Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zoe (talk | contribs) at 03:43, 24 November 2005 (→[[Gallery of Socialist Realism]]). 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.


Decisions to be reviewed

Shortcut

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

 
1.

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

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

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

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

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 November 10}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

4.

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

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 November 10}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 November 10|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

November 24

November 23

The AfD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Socialist Realism, has been incorrectly closed on two counts:

  1. Only two of the 16 votes were simple delete votes, most of the delete votes were Transwiki and delete, but the closing admin did not make any effort to keep the content available for transwikying;
  2. In the course of the AfD discussion, it became clear that the WP:NOT policy was excluding pictorial content of encyclopediac value. A lengthy discussion there concluded with a change of the policy with respect to collections of images; after the change in the policy, which has met with uniform approval, all the votes were keep votes. Hence, the grounds cited for almost all delete votes ceased to exist at the time the AfD was closed, which the closing admin appears to have been oblivious to.

The page should certainly be undeleted. I think it is clear that the page would win a new AfD, hence, in the interests of avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy, I recommend we do not relist on AfD. --- Charles Stewart 19:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: see also [1] --- Charles Stewart 19:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The 'lengthy' discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Proposed rewording totalled 3 votes. Which is insufficient to change a long-standing policy, imo. The discussion preceding the vote (for such it was) included 8 messages in total, between 3 users. -Splashtalk 19:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another note:I presume some or all of the images hinge on fair use claims. It's been considered for some time that mere collections of images, outside of the article to which they would refer, do not constitute fair use. -Splashtalk 19:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let be noted that I didn't delete the images and we're not arguing about the image merits, but what I deleted was the gathering and listing. As I suggested, adding a category would be a better way to gather this entries. Anyway, the content was already merged today into Socialist realism. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 21:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, until I merged the content, you orphaned a large number of images, which made them eligible for deletion. If I had not taken the precaution of savivng a copy of the page, it could not have been reconstructed in order to merge. If there was a consensus it was to transwiki and delete, which you did not do. Dsmdgold 21:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The status of the images is safe, and a transwiki for those that are acceptable in commons would be in ok; that said, although we cannot ensure that they will be accepted there. It does seem more appropriate that this page were a category page in commons, though. Titoxd(?!?) 21:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Observe Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of illuminated manuscript images whose outcome was keep. --- Charles Stewart 21:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The attempt to change a long-standing policy during the debate by collecting 3 or 4 'votes' and having 3 users discussing it and then to try here to retroactively apply that policy 'change' to users opinions effected before the change is far too much legalese. I do not consider the policy changed, and will probably reverse it pending a proper discussion: WP:ISNOT a repository of images. A collection of image is not an article. Those who cited WP:NOT in their comments were correct, those who called the policy 'misguided' and opted to keep based on a reverse interpretation of non-existent polic-change were wrong. It is reasonable to dismiss such comments: particularly those like CalJW's. Anyone can copy the PD images to Commons, it does not need a transwiki of the would-be article. In fact, Commons is interested in media not articles as I approx understand it, so the transwiki part of the comments are not important from this perspective: the images are still here. The closing admin got this right, those who forced a policy semi-change during the debate to retroactively apply it afterwards were wrong. -Splashtalk 21:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The closing admin made no effort to indicate that he recognised the issue. I would not have made the criticisms I had of an admin who cited the issue and said the later remarks in the discussion had no bearing on the earlier delete votes. As it was, I regard the closing of the AfD as poorly executed. You have also not indicated what you think of the several AfD's that I pointed to in my previous comment that provided a precedent for the change I made to WP:NOT. --- Charles Stewart 22:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not dispute that the images are all still "here". They are for the moment. (However, if I had not merged the gallery, most of them would have been orphans and eventually deleted.). There is value to organization and annoatation of images. By merely deleting the article, without re-creating it elsewhere, the closing admin decreased the amount of knowleddge available to Wikipedia. I also find it a bit odd to suggest that a closing admin can ignore comments of editors merely because he or she disagrees with the reasoning of the comment. I also find it distressing that to think that a vote to transwiki has no meaning other than delete. It should be noted that one of those voting transwiki specified that "In any case, make sure we don't just lose this, it's excellent." Dsmdgold 23:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the closing admin had said the comments were irrelevant to the vote, I would still have taken the matter to DRV and said the AfD , but my criticisms would have been less sharp. I regard admins who ignore unanswered arguments to keep made in AfDs when closing to delete as a menace to WP. The ones who at least observe the existence of these arguments are much less malign, even when they make the same assessment. --- Charles Stewart 00:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've put up another link to the WP:NOT discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposed change to WP:NOT, following Brennemann's reversal of the change to WP:NOT I applied. --- Charles Stewart 00:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Upon further inspection, the article isn't encyclopedic, here is the entire content:
This is a gallery of paintings and images of architecture from the Socialist Realism school.
Click on each image for more details. An asterisk indicates that more information is available.
A whole bunch of images
See also:

This is exactly what Commons is here for. Reading the comments on the WP:NOT talk page does not leave me very convinced. That said, I don't object to a transwiki to Commons. Titoxd(?!?) 01:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the structure of the page was bit more complex than that. It was

This is a gallery of paintings and images of architecture from the Socialist Realism school.
Click on each image for more details. An asterisk indicates that more information is available.
Lenin
10 images with captions
Stalin
7 images with captions
Ordinary life
10 images with captions
Scenes of Revolution and War
4 images with captions
Technology
3 images with captions
Propaganda
2 images with captions
Architecture
5 images with captions
Sculpture
8 images with captions
See also:

The gallery had more stucture than you are giving it credit for. Please leave your reasons for being unconvinced at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Proposal to modify WP:NOT an image gallery, I for one would appreciate a fuller discusion. Also can you point me to the portion of Commons that says part of their mission is to host image galleries for the Wikipedias? I can't find it. Dsmdgold 02:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MYOB

The page was speedy deleted after a request was put in which stated This page was in error. MYOB is an accounts package, not internet slang as the redirect suggested.. While MYOB is an accounting package ([2]), it is also an abbreviation that is used as an internet slang term. See for example FOLDOC, the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary or any other reference found by OneLook. S.K. 00:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and created a disambiguation page at MYOB. I don't think this deletion review is necessary because there was no real content deleted. Rhobite 01:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 22

Global Resource Bank

I would like an undeletion of the article on the Global Resource Bank VOTE: UNDELETE Global Resource Bank. /Lennart

November 21

Argentina v England (2005)

The AfD debate here shows 8 keeps and 11 deletes, and as such, no consensus for deletion. Since similar articles on cricket matches are routinely kept, I think this one should be undeleted as well.  Grue  13:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn, undelete and redirect to Argentina and England football rivalry since the article is already merged. One thing to note here is that this should not have been merged before the AFD had completely run its course. Nonetheless, from reading the AFD debate I cannot see a consensus to delete the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close/ I make this 13 Delete / 5 Keep / 3 Merge. One of the merge votes explicitly indicated "delete" as a second choice, and so IMO can not be read as a keep vote. The other two comments advocating merge seems not to support the separate existance of this article, one said "Professional sports events happen every day...". Therefore I don't think they can be read as simple keep votes either. I think this is within the closer's judgement to close as a delete. However if soemoen wanted to create a new redirect at this title, that would NOT be "substantially similer" and so not subject to a speedy. The merge should not, IMO, have been done while the debate was in progress, however. DES (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I oppose the notion that merges cannot be done while an article has been proposed for deletion. Wikipedia's normal editing processes should not be over-ridden in that way. Often, the best way to show how things should be done is to do it. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Matthew. Merging is a a sequence of normal edits, and if these are not good edits, anyone can revert them. There is no need for a rule against merging whilst an AfD is in process. --- Charles Stewart 15:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, things are a little more subtle than that, as pointed out below. If content is merged, then the GFDL requires we keep track of the history. This is most usually done by retaining a redirect where once there was an article. This means that, even in the face of an otherwise overwhelming delete (hypothetically, not in this case), those editors would have been overridden by another. Whether that is reasonable is an open question. There are other ways of (probably) meeting the GFDL in cases like this, such as copying the history to the target's talk page prior to deletion of the source. But I personally consider it good form to recommend a merge during the AfD but wait to see if the consensus is that Wikipedia would not retain the content at all. -Splashtalk 17:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed Splash is right, and I retract my comment. It is normally inappropriate to merge content from articles during an AfD. --- Charles Stewart 18:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure/keep deleted - Per DES - Tεxτurε 19:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, improperly closed. No consensus for deletion. Feel free to merge and redirect. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close/Keep deleted Reasonable judgment call, per DES. --Calton | Talk 03:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close/Keep deleted Per DES. Merges should not be counted as keeps. Carbonite | Talk 15:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's blatantly not true, and contradicts the Deletion policy. Also, as this article was merged, GFDL requires that it's history is undeleted.  Grue  16:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • In practice, it just doesn't make sense to count "merges" as "keeps". When I vote to "merge", I don't want an article to exist at that location. If I think the information could be useful in some article, a "merge" vote makes sense. If I wanted my vote counted as a "keep", I would have voted that way. Since your GFDL concerns are legitimate (from what I know about the license) I'd support having it as a redirect. Carbonite | Talk 17:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and make into redirect, per Grue's last point. Sam Vimes 16:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - as per Grue, deletion appears to consitute violation of GFDL, since it appears the content was merged. Also, since merges count as keeps, there was no consensus to delete. Guettarda 16:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn -as per Grue. --- Charles Stewart 16:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What, we can't merge the histories? Even if that is not possible, to avoid violating GFDL all that is required is to copy-paste the history into the talk of the target article. Even more if the information that was merged is widely and commonly available, then the pseron who merged it simply has to go and confirm the facts themselves and do a re-write, and again GFDL is preserved. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per above. NSLE (讨论+extra) 00:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. Wikipedia:Deletion policy says merges are neither deletes nor keeps. However, since it is merged (a situation I don't think anyone minds terribly), something has to be done to satisfy GFDL. As a practical matter, I wouldn't oppose undeleting and redirecting. -- SCZenz 00:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the Deletion policy says nothing special about how to interpret "merge" comments when closing the discussion. The Guide to deletion, on the other hand, explicitly says that "Merge is a recommendation to keep the article's content but to move it ..." As a practical matter and largely guided by the requirement to maintain GFDL, "merge" opinions are routinely interpreted as a recommendation to "keep" the article history (that is to say, "not delete") even though they are not a recommendation to "keep the article as is". "Merge" is often a very nuanced opinion and can not be easily forced into a binary "keep" vs. "delete" framework. This is a good example of why mere vote-counting is bad. Rossami (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I created the Argentina and England football rivalry article, I wrote the "2005 friendly" section from the ground-up, without any material from the existing article, and it has since been worked on and added to independently by other editors. I don't believe there *is* actually any material from that article in it, so I'm not sure how that counts as having been merged. Angmering 12:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bronx underground

I would like an undeletion of the article on the Bronx Underground. The reasons for deletion were listed as "blatant self-promotional ad spam/link spam." This is simply untrue. The article was not self-promotional, merely a factual account of a local-interest in the Bronx, detailing one of the Bronx's most popular local music venues, and one of the most successful independent promoters in New York City. There were no opinions or values in the article, just facts. I don't think the reasoning behind this article's deletion is fair. - Mike corsillo 10:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beer boxing

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer boxing

I would like an undeletion of the most recent article on beer boxing. According to the Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy#To_request_that_a_page_.28or_image.29_be_restored " The speedy deletion criterion for "reposted content that was deleted according to deletion policy " only applies if the content is "substantially identical" (under any article title) — not if you added a lot of new information." Not only was the latest version of the article completely different from previous versions, but the original reasons for deletion are voided by the very fact that there is even a debate over its deletion. If the game of Beer Boxing is a notable enough drinking game to cause a debate, why is it not notable enough to warrant its own article? Furthermore, it is obvious to all who care to review the vote for deletion that half of the votes are for personal objection to the drinking game itself, rather than the content of the article or noteworthiness of the game. Lastly, should the notableness of the game remain under question, I would like to point out the arbitrariness of that judgement. Beer boxing is definitely as or more notable than many other drinking games listed. Mike corsillo 08:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, unless nominator can provide sources. - Mgm|(talk) 08:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • what sources would you have me provide? all versions of the article have been deleted, but having never read previous versions of the article, the most recent version could not have possibly been identical in content or substance. furthermore, i have no way of proving the notableness of this game, nor any other. similarly, nobody can disprove it, thus qualifying the standards for what is notable as completely arbitrary. My argument speaks for itself. Mike corsillo 10:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for information on the types of sources that are typically looked for to support an article. I did a quick Google search to see if there was anything obvious to help support the article and found nothing but this. Unfortunately the only hit was on a site that accepts anonymous submissions, and is thus disqualified from being used as a source for a Wikipedia article. --Allen3 talk 14:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      If there are no other sites where people can look this up, isn't that even more reason for this site to allow information to be provided? I dont understand why an encyclopedia would only offer information that is already offered by other websites. Way to "be bold," everybody. -Mike corsillo 21:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      That is a crucial point. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source. It doens't create information (a primary source), and it doesn't report on the creation (a secondary source). It reports that others have found the information to be accurate and reliable (and encyclopedic). An encyclopedia that reported unsubstantiated material wouldn't be very encyclopedic, would it? It is very clear that you didn't read WP:V. As soon as you do, you will see exactly what is being said here. -Splashtalk 22:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as per MacGyverMagic. --Allen3 talk 14:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trollaxor

