Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Encephalon (talk | contribs) at 11:56, 26 September 2005 (→September 26: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Content review

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

History only undeletion

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

Votes for undeletion

September 26

Neutrality's POINT now includes speedies: [1]

There are three articles on that list, I am adding headings for each of them below. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woodlands Ring Secondary School

20:46, 25 September 2005 Neutrality deleted "Woodlands Ring Secondary School" (Content was: 'Woodlands Ring Secondary School (WRSS) is located at Woodlands Ring Rd, near Woodlands Ring Primary School, Woodlands NPC and NS10'). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mansfield Summit High School

20:45, 25 September 2005 Neutrality deleted "Mansfield Summit High School" (content was: '{{Cleanup}} A High School or Secondary Institution in Arlington, Texas. Part of the Mansfield School DistrictEnrollment: 350...') Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kleb Intermediate School

20:42, 25 September 2005 Neutrality deleted "Kleb Intermediate School" (content was: 'Kleb Intermediate School is a secondary school in Harris County, Texas. The school, which is considered to be located in the community of Klein,...') Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 25

Comment This page should be the last resort for problems of this type, not the first. Any dispute brought here without some attempt at communication between parties should be summarily removed. I fail to see evidence that Bryan has tried to talk to Neutrality about any of this. Iff talks come to nothing, then bring it back here.
brenneman(t)(c) 06:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, I agree with the sentiment. However, this should, I think, lead you to ask that the nominations be removed until such time as efforts to talk things out with Neutrality fail. But below, you have voted to "keep deleted"; this is an opinion on the merits of the AfD—a judgment which by the above objection you're indicating should not be made until the AfDs are legitimately tabled in VfU for discussion. Normally one may let this subtle point pass, but in these cases the apparent process violations seem to me so egregious that every KD vote must have compelling reasons to be posted, if we are expected to take them seriously.—encephalonεγκέφαλον 09:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do not oppose the sentiment, however, I see nowhere in Wikipedia:Undeletion policy or elsewhere that the VfU process is a last resort, nor anything in policy to support your contention that "Any dispute brought here without some attempt at communication between parties should be summarily removed." It would seem to do so would be a further violation of the suffrage policy to simply, and arbitrarily remove VfU nominations because a nominator has not discussed the issue with the closer. Agreed with encephalon that the process violations appear to be particularly egregious. In this case, these AfD closures (whether you agree with them or not) are quite clearly "out of process" as defined by WP Policy where the closer has effectively ignored the concensus. No VfU is required as per the Exception policy and a sysop should restore these articles (at the very least the Crescent Park Elementary School article) without the need for the VfU process to continue this already acrimonious wrangle over school articles, which has now been elevated to policy and process violations.--Nicodemus75 11:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Voting below to keep deleted on reasons other than the merits of the nomination are straying dangerously close to WP:POINT, I'm afraid. And no, the nominations will not be removed from this page. -Splashtalk 15:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm mildly disappointed in what has been said. VfU certainly is not a "last resort" path.
James F. (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The point was made by Bryan bringing the articles here without any attempt at resolution. I believe if you'll re-read my notes above, you'll see that I am voting on the merits of the nominations, and I state clearly that they should be returned to this page if discussion fails. While talks occur, the status of the articles should not change. Thus "keep deleted, remove from page". I also notice that Ausir restored "Crescent Park Elementary School", as well. My immense dissapointment that process appears to be taken over from communication has not changed. Over two thousand words wasted here!
brenneman(t)(c) 23:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, employing the available process correctly is not a WP:POINT. That there is an alternative route does not make this perfectly valid one invalid. It certainly does not make disruptive. -Splashtalk 23:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality's rationale

We must remember that "rough consensus" does not mean "overwhelming majority." Consider that the articles have not significantly improved since their nomination. Also note that though a concerted attempt was made by an organized group to vote as a bloc, and despite their organization was outnumbered by votes to delete. Further note that all of the articles nominated for nomination here were stubs with little or no information about the subject. --Neutralitytalk 15:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, discounting an anon nom: one was majority keep, one was tied, and one non-consensus majority for delete. Personal dislike of an article is no basis for ignoring a vote. --rob 18:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about moving all this discussion to the talk page rather than a seperate header here? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not part of discussion of VfU in general, and is highly specific to these debates. It is also highly relevant. A couple of participants below have siad they'd like to see the closing admin's rationale: so it should stay here. -Splashtalk 23:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To claim that the keep voters were voting as a bloc without seriously considering that the delete voters do the same is to simply ignore the facts in favor of the POV you prefer. This is not neutral, and it's not the kind of conduct we deserve to expect from an administrator, much less an arbitrator. This is at least the second time you've pushed your POV regarding schools by use of extreme action; please stop gaming the system to enforce your view. Unfocused 02:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While there is obvious factionalism on WP concerning schools, and some find this factionalism to be inherently distasteful (even some of us who would confess to willfully participating in said factionalism), the very notion that there is an inclusionist, "organized group [voting] as a bloc" is completely unsubstantiated (to my knowledge). There may be instances where individual editors contact one another about current school AfDs, discuss them, indeed even encourage others to vote to "keep" or to "delete" (many editors "urge" others to vote a particular way right on the AfD pages themselves) - but there is no evidence presented anywhere that there is bloc voting by an organized group. As Un has keenly pointed out, there is every bit as much evidence that "delete" voters have organized bloc voting (ie. none) and to level such a serious charge (which effectively constitutes a charge of massive and systematic disruption and bad faith needs to be backed up facts, not rhetoric. It should be deeply concerning to the entire WP community that an Arbitrator Admin has levelled such a baseless and serious accusation against voters who in good faith vote their opinions on school-related AfDs. Despite the fact that I had assumed Good Faith in my initial comments and votes on these closures, I fear that this accusation casts serious doubt as to whether or not these AfD closures were indeed in good faith.--Nicodemus75 03:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Michael's School (Cranford, New Jersey)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Michael's School (Cranford, New Jersey) - 12 keep, 15 delete. Bryan 05:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. An article about a school should not be vanity, and this contradicts the opinion of the proposer of the deletion.
  2. Proposer of the deletion is an anonymous user, and therefore does NOT satisfy to voice on wikipedia policies (inc. deletion, of course) Deryck C. 13:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is always incorrect. Anons can and do nominate articles perfectly validly, and can and do participate in the discussion. There is just a strong likelihood of their comments being disregarded. See WP:GAFD among others. -Splashtalk 15:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crescent Park Elementary School

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crescent Park Elementary School had roughly 19 keeps and 2 merges versus 15 deletes. Bryan 05:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manila_Waldorf_School

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Manila Waldorf School had roughly 12 keeps, 13 deletes. Kappa 03:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 24

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles:

THESE ARE NOW LISTED INDIVIDUALLY BELOW

I request that the articles listed individually below be undeleted. I believe the basis for their deletion was erroneous, and counter to the votes that were cast for them in the (admittedly overly complicated) mass AfD of fifteen color articles.

Redwolf24 's comment on closing this AfD was:

Delete. This is very annoying that they're grouped in one afd and they should each have their own section. Some people just said delete all, and so I will do as such. Some colors here should stay probably, and thus someone should list them on VfU. However I am just gonna delete every color in the heading.

There are two flaws with this reasoning. First, although I agree that this mass nomination led to confusion, I put fair labor into parsing out the votes on the AfD's talk page, and put notices to that effect addressed to the closing admin at the top and bottom of the page. Several voters in the AfD contacted me to assure me that I had correctly listed their votes in this breakdown. Second, even if a single response to all nominations was appropriate, it would be no consensus for all, not delete all. There were only 10 voters who made unequivocal calls to delete all of these, compared to 11 voters who voted to keep at least one (even if deleting the rest), and 4 voters supprting a merge of at least one. In such a situation, erring on the side of keeping leaves the door open for future individual AfD nominations, and I would argue that it is the better practice.-- BDAbramson talk 02:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, not the best AfD and not the best way of closing it. Keep deleted all but Fire Engine red and Rose though. --fvw* 02:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do realise you've just created a Mass-VfU here that's going to have all the same problems, right? --fvw* 02:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It shouldn't - the only question to be answered in this VfU is whether the AfD was closed properly, on the basis of the votes cast. I argue that the same error was made as to all of the above named colors, and I believe my talk-page breakdown of the actual votes cast for each bears out that there was simply no consensus to delete any of the five listed. -- BDAbramson talk 02:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mass things like this where some may be great and some may be terrible don't do any good. I notice that all admins had stayed away from that AfD and I thought that would be the best way to close it, unless you wanted me to write THE RESULT FOR X WAS KEEP! THE RESULT FOR Y WAS NO CONSENSUS! See when you mass things together like this, people voted Delete all or they voted Delete all except fire engine red, etc. I see no fault in the way I closed it. And I'd appreciate it if you seperated these. Once you do here's my votes: Undelete all except fire brick red. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passing the buck to VfU isn't really the right way to close an AfD — if the closing admin is unsure of what to do (or doesn't want to do it), they shouldn't do it. That's why I didn't close that AfD when I did a large chunk of that day earlier. Now, BDAbramson's count is, I am going to presume, correct. My temptation is to simply undelete the whole lot in the AfD and relist them all individually as the only way to be sure. The same error was effectively present in each closure since the statement admits a blanket decision lacking individual consideration for any article. But I am persuadable to only undeleting those listed here, or even only to those Fvw lists, since the others are within the realm of admin discretion — but there is an admission that the admin did not use their discretion on them. -Splashtalk 02:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems ridiculous. I doubt any editor would be willing to close it, so I did, but without wasting 20 minutes of my time which I used for other AfD's. All I'm doing by passing it to VfU is wasting 20 seconds of the time of anyone bothering to vote. Just saying don't close it if you don't know what to do in a case like this won't work, as that way no one will close it, thats why we have days and days of backlogs on AfD because those days will have 1 or 2 AfD's which are rather controversial on what to do, and I seem to always be the admin closing them. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The participatory audience at VfU is always much smaller than at AfD. More importantly, VfU has a different remit: "was the closer reasonable in their decision?". So passing an AfD decision (based on content) to VfU is changing the question that is being asked. -Splashtalk 03:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And kudos to BDAbramson for his sterling work on the AfD and this VfU. Perhaps we should just abolish colour and be done with. -Splashtalk 03:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete all. This deletion clearly did not have consensus, as even the closer mentioned: "Some people just said delete all, and so I will do as such." "Some people" is not enough to delete an article; at least half should favor its deletion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete all, relist separately.  Grue  06:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete all, relist separately. Grouping them together can lead to "guilt by association." Each should be considered on their own merits. -- Norvy (talk) 06:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete all, extremely poor closure. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete all and relist separately, some at least seem to have merit.--Cactus.man >Reply 12:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete all and relist separately. Rose, Raspberry and fire engine red are probably going to be the only ones kept and Terra Cotta merged (based on previous results) but we should consider them all individually. --Celestianpower hab 13:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fire brick red

