productions

AK Productions was deleted suddenly and for know told reason. I believe that AK Productions should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia, sure it is a young company but still exists. I would like the article to be restored or for a reason to be given for it's overnight deletion. Comrade_Kale 2:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Mere existence is insufficient reason to justify a Wikipedia article. There appear to be a number of companies out there by that name. Which one is yours? Fan1967 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid A7. --Rory096 20:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• The opening sentence of this page read "AK Productions, is a recently created Production Company operating out of Waterville High School in New York State. Founded by Kale Carter, Brendan Carter, Olin Carlsen and Andrew Desimone in late May of 2006". It probably did not fit the deliberately narrow speedy-deletion criteria but if it had gone to AFD, it would have been measured against the standards of WP:CORP. From the information available, I don't see any chance that it would have succeeded in that discussion. I can not endorse the speedy-deletion but neither can I support it's undeletion without at least a little bit of evidence that this is appropriate to the encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• In other words, when I asked which of the many googleable "AK Productions" this was, the answer is "None of them". Endorse Deletion. Fan1967 22:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: We get a ton of buddy articles from youngsters. Simply put, they need to be real before they can even go to AfD, IMO. If something is just three kids announcing that they are now a corporation (or rock band, or rap group, or game faction, or gang), then it's true A7. The kick is the "formed in 2006" and "recently." We need to have things generate effects on the world before anyone will need them explained. Geogre 13:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AK Productions, is a recently created Production Company operating out of Waterville High School in New York State. And the article was created and edited solely by the people named in the article. A textbook case of WP:NFT. Just zis Guy you know? 15:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together

FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together was deleted as not notable. I think it is notable, given the press coverage listed under "References" and the people behind it, and I would like the article to be restored. TruthbringerToronto 11:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete; seems to be notable (albeit with less than 1000 google hits). — JEREMY 15:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't find an AfD on this one. The AfD article that exists (here) was just created by TruthbringerToronto as a mistaken attempt to launch the DRV. How was it originally deleted? Fan1967 16:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and AFD as a contested A7 speedy deletion. --Allen3 ^talk 17:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist if it was a contested speedy, though I'm inclined to suspect there will still be a consensus to delete. (Google cache of article is here). Fan1967 17:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Speedy deletion is not prod, you can't just contest it and force it to AfD. This has 11 Google hits. Most of those "articles" are on the group's site! --Rory096 20:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I get about 700 by looking for variations, which IMO gets over speediable territory, but probably still fails AFD consensus. Fan1967 21:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Doubtful that's more than A7, I get that many hits (and I was speedied, and quite justifiably so). --Rory096 21:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, speedy-deletion is exactly like prod in that regard. By policy and long tradition, any speedy-deletion which is contested in good faith is immediately undeleted and listed on AFD. That was one of the requirements set up when the speedy-deletion process was first approved. Rossami (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmm, so why do we even have things like {{hangon}}? --Rory096 06:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Hangon isn't always available. Sometimes an article gets tagged and deleted too quickly for an editor to notice it and put the hangon tag. Fan1967 15:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• AfD it due to possible WP:V violation as well as a name that doesn't follow naming converntions. Likely an article by an inexperienced or new user due to the use of an abrreviation in the title, which gives an idea of the quality. I can't say without reading it, so relaunch it for afd.-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 01:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Notable cause which deserves as much support as possible. Karnei 18:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So is it notable, or does it deserve support? If just the latter, that's not a valid reason to undelete. If the former, how is it notable? --Rory096 06:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

List of tongue-twisters

I listed the article for deletion on 17 April. The consensus was to either keep, or move to Wikibooks. The article was transwikied on 29 May by User:theProject, and subsequently deleted by User:Tijuana Brass. However, it was proclaimed unsuitable for Wikibooks and deleted from there by b:User:Jguk. As the alternative to transwiki was keep, and transwikiing failed, we should restore it. Rain74 11:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Since it's on Wikiquote now, keep deleted (I hope they'll accept it). Rain74 18:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Reinstate and relist. I will vote delete on AfD. Just zis Guy you know? 12:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  Keep deleted since it's at Wikiquote now, which seems like a much better place. Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Reinstate and relist - makes sense in the circs. keep deleted given the new information available Metamagician3000 12:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Suggestion why not move it to the Department of Fun? Sophia 12:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted no point in duplicating as it's at Wikiquote now. Sophia 05:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, the afd was pretty clear that this should be kept somewhere. After undeletion transwiki discussions should continue. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Changed to endorse.
  • • Endorse deletion as this has been transwiki'd in line with the AFD. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It has been. Please check the Transwiki log more carefully. Also, just because one wiki doesn't want it doesn't mean we must keep it. -Splash - tk 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Posting the result of the transwiki log was helpful here, implying that I was required to search that backloged page is not helpful, I assumed good faith in the nominator. Just because one wiki doesn't want it certainly doesn't mean we should give it safe haven, but the afd was clear that it should be transwikid or kept, not transwiki'd or deleted. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete don't know why it was deleted in the first place, because it was one of the better lists on Wikipedia. Promote to featured after undeletion.  Grue  12:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist: I'd prefer that conjunctive votes get clear on the matter. Yes, it will probably be kept, but I should like AfD to speak clearly. Geogre 13:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted in light of information that the thing was transwiki'd. If there has been a transwiki, then this is a no-brainer (and pretty much an invalid review), as duplicate material is forbidden. If the authors don't want it on Wikiquote, then that's sort of too bad, as authors are no more priviledged than readers at Wikipedia. Geogre 22:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It did. It was transwikied, rejected at it's target, and now transwiki'd elsewhere. -Splash - tk 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Splash. I took the deletion summary and his comment on WT:DRV too literally and did not realize it was already moved to Wikiquote. Kotepho 21:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Undelete/Transwiki to wikiquote, this is just silly. Kotepho 19:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• No, no, no. People should do there research first. It's been transwiki'd to Wikiquote. See q:Transwiki:List of tongue-twisters. Wikipedia didn't want it, and neither did Wikibooks. That is no reason to restore it here. You don't get some kind of free pass into Wikipedia just because noone else wants it! Anyway, it's been transwiki'd elsewhere. That's all that's needed. -Splash - tk 20:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme keep deleted. Just because wikibooks doesn't want something doesn't mean we have to keep it. And I totally agree with Splash. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Splash. The AfD debate did show a strong consensus that the content be kept somewhere, but now that it's on Wikiquote, there's no reason to keep it here. (I've notified all the people who voted before Splash's comment and asked them to revise or confirm their vote in light of it. Sorry for the spam.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems my spamming was actually redundant. Doubly sorry. *embarrassed* —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Helped me, actually, as I was crossing this one off my internal list. Geogre 03:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, as the desired outcome (keeping the content elsewhere) has been reached. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the VfD in question has a consensus to keep. Most users voted for keep as a primary solution and transwiki as a secondary. The VfD was closed inproperly. There were no delete votes. The decision should be overturned.  Grue  09:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, my closure did use a modicum of discretion, but isn't it a leap to improper? Kotepho 20:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Your closure was valid, in my book: more than one person pointed out that the list is inherently unverifiable (i.e. unsuitable for Wikipedia) and most offered Transwiki as a valid outcome, which it seems to me to be. Status quo appears to be reasonable. Just zis Guy you know? 15:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• undelete, but remove the non-English tongue twisters and have interwiki links to the other languages for their tongue twisters. Masterhatch 18:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Closing this discussion as "transwiki" was within reasonable discretion for the closing admin. The fact that the target project later decided that the content did not fit their inclusion criteria does not mean that Wikipedia must change its own criteria. Rossami (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. `'mikka (t) 04:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Raphael1/Wikiethics

This page got deleted for the following reason: "can't have copy & paste moves of deleted pages - GFDL requires the history"

I've copied the page from User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics (before it was removed) and pasted it to User:Raphael1/Wikiethics. I didn't know how I could have copied the history of this article as well and certainly didn't want to violate GFDL. Please restore that page together with the history of User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics to make it compliant with GFDL. Raphael1 00:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse. Anyway, Rgulerdem is banned, and it was a fair deletion that time. Will (^E_@) T 01:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It was removed, because it has been in the userspace of an indef-banned user. I am not banned, therefore User:Raphael1/Wikiethics can't be removed for the same reason. Raphael1 01:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It's CSD G4 and possibly G5 Will (^E_@) T 01:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • It's neither G4, because it hasn't been recreated, instead it has been copied before deletion (besides G4 doesn't apply for user space pages), nor is it G5 (because I'm not banned). Raphael1 01:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
        • It's a recreation. The G4 exception for user space is supposed to be for articles undeleted at a user's request, not for recreation of deleted content that was originally in the user namespace. Will (^E_@) T 01:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
          • It's not a recreation. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics has been removed on the 2006-05-31 and I've copied the page before that date. BTW please restore User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics as well since G5 only applies for pages created by banned users while they were banned. Raphael1 01:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. This "policy" has been the source of highly contentious and disruptive editing and User:Raphael1's user page is just an unecessary copy of the rejected Wikipedia:Wikiethics that is likely to do the same as User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics which is to encourage banned editors to use sockpuppets or anonymous IPs to circumvent their block to edit on Wikipedia. Netscott 09:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Whether you deem my copy to be "unnecessary" is certainly no part of WP:CSD. Furthermore did User:Raphael1/Wikiethics with no syllable encourage banned editors to circumvent their block. I wonder, where you got that from? Raphael1 14:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well this MfD for User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics is what relates to my mentioning banned and sockpuppet users. I'm curious Raphael1, why did you actually save a copy of permanently banned user User:Rgulerdem's page? I understand that as Wikipedia editors we are to assume good faith in the editing of our fellow contributors but was the reason you saved a copy because you noticed that as a banned editor Resid Gulerdem was editing on it and figured that it'd be deleted and to disrupt that process you decided to save a copy? It seems so odd to me that you should have just happened to save a copy of his user page version just prior to its deletion. Netscott 19:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: the article itself isn't banned, just one of the originating editors. Netscott, why is it a problem for Raphael1 to have a userspace copy (I assume a developmental version, like User:Jeremygbyrne/Roger Elwood or User:Jeremygbyrne/Brontosaurus) of an article? — JEREMY 15:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note - this vote was gained through advertisement.[20]Timothy Usher 17:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Jeremy, it's all a question of good faith. I didn't request deletion or even mention the existence of Raphael1's user page copy of permanently banned User:Rgulerdem's user page to anyone (despite misgivings about seeing him copy it just prior to its deletion) but someone else from the WikiEn-I mailing list appears to have seen mention of it by Raphael1 there and decided independently to delete it. Now that the act is done I support it for the reasons I expressed above. I would recommend the both of you to disassociate yourselves from Resid Gulerdem for anyone editing in support of him is likely to have his or her own reputation tarnished as he was not only disruptive here but in a completely independent fashion was repeatedly disruptive and blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia. Resid Gulerdem is just bad for Wikipedia. Netscott 19:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't understand your "good faith" argument. It's obvious that most material which is about to be deleted will continue to exist elsewhere — in google's cache for example. Raphael1 could have taken a copy of the article offsite and done to it whatever he chose, in the privacy of his own home. Instead, he chose to keep it on wikipedia (which looks like good faith to me), and he has suffered for it. Next time, do you think he will be more or less inclined to act in secrecy? — JEREMY 10:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • The preceding user's comments were solicited through targetted advertisement[21].Timothy Usher 10:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • No need to persist with your well-poisoning, Timothy. Most people understood your accusation the first time. — JEREMY 10:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
            • I did understand User:Timothy Usher's statement of fact the first time and also saw it as an attempt by User:Raphael1 to "game the system", but do agree that it's a bit silly to repeat such a statement. ;-) Netscott 11:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Suffered? Where's the suffering? The only ones suffereing are those having to spend time dealing with this nonsense. Let's face it Jeremy, Raphael1's actions were to thwart in a disruptive fashion the virtually assured deletion of Resid Gulerdem's user page. Is that not so difficult to understand? Regardless as bainer's comment below illustrates, Raphael1 shouldn't be trying to resurrect his own copy of Resid Gulerdem's final version of "Wikiethics" but in fact should be trying to resurrect Resid Gulerdem's (rightly imho) deleted user page. Netscott 10:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Raphael1's actions were to thwart in a disruptive fashion And you foresaw this via which divinatory or telepathic methodology, exactly? It would seem far more likely that Raphael1 took a copy to preserve relevant material for a future proposal. Your refusal to assume good faith (or at least not to assume the first bad faith interpretation that springs to mind) is troubling. This is yet another example of flawed rules-lawyering supported by the tyranny of the majority. Raphael1's editing may frustrate some people, but the way he has been treated is disgraceful. — JEREMY 11:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
              • The plea to "rules lawyering" is rather lame, can't you do better than use that argumentation device? Honestly, Raphael1 like myself and User:Metros232 saw that the permanently banned editor User:Rgulerdem was editing via IP addresses on his failed Wikiethics proposal and realized (again rightly so) that it was likely to be deleted because of that and to thwart such a deletion he saved a copy. Raphael1 wasn't involved in editing on that policy since it was last worked on over at Wikipedia:Wikiethics. Does it not strike either of you as foolish to be here wasting our time discussing the saving of a policy that was founded by a demonstrably disruptive editor? It's as if you're here trying to defend a banned user's right to continue to make policy on Wikipedia even when he's blocked. The only reason I can see for this is because "it's a cause!". You know if Resid Gulerdem had only been blocked on the English Wikipedia I might understand better those wanting to defend him and his ridiculous policy but the fact that he's been independently repetitively blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia makes me sooner see such individuals as foolish. Netscott 11:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
                • Firstly I have not seen User:Rgulerdem editing on User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics via IP addresses, and secondly I have been editing User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics before it was removed. Raphael1 12:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
                  • Raphael1, why did you think his user page was going to be deleted then? If the user page had just sat there no one's attention would have been brought to it, but this is not what occurred. Netscott 12:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
                    • Don't you first want to apologize for your wrong claims before you ask any further questions? Raphael1 13:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
                      • No, due to my witnessing your previous demonstrations of a lack of good faith I'm inclined to view this as another example of the same. Netscott 14:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse~. Per Netscott's above comments -- Karl Meier 17:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Netscott.Timothy Usher 17:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Wikipedia:Wikiethics still exists if you want to go edit that. What you did by copy and pasting it into your own user space was done only to get around the fact that it was about to be deleted it. That is, in an ironic way, unethical. I also frown up the nominating user for the advertising of this discussion [22], [23], [24], etc. 6 advertisements in total. Metros232 17:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I've got no supernatural skill to see the future. How could I have acted upon a "fact", which still lied ahead? Raphael1 17:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Why did you copy and paste it to yours then? If you didn't think it was going to be deleted, why did you need a copy of your own instead of just editing the one that existed at Rgulerdem's user page? Why did you think that two needed to exist? Metros232 17:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed I did suspect, that it might get deleted in the future, but I certainly didn't know about that. I still don't see, how it is in any way unethical to take over the work of an indef-banned user. Besides User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics shouldn't have been removed as well since G5 only applies for pages created by banned users while they were banned. Raphael1 19:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, copy of a previously rejected attempt at censorship. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted since this was proposed at Wikipedia:Wikiethics and solidly rejected I see no particular merit in keeping it hanging around in user space in a form which (at first glance) looks to be even less acceptable. Just zis Guy you know? 22:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not going to endorse or overturn my own deletion, though I will say to Raphael1 that if he wants the content, he needs to hold a DRV on the original page (User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics) because copy & pasted pages cannot possibly exist when the original page is deleted. --bainer (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've read through this deletion review, and what I'm missing is any argument for why this page should exist. Why maintain a copy of a rejected policy written by a banned user? How does it help write the encyclopedia? -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I wonder, why you even ask that question. Shouldn't you rather ask, why should that page be removed? Nevertheless I will answer your question: Rgulerdem and some other editors worked on this former prematurely rejected policy in userspace to avoid controversy with opposing parties. I'd like to continue Rgulerdems work, which is why I've created a copy. Raphael1 16:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I think it's pretty clear from reading this discussion that it's being removed because it's the work of a banned editor, and seems to be a sore spot for a lot of people. At that point, the ball's back in your court - if so many Wiki regulars are against it, what's so great about it to make it worth the static you incur by recreating it? I've asked a more pertinent question at your talk page. If your goal is to improve Wikipedia, a bad way to start is by pissing a bunch of people off by acting as proxy for a banned user, practically speaking. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I can't believe, that you are repeating Netscotts accusation ("proxy editing"). I consider this a personal attack, since it completely disregards my individuality. What's so bad about the work of this banned editor, that it needs to be removed? Will you remove Interfaith as well, because it's mostly his work? IMHO this whole agitation to delete User:Rgulerdems work and keep it deleted, is a clear sign, that Rgulerdem hasn't been blocked for his behaviour, but for the position he has taken on various topics. Raphael1 02:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

        I don't enter the conversation just assuming that Netscott is lying; why not trust that I'm taking his word in, whadyecallit... good faith? So you say you're not being his proxy. I don't have any evidence to say which of you is right. I know basically nothing about Rgulerdem. I still think you're running into a lot of static, and would probably try a different approach, if I were in your position, and if I were more interested in results than in drama. You choose your battles - is it more important to you to influence Wikipedia in a positive direction, or to do it using this particular guy's words? There's reasons to stand on principle, and there's reasons not to. You can probably cause a big scene, if you set your mind to it, but that'll poison the policy you're talking about in the community's eyes even more. Have you noticed some pretty stiff opposition to this policy? If I were you, I'd be sitting back from this DRV and trying to start some conversations about what's so incompatible between this proposal of yours and the current state of Wikipedia - you haven't replied to my post on your talk page where I'd love to have that conversation with you, if you're down to have it. Come on, don't knock your head against this wall, it won't move. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - I have done a little work on this proposal and having a record of it is helpful in case anyone decides to work on it in the future. Also, as a comment to the closing admin, despite insinuations to the contrary, advertising a deletion reveiw is not a violation of any policy. Johntex\^talk 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It violates the spam guidelines: "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view."Timothy Usher 23:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted once and for all. Metamagician3000 06:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, we don't need a banned user's disruptive attempt at policy-making resurrected in anybody's userspace. —Stormie 21:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. (Personal attack removed) of a banned user. Unwelcome. Big Blue Marble 02:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

03 June 2006

Sydney Roosters Season articles

Three articles I created simultaneously, that being Roosters1908; SydneyRoosters1909; and SydneyRoosters1910 were deleted in the last few days. The Sydneyroosters1909 article held a debate for the deletion while I had only added little content to the page, the article was then up for deletion before I had done any updates. While the debate took place I continued doing the updates, as seen in the discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sydneyroosters1909

I have plead my case to show that there are updates coming and its justification of existence.

I had also created a fourth article, however this was later and I must add that I created the page before the others were deleted. The fourth article; Sydney Roosters 1911 Season was created and included the updates I had promised with the 3 previous articles.

However when this article was put to debate re: deletion, the general consensus so far has been to keep the article based on the argument brought forward by Athenaeum who states; 'Wikipedia is an almanac. It says so in the first sentence of Wikipedia:What is an article. This is verifiable real world information. It is not indiscrimate, and deleting it would do some harm and absolutely no good. Wikipedia is a free reference resource and this is mainstream reference material.'

Considering the 3 previous articles were exact replicas in structure to the Sydney Roosters 1911 Season only differing in factual content, I propose that if the outcome of the debate be to keep the Sydney Roosters 1911 Season that the 3 previous articles be restored as this argument brought forward by Athenaeum was not put forward re: the debate of the other 3 articles.Sbryce858 07:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and relist at the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Roosters 1911 Season, where consensus now appears to favor keeping that sort of content. This will ensure a more-or-less coherent decision. Sandstein 22:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist - perhaps it was closed properly, but this is very likely good encyclopedic content. The team concerned has long been a major force in the NSW league. Let's see how it goes this time. Metamagician3000 09:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist based on the outcome of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Roosters 1911 Season, which was in favour of keeping the article.Sbryce858 21:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User:AKMask/log

April Fools Day this year included a minor invasion of the GNAA IRC chat by members of wikipedia crapflooding with very informative information about Keynesian economics. Deleted with the note of Privacy Violation. Note the GNAA has no rules against logging the chats, and infact encourages their members, which granted we are not, to do so. There was no privacy violation. I humbly request it to be undeleted.Edit:Also to note, it was linked to off the BJAODN page for the April fools day section. -M^ask 09:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm... I think you got the name wrong. There's no deleted content at the pagename you provided. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So I did, fixed now (dang capital letter) -M^ask 09:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak undelete If there are no privacy violation issues here; that is, if the GNAA chat does not hold a policy against public logging, then I could care less. I mean, the log's pure nonsense and a waste of server space (I'm quietly for deleting BJAODN altogether), but whatever. Let him have his log. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted conditionally - only if it can be verified there is no rule against public posting of logs, then undelete. NSLE _(T+C) at 09:47 UTC (2006-06-03)
• Keep deleted: Who cares if GNAA has a rule? It's Freenode that forbids reposting. The "authors" can't be verified and don't get to say. Geogre 12:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Last I checked #gnaa was juped on freenode, so I don't think the irc logs are from freenode. Kotepho 17:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The channel was not on Freenode. -M^ask 18:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and send to MFD if you want it deleted unless someone can show that it is from a network that prohibits public posting of logs (it certainly isn't the norm). Kotepho 17:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Someone should have checked with the page owner before speedying. --StuffOfInterest 18:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  No one owns any article on Wikipedia. --mboverload@ 19:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Amazingly, I agree with Geogre. This hardly ever happens. Except when there is a Y in the day name. Just zis Guy you know? 23:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, aside from the privacy concerns, Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, not the repository for inane crap. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Christopher Parham. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete If want deleted should go to MfD, and is imo, within the bounds of what we allow people to put in their userspace(and I'm under the impression that there is no privacy issue in this case). JoshuaZ 16:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. How is this not a privacy invasion? Metamagician3000 12:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Everyone read and reconsider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:About#Wiki_is_a_great_concept_but_._._. In short, Wiki suffers horribly from this phenomenon, and until things change, it'll never be objective. In Wiki's current form, all of you are responsible for refraining from personal bias (currently racking up a deplorable record, to date), and reviewing relevancy based not on your experience (as nearly all of you have done), but on an objective measure (sorry, but Google hits isn't objective, nor accurate) of actual relevancy.
  • Can you please explain what the above paragraph means, and its relevancy to this discussion? User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

2006 June

1. Okashina_Okashi - Decision of the original closer to relist at AfD is endorsed. 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
2. Dismal's Paradox - Relisted at AfD. 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
3. User:SPUI/jajaja - Nomination withdrawn. 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
4. List of political leaders widely regarded as totalitarian - Request for information answered. 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
5. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed. 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
6. Cultural references in Pokémon - Deletion endorsed. 16:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
7. Fluffy (The Lion King) - Deletion endorsed. 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
8. Kelly Roberti - Copyright issue resolved, restored. 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
9. Image:Pierre Janssen.jpg - Commons image, action impossible here. 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Review
10. Neanderthal theory of autism - Deletion endorsed. 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
11. Be bold, Be Bold - Overturn RfD and revert to WP:BOLD. 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
12. Jeff Lindsay - Deletion endorsed. 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
13. "State Debate Associations" - Deletion endorsed. 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
14. How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 - Deletion endorsed. 17:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
15. Kinston Indians - Deletion endorsed. 17:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
16. Wikipedia:SCAG - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
17. Image:Nuvola 64 apps important.png - undeletion impossible; deleted prior to 16 June 2006. 13:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
18. Sick Nick Mondo - Deletion endorsed for now, pending AfD outcome for related Nick Mondo; should that survive, this is a suitable redirect. 18:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review

    Nick Mondo having survived AfD, this is restored as a redirect. 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

19. True Torah Jews - Deletion endorsed. 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
20. UCIP - Deletion endorsed. 18:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
21. Mending Wall - Keep endorsed. 11:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
22. Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) - Deletion endorsed. 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
23. TheSmartMarks.com - Deletion endorsed. 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
24. Dirt pudding - Transwiki and deletion endorsed. 17:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
25. Kirill Makharinsky - Deletion endorsed. 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
26. Armando Lloréns-Sar - History restored, maintained as redirect; merge issues are an editorial concern for article's talk page. 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
27. Hollywood Undead - Deletion endorsed. 17:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
28. Trexy - Closing administrator agreed to relist AFD. 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Review
29. Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak - No consensus closure endorsed. 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
30. Knox (animator) - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
31. Lightsaber combat - Keep closure endorsed. 18:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
32. Stone Trek - Deletion closure endorsed. 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
33. File:944 h.jpg - DRV closed, image in Commons jurisdiction. 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
34. Sadullah Khan - Undeleted, relisted. 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
35. Atromitos - Undeleted. 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
36. Walk To Emmaus - Deletion endorsed. 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
37. Wikipedia:Conservative notice board. Kept deleted. Strong endorsement. 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Review.
38. Lost: The Journey - Relisted. 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
39. User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes and Template:User Gangster - Undeleted. 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
40. The Lost Boys (demogroup) - Relist. 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
41. Second War (Harry Potter) - Deletion endorsed. 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
42. IRCDig - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
43. Saryn Hooks - Undeleted and relisted at AfD. 17:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
44. Template:Major_programming_languages - template content restored 06:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) review
45. Strategic Policy Consulting - Deletion endorsed. 16:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
46. Actuarial Outpost - Kept kept, mistaken nomination. 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
47. Image:WikiPâques.png - Uploaded to Commons, as suggested. 16:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
48. The Esplanade Mall - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 16:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
49. Sydney Ling - AfD result of "no consensus" endorsed. 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
50. Siberian language - Deletion endorsed. 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
51. Burlington Center Mall - Challenge of no consensus afd withdrawn. 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
52. Erik Möller - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
53. theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh - Deletions endorsed. 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
54. Wikipedia:OURS - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
55. 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) - Deletion endorsed. 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
56. Conservative Underground - Deletion endorsed. 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
57. Boring Business Systems - AfD reopened by acclamation. 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
58. Joseph D. Campbell - Previous AfD overturned, to be relisted at AfD. 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
59. Church of Reality - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
60. Heinen's - Result reversed by consensus, AfD now closed as "no consensus". 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
61. BB Sinha - Restored, listed at AfD. 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (deleted at AfD 20:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)) Review
62. Mending Wall - Restored, listed at AfD, closed as keep, brought here again (above). 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
63. Cancer Bats - Restored, to be resubmitted to AfD in light of new evidence. 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
64. Cum On Her Face - Deletion endorsed. 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
65. AlternC - Deletion endorsed. 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
66. Tiffany Holiday - Deletion endorsed. 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
67. Shane Cubis - Deletion endorsed unanimously (excepting discounted anons/newbies.) 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
68. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
69. Big Brother 7 chronology - Deletion endorsed. Will userfy upon request. 15:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
70. Wikimedia Meta-Wiki - action reverted by the closer. AFD reopened. 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
71. The Adventures of Dr. McNinja - Consensus to permit userpage draft as new recreation, will be submitted to AfD. 17:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
72. Cory kennedy - Deletion endorsed. 17:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
73. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics - Kept deleted unanimously. 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
74. Yar - Deletion endorsed without prejudice to unrelated redirect now at title. 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
75. List of midnight movies - Content restored for merge and redirect. 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
76. AK Productions - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
77. FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together - Undeleted and sent to AfD. 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
78. List of tongue-twisters - Deletion endorsed in light of new Wikiquote transwiki. 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
79. User:Raphael1/Wikiethics - Deletion endorsed. 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
80. Roosters1908, Sydneyroosters1909, and Sydneyroosters1910 - Undeleted to be AfD'ed in light of new evidence. 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
81. National Hockey Leaque player lists - Restored speedily and AFD reopened. 08:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
82. User:AKMask/log - Restored (by a narrow margin) to be sent to MfD. 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
83. Male Unbifurcated Garment - Deletion endorsed (again -- Second DRV in two weeks.) 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
84. Penis banding - Deletion endorsed. 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Review
85. Template:User no notability - Deletion narrowly endorsed. (date unavailable, deletion review never archived) Permalink
86. Syed Ahmed - deletion endorsed, redirected to The Apprentice (UK series 2) 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
87. Ho Shin Do - deletion endorsed without prejudice 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
88. Israel News Agency - article content restored 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
89. Delaware County Intermediate Unit - Deletion closure endorsed. 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
90. Steve Bellone - Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
91. Team NoA - Previous version restored, survived AfD as no consensus. 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
92. Springfield M21 - Restored as redirect with history. 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
93. The drips - Speedy deletion contested, overturned; sent to AfD. 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
94. Template:Voting icons - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
95. Ali Zafar - New NPOV recreation permitted. 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
96. Barbara Bauer, The Literary Agency Group and others - Bauer undeleted and kept at AfD; others kept deleted. 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
97. Scienter - deletion overturned. 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
98. Auto repair shop - original speedy deletion endorsed, without prejudice to now-existing distinct redirect at this title. 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
99. Wikipedia v search engines - deletion endorsed unanimously. 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
100. Pat Price - deletion overturned unanimously, no need to relist. 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
101. Talk:Brian Peppers - kept deleted. 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
102. The Juggernaut Bitch - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
103. South Coast League - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
104. Other side of the pillow - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
105. Joel Leyden - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
106. Sharting - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
107. User:Disavian/Userboxes/Green Energy - deletion endorsed, narrowly 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
108. Left-wing terrorism - article history restored 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
109. Stella Maris College Scout Group - deletion endorsed 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
110. List of Michael Savage neologisms - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
111. Superhorse - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
112. Exicornt - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
113. Image:Lock-icon.jpg - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
114. College Confidential - article content restored 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
115. Tim Dingle - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
116. Abstract People - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
117. Christian views of Hanukkah - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
118. Claught of a bird dairy products - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
119. LIP6 - continue from rewritten version 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
120. Hulk 2 - redirected to Hulk (film) for now 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
121. Xombie - article content restored 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
122. Possible wars between liberal democracies speedy-deletion undone by deleting admin. listed to AFD. 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
123. Gary Howell deletion endorsed. 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
124. New Sincerity - deletion endorsed. 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
125. Successful Praying - speedy deletion as copyvio endorsed. 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
126. Videohypertransference - user copy granted. deletion from articlespace endorsed. 20:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
127. Oz Categories 8 endorse, 5 overturn, deletion endorsed. 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Review

Userbox discussions

• Template:User no notability - deletion endorsed, narrowly 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• Template:User organ donor template content restored 17:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian See WP:TGS
• Template:User satanist kept deleted
• Template:User cannabis kept deleted
• Template:User CCP - kept deleted. 00:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User against fox hunting (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW. Massive endorsement.)

Archives

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 May)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 April)

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 Wikipedia talk:Administrators. If you nominate an article here, be sure to make a note on the sysop's user talk page regarding your nomination. A template, {{subst:DRVNote}} is available to make this easier.

Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.

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 Wikipedia talk:Administrators. If you nominate an article here, be sure to make a note on the sysop's user talk page regarding your nomination. A template, {{subst:DRVNote}} is available to make this easier.

Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.

Proposed deletions

Articles deleted under the Wikipedia: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.

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

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=Wikipedia: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 November 6}}</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 November 6}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 November 6|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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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".

08 June 2006

Church of Reality

(See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of reality.) --66.28.20.178 15:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Church of Reality website

The Church of Reality is a religion, based on what is tangible and real. Somehow, for some reason, its article (and even its talk page) was deleted, with little to no apparent reason. This is really no different from deleting an article on any other religion, which is unfair censorship. I'm asking whoever deleted it to either give a truly good reason as to why it should stay deleted, or undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.178.151 (talk • contribs) 06:59 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, close discussion, protect from recreation. This cruft was deleted twice via AfD, and recreated/speedy deleted lots of times thereafter. Process was followed at all times. Sandstein 08:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and protect per Sandstein. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 10:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a forum for self-promotion in the name of free speech. 72, please see WP:NOT and WP:N. Endorse deletion, yea, now and forever, amen. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no version of any of the incarnations of this article is anything other than self-promotion for a group with, as far as I can tell, no claim of notability being present in any case. Just zis Guy you know? 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion valid AfD with a massively overwhelming consensus to delete, no evidence that circumstances have changed since then. Alexa rank of offical site linked to above is 456,440. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and protect from recreation per every reason expressed above. Postdlf 16:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, protect from recreation and bury with a stake through its heart. This has wasted enough time. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Delete. Keep deleted. Protect. Ban the next person who tries to recreate it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It's hard to review something if you don't know what it said.--mboverload@ 20:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Sufficient insight is available from the two AfD links above, as well the fun-and-games of the last time this came to DRV, which appears to have found a copy of itself on the talk page of the latter of the two linked to at the top of this review. -Splash - tk 21:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Allow recreation if it is a real religion AND the recreation can be done in a non-bias way that is similar to other articles on religion, and not just recreated as a self-endorsement.--Azathar 01:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Heinen's

• Strong Overturn, Undelete. A top 100 Ohio business; clearly passes WP:CORP; was already cited on Supermarkets in the United States, therefore clearly notable (and meant to be given a wikipedia page); not to mention has MORE stores in its chain, has a HIGHER sales volume, occupies a LARGER region, and has MORE information supplied than many businesses that have ALREADY been given Wikipedia pages: Westborn Market, Woodman's Food Market, Strack and Van Til, Scolari's, Magruder's, Felpausch, and many more. AS CREATOR OF THE ARTICLE, I would also like to comment on my extremely upsetting experience in posting this article. I have already given all of these reasons NUMEROUS times in defense of my article, and I have proven in my previous posts that my article should be granted a Wikipedia page. It was speedily deleted without hardly any consideration or supplied reason except that more people had posted DELETE than had posted KEEP - a 1 vote majority in fact (yes 1 vote). NO OTHER REASONING was provided to account for its deletion! I spent a great deal of time describing the business and how it is definately influential and notable. My arguments it seems were not considered at all and were simply left out of the matter. My article was not biased, and it was not created as advertising. PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS ARTICLE as it clearly deserves a Wikipedia page. [25]. If the article is undeleted, I WILL add to it. Bluebul1989 06:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• In terms of pure numbers (standard disclaimer AfD is not a vote etc), the close was borderline, with 66% or 60% for deletion, depending on whether Bluebul1989's opinion is counted (as a new user who has so far only edited in relation to this article and is the sole editor to do so, the admin can choose to do so or not). That would often be closed as 'no consensus', defaulting to keep, but it is very much within the admin's discretion. However, in this case, I don't think the reasons to delete are that pressing. I don't believe that the article was created as self-promotion - if I had I would certainly endorse deletion. Bluebul claims to be a 16-year-old Ohian on WP:NEW and this is supported by a Google search for his username. Although I find the WP:CORP claim to notability dubious (the top 100 companies in every state of the USA being automatically notable sounds rather Americentric), DRV is not the place to debate that, and the other arguments for it being notable sound reasonable. Therefore, I suggest overturn as a no consensus and undelete without prejudice against a further AfD to gain a clearer consensus in a fortnight or so after Bluebul has improved it further. P.S. Bluebul, you don't need to shout. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. A 66% delete vote is insufficient to delete, better to have no consensus'ed it and see what happens from there. THE KING 18:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • AfD is not a vote. 66% can be sufficient to delete if the reasoning to delete is compelling enough. In this case I think the reasoning isn't compelling enough, but this misconception needs to be challenged wherever it appears. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn IMO, important enough for a reasonable article to be written. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr. BB Sinha

For clarity here is the article log[26].

This article was originally just a thin article that was nothing and was speedily deleted. Later the article was recreated, and I assisted in the overall betterment of the article. Again, the article was proposed for deletion, but on the grounds of a repost. However, Mike Rosoft restored the article stating, "Sufficiently different content from deleted material to warrant a new discussion/vote." The article remained standing and again was nominated for speedy in which I placed a hangon tag, another admin (I don't whom exactly, and I don't want to place names) agreed with the previous decision and stated that it was an entirely new article and deserved to stay up. Today, the article was deleted by Eskog for being a "repost." I am challenging this decision and request for undelete. The article is vastly stronger and signifies notability. Also, the repost decision was overturned before. It doesn't seem logical just to eliminate it for just that. Respectfully, Yanksox 05:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have already restored, as I was the speedying admin. I didn't notice that Mike Rosoft had already rejected the "repost" argument. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Mending Wall

This article was deleted by User:Royboycrashfan without any discussion. As far as I understand the deletion process, this is not wikipedia policy.