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trollaxor

I would like a review of the AFD procedure for this article -- the verdict was no consensus and much of the voting appears suspicious. Not only has the article been deleted before, but it remains non-notable and unsuitable for Wikipedia and only remains because of the efforts of a group gaming the AFD system. My solution was to redirect it rather than delete it and try to force someone to take notice... which it least would spare the efforts of future AFDs after it was recreated, and avoid yet more running around in circles cleaning up junk. - Motor (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse close of no consensus. AfD was conducted correctly. You're not wrong to try redirecting—anyone can do that—but it's clear from the article history that it's not gonna fly with the people who disagree with you. At 8-5 to delete (discounting user with 8 edits), you could AfD it again, but I'd personally recommend working out some sort of merge/redirect compromise on the talk page. -- SCZenz 01:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And Relist. If organized trolls are really the problem, then out-vote them. But I can't see a justification for discounting them—perhaps someone can explain? -- SCZenz 21:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete almost a speedy. Those voting keep seem to be a part of some organised group of trolls (except Trollderella, who is just an extreme inclusionist).  Grue  13:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's an indication of the sorry state that we're in that advocating following policy is 'extremism'. Trollderella 23:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And what policy would that be? --Calton | Talk 23:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, but not because the Afd was done wrong. The closure as a "no consensus" was reasonable, although not what I would have done. Of course, the article could also be speedied right now as a perfectly valid A7. Friday (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    So you don't think that the afd was wrong? It's clearly not a valid CSD, so you're really just saying you disagree with the result. Trollderella 22:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose that CSD A7 doesn't explicitly say that when it talks about articles making a claim of notability, it pertains to a notion of notability that stems from the community as a whole, rather than the ideas of the particular deleting admin. That seems rather obviously true, however. If the community has just now come to no consensus about whether a subject is notable, it would seem obvious that A7 does not apply. Friday's application of the unilateral admin action model here is probably unwise. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    What application of the "unilateral admin action model"? I didn't delete it, did I? I merely stated an opinion that an A7 could be applied here. But, I'll be clear: the reason I say "overturn and delete" is that Afd produced the wrong answer in this case. I'm not against doing a deletion "in process" either, altho at this point I'm not sure how that's possible. If we start another Afd tomorrow and it's closed as a delete, we'll still have people complaining that the second Afd was invalid because of the previous "no consensus" closure. But, if we want to look at the Afd process, I could say that it was tainted by troll involvement. Of course, this is a judgement call and it's a bit rude to those we're calling trolls, right? Friday (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    By "application of the unilateral admin action model" I meant your statement that the article would be a valid A7 -- to say this implies your belief that an admin can determine that an article doesn't make a claim of notability, even when the sense of the community has been determined (to whatever degree), and the community of users does not agree that there is no such claim. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant was, someone looking at it could reasonably say "Gosh, writing on websites isn't an assertion of notability". Thus, it's an A7. I'm not going to delete it as an A7 because I know it's being discussed, and deleting it right now would be rude to other editors. Also, I fully realize that other reasonable editors could look at this article and decide it's not an A7 speedy. Friday (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am disturbed that most of the votes here are based on opinion, rather than process, which is contrary to what Deletion Review is for. I have a few questions that I'd like to see addressed:
    1. Is this really a legitimate speedy delete? It seems that at least a few people think the article contains assertions of notability, at which point WP:CSD A7 says it should go to AfD.
    2. Can editors be discounted merely because of their afilliation with whatever organized trolling group? I see no reason for this.
  • I'm the first person to say this article should be deleted, but I say do it within process. Anyone care to explain why we shouldn't, as is apparently going to happen? -- SCZenz 23:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The point here is not whether this article should stay or go, that's what AFD is for. It is the attempt to hijack process by a small group who can't accept a community decision. Trollderella 23:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's irony for you. --Calton | Talk 23:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm dissapointed by any claims that editor's recommendations should be discounted simply because of who they are. I don't care if someone is a GNAA sleeper admin who is secretly impregnating our life parters to breed an army of child-eating Liberal voters, if they present a coherent assertion we should listen to it. In this instance that was not done, with some simply saying "keep". Thus Overturn and delete because AfD is not a vote, and compelling arguments were not presented. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is sound, up until you make the case that because you don't like the reasons given then the community can be ignored. If you think it should be deleted, list it again and get a concensus. Trollderella 00:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I wasn't aware of the alleged GNAA "trolling" until I was informed about it after I closed the debate, so if the decision is overturned, there won't be any opposition from me. No vote. Robert T | @ | C 00:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be using the word 'troll' in the sense of 'voting in a way I don't like'. That's disturbing. If you don't like the outcome of AFD, relist, don't try a backdoor to try to work around a community decision. Trollderella 00:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion either way. I was merely stating that, before closure, I wasn't aware of what is now being argued by those in favor of overturning. Hence, I didn't vote. Robert T | @ | C 00:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Motor is right: some of the "Keep" votes on the AfD are highly-suspect, being low-usage accounts set up primarily for voting on AfDs, as careful examination of their contribution history shows. However, this depth of scrutiny cannot be expected from an admin closing an AfD, and even with this additional information it is not obvious whether these dubious "Keep" votes can be legitimately discarded. Robert was right to close this as a no-consensus. If you do decide to re-nominate the article, I hope we'll get enough participation as to make the few sock- or meat-puppets' votes irrelevant. Owen× ☎ 16:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not correct, I'm afraid. The notion that cursorily closing complex AfDs is ok is profoundly wrong. If an admin hasn't the time required to do the job properly, they should steer very well clear of the job. -Splashtalk 21:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close of no consensus. AfD was conducted correctly. Please respect community decisions and stop accusing everyone who voted keep to be a sock/meat puppet. Give proofs or shut up. -- Femmina 16:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Looks like for the GNAA and their War on Blogs, some websites are more equal than others. --Calton | Talk 23:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Looking at the VfD, I see what looks like bloc voting by GNAA members, and no reasoning by the "keep" voters. --Carnildo 00:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I don't think this should be used as an opportunity to vent frustration at editors you don't like. If you disagree with the outcome, re-list it. Trollderella 01:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the purported trolls lift their game and put "Keep - per nominator, this author is notable per [some evidentiary link]" than we wouldn't be having this discussion. The quality of the anti-blog nominations they were making went up when prompted, there is no reason that almost anyone can't be molded into a good contributor. brenneman(t)(c) 01:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would overturn and delete, since it is a valid A7, but since there have been complaints about it, the only course of action that I consider appropriate is a relist with a minimum participation treshhold, like done for GNAA. Titoxd(?!?) 17:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, discounting obvious role accounts is good practice. Contrary to what OwenX says, such scrutiny is appropriate, and if an AFD closer neglects it, then deletion review is appropriate. Radiant_>|< 18:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete in accordance with the reasoning advanced by Radiant! and [[Aaron Brenneman, particularly Aaron Brenneman's. Plus, as I see it, even if there was no consensus to delete, there was a consensus (Motor, Starblind, and Friday in explicit agreement with several others in implied agreement, and only Skrewler in explicit disagreement) that it constituted vanity, which overrides the consensus. Plus, I see a more clearly articulated consensus that the subject matter is unnoteworthy, and interpretations of de jure policy notwithstanding (I, for instance, believe WP:NOT and the deletion policy both explicitly establish non-notability as grounds for deletion), it's de facto part of the deletion policy. In all, I believe a consensus was reached, and that consensus was for deletion. The Literate Engineer 01:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 20

Joseph Vargo and Nox Arcana

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Vargo

Please review facts, dates, publishing credits, and Google and/or Amazon search on the discussion page, and relist these articles. I had provided dates and specific publications where these artists were mentioned, press runs of said publications, television shows, qty of books and/or CDs sold, etc. (all in keeping with the guidelines for notability), then later edited content to focus more on facts as some editors seemed to think a biography is a vanity thing. None of the editors seems to have even looked at that info before deleting the entire page (one mistook a band's website for a store when it is not, though a musical group is certainly allowed to sell thier own music). Ideally, I'd like my original content relisted from 10:26, 4 November 2005. Once relisted, I intend to add the dates and specific references from discussion under a separate heading on that main page. And... I am totally new to this maze. But am learning. I've made a few scant contributions to other pages while a non-registered user (this was before I learned that my username was not coming up, or how to sign off :)Blooferlady 00:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted, valid AfD, and the originator (the editor above) should not be rewarded for having vandalized the AfD page. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both are copyvios from [4] and [5]. (In fact, the first chunk of Nox Arcanal isn't on either of those links, but the rest is and the first chunk is blatantly taken from somewhere on the site). To admins: note that Joseph Vargo has been constructed in a slightly different order and changes a few words, but is overwhelmingly an infringement: it even repeats the spelling mistake in "influencial". Now, there is a confusing release of sorts in those links: "permission to reprint biographies is hereby granted to press and public forums...Copyright © 1991-2005 Monolith Graphics. All rights reserved." That's not good enough for Wikipedia, since its content can be reused by anyone for any purpose, and that is effectively a "with conditions" release that is directly incompatible with the GFDL. Now, Talk:Joseph Vargo claims to have permission, but I don't see any point following that up if AfD has already deleted the articles. -Splashtalk 17:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

United Bimmer

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Bimmer

Would it be possible to undelete this article? It was created by a member to explain the history and foundation of our community. It's a very tight-knit group of members, and this article has been referenced many times explaining people who we are and where we came from. There's no advertising in here, as it's simply informative about the history of an organization, which I feel is appropriate in an Encyclopedia.

  • Endorse clsoe (keep deleted). The AfD looks valid, and being a "tight-knit group" if anything suggests lack of intest to thsoe outsiede the group. wikipedia is not a free hosting service, an article describing the group for the benefit of those interested in jopining properly belongs on your own web site. I see no independent sources cited in the article, and no indication that it is in any way notable to anyoen outside the group. If you have such info, create a new article which cites it and expalins how the gorup is significant to those who are not members. DES (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted valid (and unanimous) AfD! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

contingent work

Can we undelete this article? There doesn't appear to be any valid reason for its deletion. Sure, the name of the article is something of a neologism, but one which is frequently used when discussing social issues, comparing contingent work with proper jobs.

We do have an article about McJobs, which is also a neologism, and admittedly the two subjects have a fair bit of common ground. However, a serious commentator on employment policy wouldn't use the term McJobs. I think there is enough ground for them to be two separate articles.

To be honest, I don't understand why Wikipedia doesn't want people to know what contingent work is, and the history behind it. Squashy 10:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To put this into context: Contingent work was the subject of a VfD in July 2005, and the result was its deletion. Squashy created a new article, which I deleted, explaining to him the reasons. He then recreated it, as well as asking for it to be undeleted here. Let's assume that that that was a mistake of some kind; still, the proper thing for him to do now is to follow the prescribed course. I did advise him to take it to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist. The majority of the comments in the original AfD debate labeled the initially deleted version of the article as an essay or original research, with the minority opinion claiming the article was savable but needed to go through cleanup. Squashy's new version appears to be a complete rewrite that does not suffer from the original's problem of being a personal essay. As such, I do not believe that a speedy deletion as recreation of previously deleted material is justified. --Allen3 talk 12:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete -- invalid speedy deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist". Don't recreate without good reason, a re-write is good reason.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 14:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments so far. I appreciate that the article I've written is far from perfect - and I haven't cited any sources yet - however, the majority of the votes in favour of its deletion were concerned with its content - that it was a personal essay - and not due to any inherent flaw in having an article on the subject in the first place. I appreciate that it's a neologism - but then again, so are many of the articles at Category:Neologisms - that's not a good enough reason to keep it deleted, in my opinion. I have created this article from scratch, without having access to the original article which was deleted before it - however, I have lost some of my most recent edits to it. Thanks. Squashy 15:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the speedy deletion. The first deletion was in order as deletion of a personal essay (and, in my opinion, probably copyvio). The versions created beginning on 15 Nov 2005 were not substantially similar content. The speedy delete criterion should not have applied. As for the most recent version, I see no reason to immediately list it for AFD. It's a new article that still needs cleanup but that's normal. The topic is certainly relevant and encyclopedic since a number of reputable articles have links to it. Rossami (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus seems clear, so I've undeleted the article, But I'm not sure if a relist is appropriate, so I'll leave that still under consideration. Titoxd(?!?) 21:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Melody Pomeroy

Could we rediscuss the AFD for this person? She hardly meets notability criteria. If we can discuss deleted articles here, why not kept articles? User:Zoe|(talk) 08:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be relisted, with so few votes the standard procedure is to leave a note on the page for the AFD and relist on the current day so that more editors have a chance to state their view and so that a consensus can be formed. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 08:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how being in a major play would not make one notable unless it's an unnamed role. I won't oppose relisting, but I don't see how it would be helpful either. - Mgm|(talk) 11:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen Notable stage actors should absolutely have articles, but this article only mentions two productions (I've been in more plays than that!) and at least one of the two is a very very minor role (Becky in Oklahoma!) with no mention of what the other role is (in 42nd street) though it does use the language "appeared in" rather than "starring in", suggesting another small role. I don't see how it could hurt to reopen the voting, since the original AfD attracted few votes and little attention. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need permission to relist this article on AfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no particular grounds to reopen this nomination other than a dislike of the conclusion. Phil Sandifer 15:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Tony. DRV's job seems to be to review errors in the deletion process. I guess with this few votes, the closer might have relisted it to get more opinions—but then again, that gives anyone else a good reason to relist it too. -- SCZenz 15:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's a very broken process where keeps can be relisted without discussion but deletes require a discussion even to rediscuss the deletion. Phil Sandifer 15:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's a big difference and clear distinction between relisting and reopening. I don't think the debate should have been closed, since two different votes is not enough to form a consensus. If a debate only has two votes at close and they don't agree, it makes perfect sense to reopen the debate to gather more consensus. However, that is a different matter entirely than relisting an article which had a previous clear "keep" consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close It would have been reasonable to keep the AfD open in hopes of more particiupation, but there is no requirement for a closer to do this. 1D/1K or 1D/2K (depending on how you read the comment that did not include an explict vote) do not constitute a consensus to delete, and i see no procedural errors here. There is no bar against re-nominating for AfD. DES (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just as a point of process, wouldn't it make sense to have a rule along the lines of: one can relist on AfD if the article was kept through a no consensus, but one should go to DRV first if the result was keep? Why? Because (i) DRV is much lower traffic than AfD, and unjust deletes are more likely to be spotted in this exceptional case, (ii) lots of people already think that you can't AfD article that have been deemed keep-worthy, and (iii) this proviodes meaningful distinction between keep and no consensus outcomes. --- Charles Stewart 20:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If the result was a clear keep, and there were no procedural errors in the AfD, many here will respond "Valid Afd, endorse." If the person who wants to relist wants to do so because of new info, or because s/he thinks the wrong arguments prevelaied before, it is probably better to just re-nominate, particuarly if some time has elasped. (If the renon is effectivly right after the previosu AfD, some people will more or less automatically vote keep based on the previosu AfD). So if there were no procedural errors bu soemone thinks AfD simply got it wrong, relisting is better IMO, regardless of who strong the keep vote was on the pervious AfD. DES (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Charles here. To me, that is the difference between keep and no consensus: articles for which there was a consensus to keep should not be re-AfD'd without a good reason or after a substantial period of time and significant change in information, but articles that did not reach a keep consensus do not have that protection, and may be renominated to gather more discussion, given that there is new information that AfD did not consider. Titoxd(?!?) 02:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hellogoodbye

Can we please get this undeleted? The page is now redirected to a Beatles song, which is just incorrect. The original page was deleted. At the RFD debate, it was claimed it didn't meet WP:MUSIC. This is untrue, however, the band has "gone on ... a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country", that country being the US (see hellogoodbye's site [6]), and has been "prominently featured in any major music media" (receiving plenty of press coverage including [Alternative Press [7] and their video on MTV). Whatsmore, there are over 300,000 hits on Google and they are signed to a major label (Drivethru Records). Additionally, they've only released an EP and a DVD: not quite the 2 albums suggested, but not far off. Halo 12:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 19

CrystalCherry

Needs to be returned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherryrain (talk • contribs) 06:06, 2005 November 19 (UTC)

Why? --Nlu 06:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Peppers

The page is protected, and, judging from the talk page, it looks like there is significant support for unprotection. zellin t / c 03:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFD discussion - note: this link also covers several subsequent discussions. Apparently, the discussion was twice improperly restarted on the same page rather than creating new discussion pages.
  • Strong oppose. The same reasons why it doesn't belong still exist, however. The fact that we have "significant support for unprotection" (almost all of it from anonymous IPs) doesn't mean that it should be undeleted. It will be a magnet for vandalism, and there is no way to do it tastefully. Wikipedia does not have to go with the flow of the Internet on this. --Nlu 03:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the original deletion and the subsequent speedy-deletion as re-created content. This "article" has no place in Wikipedia. Looking at the pervasive history of vandalism through the page history, I also endorse the protection of the page to prevent re-creation. Rossami (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted valid VfD. Also, some topics just plain aren't encyclopedic. Peppers did something naughty. Nobody seems to know the exact nature of his crime, but it couldn't possibly have been anything earth-shattering, since he only got 30 days for it. He also happens to have some sort of condition or physical deformity. That's it. Fails WP:BIO by a wide margin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Valid AfD. BDAbramson T 16:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Vandalism is specifically listed as a Problem that does not require deletion. WP:BIO is not an official policy. If it was, we would have a lot less articles now. There certainly is a way to do it tastefully! The reason why many feel he deserves an article is not because he is a minor sex offender and not even because he has a minor deformity but because he is an internet phenomenon. He is certainly notable enough for Wikipedia on those grounds. zellin t / c 17:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - This alleged "Internet phenomenon" fails to live up to the standards of "It's a trap!" or "All your base" or whatever. "Brian Peppers" gets just 26,900 Google hits. Compare "All your base" scoring nearly 1 million. Wikipedia is not a repository for anything anyone ever laughed at on a forum. I expect alleged Internet phenomena to display an above-average level of interest to be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. FCYTravis 17:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, per FCYTravis.--Sean|Black 21:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Not every "internet phenomenon" is worth documenting in an encyclopedia, as I've already argued on the talk page. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-19 21:53:10Z
  • Endorse, keep deleted. Process-wise, it is a valid deletion/protection against recreation, and content-wise, please, it is an attack page/non-notable bio. Titoxd(?!?) 21:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Making fun of someone for looking bizarre is NOT encyclopaedic. The 30-day jail sentence is just a red herring; are you listing all the other non-notable sex offenders who received a minor 30-day sentence? Also, by the wording, simply touching a person on the thigh could constitute a "sex offense." I'm not endorsing this person, just saying that the only reason this became a minor internet phenomenon is because of what this person looks likeRyoung122 23:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The deleted content is being effectively re-created in the article's Talk page. It is unusual to re-delete an article's Talk page especially since the "protected" template explicitly says "talk about it there" but it may be appropriate in this case to clean out and protect the Talk page as well. Rossami (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fúsíjama Basketball Club International

This was a infopage about my basketball team in Iceland. Not quite sure why it was deleted but if someone thinks this was just a ego boost or something, this basketball team played in the 2nd league in the Icelandic division. Please undelete :) Einzi