I request that this article be undeleted. The votes for this listing in the mass nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles were 14 to delete, 4 to keep, 4 to merge. -- BDAbramson talk 02:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fire engine red

I request that this article be undeleted. The votes for this listing in the mass nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles were 13 to delete, 10 to keep, 3 to merge. -- BDAbramson talk 02:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raspberry (color)

I request that this article be undeleted. The votes for this listing in the mass nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles were 13 to delete, 8 to keep, 4 to merge. -- BDAbramson talk 02:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rose (color)

I request that this article be undeleted. The votes for this listing in the mass nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles were 12 to delete, 11 to keep, 3 to merge. -- BDAbramson talk 02:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terra cotta (color)

I request that this article be undeleted. The votes for this listing in the mass nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles were 11 to delete, 6 to keep, 7 to merge, and 1 unclear vote. -- BDAbramson talk 02:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intensity of Binary Independence

I request that this article be undeleted. This is published and peer-reviewed information and evidently was requested for deletion by someone antagonistic to the subject matter.--Fahrenheit451 21:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck the South

AfD closer did not follow Wikipedia consensus guidelines for AfD. 17 deletes (including the nominator) to 10 keeps and 1 merge is certainly NOT a consensus for delete in accordance with established procedure for closing AfD items, especially considering one of the deletes was the user's 5th edit. 17/11 (or 16/11, 17/10/1, or 16/10/1) is short of the 2/3 typically called for to delete. Unfocused 18:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I asked why he deleted with only 61% in favor of deletion, AfD closer stated on my talk page that he "didn't just go on numbers", he also "went on the content of the votes". Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 19:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Undeleted I have taken the liberty of undeleting the article since it seems that is what the consensus is to do. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 19:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 21:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Just to clarify, I do not have the power to reverse my own decision at this point so it still stands at being closed as deleted, I did however undelete due to the fact that consensus, at least at the time I undeleted, was to undelete. If consensus on this VFU is to keep deleted then it can be easily redeleted. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 02:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 23

Battle of Yungay

It was speedied because the admin who came across it viewed it as "nonsense". In fact, the subject is an actual (fairly important) battle between Chile and an alliance of Bolivia and Peru, and from what I was able to read of the content (which was written in poor and broken, but very salvageable, English), the article was describing just that battle. Just because a contributor's grasp on the English language and understanding of Wikisyntax are both lacking is no reason to speedy his contributions as "nonsense". Kurt Weber 19:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I can understand why this was deleted as nonsense, but if we can get a volunteer to quickly turn it into a usable stub (do I see a hand, Kurt?) I wouldn't oppose undeletion. Also, this looks like a copy-and-paste from another electronic source, though I can't find it on the web. As such, it may be better to start from scratch rather than from a copyvio. android79 19:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I knew enough about the subject, I would. As it was, the article as it was originally, though it was poorly written, provided a wealth of information and would be fine with a cleanup and wikification. At times things like this are a matter of principle; clean it up, don't delete it. Kurt Weber 20:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Could an admin provide a quick note about the contents of this article? I'd be inclined to undeleting it, but if the text is rambling or is a copyvio, we might be better off starting from scratch, as Android says. --Deathphoenix 19:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - The article starts with
"Table of contents [ to hide ] * 1 Antecedents * the 2 ejercitos and their 3 compared situations * the battle ... "
showing it to be a cut-and-past mess. About a page worth of one paragraph. The brackets throughout around probable links show it to be a cut-and-past of a website or electronic encyclopedia. Later links "[ to publish ]" make me think it came from a blog. - Tεxτurε 20:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is quite clear that the original contributor is ignorant of wikisyntax. Is it not possible that he (incorrectly) believed that he must MANUALLY create the table of contents, unaware that it would be done for him if the article had enough sections in it? You will notice, for instance, that the auto-generated table of contents have the word "hide" bracketed, and it is not inconceivable that a non-native English speaker wound not understand the difference between "hide" and "to hide". I think, until you can provide something beyond mere speculation (such as a link or pointer (if not an online resource) to the source of this alleged copyvio), it's rather premature to write off as a copyvio a contribution that, while obviously written by someone with a poor understanding of English and use of the Wiki, is nonetheless substantially worthwhile. Kurt Weber 20:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggested solution This article is pretty bad, bad enough that we'd probably be a better encyclopedia with no article than with this one. However, I agree that the battle is notable and should have an article. How about if I undelete the article, and if no significant changes are made in, say, a week, it gets deleted again? Any objections? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's actually what I was just about to do...I had just listed it on Cleanup and was heading back to do some work on it myself when I saw it had been deleted. Kurt Weber 20:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? You yourself say it's pretty bad and I think it is likely a copyright violation anyway. Why not just start the article yourself or leave it so someone else can? Objection? Not to mention that an admin should not unilaterally undelete an article that is currently under voting on VfU. Why not just wait until the VfU is over or at least until an overwhelming consensus exists one way or the other. - Tεxτurε 20:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Woah, hold on there. I didn't "unilaterally undelete" the article, I merely posted a suggestion to try to gather a consensus toward a compromise between keeping it deleted and simple undeletion. I certainly think my suggestion is better than simple undeletion, because if that happens we'll be stuck with this awful article even if nobody fixes it, unless somebody bothers to give it a VfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, this looks like a machine-enabled translation of an article from one of the other language Wikipedias (though I can also see Texture's argument that it might be a translation from a blog). It definitely was not patent nonsense in the very strict way we use that term. Neither do we have evidence that it was a copyvio. Undelete as an improper speedy. Mark it for clean-up. If no clean-up occurs in a reasonable time, then nominate it for a full AFD discussion. Rossami (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no speedy criterion that this article met, and speedying it as nonsense was out-of-process. Only patent nonsense is speediable and this text is entirely legible and understandable. However, it is almost certainly a copyright violation as Texture has pointed out, although I am unable to locate it in Google. If it is undeleted in its current form, the only correct course of action would be to slap a {{copyvio}} on it and leave it for further investigation. I was going to suggest temporarily undelete, userfy to Kmweber and redelete for research and writing. But we'd still be keeping likely copyvio text on-Wiki so I suppose we can't do that. If it is really wanted I suppose we should undelete and {{copyvio}}, that being the correct process in the first place. The article will be available from its history for 7 days, and Kmweber can put a stub (or even an article) on the /Temp page. -Splashtalk 20:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allen3 points out that it is, indeed a machine translation from another Wikipedia. This text must, unless I misunderstand, be under the GFDL and fine for us to have on board. Tagged for cleanup and wikification, this is fine. Undelete. -Splashtalk 20:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the admin who deleted this, I have no objection to it being revived if there is actual content there. DJ Clayworth 20:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to have been re-created by the original contributor. Kurt Weber 21:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone else agree to an OBE vote result? - Tεxτurε 21:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A manual translation of a public domain work is IIRC protected by the translator's copyright. I presume that a machine translation confers no such copyright to anyone, but i don't think this discussion should implicitly leave the impression that the copyright status of a translation is no more restrictive than that of the untranslated source. (Actually, i'm curious: does GDFL guarantee that human translations without unnecessary paraphrasing are under GDFL?)--Jerzy•t 21:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm late to the party and this is largely symbolic; undelete per Allen3's excellent work.—encephalonεγκέφαλον 05:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 22

Christian Church - Synod of Saint Timothy

I suppose this is what I get for being at work so much of late ;)

I would like to register a request for undeletion on this subject. There are plenty of small religious groups out there that are listed on Wikipedia. In this instance, it appears that someone who felt an inclusion in a larger, more established article, was inappropriate. That led, ultimately, to a request for deletion.

To delete this subject is essentially a judgement call on what constitutes a valid religious body. I don't believe Wikipedia, its editors, or its readers should make such judgements. Further, there are other sites out there that refer to the Synod of Saint Timothy, the Society of Saint Timothy, and congregations within the Synod.

It also strikes me that one individual made the accusation of the Synod being Monophysite. That is simply not true. Another implied that the Synod was simply a construction of websites. Again, not true. Just because a religious group is small does not make them worthy of exclusion. I happen to be a member of the group, and I am in charge of a hospital chaplaincy in a metropolitan hospital in Indianapolis. If you want to verify existence of a ministry, drop by. I live in a monastic community in Anderson. Stop by. We have a new congregation in Tennessee and a convent there. Stop by. Fifteen years ago, the International Communion of Charismatic Episcopal Churches had four congregations meeting in homes. Today they have hundreds of thousands of members around the world. Our Synod may not be growing that rapidly, but we are growing.

I will admit that placing a referent to the Synod in a larger article (Divine Liturgy to be specific) was, perhaps, unwise. However, to remove the Synod's topic from the listing just seems a bit excessive to me, and seems to make a judgement concerning the validity of its existence.Father Rob Lyons 11:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, and most importantly, the deletion was within policy and even without dissenting vote.
Pjacobi 12:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted, that's what I get for spending too much time at work ;).Father Rob Lyons 14:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to review the (IMHO) two most important arguments of the VfD:

  • There is no secondary source coverage, which means this group of articles is non-verifiable and is inherently POV. Nothing asserted in these articles has any independent verification. The "Ecumenical Orthodox Catholic Communion" seems to be currently sustained on a geocities homepage, and doesn't seem to be distinguishable from a single-person project. (from Sdedeo):Pjacobi 12:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't serve any role in the EOCC, and I have no say in how they choose to muster their web presence.Father Rob Lyons 14:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And my response would be, "How would this user know?" Have they visited one of our congregations in Indiana, Tennessee, Georgia, or Texas? Have they attended a Sunday Liturgy or met with a member of the clergy? Have they bothered to pick up a telephone and call any of the individuals listed with phone numbers? To assume that because an organization is small and has a website that they are thus too much e-presence and not enough real presence is a major jump. Contact our congregations before making assumptions that we don't exist.Father Rob Lyons 14:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was also remarked, that other articles in neighborhood of the deleted one should be reviewed for eventual deletion: Christocephalous, Ecumenical Orthodox Catholic Communion, Gracetide, Society of Saint Timothy, Timothean Rite, and Titusian Rite. I suggest, you consolidate the complete area into one or two articles, where also some information from the deleted article may be included. But by all means, try as hard as possible to find secondary sources verifying the existence of all this.
Pjacobi 12:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem to me that the best way to do this would be to restore the root article and consolidate the material on the Society of Saint Timothy, the Timothean and Titusian Rites, and Gracetide to the article. The articles Christocephalous and Ecumenical Orthodox Catholic Communion should really be considered separately because the Synod is not the only organization that uses those descriptors. As for secondary sources, most of our print material is still under development, so I don't really have any books to refer anyone too. We've never sought any newspaper coverage - at least not in my neck of the woods. Again, the best secondary material is the fact that our congregations and ministries actually exist. I don't know what other secondary material I can refer one to, save calling a phone number and seeing if someone picks up. For example, I work at a secular hospital in Indianapolis. They did a background check and reference check on me, and had to verify my ordination status. When I joined the Synod, I had to submit a new verification on my ordination status. I wouldn't have a job otherwise.Father Rob Lyons
E.g. shouldn't there be some place on the the offical websites of the Syriac Orthodox Church or then Indian Orthodox Church where these distant sister churches are mentioned?:Pjacobi 12:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. We inherited their lines of Apostolic Succession. We are not organically united with them. We also inherited Rome's lines, Canterbury's lines, and Byzantine lines. We haven't applied to them for recognition, so why would they list us?Father Rob Lyons 14:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also suspicious is the anti-World Council of Churches stance, as both the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Indian Orthodox Church are active members of the WCC.
Pjacobi 12:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since we are not members of either jurisdiction you mentioned, why is it suspicious? We are not members of the WCC. We do not believe that Ecumenisim can be purused in that manner. We believe Ecumenisim must begin with frank exchanges about what divides us, not with glossing it over. We cannot be in communion or in fellowship with people we believe have seriously violated the Biblical mandates concerning Christian life and ministry. There are a LOT of Churches that are either only observers or who have outright refrained from joining the WCC.