I am happy to resolve any copyvio problems. Tomandlu 11:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Restore, tentatively pending an explanation for this from Royboycrashfan—no explanation is obvious at the moment. I do not see what grounds there were for speedy deletion. There may be copyright issues, although I am not certain because the poem dates from 1915, but an article that old should not have been speedied without discussion. -- SCZenz 13:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Royboycrashfan does not object to restoration if Tomandlu investigates the copyright issues, so I have restored this. -- SCZenz 18:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I have listed it on AfD, suggesting it be transwikied to Wikisource. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

07 June 2006

Template:User Not in metric

This longstanding, tongue-in-cheek, satirical userbox was in line with other tongue-in-cheek, satirical user boxes. Administrator Tony Sidaway deleted this page citing its apparently inflammatory content. (See his talk page.) This userbox is clearly humorous and should not have been arbitrarily deleted like this. An example of this userbox is on my talk page. Nova SS 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering that you are the only person who has that userbox included on the userpage, does it really matter? I don't really think it's a T1 candidate, but the content was not really very useful either. I think the thing is OK to leave subst:ed on your userpage. Neutral. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Endorse deletion, it may be satirical but it's also divisive and inflammatory to a much higher degree than User Satanism or any of the other endorsed userboxes have been. I actually agree with its view to a certain extent, but delete as valid T1. (Just like User Intercal) --tjstrf 06:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per above. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as a valid T1 deletion (am I really saying that about a userbox?) as I would consider it as having inflammatory content. In either case, it has been userfied and someone could transclude/subst it from there. On a side note, mine would probably be something along the lines of "This user thinks in terms of inches, metres, stones & pounds (what's an ounce?), pints, litres, british imperial gallons and Kilobytes (not to be confused with Kilobytes) and celcius (unless it's hot today)"... blame the '80s. Hmmm, is the actual name of the template Template:User metric-sucks or Template:User Not in metric? TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 12:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Divisive. -- The Anome 12:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - if you really want it, keep it on your userpage. Not good enough for template: space. -- 9cds^(talk) 13:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. It's in your userspace - find something better to do, for the love of God. Proto||type 13:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, it actually is T1. Will (^E_@) T 16:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist at TfD. I didn't agree with the speedy delete. I have seen userboxes that were much worse. Let the community at-large decide at TfD. MJCdetroit 16:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• (I guess I need to cast my vote!) Relist at TfD. I agree with MJCdetroit. Nova SS 17:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Is it dead? Yes it is (well, almost). So keep it that way. Misza13 ^{T C} 17:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Forget T1; this is a template in use on one single page. Longstanding convention is to subst and delete such templates. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Included in only one page? I would say "subst and delete" on a TFD, so the proper thing was done here. Keep deleted. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Cancer Bats

This article on a band was properly deleted as non-notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cancer Bats. However, I'm listing for reconsideration here in the light of subsequent developments that may alter that judgment, namely the release of an album under (what appears to be) a major label.[27] The article's original author also claims the following additional facts (which I have not verified myself):

• Released a sampler, an EP and an album
• Album is sold in Sunrise Records and HMV
• Video recieves rotation on MuchLoud (a show on MuchMusic)
• Had an interview and played a live show on MTV Canada Live
• Appeared on The Edge 102.1 (CFNY-FM) and the single was played at least once.
• Played with bands such as The Bled, Protest The Hero, will play with NOFX and Silverstein summer of '06
• Signed to same indie label as The Bled and Alexisonfire
• Has toured across Canada and is already on tour again with destinations from Moncton NB to Vancouver BC

I am not voting at this time, just facilitating. Postdlf 23:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Overturn, undelete. Has anything new been presented? Not...really. The band has recently been featured in Canada's Exclaim! magazine, not small potatoes, as well as a feature on Canadian 106.7 FM. It's important to note that the band met WP:MUSIC guidelines BEFORE the AfD, and that was ignored. The prior meeting of the necessary guideline in the first AfD and further media mentions since then more than mean the deletion should be overturned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Undelete -- the evidence above seems to show sufficient notability. -- The Anome 12:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong Overturn, Undelete. The album is out, theyve made more public appearances and the tour scedule has been updated to include a cross country tour with some major bands. I was ignored during the first vote, please dont ignore me now. All claims can be verified on these websites: [28], [29], [30], [31] and [32]. They have met more than 1 of the notability claims. Avenged Evanfold 23:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak undelete playing on MTV Live (Canada) has to have some notability along with some magazine mentions. THe amazon link is not impressive, but ASIN B000FKOZLA is funny. What kind of viewship does MuchLoud/Music get? Our stub is not helpful. Kotepho 01:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cum On Her Face

Very popular porn site I really dont know why was it deleted. Luka Jačov 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong undelete - Luka Jačov 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete - per Luka. --Pockey 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• The article was speedied as an A7 (person or organization with no claim of notability). It's actually more of a website than an organization, and although I doubt it meets WP:WEB, that doesn't make it speediable. I don't think we're going to find any good independent reliable sources. Still, why not give it its day on AfD? Undelete and list at AfD. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• List on AfD if we must, but I really see no need for this article. It's just another porn site, of which there is surely no dearth, and I really can't imagine anybody actually coming to Wikipedia for information on it. Just zis Guy you know? 22:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Change to endorse, per Sam. I had not spotted that it was unsourced as well as the other issues. Just zis Guy you know? 06:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and list on AfD per GTBacchus. Endorse Deletion per Sam Blanning (below) TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no assertion of notability, proper A7. "Recognized worldwide" is, like "good chess player", not an assertion of notability. An assertion of notability is claiming to have won a significant chess tournament or "Best Cumshot Website of 2006" at the World Porn Awards. And don't bother relisting until someone turns up a reliable source to base an article on. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak endorse per CSD A3 and WP:NOT a web directory. Did not actually say anything about the site that wouldn't be pretty obvious from the name. Permit recreation (subject to WP:WEB) if something encyclopedic can be written about the subject. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion until someone can evidence notability. per Sam Blanning. Bastique▼^parler _voir 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong endorse per Sam Blanning clearly violates WP:NOT Whispering 00:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Ilmari; the article didn't inform beyond describing the practice that is the website's obvious subject matter. Though there's no reason why this shouldn't just be blandly listed, without elaboration, in a list article of porn sites somewhere. Something can be notable yet insubstantial, and so like the good information scientists we are we should ensure it gets incorporated into the proper place rather than trying to write a separate treatise on it. Postdlf 00:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• No list either please, Wikipedia is not a web directory. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion -- Drini 00:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam Blanning--WilliamThweatt 02:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion no evidence provided in favor of notability. `'mikka (t) 04:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam Homestarmy 04:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as per Sam above. -- The Anome 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion on its face. Why is it that every page with the word 'cum' in the title is usually created by a troll and then dragged through DRV? Proto||type 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete - --Goran.Smith2 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per sam. No convincing reason given to undelete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam Blanning. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

AlternC

An extension from Control panel (Web hosting) The administrator Zoe deleted this page on account of advertising, however I'm not affiliated with AlternC nor do I advise/condone its use, I am simply noting the control panel along with a list of many other noteworthy control panels. I am not advertising in any way, I believe it is a misunderstanding.

Manny 17:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• The article made absolutely no assertion of encyclopaedic notability. Feel free to try again, giving citations from reliable sources to back its significance per the WP:SOFTWARE guidelines. Just zis Guy you know? 19:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• It was written as an ad, whatever your motivation. If you want to discuss what it is, when it was created, who uses it, and can document it, that's fine, I have no problem with a re-creation, but as it stood, all it did was to extoll its features. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for the clarification! Manny 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Tiffany Holiday

Short and Good [33] article speedy deleted by User:Drini and User:Golbez, edit summaries were "csd nnbio" and "[empty]". There was no vote. Many many results on Google, has an IMDb and AFDb profiles and also pass Wikipedia:Notability (erotic actors) for having a recored of around 100 films --Haham hanuka 14:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Somehow, this ended up at page bottom today (June 7); not sure why it's dated earlier, but I have moved it for consideration. Xoloz 15:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Judging by the answers.com link, I think the fact the stub is short, and contains a poorly sourced negative claim, means it should not be restored. Instead, anybody who wishes, can create, a new original article, which clearly explains her notability, and which is well sourced. --Rob 16:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So this negative claim will be removed, that's not the reason it was deleted. --Haham hanuka 18:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; I do not see any claim of notability in the article. Removal of potential libel of a possibly non-notable person is a bonus. No prejudice about recreation at this point. - Liberatore(T) 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. As above, no claim of notability (one bit part in a real film, balance is the usual no-budget porn churned out at the rate of several a day by some "studios"). No reliable sources for any of the bio data (IAFD is not, unlike IMDB, a reliable source per WP:RS). Redux: dime-a-dozen porn "star". Take it to Wikiporn. Just zis Guy you know? 19:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • [34] - 147,000 result on Google, [35] many results on Google Images. --Haham hanuka 20:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • All active porn performers generate thousands of Google hits, due to the almost infinite crosslinkspamming of the online porn business. Not really meaningful. Fan1967 20:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Comment on process, not about content, this should be restored immediately as an improper speedy deletion. Holiday appears to be a more than notable enough actress for inclusion, we do not delete articles outright because they contain an unverified or unverifiable claim. Silensor 20:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - per nomination. Luka Jačov 21:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Not notable. Wikipedia: Notability (erotic actors) is only a proposed guideline. WarpstarRider 23:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. If it doesn't qualify for an A7 speedy, it does qualify as an A6, an attack page. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. `'mikka (t) 04:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion, which was entirely in process - Silensor is misinformed. Proto||type 13:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - per Silensor and nomination --Haham hanuka 15:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Yet another porn "star", and no good reasons for undeletion have been advanced beyond that. --Calton | Talk 20:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Shane Cubis

This page has been continually deleted, because the initial article was created by the feature of the article himself, Shane Cubis. While the initial article may have been vanity or vandalism, he enlisted a group of his followers to create a real article in Wikipedia. His page has since been listed as a protected deleted pages, and his talk page is routinely deleted preventing a fair discussion of the deletion.

Shane Cubis does not fail WP:Bio and thus never really qualified for WP:AfD. Just because the article started as vandalism or vanity, it does not take away from the fact an actual compliant article could be at this entry, Shane Cubis. At the very least there should have been a discussion on the talk page, and not a speedy deletion into Protected deleted pages. JustOneJake 11:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn Shane Cubis is a notable Australian journalist, being a major contributor to an important Australian media group, The Chaser. The Chaser has made itself an important part of Australia's culture, being read by politicians, mainstream journalists and ordinary Australians. Shane's weekly columns attract large amounts of reads and discussion. His work for People magazine, while not being as well known, has attracted large amounts of attention from mainstream Australia. JoshT 220.237.79.202 12:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion under case A7. The entire contents of the longest version of the article read "Shane Cubis (born 1980) is a writer, originally from Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. Shane's first article was a Teri Weigel porn review in the Tertangala, Wollongong University's student newspaper. Since then he's contributed to a variety of gaming magazines including Pyramid, Knights of the Dinner Table and the Silven Trumpeter. He currently has a weekly column in The Chaser and works for Australia's People Magazine." and one external link. Writers are part of a respected profession but are no more automatically notable than engineers or doctors of equivalent experience or standing. No assertion has been made that this writer is particularly significant or that he does qualify under our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. By the way, the deleted history shows that the only significant contributor to this page was user:Rubikcubis, supporting the assumption that this was an inappropriate autobiography. The user's subsequent edits to other pages do not insprire me to good faith. Rossami (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse per Rossami's excellent reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse indeed. Syrthiss 17:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, it's clear from Cubis's own website that he was the original author, and he's encouraging people to come here to recreate it and complain. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse - per WP:VAIN. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, and recommend that keen editors take the usual steps to moderate the inclusion of the subject's name and its variants in Wikipedia. There's is much outrage, followed by subterfuge, at the deletions. -Splash - tk 18:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion with thanks to Rossami for presenting a solid case. Just zis Guy you know? 19:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn: while the original article may be questionable as vanity, there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance and fame in the Australian political journalism / satire sphere that one of his fans should be allowed to create a page with information about him. The defacement of other pages with his name is consistent with the style of humour The_Chaser is famous for in Australia, not an indication that there is any lack of merit in the need for a "Shane Cubis" page on Wikipedia. "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is". Malthius 03:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC) User's first edit
  • there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance... Guy, since that's the very issue in question, you're begging the question. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. No new information, and the old information was unconvincing to begin with. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn While no-one is denying that the original source of the article was Shane himself, that does not necessarily invalidate the merit of the article itself, and was more a function of the humour that has made him popular. Regardless of the American or British-centric knowledge of the original two administrators who deleted the article, their ignorance of the Australian media and in particular the satirical politcal area which is the expertise of the article subject in question does not mean it lacks significance. As an Australian, I guess I might equally wonder why something so incredibly minor and unimportant as a 3 year old racehorse such as Like_Now without even a particularly impressive record demands its own Wikipedia page, where a published journalist does not. U.Pseudonopoulos 09:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • User's only edit. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry. I was under the impression that this was a logical discussion and the weight of our argument would count for more than how many edits we had made to this website. Is this how all discussions are settled on Wikipedia? We simply get out our 'edit counts' and compare them, with the larger number winning? Perhaps we could both get out our wangs and compare those as well? Or do you want to try and actually add some value to the debate? Could you perhaps explain to me why Shane Cubis is less notable than the nag of a racehorse I have linked above? Is it simply because one is American and the other Australian, regardless of species? Are angsty teenagers with a lack of knowledge of other countries really fit to determine what adds to the grand sum of human knowledge? U.Pseudonopoulos 00:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Please see Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy#Suffrage. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Noted, and I can see the idea behind such in some cases, particularly where people are simply putting a vote without reasoning or detailed comment. I still hold that it has no relationship to the validity of the argument presented. "There are no strict rules for this, the admin closing a discussion is expected to use common sense", and in this case the only people voting without significant reasoning are the 'endorsers'. I find it irrelevant to the arguments that I and others have offered whether it is our only edits or not. The arguments should still be treated on the merit of what it presented itself. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• strong overturn Shane Cubis is notable within the fan base of The Chaser. He is a major columnist for the site and well respected author in a variety of other media. His other edits on Wiki have surely not affected his notability or his work as a writer/comedian. Gisellehobbs 10:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • User's only edits are to this page and The Chaser. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong overturn If for no other reason than his fellow journalists Chas_Licciardello, Chris_Taylor and Craig_Reucassel all have their own pages that provide just as much (or little, depending on how one is to view it) information about them. Is there any proof that these other journalists didn't write the articles themselves? Perhaps Shane Cubis is being punished for making a simple mistake - he wrote the article about himself in first person instead of third. Any of his fans would be happy to write the article to prevent it from remaining vanity if that is the main complaint, but he is certainly famous and/or popular enough to warrant an entry. Purpleorb (for clarity sake, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.177.2 (talk • contribs) )
• Endorse deletion per Rossami. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion CSD A7 -- The Anome 13:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Yes, Mr. Cubis may have originally written the article as a vanity piece for his article. That does not mean a compliant article could not be written. It is clear many people here are willing to write an article in the confines of Wikipedia policy. Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth, as he is drawing support from his article at The Chaser and his Antiwikipedia entry. As it stands now the page is protected deleted. Why not unprotect it and give someone a chance to write a compliant article? 63.225.118.147 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth. Is that a threat? User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Based on the discussions on the forums at his article and the actions members of that forum have taken (silly vandalism to both here and the Wiktionary, I'd say that it's clearly a threat. Metros232 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you guys kidding? It’s no threat; it is an assessment of the facts. These people want a real article, and if there is a real article they will have less to complain about. Furthermore, do the actions of people unto Wikipedia affect the notability status of Cubis? Most of the discussion here is completely irrelevant to the facts. I am sure the guys at Britannica or Funk and Wagnalls never sat down and talked about their hate mail when deciding to include an entry. This man is at least as noteworthy as some of the other people on Wikipedia, and he deserves an article regardless of the actions of himself or others. 63.225.118.147 02:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. Sounds notable enough. TruthbringerToronto 20:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Rossami. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion no verifiable notability proof presented. `'mikka (t) 00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Shane is one of only three weekly column writers for The Chaser. The Chaser is a very popular website in Australia, very much similar to The_Onion in terms of content and (local) popularity. It is important to note that, as a columnist, Shane writes articles which are put on the website under his own name. He is not writing anonymously, but offering his opinion under his name. As such, it is expected that people will want to find information about the author, so as to get background to form a view on the validity of his opinion. As such, I feel the author is notable and, as such, an appropriate page on the author should not be prevented from being created. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainty principle

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle

Proponents say:

• The certainty principle is a mathematical theorem. The proof is available for everybody.
• It was officially published in the established peer-reviewed journal. It will not be published second time. The journal was registered in Russia, and this is Russian government who has to know about the journal, not Google.
• Nobody has objections against scientific content of the papers. (Really no objections.)
• If the theorem is true, its notability cannot be questioned, because it generalizes (not contradicts!) the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
• The certainty principle is too young (1 year) to be known as widely as uncertainty principle.
• The certainty principle is old enough to take it seriously. Links to it were put in WP almost year ago and a great amount of people have checked it, including highly qualified editors of the uncertainty principle.
• The questoin of "reputability" of the journal is anyway subjective and should be discussed only if some specialists in the subject have objections against the certainty principle.

Opponents say:

• We are not specialists in the subject, and cannot judge the principle from purely scientific point of view. But we want to protect WP from pseudo-science.
• Google says that the certainty principle is not widely cited.
• The journal, where the papers were published, is not "reputable", and can be considered as a self-publication.

What should we do in this situation? The conflict is going to become a war. Hryun 15:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Article exists under both Certainty principle and Certainty Principle in various forms. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle, which deleted this content as original research. I re-deleted this article because although this content was not identical, the original reason for deletion was unchanged. User:Hryun has claimed that the article is published in a Russian journal, but several physicist Wikipedians have looked for signs of this publication (or indeed the existence of the named journal) and found nothing; Hryun refuses to provide further details. You can see discussion of these issues, as well as more threats by User:Hryun, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Certainty principle. -- SCZenz 15:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Taking off my admin hat, and putting on my WikiProject Physics hat, I would like to note that this issue has all the hallmarks of original research. A very pushy series of editors, most of them with very similar editing styles, have been pushing to have this subject mentioned in about 8-10 different physics articles. A discovery of the claimed magnitude would have many, many citations in places that would be very easy to find, and this does not. The only document that can be located by any of the usual methods—which are essentially universal for all physics publications worldwide, is the paper itself on the ArXiv and related servers—which are not peer-reviewed in any way. No publication information is given there. -- SCZenz 15:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • SCZenz, for what reason do you lie here? (1) The Certainty Principle article was created by Slicky. I am not Slicky neither in WP nor in the real life. Ask for user-checking, if you do not believe. I just re-created the article under proper name, Certainty principle. There was no cheating in it. (2) You did not ask for "further details" of the journal, you asked for information that can be seen in the Internet. Hryun 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Please be civil. I don't think you are Slicky, but I do strongly suspect you're editing under a couple of other usernames. I do not believe that there are any reputable physics journals with no information available on the internet, however—Russian journals are tracked in the same places as all the others. -- SCZenz
• Keep deleted until the concept gets taken up by someone other than the original auther. We'll watch CiteBase. --Pjacobi 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The AfD clearly labeled this material as original research and despite the requester's allusions no evidence to contradict this determination has been provided. The AfD should stand until citations to appropriate peer-reviewed sources are provided. --Allen3 ^talk 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted - Based on the information on hand, this is OR. If this is indeed a valid scientific theory, material will be peer reviewed and can be verified.. There should be no rush to have a wiki article on a subject (re "the material is too new to have been properly circulated" above); its not like we are going anywhere. Syrthiss 16:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per WP:NOR. As Syrthiss says, we can afford to wait until this is independently sourced. Rossami (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, for reasons above. This does not presently return anything on CiteSeer or citebase. It's important to be sure that authors are not inserting their own, non-peer-reviewed work to Wikipedia, or it would quickly become a repository for anything unpublished and unpublishable. There is further the fact that, if this were really what it is claimed to be, that it would probably already have been picked up by some very well known, reputable and reliable publications. At that point, inclusion would be a no-brainer. -Splash - tk 17:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted. As far as I can tell, both the term "Certainty principle" and the concept are original research, as we define it. When the article is published — or even referenced — in a peer-reviewed journal, we can reconsider. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse - per above. Wait for it to be peer-reviewed by someone who knows. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. When the work becomes well-known and the author is hailed as the great theorist he claims to be then I'll happily enjoy contributing on a million articles about him and his great work. Until then it goes into the "makes very large claims that nobody in-the-know seems to take seriously" bin. I also don't appreciate "Hyun"'s threats about waging a "war" against Wikipedia if he doesn't get his article included.[36][37][38] --Fastfission 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Two well-informed editors reviewed this and found it to be WP:OR, no evidence is provided to contradict this conclusion. No citations to reputable peer-reviewed journals, for example. Just zis Guy you know? 20:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as per Jacobi. --Improv 21:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Mathematical deletion endorsement -- Drini 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion agreeing with everything said above. Hyun, it will only become a war if you make it so and do not accept WP process. You have stated that there is no consensus. I think the above is a very clear consensus. Nobody agrees with you. Please accept this until and if this principle is widely accepted and discussed in many reputable places. If this is as important as the claims made for it, it would have been discussed by now in "Nature", Scientific American", "New Scientist" and so on, along with references in "Reviews of Modern Physics" and similar journals. This is not yet WP material and may never be. --Bduke 02:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Are all of us who endorse this deletion going to receive the Uncertain Elephant Award as those of us who supported the original deletion, or indeed were in any way involved with it, did? --Bduke 04:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If I receive an uncertain elephant, the user who places it will likely receive a certain block. Syrthiss 13:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

06 June 2006

Big Brother 7 chronology

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Brother 7 Chronology

This page had more people wanting to keep it then people wanting to delete it. It has been wronlgy deleted by someone who was against the page from its existence. As soon as it was created, this user marked it for deletion. It was wrongly deleted and I campaign for it to be restored... Ellisjm 16:06 UTC 6 June 06

• Overturn: At least have the page there until the series is over and the page can be condensed. --JD^talk_email 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why was the page deleted? Celestianpower says at the top of the page that the result of the debate was deleted. The results were: 6 for "delete"; 11 for "keep"; 1 for "weak keep" and 1 for "strong delete"!!! I think it's pretty obvious that more people want to keep the page than delete it!! Ellisjm 16:36 UTC 6 June 06
    • AfD is not a vote. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • That may be true, but good reasons for having the page stay were still brought up. Even if only until the end of the series, the page is worth having in peoples' opinions. --JD^talk_email 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. People who wanted the article deleted seem to have more grounds than those who wanted the article kept. — FireFox • 16:44, 06 June '06
• Endorse deletion per FireFox. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Reasons given for deletion were in line with WP policies and guidelines; reasons given for keep were mostly "But I want to keep it" variety. Process was followed, deletion is valid. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn for violation of process. I would have voted "delete", as this does look like non-notable TV cruft, but the result of the debate was no consensus. The keep voters may have been uninformed, but Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators allows only disregarding bad faith votes when establishing consensus, and few such are apparent here. I know of no policy that allows the closing administrator to determine consensus on the basis of which side they agree with. Sandstein 17:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The guidelines say that for example comments made in bad faith may be ignored. In general, the guidelines say admins should use their common sense to determine if a rough consensus exists and should try to remain as objective as possible — they don't provide strict rules for doing this, since no such rule can exists. (Anyway, it's not a "vote".) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and close as no consensus. Neither side had arguments that were all that compelling, and closer was not at all clear as to his/her rationale for the decision. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse- this was a reasonable decision. Possibly the DRV could have been avoided tho, if the closer had given more reasoning about why they closed the way they did. Friday (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, a level of detail far in excess of anything which could possibly be justified by any encyclopaedic purpose. BB7 is more than adequately covered in the main article. This is a fan blog and belongs on a fan site: it is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information.. Just zis Guy you know? 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not meant to be a blog; it's meant to keep the main article small. --JD^talk_email 19:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there some objective measure you're using to make this statement? At what point is it not excessive anymore? Why is detail bad? etc etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I'm measuring it by the articles for other comparable series. We're a couple of weeks in and already it's longer than many articles on entire series. And this is BB7, not BB1, so it is less notable in the first place. What we have here is a blog, a day-by-day log of events. That's one of the things Wikipedia is not. I have nothing against logging this info at a user subpage for later distillation into an actual article, but speaking as a Brit and part of the target audience this is considerably beyond the defensible encyclopaedic content. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • So instead of editing it down, deletion is the answer? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, because WP:NOT a blog. We already have an article on BB7. Just zis Guy you know? 22:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: am I correcting in thinking that people think this article is necessary so that at the end of the show it can be reduced into something encyclopedic? That seems to be what was being said at the AfD, but I just want to verify that before making a decision. Metros232 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That was the plan. --JD^talk_email 19:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Then you should store it somewhere else and repost it when it's encyclopidic. WP isn't a dumping ground for random information. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, then in that case, restore and move to user space. Put it someone's user space so it can be worked on as a future article rather than having it in the mainspace as an actual article. Metros232 19:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse and keep deleted - Wikipedia is not a democracy. The closer based his decision of the strengh of the arguments, not the amount. I agree with User:Friday that the closer should have stated this more clearly. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Per above, restoring to the userspace would also be quite acceptable. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn the result of the discussion was keep and not by a small margin. I completely agree with Ellisjm that the article was wrongly deleted.

-- JAB^[T]_[C] 20:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and Undelete for being out-of-process. --Rob 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak endorse, closure seems to have been within acceptable bounds of discretion. Most of the arguments provided by either side in the debate were rather weak, but some of the arguments for deletion were slightly less weak that the arguments against it. I'm quite willing, however, to userfy the deleted content upon request (a possibility some of the participants in the original debate appear to have been unaware of). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It just makes more sense to have the page in the main Wikipedia area while it exists, because it still has the information that many people may find useful. If that ends up being the only other option, then it may end up happening. But I'm sure you can see what I'm trying to say. --JD^talk_email 23:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem is, if it were in the main namespace it would have to satisfy the Wikipedia policies regarding article content. As it is, it seems to have trouble meeting several, including no original research, reliable sources and several parts of what Wikipedia is not. In short, it is unencyclopedic. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy somewhere by all means but keep deleted per above. Metamagician3000 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. I would rather delete this article but the discussion was at most a "no consensus", not a "delete". --Metropolitan90 02:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. AfD is not a vote, Wikipedia is not a free web host for TV blogs, no-one even attempted to argue that this information belonged in an encyclopaedia, process was correctly followed. If it doesn't belong on the main BB7 page then it doesn't belong anywhere. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The things is, that's exactly the point - people do think it belongs on the main article page. But the people that think it belongs there don't want it to be anywhere else. They don't care about how big the main article could become with that information on it. --JD^talk_email 11:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion--cj | talk 09:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/deletion, administrator has the right—nay, the obligation—to evaluate the merit of the arguments in terms of the goal of the project. When such a decision is not obvious, however, it should be explained in detail. -- SCZenz 12:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per KillerChihuahua. What's the point in having an article just for it to be deleted in a few weeks time (i.e. 'keep until the end of the series'). This does not belong on Wikipedia. It is fancruft of the worst sort. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist Closing admin pretty much ignored the entire AfD process, sending the message to everyone that he valued only his own input on the subject. That's not how AfD is supposed to work. --Hyperbole 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. A severely inadequate closure method, but the right decision nevertheless. This was plainly not encyclopedia material, being essentially a diary of some people traipsing around a building for a few weeks. -Splash - tk 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as within reasonable admin discretion. However, close decisions like this deserve more than just "The decision was delete" in the closure of the discussion. This argument could largely have been avoided if the closing admin had taken the time to fully lay out his/her reasoning. Rossami (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - As the closing admin on this AfD, I apologise for any extra trouble this has caused. Clearly I should have put forward my reasoning in the summary/the decision field: "When closing this AfD, despite there being more "keep" votes than "delete", the strength of arguments from the delete camp seems much stronger. WP:NOT is policy and this seems a clear case of 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information', as many voters pointed out. Also, AfD is not a vote: vote counts aren't everything". Once again, I apologise and will learn for next time. Regards, — Celestianpower ^háblame 18:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - Strength of arguments needs to be balanced with number of arguers, and it seems reasonable to disregard input that lacks any reasoning. --Improv 04:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remain Deleted The AfD itself was filled with people who were rabid fans on the show, with all their arguements being all the minute details(read: minor, incidental things) be left off of the television show's main page. Pages were being used to hold any info about show and daily summaries like it were a fan page. That's not what wikipedia is about. Kevin_b_er 04:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Celestianpower made a completely correct decision. Proto||type 13:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:WikiPâques.png

Image:WikiPâques.png was deleted in February on the basis it was an orphan. Well, of course it was an orphan - it was February and the image was an Easter Wikipedia logo, so it'll only be unorphaned when it's Easter. I see no valid reason to delete this. Users may still want it on their user page at Easter. It's also causing red links in older revisions. See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 February 14 for the listing on IfD. There's a copy here if the deletion is overturned and someone wants to reupload it. Angela. 08:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Re-upload to Commons, so any project can use it, and Commons is outside of enwiki's jurisdiction. --Rory096 08:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

National Hockey League player lists

List of every NHL player NHL players A NHL players B NHL players C NHL players D NHL players E NHL players F NHL players G NHL players H NHL players I

NHL players J NHL players K NHL players L NHL players M NHL players N NHL players O NHL players P NHL players Q NHL players R

NHL players S NHL players T NHL players U NHL players V NHL players W NHL players X NHL players Y NHL players Z

Relist. They were improperly speedy deleted out of process for "already have lists of hockey players. don't need two" . Although they were posted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHL players A, I was not given an opportunity to state some reasons as to why they should be kept, such as (briefly):

• They follow Wikipedia:List guideline
• They can be cleaned up. We can remove the external spam links, but add some dates and stats to each entry.
• There are other similar list pages thay list sports players in alphabetical order such as List of retired American football players, List of Major League Baseball players, List of National Basketball Association players, List of English footballers, List of footballers (Rugby Union), etc.
• In fact, there are many, many other lists of people on Wikipedia that are just lists of names in alphabetical order.

Because of these reasons, there is really no basis for speedy deletion -- they were out of process Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, bring the lists back. They were the best way of keeping tabs on hockey player articles so that duplicate articles weren't created and so that disambigs are easier. Masterhatch 07:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Bring them back! This is not link-farming or spamming. Although it's not always 100% accurate, as far as being a simple and comprehensive directory of statistics Hockeydb is the best site I've seen. Criticizing them for having advertisements is absurd -- apart from Wikipedia, almost every other site on the web does too! And like Masterhatch said, the list itself was invaluable for keeping track of NHL player articles. — GT 09:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:EL. Internal links are fine, and an external link to Hockeydb on each individual article is fine, too, but the point of WP lists is not to link to external articles on each of a number of related subjects, and the removal of external links from list articles is very common practice supported by policy and guidelines. As far as the lists themselves are concerned, they would be worth having if there are many redlinks, otherwise I can't see what this adds to a (self-maintaining) category. Just zis Guy you know? 10:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My recollection is that the majority of players who played before last decade do not have articles. That's why these pages were so useful -- you could browse them and see if a player you recognized didn't yet have an article. The nice thing about having the Hockeydb links right there was that you could instantly see the "story" behind each red-linked player as represented by his career statistics (which often tells you as much as you care to know about him). As far as not obeying WP:EL, I disagree as the point of the page was to be a list of players, and the external links served a secondary purpose. — GT 16:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, having the external link right beside each player helped keep people from adding their own name as a vanity article. hockeydb.com is, as far as i know, the most complete list of hockey players and their stats on the net and it because really easy to see if an added name is a vanity article or a real player. Masterhatch 17:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So why not make an infobox template with a parameter for the hockeydb entry? A Wikipedia list with external links (first!) and predominantly redlinks for the internal links is practically begging for deletion. External links are for references in articles. Just zis Guy you know? 19:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What's taking so long to get A through G back? Masterhatch 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I put everything back. Another admin deleted them again. Go talk to him. pschemp | talk 17:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Tagged as A3: article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections); deleted as such (i.e. in-process, as this is a valid speedy criterion). I didn't see any evidence that the deleting admin was aware of this debate.

• I have reopened the AfD and restored the deleted ones, as valid but contested speedy deletions. These are bare lists of links. The list of mainly redlinks may serve a purpose; perhaps it would be better to have these in Project space as part of a wikiproject's work list? Bare lists with no other data are an abomination unto Nuggan and should be shunned into oblivion; if dates and other encyclopaedic information are added then these are defensible (without, obviously, the external links). I have removed the external links to make this less like a mirror of HockeyDB with one or two Wikipedia articles added Just zis Guy you know? 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

05 June 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it or delete 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 Keep.~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 19:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja

With respect to the Original Undelete request by me, I have composed the following article in my userspace which meets (as far as I can tell) the requirements of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:Notability, etc.