No article by that exact title was ever created or deleted. Could you perhaps have mistyped the title? Rossami (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could be .. chanced the name to a right title ( I hope ) Einzi 11:24, 19 November 2005 (GMT)
Thank you. [article] and AFD discussion
  • Undelete and list on AfD - I vote for this page to be undelated. The info found on the page was historicly accurate and not meant to be an ego boost in any way. --- Sturlast 11:48, 19 November 2005
  • Endorse Hm. Valid AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fúsíjama_Basketball_Club_International, and though the team claims to be playing in the 2nd division (third level) of Icelandic basketball [8], I can find no evidence of that at the neutral source here: [9] (or maybe it's me not understanding Icelandic properly). Overturn and relist. New information brought to light. Sam Vimes 13:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allthough the name Fúsíjama can't be found we played under the flags of Reynir Hnífsdal to avoid troubleling paperwork and expenses. [10] Einzi 15:09, 19 November 2005 (GMT)
  • Endorse, keep deleted. Have to agree with Sam Vimes. In general, amateur sports clubs are not considered to be valid topics, you almost need to either be, or been, in the top league to be considered unless the sport is really major in that country. The premier league basketball clubs in Iceland are OK topics, amateur clubs are just to numerous. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete The team played in the Icelandic 2nd division from 1999-2005 [11]. The team is registered under the name Reynir Hnífsdal, as the Icelandic Sport Federation does not allow teams to compete under foreign names in domestic leagues. It was however widly recognised under the name Fúsíjama as can been seen here on KKÍ´s homepage [12] (KKÍ is the Icelandic Basketball Federation). The reason for the deletion is said to be that it could not be confirmed that Fúsíjama actually played in official divsion, I belive that should be comfirmed now. Also I disgree with that only major clubs should be allowed on Wikipedia. The goal of Wikipedia is to create, among others, the largest encyclopedia in history in both breadth and depth. Discriminating official sport teams because they haven´t reached the top level of their country´s competition, and even if they are a fairly well known team in their country, is by my opinion at least, not in the spirit of that goal. Sturlast 18:57, 19 November 2005 (GMT).
    • Fair point. At least that's new, verifiable information, and the judgment of whether that is notable enough for WP should be done at AfD, not here. I would suggest you rewrote it, though, because from what I could gather from the AfD nomination the content was violating NPOV Sam Vimes 19:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 18

Megan racing

Not sure why this would be deleted. Visible content was: 'http://www.meganracing.com/Megan Racing produces a number of aftermarket automotive parts, mostly for the import "tuner" demographic. Their workman...' Kappa 00:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Entire content was
Megan Racing produces a number of aftermarket automotive parts, mostly for the import "tuner" demographic. Their workmanship is good, despite their reputation as a "generic" brand, and their prices are considerably lower than similar products made by better known companies, like Spoon, Greddy, and AEM.
Their product line includes full stainless-steel catback exhaust systems, strut braces, and other automotive parts--both cosmetic and performance-oriented.
Doesn't stand much chance of surviving an AFD if undeleted really, and "their prices are considerably lower than similar products made by better known companies" does sound promotional. Whether it meets any speedy criteria is doubtful, but I cannot see that it has much chance of surviving an AFD. Abstain. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 17

Mimi Yu

This should never have been moved into candidates for quick deletion. It was simply a work under process, without a significant amount of information at that time. Yu is a cellist that is currently on the rise, as her recent performance with Yo-Yo Ma indicates. While not on the par of celebrities such as Ma in terms of name recognition (although in some circles her name is quite well known), or intra-wikipedia references, she is still significant enough in the developing music community to be mentioned. Arlohill 22:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete when in doubt, don't delete. perhaps should be expanded. Arlohill 03:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete seconded by 140.247.159.182 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: It looks like this was deleted under CSD A7. Does the article contain anything that might be an assertion of notability? Certainly what is asserted in this DRV appeal constitutes a notability claim. --- Charles Stewart 23:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy delete. The google searches "Mimi Yu" cello, "Mimi Yu" cellist, and "Mimi Yu" "Yo-Yo Ma" all get <10 hits. -- SCZenz 23:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    These notability calculations are not what speedies are for. --- Charles Stewart 23:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but none of the information asserting notability was in the article. The hit counts above are designed to show that these new claims appear to be a hoax. However I could be wrong—and, as Xoloz says below, if someone writes an article with sources citing the information above, then it's cool. -- SCZenz 01:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy unless significant sourced information comes to light. "Mimi Yu" + "Yo Yo Ma" returns just one unrelated Google hit, so I'm not sure what to think of the claim that they've performed together. Andrew Lenahan - <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT> 23:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy, however remember recreation as a better, sourced article can be done at anytime, and would not be subject to speedy. Xoloz 01:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, no notability, this is a valid CSD. If this is recreated, it will be quickly slapped with an AfD header, since she doesn't qualifor under WP:MUSIC. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can understand that the article might be a valid candidate for deletion, assuming that the person in question does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notoriety; however, it should not have been a speedy. It was a work in progress, there was nothing to indicate it was a vanity article (besides lack of specificity in performance venues), and furthermore its deletion makes the text inaccessable. This obviously makes it very difficult to improve the article. Time to improve should have been granted, it should not have been a speedy delete. A7 is for "no assertion of notability," not no notability. Saying "she is noted for..." is exactly that assertion, although whether it is agreed with is another matter, outside of CSD.Arlohill 03:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the rules, there is nothing to prevent you from recreating the article, and if it has a clear assertion of notability it can't be speedied. However, if that assertion of notability isn't verified by a reputable source, then the article will be AfD'd quite quickly. Since you know this, it would be acting in bad faith to recreate the article without such a source; of course, I assume you wouldn't do that. If you were to recreate the article, with a short stub that verifies the claims above, I would certainly think it reasonable to restore the old text (as history) so that it can be added. -- SCZenz 03:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Edit conflicted) Once an article pokes its head into mainspace, it must stand alone. Works in progress are best conducted in user space and moved once viable. Regarding WP:CSD, the text does read per your quote, however Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles is directly referenced in A7, and expands this to include "no remotely plausible assertion of notability". I'm willing to AGF on the part of Philwelch and believe that he performed the above searches and found there to be no plausible assertion. Endorse decision without prejudice to the creation of a better version of this article per Xoloz and the text at the top of this page. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete: Apparently notable within significant community. Ombudsman 04:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted Working with a famous musician is not a claim of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: The arguments made above in favour of deletion are largely specious in this case. Insufficient hits by Google is not a viable contention: the Wikipedia page for Tomam, for instance, does not receive any relevant hits when entered into Google, while "Mimi Yu" cello receives at least two. Moreover, while the linguist Waldemar Rosenberger receives a few dozen Google entries, most of them are copies of the stub Wikipedia page in various languages. If the 'Mimi Yu' page was translated into French and Mandarin and then replicated by Answers.com or Reference.com and registered by Google's cache, would that count for 'online hits'? Non-stub such as the location article for Farina, Illinois also contain uncited information: the ethnic breakdown claims (which in fact are outdated) link to the U.S. Census Bureau in which I could find no pertinent information to the African-American or Asian populations in Farina. This doesn't mean it's not there; however, if it were, only a select few would be able to verify this information. Similar databases such as Harvard's student directory or thefacebook.com exist analogously. And citing non-internet, non-universal (eg. Britannica) sources is even smokier: anyone could find an obscure book or newspaper not available on line and pretend to cite, and it is doubtful that anyone else would be Wikigeek enough to open the text up (note: this should not be considered endorsement for the author of 'Mimi Yu' to do this). Nor could anyone claim that information not in Google or a universal book source is irrelevant to Wikipedia: consider the pages for Decomposition group or Frobenius automorphism, for example, which cite no sources at all but have been around for months, one with an extensive editing history. In general the official Wikipedia citing policy I found is very vague. Consider:
    "If suspect sources have references, follow them. If there are no references, or if the references provided are insufficient, you may need to do additional research, or reconsider the reliability of the report." Explicate how many references are 'sufficient', what sources were voted on by your conferences to be 'suspect' and I am certain that the author will reconsider the report's reliability.

    Conclusion: There are numerous individual-related articles and numerous articles without 'proper' sources, none of which are contested for existence. I do not see why an article without 'proper' sources that is also individual-related should be. - 140.247.23.114
  • Comment Friend, that analysis of yours strikes me as quite awful. You appear to argue that since some articles in WP have few, if any, verifiable sources, any article without sources is fine. That's a wacky over-generalization. It is true that the Google test is often dubious; it is true that naughty editors could falsify paper sources. However, those truths do not unburden the writer of this article of his duty to produce one source when called upon to do so. Xoloz 06:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was a nicely researched argument which totally fails to adress the fact that this article doesn't have any sources. One of the WP:5P is WP:NPOV which requires verifiability. If you've found other articles with material that fails to WP:CITE sources, feel free to challenge that material. If an entire article is unverifiable, take it to WP:AFD. Unfortunately, it changes nothing for this article. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The point is that Wikipedia's 'official rules' are not specific enough to be feasible without subjective interpretations from Wikipedia users - these specifications in turn ruling out several examples (all discovered in about 15 minutes) which are likely considered quite standard Wikipedia articles. I would like to see the author of this article produce that source himself, as it would make it more believable, but failure to do so given the limitations listed above should hardly constitute reason for deletion. Find me verifiable sources for the very typical Wikipedia articles I mentioned, and I will recant. Don't do so and I cannot see how you wouldn't. And don't let this trigger the converse consequences of having most of Wikipedia's maths section taken down, it's been very useful to me. As an aside, highly impressive response rate. - 140.247.23.114
  • Comment The point is that Wikipedia's 'official rules' are not specific enough to be feasible without subjective interpretations from Wikipedia users. This sentence is very true; apart from a mechanic's manual (maybe), I know of no rule that does not, in its exercise, require the interposition of human judgment. You have once again argued successfully the truism that WP is not infallible. Congratulations. Although WP is not perfect, it still maintains the perogative to enforce its rules as best it can. Xoloz 07:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am perfectly ready to admit that I can not find any internet references that demonstrate any significant degree of notoriety. Many other musicians (besides myself) have heard of her; unfortunately they do not acknowledge this by discussing her in postings on the internet. They might be perfectly willing to vouch for her if asked, but unfortunately this does not carry much weight here in cyberspace. This leaves me in a quandry: I cannot direct you to any sites that mention her directly (other than the broken links to a few concert billings that a few of you have already found on Google, and a Harvard Crimson article that does not mention her directly, just states that some students played with Yo-Yo Ma). However, I do believe that she is known enough to be on WP, and that it will add to, not detract from, the quality and breadth of the encyclopedia if the article is kept. Yes, I know that this argument may seem flimsy without proper cyber-sources. However, I believe that one of the strengths of WP is the quantity of more esoteric knowledge (as the anon. user above mentioned) which, despite not being found all over the internet, is nevertheless useful for a number of users. Wikipedia is not just an indexed summary of all the information found on Google; it is stronger (and in many ways more useful to me) than Google because articles about objects or persons that may only be known to a rather limited community can be created, and then checked by that community.

Let me put it this way: when another musician searches for "Mimi Yu," he or she might find the page's existence quite useful. Then again, he or she may disagree with some of the facts and edit it. I do not think the article's existence will influence anyone else, one way or another, and from my point of view it is not contrary to the rules of Wikipedia. Arlohill 07:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(or, if you want to get technical, do your whole AGF, and cite me as a source.)

    • WP:AGF does not go that far, and is not intended to trump WP:V. Further, I now learn that Ms. Yu played with Yo-Yo Ma while in a Harvard student group? This increases my doubt. Harvard students get to do loads of neat things that do not make them notable, as I know from personal experience. Let's wait till she graduates, ok? WP is not a promotional tool for talented undergrads. Xoloz 07:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Incidentally, because (I think) Arlohill mentioned that Ms. Yu might be in the thefacebook.com for Harvard, I checked, and she isn't. There is a Michelle Yu '03 (Chemistry and Physics concentrator), but that's the closest I get. Xoloz 08:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, not in a student group, with Yo-Yo Ma's group, while at Harvard. And nicknames / stagenames are not listed on thefacebook. contact me personally if you really want to see her entry, but I don't think that is for here. And, no, those anonymous comments are not mine. AGF, man, AGF. And lets stick with the facts. If you think the article should stay deleted, fine. But being an undergraduate does not mean someone cannot be well known. Want me to list examples, musicians and otherwise? Your allegations of a "promotion" miss the point entirely - the article is clearly intended to provide useful information, not boost an aspiring musician's acclaim.
      • I didn't intend to suggest the anon comments were yours. Enough of these comments are unsigned such that I can't always attribute accurately -- hence, my (I think). You do not have email enabled through WP, Arlohill; I do. Feel free to contact me privately anytime with Ms. Yu registered facebook name, and I will evaluate your claims to the best of my ability. Xoloz 09:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, I can't see the article. Kappa 07:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you suggesting every deleted article brought here should be undeleted so it can be considered? Personally, I trust the judgement of the admin, who labelled it nn-bio. -- SCZenz 11:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well if an nn-bio is disputed, yep. At least the alleged claims of notability. Kappa 11:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The author can just write another one, and include a "remotely plausibile assertion of notability" this time. I've seen no claim in this review that such an assertion was present in the deleted version of the article—merely that such claims could have been made if the article were finished—so there is no reason to doubt the word of the admin that the speedy was done correctly on that version of the article. -- SCZenz 11:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: I am disappointed with this discussion. Failure to provide sources is not now a reason for speedying an article (it is a proposed reason). Non-notability is, and appears to be the grounds for this speedy, but AFAICS noone with admin permissions has actually checked the article to double check that the article really fails to assert notability: which is to the point since this appeal does make notability claims. This review has in fact failed to review the speedy decision. --- Charles Stewart 14:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if you read the top, the user requesting the review never claimed the speedy was improper, at least not in the sense that there was an assertion of notability that was ignored. So it didn't seem necessary to review that aspect of it. -- SCZenz 16:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy. I've temp undeleted this, so nonadmins can review the content. Speedy appears proper, though I haven't looked at all revisions. —Cryptic (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and possibly userfy: The sentences Notable performances include Ravel's trio for piano and strings, and Piazzola's "Le Grand Tango", with Taktin Oey on piano. She has also performed with Yo-Yo Ma's Silk Road Ensemble. constitutes assertions of notability, so the speedy is out of process. I do not think this article will survive an AfD in its present form however: I think the best thing would be to userfy the page in Arlohill's user space, to give him a chance to bring the article up to the standards of natability in WP:MUSIC. It may have more of a chance as an article on emrging musicians than as a standalone article. I observe that, besides notability and brevity, the article is of a decent quality. --- Charles Stewart 14:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and possibly userfy per Charles. Paul August ☎ 15:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy delete As the last version stood before the articel was deleted, it included nothing that i would recognize as a claim of notability. Simply includign the words "is notable for" does not make soemthign a claim of notability, the statement that follows must, IMO assert soem fact or facts that, if true, would at least arguably makew the person notable. Playing with a famous musician and being a promisng student do not make a person notable, and so satements that those facts are true are not claims of notability. The obvious answer here is to create a revised version which does include true claims of notability. Preferably these clisms will be backed up by cited sources. as to the "work in progress"issue -- every wikipedia article is supposed to eb a work in progress, and every such artivle, even if a stub, is supposed to be complete enough to not meet any speedy deelte criteria and to be a useful articel for the next random reader. if an article is not yet up to that, but an intermediate version is being saved durign editing, use {{inuse}} or better yet, create it in user space and only move it when it is ready for other eyes. DES (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy, keep deleted, as the article doesn't make any assertion of notability; that said, I wouldn't object to a userfy so it can be expanded and referenced, then moved to the main namespace. Titoxd(?!?) 18:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy, keep deleted. And suggest the article creator take to heart sczenz and brenneman's comments. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The argument now seems to be whether "she is notable for," followed by claims of her performing with famous musicians and examples of her own well-known performances, constitutes a claim of notability. This seems like a silly question to me - obviously it is a claim of notability, that's why it is there, and you are simply arguing over whether you agree with it or not, once more an issue outside of CSD. Saying she performed with so-and-so is just as much a claim of notability as "he was heard on the Howard Stern Show" - a person has, arguably, become well known because he or she has been associated with a celebrity, and thus brought into the public eye. Furthermore, other notable performances were listed, and if one were to add "these performances are notable because many people in the classical music community are aware of them," it would not do much to improve the article although, again, it would be an obvious "claim of notability." The fact that this argument has degenerated to discussion of whether she actually is notable or not for having performed with Yo-Yo Ma is evidence that, as Charles said above, the speedy deletion was not in order. The assertion of notability is very obvious, even if its validity is not. Arlohill 21:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a constructive way of proceeding: it isn't much of an achievement to go through DRV to reverse speedies on articles that just then get deleted through AfD, and the notability claims you are making do not remotely match WP:MUSIC. DES has made a case that the article falls within CSD A7, on a reading of that rule that is the same as mine: the only difference between us is that I regard non-policy guidelines like WP:MUSIC problematic for speedies. If you care about the future of this article, I recommend that you take a less legalistic line in arguing for it. --- Charles Stewart 22:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I'll point out again that, since it is now claimed that Mimi Yu is a pseudonym, it is not possible to verify much of her biography under that name. I still wait for Arlohill to provide me with the name she has registered at Harvard. Xoloz 22:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two things: One, I have already made the "less legalistic" argument above that this article's existence will benefit, not detract from, the quality and breadth of wikipedia, as do many other undocumented articles on less well known subjects (indeed, these are some of the most useful articles for a number of people, as the anon. user above has pointed out); this argument has been ignored by all others, who will only continue in one vein, disputing her notability. I would go so far as to invoke IAR, saying that this article's creation was an action to improve the encyclopedia, and "rules may be disregarded if this is necessary to make the encyclopedia better." In this instance it was necessary, because there are really no citable sources, despite the notability of the subject. But this argument has been disregarded, and I have been reduced to arguing about the technical process of the speedy deletion itself (which clearly was not in order), rather than the usefulness of the article in the context of Wikipedia. Secondly, Mimi Yu is not a pseudonym, just the name she goes by, which is listed in the programs of her performances, etc. She is enrolled at Harvard under Hung Wen, but you will find no use in this name, other than perhaps her entry in the Harvard College Facebook. And it is pointless to stoop down to this more personal level; the important point is that she is worthy of an entry, and that entry will be useful in WP. Arlohill 04:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per the above. Radiant_>|< 01:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. No assertion of notability. *drew 03:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - on the basis that the article would likely fail AfD on the grounds of notability, or the lack thereof. While I wish Ms. Yu the best of luck in her career, she has not done anything so far that would merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. FCYTravis 17:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep deleted. If she is indeed "on the rise" and performing with Yo Yo Ma, then certainly finding at least one article discussing her is not a huge burden. Nandesuka 20:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am ready to retract my appeal of the deletion; I can see that it is of no use. However, I still feel very strongly that, as Charles Stewart has mentioned, the speedy deletion was not in order. Articles are not to be speedy deleted because they probably would have failed AfD. Going around the rules in that way puts an article at a huge disadvantage, as it already has been deleted before any discussion can take place.