As I have noted before, I am not aware of a ton of references to the Synod or her clergy offsite, but here are a few that I found, pertaining to Bishop Chuck Huckaby, a bishop in our Synod who is also a Presbyterian pastor:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp? http://www.fatherdave.org/article/article_54.html?PHPSESSID=4b40bf858916155ea0af6c04b674eb91 http://www.firstlawrenceburg.org/ (click on the photo of the sign, you will see his name) http://www.sex-ring-eucharist.com/testimonials-page.htm http://soulfriend.org/

Here is a viewpoint article I wrote for the religion section of my local newspaper. http://www.heraldbulletin.com/story.asp?id=11562

One of our congregations is even listed in a local phone book (All Saints Church, Rome, GA) http://yp.bellsouth.com/yp.dyn?state=GA&city=ROME&heading=CHURCHES&srch=X

As I noted before, we haven't really gone out and started making tons of news. I don't know what would constitute the proof of existence that you seem to want.Father Rob Lyons 15:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sin Star and Mind Pollution

Sin Star, Mind Pollution, Davien Crow. I am afraid this will turn into a block war if this is not resolved. Posters on fansite forums for the band are threatening to re-add, re-write, and do whatever it takes to keep these articles here. I am the owner of one fansite [2] and not affiliated with the band or davien crow at all.

I feel that the equivelant of sock puppets, users/contributors loyal to another user or admin, are being used to keep Sin Star, Mind Pollution deleted , and the nomiation of Davien Crow for Deletion. They have posted false reasons for deletion, they have posted misleading information for deletion, and I the first time around the Admin JIP didn't even pay attention to sock puppetts on either side (as he openly admitted) and deleted me as a sock pupett when I was simply making an account having authored it without one with the aid of Sin-thetik. The process is not working because everyone appears to be biased and ignoring the FACT that the guidelines are being met in severals ways which I discuss on the Davien Crow deletion page. I'm telling you now this isn't going to be the end of this, it's not a threat on my behalf, you are talking about a band that has fans who tricked MTV.com into posting about them. So PLEASE RESOLVE THE PROBLEMS, they were unfairly deleted and Unfairly judged. The votes were biased and socks.

Please view my arguments towards un-delting Sin Star and Mind Pollution amd keeping Davien Crow from being deleted... It is the very long section under "1.2 MY ARGUMENT ABOUT WHY THESE ARTICLES SHOULD BE KEPT" here is a link to the current discussion HERE I didnt know the proper tag to go to that page so excuse the external link syntax. G4DGET 22:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here from bottom of page. --cesarb 22:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
sorry about that ) : I'm still getting used to things G4DGET 22:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sin Star (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mind Pollution (2nd nomination)

  • Keep deleted. Legit delete vote; it was pretty much unanimous once socks were factored out. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment This has nothing to do about the legitament vote. As far as I am concerned you all voted like puppetts because your in a little clique together (apparently from looking around). Sin-thetik 03:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to hear your explainations because I will keep putting it back up, or someone else will until somone provides an actual explaination to why it does not fit the guidelines. Your the puppetts, your just old ones Sin-thetik 23:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And comments like that are not going to win you any fans. You are entitled to have your say on this page, however threats that you will keep putting it back up and calling everyone who disagrees with you puppetts is just not on. Please stop it. -- Francs

2000 File:Uk flag large.png 23:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Please disregard his rudeness and consider working things out with me. I am willing to work with you guys and discuss why this article is being deleted down. I do however still beleive that some of you were blindly voting. When somone puts that much work into something it is only right to tell them why. Please review View My argument against its deletion here please I wish to continue contributing to Wikipedia and your really tuning me against it, not that I've just started. G4DGET 03:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2000 File:Uk flag large.png 23:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment no there was no only 1 valid keep that's total b/s.Sin-thetik 03:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and unlist due to persistent sockpuppet abuse and no valid reason to undelete. Threats that some forum people are going to "re-add, re-write, and do whatever it takes to keep" don't have the intended effect of fear, as it only takes a second or two for any admin to protect the empty page to permanently prevent re-creation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You are not getting the point at all. You are all in your what mid 30s , 40s ? And you can't take the time to answer a simple question. You have no explained jack shit about WHY the page should be deleted. You are only pointing out VOTES. And most of your votes are totally Biased wether or not it's because of my rudeness or not. But your beinf totally unfair. RULES ARE THERE

FOR A REASON and you guys can't even keep your own so why should I keep them myself ? Sin-thetik 03:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted, valid AfDs, too much footwear involved. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WTF is footwear. GOD YOU PEOPLE ARENT LISTENING AT ALL Sin-thetik 03:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, valid AfDs and the nomination deals with precisely the sorts of things that the purpose of this page says are not for the dealing with. -Splashtalk 00:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The decisions were both well within reasonable bounds. Rossami (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment how were they in reasonable bounds when they meet all of your guidelines ? Is noone here going to explain to WHY the articles have been deleted ? There was a lot of work put into them by Gadget, Myself, and another. BTW No amount of banning would ever save you from me, that's not a threat, it's the truth but don't take it as being belligerent. However it would be totally unfair to the band whom is not involved in this to be blocked from having their page made when they satisfy your standards and you ALL STOP BEING BIASED AND TOTALLY IGNORING MY QUESTIONS. Sin-thetik 03:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing about this page is that it is not here to repeat the questions of the deletion debates. The answers to your questions, much as I expect you dislike them, are already to be found there. The purpose of this page is to consider if the interpretation of that debate by the deleting admin was incorrect in some way. That's a very specific purpose, and you are very unlikely to be able to cause a repetition of the original debate by bringing it here. See the yellow box a bit further up the page: this page is about process, not content. Sorry. And a closing admin is traditionally granted fairly wide (though not infinite) discretion in their closure: so we ask "were they within reason to reach the interpretation they did?". Though you intensely disagree with the debates, I think you'd have to agree that, once the very new users are discounted (as they almost always are), the admins were correct in seeing a consensus to delete. If you do not agree, the right persuasion to adopt here is to demonstrate precisely how the closing admins incorrectly interpreted the debate. -Splashtalk 03:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But you see the closing Admin admitted even the first time that he didn't even pay attention to the votes himself, didn't even check for puppetts, or otherwise. I am saying that I think the sites were deleted due to an unfair process. I am hoping you will all consider to change your votes. This article has not even had time to grow, I'm sure there is plenty more other people may contribute to it. I think the closing Admins did not review the facts and I would like it if that was taken into account ! G4DGET 03:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • I AM THE AUTHOR EVERYONE STOP FIGHTING AND PLEASE LISTEN I am the author of the pages, Sin-thetik calm down I know you contributed a lot. I am asking you all to please disregard the Rudeness of the co-author of these documents and please review the information I provided and considered changing your votes. I do not want to see Sin-thetik or somone else to start vandalizing things just as much as you guys don't and I think it's stupid people are threatening it. I will however fight my hardest to legitamently get these articles back. I beleive that the closinf Admins did not review the votes properly (most have admited to that) and that the facts were never reviewed by anyone who voted that show why these articles meet your guidelines. So Please follow the links about to the discussion, and if you would be kind enough to do so please explain to us just why Sin Star, Davien Crow, and Mind Pollution are being allowed to be voted down again under false allegations when it is pretty clear they are notable enough (especially Davien Crow) to be on here. Please consider the my very detailed post on how they fit into wikipedia's Rules and Guidelines .... View My argument against its deletion here please G4DGET 03:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What fighting? There's one guy acting like lunatic -- the fellow on your side -- and a bunch of editors telling him why his threats and tantrums are meaningless. And the articles have been/will be deleted because pretty much every single assertion in your above paragraph is not only false, but obviously so. --Calton | Talk 16:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment PLEASE try to understand my position on this. I am not trying to have this rediscussed I am trying to have those who voted it down re-view the facts and for the Administration involved to review the facts because I don't beleive the vote had any basis. This is why we keep asking for an explaination, because some of you will say "does not fit WP:MUSIC or Vanity .. when it is UNDISPUTABLE that that is false. So if the Vote was made blind to facts then something WAS wrong with the process. So Please be willing to talk this out with me if needed.... AND Like I said please be willing to go and review the information I provided in the discussion on View this page on behalf of all 3 articles ! G4DGET 03:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair, the objection raised above is a valid reason to come to VFU. It's been handled poorly appallingly, but let's try to not bite. A call for a block of G4DGET thus seems outside the pale, although Sin-thetik needs some serious tuning up. The Davien_Crow page actually looks fairly good, although it could still use a copyedit. We should be trying a bit harder to make these folks into positive contributers.
      brenneman(t)(c) 05:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The articles were already on deletion twice and there is no reason why the bands should be any more notable now. User:G4DGET is spamming this VfU discussion, people's talk pages, and the administrators' noticeboard with comments about these articles. He appears to have resorted to sock puppets again. If he keeps this up he should be blocked. — JIP | Talk 05:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The AfDs were called correctly given the wholescale sockpuppetry on these articles. David | Talk 11:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Valid VAfD. Undeleting an article simply because fans on fan sites threaten to bring down Wikipedia is giving in. The AfD was closed appropriately,after factoring in the socks. Looks like we're also having a sock invasion here. --Deathphoenix 15:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and clean out the sock drawer. --Sean Jelly Baby? 16:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, protect the page, and block User:Sin-thetik for 24 hours to let him get a grip on himself. --Calton | Talk 16:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Gauci