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja (Userspace draft)

I, do,once again, request request undeletion per original request:

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja, undelete request by PHDrillSergeant. This web comic has grown in poularity since the last time it was deleted through AFD, and although the site's archive has 'only three entries', each of those entries has about 20-40 pages, which adds up to over 100 pages total including the current storyline. This comic is extremely funny and is important, especially one who wishes to know more about this odd character and his adventures. I think this comic should get another chance. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 23:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 21:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Is there any evidence that it has grown significantly in popularity? The Alexa rating is five digits, and a quick scan of Google turns up lots of self- and friend-promotion, but not much analysis or commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question Has there been any stories, interviews, or other coverage in mainstream or semi-mainstream press (not counting simple lists of webcomics)? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• What has changed since deletion? As noted above, the fundamental problem was a lack of evident encyclopaedic notability. Just zis Guy you know? 10:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
    • The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
      • WebComicList (a non-trivial published site that is independent of the site itself) has its own article, stated in the external links section. The web comic has ablso been the subject of debate on multiple community-based forums, such as eBaum's World Forums, SNAFU Comics Forums, and VG Cats Forums. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 17:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
        • That article on WebComicList is one sentence, as part of a list of webcomics. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, then, since this is a single trivial reference rather than multiple non-trivial references. We have no deadline to meet, we can afford to wait until it is genuinely notable and has atracted enough external attention to allow a verifiably neutral article to be written. Just zis Guy you know? 16:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Categorical undelete. This article has had very poor defense in the past. I did not see it mentioned that Dr. McNinja is a member of Dayfree Press, a very well-known collective in the webcomics community and therefore a peer to heavyweights such as Questionable Content and Dinosaur Comics. It has been brought up on the talk page that extreme bias has been built up against this article because of its rocky faring in the past. I would point out that there is no shame in accepting it now -- it does not undermine Wikipedia or any of the users who have criticized it; rather, it is a testament to our sometimes rigorous standards. It is now due time to recognize this professional-level webcomic, as anyone vaguely familiar with this online community must know of its near meteoric rise. Let's not be reactionary or snobbish; much lesser topics have their due recognition already. --BDD 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I was unaware that this comic was under Dayfree Press, yet this information seems to strengthen my resolve even more. Remember: if you can read it, if you can comprehend it, if you can learn from it...it isn't trivial. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 22:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I seem to remember (though I can't find the proper documentation, and it's possible that this was changed) a policy that members of the most prominent webcomic collectives merited articles. It's a sound policy. --BDD 00:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I'm the one who locked McNinja down as a {{deletedpage}}, but I agree with BDD. We may want to table this until the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards come out next month. I think there's a good chance McNinja will win one, and if it does, there won't be any question it will have met WP:WEB. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: I havn't read much of it, but I have seen references to it in other webcomics such as Bunny [39]. Also undelete per Abe. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Definitely notable per talk of deleted page.--Eloquence* 11:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Cory kennedy

My article on Cory kennedy was deleted via speedy deletion. I think this was a wrong move. Cory Kennedy is a becoming a huge internet phenenomenon. She has found a cult following on myspace, livejournal, and the cobra snake - as well as a place in current pop culture. This is the digital age. People are going to be looking her up. There is no reason for this article to have been deleted. This site should provide the most information possible - even about "internet celebrities." In fact, internet phenenomenons are particularly relevent on wikipedia because this IS the internet! I am requesting that this article be placed back up. I put in quite a bit of useful, accurate information about a person who is becoming very well known on the internet. Cory was also recently featured in Nylon magazine. Please review this. ~user:sleepyasthesouth

• Endorse speedy - As the deleting admin, it looked to be a nn-bio. The references were not reliable sources (blogs and livejournal). I deleted it first on a csd placed by another editor, then as a recreation (sleepyasthesouth recreated it including the notability and csd tags) and salted the earth. Syrthiss 12:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per Syrthiss. From the speedy tag: "it is an article about a person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)" There is no evidence that The Cobra Snake is itself a notable website, or that the parties she attends are notable, so all the more there cannot be evidence that she is notable for being on The Cobra Snake or for attending parties. Johnleemk | Talk 12:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• ADD-ON : I now understand why is was deleted. However, Isn't Cory Kennedy notable for suddenly having so many "fans" and finding herself all over the internet so quickly? What would qualify as a notable source? Would her feature in Nylon magazine qualify? Even if the information in the wikipedia article did not contain more than what is provided in the Nylon article? ~user:sleepyasthesouth
• Undelete and list on AfD As a contested speedy and the presence in Nylon constitutes a minimal claim to notability. JoshuaZ 16:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse / keep deleted As far as "internet phenomenon" qualifications go, I get 207 unique Google hits and the vast majority of those seem to be about other people by that name, among them a male bodybuilder, a soccer player, a congressional staff member, and a volleyball player. If she's an internet phenomenon, the internet doesn't really seem to be aware of that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Cory has only recently exploded on the internet over the past few weeks and it has been almost entirely on myspace, blogs and livejournal - places that will not really end up in google. A community was made for her on livejournal and in just over a week there are already over 200 members.
    However, if that's the final word - fine. I imagine soon she'll be on the site because her popularity seems to be only increasing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.205.176 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Above comment is misinformed. Those sites are very heavily indexed by google. Fan1967 18:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • comment A lot of absolute bullshit is heavily indexed by google, too. Being indexed by google doesn't make something a reliable source. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment I'm aware of that. However, the anon was trying to argue there was more attention being paid to this person in myspace and such sites that google wouldn't pick up. Google picks up pretty much everything there, so there's no hidden trove of notability. Fan1967 20:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, I typed that early this morning, apparently before things started to make sense. Reading it now, yes, you're right. I agree that if google can't see you; you aren't much of an internet phenomenon.
• Endorse deletion, quite blatantly there are no reliable sources for this. And 'contested speedy' is not a reason to restore (unlike contested PROD). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Well, I think the article definitely should have been deleted, however, I do not believe that it met the deliberately narrow speedy deletion criteria. I believe quite strongly that Sam is incorrect. A speedy-deletion that is contested in good faith is to be immediately restored and listed to AFD. That was a requirement set up when the speedy-deletion process was first established. Much as I hate to be a process wonk, we have to keep our own process creep under control. Overturn speedy and list to AFD. Being unsourced may be a deletion criteria but it is not a speedy-deletion criterion. Rossami (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you mind telling me where it says that contested speedy deletions get automatically sent to AfD, Rossami? Because I've never heard that, there's nothing in any of the obvious places saying that (e.g. next to the section on contested WP:PRODs on this very page), and if it ever was true, the widespread acceptance of WP:SNOW appears to contradict it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:CSD:A7 says "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead.". Also WP:SNOW has the text "If an issue raises no controversy, and ...", and therefor can't be used in disputed or controversial cases. --Rob 23:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Though I think that practically, the bar for 'disputed' there is significantly higher than for PRODs. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Widespread acceptance? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Paragraph 3 of the current header of WP:CSD reads "When there is reasonable doubt whether a page does [fall under a given criterion], discussion is recommended using one of the other methods under Wikipedia:deletion policy." That wording applies to all speedy-deletion criteria, not merely case A7. The wording has been tweaked over time but in my experience has always been interpreted as a requirement to undelete and use xFD when there is any good-faith objection to speedy-deletion. Rossami (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. There's no sourced claim of notability. Hence, CSD A7. The recourse for contested speedy deletions is this page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Valid speedy A7, and stands no chance whatsoever at AfD Just zis Guy you know? 21:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You can see the future here? WP:SNOW is never appropriate, specifically in a discussion about a speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yup, I can see the future fairly accurately here. Articles on vapid pseudo-celebrities with no objective claim to notability get daleted almost without exception. Most likely it would be tagged and speedied as A7 almost immediately it was listed. Somewhere I have a postcard with a picture of Michael Fish and the caption"I Predict The Future: Weatherman's Amazing Claim"... Just zis Guy you know? 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion sort of reluctantly. Rossami and Thieverr are quite right that this wasn't a good choice for speedy deletion, and for a dozen reasons it's better to err on the side of AfD - worst thing that happens is someone speedies it from there anyway. But... I dunno. These darn internet meme and internet meme wannabe articles are such pains, because there tends to be a crowd willing to stonewall against policy on them every time, and then we end up back at DRV. It would never be kept by a proper AfD, but it probably won't ever see one either, so it's best to keep it dead once it's dead. If the girl actually sticks around, there'll be media, and you can rewrite the article about her then. Does it really hurt that much if the interweb's flavor of the month doesn't automatically get a Wikipedia article? There's something to be said for standards. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per others and per WP:SNOW.
• Endorse deletion: Websites generate huge numbers for anything and everything, but it would be very wrong to call these numbers "fans." Further, it's all about the effect on the recorded world, the verifiable world. Anything that vanishes when the power goes out is less reliable than anything that needs a flood to destroy it. Geogre 13:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow! Geogre's Second Law!  :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics

User:Thebainer requested me to file this request below. The article has been speedied, because User:Rgulerdem allegedly edited it after he was indefinitely banned. Even if that allegation is correct, WP:CSD G5 only allows pages to be speedied, if they were created by banned users while they were banned. Irregular edits can easily be reverted instead. Raphael1 12:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Pointless rulelawyering is the only reason given to undelete, and does not address the original reason this page was tagged with the speedy tag: "rejected 'policy'. This page has become a permanently banned user magnet, please review history." (Oh, and did anyone mention that essentially the same page already exists at Wikipedia:Wikiethics?) Johnleemk | Talk 12:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know of any policy, which prohibits to copy a rejected policy to user space. Any why do you care so much, whether permanently banned users edit on a user space page? Would you rather want them to edit Wikipedia:Wikiethics? Raphael1 13:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Because userpages don't belong to users. Johnleemk | Talk 13:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • That's a non sequitur. I've never stated, that User:Rgulerdem or myself owned that page. Raphael1 13:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, a permanently banned user coming back to edit on a page in the previous user space accorded him is bad. This is not an allegation but indeed was what occurred as User:Rgulerdem again used an IP address or two that started with 216. which was previously reported on the RFCU confirming his sockpuppetry and left editorial commentary corresponding to his use of IP addresses as he returned to edit. Better that the page be kept deleted to discourage the return of the banned editor. Netscott 13:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question - what's the actual argument for this page's existence? Does it help bulid the encyclopedia? -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This page has been created to work on the prematurely polled proposal (5 days after the first draft has been created). Its location in user space has been suggested by User:Johntex to avoid controversy with opposing parties.[40] Raphael1 13:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well now that User:Rgulerdem is banned, the logic necessitating his usage of a subpage is no longer applicable. Regardless, he did come back via an anon IP address to edit on it and that's reason enough alone to delete it and keep it deleted. Netscott 14:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • As you know, I'd like to take over Rgulerdems work. What's your problem with that? Raphael1 16:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • My problem is that you are setting yourself up to act as a proxy to edit for a banned editor. This is bad. Netscott 17:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Netscott, at this point, how do you distinguish Raphael1's own ideas from ideas that are a banned editor's by proxy? Can nobody ever propose a similar policy, now that whatsisname is banned? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
            • GTBacchus, thank you for expressing your concerns. I have one question. Have you been following the discussion occurring on the Wikipedia mailing-list WikiEn-I? If you had you would instantly know that User:Raphael1 is acting as a proxy for User:Rgulerdem (particularly when Raphael1 started Resid Gulerdem's now G5 speedy deleted WP:OURS proposal). That is why I have proxy concerns. Banned editors should not have proxies working on their behalf, or am I wrong in making that statement? Netscott 20:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
              • I haven't been following WikiEn-I. I've never actually figured out how to subscribe to that. Nevertheless, I was pretty much aware that Raphael was trying to run with Rgulerdem's ideas. I guess what you're telling me is that there's no question that Raphael isn't acting based on his own initiative at all, but just acting for Rgulerdem, end of story. I don't know how you know that, but I'm willing to take your word for it. I also confess to not really getting what they're driving at with this proposed policy, but I guess it's neither here nor there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am Sam, Sam I am.

I do not like this censor sham.

Keep deleted in user space.

Keep deleted in any place.

Keep deleted from the socks.

Keep deleted says userbox.

Keep deleted here or there,

Keep deleted anywhere. --Dr. Blanning 16:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious. Kotepho 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Unsure why do we need a copy of this in User: and Wikipedia:? why is this so harmful or worthless that it must be deleted? Kotepho 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • May I congratulate you on your instincts? You've definitely asked the right question: "Why is this so harmful or worthless that it must be deleted?" Nobody here will be able to answer that question, because it's neither harmful nor is it worthless (at least not any more worthless, than most other stuff lying around in user space). Raphael1 02:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Sam I Am. --Cyde↔Weys 20:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. How many copies of a comprehensively rejected proposal do we need? Just zis Guy you know? 21:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment What exactly did the proposal contain in the first place? Even if it's already been voted down, couldn't it be kept and tagged as a rejected proposal or some such? --tjstrf 02:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Isn't that at Wikipedia:Wikiethics already? --Rory096 06:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and stop flogging a dead horse. Metamagician3000 06:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Nuke from orbit. Raphael has been openly communicating with a banned user on wikipedia-en-l to continue said banned editors interests. Shell ^babelfish 14:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, we don't need a banned user's disruptive attempt at policy-making resurrected in anybody's userspace. —Stormie 21:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Rgulerdem forfeited his user space when he got himself blocked. Many people warned him to stop wasting other people's time pushing this proposal. Rhobite 21:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Banned user. Unwelcome. Big Blue Marble 01:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. If he wants it to survive, keep on his computer drive. --Calton | Talk 04:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

04 June 2006

List of midnight movies

This article was tagged for speedy deletion as "patent nonsense," which I felt was unjustified. I placed a "hangon" tag on the article, and stated my reasoning on the article's talk page. I was going to list it on AfD and propose that it be merged with the main Midnight Movies article. I never got the opportunity to do so, however, since the article was, and I think rather precipitously, deleted. I propose, therefore, that the speedy deletion be reversed, the article be listed on AfD and suggest it's merger as stated above. ---Charles 03:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• The article was tagged for speedy deletion with that reason. I agree that it was not patent nonsense in the very specific and narrow way that we use the term here on Wikipedia. It the actual reason given for the deletion, however, was "WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information". Unfortunately, that is not an accepted criteria for speedy-deletion. I see little redeeming value to this list but as a procedural matter, it should have been AFD'd, not speedy-deleted. Rossami (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, undelete and send to AfD. No legitimate speedy reason given. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undeleted without prejudice, if someone wants to send this to AFD they can (obviously). --Cyde↔Weys 13:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• I have carried out a rough merger and redirect, which seems the best fate for the list's content. Xoloz 23:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yar

I would appreciate opinions/education on the deletion of Yar. I understand the Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, it would seem that certain concepts, which may be expressed in a single word, have some merit to their explanation. For a very similar use-case, see Gemütlichkeit. Thanks. --Incarnate

• Endorse deletion. Certainly, there is merit to there explanation of a word. That's what a dictionary is for. There was nothing in any version of this page that even attempted to be more than a definition. Please try creating it at Wiktionary.
  I'll note, however, that this particular word doesn't actually appear in any dictionary I could quickly put my hands on. (Merriam Webster had an entry as a variant spelling of "yare" but the definition given has nothing to do with any of the definitions on the deleted page.) Be prepared to offer some verifiable sources for the alleged definitions when you do so. Rossami (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks much for the clarification. I was uncertain of where the line might exist between the definition of a "word" and the definition of a "concept" (ie, definition of the word "cottage" versus a cottage) Additionally, the original article was based on my own experience, which is probably a better reason for deletion per the standards of articles (which I do support). Formal definitions are virtually nonexistent, only cropping up occasionally in film or TV as a truncated reference to boating. I'll give up and leave it be, thanks again for the appraisal. Incarnate 03:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, if you take it to Wiktionary be sure to give some evidence of attestation. One mention in The Simpsons does not make a valid yachting term. Maybe it's US-specific and that's why I have never heard it (I have many yachting friends including one who recently returned from sailing run d the world and another who teaches yachtmasters but they are all British). Just zis Guy you know? 08:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, with no prejudice against recreation if it can be made into something more than a dicdef. Apparently there is a real nautical term to be found under all the noise (see [41] and [42]) — however, that in itself makes it eligible for Wiktionary, not for Wikipedia. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. Dicdef. It's a real nautical word (may be spelled yar or yare), figures heavily in a section of dialog from The Philadelphia Story ([43]), but there's not much else to say about it. Fan1967 15:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• I've been bold and recreated this as a redirect to Tasha Yar, Denise Crosby's infamous Star Trek: The Next Generation character. Xoloz 18:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The Skin of Evil would be proud! Syrthiss 19:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

AK Productions

AK Productions was deleted suddenly and for know told reason. I believe that AK Productions should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia, sure it is a young company but still exists. I would like the article to be restored or for a reason to be given for it's overnight deletion. Comrade_Kale 2:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Mere existence is insufficient reason to justify a Wikipedia article. There appear to be a number of companies out there by that name. Which one is yours? Fan1967 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid A7. --Rory096 20:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• The opening sentence of this page read "AK Productions, is a recently created Production Company operating out of Waterville High School in New York State. Founded by Kale Carter, Brendan Carter, Olin Carlsen and Andrew Desimone in late May of 2006". It probably did not fit the deliberately narrow speedy-deletion criteria but if it had gone to AFD, it would have been measured against the standards of WP:CORP. From the information available, I don't see any chance that it would have succeeded in that discussion. I can not endorse the speedy-deletion but neither can I support it's undeletion without at least a little bit of evidence that this is appropriate to the encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• In other words, when I asked which of the many googleable "AK Productions" this was, the answer is "None of them". Endorse Deletion. Fan1967 22:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: We get a ton of buddy articles from youngsters. Simply put, they need to be real before they can even go to AfD, IMO. If something is just three kids announcing that they are now a corporation (or rock band, or rap group, or game faction, or gang), then it's true A7. The kick is the "formed in 2006" and "recently." We need to have things generate effects on the world before anyone will need them explained. Geogre 13:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AK Productions, is a recently created Production Company operating out of Waterville High School in New York State. And the article was created and edited solely by the people named in the article. A textbook case of WP:NFT. Just zis Guy you know? 15:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together

FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together was deleted as not notable. I think it is notable, given the press coverage listed under "References" and the people behind it, and I would like the article to be restored. TruthbringerToronto 11:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete; seems to be notable (albeit with less than 1000 google hits). — JEREMY 15:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't find an AfD on this one. The AfD article that exists (here) was just created by TruthbringerToronto as a mistaken attempt to launch the DRV. How was it originally deleted? Fan1967 16:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and AFD as a contested A7 speedy deletion. --Allen3 ^talk 17:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist if it was a contested speedy, though I'm inclined to suspect there will still be a consensus to delete. (Google cache of article is here). Fan1967 17:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Speedy deletion is not prod, you can't just contest it and force it to AfD. This has 11 Google hits. Most of those "articles" are on the group's site! --Rory096 20:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I get about 700 by looking for variations, which IMO gets over speediable territory, but probably still fails AFD consensus. Fan1967 21:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Doubtful that's more than A7, I get that many hits (and I was speedied, and quite justifiably so). --Rory096 21:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, speedy-deletion is exactly like prod in that regard. By policy and long tradition, any speedy-deletion which is contested in good faith is immediately undeleted and listed on AFD. That was one of the requirements set up when the speedy-deletion process was first approved. Rossami (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmm, so why do we even have things like {{hangon}}? --Rory096 06:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Hangon isn't always available. Sometimes an article gets tagged and deleted too quickly for an editor to notice it and put the hangon tag. Fan1967 15:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• AfD it due to possible WP:V violation as well as a name that doesn't follow naming converntions. Likely an article by an inexperienced or new user due to the use of an abrreviation in the title, which gives an idea of the quality. I can't say without reading it, so relaunch it for afd.-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 01:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Notable cause which deserves as much support as possible. Karnei 18:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So is it notable, or does it deserve support? If just the latter, that's not a valid reason to undelete. If the former, how is it notable? --Rory096 06:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

List of tongue-twisters

I listed the article for deletion on 17 April. The consensus was to either keep, or move to Wikibooks. The article was transwikied on 29 May by User:theProject, and subsequently deleted by User:Tijuana Brass. However, it was proclaimed unsuitable for Wikibooks and deleted from there by b:User:Jguk. As the alternative to transwiki was keep, and transwikiing failed, we should restore it. Rain74 11:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Since it's on Wikiquote now, keep deleted (I hope they'll accept it). Rain74 18:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Reinstate and relist. I will vote delete on AfD. Just zis Guy you know? 12:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  Keep deleted since it's at Wikiquote now, which seems like a much better place. Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Reinstate and relist - makes sense in the circs. keep deleted given the new information available Metamagician3000 12:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Suggestion why not move it to the Department of Fun? Sophia 12:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted no point in duplicating as it's at Wikiquote now. Sophia 05:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, the afd was pretty clear that this should be kept somewhere. After undeletion transwiki discussions should continue. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Changed to endorse.
  • • Endorse deletion as this has been transwiki'd in line with the AFD. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It has been. Please check the Transwiki log more carefully. Also, just because one wiki doesn't want it doesn't mean we must keep it. -Splash - tk 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Posting the result of the transwiki log was helpful here, implying that I was required to search that backloged page is not helpful, I assumed good faith in the nominator. Just because one wiki doesn't want it certainly doesn't mean we should give it safe haven, but the afd was clear that it should be transwikid or kept, not transwiki'd or deleted. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete don't know why it was deleted in the first place, because it was one of the better lists on Wikipedia. Promote to featured after undeletion.  Grue  12:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist: I'd prefer that conjunctive votes get clear on the matter. Yes, it will probably be kept, but I should like AfD to speak clearly. Geogre 13:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted in light of information that the thing was transwiki'd. If there has been a transwiki, then this is a no-brainer (and pretty much an invalid review), as duplicate material is forbidden. If the authors don't want it on Wikiquote, then that's sort of too bad, as authors are no more priviledged than readers at Wikipedia. Geogre 22:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It did. It was transwikied, rejected at it's target, and now transwiki'd elsewhere. -Splash - tk 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Splash. I took the deletion summary and his comment on WT:DRV too literally and did not realize it was already moved to Wikiquote. Kotepho 21:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Undelete/Transwiki to wikiquote, this is just silly. Kotepho 19:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• No, no, no. People should do there research first. It's been transwiki'd to Wikiquote. See q:Transwiki:List of tongue-twisters. Wikipedia didn't want it, and neither did Wikibooks. That is no reason to restore it here. You don't get some kind of free pass into Wikipedia just because noone else wants it! Anyway, it's been transwiki'd elsewhere. That's all that's needed. -Splash - tk 20:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme keep deleted. Just because wikibooks doesn't want something doesn't mean we have to keep it. And I totally agree with Splash. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Splash. The AfD debate did show a strong consensus that the content be kept somewhere, but now that it's on Wikiquote, there's no reason to keep it here. (I've notified all the people who voted before Splash's comment and asked them to revise or confirm their vote in light of it. Sorry for the spam.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems my spamming was actually redundant. Doubly sorry. *embarrassed* —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Helped me, actually, as I was crossing this one off my internal list. Geogre 03:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, as the desired outcome (keeping the content elsewhere) has been reached. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the VfD in question has a consensus to keep. Most users voted for keep as a primary solution and transwiki as a secondary. The VfD was closed inproperly. There were no delete votes. The decision should be overturned.  Grue  09:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, my closure did use a modicum of discretion, but isn't it a leap to improper? Kotepho 20:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Your closure was valid, in my book: more than one person pointed out that the list is inherently unverifiable (i.e. unsuitable for Wikipedia) and most offered Transwiki as a valid outcome, which it seems to me to be. Status quo appears to be reasonable. Just zis Guy you know? 15:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• undelete, but remove the non-English tongue twisters and have interwiki links to the other languages for their tongue twisters. Masterhatch 18:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Closing this discussion as "transwiki" was within reasonable discretion for the closing admin. The fact that the target project later decided that the content did not fit their inclusion criteria does not mean that Wikipedia must change its own criteria. Rossami (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. `'mikka (t) 04:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Raphael1/Wikiethics

This page got deleted for the following reason: "can't have copy & paste moves of deleted pages - GFDL requires the history"

I've copied the page from User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics (before it was removed) and pasted it to User:Raphael1/Wikiethics. I didn't know how I could have copied the history of this article as well and certainly didn't want to violate GFDL. Please restore that page together with the history of User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics to make it compliant with GFDL. Raphael1 00:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse. Anyway, Rgulerdem is banned, and it was a fair deletion that time. Will (^E_@) T 01:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It was removed, because it has been in the userspace of an indef-banned user. I am not banned, therefore User:Raphael1/Wikiethics can't be removed for the same reason. Raphael1 01:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It's CSD G4 and possibly G5 Will (^E_@) T 01:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • It's neither G4, because it hasn't been recreated, instead it has been copied before deletion (besides G4 doesn't apply for user space pages), nor is it G5 (because I'm not banned). Raphael1 01:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
        • It's a recreation. The G4 exception for user space is supposed to be for articles undeleted at a user's request, not for recreation of deleted content that was originally in the user namespace. Will (^E_@) T 01:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
          • It's not a recreation. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics has been removed on the 2006-05-31 and I've copied the page before that date. BTW please restore User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics as well since G5 only applies for pages created by banned users while they were banned. Raphael1 01:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. This "policy" has been the source of highly contentious and disruptive editing and User:Raphael1's user page is just an unecessary copy of the rejected Wikipedia:Wikiethics that is likely to do the same as User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics which is to encourage banned editors to use sockpuppets or anonymous IPs to circumvent their block to edit on Wikipedia. Netscott 09:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Whether you deem my copy to be "unnecessary" is certainly no part of WP:CSD. Furthermore did User:Raphael1/Wikiethics with no syllable encourage banned editors to circumvent their block. I wonder, where you got that from? Raphael1 14:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well this MfD for User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics is what relates to my mentioning banned and sockpuppet users. I'm curious Raphael1, why did you actually save a copy of permanently banned user User:Rgulerdem's page? I understand that as Wikipedia editors we are to assume good faith in the editing of our fellow contributors but was the reason you saved a copy because you noticed that as a banned editor Resid Gulerdem was editing on it and figured that it'd be deleted and to disrupt that process you decided to save a copy? It seems so odd to me that you should have just happened to save a copy of his user page version just prior to its deletion. Netscott 19:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: the article itself isn't banned, just one of the originating editors. Netscott, why is it a problem for Raphael1 to have a userspace copy (I assume a developmental version, like User:Jeremygbyrne/Roger Elwood or User:Jeremygbyrne/Brontosaurus) of an article? — JEREMY 15:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note - this vote was gained through advertisement.[44]Timothy Usher 17:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Jeremy, it's all a question of good faith. I didn't request deletion or even mention the existence of Raphael1's user page copy of permanently banned User:Rgulerdem's user page to anyone (despite misgivings about seeing him copy it just prior to its deletion) but someone else from the WikiEn-I mailing list appears to have seen mention of it by Raphael1 there and decided independently to delete it. Now that the act is done I support it for the reasons I expressed above. I would recommend the both of you to disassociate yourselves from Resid Gulerdem for anyone editing in support of him is likely to have his or her own reputation tarnished as he was not only disruptive here but in a completely independent fashion was repeatedly disruptive and blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia. Resid Gulerdem is just bad for Wikipedia. Netscott 19:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't understand your "good faith" argument. It's obvious that most material which is about to be deleted will continue to exist elsewhere — in google's cache for example. Raphael1 could have taken a copy of the article offsite and done to it whatever he chose, in the privacy of his own home. Instead, he chose to keep it on wikipedia (which looks like good faith to me), and he has suffered for it. Next time, do you think he will be more or less inclined to act in secrecy? — JEREMY 10:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • The preceding user's comments were solicited through targetted advertisement[45].Timothy Usher 10:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • No need to persist with your well-poisoning, Timothy. Most people understood your accusation the first time. — JEREMY 10:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
            • I did understand User:Timothy Usher's statement of fact the first time and also saw it as an attempt by User:Raphael1 to "game the system", but do agree that it's a bit silly to repeat such a statement. ;-) Netscott 11:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Suffered? Where's the suffering? The only ones suffereing are those having to spend time dealing with this nonsense. Let's face it Jeremy, Raphael1's actions were to thwart in a disruptive fashion the virtually assured deletion of Resid Gulerdem's user page. Is that not so difficult to understand? Regardless as bainer's comment below illustrates, Raphael1 shouldn't be trying to resurrect his own copy of Resid Gulerdem's final version of "Wikiethics" but in fact should be trying to resurrect Resid Gulerdem's (rightly imho) deleted user page. Netscott 10:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Raphael1's actions were to thwart in a disruptive fashion And you foresaw this via which divinatory or telepathic methodology, exactly? It would seem far more likely that Raphael1 took a copy to preserve relevant material for a future proposal. Your refusal to assume good faith (or at least not to assume the first bad faith interpretation that springs to mind) is troubling. This is yet another example of flawed rules-lawyering supported by the tyranny of the majority. Raphael1's editing may frustrate some people, but the way he has been treated is disgraceful. — JEREMY 11:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
              • The plea to "rules lawyering" is rather lame, can't you do better than use that argumentation device? Honestly, Raphael1 like myself and User:Metros232 saw that the permanently banned editor User:Rgulerdem was editing via IP addresses on his failed Wikiethics proposal and realized (again rightly so) that it was likely to be deleted because of that and to thwart such a deletion he saved a copy. Raphael1 wasn't involved in editing on that policy since it was last worked on over at Wikipedia:Wikiethics. Does it not strike either of you as foolish to be here wasting our time discussing the saving of a policy that was founded by a demonstrably disruptive editor? It's as if you're here trying to defend a banned user's right to continue to make policy on Wikipedia even when he's blocked. The only reason I can see for this is because "it's a cause!". You know if Resid Gulerdem had only been blocked on the English Wikipedia I might understand better those wanting to defend him and his ridiculous policy but the fact that he's been independently repetitively blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia makes me sooner see such individuals as foolish. Netscott 11:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
                • Firstly I have not seen User:Rgulerdem editing on User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics via IP addresses, and secondly I have been editing User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics before it was removed. Raphael1 12:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
                  • Raphael1, why did you think his user page was going to be deleted then? If the user page had just sat there no one's attention would have been brought to it, but this is not what occurred. Netscott 12:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
                    • Don't you first want to apologize for your wrong claims before you ask any further questions? Raphael1 13:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
                      • No, due to my witnessing your previous demonstrations of a lack of good faith I'm inclined to view this as another example of the same. Netscott 14:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse~. Per Netscott's above comments -- Karl Meier 17:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Netscott.Timothy Usher 17:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Wikipedia:Wikiethics still exists if you want to go edit that. What you did by copy and pasting it into your own user space was done only to get around the fact that it was about to be deleted it. That is, in an ironic way, unethical. I also frown up the nominating user for the advertising of this discussion [46], [47], [48], etc. 6 advertisements in total. Metros232 17:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I've got no supernatural skill to see the future. How could I have acted upon a "fact", which still lied ahead? Raphael1 17:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Why did you copy and paste it to yours then? If you didn't think it was going to be deleted, why did you need a copy of your own instead of just editing the one that existed at Rgulerdem's user page? Why did you think that two needed to exist? Metros232 17:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed I did suspect, that it might get deleted in the future, but I certainly didn't know about that. I still don't see, how it is in any way unethical to take over the work of an indef-banned user. Besides User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics shouldn't have been removed as well since G5 only applies for pages created by banned users while they were banned. Raphael1 19:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, copy of a previously rejected attempt at censorship. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted since this was proposed at Wikipedia:Wikiethics and solidly rejected I see no particular merit in keeping it hanging around in user space in a form which (at first glance) looks to be even less acceptable. Just zis Guy you know? 22:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not going to endorse or overturn my own deletion, though I will say to Raphael1 that if he wants the content, he needs to hold a DRV on the original page (User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics) because copy & pasted pages cannot possibly exist when the original page is deleted. --bainer (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've read through this deletion review, and what I'm missing is any argument for why this page should exist. Why maintain a copy of a rejected policy written by a banned user? How does it help write the encyclopedia? -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I wonder, why you even ask that question. Shouldn't you rather ask, why should that page be removed? Nevertheless I will answer your question: Rgulerdem and some other editors worked on this former prematurely rejected policy in userspace to avoid controversy with opposing parties. I'd like to continue Rgulerdems work, which is why I've created a copy. Raphael1 16:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I think it's pretty clear from reading this discussion that it's being removed because it's the work of a banned editor, and seems to be a sore spot for a lot of people. At that point, the ball's back in your court - if so many Wiki regulars are against it, what's so great about it to make it worth the static you incur by recreating it? I've asked a more pertinent question at your talk page. If your goal is to improve Wikipedia, a bad way to start is by pissing a bunch of people off by acting as proxy for a banned user, practically speaking. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I can't believe, that you are repeating Netscotts accusation ("proxy editing"). I consider this a personal attack, since it completely disregards my individuality. What's so bad about the work of this banned editor, that it needs to be removed? Will you remove Interfaith as well, because it's mostly his work? IMHO this whole agitation to delete User:Rgulerdems work and keep it deleted, is a clear sign, that Rgulerdem hasn't been blocked for his behaviour, but for the position he has taken on various topics. Raphael1 02:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

        I don't enter the conversation just assuming that Netscott is lying; why not trust that I'm taking his word in, whadyecallit... good faith? So you say you're not being his proxy. I don't have any evidence to say which of you is right. I know basically nothing about Rgulerdem. I still think you're running into a lot of static, and would probably try a different approach, if I were in your position, and if I were more interested in results than in drama. You choose your battles - is it more important to you to influence Wikipedia in a positive direction, or to do it using this particular guy's words? There's reasons to stand on principle, and there's reasons not to. You can probably cause a big scene, if you set your mind to it, but that'll poison the policy you're talking about in the community's eyes even more. Have you noticed some pretty stiff opposition to this policy? If I were you, I'd be sitting back from this DRV and trying to start some conversations about what's so incompatible between this proposal of yours and the current state of Wikipedia - you haven't replied to my post on your talk page where I'd love to have that conversation with you, if you're down to have it. Come on, don't knock your head against this wall, it won't move. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - I have done a little work on this proposal and having a record of it is helpful in case anyone decides to work on it in the future. Also, as a comment to the closing admin, despite insinuations to the contrary, advertising a deletion reveiw is not a violation of any policy. Johntex\^talk 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It violates the spam guidelines: "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view."Timothy Usher 23:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted once and for all. Metamagician3000 06:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, we don't need a banned user's disruptive attempt at policy-making resurrected in anybody's userspace. —Stormie 21:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. (Personal attack removed) of a banned user. Unwelcome. Big Blue Marble 02:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

03 June 2006

Sydney Roosters Season articles

Three articles I created simultaneously, that being Roosters1908; SydneyRoosters1909; and SydneyRoosters1910 were deleted in the last few days. The Sydneyroosters1909 article held a debate for the deletion while I had only added little content to the page, the article was then up for deletion before I had done any updates. While the debate took place I continued doing the updates, as seen in the discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sydneyroosters1909

I have plead my case to show that there are updates coming and its justification of existence.

I had also created a fourth article, however this was later and I must add that I created the page before the others were deleted. The fourth article; Sydney Roosters 1911 Season was created and included the updates I had promised with the 3 previous articles.

However when this article was put to debate re: deletion, the general consensus so far has been to keep the article based on the argument brought forward by Athenaeum who states; 'Wikipedia is an almanac. It says so in the first sentence of Wikipedia:What is an article. This is verifiable real world information. It is not indiscrimate, and deleting it would do some harm and absolutely no good. Wikipedia is a free reference resource and this is mainstream reference material.'