I also hope that others will take my argument to heart that Wikipedia is not an indexed summary of Google, it is more useful to many people because you can find information on things that only a limited community (not necessarily an internet community) is familiar with. I am frustrated that this larger picture is being ignored by people only too ready to crack down with their interpretation of the rules. Arlohill 22:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 14

Category:Soviet spies

Was not deleted and split due to lack of consensus on CfD. This fact is immaterial, as the category is hopelessly POV, and the community is not empowered to vote away NPOV rules. Phil Sandifer 06:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Edit: I'm saying that the category should be deleted or split regardless of supposed consensus or lack thereof, because it is in flat violation of existing policy, and a CfD vote cannot overrule NPOV. Phil Sandifer 07:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm confused: what's being asked here? --Calton | Talk 07:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that Snowspinner is requesting a review of the closing of the CfD vote based on a supposed lack of consensus, because the category is inherently based on a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. The category includes individuals who have not been convicted of or even charged with spying, such as Harry Magdoff. As it was pointed out in the CfD discussion, the existence of this category puts Wikipeida at risk for a defamation suit. 172 07:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought this page was for review of stuff that's been deleted already, not a second shot at AfD or CfD.
      • In any case, I suggest being bold:
      • There's more than one way to skin an NPOV cat, as it were. --Calton | Talk 07:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, however when clear evidence that something is not NPOV has been provided, it has to go, and no amount of foot-stamping can make a difference. I would have simply been bold, but I'm tired of the backbiting that ensues when one is bold in ways that people disagree with. Phil Sandifer 07:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Shrug. Like the Nike slogan goes, Just Do It. Like I said, if the supporters want the category, they have to use it properly (make bed, lie in it, etc) instead of using it as a kind of McCarthyite club to beat their opponents with. BTW, I went ahead and created Category:Accused Soviet spies: I'd populate it immediately, but I gotta go now. --Calton | Talk 08:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page isn't just for review of what's deleted; it is for reviewing any decision related to deletion. So yes, a close-as-no-consensus is reviewable, especially if the object to be deleted is in violation of one of our core policies. But here the problem doesn't seem to be the existence of the cat, but the fact that it's used wrongly. I'd say a viable solution would be to rename the cat to Category:Alleged Soviet spies and put in a cat redir, then add a cat Category:Convicted Soviet spies. Radiant_>|< 10:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As usual, Radiant is correct. Great idea! Xoloz 19:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close do not delete or rename out of process. While snowspinner is correct that a consensus on CfD cannot over-ride the NPOV policy, the question of whether this category is inherently PoV, or is simply being used in a PoV way, or indeeed is neither, is a factual question, properly to be determind by the specific consensus in a CfD discussion. This should remain until theere is a consensus to rename or delete it. I woudl advise submitting a new ans separate CfD nomination aimed specifically at a rename as a first step towards User:Radiant's solution. Remember that unlike articels, categorys are only suppsoed to be renamed by consensus, and that CfD handles renames as well as deletions. If anyone incorrectly applies "Be Bold" to this non-editing action, and renames or deletes this category unilaterally, the action should be summeraily reversed and the actor admonished at a minimum. DES (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the case of a contentious topic and what it would be understatement to call "serious questions" about the fairness of the trials and judicial system on, I think the POV questions are pretty clear cut. Phil Sandifer 00:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, moving of categories is handled at CfD, but that's largely only a convenience as far as I know. Moving articles to a different category is an editing action, and can be done at any time by anyone who thinks it improves the Wiki. All the stuff in this category needs to be fixed regardless of the AfD result, and be bold clearly applies. -- SCZenz 02:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone ahead and been bold in recategorizing several people for whom there is no evidence of an admission of espionage or a conviction for an espionage-related crime. FCYTravis 01:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mazel tov. Each of the articles is watched by a contingent of editors with a quite a strong ideological bent. If bets were being taken on Wikipedia, I'd place a pretty large sum on your efforts at recategorizing some of the individuals getting reverted in no less than 12 hours. 172 01:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What, to me, is really ugly, are all the people pages named "John Doe (spy)" - that's just a flat-out accusation in the very page title. FCYTravis 02:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've done some recategorizing myself, and Lord, it's a mess: I can see why Snowspinner was bothered by this. Many of the ones I've come across are so blatantly POV, like the one that began, Samuel Dickstein (5 February 1885 - 22 April 1954) was a Democratic Congressional Representative from New York, a New York State Supreme Court Justice, and spy for the Soviet Union, whose only proof or backing was "The VENONA Project says so."
        • Click around on articles from Category:Soviet spies and you'll find far worse examples, substubs beginning with the form "NAME graduated from UNIVERSITY. In 19XX, he worked for AGENCY, and was a Soviet spy"; they usually contain little actual biographical detail (missing things such as, you know, YEAR of birth or death, actual life accomplishments or jobs, legal entanglements or verdicts, etc.); nothing except "SPY SPY SPY says the Venona Project".
        • And if the cats get reverted; well, the reverters with strong ideological bent wouldn't have a policy leg to stand on, since NPOV trumps their ideology every time. --Calton | Talk 02:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close of no consensus: As DES said, there is no POV violation in the existence of the category, only in the part of the pages that includes them in the category. Good for FCYTRavis in fixing. The CfD discussion (which had no delete votes besides the proposer, only keep and rename votes) has a suggestion by User:TJive to start the category Category:Americans named in VENONA, which seems appropriate here. --- Charles Stewart 19:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Body parts slang

No matter the merits or demerits of this article, it was deleted without a consensus being achieved; "8-7" is not a consensus, but rather a slim majority. Further, much like the recent AFD retry for List of sexual slang, this article was resubmitted quickly after a failure to reach a consensus the first time. Beyond the "legal" case for undeletion, this article can indeed be included via WP:NOT 1.5.2, but I will freely admit the article needs serious cleanup, in line with what was recommended for List of sexual slang. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 18:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted. I count 4 legit keep votes. That's a 2/1 consensus, and since the article seems mostly contrary to policy. -R. fiend 19:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. As noted, the AfD was sock-infested, just like the 1st one. Actually the tally us 8-5, as I only see 5 valid votes. And without links or existing article of the names of ~97% of those terms, WP 1.5.2 just does not apply. Any decent intro to this topic would just be a restate of the "Sexual Slang" article's intro, which is redundant.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 19:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several editors have already pointed out, several times, that this is not and never was a structured list of internal hyperlinks. It was a thesaurus, plain and simple, and contrary to our Wikipedia is not a dictionary official policy. There was no actual encyclopaedia article content in this article at all. Without the thesaurus content, which is contrary to official policy, this article would have been empty. There is a table on Talk:Body parts slang which points to most of the relevant WikiSaurus entries that this was duplicating. Keep deleted. Uncle G 19:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This is (just barely) within range of an administrator's leeway, since he explained his reasoning and cited policy in the close. Afd isn't strictly about vote-counting; otherwise we could make a bot that did it. (Please don't point me to places where this has been suggested before, though I'm sure it has been.) The 8-7 vs 8-5 argument is a red herring, since the "60%" figure shows the closer's intention. —Cryptic (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not only do few admins bother to even show a tally, and they certainly don't have to. But I said 60% and "IPs not counted", which supports my 8-5 tally. The 7 is clearly a typo. I am not changing anything. If you "dont count IPs" you get 8-5, and even Yukfoo's vote legitimacy is disputed, yet I counted it anyway and I am keeping it that way. Basing an argument off a typo refuted by my other statements on the AfD (because it was a typo and therefore is incorrect and does not agree with the other 2 statements) is very dirty tactic.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 22:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • He was registered user with an actual edit history so I counted it. I don't know much beyond that other than that R. fiend disputes it. I believe you if you say that he is a good editor, MIB, either way his vote was and still is counted. The literacy remark was definitly a bit harsh.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 23:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps it was a bit harsh, but I've looked through his edits, and though I certainly have not seen them all, every single random one I selected was along the lines of adding a (usually unnecessary) link or such, or voting "keep" on many of the very worst articles at AFD in a very rambling, almost nonsensical fashion. If English is not his first language, that should be taken into consideration, but punctuation is pretty universal. And anyone who doesn't speak English with a pretty high degree of fluency really should not be editing the English Wikiepdia. I took several years of German, but I wouldn't dream of making any edits to the German Wikipedia. Whatever language he may speak fluently, I'll bet there's a Wikipedia in that language that needs his efforts more than we do. And, let's just say his username doesn't exactly inspire confidence. I also note no one has pointed out a substantial edit yet. -R. fiend 23:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • [13]. —Cryptic (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough. That does begin to change my view of Yuckfoo. When I first encountered him I got the impression he was something of a troll of sorts, and up until this moment I never saw anything to contradict that. Nearly all his edits (at least in the past few months) seem to be to AFD (though, on further inspection, I was surprised to actually find one or two votes to delete). How I would count his vote at AFD if it were to come up (it hasn't so far) is questionable. Since it's (allegedly) supposed to be more about the discussion than about the votes (yet it somehow always comes down to a ratio of keeps to deletes), I can't say Yuckfoo has ever made any sort of argument I would call terribly convincing (please provide a link if he has). Rossami, in his count below, which he obviously put some thought into, counts only 4 keeps as well, so he's discounting someone, though I don't know whether it's Yuckfoo, or Alexander007 for being too new (or someone else altogether). -R. fiend 03:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, this article was already transwikied to Wiktionary/Wikisaurus. Titoxd(?!?) 22:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a fascinating case to review. The initial deletion discussion was closed as "no consensus". I tally that discussion at 12 clear delete, 5 keep only if severely cut down, 5 keep as is (+1 anon) and 1 transwiki (+1 anon). Despite an overwhelming consensus that the article should not be retained in it's current state, the article was essentially unchanged through the second discussion. In the second discussion, I tally 8 deletes to 4 valid keeps with (and here's the interesting part) no overlap of participants with the previous debate. Taken together, we have 20 unambiguous deletes to 9 unambiguous keeps. (The conditional votes from the prior discussion have to be left out since the condition was not met.) Since then, the article has been transwiki'd to Wiktionary (where in my strong opinion, it should have been in the first place). Furthermore, it is very clear that the closing admin read all the comments carefully and made the decision in light of established policy and did not resort to mere vote-counting. I endorse the closing decision. Rossami (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted per Rossami. Dottore So 23:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted per Uncle G. Xoloz 05:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted per Uncle G. *drew 08:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close as per Uncle G and as per Rossami. DES (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete, per nom as well as to save the huge list created here for posterity and/or educational/social research. Wiktionary/Wikisaurus doesn't seem to have even 5% of this article's content, etc etc... Ahh I see it now at Transwiki. Adding [link to talk page -Andrew 19:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Obviously the destruction of this useful encyclopedic content is going to stand. My gut tells me the real reason behind its destruction is puritans pouring into the Wikipedia and using "Wikipedia tech jargon" to mask their distaste for vulgarity. But alas, that's the way the cookie bounces sometimes in the Wikipedia. Clearly, this article could have been redrafted to fit better within the rules, but instead, people say "destroy, destroy!". Stevietheman 22:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion when so many Wikipedians are also Wiktionarians. The page has been moved, not destroyed. If we really were making our decisions based on prudery, we'd be arguing to delete it over on Wiktionary, too. As far as I know, that's not happening. Rossami (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I resent User:Stevietheman's comments. I can't speak for anyone esle, but I ahve been uncompromising in opposing any sort of censeorship based on prudery or "distaste for vulgarity". I opoosed the delteion of the autofellation image, and I favored the deeltion of {{obscene}} and various other waning and censorship tags. My opnion above was based solely on the clear consensus displayed in the AfD debates, in which I did not happen to participate. And as User:Rossami points out, the content has not been eradicated, it is available on Wiktionary. DES (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Endorse the original closure, and commend the closing admin on providing a succinct yet thorough explanation of how the closure determination was made. The Literate Engineer 21:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 12

Bananas come from Pluto

Bring back: You are supposed to allow enough time for someone to write an article before deleting it. Adding the delete fast and then deleting the page while someone has just started the article is generally rude and against wiki policy. Also, why a speedy delete for this article bananas come from pluto, I don't believe there was any criteria for this? Since it does not meet criteria for speedy delete, there should have been a regular delete discussion. Is there a discussion on this subject? If you don't have an answer for this I motion that the page be undeleted. (Perhaps then you might attempt to have it deleted properly in the regular delete section.)(please follow policy): User user:R._fiend has a specific interest in this article and should not be able to delete all by himself. He indicated below for the article rules of make believe that:

  • "...So Bananas come from Pluto, an idea I just had, deserves an article because the idea exists. I just thought of it. Let's see if that link turns blue now. Anyone else feel this request is a waste of time?"

Perhaps his interest is to delete this article because it represent a type of refutation to his argument. I however strongly believe that a discusion about the deletion of this article should occur. here is a backup copy of what it looked like --CyclePat 18:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My faith in the system of wikipedia administrators knowlege has gone down so low I think the abys would look like a dent in the road. Seriously... "vandalism"? We all know that this attempted article user:cyclepat/bananas come from pluto is a good attempt at writting a logical article.
  • Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia.
Now a mere definition doesn't seem logical because, it doesn't even have that section (but that's a good idea to add that... (definition: a sentence, blah blah, etc.))
For the nonsense, I think I could work something into the article if you give me some time (according to wikipedia guidelines for nonsense). However what specifically makes the article nonsense? Is it the name, history, ethymology? I don't see anything that seems to go against wikipedia guidelines for patented nonsense
Finally You know the most common thing to say would be (Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought)(and "bananas come from pluto" is probably all original research, no?))[14](unless theirs a book out there on that!)(if this was a test for administators I think most of you should have failed... except maybe the one that delete the article in the first place, but even then... a little discusion would be good. I understand not everyone is an experienced administrator, neither are users... Administrators should try to understand; if they want to give faith and have people believe in the system it's up to YOU/US. Try to teach someone that realy needs it... don't just delete the article. Sheesh!)(okay enough preaching for today for me)--CyclePat 04:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I think we have a misunderstanding. I'm sure your article was very funny. Thanks for the self-admitted joke. However, this being an encyclopedia, we try to find reasons to get rid of jokes quickly. I don't mean to say that your joke was evil, or unfunny, or that you should be chastised strongly for it. Consider, though, that WP gets lots of funny people submitting lots of jokes all the time, and if we don't clean up fast, the jokes outpace the verifiable information that is the real business of an encyclopedia. So, I'm sorry for any offense, and please don't take the "bad-faith" label personally. All I meant was that you submitted a joke knowing it was a joke, and you can't reasonably expect it to hang around long. Xoloz 04:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Okay! I give in! your right. (I was hoping for it to stay up for at least a day though... I tried to make it as authentic as possible. Everything in it is pretty much verifiable) I guess next time I have an article to write that has to deal with a silly subject I'll put it in the wiki joke section (which I just found but can't remember the link). :s --CyclePat 06:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of Make Believe

This article was deleted based solely on its Alexa rank, even though there were other guidelines in the Website guidelines that deem this comic notable. They are:

  • Having a forum with 5,000 or more apparently unique members. - ROMB's forum has over 7000 members, and there are easily over 5000 unique members.
  • Coverage or inclusion outside the webcomics community. - I've read reviews of ROMB in my local newspaper and local college-targeted magazine, both of which had circulations cover much of Worcester, MA and its universities.
  • Notable Achievement or Characteristic. - ROMB is done in a Chinese manhua style, which is very unique among web comics, since most tend to use a western or Japanese style.