AfD debate

  • Undelete As the discussions were based on nobility more so then this man himself. I firmly believe that Charles Gauci biography needs to be shorten but not deleted.--Tancarville, 6.59, 23 September 2005, (EST)
  • Keep deleted. Valid vfd. Gamaliel 21:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, AfDed correctly, despite some sockpuppetry. --fvw* 21:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted valid VfD/Afd. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I count this as 6D/5k, discounting unsigned and annon votes, and the vote that was the voter's first edit. Perahps others were discounted by the closer. Not sure how I would have votes on the AfD page, the publsihed books would have weighed more hevily with me than the title, but there was some scent of vanity. If undeleted, this one surely ought to be relisted on AfD. DES (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discounts are easy: anon, the doctor, Preziosi, Roderick Mallia, Maltesecount, Zepplin. That leaves the deleters as Maltesedog, Molotov, Caerwine, Quale, Hoary (userfy is a delete, remember and can be done irrespective), so 5 of them. The keepers are Tancarville, and possibly Rich Farmborough. Numerically, it's 5d-2k at best for the keepers. The debate on both sides is unbecoming. I don't like the fact that the closing admin was an active participant in a divided debate, but that is not out of process, and he appears to have closed against his own sentiments. The debate seems to establish that being Maltese nobility, or of Maltese noble descent does not make one inherently notable and those involved were clearly not persuaded that he is otherwise notable. The closure was reasonable. Keep deleted. -Splashtalk 21:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a point of fact, userfy is not and has never been a delete. It is a move. Anybody can do it; this in itself is a pretty good clue that it isn't a delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, and then the redirect that's left behind is deleted (either immediately or a little later) which can only be done by an admin — it is removed from article space. -Splashtalk 21:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The instructions for moving an article to a user page include directions to delete the resulting redirect. (Redirects should not exist from article space to user space.) I think that would qualify it as a delete according to policy. - GRRR, Splash cut off my response... :)- Tεxτurε 21:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete I agree with the started of this topic. G4DGET 22:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. I concur with Splash's assessment. Rossami (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Valid VAfD. This page is for discussions about process, not notability or a debate between keep and delete. --Deathphoenix 15:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep delete - Valid vfd - Tεxτurε 20:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Federer's playing style

AfD debate

This was an excellent entry overviewing Roger Federer's playing style, who is considered by many tennis professionals to be the greatest ever to play the game from a technical standpoint.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.240.2 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Deleted. Valid AfD. android79 16:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Valid VAfD. --Deathphoenix 16:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were 5 'votes' from registered accounts. Of these, 4 voted to delete outright, and one (Krocha12345), who has made 7 contribs since joining on the 6th, voted to keep. There was some discussion over (a) the legality of deleting the page once its contents were merged to Roger Federer, which led to (b) one delete voter revising his vote to just merge, before (c) Cryptic made some edifying comments about the matter and pointed out that it can in fact be done (and made a good argument why in this case it should be—it's a poor redirect). If Woohookitty discounted Krocha12345's opinion when s/he closed (as s/he is entitled to), we are left with 3D, 1M—and the only reason that M was changed from D is that the voter had been misinformed as to its validity, and likely didn't revisit the AfD after Cryptic had made his remarks. Even accepting 3:1, it was clearly reasonable to call a delete. On a related matter, I would argue that this should have been deleted anyway: it is a verbatim copy of a blog post (not the other way round). I disagree that the copyright status is resolved simply by the blog author writing that WP "mirrors" his post. The blog is marked © 2004-05 Ram Mallika. If the author really wanted to release under GFDL, a clearer statement resolving the copyright status needs to be made. As to content issues, seemingly in vogue these days, I do not see how this material, suitably rewritten, does not more aptly belong in the main article. Keep deleted.—encephalonεγκέφαλον 17:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted valid AfD close, provided that the history of any content that has been merged is preserved somewhere, and a link to it or some indication of the history location is provided on Talk:Roger Federer. I find User:Encephalon's commetns above, and Cryptic's comments durign the AfD discussion persuasive. DES (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, and remind everyone once more that the GFDL doesn't force us to keep the current article in its current place, merely that the original author must be attributed somewhere. --fvw* 21:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The discussion was fairly conducted. If anything, the discussion overlooked what was, in my mind, the major failing of the article. The contents were original research (which, for those of you new to Wikipedia has a very specific meaning to us - if you're not familiar with it, please look it up). Rossami (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Kosick

While the article should be deleted (and AfD on it was in progress), the Speedy procedure here involved serious and high-handed flaws that undermine the community's trust in Speedy and in the reliability of admins. The history is:

  1. The claim of WP:CSD#A7 (no assertion of notability) was made at 15:36, and disputed at 15:45. The disputing editor removed the speedy tag in accordance with the 2nd sentence of A7 (but erred in not placing the article on AfD).
  2. A new editor reasserted A7 at 19:15, and (perhaps in obedience to the requirement of inspecting the history before implementing speedy) replaced that tag at 19:17 with AfD, thereby remedying the previous editor's error. Both the removal of their own speedy tag, and the statement "I can understand that it might not meet the CSD" were assertions of the disputed status that precludes A7-based deletion.
  3. Another new editor asserted, 21 minutes later (19:38), WP:CSD#G1 (Wikipedia:patent nonsense, which is subdivided into (1) "no assignable meaning at all" and the less severe category (2) (emphasis added by me) "so ... confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it"). The text was perfectly grammatical and clear, and while the two perfectly transparent misspellings may be careless or even ignorant, they are neither "confused" nor even confusing. (So G1 was clearly non-applicable.)
  4. At 19:42 (in a non-destructive ed-conf with that editor), i voted for deletion. I gave non-notability as reason, but asserted "I agree there is an implicit assertion via tone to the contrary...", further disputing the applicability of A7. I continued "...but it is so absurd an assertion that i would not squawk if it were speedied as vandalism." At the risk of being to subtle for WP, i
    _ _ avoided advocating G3 (speedy for vandalism) when i admitted i would find it a case of de minimus non curat Jerzius, and in fact
    _ _ implicitly rejected all other grounds by mentioning only the one that i damned with faint praise.
  5. (At 21:20, i urged the G1-asserting editor to remove the tag as unjustified by WP:PN. As my msg was only on that editor's talk page, and as there is no evidence of that editor being aware of that request before the Speedy became a fait accompli, this is not evidence of defective speedy procedure. However, the failure of that editor to respond since adds to the context of disregard for the prescribed procedures, and aggravates the air of vigilantism that erodes confidence in all our policies.)
  6. At 23:03, yet another editor effected the deletion, summarizing with "(nn-bio)", that is A7, non-notability.

_ _ Thus i assert that the deletion was contrary to policy:

  1. Bcz CSD were not met:
    1. A7 could not apply bcz it was clearly disputed by two participants, and the reality of that dispute acknowledged by a third, and
    2. A1 could not apply bcz patent nonsense as explicated in WP:PN clearly was not present, and further bcz it was not even mentioned by the admin doing the deletion.
  2. Further, bcz this situation (deletion advocates arguing for AfD and against speedy, and thus exposing the subjectivity of the grounds claimed) imposed responsibilities on any admin that are not explicitly stated, including (even if CSD had been met) implicit acknowledgement of the legitimacy of views other than the admin's, and thus
    • tagging in advance that is accurate as to the grounds for the contemplated speedy deletion, and
    • a decent interval for comment.

_ _ For these reasons, the article should be undeleted, and the AfD clock restarted.
--Jerzy•t 09:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted. Entire contents of articles were: "Rick Kosick was born in July of last year, a churubic and sweet baby he was soon cast in the musical 'Cats'. Horray!", which is a perfect case for me speedying it under CSD A7. It does not matter for how long the (rather silly) article has been lying around AfD for, it remains a speedy. -Splashtalk 10:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted though really not patent nonsense, this is almost a "textbook" example of criteria A7, and possibly A1 as well. Also, no reasonable chance to pass AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Valid speedy under A7, A1, and WP:IAR. "Rick Kosick was born in July of last year, a churubic and sweet baby he was soon cast in the musical 'Cats'. Horray!" Nominator states "the article should be deleted," so, if nobody wants the article, common sense says we should keep it deleted. Please, let's focus on the content of Wikipedia, not "the principle of the thing." Dpbsmith (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Manifestly was a speedy candidate and it really doesn't matter if anyone got confused over procedure. Results are more important than procedure on Wikipedia. David | Talk 13:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted Sounds like a valid A7 to me. The statement that says "If a claim is disputed, take to AfD" but that doesn't, IMO mean that any dispute proves that there is a claim, it means that if there is a claim, at least arguably, but you dispute its validity, you should that to AfD rather than usign the speedy tag. Here there seems to be no shadow of a claim. DES (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted. Validly speedied as vandalism. Doesn't really matter if A1 or A7 applies – this is junk and should be wiped on sight. android79 15:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Looks like a valid A7 speedy to me as well. --Deathphoenix 16:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, let's not have any more legalism and proceduralism than strictly necessary. --fvw* 21:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • _ _ Comment: Thanks to all who responded. Sometimes i go around w/ my hd UMA, and getting clear abt the fact, via this many clearly and civilly stated votes, is better, really, than getting yr own way. My biggest misgiving abt the experience is my need now to think thru how close to WP:Point i wandered (which thinking is also for the best, of course).
    _ _ BTW, the colleague whose WP:PN citation i decried has now responded quite appropriately (and i think not out of embarrassment at being indirectly referred to) about rethinking that.
    --Jerzy•t 22:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 21

Ryan Moore

Please bring this article about the upcoming golfer back. There are many other articles about golfers, so please bring this back. Apparently, it was vandalized, but the admin deleted it instead of reverting it. WriterFromAfar755 21:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete - Anyone who has been to the masters gets my vote. Looks like a mistake after vandalism by 17-year old "Ryan Lyndon Moore" who tried to hijack the article and turn it into vanity. (Don't confuse this with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood Line which had an Australian Ryan Moore as well. - That August version deleted by VfD should not be restored.) - Tεxτurε 21:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seem to be a substantial number of edits for an article deleted via {{empty}}. if the admins can assure us that one of the versions (after the VfD deletion) did not qualify under this speedy criterion, then undelete. This should remind admins that before doign s speedy delte the page history should be checked -- it may be that a revert will do the job. DES (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article prior to vandalism did not qualify for speedy deletion. I will temporarily undelete valid versions so you can review. If the consensus is to undelete I will keep it undeleted. - Tεxτurε 21:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Ref. This scenario is apparently not uncommon. What happens is a vandal comes along and damages a page (by blanking or turning it into an attack page, for example). An editor then shows up and, without noticing the history, promptly tags it with one of the CSDs; an admin then deletes, compounding the error. I just had a similar experience myself when I came across an inaccurately tagged CSD for an "attack" page, edited it to display the correct rule (A6), and then noticed the history just in time.—encephalonεγκέφαλον 22:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. This is why the speedy tag urges admins to check the history. It's not an optional extra — it's an important part of the speedy process. -Splashtalk 22:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, which seems to have been done already. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Current version shows someone who's played in several major golf tournaments. - Mgm|(talk) 13:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Content review