Considering the 3 previous articles were exact replicas in structure to the Sydney Roosters 1911 Season only differing in factual content, I propose that if the outcome of the debate be to keep the Sydney Roosters 1911 Season that the 3 previous articles be restored as this argument brought forward by Athenaeum was not put forward re: the debate of the other 3 articles.Sbryce858 07:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and relist at the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Roosters 1911 Season, where consensus now appears to favor keeping that sort of content. This will ensure a more-or-less coherent decision. Sandstein 22:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist - perhaps it was closed properly, but this is very likely good encyclopedic content. The team concerned has long been a major force in the NSW league. Let's see how it goes this time. Metamagician3000 09:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist based on the outcome of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Roosters 1911 Season, which was in favour of keeping the article.Sbryce858 21:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User:AKMask/log

April Fools Day this year included a minor invasion of the GNAA IRC chat by members of wikipedia crapflooding with very informative information about Keynesian economics. Deleted with the note of Privacy Violation. Note the GNAA has no rules against logging the chats, and infact encourages their members, which granted we are not, to do so. There was no privacy violation. I humbly request it to be undeleted.Edit:Also to note, it was linked to off the BJAODN page for the April fools day section. -M^ask 09:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm... I think you got the name wrong. There's no deleted content at the pagename you provided. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So I did, fixed now (dang capital letter) -M^ask 09:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak undelete If there are no privacy violation issues here; that is, if the GNAA chat does not hold a policy against public logging, then I could care less. I mean, the log's pure nonsense and a waste of server space (I'm quietly for deleting BJAODN altogether), but whatever. Let him have his log. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted conditionally - only if it can be verified there is no rule against public posting of logs, then undelete. NSLE _(T+C) at 09:47 UTC (2006-06-03)
• Keep deleted: Who cares if GNAA has a rule? It's Freenode that forbids reposting. The "authors" can't be verified and don't get to say. Geogre 12:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Last I checked #gnaa was juped on freenode, so I don't think the irc logs are from freenode. Kotepho 17:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The channel was not on Freenode. -M^ask 18:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and send to MFD if you want it deleted unless someone can show that it is from a network that prohibits public posting of logs (it certainly isn't the norm). Kotepho 17:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Someone should have checked with the page owner before speedying. --StuffOfInterest 18:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  No one owns any article on Wikipedia. --mboverload@ 19:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Amazingly, I agree with Geogre. This hardly ever happens. Except when there is a Y in the day name. Just zis Guy you know? 23:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, aside from the privacy concerns, Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, not the repository for inane crap. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Christopher Parham. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete If want deleted should go to MfD, and is imo, within the bounds of what we allow people to put in their userspace(and I'm under the impression that there is no privacy issue in this case). JoshuaZ 16:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. How is this not a privacy invasion? Metamagician3000 12:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Everyone read and reconsider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:About#Wiki_is_a_great_concept_but_._._. In short, Wiki suffers horribly from this phenomenon, and until things change, it'll never be objective. In Wiki's current form, all of you are responsible for refraining from personal bias (currently racking up a deplorable record, to date), and reviewing relevancy based not on your experience (as nearly all of you have done), but on an objective measure (sorry, but Google hits isn't objective, nor accurate) of actual relevancy.
  • Can you please explain what the above paragraph means, and its relevancy to this discussion? User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

2006 June

1. Okashina_Okashi - Decision of the original closer to relist at AfD is endorsed. 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
2. Dismal's Paradox - Relisted at AfD. 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
3. User:SPUI/jajaja - Nomination withdrawn. 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
4. List of political leaders widely regarded as totalitarian - Request for information answered. 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
5. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed. 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
6. Cultural references in Pokémon - Deletion endorsed. 16:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
7. Fluffy (The Lion King) - Deletion endorsed. 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
8. Kelly Roberti - Copyright issue resolved, restored. 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
9. Image:Pierre Janssen.jpg - Commons image, action impossible here. 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Review
10. Neanderthal theory of autism - Deletion endorsed. 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
11. Be bold, Be Bold - Overturn RfD and revert to WP:BOLD. 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
12. Jeff Lindsay - Deletion endorsed. 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
13. "State Debate Associations" - Deletion endorsed. 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
14. How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 - Deletion endorsed. 17:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
15. Kinston Indians - Deletion endorsed. 17:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
16. Wikipedia:SCAG - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
17. Image:Nuvola 64 apps important.png - undeletion impossible; deleted prior to 16 June 2006. 13:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
18. Sick Nick Mondo - Deletion endorsed for now, pending AfD outcome for related Nick Mondo; should that survive, this is a suitable redirect. 18:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review

    Nick Mondo having survived AfD, this is restored as a redirect. 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

19. True Torah Jews - Deletion endorsed. 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
20. UCIP - Deletion endorsed. 18:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
21. Mending Wall - Keep endorsed. 11:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
22. Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) - Deletion endorsed. 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
23. TheSmartMarks.com - Deletion endorsed. 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
24. Dirt pudding - Transwiki and deletion endorsed. 17:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
25. Kirill Makharinsky - Deletion endorsed. 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
26. Armando Lloréns-Sar - History restored, maintained as redirect; merge issues are an editorial concern for article's talk page. 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
27. Hollywood Undead - Deletion endorsed. 17:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
28. Trexy - Closing administrator agreed to relist AFD. 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Review
29. Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak - No consensus closure endorsed. 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
30. Knox (animator) - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
31. Lightsaber combat - Keep closure endorsed. 18:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
32. Stone Trek - Deletion closure endorsed. 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
33. File:944 h.jpg - DRV closed, image in Commons jurisdiction. 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
34. Sadullah Khan - Undeleted, relisted. 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
35. Atromitos - Undeleted. 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
36. Walk To Emmaus - Deletion endorsed. 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
37. Wikipedia:Conservative notice board. Kept deleted. Strong endorsement. 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Review.
38. Lost: The Journey - Relisted. 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
39. User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes and Template:User Gangster - Undeleted. 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
40. The Lost Boys (demogroup) - Relist. 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
41. Second War (Harry Potter) - Deletion endorsed. 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
42. IRCDig - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
43. Saryn Hooks - Undeleted and relisted at AfD. 17:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
44. Template:Major_programming_languages - template content restored 06:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) review
45. Strategic Policy Consulting - Deletion endorsed. 16:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
46. Actuarial Outpost - Kept kept, mistaken nomination. 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
47. Image:WikiPâques.png - Uploaded to Commons, as suggested. 16:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
48. The Esplanade Mall - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 16:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
49. Sydney Ling - AfD result of "no consensus" endorsed. 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
50. Siberian language - Deletion endorsed. 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
51. Burlington Center Mall - Challenge of no consensus afd withdrawn. 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
52. Erik Möller - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
53. theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh - Deletions endorsed. 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
54. Wikipedia:OURS - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
55. 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) - Deletion endorsed. 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
56. Conservative Underground - Deletion endorsed. 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
57. Boring Business Systems - AfD reopened by acclamation. 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
58. Joseph D. Campbell - Previous AfD overturned, to be relisted at AfD. 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
59. Church of Reality - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
60. Heinen's - Result reversed by consensus, AfD now closed as "no consensus". 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
61. BB Sinha - Restored, listed at AfD. 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (deleted at AfD 20:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)) Review
62. Mending Wall - Restored, listed at AfD, closed as keep, brought here again (above). 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
63. Cancer Bats - Restored, to be resubmitted to AfD in light of new evidence. 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
64. Cum On Her Face - Deletion endorsed. 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
65. AlternC - Deletion endorsed. 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
66. Tiffany Holiday - Deletion endorsed. 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
67. Shane Cubis - Deletion endorsed unanimously (excepting discounted anons/newbies.) 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
68. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
69. Big Brother 7 chronology - Deletion endorsed. Will userfy upon request. 15:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
70. Wikimedia Meta-Wiki - action reverted by the closer. AFD reopened. 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
71. The Adventures of Dr. McNinja - Consensus to permit userpage draft as new recreation, will be submitted to AfD. 17:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
72. Cory kennedy - Deletion endorsed. 17:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
73. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics - Kept deleted unanimously. 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
74. Yar - Deletion endorsed without prejudice to unrelated redirect now at title. 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
75. List of midnight movies - Content restored for merge and redirect. 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
76. AK Productions - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
77. FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together - Undeleted and sent to AfD. 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
78. List of tongue-twisters - Deletion endorsed in light of new Wikiquote transwiki. 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
79. User:Raphael1/Wikiethics - Deletion endorsed. 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
80. Roosters1908, Sydneyroosters1909, and Sydneyroosters1910 - Undeleted to be AfD'ed in light of new evidence. 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
81. National Hockey Leaque player lists - Restored speedily and AFD reopened. 08:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
82. User:AKMask/log - Restored (by a narrow margin) to be sent to MfD. 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
83. Male Unbifurcated Garment - Deletion endorsed (again -- Second DRV in two weeks.) 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
84. Penis banding - Deletion endorsed. 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Review
85. Template:User no notability - Deletion narrowly endorsed. (date unavailable, deletion review never archived) Permalink
86. Syed Ahmed - deletion endorsed, redirected to The Apprentice (UK series 2) 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
87. Ho Shin Do - deletion endorsed without prejudice 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
88. Israel News Agency - article content restored 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
89. Delaware County Intermediate Unit - Deletion closure endorsed. 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
90. Steve Bellone - Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
91. Team NoA - Previous version restored, survived AfD as no consensus. 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
92. Springfield M21 - Restored as redirect with history. 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
93. The drips - Speedy deletion contested, overturned; sent to AfD. 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
94. Template:Voting icons - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
95. Ali Zafar - New NPOV recreation permitted. 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
96. Barbara Bauer, The Literary Agency Group and others - Bauer undeleted and kept at AfD; others kept deleted. 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
97. Scienter - deletion overturned. 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
98. Auto repair shop - original speedy deletion endorsed, without prejudice to now-existing distinct redirect at this title. 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
99. Wikipedia v search engines - deletion endorsed unanimously. 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
100. Pat Price - deletion overturned unanimously, no need to relist. 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
101. Talk:Brian Peppers - kept deleted. 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
102. The Juggernaut Bitch - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
103. South Coast League - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
104. Other side of the pillow - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
105. Joel Leyden - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
106. Sharting - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
107. User:Disavian/Userboxes/Green Energy - deletion endorsed, narrowly 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
108. Left-wing terrorism - article history restored 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
109. Stella Maris College Scout Group - deletion endorsed 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
110. List of Michael Savage neologisms - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
111. Superhorse - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
112. Exicornt - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
113. Image:Lock-icon.jpg - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
114. College Confidential - article content restored 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
115. Tim Dingle - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
116. Abstract People - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
117. Christian views of Hanukkah - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
118. Claught of a bird dairy products - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
119. LIP6 - continue from rewritten version 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
120. Hulk 2 - redirected to Hulk (film) for now 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
121. Xombie - article content restored 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
122. Possible wars between liberal democracies speedy-deletion undone by deleting admin. listed to AFD. 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
123. Gary Howell deletion endorsed. 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
124. New Sincerity - deletion endorsed. 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
125. Successful Praying - speedy deletion as copyvio endorsed. 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
126. Videohypertransference - user copy granted. deletion from articlespace endorsed. 20:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
127. Oz Categories 8 endorse, 5 overturn, deletion endorsed. 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Review

Userbox discussions

• Template:User no notability - deletion endorsed, narrowly 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• Template:User organ donor template content restored 17:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian See WP:TGS
• Template:User satanist kept deleted
• Template:User cannabis kept deleted
• Template:User CCP - kept deleted. 00:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User against fox hunting (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW. Massive endorsement.)

Archives

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 May)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 April)

Proposed deletions

Articles deleted under the Wikipedia: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.

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 Wikipedia talk:Administrators. If you nominate an article here, be sure to make a note on the sysop's user talk page regarding your nomination. A template, {{subst:DRVNote}} is available to make this easier.

Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.

Proposed deletions

Articles deleted under the Wikipedia: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.

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

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=Wikipedia: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 November 6}}</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 November 6}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 November 6|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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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".

08 June 2006

Church of Reality

(See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of reality.) --66.28.20.178 15:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Church of Reality website

The Church of Reality is a religion, based on what is tangible and real. Somehow, for some reason, its article (and even its talk page) was deleted, with little to no apparent reason. This is really no different from deleting an article on any other religion, which is unfair censorship. I'm asking whoever deleted it to either give a truly good reason as to why it should stay deleted, or undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.178.151 (talk • contribs) 06:59 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, close discussion, protect from recreation. This cruft was deleted twice via AfD, and recreated/speedy deleted lots of times thereafter. Process was followed at all times. Sandstein 08:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and protect per Sandstein. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 10:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a forum for self-promotion in the name of free speech. 72, please see WP:NOT and WP:N. Endorse deletion, yea, now and forever, amen. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no version of any of the incarnations of this article is anything other than self-promotion for a group with, as far as I can tell, no claim of notability being present in any case. Just zis Guy you know? 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion valid AfD with a massively overwhelming consensus to delete, no evidence that circumstances have changed since then. Alexa rank of offical site linked to above is 456,440. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and protect from recreation per every reason expressed above. Postdlf 16:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, protect from recreation and bury with a stake through its heart. This has wasted enough time. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Delete. Keep deleted. Protect. Ban the next person who tries to recreate it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It's hard to review something if you don't know what it said.--mboverload@ 20:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Sufficient insight is available from the two AfD links above, as well the fun-and-games of the last time this came to DRV, which appears to have found a copy of itself on the talk page of the latter of the two linked to at the top of this review. -Splash - tk 21:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Allow recreation if it is a real religion AND the recreation can be done in a non-bias way that is similar to other articles on religion, and not just recreated as a self-endorsement.--Azathar 01:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Heinen's

• Strong Overturn, Undelete. A top 100 Ohio business; clearly passes WP:CORP; was already cited on Supermarkets in the United States, therefore clearly notable (and meant to be given a wikipedia page); not to mention has MORE stores in its chain, has a HIGHER sales volume, occupies a LARGER region, and has MORE information supplied than many businesses that have ALREADY been given Wikipedia pages: Westborn Market, Woodman's Food Market, Strack and Van Til, Scolari's, Magruder's, Felpausch, and many more. AS CREATOR OF THE ARTICLE, I would also like to comment on my extremely upsetting experience in posting this article. I have already given all of these reasons NUMEROUS times in defense of my article, and I have proven in my previous posts that my article should be granted a Wikipedia page. It was speedily deleted without hardly any consideration or supplied reason except that more people had posted DELETE than had posted KEEP - a 1 vote majority in fact (yes 1 vote). NO OTHER REASONING was provided to account for its deletion! I spent a great deal of time describing the business and how it is definately influential and notable. My arguments it seems were not considered at all and were simply left out of the matter. My article was not biased, and it was not created as advertising. PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS ARTICLE as it clearly deserves a Wikipedia page. [49]. If the article is undeleted, I WILL add to it. Bluebul1989 06:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• In terms of pure numbers (standard disclaimer AfD is not a vote etc), the close was borderline, with 66% or 60% for deletion, depending on whether Bluebul1989's opinion is counted (as a new user who has so far only edited in relation to this article and is the sole editor to do so, the admin can choose to do so or not). That would often be closed as 'no consensus', defaulting to keep, but it is very much within the admin's discretion. However, in this case, I don't think the reasons to delete are that pressing. I don't believe that the article was created as self-promotion - if I had I would certainly endorse deletion. Bluebul claims to be a 16-year-old Ohian on WP:NEW and this is supported by a Google search for his username. Although I find the WP:CORP claim to notability dubious (the top 100 companies in every state of the USA being automatically notable sounds rather Americentric), DRV is not the place to debate that, and the other arguments for it being notable sound reasonable. Therefore, I suggest overturn as a no consensus and undelete without prejudice against a further AfD to gain a clearer consensus in a fortnight or so after Bluebul has improved it further. P.S. Bluebul, you don't need to shout. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. A 66% delete vote is insufficient to delete, better to have no consensus'ed it and see what happens from there. THE KING 18:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • AfD is not a vote. 66% can be sufficient to delete if the reasoning to delete is compelling enough. In this case I think the reasoning isn't compelling enough, but this misconception needs to be challenged wherever it appears. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn IMO, important enough for a reasonable article to be written. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr. BB Sinha

For clarity here is the article log[50].

This article was originally just a thin article that was nothing and was speedily deleted. Later the article was recreated, and I assisted in the overall betterment of the article. Again, the article was proposed for deletion, but on the grounds of a repost. However, Mike Rosoft restored the article stating, "Sufficiently different content from deleted material to warrant a new discussion/vote." The article remained standing and again was nominated for speedy in which I placed a hangon tag, another admin (I don't whom exactly, and I don't want to place names) agreed with the previous decision and stated that it was an entirely new article and deserved to stay up. Today, the article was deleted by Eskog for being a "repost." I am challenging this decision and request for undelete. The article is vastly stronger and signifies notability. Also, the repost decision was overturned before. It doesn't seem logical just to eliminate it for just that. Respectfully, Yanksox 05:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have already restored, as I was the speedying admin. I didn't notice that Mike Rosoft had already rejected the "repost" argument. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Mending Wall

This article was deleted by User:Royboycrashfan without any discussion. As far as I understand the deletion process, this is not wikipedia policy.

I am happy to resolve any copyvio problems. Tomandlu 11:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Restore, tentatively pending an explanation for this from Royboycrashfan—no explanation is obvious at the moment. I do not see what grounds there were for speedy deletion. There may be copyright issues, although I am not certain because the poem dates from 1915, but an article that old should not have been speedied without discussion. -- SCZenz 13:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Royboycrashfan does not object to restoration if Tomandlu investigates the copyright issues, so I have restored this. -- SCZenz 18:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I have listed it on AfD, suggesting it be transwikied to Wikisource. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

07 June 2006

Template:User Not in metric

This longstanding, tongue-in-cheek, satirical userbox was in line with other tongue-in-cheek, satirical user boxes. Administrator Tony Sidaway deleted this page citing its apparently inflammatory content. (See his talk page.) This userbox is clearly humorous and should not have been arbitrarily deleted like this. An example of this userbox is on my talk page. Nova SS 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering that you are the only person who has that userbox included on the userpage, does it really matter? I don't really think it's a T1 candidate, but the content was not really very useful either. I think the thing is OK to leave subst:ed on your userpage. Neutral. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Endorse deletion, it may be satirical but it's also divisive and inflammatory to a much higher degree than User Satanism or any of the other endorsed userboxes have been. I actually agree with its view to a certain extent, but delete as valid T1. (Just like User Intercal) --tjstrf 06:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per above. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as a valid T1 deletion (am I really saying that about a userbox?) as I would consider it as having inflammatory content. In either case, it has been userfied and someone could transclude/subst it from there. On a side note, mine would probably be something along the lines of "This user thinks in terms of inches, metres, stones & pounds (what's an ounce?), pints, litres, british imperial gallons and Kilobytes (not to be confused with Kilobytes) and celcius (unless it's hot today)"... blame the '80s. Hmmm, is the actual name of the template Template:User metric-sucks or Template:User Not in metric? TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 12:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Divisive. -- The Anome 12:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - if you really want it, keep it on your userpage. Not good enough for template: space. -- 9cds^(talk) 13:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. It's in your userspace - find something better to do, for the love of God. Proto||type 13:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, it actually is T1. Will (^E_@) T 16:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist at TfD. I didn't agree with the speedy delete. I have seen userboxes that were much worse. Let the community at-large decide at TfD. MJCdetroit 16:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• (I guess I need to cast my vote!) Relist at TfD. I agree with MJCdetroit. Nova SS 17:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Is it dead? Yes it is (well, almost). So keep it that way. Misza13 ^{T C} 17:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Forget T1; this is a template in use on one single page. Longstanding convention is to subst and delete such templates. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Included in only one page? I would say "subst and delete" on a TFD, so the proper thing was done here. Keep deleted. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Cancer Bats

This article on a band was properly deleted as non-notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cancer Bats. However, I'm listing for reconsideration here in the light of subsequent developments that may alter that judgment, namely the release of an album under (what appears to be) a major label.[51] The article's original author also claims the following additional facts (which I have not verified myself):

• Released a sampler, an EP and an album
• Album is sold in Sunrise Records and HMV
• Video recieves rotation on MuchLoud (a show on MuchMusic)
• Had an interview and played a live show on MTV Canada Live
• Appeared on The Edge 102.1 (CFNY-FM) and the single was played at least once.
• Played with bands such as The Bled, Protest The Hero, will play with NOFX and Silverstein summer of '06
• Signed to same indie label as The Bled and Alexisonfire
• Has toured across Canada and is already on tour again with destinations from Moncton NB to Vancouver BC

I am not voting at this time, just facilitating. Postdlf 23:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Overturn, undelete. Has anything new been presented? Not...really. The band has recently been featured in Canada's Exclaim! magazine, not small potatoes, as well as a feature on Canadian 106.7 FM. It's important to note that the band met WP:MUSIC guidelines BEFORE the AfD, and that was ignored. The prior meeting of the necessary guideline in the first AfD and further media mentions since then more than mean the deletion should be overturned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Undelete -- the evidence above seems to show sufficient notability. -- The Anome 12:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong Overturn, Undelete. The album is out, theyve made more public appearances and the tour scedule has been updated to include a cross country tour with some major bands. I was ignored during the first vote, please dont ignore me now. All claims can be verified on these websites: [52], [53], [54], [55] and [56]. They have met more than 1 of the notability claims. Avenged Evanfold 23:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak undelete playing on MTV Live (Canada) has to have some notability along with some magazine mentions. THe amazon link is not impressive, but ASIN B000FKOZLA is funny. What kind of viewship does MuchLoud/Music get? Our stub is not helpful. Kotepho 01:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cum On Her Face

Very popular porn site I really dont know why was it deleted. Luka Jačov 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong undelete - Luka Jačov 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete - per Luka. --Pockey 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• The article was speedied as an A7 (person or organization with no claim of notability). It's actually more of a website than an organization, and although I doubt it meets WP:WEB, that doesn't make it speediable. I don't think we're going to find any good independent reliable sources. Still, why not give it its day on AfD? Undelete and list at AfD. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• List on AfD if we must, but I really see no need for this article. It's just another porn site, of which there is surely no dearth, and I really can't imagine anybody actually coming to Wikipedia for information on it. Just zis Guy you know? 22:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Change to endorse, per Sam. I had not spotted that it was unsourced as well as the other issues. Just zis Guy you know? 06:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and list on AfD per GTBacchus. Endorse Deletion per Sam Blanning (below) TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no assertion of notability, proper A7. "Recognized worldwide" is, like "good chess player", not an assertion of notability. An assertion of notability is claiming to have won a significant chess tournament or "Best Cumshot Website of 2006" at the World Porn Awards. And don't bother relisting until someone turns up a reliable source to base an article on. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak endorse per CSD A3 and WP:NOT a web directory. Did not actually say anything about the site that wouldn't be pretty obvious from the name. Permit recreation (subject to WP:WEB) if something encyclopedic can be written about the subject. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion until someone can evidence notability. per Sam Blanning. Bastique▼^parler _voir 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong endorse per Sam Blanning clearly violates WP:NOT Whispering 00:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Ilmari; the article didn't inform beyond describing the practice that is the website's obvious subject matter. Though there's no reason why this shouldn't just be blandly listed, without elaboration, in a list article of porn sites somewhere. Something can be notable yet insubstantial, and so like the good information scientists we are we should ensure it gets incorporated into the proper place rather than trying to write a separate treatise on it. Postdlf 00:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• No list either please, Wikipedia is not a web directory. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion -- Drini 00:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam Blanning--WilliamThweatt 02:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion no evidence provided in favor of notability. `'mikka (t) 04:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam Homestarmy 04:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as per Sam above. -- The Anome 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion on its face. Why is it that every page with the word 'cum' in the title is usually created by a troll and then dragged through DRV? Proto||type 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete - --Goran.Smith2 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per sam. No convincing reason given to undelete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam Blanning. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

AlternC

An extension from Control panel (Web hosting) The administrator Zoe deleted this page on account of advertising, however I'm not affiliated with AlternC nor do I advise/condone its use, I am simply noting the control panel along with a list of many other noteworthy control panels. I am not advertising in any way, I believe it is a misunderstanding.

Manny 17:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• The article made absolutely no assertion of encyclopaedic notability. Feel free to try again, giving citations from reliable sources to back its significance per the WP:SOFTWARE guidelines. Just zis Guy you know? 19:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• It was written as an ad, whatever your motivation. If you want to discuss what it is, when it was created, who uses it, and can document it, that's fine, I have no problem with a re-creation, but as it stood, all it did was to extoll its features. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for the clarification! Manny 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Tiffany Holiday

Short and Good [57] article speedy deleted by User:Drini and User:Golbez, edit summaries were "csd nnbio" and "[empty]". There was no vote. Many many results on Google, has an IMDb and AFDb profiles and also pass Wikipedia:Notability (erotic actors) for having a recored of around 100 films --Haham hanuka 14:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Somehow, this ended up at page bottom today (June 7); not sure why it's dated earlier, but I have moved it for consideration. Xoloz 15:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Judging by the answers.com link, I think the fact the stub is short, and contains a poorly sourced negative claim, means it should not be restored. Instead, anybody who wishes, can create, a new original article, which clearly explains her notability, and which is well sourced. --Rob 16:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So this negative claim will be removed, that's not the reason it was deleted. --Haham hanuka 18:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; I do not see any claim of notability in the article. Removal of potential libel of a possibly non-notable person is a bonus. No prejudice about recreation at this point. - Liberatore(T) 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. As above, no claim of notability (one bit part in a real film, balance is the usual no-budget porn churned out at the rate of several a day by some "studios"). No reliable sources for any of the bio data (IAFD is not, unlike IMDB, a reliable source per WP:RS). Redux: dime-a-dozen porn "star". Take it to Wikiporn. Just zis Guy you know? 19:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • [58] - 147,000 result on Google, [59] many results on Google Images. --Haham hanuka 20:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • All active porn performers generate thousands of Google hits, due to the almost infinite crosslinkspamming of the online porn business. Not really meaningful. Fan1967 20:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Comment on process, not about content, this should be restored immediately as an improper speedy deletion. Holiday appears to be a more than notable enough actress for inclusion, we do not delete articles outright because they contain an unverified or unverifiable claim. Silensor 20:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - per nomination. Luka Jačov 21:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Not notable. Wikipedia: Notability (erotic actors) is only a proposed guideline. WarpstarRider 23:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. If it doesn't qualify for an A7 speedy, it does qualify as an A6, an attack page. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. `'mikka (t) 04:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion, which was entirely in process - Silensor is misinformed. Proto||type 13:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - per Silensor and nomination --Haham hanuka 15:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Yet another porn "star", and no good reasons for undeletion have been advanced beyond that. --Calton | Talk 20:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Shane Cubis

This page has been continually deleted, because the initial article was created by the feature of the article himself, Shane Cubis. While the initial article may have been vanity or vandalism, he enlisted a group of his followers to create a real article in Wikipedia. His page has since been listed as a protected deleted pages, and his talk page is routinely deleted preventing a fair discussion of the deletion.

Shane Cubis does not fail WP:Bio and thus never really qualified for WP:AfD. Just because the article started as vandalism or vanity, it does not take away from the fact an actual compliant article could be at this entry, Shane Cubis. At the very least there should have been a discussion on the talk page, and not a speedy deletion into Protected deleted pages. JustOneJake 11:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn Shane Cubis is a notable Australian journalist, being a major contributor to an important Australian media group, The Chaser. The Chaser has made itself an important part of Australia's culture, being read by politicians, mainstream journalists and ordinary Australians. Shane's weekly columns attract large amounts of reads and discussion. His work for People magazine, while not being as well known, has attracted large amounts of attention from mainstream Australia. JoshT 220.237.79.202 12:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion under case A7. The entire contents of the longest version of the article read "Shane Cubis (born 1980) is a writer, originally from Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. Shane's first article was a Teri Weigel porn review in the Tertangala, Wollongong University's student newspaper. Since then he's contributed to a variety of gaming magazines including Pyramid, Knights of the Dinner Table and the Silven Trumpeter. He currently has a weekly column in The Chaser and works for Australia's People Magazine." and one external link. Writers are part of a respected profession but are no more automatically notable than engineers or doctors of equivalent experience or standing. No assertion has been made that this writer is particularly significant or that he does qualify under our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. By the way, the deleted history shows that the only significant contributor to this page was user:Rubikcubis, supporting the assumption that this was an inappropriate autobiography. The user's subsequent edits to other pages do not insprire me to good faith. Rossami (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse per Rossami's excellent reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse indeed. Syrthiss 17:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, it's clear from Cubis's own website that he was the original author, and he's encouraging people to come here to recreate it and complain. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse - per WP:VAIN. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, and recommend that keen editors take the usual steps to moderate the inclusion of the subject's name and its variants in Wikipedia. There's is much outrage, followed by subterfuge, at the deletions. -Splash - tk 18:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion with thanks to Rossami for presenting a solid case. Just zis Guy you know? 19:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn: while the original article may be questionable as vanity, there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance and fame in the Australian political journalism / satire sphere that one of his fans should be allowed to create a page with information about him. The defacement of other pages with his name is consistent with the style of humour The_Chaser is famous for in Australia, not an indication that there is any lack of merit in the need for a "Shane Cubis" page on Wikipedia. "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is". Malthius 03:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC) User's first edit
  • there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance... Guy, since that's the very issue in question, you're begging the question. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. No new information, and the old information was unconvincing to begin with. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn While no-one is denying that the original source of the article was Shane himself, that does not necessarily invalidate the merit of the article itself, and was more a function of the humour that has made him popular. Regardless of the American or British-centric knowledge of the original two administrators who deleted the article, their ignorance of the Australian media and in particular the satirical politcal area which is the expertise of the article subject in question does not mean it lacks significance. As an Australian, I guess I might equally wonder why something so incredibly minor and unimportant as a 3 year old racehorse such as Like_Now without even a particularly impressive record demands its own Wikipedia page, where a published journalist does not. U.Pseudonopoulos 09:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • User's only edit. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry. I was under the impression that this was a logical discussion and the weight of our argument would count for more than how many edits we had made to this website. Is this how all discussions are settled on Wikipedia? We simply get out our 'edit counts' and compare them, with the larger number winning? Perhaps we could both get out our wangs and compare those as well? Or do you want to try and actually add some value to the debate? Could you perhaps explain to me why Shane Cubis is less notable than the nag of a racehorse I have linked above? Is it simply because one is American and the other Australian, regardless of species? Are angsty teenagers with a lack of knowledge of other countries really fit to determine what adds to the grand sum of human knowledge? U.Pseudonopoulos 00:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Please see Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy#Suffrage. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Noted, and I can see the idea behind such in some cases, particularly where people are simply putting a vote without reasoning or detailed comment. I still hold that it has no relationship to the validity of the argument presented. "There are no strict rules for this, the admin closing a discussion is expected to use common sense", and in this case the only people voting without significant reasoning are the 'endorsers'. I find it irrelevant to the arguments that I and others have offered whether it is our only edits or not. The arguments should still be treated on the merit of what it presented itself. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• strong overturn Shane Cubis is notable within the fan base of The Chaser. He is a major columnist for the site and well respected author in a variety of other media. His other edits on Wiki have surely not affected his notability or his work as a writer/comedian. Gisellehobbs 10:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • User's only edits are to this page and The Chaser. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong overturn If for no other reason than his fellow journalists Chas_Licciardello, Chris_Taylor and Craig_Reucassel all have their own pages that provide just as much (or little, depending on how one is to view it) information about them. Is there any proof that these other journalists didn't write the articles themselves? Perhaps Shane Cubis is being punished for making a simple mistake - he wrote the article about himself in first person instead of third. Any of his fans would be happy to write the article to prevent it from remaining vanity if that is the main complaint, but he is certainly famous and/or popular enough to warrant an entry. Purpleorb (for clarity sake, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.177.2 (talk • contribs) )
• Endorse deletion per Rossami. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion CSD A7 -- The Anome 13:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Yes, Mr. Cubis may have originally written the article as a vanity piece for his article. That does not mean a compliant article could not be written. It is clear many people here are willing to write an article in the confines of Wikipedia policy. Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth, as he is drawing support from his article at The Chaser and his Antiwikipedia entry. As it stands now the page is protected deleted. Why not unprotect it and give someone a chance to write a compliant article? 63.225.118.147 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth. Is that a threat? User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Based on the discussions on the forums at his article and the actions members of that forum have taken (silly vandalism to both here and the Wiktionary, I'd say that it's clearly a threat. Metros232 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you guys kidding? It’s no threat; it is an assessment of the facts. These people want a real article, and if there is a real article they will have less to complain about. Furthermore, do the actions of people unto Wikipedia affect the notability status of Cubis? Most of the discussion here is completely irrelevant to the facts. I am sure the guys at Britannica or Funk and Wagnalls never sat down and talked about their hate mail when deciding to include an entry. This man is at least as noteworthy as some of the other people on Wikipedia, and he deserves an article regardless of the actions of himself or others. 63.225.118.147 02:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. Sounds notable enough. TruthbringerToronto 20:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Rossami. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion no verifiable notability proof presented. `'mikka (t) 00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Shane is one of only three weekly column writers for The Chaser. The Chaser is a very popular website in Australia, very much similar to The_Onion in terms of content and (local) popularity. It is important to note that, as a columnist, Shane writes articles which are put on the website under his own name. He is not writing anonymously, but offering his opinion under his name. As such, it is expected that people will want to find information about the author, so as to get background to form a view on the validity of his opinion. As such, I feel the author is notable and, as such, an appropriate page on the author should not be prevented from being created. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainty principle

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle

Proponents say:

• The certainty principle is a mathematical theorem. The proof is available for everybody.
• It was officially published in the established peer-reviewed journal. It will not be published second time. The journal was registered in Russia, and this is Russian government who has to know about the journal, not Google.
• Nobody has objections against scientific content of the papers. (Really no objections.)
• If the theorem is true, its notability cannot be questioned, because it generalizes (not contradicts!) the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
• The certainty principle is too young (1 year) to be known as widely as uncertainty principle.
• The certainty principle is old enough to take it seriously. Links to it were put in WP almost year ago and a great amount of people have checked it, including highly qualified editors of the uncertainty principle.
• The questoin of "reputability" of the journal is anyway subjective and should be discussed only if some specialists in the subject have objections against the certainty principle.

Opponents say:

• We are not specialists in the subject, and cannot judge the principle from purely scientific point of view. But we want to protect WP from pseudo-science.
• Google says that the certainty principle is not widely cited.
• The journal, where the papers were published, is not "reputable", and can be considered as a self-publication.

What should we do in this situation? The conflict is going to become a war. Hryun 15:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Article exists under both Certainty principle and Certainty Principle in various forms. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle, which deleted this content as original research. I re-deleted this article because although this content was not identical, the original reason for deletion was unchanged. User:Hryun has claimed that the article is published in a Russian journal, but several physicist Wikipedians have looked for signs of this publication (or indeed the existence of the named journal) and found nothing; Hryun refuses to provide further details. You can see discussion of these issues, as well as more threats by User:Hryun, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Certainty principle. -- SCZenz 15:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Taking off my admin hat, and putting on my WikiProject Physics hat, I would like to note that this issue has all the hallmarks of original research. A very pushy series of editors, most of them with very similar editing styles, have been pushing to have this subject mentioned in about 8-10 different physics articles. A discovery of the claimed magnitude would have many, many citations in places that would be very easy to find, and this does not. The only document that can be located by any of the usual methods—which are essentially universal for all physics publications worldwide, is the paper itself on the ArXiv and related servers—which are not peer-reviewed in any way. No publication information is given there. -- SCZenz 15:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • SCZenz, for what reason do you lie here? (1) The Certainty Principle article was created by Slicky. I am not Slicky neither in WP nor in the real life. Ask for user-checking, if you do not believe. I just re-created the article under proper name, Certainty principle. There was no cheating in it. (2) You did not ask for "further details" of the journal, you asked for information that can be seen in the Internet. Hryun 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Please be civil. I don't think you are Slicky, but I do strongly suspect you're editing under a couple of other usernames. I do not believe that there are any reputable physics journals with no information available on the internet, however—Russian journals are tracked in the same places as all the others. -- SCZenz
• Keep deleted until the concept gets taken up by someone other than the original auther. We'll watch CiteBase. --Pjacobi 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The AfD clearly labeled this material as original research and despite the requester's allusions no evidence to contradict this determination has been provided. The AfD should stand until citations to appropriate peer-reviewed sources are provided. --Allen3 ^talk 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted - Based on the information on hand, this is OR. If this is indeed a valid scientific theory, material will be peer reviewed and can be verified.. There should be no rush to have a wiki article on a subject (re "the material is too new to have been properly circulated" above); its not like we are going anywhere. Syrthiss 16:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per WP:NOR. As Syrthiss says, we can afford to wait until this is independently sourced. Rossami (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, for reasons above. This does not presently return anything on CiteSeer or citebase. It's important to be sure that authors are not inserting their own, non-peer-reviewed work to Wikipedia, or it would quickly become a repository for anything unpublished and unpublishable. There is further the fact that, if this were really what it is claimed to be, that it would probably already have been picked up by some very well known, reputable and reliable publications. At that point, inclusion would be a no-brainer. -Splash - tk 17:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted. As far as I can tell, both the term "Certainty principle" and the concept are original research, as we define it. When the article is published — or even referenced — in a peer-reviewed journal, we can reconsider. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse - per above. Wait for it to be peer-reviewed by someone who knows. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. When the work becomes well-known and the author is hailed as the great theorist he claims to be then I'll happily enjoy contributing on a million articles about him and his great work. Until then it goes into the "makes very large claims that nobody in-the-know seems to take seriously" bin. I also don't appreciate "Hyun"'s threats about waging a "war" against Wikipedia if he doesn't get his article included.[60][61][62] --Fastfission 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Two well-informed editors reviewed this and found it to be WP:OR, no evidence is provided to contradict this conclusion. No citations to reputable peer-reviewed journals, for example. Just zis Guy you know? 20:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as per Jacobi. --Improv 21:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Mathematical deletion endorsement -- Drini 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion agreeing with everything said above. Hyun, it will only become a war if you make it so and do not accept WP process. You have stated that there is no consensus. I think the above is a very clear consensus. Nobody agrees with you. Please accept this until and if this principle is widely accepted and discussed in many reputable places. If this is as important as the claims made for it, it would have been discussed by now in "Nature", Scientific American", "New Scientist" and so on, along with references in "Reviews of Modern Physics" and similar journals. This is not yet WP material and may never be. --Bduke 02:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Are all of us who endorse this deletion going to receive the Uncertain Elephant Award as those of us who supported the original deletion, or indeed were in any way involved with it, did? --Bduke 04:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If I receive an uncertain elephant, the user who places it will likely receive a certain block. Syrthiss 13:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

06 June 2006

Big Brother 7 chronology

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Brother 7 Chronology

This page had more people wanting to keep it then people wanting to delete it. It has been wronlgy deleted by someone who was against the page from its existence. As soon as it was created, this user marked it for deletion. It was wrongly deleted and I campaign for it to be restored... Ellisjm 16:06 UTC 6 June 06

• Overturn: At least have the page there until the series is over and the page can be condensed. --JD^talk_email 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why was the page deleted? Celestianpower says at the top of the page that the result of the debate was deleted. The results were: 6 for "delete"; 11 for "keep"; 1 for "weak keep" and 1 for "strong delete"!!! I think it's pretty obvious that more people want to keep the page than delete it!! Ellisjm 16:36 UTC 6 June 06
    • AfD is not a vote. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • That may be true, but good reasons for having the page stay were still brought up. Even if only until the end of the series, the page is worth having in peoples' opinions. --JD^talk_email 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. People who wanted the article deleted seem to have more grounds than those who wanted the article kept. — FireFox • 16:44, 06 June '06
• Endorse deletion per FireFox. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Reasons given for deletion were in line with WP policies and guidelines; reasons given for keep were mostly "But I want to keep it" variety. Process was followed, deletion is valid. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn for violation of process. I would have voted "delete", as this does look like non-notable TV cruft, but the result of the debate was no consensus. The keep voters may have been uninformed, but Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators allows only disregarding bad faith votes when establishing consensus, and few such are apparent here. I know of no policy that allows the closing administrator to determine consensus on the basis of which side they agree with. Sandstein 17:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The guidelines say that for example comments made in bad faith may be ignored. In general, the guidelines say admins should use their common sense to determine if a rough consensus exists and should try to remain as objective as possible — they don't provide strict rules for doing this, since no such rule can exists. (Anyway, it's not a "vote".) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and close as no consensus. Neither side had arguments that were all that compelling, and closer was not at all clear as to his/her rationale for the decision. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse- this was a reasonable decision. Possibly the DRV could have been avoided tho, if the closer had given more reasoning about why they closed the way they did. Friday (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, a level of detail far in excess of anything which could possibly be justified by any encyclopaedic purpose. BB7 is more than adequately covered in the main article. This is a fan blog and belongs on a fan site: it is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information.. Just zis Guy you know? 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not meant to be a blog; it's meant to keep the main article small. --JD^talk_email 19:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there some objective measure you're using to make this statement? At what point is it not excessive anymore? Why is detail bad? etc etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I'm measuring it by the articles for other comparable series. We're a couple of weeks in and already it's longer than many articles on entire series. And this is BB7, not BB1, so it is less notable in the first place. What we have here is a blog, a day-by-day log of events. That's one of the things Wikipedia is not. I have nothing against logging this info at a user subpage for later distillation into an actual article, but speaking as a Brit and part of the target audience this is considerably beyond the defensible encyclopaedic content. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • So instead of editing it down, deletion is the answer? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, because WP:NOT a blog. We already have an article on BB7. Just zis Guy you know? 22:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: am I correcting in thinking that people think this article is necessary so that at the end of the show it can be reduced into something encyclopedic? That seems to be what was being said at the AfD, but I just want to verify that before making a decision. Metros232 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That was the plan. --JD^talk_email 19:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Then you should store it somewhere else and repost it when it's encyclopidic. WP isn't a dumping ground for random information. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, then in that case, restore and move to user space. Put it someone's user space so it can be worked on as a future article rather than having it in the mainspace as an actual article. Metros232 19:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse and keep deleted - Wikipedia is not a democracy. The closer based his decision of the strengh of the arguments, not the amount. I agree with User:Friday that the closer should have stated this more clearly. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Per above, restoring to the userspace would also be quite acceptable. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn the result of the discussion was keep and not by a small margin. I completely agree with Ellisjm that the article was wrongly deleted.