While the third criteria came after the page's deletion, the first two were present when the original VFD took place, yet no attempt to check them was done. Given that all three apply to ROMB, this makes it qualify as notable and should therefore be undeleted. It would be enough to simply put back its history to allow access to previous versions. Xuanwu 09:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ROMB's art style is not a matter of "turning it upside down." The manhua style is from the primary culture of Asia (China) and is generally underrepresented online (if you can point to another English web comic that uses it, please do so). Therefore, ROMB's style is significant both in terms of where it comes from and its rarity. It's not a matter of simply drawing moustaches on pictures. I think a case can also be made that ROMB is the first web comic to use the manhua style, which makes it even more notable, in the same sense that Polymer City Chronicles is notable as the first video game comic. Xuanwu 22:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know what Manhua is, my little wiki:babel may be a bit of a clue. If the thing is underrepresented online, is Wikipedia meant to misrepresent it? What? You've shown no assertion of its influence, and the comic has a low readership. My upside down comic was a bit of a joke, but it basically applies. I could do the first comic in the style of the ancient egyptians, totally authentic culture and one of the first civilizations on earth, but wiki wouldn't instantly include an article for it just because it is unique in that sense. It has to assert its notability in the outside world. And I didn't know this until reading Brenneman's point below, but the "notable for unique style" criteria, you added yourself, and then argued about it here. You also added a thing about webcomic toplists, which I removed. Toplists?! The notability criteria was drawn up after weeks of discussion, and whereas boldness has to be admired in some respects, your edits there did seem a bit self serving. - Hahnchen 01:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, it comes down to the third claim only. Is this a new type of animation that leads to imitators? Is it a sole example of a style that is substantial? Arguably, each artist has a new "style," and obviously the guidelines are not meant for anything so idiosyncratic as that. Implicit in the guideline is "new style that establishes a trend." I cannot quite assess that, but the article doesn't help us out any, either, by giving us any documentation of the way in which this comic leads the way. It's good if we can do the research to confirm an article's claims, but it's not obligatory. I have to say re-delete/keep deleted. Geogre 21:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Notes on #3 could be added (though not right now since it's been protected). The article was written before need to mention notability was present, so that part was not focused on. Also, remember that the second criteria (coverage) also applies, though its reviews only exist on hard copy. Xuanwu 22:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Innovism

This article on an admittedly worthless philosophy was deleted with a grand total of three votes based on an incorrect claim that it is a "one-man movement" (not that that would be a valid reason to delete an article on a philosophical system anyway, however intellectually viable that system may be). Kurt Weber 02:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innovism

November 11

Leeroy Jenkins

I move to undelete this article. For the record, I am/was in no way involved with the original article or it's AfD vote. However, I feel that it meets the requirements stated in Wikipedia:Importance, specifically:

  • There is clear proof that a reasonable number of people are or were concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community).
  • If an article is "important" according to the above then it should not be deleted on the basis of it being insufficiently important, famous or relevant.

The current page is a redirect to World of Warcraft (WoW), where it gets a one-line mention of it being a video. Note also that I am NOT a WoW player, I was interested in this article due to the term being bandied around on the internet, and among multiplayer games especially. I was particularly annoyed to end up at yet another WoW advertisement.

But I digress. The fact that while this was originally a WoW phenomenon matters not (I looked up Leeroy Jenkins elsewhere on the net). As a point of fact, there is another poster on the WoW talk page complaining about this same issue. Apparently he's a teacher/lecturer trying to better understand his students. The article is obviously of interest to some people (although I must say that the original article was somewhat biased towards vanity).

Finally, the popularity of this article appears to have skyrocketed since the AfD. A current google search for "Leeroy Jenkins" (with the quotes) returns over 35,000 hits on separate pages.

In conclusion, I ask that the AfD be revoked. Wikipedia is not paper.

Thank you Wahming 07:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • The page is currently a redirect. After the VfD (old style), it was recreated several times, and eventually redirected (rather than speedied as recreation) by Mgm. The VfD was already superceded by events at that time, May 30. The question of whether it should be expanded, maintained, speedied, or relisted is open. My vote is Take no action. Xoloz 08:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, I noted that it is currently a redirect to WoW
  • I only deleted one patch of vandalism, but it has been deleted for vandalism and recreation multiple times by others see Special:Undelete/Leeroy Jenkins. Also: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Leeroy Jenkins which had an overwhelming delete consensus (not counting sockpuppets and anons as allowed by the rules). The article is about a person who fails to follow protocol, runs in screaming his name, followed by an entire party getting them killed. I don't see how such a trivial character deserves their own article. If it's a notable event within the game, it should be mentioned in World of Warcraft which it is. Keep deleted. - Mgm|(talk) 12:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a notable event within the game, it should be mentioned in World of Warcraft which it is.
Did you even read my post.. -_-' Leeroy Jenkins is no longer a person, it is now a catchphrase online, especially in multiplayer games. It is on that basis that I am calling for a review. Wahming 12:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Leeroy Jenkins was described as a "meme" and not a person in the original VfD. Indeed, it was compared to AYBABTU. android79 13:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Valid VfD, no new information provided to overturn result. "leeroy jenkins" still only gets 708 unique Google hits. This phenomenon is mentioned in the WoW article, which is enough, IMO. android79 13:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted ... uh, redirected/merged. Valid AfD, nothing particularly convincing to warrant revisiting the issue. Low unique Google hits don't suggest any huge rise in popularity/notability. Frankly, there's not a whole lot of point to writing an article on an MMORPG player character... they're one of the few things that are always deleted... I can't think of a single case when one was kept, and even the most hardline inclusionists don't bother to argue for them. Leeroy should be happy with the redirect and mention in the main WoW article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore or at least expand the reference in the WoW article. One problem seems to be the variety of versions of the article; I have not read each and every version. Some were probably worthy of being kept, but the deletion seems to have taken aim at a moving target. I suspect that at this point most players of any MMORPG have heard of Leeroy Jenkins, which makes it fairly significant as an Internet meme. Smerdis of Tlön 19:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per Ihcoyc/Smerdis of Tlön. Leeroy is at least as notable as Ellen Feiss. ~~~~ 13:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (keep deleted) as per Android79 and Starblind. MCB 23:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore or expand reference in WoW article: widely recognized Internet phenomenon, showcased in a PC Gamer article and has influenced the way many people play online games. Also note that Leeroy Jenkins' spelling differs thanks to the term being shouted: adding extra "e"'s can turn out more results on Google.
  • Undelete Everyking 11:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. As much as I love shouting "Leeeerooooooy Jeeeeeenkins!" in chatrooms, its just not notable enough to warrent undeletion. Besides, its already mentioned in the WoW article.--Kross | Talk 21:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - per Encyclopædia Dramatica, "Leeroy Jenkins" is actually another one of those misogynistic and physically impractical "sex moves" along the lines of the "Angry dragon" (a previously deleted article). BDAbramson T 16:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and expand as per the original WoW reference and context. The current connotation now has absolutely nothing to do with the original player character, so it's not vanity. It's not even strongly tied to the original video anymore. The alleged misogynistic sex move was inspired by the WoW reference and not vice versa. As a meme it is well-known within the general MMORPG community, and not just WoW. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 20:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm... still, a minor ref - a redirect to WoW works just fine. BDAbramson T 23:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. It's probably the single biggest player-derived meme to spawn from WoW, which itself is currently the largest MMORPG. I'm no longer active in MMORPGs and I still hear it. The snippet in the WoW article is insufficient. Expanding it within the WoW article isn't appropriate, either, since it has a life beyond that game. It merits an article. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 03:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and expand, I am not a WoW player and have heard this term bandied about in the offline world now. Kit 01:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 10

Yoism (undelete view)

I was the closing admin for this, and the main proponents would like to see my decision reviewed. Because they believe that there might be a bias if they bring it here, they requested I do so.

  • Here is the Afd: [18].
  • Here is my more detailed explanation of my process as I originally wrote it: [19]
  • This discussion grew, and here is the current version.

The users in question that would like the review are:

Wikibofh 15:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I stated "If you have a real question about the VfD that you would like to ask administrators to consider, that might be worthwhile. Kriegman 06:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)" I do not see the VfD process as being truly open to looking at the issues I raised here, unless an administrator were to ask other administrators to take a look at this article and the process issues its deletion raised, i.e., I do not think that it makes a difference who puts the article in for review if it is seen as "at our request." The first response by R. fiend (below) is what can be expected if there is no request by an administrator to consider the issues raised. Kriegman 16:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, it's difficult and time consuming. But characterizing it as "argumentative" without responding to any of the issues raised is also problematic, no? Kriegman 16:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for numerous reasons.
Main reason: the article went through a deletion process two years earlier and, after considerable debate, the article was reworked and a decision was reached to keep. There was no question raised about the article's existence for the next two years until someone tried a link to the external website that was temporarily down (it had been hacked a few weeks earlier). The external link didn't work and it was temporarily redirected (while the site was being rebuilt on a new server) to a page with a message saying what was happening. This brief message of a few paragraphs was taken to indicate that the phenomenon in question, Yoism, was a bogus micronation type phenomenon (unlike the decision reached two years earlier in which examination of the hacked website was a crucial part of the review process). Thus the entire decision to place the article in VfD and the ultimate decision was due to a misinterpretation of data that was a replacement for important information that was temporarily unavailable and remained unavailable during the review process. The site is now largely up and running, though certain important links are still not working (and I would not have put the article up for undeletion until they were working).
Other reasons are detailed here (in the section titled "On Socks & Puppetfests" in the second box at page bottom), here, and here.
Additional reason: Though I repeatedly noted the rigorous 501(c)(3) process Yoism had gone through (that documents its existence and legitimacy far better than many phenomenon on the Wikipedia), it was later pointed out to me that Yoism, Inc. was not just recognized as a legitimate non-profit enterprise by the IRS. It was specifically recognized as a religion, i.e., a church, which is a far more restrictive category that gets extraordinarily close scrutiny by the IRS. The evidence that Yoism is a real phenomenon is simply overwhelming (even if some people are underwhelmed by the phenomenon itself). Kriegman 17:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I think it's quite important that Yoism has been officially recognized as a religion by the U.S. government. Add on top of that that there are multiple newspaper mentions, a significant physical presence in a few different locations, a significant web presence, the fact that in previous wikipedia reviews it was kept, etc... All this seems to seems to indicate that Yoism is in fact a real phenomenon and not an ficticious invention or vanity page. Also my vote was discarded in the previous count (merely because of my connection to Yoism), which I resent. I'm not a wikipedia addict, but I have made significant improvements to wikipedia articles, especially correcting the Occam's Razor and Philosophy of Science articles which had critical errors. OverZealousFan 18:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. Do not count clear meatpuppets, but do make sure those editors who are voting have information on why the article was kept two years ago. -- SCZenz 18:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, I'm not following that statement. I don't see any nomination for deletion two years ago, so of course the article was kept. There's a big difference between saying that an article was decided not to be deleted and saying that an article has merely been around for a while. The latter is not any sort of justification for keeping. I'm sure thre are plenty of articles that should be deleted that have been around for a long time; they haven't earned squatters rights or anything. Votes are just as valid a year after creation as they are a minute after creation. -R. fiend 18:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The original yoism article was removed to Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense and listed on VfD almost as soon as it was created (19:15, 22 July 2003 . . Maveric149 (Content moved to Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. Page listed on Votes for deletion.) A debate then ensued and it was relisted. It was this exact debate that first brought wikipedia to my attention, so I remember it well. OrionK 20:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the "undelete view" link, see the entries dated July 22, 2003 through August 4, 2003. Kriegman 21:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (keep deleted) for numerous reasons.
First of all, there must be reliable sources giving verifiable information about Yoism per Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability If there are no reliable sources giving verifiable informaiton about Yoism, then all we are left with is original research or autobiographical information which inherently reflects a non-neutral POV (reference Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). Secondly, if there are reliable sources giving verifiable information about Yoism, it must be notable enough to be on Wikipedia (reference Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not).
Thus far, there are only two reliable sources giving verifiable information about Yoism: the Boston Globe article and the government documents. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, the Yoism website inherently presents POV and it not a reliable source of verifiable information. By providing uncorroborated information about itself, there is strong evidence to suggest that this is violating Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Autobiography. Per Wikipedia:Autobiography, Daniel Kriegman, as the founder of Yoism and a primary source of information pertaining to Yoism (in Wikipedia and in the Boston Globe article), should not be heavily involved in editing the Yoism article as there is strong evidence to suggest that this is violating Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. This also pertains to his articles on Open source religion, Intersubjective verifiability, Evolutionary psychoanalysis, and even Daniel Kriegman. Wikipedia is to reflect the body of knowledge external to Wikipedia and not to be used for self-promotion. --Edwardian 18:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I contributed to the article on myself as a "young" Wikipedian (and I MAY have started it, I actually don't recall; I didn't have a username back then), before I knew much about the culture here (much of which I have learned only recently); and the same is true of evolutionary psychoanalysis. Though I believe they still are valid articles, they do need others to edit them. And now I would be more circumspect in starting or contributing to them. The others (open source religion and intersubjective verifiability) are much less clear. I think they are legitimate articles in their own right. OSR will eventually have much less focus on Yoism (my obvious starting point) as others contribute to it; and the link to the issue of religion in the intersubjective verifiability article---which is about a major concept in the philosohy of science---is important as this might be the central difference between religion and science. Yoism gets into the picture because, in fact, it was created to overcome this problem. But Edwardian and I got into an unfortunate and unpleasant exchange in the VfD. Maybe we can avoid repeating that. Kriegman 21:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Yoism website has a point of view, but so do numerous websites and groups listed in wikipedia. The Yoism article was written with NPOV -- no one seems to be disputing that. The information about Yoism is corroborated by independent media, the official Yoism website, the US Gov't, the IRS, the state of MA, independent blogs, numerous individuals, and eye witness testimony. If Dan Kriegman is interested in open source religion, and is an expert in evolutionary psychoanalysis and intersubjective verifiability, why shouldn't he be adding to these articles? Since there is an article about himself, why shouldn't he be allowed to correct/update it? The important point is the quality of the artilce, the phenomena it is reporting on, and ensuring it meets wikipedia standards for NPOV, no original reserach, etc. There are many people involved in Yoism, and many more who know about it and find the article informative. The question is whether it is notable enough for wikipedia, not who contributes to it. OrionK 20:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse/keep deleted per above. The objection by the creator of this sect smacks of vanity. Friday (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That may be. But how does that obviate any need to respond to the content of the objection? Kriegman 20:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would someone care to undelete the history of Talk:Yoism? Practice two years ago was to move the discussions of kept articles to their talk pages, and from the edit summaries of the deleted revisions, that seems to be what happened here. (It's not linked from Wikipedia:Archived delete debates, but it is from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents/Archive, and probably shouldn't have been deleted.) —Cryptic (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Yoism is part of a young and growing phenomena of open source religions, and this is of interest to many within the open source movement more generally. The article is NPOV, independently verifiable, and not a vanity page. Legitmate votes have been discounted as "meat puppets" even though no puppetry (in terms of manipulation of the process, which is what the term originally refers to if you actually bother to read about it) occurred. Fans of the Yoism site did vote to keep it, and some of them are active wikipedia editors (like myself) who ALSO identify as Yoans. Because of vociferous comments by Dan Kriegman, many wikipedia editors are irrationaly biased against the article. But a rational and level headed assessment indicates that the original reason for deletion, i.e., vanity page, is not applicable to the Yoism article. OrionK 20:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if any of the discounted opinions were in fact valid, it's perfectly understandable why they were ignored, given their meatpuppettish ranting. Repeating it here's unlikely to win you any support. WP:DRV is not the place to come to to re-argue your position after you failed to convince anyone during the afd; we examine the process here. —Cryptic (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand you -- my comments are about the process. Since I am not an admin, should I not be commenting? If so I apologize but that wasn't clear to me. It would be helpful if we could clarify who is being accused of being a meatpuppet and why? Clear wikipedia editors who voted for keeping yoism are myself, dan kriegman, overzealous fan, presnell and rob (user (24.60.21.122) has numerous, unrelated, prior edits) -- that is at least 5 legitmate votes in favor of keeping, no? There ought to be some reflection about how the term meat puppetry is used in an illegitmate way -- this is a process observation. OrionK 22:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn/relist. Counting non-puppets, the vote is 4-1 in favor of deleting: right on the borerline of consensus. For this reason and this reason alone, it should be relisted in order to get more non-puppet voters. It is very important to note that deletion review is for deciding whether or not a deletion was done out of process, and votes saying things like "Overturn, it is notable" are irrelevant and likely to be discounted. ~~ N (t/c) 20:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NEW INFORMATION In addition to IRS recognition as a religion/church and the Boston Globe article, I have found another newspaper article in Spare Change (August 22-September 4, 2002, pp. 12, 16) describing a major YO project (the major focus of Yoan activity in the Boston area for two years). The links to information about this major project are the part of the yoism.org website that is still not working. Hopefully it will be soon. Kriegman 20:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 'bout that. I guess I would have hoped you would have tried to take at least a brief look at the website of a religion/organization, an article about which you were putting up for deletion. What was clear was that Edwardian tried to look at it and found the redirected temporary replacement for the hacked site and made an interpretation of what he found there. He then stayed heavily involved in the VfD (possibly because he and I got into an unpleasant exchange). While I can surmise from your commitment to skepticism and your exchange with Bernie in another forum, I do not know your motives. Kriegman 18:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
a significant percentage of the website can be found through the wayback machine.Geni 20:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Bring it back. Relist if necessary. Was No vote. This Wikipedia hearing is only about the "process," not about the content. And the "process" was as sound as Christ's crucifixion. That is, the Wikipedia process for deletion of the Yoism page proceeded to its conclusion without regard for facts, history, or reality. I myself have attended Yoan gatherings and indeed personally I co-led one Yoan gathering. And you could too if you would only stand up and say what is true for you. It is about time that humanity take responsibility for the evil in the inherited human longing for a relationship with the alpha-male God. And in my opinion, Yoans do better than any other group of thirty people I know alive on this planet today in attempting to address and heal the inherently evil nature of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism without just starting another -ism that, sure enough, just finds another manifestation of the alpha-male God which evidently can be imagined almost anywhere. But despite all those facts, and despite the very real promise that the Yoism approach has, the Wikipedia process for deleting the Yoism page was flawless. And the process of the crucifixion of Christ was also flawless--even though there is no God and even though whatever Christ there was rotted in the grave turning to only pieces of worm, flower, and tree for any living system that actually reached to what was left of him and to wherever he lay and to wherever they took him in their desperation to avoid the reality of his death. May the Yoism page rest in peace. I personally have no hope for Wikipedia or humanity. That is what I learned from Yoism, and I am not Yoan. But the Yoism page should have never been deleted, and Christ should never have been crucified. Have you no conscience? Rednblu | Talk 21:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as per many of the arguments above. Relist if necessary.--Nicodemus75 23:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (keep deleted) for both process and content reasons, and please, spare us all the new-age psychobabble. MCB 23:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MORE NEW INFORMATION: ZUZU'S PLACE The major Yoism project that was reported in Spare Change (and dismissed by some people as an unauthoritative source) was also described here along with a photograph of the first Zuzu's Place coop. I hope a photo of an actual coop created by the Yoan community is not considered an unauthoritative hallucination. Zuzu's Place is the part of the Yoism.org website that is just now being fixed. It should be accessible in a day or two. Kriegman 21:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This new information is not the basis for this VfU. It is just being reported as part of the new information available. Along with the fact that Yo, Inc. was closely examined by the IRS which recognized it as a religion/church, there is new information that should be examined. But new information was not the basis for this VfU. Kriegman 06:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Hi this is Rob Levy. I'm in favor of undeleting. Thanks much. What is UTC? (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.21.122 (talk • contribs) 22:50, November 16, 2005 (UTC)
This user has 29 unrelated edits prior to this VfU, and he is using his real name and can be verified as a non-sockpuppet. Kriegman 03:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Hi this is Rob Levy. I signed up with an account just now but I have casually editted Wikipedia pages for years and I very often use the site for reference and learning. I've been involved in Yoism since 2001, so I am not unbiased, but Yoism as I see it is an established enough phenonomenon to warrant presence on Wikipedia. Furthermore the fact that our webpages were temporarily inaccessible due to a malicious attack made us more vulnerable in the AfD process. So considering how much traffic comes into our site, the fact that we have IRS recognized legal faith-based status, the external verification in news sources, and other independednt 3rd party sources, it should be agreed on that undeletion is the natural course of action. Robert p levy 05:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This vote is a duplicate of the one above it. Rob Levy was apparently responding to Wikkibofh's note that "Votes made without accounts are not counted," by redoing his vote with a newly registered user name. Regarding sock puppetry concerns, please note that Rob Levy had 29 unrelated prior edits prior to the VfU using the IP address 24.60.21.122. Kriegman 05:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly endorse deletion. Process was plainly followed; all of the supposed "new information" presented is trivia, and none of it is relevent to the reasons presented for deletion in the original vote. --Aquillion 09:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This whole action is only about conscience. And if you really had a conscience you would abstain from strongly voting against the content that you oppose. Accordingly, if you will retract your biased vote, I will likewise retract my biased vote. --Rednblu | Talk 10:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I always vote my conscience. If you believe that your own vote is invalid and does not accurately represent your judgement of process, then I strongly encourage you to reverse it; but for myself I am confident that I have made the correct decision. --Aquillion 10:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - For the same reasons I voted keep on the original AfD. Namely, it's verifiable (501 status), notable (some press coverage), and I just found it to be an interesting read after stumbling across it (had never heard of it before then). --Presnell 16:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, more new information: Manifestations of Yoism beyond the minds of its main proponents, include the Zuzu's Place project (referenced already above) and SPAM, which was noted in one of the NY Times top ten most emailed articles: ". . . the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster flourishes. It even has schisms. A rival faction, based on SPAM (Spaghetti & Pulsar Activating Meatballs), has formed." (New York Times, August 29, 2005)" The parody religion known as SPAM is a Wholly Yoan creation (pun intended), that, unlike Yoism itself, does exist only in Yoism webspace. Kriegman 13:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I said it was a manifestation/creation of Yoism that has been noted outside of the minds of Yoans, not that Yoism was recognized by the NY Times. Had that happened, you can be sure I would have mentioned it, and we wouldn't be involved in this process ;-) The SPAM page at yoism.org, many shorter discussions of it along with links to it, and brief references like the one in the Times article are the only places you will find any evidence of SPAM, the religion. Kriegman 18:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recently concluded