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

History only undeletion

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

Votes for undeletion

September 26

Neutrality's POINT now includes speedies: [3]

There are three articles on that list, I am adding headings for each of them below. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woodlands Ring Secondary School

20:46, 25 September 2005 Neutrality deleted "Woodlands Ring Secondary School" (Content was: 'Woodlands Ring Secondary School (WRSS) is located at Woodlands Ring Rd, near Woodlands Ring Primary School, Woodlands NPC and NS10'). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mansfield Summit High School

20:45, 25 September 2005 Neutrality deleted "Mansfield Summit High School" (content was: '{{Cleanup}} A High School or Secondary Institution in Arlington, Texas. Part of the Mansfield School DistrictEnrollment: 350...') Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kleb Intermediate School

20:42, 25 September 2005 Neutrality deleted "Kleb Intermediate School" (content was: 'Kleb Intermediate School is a secondary school in Harris County, Texas. The school, which is considered to be located in the community of Klein,...') Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 25

Comment This page should be the last resort for problems of this type, not the first. Any dispute brought here without some attempt at communication between parties should be summarily removed. I fail to see evidence that Bryan has tried to talk to Neutrality about any of this. Iff talks come to nothing, then bring it back here.
brenneman(t)(c) 06:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, I agree with the sentiment. However, this should, I think, lead you to ask that the nominations be removed until such time as efforts to talk things out with Neutrality fail. But below, you have voted to "keep deleted"; this is an opinion on the merits of the AfD—a judgment which by the above objection you're indicating should not be made until the AfDs are legitimately tabled in VfU for discussion. Normally one may let this subtle point pass, but in these cases the apparent process violations seem to me so egregious that every KD vote must have compelling reasons to be posted, if we are expected to take them seriously.—encephalonεγκέφαλον 09:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do not oppose the sentiment, however, I see nowhere in Wikipedia:Undeletion policy or elsewhere that the VfU process is a last resort, nor anything in policy to support your contention that "Any dispute brought here without some attempt at communication between parties should be summarily removed." It would seem to do so would be a further violation of the suffrage policy to simply, and arbitrarily remove VfU nominations because a nominator has not discussed the issue with the closer. Agreed with encephalon that the process violations appear to be particularly egregious. In this case, these AfD closures (whether you agree with them or not) are quite clearly "out of process" as defined by WP Policy where the closer has effectively ignored the concensus. No VfU is required as per the Exception policy and a sysop should restore these articles (at the very least the Crescent Park Elementary School article) without the need for the VfU process to continue this already acrimonious wrangle over school articles, which has now been elevated to policy and process violations.--Nicodemus75 11:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Voting below to keep deleted on reasons other than the merits of the nomination are straying dangerously close to WP:POINT, I'm afraid. And no, the nominations will not be removed from this page. -Splashtalk 15:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm mildly disappointed in what has been said. VfU certainly is not a "last resort" path.
James F. (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The point was made by Bryan bringing the articles here without any attempt at resolution. I believe if you'll re-read my notes above, you'll see that I am voting on the merits of the nominations, and I state clearly that they should be returned to this page if discussion fails. While talks occur, the status of the articles should not change. Thus "keep deleted, remove from page". I also notice that Ausir restored "Crescent Park Elementary School", as well. My immense dissapointment that process appears to be taken over from communication has not changed. Over two thousand words wasted here!
brenneman(t)(c) 23:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, employing the available process correctly is not a WP:POINT. That there is an alternative route does not make this perfectly valid one invalid. It certainly does not make disruptive. -Splashtalk 23:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality's rationale

We must remember that "rough consensus" does not mean "overwhelming majority." Consider that the articles have not significantly improved since their nomination. Also note that though a concerted attempt was made by an organized group to vote as a bloc, and despite their organization was outnumbered by votes to delete. Further note that all of the articles nominated for nomination here were stubs with little or no information about the subject. --Neutralitytalk 15:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, discounting an anon nom: one was majority keep, one was tied, and one non-consensus majority for delete. Personal dislike of an article is no basis for ignoring a vote. --rob 18:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about moving all this discussion to the talk page rather than a seperate header here? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not part of discussion of VfU in general, and is highly specific to these debates. It is also highly relevant. A couple of participants below have siad they'd like to see the closing admin's rationale: so it should stay here. -Splashtalk 23:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To claim that the keep voters were voting as a bloc without seriously considering that the delete voters do the same is to simply ignore the facts in favor of the POV you prefer. This is not neutral, and it's not the kind of conduct we deserve to expect from an administrator, much less an arbitrator. This is at least the second time you've pushed your POV regarding schools by use of extreme action; please stop gaming the system to enforce your view. Unfocused 02:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While there is obvious factionalism on WP concerning schools, and some find this factionalism to be inherently distasteful (even some of us who would confess to willfully participating in said factionalism), the very notion that there is an inclusionist, "organized group [voting] as a bloc" is completely unsubstantiated (to my knowledge). There may be instances where individual editors contact one another about current school AfDs, discuss them, indeed even encourage others to vote to "keep" or to "delete" (many editors "urge" others to vote a particular way right on the AfD pages themselves) - but there is no evidence presented anywhere that there is bloc voting by an organized group. As Un has keenly pointed out, there is every bit as much evidence that "delete" voters have organized bloc voting (ie. none) and to level such a serious charge (which effectively constitutes a charge of massive and systematic disruption and bad faith needs to be backed up facts, not rhetoric. It should be deeply concerning to the entire WP community that an Arbitrator Admin has levelled such a baseless and serious accusation against voters who in good faith vote their opinions on school-related AfDs. Despite the fact that I had assumed Good Faith in my initial comments and votes on these closures, I fear that this accusation casts serious doubt as to whether or not these AfD closures were indeed in good faith.--Nicodemus75 03:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Michael's School (Cranford, New Jersey)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Michael's School (Cranford, New Jersey) - 12 keep, 15 delete. Bryan 05:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. An article about a school should not be vanity, and this contradicts the opinion of the proposer of the deletion.
  2. Proposer of the deletion is an anonymous user, and therefore does NOT satisfy to voice on wikipedia policies (inc. deletion, of course) Deryck C. 13:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is always incorrect. Anons can and do nominate articles perfectly validly, and can and do participate in the discussion. There is just a strong likelihood of their comments being disregarded. See WP:GAFD among others. -Splashtalk 15:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crescent Park Elementary School

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crescent Park Elementary School had roughly 19 keeps and 2 merges versus 15 deletes. Bryan 05:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manila_Waldorf_School

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Manila Waldorf School had roughly 12 keeps, 13 deletes. Kappa 03:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 24

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles:

THESE ARE NOW LISTED INDIVIDUALLY BELOW

I request that the articles listed individually below be undeleted. I believe the basis for their deletion was erroneous, and counter to the votes that were cast for them in the (admittedly overly complicated) mass AfD of fifteen color articles.

Redwolf24 's comment on closing this AfD was:

Delete. This is very annoying that they're grouped in one afd and they should each have their own section. Some people just said delete all, and so I will do as such. Some colors here should stay probably, and thus someone should list them on VfU. However I am just gonna delete every color in the heading.

There are two flaws with this reasoning. First, although I agree that this mass nomination led to confusion, I put fair labor into parsing out the votes on the AfD's talk page, and put notices to that effect addressed to the closing admin at the top and bottom of the page. Several voters in the AfD contacted me to assure me that I had correctly listed their votes in this breakdown. Second, even if a single response to all nominations was appropriate, it would be no consensus for all, not delete all. There were only 10 voters who made unequivocal calls to delete all of these, compared to 11 voters who voted to keep at least one (even if deleting the rest), and 4 voters supprting a merge of at least one. In such a situation, erring on the side of keeping leaves the door open for future individual AfD nominations, and I would argue that it is the better practice.-- BDAbramson talk 02:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, not the best AfD and not the best way of closing it. Keep deleted all but Fire Engine red and Rose though. --fvw* 02:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do realise you've just created a Mass-VfU here that's going to have all the same problems, right? --fvw* 02:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It shouldn't - the only question to be answered in this VfU is whether the AfD was closed properly, on the basis of the votes cast. I argue that the same error was made as to all of the above named colors, and I believe my talk-page breakdown of the actual votes cast for each bears out that there was simply no consensus to delete any of the five listed. -- BDAbramson talk 02:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mass things like this where some may be great and some may be terrible don't do any good. I notice that all admins had stayed away from that AfD and I thought that would be the best way to close it, unless you wanted me to write THE RESULT FOR X WAS KEEP! THE RESULT FOR Y WAS NO CONSENSUS! See when you mass things together like this, people voted Delete all or they voted Delete all except fire engine red, etc. I see no fault in the way I closed it. And I'd appreciate it if you seperated these. Once you do here's my votes: Undelete all except fire brick red. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passing the buck to VfU isn't really the right way to close an AfD — if the closing admin is unsure of what to do (or doesn't want to do it), they shouldn't do it. That's why I didn't close that AfD when I did a large chunk of that day earlier. Now, BDAbramson's count is, I am going to presume, correct. My temptation is to simply undelete the whole lot in the AfD and relist them all individually as the only way to be sure. The same error was effectively present in each closure since the statement admits a blanket decision lacking individual consideration for any article. But I am persuadable to only undeleting those listed here, or even only to those Fvw lists, since the others are within the realm of admin discretion — but there is an admission that the admin did not use their discretion on them. -Splashtalk 02:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems ridiculous. I doubt any editor would be willing to close it, so I did, but without wasting 20 minutes of my time which I used for other AfD's. All I'm doing by passing it to VfU is wasting 20 seconds of the time of anyone bothering to vote. Just saying don't close it if you don't know what to do in a case like this won't work, as that way no one will close it, thats why we have days and days of backlogs on AfD because those days will have 1 or 2 AfD's which are rather controversial on what to do, and I seem to always be the admin closing them. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The participatory audience at VfU is always much smaller than at AfD. More importantly, VfU has a different remit: "was the closer reasonable in their decision?". So passing an AfD decision (based on content) to VfU is changing the question that is being asked. -Splashtalk 03:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And kudos to BDAbramson for his sterling work on the AfD and this VfU. Perhaps we should just abolish colour and be done with. -Splashtalk 03:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete all. This deletion clearly did not have consensus, as even the closer mentioned: "Some people just said delete all, and so I will do as such." "Some people" is not enough to delete an article; at least half should favor its deletion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete all, relist separately.  Grue  06:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete all, relist separately. Grouping them together can lead to "guilt by association." Each should be considered on their own merits. -- Norvy (talk) 06:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete all, extremely poor closure. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete all and relist separately, some at least seem to have merit.--Cactus.man >Reply 12:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete all and relist separately. Rose, Raspberry and fire engine red are probably going to be the only ones kept and Terra Cotta merged (based on previous results) but we should consider them all individually. --Celestianpower hab 13:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fire brick red