-- JAB^[T]_[C] 20:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and Undelete for being out-of-process. --Rob 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak endorse, closure seems to have been within acceptable bounds of discretion. Most of the arguments provided by either side in the debate were rather weak, but some of the arguments for deletion were slightly less weak that the arguments against it. I'm quite willing, however, to userfy the deleted content upon request (a possibility some of the participants in the original debate appear to have been unaware of). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It just makes more sense to have the page in the main Wikipedia area while it exists, because it still has the information that many people may find useful. If that ends up being the only other option, then it may end up happening. But I'm sure you can see what I'm trying to say. --JD^talk_email 23:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem is, if it were in the main namespace it would have to satisfy the Wikipedia policies regarding article content. As it is, it seems to have trouble meeting several, including no original research, reliable sources and several parts of what Wikipedia is not. In short, it is unencyclopedic. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy somewhere by all means but keep deleted per above. Metamagician3000 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. I would rather delete this article but the discussion was at most a "no consensus", not a "delete". --Metropolitan90 02:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. AfD is not a vote, Wikipedia is not a free web host for TV blogs, no-one even attempted to argue that this information belonged in an encyclopaedia, process was correctly followed. If it doesn't belong on the main BB7 page then it doesn't belong anywhere. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The things is, that's exactly the point - people do think it belongs on the main article page. But the people that think it belongs there don't want it to be anywhere else. They don't care about how big the main article could become with that information on it. --JD^talk_email 11:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion--cj | talk 09:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/deletion, administrator has the right—nay, the obligation—to evaluate the merit of the arguments in terms of the goal of the project. When such a decision is not obvious, however, it should be explained in detail. -- SCZenz 12:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per KillerChihuahua. What's the point in having an article just for it to be deleted in a few weeks time (i.e. 'keep until the end of the series'). This does not belong on Wikipedia. It is fancruft of the worst sort. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist Closing admin pretty much ignored the entire AfD process, sending the message to everyone that he valued only his own input on the subject. That's not how AfD is supposed to work. --Hyperbole 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. A severely inadequate closure method, but the right decision nevertheless. This was plainly not encyclopedia material, being essentially a diary of some people traipsing around a building for a few weeks. -Splash - tk 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as within reasonable admin discretion. However, close decisions like this deserve more than just "The decision was delete" in the closure of the discussion. This argument could largely have been avoided if the closing admin had taken the time to fully lay out his/her reasoning. Rossami (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - As the closing admin on this AfD, I apologise for any extra trouble this has caused. Clearly I should have put forward my reasoning in the summary/the decision field: "When closing this AfD, despite there being more "keep" votes than "delete", the strength of arguments from the delete camp seems much stronger. WP:NOT is policy and this seems a clear case of 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information', as many voters pointed out. Also, AfD is not a vote: vote counts aren't everything". Once again, I apologise and will learn for next time. Regards, — Celestianpower ^háblame 18:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - Strength of arguments needs to be balanced with number of arguers, and it seems reasonable to disregard input that lacks any reasoning. --Improv 04:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remain Deleted The AfD itself was filled with people who were rabid fans on the show, with all their arguements being all the minute details(read: minor, incidental things) be left off of the television show's main page. Pages were being used to hold any info about show and daily summaries like it were a fan page. That's not what wikipedia is about. Kevin_b_er 04:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Celestianpower made a completely correct decision. Proto||type 13:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:WikiPâques.png

Image:WikiPâques.png was deleted in February on the basis it was an orphan. Well, of course it was an orphan - it was February and the image was an Easter Wikipedia logo, so it'll only be unorphaned when it's Easter. I see no valid reason to delete this. Users may still want it on their user page at Easter. It's also causing red links in older revisions. See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 February 14 for the listing on IfD. There's a copy here if the deletion is overturned and someone wants to reupload it. Angela. 08:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Re-upload to Commons, so any project can use it, and Commons is outside of enwiki's jurisdiction. --Rory096 08:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

National Hockey League player lists

List of every NHL player NHL players A NHL players B NHL players C NHL players D NHL players E NHL players F NHL players G NHL players H NHL players I

NHL players J NHL players K NHL players L NHL players M NHL players N NHL players O NHL players P NHL players Q NHL players R

NHL players S NHL players T NHL players U NHL players V NHL players W NHL players X NHL players Y NHL players Z

Relist. They were improperly speedy deleted out of process for "already have lists of hockey players. don't need two" . Although they were posted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHL players A, I was not given an opportunity to state some reasons as to why they should be kept, such as (briefly):

• They follow Wikipedia:List guideline
• They can be cleaned up. We can remove the external spam links, but add some dates and stats to each entry.
• There are other similar list pages thay list sports players in alphabetical order such as List of retired American football players, List of Major League Baseball players, List of National Basketball Association players, List of English footballers, List of footballers (Rugby Union), etc.
• In fact, there are many, many other lists of people on Wikipedia that are just lists of names in alphabetical order.

Because of these reasons, there is really no basis for speedy deletion -- they were out of process Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, bring the lists back. They were the best way of keeping tabs on hockey player articles so that duplicate articles weren't created and so that disambigs are easier. Masterhatch 07:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Bring them back! This is not link-farming or spamming. Although it's not always 100% accurate, as far as being a simple and comprehensive directory of statistics Hockeydb is the best site I've seen. Criticizing them for having advertisements is absurd -- apart from Wikipedia, almost every other site on the web does too! And like Masterhatch said, the list itself was invaluable for keeping track of NHL player articles. — GT 09:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:EL. Internal links are fine, and an external link to Hockeydb on each individual article is fine, too, but the point of WP lists is not to link to external articles on each of a number of related subjects, and the removal of external links from list articles is very common practice supported by policy and guidelines. As far as the lists themselves are concerned, they would be worth having if there are many redlinks, otherwise I can't see what this adds to a (self-maintaining) category. Just zis Guy you know? 10:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My recollection is that the majority of players who played before last decade do not have articles. That's why these pages were so useful -- you could browse them and see if a player you recognized didn't yet have an article. The nice thing about having the Hockeydb links right there was that you could instantly see the "story" behind each red-linked player as represented by his career statistics (which often tells you as much as you care to know about him). As far as not obeying WP:EL, I disagree as the point of the page was to be a list of players, and the external links served a secondary purpose. — GT 16:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, having the external link right beside each player helped keep people from adding their own name as a vanity article. hockeydb.com is, as far as i know, the most complete list of hockey players and their stats on the net and it because really easy to see if an added name is a vanity article or a real player. Masterhatch 17:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So why not make an infobox template with a parameter for the hockeydb entry? A Wikipedia list with external links (first!) and predominantly redlinks for the internal links is practically begging for deletion. External links are for references in articles. Just zis Guy you know? 19:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What's taking so long to get A through G back? Masterhatch 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I put everything back. Another admin deleted them again. Go talk to him. pschemp | talk 17:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Tagged as A3: article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections); deleted as such (i.e. in-process, as this is a valid speedy criterion). I didn't see any evidence that the deleting admin was aware of this debate.

• I have reopened the AfD and restored the deleted ones, as valid but contested speedy deletions. These are bare lists of links. The list of mainly redlinks may serve a purpose; perhaps it would be better to have these in Project space as part of a wikiproject's work list? Bare lists with no other data are an abomination unto Nuggan and should be shunned into oblivion; if dates and other encyclopaedic information are added then these are defensible (without, obviously, the external links). I have removed the external links to make this less like a mirror of HockeyDB with one or two Wikipedia articles added Just zis Guy you know? 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

05 June 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it or delete 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 Keep.~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 19:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja

With respect to the Original Undelete request by me, I have composed the following article in my userspace which meets (as far as I can tell) the requirements of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:Notability, etc.

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja (Userspace draft)

I, do,once again, request request undeletion per original request:

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja, undelete request by PHDrillSergeant. This web comic has grown in poularity since the last time it was deleted through AFD, and although the site's archive has 'only three entries', each of those entries has about 20-40 pages, which adds up to over 100 pages total including the current storyline. This comic is extremely funny and is important, especially one who wishes to know more about this odd character and his adventures. I think this comic should get another chance. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 23:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 21:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Is there any evidence that it has grown significantly in popularity? The Alexa rating is five digits, and a quick scan of Google turns up lots of self- and friend-promotion, but not much analysis or commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question Has there been any stories, interviews, or other coverage in mainstream or semi-mainstream press (not counting simple lists of webcomics)? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• What has changed since deletion? As noted above, the fundamental problem was a lack of evident encyclopaedic notability. Just zis Guy you know? 10:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
    • The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
      • WebComicList (a non-trivial published site that is independent of the site itself) has its own article, stated in the external links section. The web comic has ablso been the subject of debate on multiple community-based forums, such as eBaum's World Forums, SNAFU Comics Forums, and VG Cats Forums. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 17:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
        • That article on WebComicList is one sentence, as part of a list of webcomics. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, then, since this is a single trivial reference rather than multiple non-trivial references. We have no deadline to meet, we can afford to wait until it is genuinely notable and has atracted enough external attention to allow a verifiably neutral article to be written. Just zis Guy you know? 16:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Categorical undelete. This article has had very poor defense in the past. I did not see it mentioned that Dr. McNinja is a member of Dayfree Press, a very well-known collective in the webcomics community and therefore a peer to heavyweights such as Questionable Content and Dinosaur Comics. It has been brought up on the talk page that extreme bias has been built up against this article because of its rocky faring in the past. I would point out that there is no shame in accepting it now -- it does not undermine Wikipedia or any of the users who have criticized it; rather, it is a testament to our sometimes rigorous standards. It is now due time to recognize this professional-level webcomic, as anyone vaguely familiar with this online community must know of its near meteoric rise. Let's not be reactionary or snobbish; much lesser topics have their due recognition already. --BDD 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I was unaware that this comic was under Dayfree Press, yet this information seems to strengthen my resolve even more. Remember: if you can read it, if you can comprehend it, if you can learn from it...it isn't trivial. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 22:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I seem to remember (though I can't find the proper documentation, and it's possible that this was changed) a policy that members of the most prominent webcomic collectives merited articles. It's a sound policy. --BDD 00:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I'm the one who locked McNinja down as a {{deletedpage}}, but I agree with BDD. We may want to table this until the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards come out next month. I think there's a good chance McNinja will win one, and if it does, there won't be any question it will have met WP:WEB. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: I havn't read much of it, but I have seen references to it in other webcomics such as Bunny [63]. Also undelete per Abe. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Definitely notable per talk of deleted page.--Eloquence* 11:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Cory kennedy

My article on Cory kennedy was deleted via speedy deletion. I think this was a wrong move. Cory Kennedy is a becoming a huge internet phenenomenon. She has found a cult following on myspace, livejournal, and the cobra snake - as well as a place in current pop culture. This is the digital age. People are going to be looking her up. There is no reason for this article to have been deleted. This site should provide the most information possible - even about "internet celebrities." In fact, internet phenenomenons are particularly relevent on wikipedia because this IS the internet! I am requesting that this article be placed back up. I put in quite a bit of useful, accurate information about a person who is becoming very well known on the internet. Cory was also recently featured in Nylon magazine. Please review this. ~user:sleepyasthesouth

• Endorse speedy - As the deleting admin, it looked to be a nn-bio. The references were not reliable sources (blogs and livejournal). I deleted it first on a csd placed by another editor, then as a recreation (sleepyasthesouth recreated it including the notability and csd tags) and salted the earth. Syrthiss 12:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per Syrthiss. From the speedy tag: "it is an article about a person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)" There is no evidence that The Cobra Snake is itself a notable website, or that the parties she attends are notable, so all the more there cannot be evidence that she is notable for being on The Cobra Snake or for attending parties. Johnleemk | Talk 12:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• ADD-ON : I now understand why is was deleted. However, Isn't Cory Kennedy notable for suddenly having so many "fans" and finding herself all over the internet so quickly? What would qualify as a notable source? Would her feature in Nylon magazine qualify? Even if the information in the wikipedia article did not contain more than what is provided in the Nylon article? ~user:sleepyasthesouth
• Undelete and list on AfD As a contested speedy and the presence in Nylon constitutes a minimal claim to notability. JoshuaZ 16:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse / keep deleted As far as "internet phenomenon" qualifications go, I get 207 unique Google hits and the vast majority of those seem to be about other people by that name, among them a male bodybuilder, a soccer player, a congressional staff member, and a volleyball player. If she's an internet phenomenon, the internet doesn't really seem to be aware of that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Cory has only recently exploded on the internet over the past few weeks and it has been almost entirely on myspace, blogs and livejournal - places that will not really end up in google. A community was made for her on livejournal and in just over a week there are already over 200 members.
    However, if that's the final word - fine. I imagine soon she'll be on the site because her popularity seems to be only increasing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.205.176 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Above comment is misinformed. Those sites are very heavily indexed by google. Fan1967 18:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • comment A lot of absolute bullshit is heavily indexed by google, too. Being indexed by google doesn't make something a reliable source. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment I'm aware of that. However, the anon was trying to argue there was more attention being paid to this person in myspace and such sites that google wouldn't pick up. Google picks up pretty much everything there, so there's no hidden trove of notability. Fan1967 20:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, I typed that early this morning, apparently before things started to make sense. Reading it now, yes, you're right. I agree that if google can't see you; you aren't much of an internet phenomenon.
• Endorse deletion, quite blatantly there are no reliable sources for this. And 'contested speedy' is not a reason to restore (unlike contested PROD). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Well, I think the article definitely should have been deleted, however, I do not believe that it met the deliberately narrow speedy deletion criteria. I believe quite strongly that Sam is incorrect. A speedy-deletion that is contested in good faith is to be immediately restored and listed to AFD. That was a requirement set up when the speedy-deletion process was first established. Much as I hate to be a process wonk, we have to keep our own process creep under control. Overturn speedy and list to AFD. Being unsourced may be a deletion criteria but it is not a speedy-deletion criterion. Rossami (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you mind telling me where it says that contested speedy deletions get automatically sent to AfD, Rossami? Because I've never heard that, there's nothing in any of the obvious places saying that (e.g. next to the section on contested WP:PRODs on this very page), and if it ever was true, the widespread acceptance of WP:SNOW appears to contradict it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:CSD:A7 says "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead.". Also WP:SNOW has the text "If an issue raises no controversy, and ...", and therefor can't be used in disputed or controversial cases. --Rob 23:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Though I think that practically, the bar for 'disputed' there is significantly higher than for PRODs. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Widespread acceptance? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Paragraph 3 of the current header of WP:CSD reads "When there is reasonable doubt whether a page does [fall under a given criterion], discussion is recommended using one of the other methods under Wikipedia:deletion policy." That wording applies to all speedy-deletion criteria, not merely case A7. The wording has been tweaked over time but in my experience has always been interpreted as a requirement to undelete and use xFD when there is any good-faith objection to speedy-deletion. Rossami (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. There's no sourced claim of notability. Hence, CSD A7. The recourse for contested speedy deletions is this page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Valid speedy A7, and stands no chance whatsoever at AfD Just zis Guy you know? 21:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You can see the future here? WP:SNOW is never appropriate, specifically in a discussion about a speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yup, I can see the future fairly accurately here. Articles on vapid pseudo-celebrities with no objective claim to notability get daleted almost without exception. Most likely it would be tagged and speedied as A7 almost immediately it was listed. Somewhere I have a postcard with a picture of Michael Fish and the caption"I Predict The Future: Weatherman's Amazing Claim"... Just zis Guy you know? 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion sort of reluctantly. Rossami and Thieverr are quite right that this wasn't a good choice for speedy deletion, and for a dozen reasons it's better to err on the side of AfD - worst thing that happens is someone speedies it from there anyway. But... I dunno. These darn internet meme and internet meme wannabe articles are such pains, because there tends to be a crowd willing to stonewall against policy on them every time, and then we end up back at DRV. It would never be kept by a proper AfD, but it probably won't ever see one either, so it's best to keep it dead once it's dead. If the girl actually sticks around, there'll be media, and you can rewrite the article about her then. Does it really hurt that much if the interweb's flavor of the month doesn't automatically get a Wikipedia article? There's something to be said for standards. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per others and per WP:SNOW.
• Endorse deletion: Websites generate huge numbers for anything and everything, but it would be very wrong to call these numbers "fans." Further, it's all about the effect on the recorded world, the verifiable world. Anything that vanishes when the power goes out is less reliable than anything that needs a flood to destroy it. Geogre 13:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow! Geogre's Second Law!  :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics

User:Thebainer requested me to file this request below. The article has been speedied, because User:Rgulerdem allegedly edited it after he was indefinitely banned. Even if that allegation is correct, WP:CSD G5 only allows pages to be speedied, if they were created by banned users while they were banned. Irregular edits can easily be reverted instead. Raphael1 12:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Pointless rulelawyering is the only reason given to undelete, and does not address the original reason this page was tagged with the speedy tag: "rejected 'policy'. This page has become a permanently banned user magnet, please review history." (Oh, and did anyone mention that essentially the same page already exists at Wikipedia:Wikiethics?) Johnleemk | Talk 12:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know of any policy, which prohibits to copy a rejected policy to user space. Any why do you care so much, whether permanently banned users edit on a user space page? Would you rather want them to edit Wikipedia:Wikiethics? Raphael1 13:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Because userpages don't belong to users. Johnleemk | Talk 13:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • That's a non sequitur. I've never stated, that User:Rgulerdem or myself owned that page. Raphael1 13:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, a permanently banned user coming back to edit on a page in the previous user space accorded him is bad. This is not an allegation but indeed was what occurred as User:Rgulerdem again used an IP address or two that started with 216. which was previously reported on the RFCU confirming his sockpuppetry and left editorial commentary corresponding to his use of IP addresses as he returned to edit. Better that the page be kept deleted to discourage the return of the banned editor. Netscott 13:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question - what's the actual argument for this page's existence? Does it help bulid the encyclopedia? -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This page has been created to work on the prematurely polled proposal (5 days after the first draft has been created). Its location in user space has been suggested by User:Johntex to avoid controversy with opposing parties.[64] Raphael1 13:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well now that User:Rgulerdem is banned, the logic necessitating his usage of a subpage is no longer applicable. Regardless, he did come back via an anon IP address to edit on it and that's reason enough alone to delete it and keep it deleted. Netscott 14:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • As you know, I'd like to take over Rgulerdems work. What's your problem with that? Raphael1 16:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • My problem is that you are setting yourself up to act as a proxy to edit for a banned editor. This is bad. Netscott 17:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Netscott, at this point, how do you distinguish Raphael1's own ideas from ideas that are a banned editor's by proxy? Can nobody ever propose a similar policy, now that whatsisname is banned? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
            • GTBacchus, thank you for expressing your concerns. I have one question. Have you been following the discussion occurring on the Wikipedia mailing-list WikiEn-I? If you had you would instantly know that User:Raphael1 is acting as a proxy for User:Rgulerdem (particularly when Raphael1 started Resid Gulerdem's now G5 speedy deleted WP:OURS proposal). That is why I have proxy concerns. Banned editors should not have proxies working on their behalf, or am I wrong in making that statement? Netscott 20:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
              • I haven't been following WikiEn-I. I've never actually figured out how to subscribe to that. Nevertheless, I was pretty much aware that Raphael was trying to run with Rgulerdem's ideas. I guess what you're telling me is that there's no question that Raphael isn't acting based on his own initiative at all, but just acting for Rgulerdem, end of story. I don't know how you know that, but I'm willing to take your word for it. I also confess to not really getting what they're driving at with this proposed policy, but I guess it's neither here nor there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am Sam, Sam I am.

I do not like this censor sham.

Keep deleted in user space.

Keep deleted in any place.

Keep deleted from the socks.

Keep deleted says userbox.

Keep deleted here or there,

Keep deleted anywhere. --Dr. Blanning 16:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious. Kotepho 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Unsure why do we need a copy of this in User: and Wikipedia:? why is this so harmful or worthless that it must be deleted? Kotepho 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • May I congratulate you on your instincts? You've definitely asked the right question: "Why is this so harmful or worthless that it must be deleted?" Nobody here will be able to answer that question, because it's neither harmful nor is it worthless (at least not any more worthless, than most other stuff lying around in user space). Raphael1 02:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Sam I Am. --Cyde↔Weys 20:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. How many copies of a comprehensively rejected proposal do we need? Just zis Guy you know? 21:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment What exactly did the proposal contain in the first place? Even if it's already been voted down, couldn't it be kept and tagged as a rejected proposal or some such? --tjstrf 02:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Isn't that at Wikipedia:Wikiethics already? --Rory096 06:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and stop flogging a dead horse. Metamagician3000 06:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Nuke from orbit. Raphael has been openly communicating with a banned user on wikipedia-en-l to continue said banned editors interests. Shell ^babelfish 14:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, we don't need a banned user's disruptive attempt at policy-making resurrected in anybody's userspace. —Stormie 21:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Rgulerdem forfeited his user space when he got himself blocked. Many people warned him to stop wasting other people's time pushing this proposal. Rhobite 21:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Banned user. Unwelcome. Big Blue Marble 01:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. If he wants it to survive, keep on his computer drive. --Calton | Talk 04:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

04 June 2006

List of midnight movies

This article was tagged for speedy deletion as "patent nonsense," which I felt was unjustified. I placed a "hangon" tag on the article, and stated my reasoning on the article's talk page. I was going to list it on AfD and propose that it be merged with the main Midnight Movies article. I never got the opportunity to do so, however, since the article was, and I think rather precipitously, deleted. I propose, therefore, that the speedy deletion be reversed, the article be listed on AfD and suggest it's merger as stated above. ---Charles 03:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• The article was tagged for speedy deletion with that reason. I agree that it was not patent nonsense in the very specific and narrow way that we use the term here on Wikipedia. It the actual reason given for the deletion, however, was "WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information". Unfortunately, that is not an accepted criteria for speedy-deletion. I see little redeeming value to this list but as a procedural matter, it should have been AFD'd, not speedy-deleted. Rossami (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, undelete and send to AfD. No legitimate speedy reason given. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undeleted without prejudice, if someone wants to send this to AFD they can (obviously). --Cyde↔Weys 13:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• I have carried out a rough merger and redirect, which seems the best fate for the list's content. Xoloz 23:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yar

I would appreciate opinions/education on the deletion of Yar. I understand the Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, it would seem that certain concepts, which may be expressed in a single word, have some merit to their explanation. For a very similar use-case, see Gemütlichkeit. Thanks. --Incarnate

• Endorse deletion. Certainly, there is merit to there explanation of a word. That's what a dictionary is for. There was nothing in any version of this page that even attempted to be more than a definition. Please try creating it at Wiktionary.
  I'll note, however, that this particular word doesn't actually appear in any dictionary I could quickly put my hands on. (Merriam Webster had an entry as a variant spelling of "yare" but the definition given has nothing to do with any of the definitions on the deleted page.) Be prepared to offer some verifiable sources for the alleged definitions when you do so. Rossami (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks much for the clarification. I was uncertain of where the line might exist between the definition of a "word" and the definition of a "concept" (ie, definition of the word "cottage" versus a cottage) Additionally, the original article was based on my own experience, which is probably a better reason for deletion per the standards of articles (which I do support). Formal definitions are virtually nonexistent, only cropping up occasionally in film or TV as a truncated reference to boating. I'll give up and leave it be, thanks again for the appraisal. Incarnate 03:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, if you take it to Wiktionary be sure to give some evidence of attestation. One mention in The Simpsons does not make a valid yachting term. Maybe it's US-specific and that's why I have never heard it (I have many yachting friends including one who recently returned from sailing run d the world and another who teaches yachtmasters but they are all British). Just zis Guy you know? 08:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, with no prejudice against recreation if it can be made into something more than a dicdef. Apparently there is a real nautical term to be found under all the noise (see [65] and [66]) — however, that in itself makes it eligible for Wiktionary, not for Wikipedia. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. Dicdef. It's a real nautical word (may be spelled yar or yare), figures heavily in a section of dialog from The Philadelphia Story ([67]), but there's not much else to say about it. Fan1967 15:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• I've been bold and recreated this as a redirect to Tasha Yar, Denise Crosby's infamous Star Trek: The Next Generation character. Xoloz 18:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The Skin of Evil would be proud! Syrthiss 19:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

AK Productions

AK Productions was deleted suddenly and for know told reason. I believe that AK Productions should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia, sure it is a young company but still exists. I would like the article to be restored or for a reason to be given for it's overnight deletion. Comrade_Kale 2:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Mere existence is insufficient reason to justify a Wikipedia article. There appear to be a number of companies out there by that name. Which one is yours? Fan1967 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid A7. --Rory096 20:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• The opening sentence of this page read "AK Productions, is a recently created Production Company operating out of Waterville High School in New York State. Founded by Kale Carter, Brendan Carter, Olin Carlsen and Andrew Desimone in late May of 2006". It probably did not fit the deliberately narrow speedy-deletion criteria but if it had gone to AFD, it would have been measured against the standards of WP:CORP. From the information available, I don't see any chance that it would have succeeded in that discussion. I can not endorse the speedy-deletion but neither can I support it's undeletion without at least a little bit of evidence that this is appropriate to the encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• In other words, when I asked which of the many googleable "AK Productions" this was, the answer is "None of them". Endorse Deletion. Fan1967 22:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: We get a ton of buddy articles from youngsters. Simply put, they need to be real before they can even go to AfD, IMO. If something is just three kids announcing that they are now a corporation (or rock band, or rap group, or game faction, or gang), then it's true A7. The kick is the "formed in 2006" and "recently." We need to have things generate effects on the world before anyone will need them explained. Geogre 13:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AK Productions, is a recently created Production Company operating out of Waterville High School in New York State. And the article was created and edited solely by the people named in the article. A textbook case of WP:NFT. Just zis Guy you know? 15:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together

FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together was deleted as not notable. I think it is notable, given the press coverage listed under "References" and the people behind it, and I would like the article to be restored. TruthbringerToronto 11:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete; seems to be notable (albeit with less than 1000 google hits). — JEREMY 15:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't find an AfD on this one. The AfD article that exists (here) was just created by TruthbringerToronto as a mistaken attempt to launch the DRV. How was it originally deleted? Fan1967 16:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and AFD as a contested A7 speedy deletion. --Allen3 ^talk 17:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist if it was a contested speedy, though I'm inclined to suspect there will still be a consensus to delete. (Google cache of article is here). Fan1967 17:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Speedy deletion is not prod, you can't just contest it and force it to AfD. This has 11 Google hits. Most of those "articles" are on the group's site! --Rory096 20:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I get about 700 by looking for variations, which IMO gets over speediable territory, but probably still fails AFD consensus. Fan1967 21:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Doubtful that's more than A7, I get that many hits (and I was speedied, and quite justifiably so). --Rory096 21:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, speedy-deletion is exactly like prod in that regard. By policy and long tradition, any speedy-deletion which is contested in good faith is immediately undeleted and listed on AFD. That was one of the requirements set up when the speedy-deletion process was first approved. Rossami (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmm, so why do we even have things like {{hangon}}? --Rory096 06:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Hangon isn't always available. Sometimes an article gets tagged and deleted too quickly for an editor to notice it and put the hangon tag. Fan1967 15:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• AfD it due to possible WP:V violation as well as a name that doesn't follow naming converntions. Likely an article by an inexperienced or new user due to the use of an abrreviation in the title, which gives an idea of the quality. I can't say without reading it, so relaunch it for afd.-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 01:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Notable cause which deserves as much support as possible. Karnei 18:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So is it notable, or does it deserve support? If just the latter, that's not a valid reason to undelete. If the former, how is it notable? --Rory096 06:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

List of tongue-twisters

I listed the article for deletion on 17 April. The consensus was to either keep, or move to Wikibooks. The article was transwikied on 29 May by User:theProject, and subsequently deleted by User:Tijuana Brass. However, it was proclaimed unsuitable for Wikibooks and deleted from there by b:User:Jguk. As the alternative to transwiki was keep, and transwikiing failed, we should restore it. Rain74 11:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Since it's on Wikiquote now, keep deleted (I hope they'll accept it). Rain74 18:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Reinstate and relist. I will vote delete on AfD. Just zis Guy you know? 12:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  Keep deleted since it's at Wikiquote now, which seems like a much better place. Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Reinstate and relist - makes sense in the circs. keep deleted given the new information available Metamagician3000 12:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Suggestion why not move it to the Department of Fun? Sophia 12:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted no point in duplicating as it's at Wikiquote now. Sophia 05:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, the afd was pretty clear that this should be kept somewhere. After undeletion transwiki discussions should continue. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Changed to endorse.
  • • Endorse deletion as this has been transwiki'd in line with the AFD. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It has been. Please check the Transwiki log more carefully. Also, just because one wiki doesn't want it doesn't mean we must keep it. -Splash - tk 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Posting the result of the transwiki log was helpful here, implying that I was required to search that backloged page is not helpful, I assumed good faith in the nominator. Just because one wiki doesn't want it certainly doesn't mean we should give it safe haven, but the afd was clear that it should be transwikid or kept, not transwiki'd or deleted. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete don't know why it was deleted in the first place, because it was one of the better lists on Wikipedia. Promote to featured after undeletion.  Grue  12:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist: I'd prefer that conjunctive votes get clear on the matter. Yes, it will probably be kept, but I should like AfD to speak clearly. Geogre 13:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted in light of information that the thing was transwiki'd. If there has been a transwiki, then this is a no-brainer (and pretty much an invalid review), as duplicate material is forbidden. If the authors don't want it on Wikiquote, then that's sort of too bad, as authors are no more priviledged than readers at Wikipedia. Geogre 22:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It did. It was transwikied, rejected at it's target, and now transwiki'd elsewhere. -Splash - tk 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Splash. I took the deletion summary and his comment on WT:DRV too literally and did not realize it was already moved to Wikiquote. Kotepho 21:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Undelete/Transwiki to wikiquote, this is just silly. Kotepho 19:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• No, no, no. People should do there research first. It's been transwiki'd to Wikiquote. See q:Transwiki:List of tongue-twisters. Wikipedia didn't want it, and neither did Wikibooks. That is no reason to restore it here. You don't get some kind of free pass into Wikipedia just because noone else wants it! Anyway, it's been transwiki'd elsewhere. That's all that's needed. -Splash - tk 20:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme keep deleted. Just because wikibooks doesn't want something doesn't mean we have to keep it. And I totally agree with Splash. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Splash. The AfD debate did show a strong consensus that the content be kept somewhere, but now that it's on Wikiquote, there's no reason to keep it here. (I've notified all the people who voted before Splash's comment and asked them to revise or confirm their vote in light of it. Sorry for the spam.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems my spamming was actually redundant. Doubly sorry. *embarrassed* —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Helped me, actually, as I was crossing this one off my internal list. Geogre 03:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, as the desired outcome (keeping the content elsewhere) has been reached. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the VfD in question has a consensus to keep. Most users voted for keep as a primary solution and transwiki as a secondary. The VfD was closed inproperly. There were no delete votes. The decision should be overturned.  Grue  09:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, my closure did use a modicum of discretion, but isn't it a leap to improper? Kotepho 20:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Your closure was valid, in my book: more than one person pointed out that the list is inherently unverifiable (i.e. unsuitable for Wikipedia) and most offered Transwiki as a valid outcome, which it seems to me to be. Status quo appears to be reasonable. Just zis Guy you know? 15:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• undelete, but remove the non-English tongue twisters and have interwiki links to the other languages for their tongue twisters. Masterhatch 18:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Closing this discussion as "transwiki" was within reasonable discretion for the closing admin. The fact that the target project later decided that the content did not fit their inclusion criteria does not mean that Wikipedia must change its own criteria. Rossami (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. `'mikka (t) 04:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Raphael1/Wikiethics

This page got deleted for the following reason: "can't have copy & paste moves of deleted pages - GFDL requires the history"