  1. Fuckfrance: kept deleted.
  2. GnuFU: undeleted, pending transwiki to Wikibooks.
  3. Niki Ashton: speedy undeleted and posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niki Ashton.
  4. Nayla bint Farasa: kept deleted
  5. Regret: speedy undeleted, not posted AFD; G4 speedy was invalid, as article was entirely different from the originally deleted one
  6. William Renner: kept deleted
  7. Diary-X: undeleted, posted at AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diary-X 2
  8. Linen closet: invalid, article was never deleted, remains a redirect
  9. Songs in triple meter: Kept deleted, although a similar page was creaed and now at AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs in triple meter (1990-1999)
  10. Golden Sun Password: kept deleted; option remains open for transwiki, though consensus seems to be that no wiki will likely want it
  11. Your mom: speedy-deletion reversed. subsequently moved to Wiktionary.
  12. Death of God: mistaken nomination. created as redirect to God is dead
  13. Warsaw Fire Brigade, now on Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warsaw Fire Brigade (second nomination).
  14. Sigmund Freud University Vienna: undeleted and merged in with current content, permission received to use copyrighted material

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.


Decisions to be reviewed

Shortcut

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

 
1.

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

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

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

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

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 November 10}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

4.

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

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 November 10}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 November 10|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

November 24

November 23

The AfD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Socialist Realism, has been incorrectly closed on two counts:

  1. Only two of the 16 votes were simple delete votes, most of the delete votes were Transwiki and delete, but the closing admin did not make any effort to keep the content available for transwikying;
  2. In the course of the AfD discussion, it became clear that the WP:NOT policy was excluding pictorial content of encyclopediac value. A lengthy discussion there concluded with a change of the policy with respect to collections of images; after the change in the policy, which has met with uniform approval, all the votes were keep votes. Hence, the grounds cited for almost all delete votes ceased to exist at the time the AfD was closed, which the closing admin appears to have been oblivious to.

The page should certainly be undeleted. I think it is clear that the page would win a new AfD, hence, in the interests of avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy, I recommend we do not relist on AfD. --- Charles Stewart 19:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: see also [20] --- Charles Stewart 19:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The 'lengthy' discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Proposed rewording totalled 3 votes. Which is insufficient to change a long-standing policy, imo. The discussion preceding the vote (for such it was) included 8 messages in total, between 3 users. -Splashtalk 19:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another note:I presume some or all of the images hinge on fair use claims. It's been considered for some time that mere collections of images, outside of the article to which they would refer, do not constitute fair use. -Splashtalk 19:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let be noted that I didn't delete the images and we're not arguing about the image merits, but what I deleted was the gathering and listing. As I suggested, adding a category would be a better way to gather this entries. Anyway, the content was already merged today into Socialist realism. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 21:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, until I merged the content, you orphaned a large number of images, which made them eligible for deletion. If I had not taken the precaution of savivng a copy of the page, it could not have been reconstructed in order to merge. If there was a consensus it was to transwiki and delete, which you did not do. Dsmdgold 21:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The status of the images is safe, and a transwiki for those that are acceptable in commons would be in ok; that said, although we cannot ensure that they will be accepted there. It does seem more appropriate that this page were a category page in commons, though. Titoxd(?!?) 21:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Observe Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of illuminated manuscript images whose outcome was keep. --- Charles Stewart 21:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The attempt to change a long-standing policy during the debate by collecting 3 or 4 'votes' and having 3 users discussing it and then to try here to retroactively apply that policy 'change' to users opinions effected before the change is far too much legalese. I do not consider the policy changed, and will probably reverse it pending a proper discussion: WP:ISNOT a repository of images. A collection of image is not an article. Those who cited WP:NOT in their comments were correct, those who called the policy 'misguided' and opted to keep based on a reverse interpretation of non-existent polic-change were wrong. It is reasonable to dismiss such comments: particularly those like CalJW's. Anyone can copy the PD images to Commons, it does not need a transwiki of the would-be article. In fact, Commons is interested in media not articles as I approx understand it, so the transwiki part of the comments are not important from this perspective: the images are still here. The closing admin got this right, those who forced a policy semi-change during the debate to retroactively apply it afterwards were wrong. -Splashtalk 21:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The closing admin made no effort to indicate that he recognised the issue. I would not have made the criticisms I had of an admin who cited the issue and said the later remarks in the discussion had no bearing on the earlier delete votes. As it was, I regard the closing of the AfD as poorly executed. You have also not indicated what you think of the several AfD's that I pointed to in my previous comment that provided a precedent for the change I made to WP:NOT. --- Charles Stewart 22:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not dispute that the images are all still "here". They are for the moment. (However, if I had not merged the gallery, most of them would have been orphans and eventually deleted.). There is value to organization and annoatation of images. By merely deleting the article, without re-creating it elsewhere, the closing admin decreased the amount of knowleddge available to Wikipedia. I also find it a bit odd to suggest that a closing admin can ignore comments of editors merely because he or she disagrees with the reasoning of the comment. I also find it distressing that to think that a vote to transwiki has no meaning other than delete. It should be noted that one of those voting transwiki specified that "In any case, make sure we don't just lose this, it's excellent." Dsmdgold 23:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the closing admin had said the comments were irrelevant to the vote, I would still have taken the matter to DRV and said the AfD , but my criticisms would have been less sharp. I regard admins who ignore unanswered arguments to keep made in AfDs when closing to delete as a menace to WP. The ones who at least observe the existence of these arguments are much less malign, even when they make the same assessment. --- Charles Stewart 00:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've put up another link to the WP:NOT discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposed change to WP:NOT, following Brennemann's reversal of the change to WP:NOT I applied. --- Charles Stewart 00:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Upon further inspection, the article isn't encyclopedic, here is the entire content:
This is a gallery of paintings and images of architecture from the Socialist Realism school.
Click on each image for more details. An asterisk indicates that more information is available.
A whole bunch of images
See also:

This is exactly what Commons is here for. Reading the comments on the WP:NOT talk page does not leave me very convinced. That said, I don't object to a transwiki to Commons. Titoxd(?!?) 01:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the structure of the page was bit more complex than that. It was

This is a gallery of paintings and images of architecture from the Socialist Realism school.
Click on each image for more details. An asterisk indicates that more information is available.
Lenin
10 images with captions
Stalin
7 images with captions
Ordinary life
10 images with captions
Scenes of Revolution and War
4 images with captions
Technology
3 images with captions
Propaganda
2 images with captions
Architecture
5 images with captions
Sculpture
8 images with captions
See also:

The gallery had more stucture than you are giving it credit for. Please leave your reasons for being unconvinced at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Proposal to modify WP:NOT an image gallery, I for one would appreciate a fuller discusion. Also can you point me to the portion of Commons that says part of their mission is to host image galleries for the Wikipedias? I can't find it. Dsmdgold 02:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MYOB

The page was speedy deleted after a request was put in which stated This page was in error. MYOB is an accounts package, not internet slang as the redirect suggested.. While MYOB is an accounting package ([21]), it is also an abbreviation that is used as an internet slang term. See for example FOLDOC, the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary or any other reference found by OneLook. S.K. 00:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and created a disambiguation page at MYOB. I don't think this deletion review is necessary because there was no real content deleted. Rhobite 01:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 22

Global Resource Bank

I would like an undeletion of the article on the Global Resource Bank VOTE: UNDELETE Global Resource Bank. /Lennart

November 21

Argentina v England (2005)