I request that this article be undeleted. The votes for this listing in the mass nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles were 14 to delete, 4 to keep, 4 to merge. -- BDAbramson talk 02:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fire engine red

I request that this article be undeleted. The votes for this listing in the mass nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles were 13 to delete, 10 to keep, 3 to merge. -- BDAbramson talk 02:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raspberry (color)

I request that this article be undeleted. The votes for this listing in the mass nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles were 13 to delete, 8 to keep, 4 to merge. -- BDAbramson talk 02:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rose (color)

I request that this article be undeleted. The votes for this listing in the mass nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles were 12 to delete, 11 to keep, 3 to merge. -- BDAbramson talk 02:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terra cotta (color)

I request that this article be undeleted. The votes for this listing in the mass nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles were 11 to delete, 6 to keep, 7 to merge, and 1 unclear vote. -- BDAbramson talk 02:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intensity of Binary Independence

I request that this article be undeleted. This is published and peer-reviewed information and evidently was requested for deletion by someone antagonistic to the subject matter.--Fahrenheit451 21:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck the South

AfD closer did not follow Wikipedia consensus guidelines for AfD. 17 deletes (including the nominator) to 10 keeps and 1 merge is certainly NOT a consensus for delete in accordance with established procedure for closing AfD items, especially considering one of the deletes was the user's 5th edit. 17/11 (or 16/11, 17/10/1, or 16/10/1) is short of the 2/3 typically called for to delete. Unfocused 18:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I asked why he deleted with only 61% in favor of deletion, AfD closer stated on my talk page that he "didn't just go on numbers", he also "went on the content of the votes". Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 19:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Undeleted I have taken the liberty of undeleting the article since it seems that is what the consensus is to do. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 19:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 21:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Just to clarify, I do not have the power to reverse my own decision at this point so it still stands at being closed as deleted, I did however undelete due to the fact that consensus, at least at the time I undeleted, was to undelete. If consensus on this VFU is to keep deleted then it can be easily redeleted. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 02:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 23

Battle of Yungay

It was speedied because the admin who came across it viewed it as "nonsense". In fact, the subject is an actual (fairly important) battle between Chile and an alliance of Bolivia and Peru, and from what I was able to read of the content (which was written in poor and broken, but very salvageable, English), the article was describing just that battle. Just because a contributor's grasp on the English language and understanding of Wikisyntax are both lacking is no reason to speedy his contributions as "nonsense". Kurt Weber 19:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I can understand why this was deleted as nonsense, but if we can get a volunteer to quickly turn it into a usable stub (do I see a hand, Kurt?) I wouldn't oppose undeletion. Also, this looks like a copy-and-paste from another electronic source, though I can't find it on the web. As such, it may be better to start from scratch rather than from a copyvio. android79 19:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I knew enough about the subject, I would. As it was, the article as it was originally, though it was poorly written, provided a wealth of information and would be fine with a cleanup and wikification. At times things like this are a matter of principle; clean it up, don't delete it. Kurt Weber 20:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Could an admin provide a quick note about the contents of this article? I'd be inclined to undeleting it, but if the text is rambling or is a copyvio, we might be better off starting from scratch, as Android says. --Deathphoenix 19:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - The article starts with
"Table of contents [ to hide ] * 1 Antecedents * the 2 ejercitos and their 3 compared situations * the battle ... "
showing it to be a cut-and-past mess. About a page worth of one paragraph. The brackets throughout around probable links show it to be a cut-and-past of a website or electronic encyclopedia. Later links "[ to publish ]" make me think it came from a blog. - Tεxτurε 20:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is quite clear that the original contributor is ignorant of wikisyntax. Is it not possible that he (incorrectly) believed that he must MANUALLY create the table of contents, unaware that it would be done for him if the article had enough sections in it? You will notice, for instance, that the auto-generated table of contents have the word "hide" bracketed, and it is not inconceivable that a non-native English speaker wound not understand the difference between "hide" and "to hide". I think, until you can provide something beyond mere speculation (such as a link or pointer (if not an online resource) to the source of this alleged copyvio), it's rather premature to write off as a copyvio a contribution that, while obviously written by someone with a poor understanding of English and use of the Wiki, is nonetheless substantially worthwhile. Kurt Weber 20:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggested solution This article is pretty bad, bad enough that we'd probably be a better encyclopedia with no article than with this one. However, I agree that the battle is notable and should have an article. How about if I undelete the article, and if no significant changes are made in, say, a week, it gets deleted again? Any objections? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's actually what I was just about to do...I had just listed it on Cleanup and was heading back to do some work on it myself when I saw it had been deleted. Kurt Weber 20:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? You yourself say it's pretty bad and I think it is likely a copyright violation anyway. Why not just start the article yourself or leave it so someone else can? Objection? Not to mention that an admin should not unilaterally undelete an article that is currently under voting on VfU. Why not just wait until the VfU is over or at least until an overwhelming consensus exists one way or the other. - Tεxτurε 20:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Woah, hold on there. I didn't "unilaterally undelete" the article, I merely posted a suggestion to try to gather a consensus toward a compromise between keeping it deleted and simple undeletion. I certainly think my suggestion is better than simple undeletion, because if that happens we'll be stuck with this awful article even if nobody fixes it, unless somebody bothers to give it a VfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, this looks like a machine-enabled translation of an article from one of the other language Wikipedias (though I can also see Texture's argument that it might be a translation from a blog). It definitely was not patent nonsense in the very strict way we use that term. Neither do we have evidence that it was a copyvio. Undelete as an improper speedy. Mark it for clean-up. If no clean-up occurs in a reasonable time, then nominate it for a full AFD discussion. Rossami (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no speedy criterion that this article met, and speedying it as nonsense was out-of-process. Only patent nonsense is speediable and this text is entirely legible and understandable. However, it is almost certainly a copyright violation as Texture has pointed out, although I am unable to locate it in Google. If it is undeleted in its current form, the only correct course of action would be to slap a {{copyvio}} on it and leave it for further investigation. I was going to suggest temporarily undelete, userfy to Kmweber and redelete for research and writing. But we'd still be keeping likely copyvio text on-Wiki so I suppose we can't do that. If it is really wanted I suppose we should undelete and {{copyvio}}, that being the correct process in the first place. The article will be available from its history for 7 days, and Kmweber can put a stub (or even an article) on the /Temp page. -Splashtalk 20:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allen3 points out that it is, indeed a machine translation from another Wikipedia. This text must, unless I misunderstand, be under the GFDL and fine for us to have on board. Tagged for cleanup and wikification, this is fine. Undelete. -Splashtalk 20:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the admin who deleted this, I have no objection to it being revived if there is actual content there. DJ Clayworth 20:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to have been re-created by the original contributor. Kurt Weber 21:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone else agree to an OBE vote result? - Tεxτurε 21:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A manual translation of a public domain work is IIRC protected by the translator's copyright. I presume that a machine translation confers no such copyright to anyone, but i don't think this discussion should implicitly leave the impression that the copyright status of a translation is no more restrictive than that of the untranslated source. (Actually, i'm curious: does GDFL guarantee that human translations without unnecessary paraphrasing are under GDFL?)--Jerzy•t 21:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm late to the party and this is largely symbolic; undelete per Allen3's excellent work.—encephalonεγκέφαλον 05:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 22

Christian Church - Synod of Saint Timothy

I suppose this is what I get for being at work so much of late ;)

I would like to register a request for undeletion on this subject. There are plenty of small religious groups out there that are listed on Wikipedia. In this instance, it appears that someone who felt an inclusion in a larger, more established article, was inappropriate. That led, ultimately, to a request for deletion.

To delete this subject is essentially a judgement call on what constitutes a valid religious body. I don't believe Wikipedia, its editors, or its readers should make such judgements. Further, there are other sites out there that refer to the Synod of Saint Timothy, the Society of Saint Timothy, and congregations within the Synod.

It also strikes me that one individual made the accusation of the Synod being Monophysite. That is simply not true. Another implied that the Synod was simply a construction of websites. Again, not true. Just because a religious group is small does not make them worthy of exclusion. I happen to be a member of the group, and I am in charge of a hospital chaplaincy in a metropolitan hospital in Indianapolis. If you want to verify existence of a ministry, drop by. I live in a monastic community in Anderson. Stop by. We have a new congregation in Tennessee and a convent there. Stop by. Fifteen years ago, the International Communion of Charismatic Episcopal Churches had four congregations meeting in homes. Today they have hundreds of thousands of members around the world. Our Synod may not be growing that rapidly, but we are growing.

I will admit that placing a referent to the Synod in a larger article (Divine Liturgy to be specific) was, perhaps, unwise. However, to remove the Synod's topic from the listing just seems a bit excessive to me, and seems to make a judgement concerning the validity of its existence.Father Rob Lyons 11:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, and most importantly, the deletion was within policy and even without dissenting vote.
Pjacobi 12:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted, that's what I get for spending too much time at work ;).Father Rob Lyons 14:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to review the (IMHO) two most important arguments of the VfD:

  • There is no secondary source coverage, which means this group of articles is non-verifiable and is inherently POV. Nothing asserted in these articles has any independent verification. The "Ecumenical Orthodox Catholic Communion" seems to be currently sustained on a geocities homepage, and doesn't seem to be distinguishable from a single-person project. (from Sdedeo):Pjacobi 12:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't serve any role in the EOCC, and I have no say in how they choose to muster their web presence.Father Rob Lyons 14:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And my response would be, "How would this user know?" Have they visited one of our congregations in Indiana, Tennessee, Georgia, or Texas? Have they attended a Sunday Liturgy or met with a member of the clergy? Have they bothered to pick up a telephone and call any of the individuals listed with phone numbers? To assume that because an organization is small and has a website that they are thus too much e-presence and not enough real presence is a major jump. Contact our congregations before making assumptions that we don't exist.Father Rob Lyons 14:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was also remarked, that other articles in neighborhood of the deleted one should be reviewed for eventual deletion: Christocephalous, Ecumenical Orthodox Catholic Communion, Gracetide, Society of Saint Timothy, Timothean Rite, and Titusian Rite. I suggest, you consolidate the complete area into one or two articles, where also some information from the deleted article may be included. But by all means, try as hard as possible to find secondary sources verifying the existence of all this.
Pjacobi 12:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem to me that the best way to do this would be to restore the root article and consolidate the material on the Society of Saint Timothy, the Timothean and Titusian Rites, and Gracetide to the article. The articles Christocephalous and Ecumenical Orthodox Catholic Communion should really be considered separately because the Synod is not the only organization that uses those descriptors. As for secondary sources, most of our print material is still under development, so I don't really have any books to refer anyone too. We've never sought any newspaper coverage - at least not in my neck of the woods. Again, the best secondary material is the fact that our congregations and ministries actually exist. I don't know what other secondary material I can refer one to, save calling a phone number and seeing if someone picks up. For example, I work at a secular hospital in Indianapolis. They did a background check and reference check on me, and had to verify my ordination status. When I joined the Synod, I had to submit a new verification on my ordination status. I wouldn't have a job otherwise.Father Rob Lyons
E.g. shouldn't there be some place on the the offical websites of the Syriac Orthodox Church or then Indian Orthodox Church where these distant sister churches are mentioned?:Pjacobi 12:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. We inherited their lines of Apostolic Succession. We are not organically united with them. We also inherited Rome's lines, Canterbury's lines, and Byzantine lines. We haven't applied to them for recognition, so why would they list us?Father Rob Lyons 14:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also suspicious is the anti-World Council of Churches stance, as both the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Indian Orthodox Church are active members of the WCC.
Pjacobi 12:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since we are not members of either jurisdiction you mentioned, why is it suspicious? We are not members of the WCC. We do not believe that Ecumenisim can be purused in that manner. We believe Ecumenisim must begin with frank exchanges about what divides us, not with glossing it over. We cannot be in communion or in fellowship with people we believe have seriously violated the Biblical mandates concerning Christian life and ministry. There are a LOT of Churches that are either only observers or who have outright refrained from joining the WCC.