I've copied the page from User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics (before it was removed) and pasted it to User:Raphael1/Wikiethics. I didn't know how I could have copied the history of this article as well and certainly didn't want to violate GFDL. Please restore that page together with the history of User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics to make it compliant with GFDL. Raphael1 00:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse. Anyway, Rgulerdem is banned, and it was a fair deletion that time. Will (^E_@) T 01:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It was removed, because it has been in the userspace of an indef-banned user. I am not banned, therefore User:Raphael1/Wikiethics can't be removed for the same reason. Raphael1 01:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It's CSD G4 and possibly G5 Will (^E_@) T 01:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • It's neither G4, because it hasn't been recreated, instead it has been copied before deletion (besides G4 doesn't apply for user space pages), nor is it G5 (because I'm not banned). Raphael1 01:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
        • It's a recreation. The G4 exception for user space is supposed to be for articles undeleted at a user's request, not for recreation of deleted content that was originally in the user namespace. Will (^E_@) T 01:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
          • It's not a recreation. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics has been removed on the 2006-05-31 and I've copied the page before that date. BTW please restore User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics as well since G5 only applies for pages created by banned users while they were banned. Raphael1 01:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. This "policy" has been the source of highly contentious and disruptive editing and User:Raphael1's user page is just an unecessary copy of the rejected Wikipedia:Wikiethics that is likely to do the same as User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics which is to encourage banned editors to use sockpuppets or anonymous IPs to circumvent their block to edit on Wikipedia. Netscott 09:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Whether you deem my copy to be "unnecessary" is certainly no part of WP:CSD. Furthermore did User:Raphael1/Wikiethics with no syllable encourage banned editors to circumvent their block. I wonder, where you got that from? Raphael1 14:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well this MfD for User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics is what relates to my mentioning banned and sockpuppet users. I'm curious Raphael1, why did you actually save a copy of permanently banned user User:Rgulerdem's page? I understand that as Wikipedia editors we are to assume good faith in the editing of our fellow contributors but was the reason you saved a copy because you noticed that as a banned editor Resid Gulerdem was editing on it and figured that it'd be deleted and to disrupt that process you decided to save a copy? It seems so odd to me that you should have just happened to save a copy of his user page version just prior to its deletion. Netscott 19:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: the article itself isn't banned, just one of the originating editors. Netscott, why is it a problem for Raphael1 to have a userspace copy (I assume a developmental version, like User:Jeremygbyrne/Roger Elwood or User:Jeremygbyrne/Brontosaurus) of an article? — JEREMY 15:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note - this vote was gained through advertisement.[68]Timothy Usher 17:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Jeremy, it's all a question of good faith. I didn't request deletion or even mention the existence of Raphael1's user page copy of permanently banned User:Rgulerdem's user page to anyone (despite misgivings about seeing him copy it just prior to its deletion) but someone else from the WikiEn-I mailing list appears to have seen mention of it by Raphael1 there and decided independently to delete it. Now that the act is done I support it for the reasons I expressed above. I would recommend the both of you to disassociate yourselves from Resid Gulerdem for anyone editing in support of him is likely to have his or her own reputation tarnished as he was not only disruptive here but in a completely independent fashion was repeatedly disruptive and blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia. Resid Gulerdem is just bad for Wikipedia. Netscott 19:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't understand your "good faith" argument. It's obvious that most material which is about to be deleted will continue to exist elsewhere — in google's cache for example. Raphael1 could have taken a copy of the article offsite and done to it whatever he chose, in the privacy of his own home. Instead, he chose to keep it on wikipedia (which looks like good faith to me), and he has suffered for it. Next time, do you think he will be more or less inclined to act in secrecy? — JEREMY 10:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • The preceding user's comments were solicited through targetted advertisement[69].Timothy Usher 10:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • No need to persist with your well-poisoning, Timothy. Most people understood your accusation the first time. — JEREMY 10:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
            • I did understand User:Timothy Usher's statement of fact the first time and also saw it as an attempt by User:Raphael1 to "game the system", but do agree that it's a bit silly to repeat such a statement. ;-) Netscott 11:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Suffered? Where's the suffering? The only ones suffereing are those having to spend time dealing with this nonsense. Let's face it Jeremy, Raphael1's actions were to thwart in a disruptive fashion the virtually assured deletion of Resid Gulerdem's user page. Is that not so difficult to understand? Regardless as bainer's comment below illustrates, Raphael1 shouldn't be trying to resurrect his own copy of Resid Gulerdem's final version of "Wikiethics" but in fact should be trying to resurrect Resid Gulerdem's (rightly imho) deleted user page. Netscott 10:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Raphael1's actions were to thwart in a disruptive fashion And you foresaw this via which divinatory or telepathic methodology, exactly? It would seem far more likely that Raphael1 took a copy to preserve relevant material for a future proposal. Your refusal to assume good faith (or at least not to assume the first bad faith interpretation that springs to mind) is troubling. This is yet another example of flawed rules-lawyering supported by the tyranny of the majority. Raphael1's editing may frustrate some people, but the way he has been treated is disgraceful. — JEREMY 11:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
              • The plea to "rules lawyering" is rather lame, can't you do better than use that argumentation device? Honestly, Raphael1 like myself and User:Metros232 saw that the permanently banned editor User:Rgulerdem was editing via IP addresses on his failed Wikiethics proposal and realized (again rightly so) that it was likely to be deleted because of that and to thwart such a deletion he saved a copy. Raphael1 wasn't involved in editing on that policy since it was last worked on over at Wikipedia:Wikiethics. Does it not strike either of you as foolish to be here wasting our time discussing the saving of a policy that was founded by a demonstrably disruptive editor? It's as if you're here trying to defend a banned user's right to continue to make policy on Wikipedia even when he's blocked. The only reason I can see for this is because "it's a cause!". You know if Resid Gulerdem had only been blocked on the English Wikipedia I might understand better those wanting to defend him and his ridiculous policy but the fact that he's been independently repetitively blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia makes me sooner see such individuals as foolish. Netscott 11:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
                • Firstly I have not seen User:Rgulerdem editing on User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics via IP addresses, and secondly I have been editing User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics before it was removed. Raphael1 12:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
                  • Raphael1, why did you think his user page was going to be deleted then? If the user page had just sat there no one's attention would have been brought to it, but this is not what occurred. Netscott 12:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
                    • Don't you first want to apologize for your wrong claims before you ask any further questions? Raphael1 13:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
                      • No, due to my witnessing your previous demonstrations of a lack of good faith I'm inclined to view this as another example of the same. Netscott 14:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse~. Per Netscott's above comments -- Karl Meier 17:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Netscott.Timothy Usher 17:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Wikipedia:Wikiethics still exists if you want to go edit that. What you did by copy and pasting it into your own user space was done only to get around the fact that it was about to be deleted it. That is, in an ironic way, unethical. I also frown up the nominating user for the advertising of this discussion [70], [71], [72], etc. 6 advertisements in total. Metros232 17:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I've got no supernatural skill to see the future. How could I have acted upon a "fact", which still lied ahead? Raphael1 17:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Why did you copy and paste it to yours then? If you didn't think it was going to be deleted, why did you need a copy of your own instead of just editing the one that existed at Rgulerdem's user page? Why did you think that two needed to exist? Metros232 17:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed I did suspect, that it might get deleted in the future, but I certainly didn't know about that. I still don't see, how it is in any way unethical to take over the work of an indef-banned user. Besides User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics shouldn't have been removed as well since G5 only applies for pages created by banned users while they were banned. Raphael1 19:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, copy of a previously rejected attempt at censorship. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted since this was proposed at Wikipedia:Wikiethics and solidly rejected I see no particular merit in keeping it hanging around in user space in a form which (at first glance) looks to be even less acceptable. Just zis Guy you know? 22:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not going to endorse or overturn my own deletion, though I will say to Raphael1 that if he wants the content, he needs to hold a DRV on the original page (User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics) because copy & pasted pages cannot possibly exist when the original page is deleted. --bainer (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've read through this deletion review, and what I'm missing is any argument for why this page should exist. Why maintain a copy of a rejected policy written by a banned user? How does it help write the encyclopedia? -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I wonder, why you even ask that question. Shouldn't you rather ask, why should that page be removed? Nevertheless I will answer your question: Rgulerdem and some other editors worked on this former prematurely rejected policy in userspace to avoid controversy with opposing parties. I'd like to continue Rgulerdems work, which is why I've created a copy. Raphael1 16:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I think it's pretty clear from reading this discussion that it's being removed because it's the work of a banned editor, and seems to be a sore spot for a lot of people. At that point, the ball's back in your court - if so many Wiki regulars are against it, what's so great about it to make it worth the static you incur by recreating it? I've asked a more pertinent question at your talk page. If your goal is to improve Wikipedia, a bad way to start is by pissing a bunch of people off by acting as proxy for a banned user, practically speaking. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I can't believe, that you are repeating Netscotts accusation ("proxy editing"). I consider this a personal attack, since it completely disregards my individuality. What's so bad about the work of this banned editor, that it needs to be removed? Will you remove Interfaith as well, because it's mostly his work? IMHO this whole agitation to delete User:Rgulerdems work and keep it deleted, is a clear sign, that Rgulerdem hasn't been blocked for his behaviour, but for the position he has taken on various topics. Raphael1 02:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

        I don't enter the conversation just assuming that Netscott is lying; why not trust that I'm taking his word in, whadyecallit... good faith? So you say you're not being his proxy. I don't have any evidence to say which of you is right. I know basically nothing about Rgulerdem. I still think you're running into a lot of static, and would probably try a different approach, if I were in your position, and if I were more interested in results than in drama. You choose your battles - is it more important to you to influence Wikipedia in a positive direction, or to do it using this particular guy's words? There's reasons to stand on principle, and there's reasons not to. You can probably cause a big scene, if you set your mind to it, but that'll poison the policy you're talking about in the community's eyes even more. Have you noticed some pretty stiff opposition to this policy? If I were you, I'd be sitting back from this DRV and trying to start some conversations about what's so incompatible between this proposal of yours and the current state of Wikipedia - you haven't replied to my post on your talk page where I'd love to have that conversation with you, if you're down to have it. Come on, don't knock your head against this wall, it won't move. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - I have done a little work on this proposal and having a record of it is helpful in case anyone decides to work on it in the future. Also, as a comment to the closing admin, despite insinuations to the contrary, advertising a deletion reveiw is not a violation of any policy. Johntex\^talk 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It violates the spam guidelines: "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view."Timothy Usher 23:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted once and for all. Metamagician3000 06:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, we don't need a banned user's disruptive attempt at policy-making resurrected in anybody's userspace. —Stormie 21:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. (Personal attack removed) of a banned user. Unwelcome. Big Blue Marble 02:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

03 June 2006

Sydney Roosters Season articles

Three articles I created simultaneously, that being Roosters1908; SydneyRoosters1909; and SydneyRoosters1910 were deleted in the last few days. The Sydneyroosters1909 article held a debate for the deletion while I had only added little content to the page, the article was then up for deletion before I had done any updates. While the debate took place I continued doing the updates, as seen in the discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sydneyroosters1909

I have plead my case to show that there are updates coming and its justification of existence.

I had also created a fourth article, however this was later and I must add that I created the page before the others were deleted. The fourth article; Sydney Roosters 1911 Season was created and included the updates I had promised with the 3 previous articles.

However when this article was put to debate re: deletion, the general consensus so far has been to keep the article based on the argument brought forward by Athenaeum who states; 'Wikipedia is an almanac. It says so in the first sentence of Wikipedia:What is an article. This is verifiable real world information. It is not indiscrimate, and deleting it would do some harm and absolutely no good. Wikipedia is a free reference resource and this is mainstream reference material.'

Considering the 3 previous articles were exact replicas in structure to the Sydney Roosters 1911 Season only differing in factual content, I propose that if the outcome of the debate be to keep the Sydney Roosters 1911 Season that the 3 previous articles be restored as this argument brought forward by Athenaeum was not put forward re: the debate of the other 3 articles.Sbryce858 07:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and relist at the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Roosters 1911 Season, where consensus now appears to favor keeping that sort of content. This will ensure a more-or-less coherent decision. Sandstein 22:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist - perhaps it was closed properly, but this is very likely good encyclopedic content. The team concerned has long been a major force in the NSW league. Let's see how it goes this time. Metamagician3000 09:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist based on the outcome of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Roosters 1911 Season, which was in favour of keeping the article.Sbryce858 21:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User:AKMask/log

April Fools Day this year included a minor invasion of the GNAA IRC chat by members of wikipedia crapflooding with very informative information about Keynesian economics. Deleted with the note of Privacy Violation. Note the GNAA has no rules against logging the chats, and infact encourages their members, which granted we are not, to do so. There was no privacy violation. I humbly request it to be undeleted.Edit:Also to note, it was linked to off the BJAODN page for the April fools day section. -M^ask 09:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm... I think you got the name wrong. There's no deleted content at the pagename you provided. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So I did, fixed now (dang capital letter) -M^ask 09:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak undelete If there are no privacy violation issues here; that is, if the GNAA chat does not hold a policy against public logging, then I could care less. I mean, the log's pure nonsense and a waste of server space (I'm quietly for deleting BJAODN altogether), but whatever. Let him have his log. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted conditionally - only if it can be verified there is no rule against public posting of logs, then undelete. NSLE _(T+C) at 09:47 UTC (2006-06-03)
• Keep deleted: Who cares if GNAA has a rule? It's Freenode that forbids reposting. The "authors" can't be verified and don't get to say. Geogre 12:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Last I checked #gnaa was juped on freenode, so I don't think the irc logs are from freenode. Kotepho 17:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The channel was not on Freenode. -M^ask 18:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and send to MFD if you want it deleted unless someone can show that it is from a network that prohibits public posting of logs (it certainly isn't the norm). Kotepho 17:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Someone should have checked with the page owner before speedying. --StuffOfInterest 18:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  No one owns any article on Wikipedia. --mboverload@ 19:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Amazingly, I agree with Geogre. This hardly ever happens. Except when there is a Y in the day name. Just zis Guy you know? 23:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, aside from the privacy concerns, Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, not the repository for inane crap. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Christopher Parham. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete If want deleted should go to MfD, and is imo, within the bounds of what we allow people to put in their userspace(and I'm under the impression that there is no privacy issue in this case). JoshuaZ 16:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. How is this not a privacy invasion? Metamagician3000 12:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Everyone read and reconsider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:About#Wiki_is_a_great_concept_but_._._. In short, Wiki suffers horribly from this phenomenon, and until things change, it'll never be objective. In Wiki's current form, all of you are responsible for refraining from personal bias (currently racking up a deplorable record, to date), and reviewing relevancy based not on your experience (as nearly all of you have done), but on an objective measure (sorry, but Google hits isn't objective, nor accurate) of actual relevancy.
  • Can you please explain what the above paragraph means, and its relevancy to this discussion? User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

2006 June

1. Okashina_Okashi - Decision of the original closer to relist at AfD is endorsed. 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
2. Dismal's Paradox - Relisted at AfD. 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
3. User:SPUI/jajaja - Nomination withdrawn. 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
4. List of political leaders widely regarded as totalitarian - Request for information answered. 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
5. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed. 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
6. Cultural references in Pokémon - Deletion endorsed. 16:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
7. Fluffy (The Lion King) - Deletion endorsed. 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
8. Kelly Roberti - Copyright issue resolved, restored. 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
9. Image:Pierre Janssen.jpg - Commons image, action impossible here. 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Review
10. Neanderthal theory of autism - Deletion endorsed. 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
11. Be bold, Be Bold - Overturn RfD and revert to WP:BOLD. 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
12. Jeff Lindsay - Deletion endorsed. 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
13. "State Debate Associations" - Deletion endorsed. 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
14. How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 - Deletion endorsed. 17:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
15. Kinston Indians - Deletion endorsed. 17:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
16. Wikipedia:SCAG - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
17. Image:Nuvola 64 apps important.png - undeletion impossible; deleted prior to 16 June 2006. 13:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
18. Sick Nick Mondo - Deletion endorsed for now, pending AfD outcome for related Nick Mondo; should that survive, this is a suitable redirect. 18:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review

    Nick Mondo having survived AfD, this is restored as a redirect. 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

19. True Torah Jews - Deletion endorsed. 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
20. UCIP - Deletion endorsed. 18:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
21. Mending Wall - Keep endorsed. 11:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
22. Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) - Deletion endorsed. 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
23. TheSmartMarks.com - Deletion endorsed. 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
24. Dirt pudding - Transwiki and deletion endorsed. 17:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
25. Kirill Makharinsky - Deletion endorsed. 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
26. Armando Lloréns-Sar - History restored, maintained as redirect; merge issues are an editorial concern for article's talk page. 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
27. Hollywood Undead - Deletion endorsed. 17:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
28. Trexy - Closing administrator agreed to relist AFD. 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Review
29. Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak - No consensus closure endorsed. 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
30. Knox (animator) - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
31. Lightsaber combat - Keep closure endorsed. 18:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
32. Stone Trek - Deletion closure endorsed. 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
33. File:944 h.jpg - DRV closed, image in Commons jurisdiction. 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
34. Sadullah Khan - Undeleted, relisted. 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
35. Atromitos - Undeleted. 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
36. Walk To Emmaus - Deletion endorsed. 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
37. Wikipedia:Conservative notice board. Kept deleted. Strong endorsement. 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Review.
38. Lost: The Journey - Relisted. 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
39. User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes and Template:User Gangster - Undeleted. 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
40. The Lost Boys (demogroup) - Relist. 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
41. Second War (Harry Potter) - Deletion endorsed. 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
42. IRCDig - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
43. Saryn Hooks - Undeleted and relisted at AfD. 17:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
44. Template:Major_programming_languages - template content restored 06:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) review
45. Strategic Policy Consulting - Deletion endorsed. 16:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
46. Actuarial Outpost - Kept kept, mistaken nomination. 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
47. Image:WikiPâques.png - Uploaded to Commons, as suggested. 16:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
48. The Esplanade Mall - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 16:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
49. Sydney Ling - AfD result of "no consensus" endorsed. 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
50. Siberian language - Deletion endorsed. 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
51. Burlington Center Mall - Challenge of no consensus afd withdrawn. 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
52. Erik Möller - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
53. theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh - Deletions endorsed. 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
54. Wikipedia:OURS - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
55. 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) - Deletion endorsed. 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
56. Conservative Underground - Deletion endorsed. 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
57. Boring Business Systems - AfD reopened by acclamation. 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
58. Joseph D. Campbell - Previous AfD overturned, to be relisted at AfD. 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
59. Church of Reality - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
60. Heinen's - Result reversed by consensus, AfD now closed as "no consensus". 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
61. BB Sinha - Restored, listed at AfD. 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (deleted at AfD 20:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)) Review
62. Mending Wall - Restored, listed at AfD, closed as keep, brought here again (above). 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
63. Cancer Bats - Restored, to be resubmitted to AfD in light of new evidence. 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
64. Cum On Her Face - Deletion endorsed. 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
65. AlternC - Deletion endorsed. 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
66. Tiffany Holiday - Deletion endorsed. 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
67. Shane Cubis - Deletion endorsed unanimously (excepting discounted anons/newbies.) 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
68. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
69. Big Brother 7 chronology - Deletion endorsed. Will userfy upon request. 15:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
70. Wikimedia Meta-Wiki - action reverted by the closer. AFD reopened. 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
71. The Adventures of Dr. McNinja - Consensus to permit userpage draft as new recreation, will be submitted to AfD. 17:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
72. Cory kennedy - Deletion endorsed. 17:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
73. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics - Kept deleted unanimously. 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
74. Yar - Deletion endorsed without prejudice to unrelated redirect now at title. 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
75. List of midnight movies - Content restored for merge and redirect. 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
76. AK Productions - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
77. FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together - Undeleted and sent to AfD. 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
78. List of tongue-twisters - Deletion endorsed in light of new Wikiquote transwiki. 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
79. User:Raphael1/Wikiethics - Deletion endorsed. 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
80. Roosters1908, Sydneyroosters1909, and Sydneyroosters1910 - Undeleted to be AfD'ed in light of new evidence. 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
81. National Hockey Leaque player lists - Restored speedily and AFD reopened. 08:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
82. User:AKMask/log - Restored (by a narrow margin) to be sent to MfD. 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
83. Male Unbifurcated Garment - Deletion endorsed (again -- Second DRV in two weeks.) 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
84. Penis banding - Deletion endorsed. 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Review
85. Template:User no notability - Deletion narrowly endorsed. (date unavailable, deletion review never archived) Permalink
86. Syed Ahmed - deletion endorsed, redirected to The Apprentice (UK series 2) 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
87. Ho Shin Do - deletion endorsed without prejudice 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
88. Israel News Agency - article content restored 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
89. Delaware County Intermediate Unit - Deletion closure endorsed. 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
90. Steve Bellone - Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
91. Team NoA - Previous version restored, survived AfD as no consensus. 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
92. Springfield M21 - Restored as redirect with history. 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
93. The drips - Speedy deletion contested, overturned; sent to AfD. 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
94. Template:Voting icons - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
95. Ali Zafar - New NPOV recreation permitted. 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
96. Barbara Bauer, The Literary Agency Group and others - Bauer undeleted and kept at AfD; others kept deleted. 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
97. Scienter - deletion overturned. 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
98. Auto repair shop - original speedy deletion endorsed, without prejudice to now-existing distinct redirect at this title. 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
99. Wikipedia v search engines - deletion endorsed unanimously. 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
100. Pat Price - deletion overturned unanimously, no need to relist. 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
101. Talk:Brian Peppers - kept deleted. 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
102. The Juggernaut Bitch - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
103. South Coast League - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
104. Other side of the pillow - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
105. Joel Leyden - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
106. Sharting - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
107. User:Disavian/Userboxes/Green Energy - deletion endorsed, narrowly 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
108. Left-wing terrorism - article history restored 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
109. Stella Maris College Scout Group - deletion endorsed 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
110. List of Michael Savage neologisms - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
111. Superhorse - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
112. Exicornt - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
113. Image:Lock-icon.jpg - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
114. College Confidential - article content restored 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
115. Tim Dingle - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
116. Abstract People - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
117. Christian views of Hanukkah - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
118. Claught of a bird dairy products - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
119. LIP6 - continue from rewritten version 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
120. Hulk 2 - redirected to Hulk (film) for now 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
121. Xombie - article content restored 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
122. Possible wars between liberal democracies speedy-deletion undone by deleting admin. listed to AFD. 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
123. Gary Howell deletion endorsed. 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
124. New Sincerity - deletion endorsed. 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
125. Successful Praying - speedy deletion as copyvio endorsed. 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
126. Videohypertransference - user copy granted. deletion from articlespace endorsed. 20:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
127. Oz Categories 8 endorse, 5 overturn, deletion endorsed. 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Review

Userbox discussions

• Template:User no notability - deletion endorsed, narrowly 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• Template:User organ donor template content restored 17:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian See WP:TGS
• Template:User satanist kept deleted
• Template:User cannabis kept deleted
• Template:User CCP - kept deleted. 00:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User against fox hunting (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW. Massive endorsement.)

Archives

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 May)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 April)

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

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=Wikipedia: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 November 6}}</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 November 6}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 November 6|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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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".

08 June 2006

Church of Reality

(See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of reality.) --66.28.20.178 15:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Church of Reality website

The Church of Reality is a religion, based on what is tangible and real. Somehow, for some reason, its article (and even its talk page) was deleted, with little to no apparent reason. This is really no different from deleting an article on any other religion, which is unfair censorship. I'm asking whoever deleted it to either give a truly good reason as to why it should stay deleted, or undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.178.151 (talk • contribs) 06:59 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, close discussion, protect from recreation. This cruft was deleted twice via AfD, and recreated/speedy deleted lots of times thereafter. Process was followed at all times. Sandstein 08:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and protect per Sandstein. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 10:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a forum for self-promotion in the name of free speech. 72, please see WP:NOT and WP:N. Endorse deletion, yea, now and forever, amen. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no version of any of the incarnations of this article is anything other than self-promotion for a group with, as far as I can tell, no claim of notability being present in any case. Just zis Guy you know? 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion valid AfD with a massively overwhelming consensus to delete, no evidence that circumstances have changed since then. Alexa rank of offical site linked to above is 456,440. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and protect from recreation per every reason expressed above. Postdlf 16:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, protect from recreation and bury with a stake through its heart. This has wasted enough time. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Delete. Keep deleted. Protect. Ban the next person who tries to recreate it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It's hard to review something if you don't know what it said.--mboverload@ 20:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Sufficient insight is available from the two AfD links above, as well the fun-and-games of the last time this came to DRV, which appears to have found a copy of itself on the talk page of the latter of the two linked to at the top of this review. -Splash - tk 21:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Allow recreation if it is a real religion AND the recreation can be done in a non-bias way that is similar to other articles on religion, and not just recreated as a self-endorsement.--Azathar 01:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Heinen's

• Strong Overturn, Undelete. A top 100 Ohio business; clearly passes WP:CORP; was already cited on Supermarkets in the United States, therefore clearly notable (and meant to be given a wikipedia page); not to mention has MORE stores in its chain, has a HIGHER sales volume, occupies a LARGER region, and has MORE information supplied than many businesses that have ALREADY been given Wikipedia pages: Westborn Market, Woodman's Food Market, Strack and Van Til, Scolari's, Magruder's, Felpausch, and many more. AS CREATOR OF THE ARTICLE, I would also like to comment on my extremely upsetting experience in posting this article. I have already given all of these reasons NUMEROUS times in defense of my article, and I have proven in my previous posts that my article should be granted a Wikipedia page. It was speedily deleted without hardly any consideration or supplied reason except that more people had posted DELETE than had posted KEEP - a 1 vote majority in fact (yes 1 vote). NO OTHER REASONING was provided to account for its deletion! I spent a great deal of time describing the business and how it is definately influential and notable. My arguments it seems were not considered at all and were simply left out of the matter. My article was not biased, and it was not created as advertising. PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS ARTICLE as it clearly deserves a Wikipedia page. [73]. If the article is undeleted, I WILL add to it. Bluebul1989 06:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• In terms of pure numbers (standard disclaimer AfD is not a vote etc), the close was borderline, with 66% or 60% for deletion, depending on whether Bluebul1989's opinion is counted (as a new user who has so far only edited in relation to this article and is the sole editor to do so, the admin can choose to do so or not). That would often be closed as 'no consensus', defaulting to keep, but it is very much within the admin's discretion. However, in this case, I don't think the reasons to delete are that pressing. I don't believe that the article was created as self-promotion - if I had I would certainly endorse deletion. Bluebul claims to be a 16-year-old Ohian on WP:NEW and this is supported by a Google search for his username. Although I find the WP:CORP claim to notability dubious (the top 100 companies in every state of the USA being automatically notable sounds rather Americentric), DRV is not the place to debate that, and the other arguments for it being notable sound reasonable. Therefore, I suggest overturn as a no consensus and undelete without prejudice against a further AfD to gain a clearer consensus in a fortnight or so after Bluebul has improved it further. P.S. Bluebul, you don't need to shout. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. A 66% delete vote is insufficient to delete, better to have no consensus'ed it and see what happens from there. THE KING 18:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • AfD is not a vote. 66% can be sufficient to delete if the reasoning to delete is compelling enough. In this case I think the reasoning isn't compelling enough, but this misconception needs to be challenged wherever it appears. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn IMO, important enough for a reasonable article to be written. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr. BB Sinha

For clarity here is the article log[74].

This article was originally just a thin article that was nothing and was speedily deleted. Later the article was recreated, and I assisted in the overall betterment of the article. Again, the article was proposed for deletion, but on the grounds of a repost. However, Mike Rosoft restored the article stating, "Sufficiently different content from deleted material to warrant a new discussion/vote." The article remained standing and again was nominated for speedy in which I placed a hangon tag, another admin (I don't whom exactly, and I don't want to place names) agreed with the previous decision and stated that it was an entirely new article and deserved to stay up. Today, the article was deleted by Eskog for being a "repost." I am challenging this decision and request for undelete. The article is vastly stronger and signifies notability. Also, the repost decision was overturned before. It doesn't seem logical just to eliminate it for just that. Respectfully, Yanksox 05:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have already restored, as I was the speedying admin. I didn't notice that Mike Rosoft had already rejected the "repost" argument. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Mending Wall

This article was deleted by User:Royboycrashfan without any discussion. As far as I understand the deletion process, this is not wikipedia policy.

I am happy to resolve any copyvio problems. Tomandlu 11:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Restore, tentatively pending an explanation for this from Royboycrashfan—no explanation is obvious at the moment. I do not see what grounds there were for speedy deletion. There may be copyright issues, although I am not certain because the poem dates from 1915, but an article that old should not have been speedied without discussion. -- SCZenz 13:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Royboycrashfan does not object to restoration if Tomandlu investigates the copyright issues, so I have restored this. -- SCZenz 18:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I have listed it on AfD, suggesting it be transwikied to Wikisource. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

07 June 2006

Template:User Not in metric

This longstanding, tongue-in-cheek, satirical userbox was in line with other tongue-in-cheek, satirical user boxes. Administrator Tony Sidaway deleted this page citing its apparently inflammatory content. (See his talk page.) This userbox is clearly humorous and should not have been arbitrarily deleted like this. An example of this userbox is on my talk page. Nova SS 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering that you are the only person who has that userbox included on the userpage, does it really matter? I don't really think it's a T1 candidate, but the content was not really very useful either. I think the thing is OK to leave subst:ed on your userpage. Neutral. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Endorse deletion, it may be satirical but it's also divisive and inflammatory to a much higher degree than User Satanism or any of the other endorsed userboxes have been. I actually agree with its view to a certain extent, but delete as valid T1. (Just like User Intercal) --tjstrf 06:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per above. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as a valid T1 deletion (am I really saying that about a userbox?) as I would consider it as having inflammatory content. In either case, it has been userfied and someone could transclude/subst it from there. On a side note, mine would probably be something along the lines of "This user thinks in terms of inches, metres, stones & pounds (what's an ounce?), pints, litres, british imperial gallons and Kilobytes (not to be confused with Kilobytes) and celcius (unless it's hot today)"... blame the '80s. Hmmm, is the actual name of the template Template:User metric-sucks or Template:User Not in metric? TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 12:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Divisive. -- The Anome 12:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - if you really want it, keep it on your userpage. Not good enough for template: space. -- 9cds^(talk) 13:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. It's in your userspace - find something better to do, for the love of God. Proto||type 13:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, it actually is T1. Will (^E_@) T 16:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist at TfD. I didn't agree with the speedy delete. I have seen userboxes that were much worse. Let the community at-large decide at TfD. MJCdetroit 16:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• (I guess I need to cast my vote!) Relist at TfD. I agree with MJCdetroit. Nova SS 17:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Is it dead? Yes it is (well, almost). So keep it that way. Misza13 ^{T C} 17:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Forget T1; this is a template in use on one single page. Longstanding convention is to subst and delete such templates. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Included in only one page? I would say "subst and delete" on a TFD, so the proper thing was done here. Keep deleted. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Cancer Bats

This article on a band was properly deleted as non-notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cancer Bats. However, I'm listing for reconsideration here in the light of subsequent developments that may alter that judgment, namely the release of an album under (what appears to be) a major label.[75] The article's original author also claims the following additional facts (which I have not verified myself):

• Released a sampler, an EP and an album
• Album is sold in Sunrise Records and HMV
• Video recieves rotation on MuchLoud (a show on MuchMusic)
• Had an interview and played a live show on MTV Canada Live
• Appeared on The Edge 102.1 (CFNY-FM) and the single was played at least once.
• Played with bands such as The Bled, Protest The Hero, will play with NOFX and Silverstein summer of '06
• Signed to same indie label as The Bled and Alexisonfire
• Has toured across Canada and is already on tour again with destinations from Moncton NB to Vancouver BC

I am not voting at this time, just facilitating. Postdlf 23:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Overturn, undelete. Has anything new been presented? Not...really. The band has recently been featured in Canada's Exclaim! magazine, not small potatoes, as well as a feature on Canadian 106.7 FM. It's important to note that the band met WP:MUSIC guidelines BEFORE the AfD, and that was ignored. The prior meeting of the necessary guideline in the first AfD and further media mentions since then more than mean the deletion should be overturned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Undelete -- the evidence above seems to show sufficient notability. -- The Anome 12:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong Overturn, Undelete. The album is out, theyve made more public appearances and the tour scedule has been updated to include a cross country tour with some major bands. I was ignored during the first vote, please dont ignore me now. All claims can be verified on these websites: [76], [77], [78], [79] and [80]. They have met more than 1 of the notability claims. Avenged Evanfold 23:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak undelete playing on MTV Live (Canada) has to have some notability along with some magazine mentions. THe amazon link is not impressive, but ASIN B000FKOZLA is funny. What kind of viewship does MuchLoud/Music get? Our stub is not helpful. Kotepho 01:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cum On Her Face

Very popular porn site I really dont know why was it deleted. Luka Jačov 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong undelete - Luka Jačov 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete - per Luka. --Pockey 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• The article was speedied as an A7 (person or organization with no claim of notability). It's actually more of a website than an organization, and although I doubt it meets WP:WEB, that doesn't make it speediable. I don't think we're going to find any good independent reliable sources. Still, why not give it its day on AfD? Undelete and list at AfD. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• List on AfD if we must, but I really see no need for this article. It's just another porn site, of which there is surely no dearth, and I really can't imagine anybody actually coming to Wikipedia for information on it. Just zis Guy you know? 22:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Change to endorse, per Sam. I had not spotted that it was unsourced as well as the other issues. Just zis Guy you know? 06:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and list on AfD per GTBacchus. Endorse Deletion per Sam Blanning (below) TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no assertion of notability, proper A7. "Recognized worldwide" is, like "good chess player", not an assertion of notability. An assertion of notability is claiming to have won a significant chess tournament or "Best Cumshot Website of 2006" at the World Porn Awards. And don't bother relisting until someone turns up a reliable source to base an article on. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak endorse per CSD A3 and WP:NOT a web directory. Did not actually say anything about the site that wouldn't be pretty obvious from the name. Permit recreation (subject to WP:WEB) if something encyclopedic can be written about the subject. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion until someone can evidence notability. per Sam Blanning. Bastique▼^parler _voir 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong endorse per Sam Blanning clearly violates WP:NOT Whispering 00:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Ilmari; the article didn't inform beyond describing the practice that is the website's obvious subject matter. Though there's no reason why this shouldn't just be blandly listed, without elaboration, in a list article of porn sites somewhere. Something can be notable yet insubstantial, and so like the good information scientists we are we should ensure it gets incorporated into the proper place rather than trying to write a separate treatise on it. Postdlf 00:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• No list either please, Wikipedia is not a web directory. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion -- Drini 00:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam Blanning--WilliamThweatt 02:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion no evidence provided in favor of notability. `'mikka (t) 04:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam Homestarmy 04:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as per Sam above. -- The Anome 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion on its face. Why is it that every page with the word 'cum' in the title is usually created by a troll and then dragged through DRV? Proto||type 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete - --Goran.Smith2 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per sam. No convincing reason given to undelete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam Blanning. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

AlternC

An extension from Control panel (Web hosting) The administrator Zoe deleted this page on account of advertising, however I'm not affiliated with AlternC nor do I advise/condone its use, I am simply noting the control panel along with a list of many other noteworthy control panels. I am not advertising in any way, I believe it is a misunderstanding.