The AfD debate here shows 8 keeps and 11 deletes, and as such, no consensus for deletion. Since similar articles on cricket matches are routinely kept, I think this one should be undeleted as well.  Grue  13:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn, undelete and redirect to Argentina and England football rivalry since the article is already merged. One thing to note here is that this should not have been merged before the AFD had completely run its course. Nonetheless, from reading the AFD debate I cannot see a consensus to delete the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close/ I make this 13 Delete / 5 Keep / 3 Merge. One of the merge votes explicitly indicated "delete" as a second choice, and so IMO can not be read as a keep vote. The other two comments advocating merge seems not to support the separate existance of this article, one said "Professional sports events happen every day...". Therefore I don't think they can be read as simple keep votes either. I think this is within the closer's judgement to close as a delete. However if soemoen wanted to create a new redirect at this title, that would NOT be "substantially similer" and so not subject to a speedy. The merge should not, IMO, have been done while the debate was in progress, however. DES (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I oppose the notion that merges cannot be done while an article has been proposed for deletion. Wikipedia's normal editing processes should not be over-ridden in that way. Often, the best way to show how things should be done is to do it. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Matthew. Merging is a a sequence of normal edits, and if these are not good edits, anyone can revert them. There is no need for a rule against merging whilst an AfD is in process. --- Charles Stewart 15:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, things are a little more subtle than that, as pointed out below. If content is merged, then the GFDL requires we keep track of the history. This is most usually done by retaining a redirect where once there was an article. This means that, even in the face of an otherwise overwhelming delete (hypothetically, not in this case), those editors would have been overridden by another. Whether that is reasonable is an open question. There are other ways of (probably) meeting the GFDL in cases like this, such as copying the history to the target's talk page prior to deletion of the source. But I personally consider it good form to recommend a merge during the AfD but wait to see if the consensus is that Wikipedia would not retain the content at all. -Splashtalk 17:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed Splash is right, and I retract my comment. It is normally inappropriate to merge content from articles during an AfD. --- Charles Stewart 18:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure/keep deleted - Per DES - Tεxτurε 19:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, improperly closed. No consensus for deletion. Feel free to merge and redirect. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close/Keep deleted Reasonable judgment call, per DES. --Calton | Talk 03:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close/Keep deleted Per DES. Merges should not be counted as keeps. Carbonite | Talk 15:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's blatantly not true, and contradicts the Deletion policy. Also, as this article was merged, GFDL requires that it's history is undeleted.  Grue  16:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • In practice, it just doesn't make sense to count "merges" as "keeps". When I vote to "merge", I don't want an article to exist at that location. If I think the information could be useful in some article, a "merge" vote makes sense. If I wanted my vote counted as a "keep", I would have voted that way. Since your GFDL concerns are legitimate (from what I know about the license) I'd support having it as a redirect. Carbonite | Talk 17:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and make into redirect, per Grue's last point. Sam Vimes 16:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - as per Grue, deletion appears to consitute violation of GFDL, since it appears the content was merged. Also, since merges count as keeps, there was no consensus to delete. Guettarda 16:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn -as per Grue. --- Charles Stewart 16:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What, we can't merge the histories? Even if that is not possible, to avoid violating GFDL all that is required is to copy-paste the history into the talk of the target article. Even more if the information that was merged is widely and commonly available, then the pseron who merged it simply has to go and confirm the facts themselves and do a re-write, and again GFDL is preserved. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per above. NSLE (讨论+extra) 00:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. Wikipedia:Deletion policy says merges are neither deletes nor keeps. However, since it is merged (a situation I don't think anyone minds terribly), something has to be done to satisfy GFDL. As a practical matter, I wouldn't oppose undeleting and redirecting. -- SCZenz 00:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the Deletion policy says nothing special about how to interpret "merge" comments when closing the discussion. The Guide to deletion, on the other hand, explicitly says that "Merge is a recommendation to keep the article's content but to move it ..." As a practical matter and largely guided by the requirement to maintain GFDL, "merge" opinions are routinely interpreted as a recommendation to "keep" the article history (that is to say, "not delete") even though they are not a recommendation to "keep the article as is". "Merge" is often a very nuanced opinion and can not be easily forced into a binary "keep" vs. "delete" framework. This is a good example of why mere vote-counting is bad. Rossami (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I created the Argentina and England football rivalry article, I wrote the "2005 friendly" section from the ground-up, without any material from the existing article, and it has since been worked on and added to independently by other editors. I don't believe there *is* actually any material from that article in it, so I'm not sure how that counts as having been merged. Angmering 12:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bronx underground

I would like an undeletion of the article on the Bronx Underground. The reasons for deletion were listed as "blatant self-promotional ad spam/link spam." This is simply untrue. The article was not self-promotional, merely a factual account of a local-interest in the Bronx, detailing one of the Bronx's most popular local music venues, and one of the most successful independent promoters in New York City. There were no opinions or values in the article, just facts. I don't think the reasoning behind this article's deletion is fair. - Mike corsillo 10:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beer boxing

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer boxing

I would like an undeletion of the most recent article on beer boxing. According to the Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy#To_request_that_a_page_.28or_image.29_be_restored " The speedy deletion criterion for "reposted content that was deleted according to deletion policy " only applies if the content is "substantially identical" (under any article title) — not if you added a lot of new information." Not only was the latest version of the article completely different from previous versions, but the original reasons for deletion are voided by the very fact that there is even a debate over its deletion. If the game of Beer Boxing is a notable enough drinking game to cause a debate, why is it not notable enough to warrant its own article? Furthermore, it is obvious to all who care to review the vote for deletion that half of the votes are for personal objection to the drinking game itself, rather than the content of the article or noteworthiness of the game. Lastly, should the notableness of the game remain under question, I would like to point out the arbitrariness of that judgement. Beer boxing is definitely as or more notable than many other drinking games listed. Mike corsillo 08:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, unless nominator can provide sources. - Mgm|(talk) 08:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • what sources would you have me provide? all versions of the article have been deleted, but having never read previous versions of the article, the most recent version could not have possibly been identical in content or substance. furthermore, i have no way of proving the notableness of this game, nor any other. similarly, nobody can disprove it, thus qualifying the standards for what is notable as completely arbitrary. My argument speaks for itself. Mike corsillo 10:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for information on the types of sources that are typically looked for to support an article. I did a quick Google search to see if there was anything obvious to help support the article and found nothing but this. Unfortunately the only hit was on a site that accepts anonymous submissions, and is thus disqualified from being used as a source for a Wikipedia article. --Allen3 talk 14:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      If there are no other sites where people can look this up, isn't that even more reason for this site to allow information to be provided? I dont understand why an encyclopedia would only offer information that is already offered by other websites. Way to "be bold," everybody. -Mike corsillo 21:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      That is a crucial point. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source. It doens't create information (a primary source), and it doesn't report on the creation (a secondary source). It reports that others have found the information to be accurate and reliable (and encyclopedic). An encyclopedia that reported unsubstantiated material wouldn't be very encyclopedic, would it? It is very clear that you didn't read WP:V. As soon as you do, you will see exactly what is being said here. -Splashtalk 22:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as per MacGyverMagic. --Allen3 talk 14:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trollaxor

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trollaxor

I would like a review of the AFD procedure for this article -- the verdict was no consensus and much of the voting appears suspicious. Not only has the article been deleted before, but it remains non-notable and unsuitable for Wikipedia and only remains because of the efforts of a group gaming the AFD system. My solution was to redirect it rather than delete it and try to force someone to take notice... which it least would spare the efforts of future AFDs after it was recreated, and avoid yet more running around in circles cleaning up junk. - Motor (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse close of no consensus. AfD was conducted correctly. You're not wrong to try redirecting—anyone can do that—but it's clear from the article history that it's not gonna fly with the people who disagree with you. At 8-5 to delete (discounting user with 8 edits), you could AfD it again, but I'd personally recommend working out some sort of merge/redirect compromise on the talk page. -- SCZenz 01:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And Relist. If organized trolls are really the problem, then out-vote them. But I can't see a justification for discounting them—perhaps someone can explain? -- SCZenz 21:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete almost a speedy. Those voting keep seem to be a part of some organised group of trolls (except Trollderella, who is just an extreme inclusionist).  Grue  13:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's an indication of the sorry state that we're in that advocating following policy is 'extremism'. Trollderella 23:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And what policy would that be? --Calton | Talk 23:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, but not because the Afd was done wrong. The closure as a "no consensus" was reasonable, although not what I would have done. Of course, the article could also be speedied right now as a perfectly valid A7. Friday (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    So you don't think that the afd was wrong? It's clearly not a valid CSD, so you're really just saying you disagree with the result. Trollderella 22:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose that CSD A7 doesn't explicitly say that when it talks about articles making a claim of notability, it pertains to a notion of notability that stems from the community as a whole, rather than the ideas of the particular deleting admin. That seems rather obviously true, however. If the community has just now come to no consensus about whether a subject is notable, it would seem obvious that A7 does not apply. Friday's application of the unilateral admin action model here is probably unwise. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    What application of the "unilateral admin action model"? I didn't delete it, did I? I merely stated an opinion that an A7 could be applied here. But, I'll be clear: the reason I say "overturn and delete" is that Afd produced the wrong answer in this case. I'm not against doing a deletion "in process" either, altho at this point I'm not sure how that's possible. If we start another Afd tomorrow and it's closed as a delete, we'll still have people complaining that the second Afd was invalid because of the previous "no consensus" closure. But, if we want to look at the Afd process, I could say that it was tainted by troll involvement. Of course, this is a judgement call and it's a bit rude to those we're calling trolls, right? Friday (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    By "application of the unilateral admin action model" I meant your statement that the article would be a valid A7 -- to say this implies your belief that an admin can determine that an article doesn't make a claim of notability, even when the sense of the community has been determined (to whatever degree), and the community of users does not agree that there is no such claim. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant was, someone looking at it could reasonably say "Gosh, writing on websites isn't an assertion of notability". Thus, it's an A7. I'm not going to delete it as an A7 because I know it's being discussed, and deleting it right now would be rude to other editors. Also, I fully realize that other reasonable editors could look at this article and decide it's not an A7 speedy. Friday (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am disturbed that most of the votes here are based on opinion, rather than process, which is contrary to what Deletion Review is for. I have a few questions that I'd like to see addressed:
    1. Is this really a legitimate speedy delete? It seems that at least a few people think the article contains assertions of notability, at which point WP:CSD A7 says it should go to AfD.
    2. Can editors be discounted merely because of their afilliation with whatever organized trolling group? I see no reason for this.
  • I'm the first person to say this article should be deleted, but I say do it within process. Anyone care to explain why we shouldn't, as is apparently going to happen? -- SCZenz 23:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The point here is not whether this article should stay or go, that's what AFD is for. It is the attempt to hijack process by a small group who can't accept a community decision. Trollderella 23:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's irony for you. --Calton | Talk 23:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm dissapointed by any claims that editor's recommendations should be discounted simply because of who they are. I don't care if someone is a GNAA sleeper admin who is secretly impregnating our life parters to breed an army of child-eating Liberal voters, if they present a coherent assertion we should listen to it. In this instance that was not done, with some simply saying "keep". Thus Overturn and delete because AfD is not a vote, and compelling arguments were not presented. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is sound, up until you make the case that because you don't like the reasons given then the community can be ignored. If you think it should be deleted, list it again and get a concensus. Trollderella 00:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I wasn't aware of the alleged GNAA "trolling" until I was informed about it after I closed the debate, so if the decision is overturned, there won't be any opposition from me. No vote. Robert T | @ | C 00:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be using the word 'troll' in the sense of 'voting in a way I don't like'. That's disturbing. If you don't like the outcome of AFD, relist, don't try a backdoor to try to work around a community decision. Trollderella 00:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion either way. I was merely stating that, before closure, I wasn't aware of what is now being argued by those in favor of overturning. Hence, I didn't vote. Robert T | @ | C 00:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Motor is right: some of the "Keep" votes on the AfD are highly-suspect, being low-usage accounts set up primarily for voting on AfDs, as careful examination of their contribution history shows. However, this depth of scrutiny cannot be expected from an admin closing an AfD, and even with this additional information it is not obvious whether these dubious "Keep" votes can be legitimately discarded. Robert was right to close this as a no-consensus. If you do decide to re-nominate the article, I hope we'll get enough participation as to make the few sock- or meat-puppets' votes irrelevant. Owen× ☎ 16:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not correct, I'm afraid. The notion that cursorily closing complex AfDs is ok is profoundly wrong. If an admin hasn't the time required to do the job properly, they should steer very well clear of the job. -Splashtalk 21:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close of no consensus. AfD was conducted correctly. Please respect community decisions and stop accusing everyone who voted keep to be a sock/meat puppet. Give proofs or shut up. -- Femmina 16:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Looks like for the GNAA and their War on Blogs, some websites are more equal than others. --Calton | Talk 23:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Looking at the VfD, I see what looks like bloc voting by GNAA members, and no reasoning by the "keep" voters. --Carnildo 00:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I don't think this should be used as an opportunity to vent frustration at editors you don't like. If you disagree with the outcome, re-list it. Trollderella 01:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the purported trolls lift their game and put "Keep - per nominator, this author is notable per [some evidentiary link]" than we wouldn't be having this discussion. The quality of the anti-blog nominations they were making went up when prompted, there is no reason that almost anyone can't be molded into a good contributor. brenneman(t)(c) 01:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would overturn and delete, since it is a valid A7, but since there have been complaints about it, the only course of action that I consider appropriate is a relist with a minimum participation treshhold, like done for GNAA. Titoxd(?!?) 17:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, discounting obvious role accounts is good practice. Contrary to what OwenX says, such scrutiny is appropriate, and if an AFD closer neglects it, then deletion review is appropriate. Radiant_>|< 18:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete in accordance with the reasoning advanced by Radiant! and [[Aaron Brenneman, particularly Aaron Brenneman's. Plus, as I see it, even if there was no consensus to delete, there was a consensus (Motor, Starblind, and Friday in explicit agreement with several others in implied agreement, and only Skrewler in explicit disagreement) that it constituted vanity, which overrides the consensus. Plus, I see a more clearly articulated consensus that the subject matter is unnoteworthy, and interpretations of de jure policy notwithstanding (I, for instance, believe WP:NOT and the deletion policy both explicitly establish non-notability as grounds for deletion), it's de facto part of the deletion policy. In all, I believe a consensus was reached, and that consensus was for deletion. The Literate Engineer 01:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 20

Joseph Vargo and Nox Arcana

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Vargo

Please review facts, dates, publishing credits, and Google and/or Amazon search on the discussion page, and relist these articles. I had provided dates and specific publications where these artists were mentioned, press runs of said publications, television shows, qty of books and/or CDs sold, etc. (all in keeping with the guidelines for notability), then later edited content to focus more on facts as some editors seemed to think a biography is a vanity thing. None of the editors seems to have even looked at that info before deleting the entire page (one mistook a band's website for a store when it is not, though a musical group is certainly allowed to sell thier own music). Ideally, I'd like my original content relisted from 10:26, 4 November 2005. Once relisted, I intend to add the dates and specific references from discussion under a separate heading on that main page. And... I am totally new to this maze. But am learning. I've made a few scant contributions to other pages while a non-registered user (this was before I learned that my username was not coming up, or how to sign off :)Blooferlady 00:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted, valid AfD, and the originator (the editor above) should not be rewarded for having vandalized the AfD page. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both are copyvios from [23] and [24]. (In fact, the first chunk of Nox Arcanal isn't on either of those links, but the rest is and the first chunk is blatantly taken from somewhere on the site). To admins: note that Joseph Vargo has been constructed in a slightly different order and changes a few words, but is overwhelmingly an infringement: it even repeats the spelling mistake in "influencial". Now, there is a confusing release of sorts in those links: "permission to reprint biographies is hereby granted to press and public forums...Copyright © 1991-2005 Monolith Graphics. All rights reserved." That's not good enough for Wikipedia, since its content can be reused by anyone for any purpose, and that is effectively a "with conditions" release that is directly incompatible with the GFDL. Now, Talk:Joseph Vargo claims to have permission, but I don't see any point following that up if AfD has already deleted the articles. -Splashtalk 17:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

United Bimmer

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Bimmer

Would it be possible to undelete this article? It was created by a member to explain the history and foundation of our community. It's a very tight-knit group of members, and this article has been referenced many times explaining people who we are and where we came from. There's no advertising in here, as it's simply informative about the history of an organization, which I feel is appropriate in an Encyclopedia.

  • Endorse clsoe (keep deleted). The AfD looks valid, and being a "tight-knit group" if anything suggests lack of intest to thsoe outsiede the group. wikipedia is not a free hosting service, an article describing the group for the benefit of those interested in jopining properly belongs on your own web site. I see no independent sources cited in the article, and no indication that it is in any way notable to anyoen outside the group. If you have such info, create a new article which cites it and expalins how the gorup is significant to those who are not members. DES (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted valid (and unanimous) AfD! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

contingent work

Can we undelete this article? There doesn't appear to be any valid reason for its deletion. Sure, the name of the article is something of a neologism, but one which is frequently used when discussing social issues, comparing contingent work with proper jobs.

We do have an article about McJobs, which is also a neologism, and admittedly the two subjects have a fair bit of common ground. However, a serious commentator on employment policy wouldn't use the term McJobs. I think there is enough ground for them to be two separate articles.