As I have noted before, I am not aware of a ton of references to the Synod or her clergy offsite, but here are a few that I found, pertaining to Bishop Chuck Huckaby, a bishop in our Synod who is also a Presbyterian pastor:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp? http://www.fatherdave.org/article/article_54.html?PHPSESSID=4b40bf858916155ea0af6c04b674eb91 http://www.firstlawrenceburg.org/ (click on the photo of the sign, you will see his name) http://www.sex-ring-eucharist.com/testimonials-page.htm http://soulfriend.org/

Here is a viewpoint article I wrote for the religion section of my local newspaper. http://www.heraldbulletin.com/story.asp?id=11562

One of our congregations is even listed in a local phone book (All Saints Church, Rome, GA) http://yp.bellsouth.com/yp.dyn?state=GA&city=ROME&heading=CHURCHES&srch=X

As I noted before, we haven't really gone out and started making tons of news. I don't know what would constitute the proof of existence that you seem to want.Father Rob Lyons 15:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sin Star and Mind Pollution

Sin Star, Mind Pollution, Davien Crow. I am afraid this will turn into a block war if this is not resolved. Posters on fansite forums for the band are threatening to re-add, re-write, and do whatever it takes to keep these articles here. I am the owner of one fansite [4] and not affiliated with the band or davien crow at all.

I feel that the equivelant of sock puppets, users/contributors loyal to another user or admin, are being used to keep Sin Star, Mind Pollution deleted , and the nomiation of Davien Crow for Deletion. They have posted false reasons for deletion, they have posted misleading information for deletion, and I the first time around the Admin JIP didn't even pay attention to sock puppetts on either side (as he openly admitted) and deleted me as a sock pupett when I was simply making an account having authored it without one with the aid of Sin-thetik. The process is not working because everyone appears to be biased and ignoring the FACT that the guidelines are being met in severals ways which I discuss on the Davien Crow deletion page. I'm telling you now this isn't going to be the end of this, it's not a threat on my behalf, you are talking about a band that has fans who tricked MTV.com into posting about them. So PLEASE RESOLVE THE PROBLEMS, they were unfairly deleted and Unfairly judged. The votes were biased and socks.

Please view my arguments towards un-delting Sin Star and Mind Pollution amd keeping Davien Crow from being deleted... It is the very long section under "1.2 MY ARGUMENT ABOUT WHY THESE ARTICLES SHOULD BE KEPT" here is a link to the current discussion HERE I didnt know the proper tag to go to that page so excuse the external link syntax. G4DGET 22:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here from bottom of page. --cesarb 22:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
sorry about that ) : I'm still getting used to things G4DGET 22:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sin Star (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mind Pollution (2nd nomination)

  • Keep deleted. Legit delete vote; it was pretty much unanimous once socks were factored out. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment This has nothing to do about the legitament vote. As far as I am concerned you all voted like puppetts because your in a little clique together (apparently from looking around). Sin-thetik 03:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to hear your explainations because I will keep putting it back up, or someone else will until somone provides an actual explaination to why it does not fit the guidelines. Your the puppetts, your just old ones Sin-thetik 23:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And comments like that are not going to win you any fans. You are entitled to have your say on this page, however threats that you will keep putting it back up and calling everyone who disagrees with you puppetts is just not on. Please stop it. -- Francs

2000 File:Uk flag large.png 23:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Please disregard his rudeness and consider working things out with me. I am willing to work with you guys and discuss why this article is being deleted down. I do however still beleive that some of you were blindly voting. When somone puts that much work into something it is only right to tell them why. Please review View My argument against its deletion here please I wish to continue contributing to Wikipedia and your really tuning me against it, not that I've just started. G4DGET 03:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2000 File:Uk flag large.png 23:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment no there was no only 1 valid keep that's total b/s.Sin-thetik 03:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and unlist due to persistent sockpuppet abuse and no valid reason to undelete. Threats that some forum people are going to "re-add, re-write, and do whatever it takes to keep" don't have the intended effect of fear, as it only takes a second or two for any admin to protect the empty page to permanently prevent re-creation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You are not getting the point at all. You are all in your what mid 30s , 40s ? And you can't take the time to answer a simple question. You have no explained jack shit about WHY the page should be deleted. You are only pointing out VOTES. And most of your votes are totally Biased wether or not it's because of my rudeness or not. But your beinf totally unfair. RULES ARE THERE

FOR A REASON and you guys can't even keep your own so why should I keep them myself ? Sin-thetik 03:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted, valid AfDs, too much footwear involved. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WTF is footwear. GOD YOU PEOPLE ARENT LISTENING AT ALL Sin-thetik 03:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, valid AfDs and the nomination deals with precisely the sorts of things that the purpose of this page says are not for the dealing with. -Splashtalk 00:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The decisions were both well within reasonable bounds. Rossami (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment how were they in reasonable bounds when they meet all of your guidelines ? Is noone here going to explain to WHY the articles have been deleted ? There was a lot of work put into them by Gadget, Myself, and another. BTW No amount of banning would ever save you from me, that's not a threat, it's the truth but don't take it as being belligerent. However it would be totally unfair to the band whom is not involved in this to be blocked from having their page made when they satisfy your standards and you ALL STOP BEING BIASED AND TOTALLY IGNORING MY QUESTIONS. Sin-thetik 03:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing about this page is that it is not here to repeat the questions of the deletion debates. The answers to your questions, much as I expect you dislike them, are already to be found there. The purpose of this page is to consider if the interpretation of that debate by the deleting admin was incorrect in some way. That's a very specific purpose, and you are very unlikely to be able to cause a repetition of the original debate by bringing it here. See the yellow box a bit further up the page: this page is about process, not content. Sorry. And a closing admin is traditionally granted fairly wide (though not infinite) discretion in their closure: so we ask "were they within reason to reach the interpretation they did?". Though you intensely disagree with the debates, I think you'd have to agree that, once the very new users are discounted (as they almost always are), the admins were correct in seeing a consensus to delete. If you do not agree, the right persuasion to adopt here is to demonstrate precisely how the closing admins incorrectly interpreted the debate. -Splashtalk 03:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But you see the closing Admin admitted even the first time that he didn't even pay attention to the votes himself, didn't even check for puppetts, or otherwise. I am saying that I think the sites were deleted due to an unfair process. I am hoping you will all consider to change your votes. This article has not even had time to grow, I'm sure there is plenty more other people may contribute to it. I think the closing Admins did not review the facts and I would like it if that was taken into account ! G4DGET 03:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • I AM THE AUTHOR EVERYONE STOP FIGHTING AND PLEASE LISTEN I am the author of the pages, Sin-thetik calm down I know you contributed a lot. I am asking you all to please disregard the Rudeness of the co-author of these documents and please review the information I provided and considered changing your votes. I do not want to see Sin-thetik or somone else to start vandalizing things just as much as you guys don't and I think it's stupid people are threatening it. I will however fight my hardest to legitamently get these articles back. I beleive that the closinf Admins did not review the votes properly (most have admited to that) and that the facts were never reviewed by anyone who voted that show why these articles meet your guidelines. So Please follow the links about to the discussion, and if you would be kind enough to do so please explain to us just why Sin Star, Davien Crow, and Mind Pollution are being allowed to be voted down again under false allegations when it is pretty clear they are notable enough (especially Davien Crow) to be on here. Please consider the my very detailed post on how they fit into wikipedia's Rules and Guidelines .... View My argument against its deletion here please G4DGET 03:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What fighting? There's one guy acting like lunatic -- the fellow on your side -- and a bunch of editors telling him why his threats and tantrums are meaningless. And the articles have been/will be deleted because pretty much every single assertion in your above paragraph is not only false, but obviously so. --Calton | Talk 16:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment PLEASE try to understand my position on this. I am not trying to have this rediscussed I am trying to have those who voted it down re-view the facts and for the Administration involved to review the facts because I don't beleive the vote had any basis. This is why we keep asking for an explaination, because some of you will say "does not fit WP:MUSIC or Vanity .. when it is UNDISPUTABLE that that is false. So if the Vote was made blind to facts then something WAS wrong with the process. So Please be willing to talk this out with me if needed.... AND Like I said please be willing to go and review the information I provided in the discussion on View this page on behalf of all 3 articles ! G4DGET 03:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair, the objection raised above is a valid reason to come to VFU. It's been handled poorly appallingly, but let's try to not bite. A call for a block of G4DGET thus seems outside the pale, although Sin-thetik needs some serious tuning up. The Davien_Crow page actually looks fairly good, although it could still use a copyedit. We should be trying a bit harder to make these folks into positive contributers.
      brenneman(t)(c) 05:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The articles were already on deletion twice and there is no reason why the bands should be any more notable now. User:G4DGET is spamming this VfU discussion, people's talk pages, and the administrators' noticeboard with comments about these articles. He appears to have resorted to sock puppets again. If he keeps this up he should be blocked. — JIP | Talk 05:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The AfDs were called correctly given the wholescale sockpuppetry on these articles. David | Talk 11:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Valid VAfD. Undeleting an article simply because fans on fan sites threaten to bring down Wikipedia is giving in. The AfD was closed appropriately,after factoring in the socks. Looks like we're also having a sock invasion here. --Deathphoenix 15:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and clean out the sock drawer. --Sean Jelly Baby? 16:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, protect the page, and block User:Sin-thetik for 24 hours to let him get a grip on himself. --Calton | Talk 16:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Gauci