Manny 17:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• The article made absolutely no assertion of encyclopaedic notability. Feel free to try again, giving citations from reliable sources to back its significance per the WP:SOFTWARE guidelines. Just zis Guy you know? 19:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• It was written as an ad, whatever your motivation. If you want to discuss what it is, when it was created, who uses it, and can document it, that's fine, I have no problem with a re-creation, but as it stood, all it did was to extoll its features. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for the clarification! Manny 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Tiffany Holiday

Short and Good [81] article speedy deleted by User:Drini and User:Golbez, edit summaries were "csd nnbio" and "[empty]". There was no vote. Many many results on Google, has an IMDb and AFDb profiles and also pass Wikipedia:Notability (erotic actors) for having a recored of around 100 films --Haham hanuka 14:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Somehow, this ended up at page bottom today (June 7); not sure why it's dated earlier, but I have moved it for consideration. Xoloz 15:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Judging by the answers.com link, I think the fact the stub is short, and contains a poorly sourced negative claim, means it should not be restored. Instead, anybody who wishes, can create, a new original article, which clearly explains her notability, and which is well sourced. --Rob 16:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So this negative claim will be removed, that's not the reason it was deleted. --Haham hanuka 18:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; I do not see any claim of notability in the article. Removal of potential libel of a possibly non-notable person is a bonus. No prejudice about recreation at this point. - Liberatore(T) 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. As above, no claim of notability (one bit part in a real film, balance is the usual no-budget porn churned out at the rate of several a day by some "studios"). No reliable sources for any of the bio data (IAFD is not, unlike IMDB, a reliable source per WP:RS). Redux: dime-a-dozen porn "star". Take it to Wikiporn. Just zis Guy you know? 19:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • [82] - 147,000 result on Google, [83] many results on Google Images. --Haham hanuka 20:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • All active porn performers generate thousands of Google hits, due to the almost infinite crosslinkspamming of the online porn business. Not really meaningful. Fan1967 20:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Comment on process, not about content, this should be restored immediately as an improper speedy deletion. Holiday appears to be a more than notable enough actress for inclusion, we do not delete articles outright because they contain an unverified or unverifiable claim. Silensor 20:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - per nomination. Luka Jačov 21:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Not notable. Wikipedia: Notability (erotic actors) is only a proposed guideline. WarpstarRider 23:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. If it doesn't qualify for an A7 speedy, it does qualify as an A6, an attack page. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. `'mikka (t) 04:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion, which was entirely in process - Silensor is misinformed. Proto||type 13:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - per Silensor and nomination --Haham hanuka 15:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Yet another porn "star", and no good reasons for undeletion have been advanced beyond that. --Calton | Talk 20:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Shane Cubis

This page has been continually deleted, because the initial article was created by the feature of the article himself, Shane Cubis. While the initial article may have been vanity or vandalism, he enlisted a group of his followers to create a real article in Wikipedia. His page has since been listed as a protected deleted pages, and his talk page is routinely deleted preventing a fair discussion of the deletion.

Shane Cubis does not fail WP:Bio and thus never really qualified for WP:AfD. Just because the article started as vandalism or vanity, it does not take away from the fact an actual compliant article could be at this entry, Shane Cubis. At the very least there should have been a discussion on the talk page, and not a speedy deletion into Protected deleted pages. JustOneJake 11:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn Shane Cubis is a notable Australian journalist, being a major contributor to an important Australian media group, The Chaser. The Chaser has made itself an important part of Australia's culture, being read by politicians, mainstream journalists and ordinary Australians. Shane's weekly columns attract large amounts of reads and discussion. His work for People magazine, while not being as well known, has attracted large amounts of attention from mainstream Australia. JoshT 220.237.79.202 12:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion under case A7. The entire contents of the longest version of the article read "Shane Cubis (born 1980) is a writer, originally from Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. Shane's first article was a Teri Weigel porn review in the Tertangala, Wollongong University's student newspaper. Since then he's contributed to a variety of gaming magazines including Pyramid, Knights of the Dinner Table and the Silven Trumpeter. He currently has a weekly column in The Chaser and works for Australia's People Magazine." and one external link. Writers are part of a respected profession but are no more automatically notable than engineers or doctors of equivalent experience or standing. No assertion has been made that this writer is particularly significant or that he does qualify under our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. By the way, the deleted history shows that the only significant contributor to this page was user:Rubikcubis, supporting the assumption that this was an inappropriate autobiography. The user's subsequent edits to other pages do not insprire me to good faith. Rossami (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse per Rossami's excellent reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse indeed. Syrthiss 17:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, it's clear from Cubis's own website that he was the original author, and he's encouraging people to come here to recreate it and complain. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse - per WP:VAIN. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, and recommend that keen editors take the usual steps to moderate the inclusion of the subject's name and its variants in Wikipedia. There's is much outrage, followed by subterfuge, at the deletions. -Splash - tk 18:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion with thanks to Rossami for presenting a solid case. Just zis Guy you know? 19:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn: while the original article may be questionable as vanity, there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance and fame in the Australian political journalism / satire sphere that one of his fans should be allowed to create a page with information about him. The defacement of other pages with his name is consistent with the style of humour The_Chaser is famous for in Australia, not an indication that there is any lack of merit in the need for a "Shane Cubis" page on Wikipedia. "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is". Malthius 03:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC) User's first edit
  • there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance... Guy, since that's the very issue in question, you're begging the question. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. No new information, and the old information was unconvincing to begin with. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn While no-one is denying that the original source of the article was Shane himself, that does not necessarily invalidate the merit of the article itself, and was more a function of the humour that has made him popular. Regardless of the American or British-centric knowledge of the original two administrators who deleted the article, their ignorance of the Australian media and in particular the satirical politcal area which is the expertise of the article subject in question does not mean it lacks significance. As an Australian, I guess I might equally wonder why something so incredibly minor and unimportant as a 3 year old racehorse such as Like_Now without even a particularly impressive record demands its own Wikipedia page, where a published journalist does not. U.Pseudonopoulos 09:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • User's only edit. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry. I was under the impression that this was a logical discussion and the weight of our argument would count for more than how many edits we had made to this website. Is this how all discussions are settled on Wikipedia? We simply get out our 'edit counts' and compare them, with the larger number winning? Perhaps we could both get out our wangs and compare those as well? Or do you want to try and actually add some value to the debate? Could you perhaps explain to me why Shane Cubis is less notable than the nag of a racehorse I have linked above? Is it simply because one is American and the other Australian, regardless of species? Are angsty teenagers with a lack of knowledge of other countries really fit to determine what adds to the grand sum of human knowledge? U.Pseudonopoulos 00:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Please see Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy#Suffrage. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Noted, and I can see the idea behind such in some cases, particularly where people are simply putting a vote without reasoning or detailed comment. I still hold that it has no relationship to the validity of the argument presented. "There are no strict rules for this, the admin closing a discussion is expected to use common sense", and in this case the only people voting without significant reasoning are the 'endorsers'. I find it irrelevant to the arguments that I and others have offered whether it is our only edits or not. The arguments should still be treated on the merit of what it presented itself. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• strong overturn Shane Cubis is notable within the fan base of The Chaser. He is a major columnist for the site and well respected author in a variety of other media. His other edits on Wiki have surely not affected his notability or his work as a writer/comedian. Gisellehobbs 10:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • User's only edits are to this page and The Chaser. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong overturn If for no other reason than his fellow journalists Chas_Licciardello, Chris_Taylor and Craig_Reucassel all have their own pages that provide just as much (or little, depending on how one is to view it) information about them. Is there any proof that these other journalists didn't write the articles themselves? Perhaps Shane Cubis is being punished for making a simple mistake - he wrote the article about himself in first person instead of third. Any of his fans would be happy to write the article to prevent it from remaining vanity if that is the main complaint, but he is certainly famous and/or popular enough to warrant an entry. Purpleorb (for clarity sake, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.177.2 (talk • contribs) )
• Endorse deletion per Rossami. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion CSD A7 -- The Anome 13:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Yes, Mr. Cubis may have originally written the article as a vanity piece for his article. That does not mean a compliant article could not be written. It is clear many people here are willing to write an article in the confines of Wikipedia policy. Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth, as he is drawing support from his article at The Chaser and his Antiwikipedia entry. As it stands now the page is protected deleted. Why not unprotect it and give someone a chance to write a compliant article? 63.225.118.147 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth. Is that a threat? User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Based on the discussions on the forums at his article and the actions members of that forum have taken (silly vandalism to both here and the Wiktionary, I'd say that it's clearly a threat. Metros232 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you guys kidding? It’s no threat; it is an assessment of the facts. These people want a real article, and if there is a real article they will have less to complain about. Furthermore, do the actions of people unto Wikipedia affect the notability status of Cubis? Most of the discussion here is completely irrelevant to the facts. I am sure the guys at Britannica or Funk and Wagnalls never sat down and talked about their hate mail when deciding to include an entry. This man is at least as noteworthy as some of the other people on Wikipedia, and he deserves an article regardless of the actions of himself or others. 63.225.118.147 02:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. Sounds notable enough. TruthbringerToronto 20:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Rossami. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion no verifiable notability proof presented. `'mikka (t) 00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Shane is one of only three weekly column writers for The Chaser. The Chaser is a very popular website in Australia, very much similar to The_Onion in terms of content and (local) popularity. It is important to note that, as a columnist, Shane writes articles which are put on the website under his own name. He is not writing anonymously, but offering his opinion under his name. As such, it is expected that people will want to find information about the author, so as to get background to form a view on the validity of his opinion. As such, I feel the author is notable and, as such, an appropriate page on the author should not be prevented from being created. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainty principle

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle

Proponents say:

• The certainty principle is a mathematical theorem. The proof is available for everybody.
• It was officially published in the established peer-reviewed journal. It will not be published second time. The journal was registered in Russia, and this is Russian government who has to know about the journal, not Google.
• Nobody has objections against scientific content of the papers. (Really no objections.)
• If the theorem is true, its notability cannot be questioned, because it generalizes (not contradicts!) the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
• The certainty principle is too young (1 year) to be known as widely as uncertainty principle.
• The certainty principle is old enough to take it seriously. Links to it were put in WP almost year ago and a great amount of people have checked it, including highly qualified editors of the uncertainty principle.
• The questoin of "reputability" of the journal is anyway subjective and should be discussed only if some specialists in the subject have objections against the certainty principle.

Opponents say:

• We are not specialists in the subject, and cannot judge the principle from purely scientific point of view. But we want to protect WP from pseudo-science.
• Google says that the certainty principle is not widely cited.
• The journal, where the papers were published, is not "reputable", and can be considered as a self-publication.

What should we do in this situation? The conflict is going to become a war. Hryun 15:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Article exists under both Certainty principle and Certainty Principle in various forms. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle, which deleted this content as original research. I re-deleted this article because although this content was not identical, the original reason for deletion was unchanged. User:Hryun has claimed that the article is published in a Russian journal, but several physicist Wikipedians have looked for signs of this publication (or indeed the existence of the named journal) and found nothing; Hryun refuses to provide further details. You can see discussion of these issues, as well as more threats by User:Hryun, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Certainty principle. -- SCZenz 15:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Taking off my admin hat, and putting on my WikiProject Physics hat, I would like to note that this issue has all the hallmarks of original research. A very pushy series of editors, most of them with very similar editing styles, have been pushing to have this subject mentioned in about 8-10 different physics articles. A discovery of the claimed magnitude would have many, many citations in places that would be very easy to find, and this does not. The only document that can be located by any of the usual methods—which are essentially universal for all physics publications worldwide, is the paper itself on the ArXiv and related servers—which are not peer-reviewed in any way. No publication information is given there. -- SCZenz 15:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • SCZenz, for what reason do you lie here? (1) The Certainty Principle article was created by Slicky. I am not Slicky neither in WP nor in the real life. Ask for user-checking, if you do not believe. I just re-created the article under proper name, Certainty principle. There was no cheating in it. (2) You did not ask for "further details" of the journal, you asked for information that can be seen in the Internet. Hryun 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Please be civil. I don't think you are Slicky, but I do strongly suspect you're editing under a couple of other usernames. I do not believe that there are any reputable physics journals with no information available on the internet, however—Russian journals are tracked in the same places as all the others. -- SCZenz
• Keep deleted until the concept gets taken up by someone other than the original auther. We'll watch CiteBase. --Pjacobi 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The AfD clearly labeled this material as original research and despite the requester's allusions no evidence to contradict this determination has been provided. The AfD should stand until citations to appropriate peer-reviewed sources are provided. --Allen3 ^talk 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted - Based on the information on hand, this is OR. If this is indeed a valid scientific theory, material will be peer reviewed and can be verified.. There should be no rush to have a wiki article on a subject (re "the material is too new to have been properly circulated" above); its not like we are going anywhere. Syrthiss 16:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per WP:NOR. As Syrthiss says, we can afford to wait until this is independently sourced. Rossami (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, for reasons above. This does not presently return anything on CiteSeer or citebase. It's important to be sure that authors are not inserting their own, non-peer-reviewed work to Wikipedia, or it would quickly become a repository for anything unpublished and unpublishable. There is further the fact that, if this were really what it is claimed to be, that it would probably already have been picked up by some very well known, reputable and reliable publications. At that point, inclusion would be a no-brainer. -Splash - tk 17:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted. As far as I can tell, both the term "Certainty principle" and the concept are original research, as we define it. When the article is published — or even referenced — in a peer-reviewed journal, we can reconsider. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse - per above. Wait for it to be peer-reviewed by someone who knows. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. When the work becomes well-known and the author is hailed as the great theorist he claims to be then I'll happily enjoy contributing on a million articles about him and his great work. Until then it goes into the "makes very large claims that nobody in-the-know seems to take seriously" bin. I also don't appreciate "Hyun"'s threats about waging a "war" against Wikipedia if he doesn't get his article included.[84][85][86] --Fastfission 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Two well-informed editors reviewed this and found it to be WP:OR, no evidence is provided to contradict this conclusion. No citations to reputable peer-reviewed journals, for example. Just zis Guy you know? 20:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as per Jacobi. --Improv 21:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Mathematical deletion endorsement -- Drini 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion agreeing with everything said above. Hyun, it will only become a war if you make it so and do not accept WP process. You have stated that there is no consensus. I think the above is a very clear consensus. Nobody agrees with you. Please accept this until and if this principle is widely accepted and discussed in many reputable places. If this is as important as the claims made for it, it would have been discussed by now in "Nature", Scientific American", "New Scientist" and so on, along with references in "Reviews of Modern Physics" and similar journals. This is not yet WP material and may never be. --Bduke 02:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Are all of us who endorse this deletion going to receive the Uncertain Elephant Award as those of us who supported the original deletion, or indeed were in any way involved with it, did? --Bduke 04:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If I receive an uncertain elephant, the user who places it will likely receive a certain block. Syrthiss 13:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

06 June 2006

Big Brother 7 chronology

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Brother 7 Chronology

This page had more people wanting to keep it then people wanting to delete it. It has been wronlgy deleted by someone who was against the page from its existence. As soon as it was created, this user marked it for deletion. It was wrongly deleted and I campaign for it to be restored... Ellisjm 16:06 UTC 6 June 06

• Overturn: At least have the page there until the series is over and the page can be condensed. --JD^talk_email 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why was the page deleted? Celestianpower says at the top of the page that the result of the debate was deleted. The results were: 6 for "delete"; 11 for "keep"; 1 for "weak keep" and 1 for "strong delete"!!! I think it's pretty obvious that more people want to keep the page than delete it!! Ellisjm 16:36 UTC 6 June 06
    • AfD is not a vote. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • That may be true, but good reasons for having the page stay were still brought up. Even if only until the end of the series, the page is worth having in peoples' opinions. --JD^talk_email 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. People who wanted the article deleted seem to have more grounds than those who wanted the article kept. — FireFox • 16:44, 06 June '06
• Endorse deletion per FireFox. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Reasons given for deletion were in line with WP policies and guidelines; reasons given for keep were mostly "But I want to keep it" variety. Process was followed, deletion is valid. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn for violation of process. I would have voted "delete", as this does look like non-notable TV cruft, but the result of the debate was no consensus. The keep voters may have been uninformed, but Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators allows only disregarding bad faith votes when establishing consensus, and few such are apparent here. I know of no policy that allows the closing administrator to determine consensus on the basis of which side they agree with. Sandstein 17:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The guidelines say that for example comments made in bad faith may be ignored. In general, the guidelines say admins should use their common sense to determine if a rough consensus exists and should try to remain as objective as possible — they don't provide strict rules for doing this, since no such rule can exists. (Anyway, it's not a "vote".) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and close as no consensus. Neither side had arguments that were all that compelling, and closer was not at all clear as to his/her rationale for the decision. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse- this was a reasonable decision. Possibly the DRV could have been avoided tho, if the closer had given more reasoning about why they closed the way they did. Friday (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, a level of detail far in excess of anything which could possibly be justified by any encyclopaedic purpose. BB7 is more than adequately covered in the main article. This is a fan blog and belongs on a fan site: it is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information.. Just zis Guy you know? 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not meant to be a blog; it's meant to keep the main article small. --JD^talk_email 19:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there some objective measure you're using to make this statement? At what point is it not excessive anymore? Why is detail bad? etc etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I'm measuring it by the articles for other comparable series. We're a couple of weeks in and already it's longer than many articles on entire series. And this is BB7, not BB1, so it is less notable in the first place. What we have here is a blog, a day-by-day log of events. That's one of the things Wikipedia is not. I have nothing against logging this info at a user subpage for later distillation into an actual article, but speaking as a Brit and part of the target audience this is considerably beyond the defensible encyclopaedic content. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • So instead of editing it down, deletion is the answer? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, because WP:NOT a blog. We already have an article on BB7. Just zis Guy you know? 22:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: am I correcting in thinking that people think this article is necessary so that at the end of the show it can be reduced into something encyclopedic? That seems to be what was being said at the AfD, but I just want to verify that before making a decision. Metros232 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That was the plan. --JD^talk_email 19:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Then you should store it somewhere else and repost it when it's encyclopidic. WP isn't a dumping ground for random information. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, then in that case, restore and move to user space. Put it someone's user space so it can be worked on as a future article rather than having it in the mainspace as an actual article. Metros232 19:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse and keep deleted - Wikipedia is not a democracy. The closer based his decision of the strengh of the arguments, not the amount. I agree with User:Friday that the closer should have stated this more clearly. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Per above, restoring to the userspace would also be quite acceptable. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn the result of the discussion was keep and not by a small margin. I completely agree with Ellisjm that the article was wrongly deleted.

-- JAB^[T]_[C] 20:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and Undelete for being out-of-process. --Rob 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak endorse, closure seems to have been within acceptable bounds of discretion. Most of the arguments provided by either side in the debate were rather weak, but some of the arguments for deletion were slightly less weak that the arguments against it. I'm quite willing, however, to userfy the deleted content upon request (a possibility some of the participants in the original debate appear to have been unaware of). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It just makes more sense to have the page in the main Wikipedia area while it exists, because it still has the information that many people may find useful. If that ends up being the only other option, then it may end up happening. But I'm sure you can see what I'm trying to say. --JD^talk_email 23:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem is, if it were in the main namespace it would have to satisfy the Wikipedia policies regarding article content. As it is, it seems to have trouble meeting several, including no original research, reliable sources and several parts of what Wikipedia is not. In short, it is unencyclopedic. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy somewhere by all means but keep deleted per above. Metamagician3000 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. I would rather delete this article but the discussion was at most a "no consensus", not a "delete". --Metropolitan90 02:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. AfD is not a vote, Wikipedia is not a free web host for TV blogs, no-one even attempted to argue that this information belonged in an encyclopaedia, process was correctly followed. If it doesn't belong on the main BB7 page then it doesn't belong anywhere. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The things is, that's exactly the point - people do think it belongs on the main article page. But the people that think it belongs there don't want it to be anywhere else. They don't care about how big the main article could become with that information on it. --JD^talk_email 11:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion--cj | talk 09:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/deletion, administrator has the right—nay, the obligation—to evaluate the merit of the arguments in terms of the goal of the project. When such a decision is not obvious, however, it should be explained in detail. -- SCZenz 12:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per KillerChihuahua. What's the point in having an article just for it to be deleted in a few weeks time (i.e. 'keep until the end of the series'). This does not belong on Wikipedia. It is fancruft of the worst sort. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist Closing admin pretty much ignored the entire AfD process, sending the message to everyone that he valued only his own input on the subject. That's not how AfD is supposed to work. --Hyperbole 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. A severely inadequate closure method, but the right decision nevertheless. This was plainly not encyclopedia material, being essentially a diary of some people traipsing around a building for a few weeks. -Splash - tk 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as within reasonable admin discretion. However, close decisions like this deserve more than just "The decision was delete" in the closure of the discussion. This argument could largely have been avoided if the closing admin had taken the time to fully lay out his/her reasoning. Rossami (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - As the closing admin on this AfD, I apologise for any extra trouble this has caused. Clearly I should have put forward my reasoning in the summary/the decision field: "When closing this AfD, despite there being more "keep" votes than "delete", the strength of arguments from the delete camp seems much stronger. WP:NOT is policy and this seems a clear case of 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information', as many voters pointed out. Also, AfD is not a vote: vote counts aren't everything". Once again, I apologise and will learn for next time. Regards, — Celestianpower ^háblame 18:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - Strength of arguments needs to be balanced with number of arguers, and it seems reasonable to disregard input that lacks any reasoning. --Improv 04:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remain Deleted The AfD itself was filled with people who were rabid fans on the show, with all their arguements being all the minute details(read: minor, incidental things) be left off of the television show's main page. Pages were being used to hold any info about show and daily summaries like it were a fan page. That's not what wikipedia is about. Kevin_b_er 04:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Celestianpower made a completely correct decision. Proto||type 13:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:WikiPâques.png

Image:WikiPâques.png was deleted in February on the basis it was an orphan. Well, of course it was an orphan - it was February and the image was an Easter Wikipedia logo, so it'll only be unorphaned when it's Easter. I see no valid reason to delete this. Users may still want it on their user page at Easter. It's also causing red links in older revisions. See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 February 14 for the listing on IfD. There's a copy here if the deletion is overturned and someone wants to reupload it. Angela. 08:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Re-upload to Commons, so any project can use it, and Commons is outside of enwiki's jurisdiction. --Rory096 08:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

National Hockey League player lists

List of every NHL player NHL players A NHL players B NHL players C NHL players D NHL players E NHL players F NHL players G NHL players H NHL players I

NHL players J NHL players K NHL players L NHL players M NHL players N NHL players O NHL players P NHL players Q NHL players R

NHL players S NHL players T NHL players U NHL players V NHL players W NHL players X NHL players Y NHL players Z

Relist. They were improperly speedy deleted out of process for "already have lists of hockey players. don't need two" . Although they were posted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHL players A, I was not given an opportunity to state some reasons as to why they should be kept, such as (briefly):

• They follow Wikipedia:List guideline
• They can be cleaned up. We can remove the external spam links, but add some dates and stats to each entry.
• There are other similar list pages thay list sports players in alphabetical order such as List of retired American football players, List of Major League Baseball players, List of National Basketball Association players, List of English footballers, List of footballers (Rugby Union), etc.
• In fact, there are many, many other lists of people on Wikipedia that are just lists of names in alphabetical order.

Because of these reasons, there is really no basis for speedy deletion -- they were out of process Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, bring the lists back. They were the best way of keeping tabs on hockey player articles so that duplicate articles weren't created and so that disambigs are easier. Masterhatch 07:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Bring them back! This is not link-farming or spamming. Although it's not always 100% accurate, as far as being a simple and comprehensive directory of statistics Hockeydb is the best site I've seen. Criticizing them for having advertisements is absurd -- apart from Wikipedia, almost every other site on the web does too! And like Masterhatch said, the list itself was invaluable for keeping track of NHL player articles. — GT 09:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:EL. Internal links are fine, and an external link to Hockeydb on each individual article is fine, too, but the point of WP lists is not to link to external articles on each of a number of related subjects, and the removal of external links from list articles is very common practice supported by policy and guidelines. As far as the lists themselves are concerned, they would be worth having if there are many redlinks, otherwise I can't see what this adds to a (self-maintaining) category. Just zis Guy you know? 10:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My recollection is that the majority of players who played before last decade do not have articles. That's why these pages were so useful -- you could browse them and see if a player you recognized didn't yet have an article. The nice thing about having the Hockeydb links right there was that you could instantly see the "story" behind each red-linked player as represented by his career statistics (which often tells you as much as you care to know about him). As far as not obeying WP:EL, I disagree as the point of the page was to be a list of players, and the external links served a secondary purpose. — GT 16:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, having the external link right beside each player helped keep people from adding their own name as a vanity article. hockeydb.com is, as far as i know, the most complete list of hockey players and their stats on the net and it because really easy to see if an added name is a vanity article or a real player. Masterhatch 17:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So why not make an infobox template with a parameter for the hockeydb entry? A Wikipedia list with external links (first!) and predominantly redlinks for the internal links is practically begging for deletion. External links are for references in articles. Just zis Guy you know? 19:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What's taking so long to get A through G back? Masterhatch 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I put everything back. Another admin deleted them again. Go talk to him. pschemp | talk 17:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Tagged as A3: article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections); deleted as such (i.e. in-process, as this is a valid speedy criterion). I didn't see any evidence that the deleting admin was aware of this debate.

• I have reopened the AfD and restored the deleted ones, as valid but contested speedy deletions. These are bare lists of links. The list of mainly redlinks may serve a purpose; perhaps it would be better to have these in Project space as part of a wikiproject's work list? Bare lists with no other data are an abomination unto Nuggan and should be shunned into oblivion; if dates and other encyclopaedic information are added then these are defensible (without, obviously, the external links). I have removed the external links to make this less like a mirror of HockeyDB with one or two Wikipedia articles added Just zis Guy you know? 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

05 June 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it or delete 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 Keep.~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 19:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja

With respect to the Original Undelete request by me, I have composed the following article in my userspace which meets (as far as I can tell) the requirements of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:Notability, etc.

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja (Userspace draft)

I, do,once again, request request undeletion per original request:

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja, undelete request by PHDrillSergeant. This web comic has grown in poularity since the last time it was deleted through AFD, and although the site's archive has 'only three entries', each of those entries has about 20-40 pages, which adds up to over 100 pages total including the current storyline. This comic is extremely funny and is important, especially one who wishes to know more about this odd character and his adventures. I think this comic should get another chance. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 23:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 21:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Is there any evidence that it has grown significantly in popularity? The Alexa rating is five digits, and a quick scan of Google turns up lots of self- and friend-promotion, but not much analysis or commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question Has there been any stories, interviews, or other coverage in mainstream or semi-mainstream press (not counting simple lists of webcomics)? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• What has changed since deletion? As noted above, the fundamental problem was a lack of evident encyclopaedic notability. Just zis Guy you know? 10:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
    • The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
      • WebComicList (a non-trivial published site that is independent of the site itself) has its own article, stated in the external links section. The web comic has ablso been the subject of debate on multiple community-based forums, such as eBaum's World Forums, SNAFU Comics Forums, and VG Cats Forums. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 17:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
        • That article on WebComicList is one sentence, as part of a list of webcomics. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, then, since this is a single trivial reference rather than multiple non-trivial references. We have no deadline to meet, we can afford to wait until it is genuinely notable and has atracted enough external attention to allow a verifiably neutral article to be written. Just zis Guy you know? 16:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Categorical undelete. This article has had very poor defense in the past. I did not see it mentioned that Dr. McNinja is a member of Dayfree Press, a very well-known collective in the webcomics community and therefore a peer to heavyweights such as Questionable Content and Dinosaur Comics. It has been brought up on the talk page that extreme bias has been built up against this article because of its rocky faring in the past. I would point out that there is no shame in accepting it now -- it does not undermine Wikipedia or any of the users who have criticized it; rather, it is a testament to our sometimes rigorous standards. It is now due time to recognize this professional-level webcomic, as anyone vaguely familiar with this online community must know of its near meteoric rise. Let's not be reactionary or snobbish; much lesser topics have their due recognition already. --BDD 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I was unaware that this comic was under Dayfree Press, yet this information seems to strengthen my resolve even more. Remember: if you can read it, if you can comprehend it, if you can learn from it...it isn't trivial. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 22:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I seem to remember (though I can't find the proper documentation, and it's possible that this was changed) a policy that members of the most prominent webcomic collectives merited articles. It's a sound policy. --BDD 00:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I'm the one who locked McNinja down as a {{deletedpage}}, but I agree with BDD. We may want to table this until the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards come out next month. I think there's a good chance McNinja will win one, and if it does, there won't be any question it will have met WP:WEB. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: I havn't read much of it, but I have seen references to it in other webcomics such as Bunny [87]. Also undelete per Abe. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Definitely notable per talk of deleted page.--Eloquence* 11:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Cory kennedy

My article on Cory kennedy was deleted via speedy deletion. I think this was a wrong move. Cory Kennedy is a becoming a huge internet phenenomenon. She has found a cult following on myspace, livejournal, and the cobra snake - as well as a place in current pop culture. This is the digital age. People are going to be looking her up. There is no reason for this article to have been deleted. This site should provide the most information possible - even about "internet celebrities." In fact, internet phenenomenons are particularly relevent on wikipedia because this IS the internet! I am requesting that this article be placed back up. I put in quite a bit of useful, accurate information about a person who is becoming very well known on the internet. Cory was also recently featured in Nylon magazine. Please review this. ~user:sleepyasthesouth

• Endorse speedy - As the deleting admin, it looked to be a nn-bio. The references were not reliable sources (blogs and livejournal). I deleted it first on a csd placed by another editor, then as a recreation (sleepyasthesouth recreated it including the notability and csd tags) and salted the earth. Syrthiss 12:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per Syrthiss. From the speedy tag: "it is an article about a person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)" There is no evidence that The Cobra Snake is itself a notable website, or that the parties she attends are notable, so all the more there cannot be evidence that she is notable for being on The Cobra Snake or for attending parties. Johnleemk | Talk 12:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• ADD-ON : I now understand why is was deleted. However, Isn't Cory Kennedy notable for suddenly having so many "fans" and finding herself all over the internet so quickly? What would qualify as a notable source? Would her feature in Nylon magazine qualify? Even if the information in the wikipedia article did not contain more than what is provided in the Nylon article? ~user:sleepyasthesouth
• Undelete and list on AfD As a contested speedy and the presence in Nylon constitutes a minimal claim to notability. JoshuaZ 16:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse / keep deleted As far as "internet phenomenon" qualifications go, I get 207 unique Google hits and the vast majority of those seem to be about other people by that name, among them a male bodybuilder, a soccer player, a congressional staff member, and a volleyball player. If she's an internet phenomenon, the internet doesn't really seem to be aware of that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Cory has only recently exploded on the internet over the past few weeks and it has been almost entirely on myspace, blogs and livejournal - places that will not really end up in google. A community was made for her on livejournal and in just over a week there are already over 200 members.
    However, if that's the final word - fine. I imagine soon she'll be on the site because her popularity seems to be only increasing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.205.176 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Above comment is misinformed. Those sites are very heavily indexed by google. Fan1967 18:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • comment A lot of absolute bullshit is heavily indexed by google, too. Being indexed by google doesn't make something a reliable source. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment I'm aware of that. However, the anon was trying to argue there was more attention being paid to this person in myspace and such sites that google wouldn't pick up. Google picks up pretty much everything there, so there's no hidden trove of notability. Fan1967 20:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, I typed that early this morning, apparently before things started to make sense. Reading it now, yes, you're right. I agree that if google can't see you; you aren't much of an internet phenomenon.
• Endorse deletion, quite blatantly there are no reliable sources for this. And 'contested speedy' is not a reason to restore (unlike contested PROD). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Well, I think the article definitely should have been deleted, however, I do not believe that it met the deliberately narrow speedy deletion criteria. I believe quite strongly that Sam is incorrect. A speedy-deletion that is contested in good faith is to be immediately restored and listed to AFD. That was a requirement set up when the speedy-deletion process was first established. Much as I hate to be a process wonk, we have to keep our own process creep under control. Overturn speedy and list to AFD. Being unsourced may be a deletion criteria but it is not a speedy-deletion criterion. Rossami (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you mind telling me where it says that contested speedy deletions get automatically sent to AfD, Rossami? Because I've never heard that, there's nothing in any of the obvious places saying that (e.g. next to the section on contested WP:PRODs on this very page), and if it ever was true, the widespread acceptance of WP:SNOW appears to contradict it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:CSD:A7 says "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead.". Also WP:SNOW has the text "If an issue raises no controversy, and ...", and therefor can't be used in disputed or controversial cases. --Rob 23:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Though I think that practically, the bar for 'disputed' there is significantly higher than for PRODs. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Widespread acceptance? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Paragraph 3 of the current header of WP:CSD reads "When there is reasonable doubt whether a page does [fall under a given criterion], discussion is recommended using one of the other methods under Wikipedia:deletion policy." That wording applies to all speedy-deletion criteria, not merely case A7. The wording has been tweaked over time but in my experience has always been interpreted as a requirement to undelete and use xFD when there is any good-faith objection to speedy-deletion. Rossami (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. There's no sourced claim of notability. Hence, CSD A7. The recourse for contested speedy deletions is this page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Valid speedy A7, and stands no chance whatsoever at AfD Just zis Guy you know? 21:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You can see the future here? WP:SNOW is never appropriate, specifically in a discussion about a speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yup, I can see the future fairly accurately here. Articles on vapid pseudo-celebrities with no objective claim to notability get daleted almost without exception. Most likely it would be tagged and speedied as A7 almost immediately it was listed. Somewhere I have a postcard with a picture of Michael Fish and the caption"I Predict The Future: Weatherman's Amazing Claim"... Just zis Guy you know? 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion sort of reluctantly. Rossami and Thieverr are quite right that this wasn't a good choice for speedy deletion, and for a dozen reasons it's better to err on the side of AfD - worst thing that happens is someone speedies it from there anyway. But... I dunno. These darn internet meme and internet meme wannabe articles are such pains, because there tends to be a crowd willing to stonewall against policy on them every time, and then we end up back at DRV. It would never be kept by a proper AfD, but it probably won't ever see one either, so it's best to keep it dead once it's dead. If the girl actually sticks around, there'll be media, and you can rewrite the article about her then. Does it really hurt that much if the interweb's flavor of the month doesn't automatically get a Wikipedia article? There's something to be said for standards. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per others and per WP:SNOW.
• Endorse deletion: Websites generate huge numbers for anything and everything, but it would be very wrong to call these numbers "fans." Further, it's all about the effect on the recorded world, the verifiable world. Anything that vanishes when the power goes out is less reliable than anything that needs a flood to destroy it. Geogre 13:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow! Geogre's Second Law!  :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics

User:Thebainer requested me to file this request below. The article has been speedied, because User:Rgulerdem allegedly edited it after he was indefinitely banned. Even if that allegation is correct, WP:CSD G5 only allows pages to be speedied, if they were created by banned users while they were banned. Irregular edits can easily be reverted instead. Raphael1 12:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Pointless rulelawyering is the only reason given to undelete, and does not address the original reason this page was tagged with the speedy tag: "rejected 'policy'. This page has become a permanently banned user magnet, please review history." (Oh, and did anyone mention that essentially the same page already exists at Wikipedia:Wikiethics?) Johnleemk | Talk 12:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know of any policy, which prohibits to copy a rejected policy to user space. Any why do you care so much, whether permanently banned users edit on a user space page? Would you rather want them to edit Wikipedia:Wikiethics? Raphael1 13:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Because userpages don't belong to users. Johnleemk | Talk 13:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • That's a non sequitur. I've never stated, that User:Rgulerdem or myself owned that page. Raphael1 13:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, a permanently banned user coming back to edit on a page in the previous user space accorded him is bad. This is not an allegation but indeed was what occurred as User:Rgulerdem again used an IP address or two that started with 216. which was previously reported on the RFCU confirming his sockpuppetry and left editorial commentary corresponding to his use of IP addresses as he returned to edit. Better that the page be kept deleted to discourage the return of the banned editor. Netscott 13:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question - what's the actual argument for this page's existence? Does it help bulid the encyclopedia? -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This page has been created to work on the prematurely polled proposal (5 days after the first draft has been created). Its location in user space has been suggested by User:Johntex to avoid controversy with opposing parties.[88] Raphael1 13:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well now that User:Rgulerdem is banned, the logic necessitating his usage of a subpage is no longer applicable. Regardless, he did come back via an anon IP address to edit on it and that's reason enough alone to delete it and keep it deleted. Netscott 14:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • As you know, I'd like to take over Rgulerdems work. What's your problem with that? Raphael1 16:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • My problem is that you are setting yourself up to act as a proxy to edit for a banned editor. This is bad. Netscott 17:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Netscott, at this point, how do you distinguish Raphael1's own ideas from ideas that are a banned editor's by proxy? Can nobody ever propose a similar policy, now that whatsisname is banned? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
            • GTBacchus, thank you for expressing your concerns. I have one question. Have you been following the discussion occurring on the Wikipedia mailing-list WikiEn-I? If you had you would instantly know that User:Raphael1 is acting as a proxy for User:Rgulerdem (particularly when Raphael1 started Resid Gulerdem's now G5 speedy deleted WP:OURS proposal). That is why I have proxy concerns. Banned editors should not have proxies working on their behalf, or am I wrong in making that statement? Netscott 20:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
              • I haven't been following WikiEn-I. I've never actually figured out how to subscribe to that. Nevertheless, I was pretty much aware that Raphael was trying to run with Rgulerdem's ideas. I guess what you're telling me is that there's no question that Raphael isn't acting based on his own initiative at all, but just acting for Rgulerdem, end of story. I don't know how you know that, but I'm willing to take your word for it. I also confess to not really getting what they're driving at with this proposed policy, but I guess it's neither here nor there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am Sam, Sam I am.

I do not like this censor sham.

Keep deleted in user space.

Keep deleted in any place.

Keep deleted from the socks.

Keep deleted says userbox.

Keep deleted here or there,

Keep deleted anywhere. --Dr. Blanning 16:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious. Kotepho 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Unsure why do we need a copy of this in User: and Wikipedia:? why is this so harmful or worthless that it must be deleted? Kotepho 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • May I congratulate you on your instincts? You've definitely asked the right question: "Why is this so harmful or worthless that it must be deleted?" Nobody here will be able to answer that question, because it's neither harmful nor is it worthless (at least not any more worthless, than most other stuff lying around in user space). Raphael1 02:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Sam I Am. --Cyde↔Weys 20:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. How many copies of a comprehensively rejected proposal do we need? Just zis Guy you know? 21:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment What exactly did the proposal contain in the first place? Even if it's already been voted down, couldn't it be kept and tagged as a rejected proposal or some such? --tjstrf 02:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Isn't that at Wikipedia:Wikiethics already? --Rory096 06:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and stop flogging a dead horse. Metamagician3000 06:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Nuke from orbit. Raphael has been openly communicating with a banned user on wikipedia-en-l to continue said banned editors interests. Shell ^babelfish 14:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, we don't need a banned user's disruptive attempt at policy-making resurrected in anybody's userspace. —Stormie 21:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Rgulerdem forfeited his user space when he got himself blocked. Many people warned him to stop wasting other people's time pushing this proposal. Rhobite 21:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Banned user. Unwelcome. Big Blue Marble 01:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. If he wants it to survive, keep on his computer drive. --Calton | Talk 04:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

04 June 2006

List of midnight movies

This article was tagged for speedy deletion as "patent nonsense," which I felt was unjustified. I placed a "hangon" tag on the article, and stated my reasoning on the article's talk page. I was going to list it on AfD and propose that it be merged with the main Midnight Movies article. I never got the opportunity to do so, however, since the article was, and I think rather precipitously, deleted. I propose, therefore, that the speedy deletion be reversed, the article be listed on AfD and suggest it's merger as stated above. ---Charles 03:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• The article was tagged for speedy deletion with that reason. I agree that it was not patent nonsense in the very specific and narrow way that we use the term here on Wikipedia. It the actual reason given for the deletion, however, was "WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information". Unfortunately, that is not an accepted criteria for speedy-deletion. I see little redeeming value to this list but as a procedural matter, it should have been AFD'd, not speedy-deleted. Rossami (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, undelete and send to AfD. No legitimate speedy reason given. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undeleted without prejudice, if someone wants to send this to AFD they can (obviously). --Cyde↔Weys 13:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• I have carried out a rough merger and redirect, which seems the best fate for the list's content. Xoloz 23:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yar

I would appreciate opinions/education on the deletion of Yar. I understand the Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, it would seem that certain concepts, which may be expressed in a single word, have some merit to their explanation. For a very similar use-case, see Gemütlichkeit. Thanks. --Incarnate

• Endorse deletion. Certainly, there is merit to there explanation of a word. That's what a dictionary is for. There was nothing in any version of this page that even attempted to be more than a definition. Please try creating it at Wiktionary.
  I'll note, however, that this particular word doesn't actually appear in any dictionary I could quickly put my hands on. (Merriam Webster had an entry as a variant spelling of "yare" but the definition given has nothing to do with any of the definitions on the deleted page.) Be prepared to offer some verifiable sources for the alleged definitions when you do so. Rossami (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks much for the clarification. I was uncertain of where the line might exist between the definition of a "word" and the definition of a "concept" (ie, definition of the word "cottage" versus a cottage) Additionally, the original article was based on my own experience, which is probably a better reason for deletion per the standards of articles (which I do support). Formal definitions are virtually nonexistent, only cropping up occasionally in film or TV as a truncated reference to boating. I'll give up and leave it be, thanks again for the appraisal. Incarnate 03:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, if you take it to Wiktionary be sure to give some evidence of attestation. One mention in The Simpsons does not make a valid yachting term. Maybe it's US-specific and that's why I have never heard it (I have many yachting friends including one who recently returned from sailing run d the world and another who teaches yachtmasters but they are all British). Just zis Guy you know? 08:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, with no prejudice against recreation if it can be made into something more than a dicdef. Apparently there is a real nautical term to be found under all the noise (see [89] and [90]) — however, that in itself makes it eligible for Wiktionary, not for Wikipedia. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. Dicdef. It's a real nautical word (may be spelled yar or yare), figures heavily in a section of dialog from The Philadelphia Story ([91]), but there's not much else to say about it. Fan1967 15:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• I've been bold and recreated this as a redirect to Tasha Yar, Denise Crosby's infamous Star Trek: The Next Generation character. Xoloz 18:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The Skin of Evil would be proud! Syrthiss 19:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

AK Productions

AK Productions was deleted suddenly and for know told reason. I believe that AK Productions should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia, sure it is a young company but still exists. I would like the article to be restored or for a reason to be given for it's overnight deletion. Comrade_Kale 2:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Mere existence is insufficient reason to justify a Wikipedia article. There appear to be a number of companies out there by that name. Which one is yours? Fan1967 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid A7. --Rory096 20:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• The opening sentence of this page read "AK Productions, is a recently created Production Company operating out of Waterville High School in New York State. Founded by Kale Carter, Brendan Carter, Olin Carlsen and Andrew Desimone in late May of 2006". It probably did not fit the deliberately narrow speedy-deletion criteria but if it had gone to AFD, it would have been measured against the standards of WP:CORP. From the information available, I don't see any chance that it would have succeeded in that discussion. I can not endorse the speedy-deletion but neither can I support it's undeletion without at least a little bit of evidence that this is appropriate to the encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• In other words, when I asked which of the many googleable "AK Productions" this was, the answer is "None of them". Endorse Deletion. Fan1967 22:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: We get a ton of buddy articles from youngsters. Simply put, they need to be real before they can even go to AfD, IMO. If something is just three kids announcing that they are now a corporation (or rock band, or rap group, or game faction, or gang), then it's true A7. The kick is the "formed in 2006" and "recently." We need to have things generate effects on the world before anyone will need them explained. Geogre 13:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AK Productions, is a recently created Production Company operating out of Waterville High School in New York State. And the article was created and edited solely by the people named in the article. A textbook case of WP:NFT. Just zis Guy you know? 15:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together

FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together was deleted as not notable. I think it is notable, given the press coverage listed under "References" and the people behind it, and I would like the article to be restored. TruthbringerToronto 11:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete; seems to be notable (albeit with less than 1000 google hits). — JEREMY 15:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't find an AfD on this one. The AfD article that exists (here) was just created by TruthbringerToronto as a mistaken attempt to launch the DRV. How was it originally deleted? Fan1967 16:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and AFD as a contested A7 speedy deletion. --Allen3 ^talk 17:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist if it was a contested speedy, though I'm inclined to suspect there will still be a consensus to delete. (Google cache of article is here). Fan1967 17:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Speedy deletion is not prod, you can't just contest it and force it to AfD. This has 11 Google hits. Most of those "articles" are on the group's site! --Rory096 20:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I get about 700 by looking for variations, which IMO gets over speediable territory, but probably still fails AFD consensus. Fan1967 21:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Doubtful that's more than A7, I get that many hits (and I was speedied, and quite justifiably so). --Rory096 21:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, speedy-deletion is exactly like prod in that regard. By policy and long tradition, any speedy-deletion which is contested in good faith is immediately undeleted and listed on AFD. That was one of the requirements set up when the speedy-deletion process was first approved. Rossami (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmm, so why do we even have things like {{hangon}}? --Rory096 06:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Hangon isn't always available. Sometimes an article gets tagged and deleted too quickly for an editor to notice it and put the hangon tag. Fan1967 15:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• AfD it due to possible WP:V violation as well as a name that doesn't follow naming converntions. Likely an article by an inexperienced or new user due to the use of an abrreviation in the title, which gives an idea of the quality. I can't say without reading it, so relaunch it for afd.-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 01:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Notable cause which deserves as much support as possible. Karnei 18:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So is it notable, or does it deserve support? If just the latter, that's not a valid reason to undelete. If the former, how is it notable? --Rory096 06:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

List of tongue-twisters

I listed the article for deletion on 17 April. The consensus was to either keep, or move to Wikibooks. The article was transwikied on 29 May by User:theProject, and subsequently deleted by User:Tijuana Brass. However, it was proclaimed unsuitable for Wikibooks and deleted from there by b:User:Jguk. As the alternative to transwiki was keep, and transwikiing failed, we should restore it. Rain74 11:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Since it's on Wikiquote now, keep deleted (I hope they'll accept it). Rain74 18:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Reinstate and relist. I will vote delete on AfD. Just zis Guy you know? 12:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  Keep deleted since it's at Wikiquote now, which seems like a much better place. Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Reinstate and relist - makes sense in the circs. keep deleted given the new information available Metamagician3000 12:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Suggestion why not move it to the Department of Fun? Sophia 12:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted no point in duplicating as it's at Wikiquote now. Sophia 05:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, the afd was pretty clear that this should be kept somewhere. After undeletion transwiki discussions should continue. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Changed to endorse.
  • • Endorse deletion as this has been transwiki'd in line with the AFD. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It has been. Please check the Transwiki log more carefully. Also, just because one wiki doesn't want it doesn't mean we must keep it. -Splash - tk 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Posting the result of the transwiki log was helpful here, implying that I was required to search that backloged page is not helpful, I assumed good faith in the nominator. Just because one wiki doesn't want it certainly doesn't mean we should give it safe haven, but the afd was clear that it should be transwikid or kept, not transwiki'd or deleted. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete don't know why it was deleted in the first place, because it was one of the better lists on Wikipedia. Promote to featured after undeletion.  Grue  12:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist: I'd prefer that conjunctive votes get clear on the matter. Yes, it will probably be kept, but I should like AfD to speak clearly. Geogre 13:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted in light of information that the thing was transwiki'd. If there has been a transwiki, then this is a no-brainer (and pretty much an invalid review), as duplicate material is forbidden. If the authors don't want it on Wikiquote, then that's sort of too bad, as authors are no more priviledged than readers at Wikipedia. Geogre 22:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It did. It was transwikied, rejected at it's target, and now transwiki'd elsewhere. -Splash - tk 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Splash. I took the deletion summary and his comment on WT:DRV too literally and did not realize it was already moved to Wikiquote. Kotepho 21:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Undelete/Transwiki to wikiquote, this is just silly. Kotepho 19:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• No, no, no. People should do there research first. It's been transwiki'd to Wikiquote. See q:Transwiki:List of tongue-twisters. Wikipedia didn't want it, and neither did Wikibooks. That is no reason to restore it here. You don't get some kind of free pass into Wikipedia just because noone else wants it! Anyway, it's been transwiki'd elsewhere. That's all that's needed. -Splash - tk 20:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme keep deleted. Just because wikibooks doesn't want something doesn't mean we have to keep it. And I totally agree with Splash. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Splash. The AfD debate did show a strong consensus that the content be kept somewhere, but now that it's on Wikiquote, there's no reason to keep it here. (I've notified all the people who voted before Splash's comment and asked them to revise or confirm their vote in light of it. Sorry for the spam.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems my spamming was actually redundant. Doubly sorry. *embarrassed* —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Helped me, actually, as I was crossing this one off my internal list. Geogre 03:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, as the desired outcome (keeping the content elsewhere) has been reached. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the VfD in question has a consensus to keep. Most users voted for keep as a primary solution and transwiki as a secondary. The VfD was closed inproperly. There were no delete votes. The decision should be overturned.  Grue  09:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, my closure did use a modicum of discretion, but isn't it a leap to improper? Kotepho 20:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Your closure was valid, in my book: more than one person pointed out that the list is inherently unverifiable (i.e. unsuitable for Wikipedia) and most offered Transwiki as a valid outcome, which it seems to me to be. Status quo appears to be reasonable. Just zis Guy you know? 15:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• undelete, but remove the non-English tongue twisters and have interwiki links to the other languages for their tongue twisters. Masterhatch 18:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Closing this discussion as "transwiki" was within reasonable discretion for the closing admin. The fact that the target project later decided that the content did not fit their inclusion criteria does not mean that Wikipedia must change its own criteria. Rossami (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. `'mikka (t) 04:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Raphael1/Wikiethics

This page got deleted for the following reason: "can't have copy & paste moves of deleted pages - GFDL requires the history"

I've copied the page from User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics (before it was removed) and pasted it to User:Raphael1/Wikiethics. I didn't know how I could have copied the history of this article as well and certainly didn't want to violate GFDL. Please restore that page together with the history of User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics to make it compliant with GFDL. Raphael1 00:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse. Anyway, Rgulerdem is banned, and it was a fair deletion that time. Will (^E_@) T 01:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It was removed, because it has been in the userspace of an indef-banned user. I am not banned, therefore User:Raphael1/Wikiethics can't be removed for the same reason. Raphael1 01:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It's CSD G4 and possibly G5 Will (^E_@) T 01:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • It's neither G4, because it hasn't been recreated, instead it has been copied before deletion (besides G4 doesn't apply for user space pages), nor is it G5 (because I'm not banned). Raphael1 01:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
        • It's a recreation. The G4 exception for user space is supposed to be for articles undeleted at a user's request, not for recreation of deleted content that was originally in the user namespace. Will (^E_@) T 01:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
          • It's not a recreation. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics has been removed on the 2006-05-31 and I've copied the page before that date. BTW please restore User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics as well since G5 only applies for pages created by banned users while they were banned. Raphael1 01:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. This "policy" has been the source of highly contentious and disruptive editing and User:Raphael1's user page is just an unecessary copy of the rejected Wikipedia:Wikiethics that is likely to do the same as User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics which is to encourage banned editors to use sockpuppets or anonymous IPs to circumvent their block to edit on Wikipedia. Netscott 09:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Whether you deem my copy to be "unnecessary" is certainly no part of WP:CSD. Furthermore did User:Raphael1/Wikiethics with no syllable encourage banned editors to circumvent their block. I wonder, where you got that from? Raphael1 14:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well this MfD for User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics is what relates to my mentioning banned and sockpuppet users. I'm curious Raphael1, why did you actually save a copy of permanently banned user User:Rgulerdem's page? I understand that as Wikipedia editors we are to assume good faith in the editing of our fellow contributors but was the reason you saved a copy because you noticed that as a banned editor Resid Gulerdem was editing on it and figured that it'd be deleted and to disrupt that process you decided to save a copy? It seems so odd to me that you should have just happened to save a copy of his user page version just prior to its deletion. Netscott 19:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: the article itself isn't banned, just one of the originating editors. Netscott, why is it a problem for Raphael1 to have a userspace copy (I assume a developmental version, like User:Jeremygbyrne/Roger Elwood or User:Jeremygbyrne/Brontosaurus) of an article? — JEREMY 15:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note - this vote was gained through advertisement.[92]Timothy Usher 17:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Jeremy, it's all a question of good faith. I didn't request deletion or even mention the existence of Raphael1's user page copy of permanently banned User:Rgulerdem's user page to anyone (despite misgivings about seeing him copy it just prior to its deletion) but someone else from the WikiEn-I mailing list appears to have seen mention of it by Raphael1 there and decided independently to delete it. Now that the act is done I support it for the reasons I expressed above. I would recommend the both of you to disassociate yourselves from Resid Gulerdem for anyone editing in support of him is likely to have his or her own reputation tarnished as he was not only disruptive here but in a completely independent fashion was repeatedly disruptive and blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia. Resid Gulerdem is just bad for Wikipedia. Netscott 19:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't understand your "good faith" argument. It's obvious that most material which is about to be deleted will continue to exist elsewhere — in google's cache for example. Raphael1 could have taken a copy of the article offsite and done to it whatever he chose, in the privacy of his own home. Instead, he chose to keep it on wikipedia (which looks like good faith to me), and he has suffered for it. Next time, do you think he will be more or less inclined to act in secrecy? — JEREMY 10:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • The preceding user's comments were solicited through targetted advertisement[93].Timothy Usher 10:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • No need to persist with your well-poisoning, Timothy. Most people understood your accusation the first time. — JEREMY 10:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
            • I did understand User:Timothy Usher's statement of fact the first time and also saw it as an attempt by User:Raphael1 to "game the system", but do agree that it's a bit silly to repeat such a statement. ;-) Netscott 11:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Suffered? Where's the suffering? The only ones suffereing are those having to spend time dealing with this nonsense. Let's face it Jeremy, Raphael1's actions were to thwart in a disruptive fashion the virtually assured deletion of Resid Gulerdem's user page. Is that not so difficult to understand? Regardless as bainer's comment below illustrates, Raphael1 shouldn't be trying to resurrect his own copy of Resid Gulerdem's final version of "Wikiethics" but in fact should be trying to resurrect Resid Gulerdem's (rightly imho) deleted user page. Netscott 10:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Raphael1's actions were to thwart in a disruptive fashion And you foresaw this via which divinatory or telepathic methodology, exactly? It would seem far more likely that Raphael1 took a copy to preserve relevant material for a future proposal. Your refusal to assume good faith (or at least not to assume the first bad faith interpretation that springs to mind) is troubling. This is yet another example of flawed rules-lawyering supported by the tyranny of the majority. Raphael1's editing may frustrate some people, but the way he has been treated is disgraceful. — JEREMY 11:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
              • The plea to "rules lawyering" is rather lame, can't you do better than use that argumentation device? Honestly, Raphael1 like myself and User:Metros232 saw that the permanently banned editor User:Rgulerdem was editing via IP addresses on his failed Wikiethics proposal and realized (again rightly so) that it was likely to be deleted because of that and to thwart such a deletion he saved a copy. Raphael1 wasn't involved in editing on that policy since it was last worked on over at Wikipedia:Wikiethics. Does it not strike either of you as foolish to be here wasting our time discussing the saving of a policy that was founded by a demonstrably disruptive editor? It's as if you're here trying to defend a banned user's right to continue to make policy on Wikipedia even when he's blocked. The only reason I can see for this is because "it's a cause!". You know if Resid Gulerdem had only been blocked on the English Wikipedia I might understand better those wanting to defend him and his ridiculous policy but the fact that he's been independently repetitively blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia makes me sooner see such individuals as foolish. Netscott 11:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
                • Firstly I have not seen User:Rgulerdem editing on User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics via IP addresses, and secondly I have been editing User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics before it was removed. Raphael1 12:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
                  • Raphael1, why did you think his user page was going to be deleted then? If the user page had just sat there no one's attention would have been brought to it, but this is not what occurred. Netscott 12:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
                    • Don't you first want to apologize for your wrong claims before you ask any further questions? Raphael1 13:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
                      • No, due to my witnessing your previous demonstrations of a lack of good faith I'm inclined to view this as another example of the same. Netscott 14:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse~. Per Netscott's above comments -- Karl Meier 17:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Netscott.Timothy Usher 17:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Wikipedia:Wikiethics still exists if you want to go edit that. What you did by copy and pasting it into your own user space was done only to get around the fact that it was about to be deleted it. That is, in an ironic way, unethical. I also frown up the nominating user for the advertising of this discussion [94], [95], [96], etc. 6 advertisements in total. Metros232 17:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I've got no supernatural skill to see the future. How could I have acted upon a "fact", which still lied ahead? Raphael1 17:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Why did you copy and paste it to yours then? If you didn't think it was going to be deleted, why did you need a copy of your own instead of just editing the one that existed at Rgulerdem's user page? Why did you think that two needed to exist? Metros232 17:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed I did suspect, that it might get deleted in the future, but I certainly didn't know about that. I still don't see, how it is in any way unethical to take over the work of an indef-banned user. Besides User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics shouldn't have been removed as well since G5 only applies for pages created by banned users while they were banned. Raphael1 19:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, copy of a previously rejected attempt at censorship. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted since this was proposed at Wikipedia:Wikiethics and solidly rejected I see no particular merit in keeping it hanging around in user space in a form which (at first glance) looks to be even less acceptable. Just zis Guy you know? 22:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not going to endorse or overturn my own deletion, though I will say to Raphael1 that if he wants the content, he needs to hold a DRV on the original page (User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics) because copy & pasted pages cannot possibly exist when the original page is deleted. --bainer (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've read through this deletion review, and what I'm missing is any argument for why this page should exist. Why maintain a copy of a rejected policy written by a banned user? How does it help write the encyclopedia? -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I wonder, why you even ask that question. Shouldn't you rather ask, why should that page be removed? Nevertheless I will answer your question: Rgulerdem and some other editors worked on this former prematurely rejected policy in userspace to avoid controversy with opposing parties. I'd like to continue Rgulerdems work, which is why I've created a copy. Raphael1 16:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I think it's pretty clear from reading this discussion that it's being removed because it's the work of a banned editor, and seems to be a sore spot for a lot of people. At that point, the ball's back in your court - if so many Wiki regulars are against it, what's so great about it to make it worth the static you incur by recreating it? I've asked a more pertinent question at your talk page. If your goal is to improve Wikipedia, a bad way to start is by pissing a bunch of people off by acting as proxy for a banned user, practically speaking. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I can't believe, that you are repeating Netscotts accusation ("proxy editing"). I consider this a personal attack, since it completely disregards my individuality. What's so bad about the work of this banned editor, that it needs to be removed? Will you remove Interfaith as well, because it's mostly his work? IMHO this whole agitation to delete User:Rgulerdems work and keep it deleted, is a clear sign, that Rgulerdem hasn't been blocked for his behaviour, but for the position he has taken on various topics. Raphael1 02:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

        I don't enter the conversation just assuming that Netscott is lying; why not trust that I'm taking his word in, whadyecallit... good faith? So you say you're not being his proxy. I don't have any evidence to say which of you is right. I know basically nothing about Rgulerdem. I still think you're running into a lot of static, and would probably try a different approach, if I were in your position, and if I were more interested in results than in drama. You choose your battles - is it more important to you to influence Wikipedia in a positive direction, or to do it using this particular guy's words? There's reasons to stand on principle, and there's reasons not to. You can probably cause a big scene, if you set your mind to it, but that'll poison the policy you're talking about in the community's eyes even more. Have you noticed some pretty stiff opposition to this policy? If I were you, I'd be sitting back from this DRV and trying to start some conversations about what's so incompatible between this proposal of yours and the current state of Wikipedia - you haven't replied to my post on your talk page where I'd love to have that conversation with you, if you're down to have it. Come on, don't knock your head against this wall, it won't move. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - I have done a little work on this proposal and having a record of it is helpful in case anyone decides to work on it in the future. Also, as a comment to the closing admin, despite insinuations to the contrary, advertising a deletion reveiw is not a violation of any policy. Johntex\^talk 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It violates the spam guidelines: "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view."Timothy Usher 23:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted once and for all. Metamagician3000 06:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, we don't need a banned user's disruptive attempt at policy-making resurrected in anybody's userspace. —Stormie 21:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. (Personal attack removed) of a banned user. Unwelcome. Big Blue Marble 02:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

03 June 2006

Sydney Roosters Season articles

Three articles I created simultaneously, that being Roosters1908; SydneyRoosters1909; and SydneyRoosters1910 were deleted in the last few days. The Sydneyroosters1909 article held a debate for the deletion while I had only added little content to the page, the article was then up for deletion before I had done any updates. While the debate took place I continued doing the updates, as seen in the discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sydneyroosters1909

I have plead my case to show that there are updates coming and its justification of existence.

I had also created a fourth article, however this was later and I must add that I created the page before the others were deleted. The fourth article; Sydney Roosters 1911 Season was created and included the updates I had promised with the 3 previous articles.

However when this article was put to debate re: deletion, the general consensus so far has been to keep the article based on the argument brought forward by Athenaeum who states; 'Wikipedia is an almanac. It says so in the first sentence of Wikipedia:What is an article. This is verifiable real world information. It is not indiscrimate, and deleting it would do some harm and absolutely no good. Wikipedia is a free reference resource and this is mainstream reference material.'

Considering the 3 previous articles were exact replicas in structure to the Sydney Roosters 1911 Season only differing in factual content, I propose that if the outcome of the debate be to keep the Sydney Roosters 1911 Season that the 3 previous articles be restored as this argument brought forward by Athenaeum was not put forward re: the debate of the other 3 articles.Sbryce858 07:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and relist at the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Roosters 1911 Season, where consensus now appears to favor keeping that sort of content. This will ensure a more-or-less coherent decision. Sandstein 22:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist - perhaps it was closed properly, but this is very likely good encyclopedic content. The team concerned has long been a major force in the NSW league. Let's see how it goes this time. Metamagician3000 09:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist based on the outcome of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Roosters 1911 Season, which was in favour of keeping the article.Sbryce858 21:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User:AKMask/log

April Fools Day this year included a minor invasion of the GNAA IRC chat by members of wikipedia crapflooding with very informative information about Keynesian economics. Deleted with the note of Privacy Violation. Note the GNAA has no rules against logging the chats, and infact encourages their members, which granted we are not, to do so. There was no privacy violation. I humbly request it to be undeleted.Edit:Also to note, it was linked to off the BJAODN page for the April fools day section. -M^ask 09:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm... I think you got the name wrong. There's no deleted content at the pagename you provided. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So I did, fixed now (dang capital letter) -M^ask 09:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak undelete If there are no privacy violation issues here; that is, if the GNAA chat does not hold a policy against public logging, then I could care less. I mean, the log's pure nonsense and a waste of server space (I'm quietly for deleting BJAODN altogether), but whatever. Let him have his log. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted conditionally - only if it can be verified there is no rule against public posting of logs, then undelete. NSLE _(T+C) at 09:47 UTC (2006-06-03)
• Keep deleted: Who cares if GNAA has a rule? It's Freenode that forbids reposting. The "authors" can't be verified and don't get to say. Geogre 12:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Last I checked #gnaa was juped on freenode, so I don't think the irc logs are from freenode. Kotepho 17:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The channel was not on Freenode. -M^ask 18:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and send to MFD if you want it deleted unless someone can show that it is from a network that prohibits public posting of logs (it certainly isn't the norm). Kotepho 17:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Someone should have checked with the page owner before speedying. --StuffOfInterest 18:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  No one owns any article on Wikipedia. --mboverload@ 19:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Amazingly, I agree with Geogre. This hardly ever happens. Except when there is a Y in the day name. Just zis Guy you know? 23:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, aside from the privacy concerns, Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, not the repository for inane crap. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Christopher Parham. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete If want deleted should go to MfD, and is imo, within the bounds of what we allow people to put in their userspace(and I'm under the impression that there is no privacy issue in this case). JoshuaZ 16:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. How is this not a privacy invasion? Metamagician3000 12:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Everyone read and reconsider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:About#Wiki_is_a_great_concept_but_._._. In short, Wiki suffers horribly from this phenomenon, and until things change, it'll never be objective. In Wiki's current form, all of you are responsible for refraining from personal bias (currently racking up a deplorable record, to date), and reviewing relevancy based not on your experience (as nearly all of you have done), but on an objective measure (sorry, but Google hits isn't objective, nor accurate) of actual relevancy.
  • Can you please explain what the above paragraph means, and its relevancy to this discussion? User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

2006 June

1. Okashina_Okashi - Decision of the original closer to relist at AfD is endorsed. 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
2. Dismal's Paradox - Relisted at AfD. 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
3. User:SPUI/jajaja - Nomination withdrawn. 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
4. List of political leaders widely regarded as totalitarian - Request for information answered. 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
5. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed. 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
6. Cultural references in Pokémon - Deletion endorsed. 16:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
7. Fluffy (The Lion King) - Deletion endorsed. 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
8. Kelly Roberti - Copyright issue resolved, restored. 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
9. Image:Pierre Janssen.jpg - Commons image, action impossible here. 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Review
10. Neanderthal theory of autism - Deletion endorsed. 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
11. Be bold, Be Bold - Overturn RfD and revert to WP:BOLD. 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
12. Jeff Lindsay - Deletion endorsed. 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
13. "State Debate Associations" - Deletion endorsed. 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
14. How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 - Deletion endorsed. 17:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
15. Kinston Indians - Deletion endorsed. 17:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
16. Wikipedia:SCAG - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
17. Image:Nuvola 64 apps important.png - undeletion impossible; deleted prior to 16 June 2006. 13:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
18. Sick Nick Mondo - Deletion endorsed for now, pending AfD outcome for related Nick Mondo; should that survive, this is a suitable redirect. 18:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review

    Nick Mondo having survived AfD, this is restored as a redirect. 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

19. True Torah Jews - Deletion endorsed. 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
20. UCIP - Deletion endorsed. 18:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
21. Mending Wall - Keep endorsed. 11:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
22. Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) - Deletion endorsed. 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
23. TheSmartMarks.com - Deletion endorsed. 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
24. Dirt pudding - Transwiki and deletion endorsed. 17:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
25. Kirill Makharinsky - Deletion endorsed. 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
26. Armando Lloréns-Sar - History restored, maintained as redirect; merge issues are an editorial concern for article's talk page. 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
27. Hollywood Undead - Deletion endorsed. 17:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
28. Trexy - Closing administrator agreed to relist AFD. 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Review
29. Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak - No consensus closure endorsed. 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
30. Knox (animator) - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
31. Lightsaber combat - Keep closure endorsed. 18:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
32. Stone Trek - Deletion closure endorsed. 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
33. File:944 h.jpg - DRV closed, image in Commons jurisdiction. 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
34. Sadullah Khan - Undeleted, relisted. 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
35. Atromitos - Undeleted. 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
36. Walk To Emmaus - Deletion endorsed. 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
37. Wikipedia:Conservative notice board. Kept deleted. Strong endorsement. 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Review.
38. Lost: The Journey - Relisted. 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
39. User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes and Template:User Gangster - Undeleted. 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
40. The Lost Boys (demogroup) - Relist. 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
41. Second War (Harry Potter) - Deletion endorsed. 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
42. IRCDig - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
43. Saryn Hooks - Undeleted and relisted at AfD. 17:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
44. Template:Major_programming_languages - template content restored 06:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) review
45. Strategic Policy Consulting - Deletion endorsed. 16:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
46. Actuarial Outpost - Kept kept, mistaken nomination. 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
47. Image:WikiPâques.png - Uploaded to Commons, as suggested. 16:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
48. The Esplanade Mall - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 16:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
49. Sydney Ling - AfD result of "no consensus" endorsed. 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
50. Siberian language - Deletion endorsed. 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
51. Burlington Center Mall - Challenge of no consensus afd withdrawn. 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
52. Erik Möller - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
53. theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh - Deletions endorsed. 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
54. Wikipedia:OURS - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
55. 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) - Deletion endorsed. 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
56. Conservative Underground - Deletion endorsed. 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
57. Boring Business Systems - AfD reopened by acclamation. 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
58. Joseph D. Campbell - Previous AfD overturned, to be relisted at AfD. 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
59. Church of Reality - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
60. Heinen's - Result reversed by consensus, AfD now closed as "no consensus". 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
61. BB Sinha - Restored, listed at AfD. 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (deleted at AfD 20:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)) Review
62. Mending Wall - Restored, listed at AfD, closed as keep, brought here again (above). 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
63. Cancer Bats - Restored, to be resubmitted to AfD in light of new evidence. 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
64. Cum On Her Face - Deletion endorsed. 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
65. AlternC - Deletion endorsed. 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
66. Tiffany Holiday - Deletion endorsed. 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
67. Shane Cubis - Deletion endorsed unanimously (excepting discounted anons/newbies.) 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
68. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
69. Big Brother 7 chronology - Deletion endorsed. Will userfy upon request. 15:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
70. Wikimedia Meta-Wiki - action reverted by the closer. AFD reopened. 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
71. The Adventures of Dr. McNinja - Consensus to permit userpage draft as new recreation, will be submitted to AfD. 17:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
72. Cory kennedy - Deletion endorsed. 17:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
73. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics - Kept deleted unanimously. 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
74. Yar - Deletion endorsed without prejudice to unrelated redirect now at title. 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
75. List of midnight movies - Content restored for merge and redirect. 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
76. AK Productions - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
77. FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together - Undeleted and sent to AfD. 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
78. List of tongue-twisters - Deletion endorsed in light of new Wikiquote transwiki. 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
79. User:Raphael1/Wikiethics - Deletion endorsed. 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
80. Roosters1908, Sydneyroosters1909, and Sydneyroosters1910 - Undeleted to be AfD'ed in light of new evidence. 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
81. National Hockey Leaque player lists - Restored speedily and AFD reopened. 08:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
82. User:AKMask/log - Restored (by a narrow margin) to be sent to MfD. 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
83. Male Unbifurcated Garment - Deletion endorsed (again -- Second DRV in two weeks.) 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
84. Penis banding - Deletion endorsed. 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Review
85. Template:User no notability - Deletion narrowly endorsed. (date unavailable, deletion review never archived) Permalink
86. Syed Ahmed - deletion endorsed, redirected to The Apprentice (UK series 2) 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
87. Ho Shin Do - deletion endorsed without prejudice 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
88. Israel News Agency - article content restored 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
89. Delaware County Intermediate Unit - Deletion closure endorsed. 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
90. Steve Bellone - Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
91. Team NoA - Previous version restored, survived AfD as no consensus. 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
92. Springfield M21 - Restored as redirect with history. 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
93. The drips - Speedy deletion contested, overturned; sent to AfD. 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
94. Template:Voting icons - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
95. Ali Zafar - New NPOV recreation permitted. 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
96. Barbara Bauer, The Literary Agency Group and others - Bauer undeleted and kept at AfD; others kept deleted. 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
97. Scienter - deletion overturned. 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
98. Auto repair shop - original speedy deletion endorsed, without prejudice to now-existing distinct redirect at this title. 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
99. Wikipedia v search engines - deletion endorsed unanimously. 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
100. Pat Price - deletion overturned unanimously, no need to relist. 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
101. Talk:Brian Peppers - kept deleted. 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
102. The Juggernaut Bitch - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
103. South Coast League - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
104. Other side of the pillow - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
105. Joel Leyden - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
106. Sharting - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
107. User:Disavian/Userboxes/Green Energy - deletion endorsed, narrowly 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
108. Left-wing terrorism - article history restored 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
109. Stella Maris College Scout Group - deletion endorsed 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
110. List of Michael Savage neologisms - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
111. Superhorse - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
112. Exicornt - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
113. Image:Lock-icon.jpg - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
114. College Confidential - article content restored 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
115. Tim Dingle - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
116. Abstract People - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
117. Christian views of Hanukkah - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
118. Claught of a bird dairy products - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
119. LIP6 - continue from rewritten version 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
120. Hulk 2 - redirected to Hulk (film) for now 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
121. Xombie - article content restored 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
122. Possible wars between liberal democracies speedy-deletion undone by deleting admin. listed to AFD. 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
123. Gary Howell deletion endorsed. 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
124. New Sincerity - deletion endorsed. 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
125. Successful Praying - speedy deletion as copyvio endorsed. 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
126. Videohypertransference - user copy granted. deletion from articlespace endorsed. 20:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
127. Oz Categories 8 endorse, 5 overturn, deletion endorsed. 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Review

Userbox discussions

• Template:User no notability - deletion endorsed, narrowly 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• Template:User organ donor template content restored 17:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian See WP:TGS
• Template:User satanist kept deleted
• Template:User cannabis kept deleted
• Template:User CCP - kept deleted. 00:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User against fox hunting (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW. Massive endorsement.)

Archives

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 May)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 April)