AfD debate

  • Undelete As the discussions were based on nobility more so then this man himself. I firmly believe that Charles Gauci biography needs to be shorten but not deleted.--Tancarville, 6.59, 23 September 2005, (EST)
  • Keep deleted. Valid vfd. Gamaliel 21:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, AfDed correctly, despite some sockpuppetry. --fvw* 21:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted valid VfD/Afd. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I count this as 6D/5k, discounting unsigned and annon votes, and the vote that was the voter's first edit. Perahps others were discounted by the closer. Not sure how I would have votes on the AfD page, the publsihed books would have weighed more hevily with me than the title, but there was some scent of vanity. If undeleted, this one surely ought to be relisted on AfD. DES (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discounts are easy: anon, the doctor, Preziosi, Roderick Mallia, Maltesecount, Zepplin. That leaves the deleters as Maltesedog, Molotov, Caerwine, Quale, Hoary (userfy is a delete, remember and can be done irrespective), so 5 of them. The keepers are Tancarville, and possibly Rich Farmborough. Numerically, it's 5d-2k at best for the keepers. The debate on both sides is unbecoming. I don't like the fact that the closing admin was an active participant in a divided debate, but that is not out of process, and he appears to have closed against his own sentiments. The debate seems to establish that being Maltese nobility, or of Maltese noble descent does not make one inherently notable and those involved were clearly not persuaded that he is otherwise notable. The closure was reasonable. Keep deleted. -Splashtalk 21:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a point of fact, userfy is not and has never been a delete. It is a move. Anybody can do it; this in itself is a pretty good clue that it isn't a delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, and then the redirect that's left behind is deleted (either immediately or a little later) which can only be done by an admin — it is removed from article space. -Splashtalk 21:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The instructions for moving an article to a user page include directions to delete the resulting redirect. (Redirects should not exist from article space to user space.) I think that would qualify it as a delete according to policy. - GRRR, Splash cut off my response... :)- Tεxτurε 21:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete I agree with the started of this topic. G4DGET 22:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. I concur with Splash's assessment. Rossami (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Valid VAfD. This page is for discussions about process, not notability or a debate between keep and delete. --Deathphoenix 15:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep delete - Valid vfd - Tεxτurε 20:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Federer's playing style

AfD debate

This was an excellent entry overviewing Roger Federer's playing style, who is considered by many tennis professionals to be the greatest ever to play the game from a technical standpoint.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.240.2 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Deleted. Valid AfD. android79 16:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Valid VAfD. --Deathphoenix 16:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were 5 'votes' from registered accounts. Of these, 4 voted to delete outright, and one (Krocha12345), who has made 7 contribs since joining on the 6th, voted to keep. There was some discussion over (a) the legality of deleting the page once its contents were merged to Roger Federer, which led to (b) one delete voter revising his vote to just merge, before (c) Cryptic made some edifying comments about the matter and pointed out that it can in fact be done (and made a good argument why in this case it should be—it's a poor redirect). If Woohookitty discounted Krocha12345's opinion when s/he closed (as s/he is entitled to), we are left with 3D, 1M—and the only reason that M was changed from D is that the voter had been misinformed as to its validity, and likely didn't revisit the AfD after Cryptic had made his remarks. Even accepting 3:1, it was clearly reasonable to call a delete. On a related matter, I would argue that this should have been deleted anyway: it is a verbatim copy of a blog post (not the other way round). I disagree that the copyright status is resolved simply by the blog author writing that WP "mirrors" his post. The blog is marked © 2004-05 Ram Mallika. If the author really wanted to release under GFDL, a clearer statement resolving the copyright status needs to be made. As to content issues, seemingly in vogue these days, I do not see how this material, suitably rewritten, does not more aptly belong in the main article. Keep deleted.—encephalonεγκέφαλον 17:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted valid AfD close, provided that the history of any content that has been merged is preserved somewhere, and a link to it or some indication of the history location is provided on Talk:Roger Federer. I find User:Encephalon's commetns above, and Cryptic's comments durign the AfD discussion persuasive. DES (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, and remind everyone once more that the GFDL doesn't force us to keep the current article in its current place, merely that the original author must be attributed somewhere. --fvw* 21:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The discussion was fairly conducted. If anything, the discussion overlooked what was, in my mind, the major failing of the article. The contents were original research (which, for those of you new to Wikipedia has a very specific meaning to us - if you're not familiar with it, please look it up). Rossami (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Kosick

While the article should be deleted (and AfD on it was in progress), the Speedy procedure here involved serious and high-handed flaws that undermine the community's trust in Speedy and in the reliability of admins. The history is:

  1. The claim of WP:CSD#A7 (no assertion of notability) was made at 15:36, and disputed at 15:45. The disputing editor removed the speedy tag in accordance with the 2nd sentence of A7 (but erred in not placing the article on AfD).
  2. A new editor reasserted A7 at 19:15, and (perhaps in obedience to the requirement of inspecting the history before implementing speedy) replaced that tag at 19:17 with AfD, thereby remedying the previous editor's error. Both the removal of their own speedy tag, and the statement "I can understand that it might not meet the CSD" were assertions of the disputed status that precludes A7-based deletion.
  3. Another new editor asserted, 21 minutes later (19:38), WP:CSD#G1 (Wikipedia:patent nonsense, which is subdivided into (1) "no assignable meaning at all" and the less severe category (2) (emphasis added by me) "so ... confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it"). The text was perfectly grammatical and clear, and while the two perfectly transparent misspellings may be careless or even ignorant, they are neither "confused" nor even confusing. (So G1 was clearly non-applicable.)
  4. At 19:42 (in a non-destructive ed-conf with that editor), i voted for deletion. I gave non-notability as reason, but asserted "I agree there is an implicit assertion via tone to the contrary...", further disputing the applicability of A7. I continued "...but it is so absurd an assertion that i would not squawk if it were speedied as vandalism." At the risk of being to subtle for WP, i
    _ _ avoided advocating G3 (speedy for vandalism) when i admitted i would find it a case of de minimus non curat Jerzius, and in fact
    _ _ implicitly rejected all other grounds by mentioning only the one that i damned with faint praise.
  5. (At 21:20, i urged the G1-asserting editor to remove the tag as unjustified by WP:PN. As my msg was only on that editor's talk page, and as there is no evidence of that editor being aware of that request before the Speedy became a fait accompli, this is not evidence of defective speedy procedure. However, the failure of that editor to respond since adds to the context of disregard for the prescribed procedures, and aggravates the air of vigilantism that erodes confidence in all our policies.)
  6. At 23:03, yet another editor effected the deletion, summarizing with "(nn-bio)", that is A7, non-notability.

_ _ Thus i assert that the deletion was contrary to policy:

  1. Bcz CSD were not met:
    1. A7 could not apply bcz it was clearly disputed by two participants, and the reality of that dispute acknowledged by a third, and
    2. A1 could not apply bcz patent nonsense as explicated in WP:PN clearly was not present, and further bcz it was not even mentioned by the admin doing the deletion.
  2. Further, bcz this situation (deletion advocates arguing for AfD and against speedy, and thus exposing the subjectivity of the grounds claimed) imposed responsibilities on any admin that are not explicitly stated, including (even if CSD had been met) implicit acknowledgement of the legitimacy of views other than the admin's, and thus
    • tagging in advance that is accurate as to the grounds for the contemplated speedy deletion, and
    • a decent interval for comment.

_ _ For these reasons, the article should be undeleted, and the AfD clock restarted.
--Jerzy•t 09:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted. Entire contents of articles were: "Rick Kosick was born in July of last year, a churubic and sweet baby he was soon cast in the musical 'Cats'. Horray!", which is a perfect case for me speedying it under CSD A7. It does not matter for how long the (rather silly) article has been lying around AfD for, it remains a speedy. -Splashtalk 10:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted though really not patent nonsense, this is almost a "textbook" example of criteria A7, and possibly A1 as well. Also, no reasonable chance to pass AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Valid speedy under A7, A1, and WP:IAR. "Rick Kosick was born in July of last year, a churubic and sweet baby he was soon cast in the musical 'Cats'. Horray!" Nominator states "the article should be deleted," so, if nobody wants the article, common sense says we should keep it deleted. Please, let's focus on the content of Wikipedia, not "the principle of the thing." Dpbsmith (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Manifestly was a speedy candidate and it really doesn't matter if anyone got confused over procedure. Results are more important than procedure on Wikipedia. David | Talk 13:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted Sounds like a valid A7 to me. The statement that says "If a claim is disputed, take to AfD" but that doesn't, IMO mean that any dispute proves that there is a claim, it means that if there is a claim, at least arguably, but you dispute its validity, you should that to AfD rather than usign the speedy tag. Here there seems to be no shadow of a claim. DES (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted. Validly speedied as vandalism. Doesn't really matter if A1 or A7 applies – this is junk and should be wiped on sight. android79 15:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Looks like a valid A7 speedy to me as well. --Deathphoenix 16:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, let's not have any more legalism and proceduralism than strictly necessary. --fvw* 21:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • _ _ Comment: Thanks to all who responded. Sometimes i go around w/ my hd UMA, and getting clear abt the fact, via this many clearly and civilly stated votes, is better, really, than getting yr own way. My biggest misgiving abt the experience is my need now to think thru how close to WP:Point i wandered (which thinking is also for the best, of course).
    _ _ BTW, the colleague whose WP:PN citation i decried has now responded quite appropriately (and i think not out of embarrassment at being indirectly referred to) about rethinking that.
    --Jerzy•t 22:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 21

Ryan Moore

Please bring this article about the upcoming golfer back. There are many other articles about golfers, so please bring this back. Apparently, it was vandalized, but the admin deleted it instead of reverting it. WriterFromAfar755 21:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete - Anyone who has been to the masters gets my vote. Looks like a mistake after vandalism by 17-year old "Ryan Lyndon Moore" who tried to hijack the article and turn it into vanity. (Don't confuse this with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood Line which had an Australian Ryan Moore as well. - That August version deleted by VfD should not be restored.) - Tεxτurε 21:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seem to be a substantial number of edits for an article deleted via {{empty}}. if the admins can assure us that one of the versions (after the VfD deletion) did not qualify under this speedy criterion, then undelete. This should remind admins that before doign s speedy delte the page history should be checked -- it may be that a revert will do the job. DES (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article prior to vandalism did not qualify for speedy deletion. I will temporarily undelete valid versions so you can review. If the consensus is to undelete I will keep it undeleted. - Tεxτurε 21:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Ref. This scenario is apparently not uncommon. What happens is a vandal comes along and damages a page (by blanking or turning it into an attack page, for example). An editor then shows up and, without noticing the history, promptly tags it with one of the CSDs; an admin then deletes, compounding the error. I just had a similar experience myself when I came across an inaccurately tagged CSD for an "attack" page, edited it to display the correct rule (A6), and then noticed the history just in time.—encephalonεγκέφαλον 22:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. This is why the speedy tag urges admins to check the history. It's not an optional extra — it's an important part of the speedy process. -Splashtalk 22:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, which seems to have been done already. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Current version shows someone who's played in several major golf tournaments. - Mgm|(talk) 13:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=24072705"