To be honest, I don't understand why Wikipedia doesn't want people to know what contingent work is, and the history behind it. Squashy 10:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To put this into context: Contingent work was the subject of a VfD in July 2005, and the result was its deletion. Squashy created a new article, which I deleted, explaining to him the reasons. He then recreated it, as well as asking for it to be undeleted here. Let's assume that that that was a mistake of some kind; still, the proper thing for him to do now is to follow the prescribed course. I did advise him to take it to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist. The majority of the comments in the original AfD debate labeled the initially deleted version of the article as an essay or original research, with the minority opinion claiming the article was savable but needed to go through cleanup. Squashy's new version appears to be a complete rewrite that does not suffer from the original's problem of being a personal essay. As such, I do not believe that a speedy deletion as recreation of previously deleted material is justified. --Allen3 talk 12:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete -- invalid speedy deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist". Don't recreate without good reason, a re-write is good reason.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 14:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments so far. I appreciate that the article I've written is far from perfect - and I haven't cited any sources yet - however, the majority of the votes in favour of its deletion were concerned with its content - that it was a personal essay - and not due to any inherent flaw in having an article on the subject in the first place. I appreciate that it's a neologism - but then again, so are many of the articles at Category:Neologisms - that's not a good enough reason to keep it deleted, in my opinion. I have created this article from scratch, without having access to the original article which was deleted before it - however, I have lost some of my most recent edits to it. Thanks. Squashy 15:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the speedy deletion. The first deletion was in order as deletion of a personal essay (and, in my opinion, probably copyvio). The versions created beginning on 15 Nov 2005 were not substantially similar content. The speedy delete criterion should not have applied. As for the most recent version, I see no reason to immediately list it for AFD. It's a new article that still needs cleanup but that's normal. The topic is certainly relevant and encyclopedic since a number of reputable articles have links to it. Rossami (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus seems clear, so I've undeleted the article, But I'm not sure if a relist is appropriate, so I'll leave that still under consideration. Titoxd(?!?) 21:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Melody Pomeroy

Could we rediscuss the AFD for this person? She hardly meets notability criteria. If we can discuss deleted articles here, why not kept articles? User:Zoe|(talk) 08:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be relisted, with so few votes the standard procedure is to leave a note on the page for the AFD and relist on the current day so that more editors have a chance to state their view and so that a consensus can be formed. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 08:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how being in a major play would not make one notable unless it's an unnamed role. I won't oppose relisting, but I don't see how it would be helpful either. - Mgm|(talk) 11:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen Notable stage actors should absolutely have articles, but this article only mentions two productions (I've been in more plays than that!) and at least one of the two is a very very minor role (Becky in Oklahoma!) with no mention of what the other role is (in 42nd street) though it does use the language "appeared in" rather than "starring in", suggesting another small role. I don't see how it could hurt to reopen the voting, since the original AfD attracted few votes and little attention. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need permission to relist this article on AfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no particular grounds to reopen this nomination other than a dislike of the conclusion. Phil Sandifer 15:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Tony. DRV's job seems to be to review errors in the deletion process. I guess with this few votes, the closer might have relisted it to get more opinions—but then again, that gives anyone else a good reason to relist it too. -- SCZenz 15:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's a very broken process where keeps can be relisted without discussion but deletes require a discussion even to rediscuss the deletion. Phil Sandifer 15:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's a big difference and clear distinction between relisting and reopening. I don't think the debate should have been closed, since two different votes is not enough to form a consensus. If a debate only has two votes at close and they don't agree, it makes perfect sense to reopen the debate to gather more consensus. However, that is a different matter entirely than relisting an article which had a previous clear "keep" consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close It would have been reasonable to keep the AfD open in hopes of more particiupation, but there is no requirement for a closer to do this. 1D/1K or 1D/2K (depending on how you read the comment that did not include an explict vote) do not constitute a consensus to delete, and i see no procedural errors here. There is no bar against re-nominating for AfD. DES (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just as a point of process, wouldn't it make sense to have a rule along the lines of: one can relist on AfD if the article was kept through a no consensus, but one should go to DRV first if the result was keep? Why? Because (i) DRV is much lower traffic than AfD, and unjust deletes are more likely to be spotted in this exceptional case, (ii) lots of people already think that you can't AfD article that have been deemed keep-worthy, and (iii) this proviodes meaningful distinction between keep and no consensus outcomes. --- Charles Stewart 20:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If the result was a clear keep, and there were no procedural errors in the AfD, many here will respond "Valid Afd, endorse." If the person who wants to relist wants to do so because of new info, or because s/he thinks the wrong arguments prevelaied before, it is probably better to just re-nominate, particuarly if some time has elasped. (If the renon is effectivly right after the previosu AfD, some people will more or less automatically vote keep based on the previosu AfD). So if there were no procedural errors bu soemone thinks AfD simply got it wrong, relisting is better IMO, regardless of who strong the keep vote was on the pervious AfD. DES (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Charles here. To me, that is the difference between keep and no consensus: articles for which there was a consensus to keep should not be re-AfD'd without a good reason or after a substantial period of time and significant change in information, but articles that did not reach a keep consensus do not have that protection, and may be renominated to gather more discussion, given that there is new information that AfD did not consider. Titoxd(?!?) 02:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hellogoodbye

Can we please get this undeleted? The page is now redirected to a Beatles song, which is just incorrect. The original page was deleted. At the RFD debate, it was claimed it didn't meet WP:MUSIC. This is untrue, however, the band has "gone on ... a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country", that country being the US (see hellogoodbye's site [25]), and has been "prominently featured in any major music media" (receiving plenty of press coverage including [Alternative Press [26] and their video on MTV). Whatsmore, there are over 300,000 hits on Google and they are signed to a major label (Drivethru Records). Additionally, they've only released an EP and a DVD: not quite the 2 albums suggested, but not far off. Halo 12:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 19

CrystalCherry

Needs to be returned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherryrain (talk • contribs) 06:06, 2005 November 19 (UTC)

Why? --Nlu 06:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Peppers

The page is protected, and, judging from the talk page, it looks like there is significant support for unprotection. zellin t / c 03:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFD discussion - note: this link also covers several subsequent discussions. Apparently, the discussion was twice improperly restarted on the same page rather than creating new discussion pages.
  • Strong oppose. The same reasons why it doesn't belong still exist, however. The fact that we have "significant support for unprotection" (almost all of it from anonymous IPs) doesn't mean that it should be undeleted. It will be a magnet for vandalism, and there is no way to do it tastefully. Wikipedia does not have to go with the flow of the Internet on this. --Nlu 03:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the original deletion and the subsequent speedy-deletion as re-created content. This "article" has no place in Wikipedia. Looking at the pervasive history of vandalism through the page history, I also endorse the protection of the page to prevent re-creation. Rossami (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted valid VfD. Also, some topics just plain aren't encyclopedic. Peppers did something naughty. Nobody seems to know the exact nature of his crime, but it couldn't possibly have been anything earth-shattering, since he only got 30 days for it. He also happens to have some sort of condition or physical deformity. That's it. Fails WP:BIO by a wide margin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Valid AfD. BDAbramson T 16:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Vandalism is specifically listed as a Problem that does not require deletion. WP:BIO is not an official policy. If it was, we would have a lot less articles now. There certainly is a way to do it tastefully! The reason why many feel he deserves an article is not because he is a minor sex offender and not even because he has a minor deformity but because he is an internet phenomenon. He is certainly notable enough for Wikipedia on those grounds. zellin t / c 17:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - This alleged "Internet phenomenon" fails to live up to the standards of "It's a trap!" or "All your base" or whatever. "Brian Peppers" gets just 26,900 Google hits. Compare "All your base" scoring nearly 1 million. Wikipedia is not a repository for anything anyone ever laughed at on a forum. I expect alleged Internet phenomena to display an above-average level of interest to be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. FCYTravis 17:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, per FCYTravis.--Sean|Black 21:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Not every "internet phenomenon" is worth documenting in an encyclopedia, as I've already argued on the talk page. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-19 21:53:10Z
  • Endorse, keep deleted. Process-wise, it is a valid deletion/protection against recreation, and content-wise, please, it is an attack page/non-notable bio. Titoxd(?!?) 21:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Making fun of someone for looking bizarre is NOT encyclopaedic. The 30-day jail sentence is just a red herring; are you listing all the other non-notable sex offenders who received a minor 30-day sentence? Also, by the wording, simply touching a person on the thigh could constitute a "sex offense." I'm not endorsing this person, just saying that the only reason this became a minor internet phenomenon is because of what this person looks likeRyoung122 23:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The deleted content is being effectively re-created in the article's Talk page. It is unusual to re-delete an article's Talk page especially since the "protected" template explicitly says "talk about it there" but it may be appropriate in this case to clean out and protect the Talk page as well. Rossami (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fúsíjama Basketball Club International

This was a infopage about my basketball team in Iceland. Not quite sure why it was deleted but if someone thinks this was just a ego boost or something, this basketball team played in the 2nd league in the Icelandic division. Please undelete :) Einzi

No article by that exact title was ever created or deleted. Could you perhaps have mistyped the title? Rossami (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could be .. chanced the name to a right title ( I hope ) Einzi 11:24, 19 November 2005 (GMT)
Thank you. [article] and AFD discussion
  • Undelete and list on AfD - I vote for this page to be undelated. The info found on the page was historicly accurate and not meant to be an ego boost in any way. --- Sturlast 11:48, 19 November 2005
  • Endorse Hm. Valid AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fúsíjama_Basketball_Club_International, and though the team claims to be playing in the 2nd division (third level) of Icelandic basketball [27], I can find no evidence of that at the neutral source here: [28] (or maybe it's me not understanding Icelandic properly). Overturn and relist. New information brought to light. Sam Vimes 13:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allthough the name Fúsíjama can't be found we played under the flags of Reynir Hnífsdal to avoid troubleling paperwork and expenses. [29] Einzi 15:09, 19 November 2005 (GMT)
  • Endorse, keep deleted. Have to agree with Sam Vimes. In general, amateur sports clubs are not considered to be valid topics, you almost need to either be, or been, in the top league to be considered unless the sport is really major in that country. The premier league basketball clubs in Iceland are OK topics, amateur clubs are just to numerous. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete The team played in the Icelandic 2nd division from 1999-2005 [30]. The team is registered under the name Reynir Hnífsdal, as the Icelandic Sport Federation does not allow teams to compete under foreign names in domestic leagues. It was however widly recognised under the name Fúsíjama as can been seen here on KKÍ´s homepage [31] (KKÍ is the Icelandic Basketball Federation). The reason for the deletion is said to be that it could not be confirmed that Fúsíjama actually played in official divsion, I belive that should be comfirmed now. Also I disgree with that only major clubs should be allowed on Wikipedia. The goal of Wikipedia is to create, among others, the largest encyclopedia in history in both breadth and depth. Discriminating official sport teams because they haven´t reached the top level of their country´s competition, and even if they are a fairly well known team in their country, is by my opinion at least, not in the spirit of that goal. Sturlast 18:57, 19 November 2005 (GMT).
    • Fair point. At least that's new, verifiable information, and the judgment of whether that is notable enough for WP should be done at AfD, not here. I would suggest you rewrote it, though, because from what I could gather from the AfD nomination the content was violating NPOV Sam Vimes 19:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 18

Megan racing

Not sure why this would be deleted. Visible content was: 'http://www.meganracing.com/Megan Racing produces a number of aftermarket automotive parts, mostly for the import "tuner" demographic. Their workman...' Kappa 00:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Entire content was
Megan Racing produces a number of aftermarket automotive parts, mostly for the import "tuner" demographic. Their workmanship is good, despite their reputation as a "generic" brand, and their prices are considerably lower than similar products made by better known companies, like Spoon, Greddy, and AEM.
Their product line includes full stainless-steel catback exhaust systems, strut braces, and other automotive parts--both cosmetic and performance-oriented.
Doesn't stand much chance of surviving an AFD if undeleted really, and "their prices are considerably lower than similar products made by better known companies" does sound promotional. Whether it meets any speedy criteria is doubtful, but I cannot see that it has much chance of surviving an AFD. Abstain. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 17

Mimi Yu

This should never have been moved into candidates for quick deletion. It was simply a work under process, without a significant amount of information at that time. Yu is a cellist that is currently on the rise, as her recent performance with Yo-Yo Ma indicates. While not on the par of celebrities such as Ma in terms of name recognition (although in some circles her name is quite well known), or intra-wikipedia references, she is still significant enough in the developing music community to be mentioned. Arlohill 22:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete when in doubt, don't delete. perhaps should be expanded. Arlohill 03:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete seconded by 140.247.159.182 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: It looks like this was deleted under CSD A7. Does the article contain anything that might be an assertion of notability? Certainly what is asserted in this DRV appeal constitutes a notability claim. --- Charles Stewart 23:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy delete. The google searches "Mimi Yu" cello, "Mimi Yu" cellist, and "Mimi Yu" "Yo-Yo Ma" all get <10 hits. -- SCZenz 23:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    These notability calculations are not what speedies are for. --- Charles Stewart 23:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but none of the information asserting notability was in the article. The hit counts above are designed to show that these new claims appear to be a hoax. However I could be wrong—and, as Xoloz says below, if someone writes an article with sources citing the information above, then it's cool. -- SCZenz 01:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy unless significant sourced information comes to light. "Mimi Yu" + "Yo Yo Ma" returns just one unrelated Google hit, so I'm not sure what to think of the claim that they've performed together. Andrew Lenahan - <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT> 23:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy, however remember recreation as a better, sourced article can be done at anytime, and would not be subject to speedy. Xoloz 01:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, no notability, this is a valid CSD. If this is recreated, it will be quickly slapped with an AfD header, since she doesn't qualifor under WP:MUSIC. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can understand that the article might be a valid candidate for deletion, assuming that the person in question does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notoriety; however, it should not have been a speedy. It was a work in progress, there was nothing to indicate it was a vanity article (besides lack of specificity in performance venues), and furthermore its deletion makes the text inaccessable. This obviously makes it very difficult to improve the article. Time to improve should have been granted, it should not have been a speedy delete. A7 is for "no assertion of notability," not no notability. Saying "she is noted for..." is exactly that assertion, although whether it is agreed with is another matter, outside of CSD.Arlohill 03:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the rules, there is nothing to prevent you from recreating the article, and if it has a clear assertion of notability it can't be speedied. However, if that assertion of notability isn't verified by a reputable source, then the article will be AfD'd quite quickly. Since you know this, it would be acting in bad faith to recreate the article without such a source; of course, I assume you wouldn't do that. If you were to recreate the article, with a short stub that verifies the claims above, I would certainly think it reasonable to restore the old text (as history) so that it can be added. -- SCZenz 03:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Edit conflicted) Once an article pokes its head into mainspace, it must stand alone. Works in progress are best conducted in user space and moved once viable. Regarding WP:CSD, the text does read per your quote, however Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles is directly referenced in A7, and expands this to include "no remotely plausible assertion of notability". I'm willing to AGF on the part of Philwelch and believe that he performed the above searches and found there to be no plausible assertion. Endorse decision without prejudice to the creation of a better version of this article per Xoloz and the text at the top of this page. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete: Apparently notable within significant community. Ombudsman 04:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted Working with a famous musician is not a claim of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: The arguments made above in favour of deletion are largely specious in this case. Insufficient hits by Google is not a viable contention: the Wikipedia page for Tomam, for instance, does not receive any relevant hits when entered into Google, while "Mimi Yu" cello receives at least two. Moreover, while the linguist Waldemar Rosenberger receives a few dozen Google entries, most of them are copies of the stub Wikipedia page in various languages. If the 'Mimi Yu' page was translated into French and Mandarin and then replicated by Answers.com or Reference.com and registered by Google's cache, would that count for 'online hits'? Non-stub such as the location article for Farina, Illinois also contain uncited information: the ethnic breakdown claims (which in fact are outdated) link to the U.S. Census Bureau in which I could find no pertinent information to the African-American or Asian populations in Farina. This doesn't mean it's not there; however, if it were, only a select few would be able to verify this information. Similar databases such as Harvard's student directory or thefacebook.com exist analogously. And citing non-internet, non-universal (eg. Britannica) sources is even smokier: anyone could find an obscure book or newspaper not available on line and pretend to cite, and it is doubtful that anyone else would be Wikigeek enough to open the text up (note: this should not be considered endorsement for the author of 'Mimi Yu' to do this). Nor could anyone claim that information not in Google or a universal book source is irrelevant to Wikipedia: consider the pages for Decomposition group or Frobenius automorphism, for example, which cite no sources at all but have been around for months, one with an extensive editing history. In general the official Wikipedia citing policy I found is very vague. Consider:
    "If suspect sources have references, follow them. If there are no references, or if the references provided are insufficient, you may need to do additional research, or reconsider the reliability of the report." Explicate how many references are 'sufficient', what sources were voted on by your conferences to be 'suspect' and I am certain that the author will reconsider the report's reliability.

    Conclusion: There are numerous individual-related articles and numerous articles without 'proper' sources, none of which are contested for existence. I do not see why an article without 'proper' sources that is also individual-related should be. - 140.247.23.114
  • Comment Friend, that analysis of yours strikes me as quite awful. You appear to argue that since some articles in WP have few, if any, verifiable sources, any article without sources is fine. That's a wacky over-generalization. It is true that the Google test is often dubious; it is true that naughty editors could falsify paper sources. However, those truths do not unburden the writer of this article of his duty to produce one source when called upon to do so. Xoloz 06:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was a nicely researched argument which totally fails to adress the fact that this article doesn't have any sources. One of the WP:5P is WP:NPOV which requires verifiability. If you've found other articles with material that fails to WP:CITE sources, feel free to challenge that material. If an entire article is unverifiable, take it to WP:AFD. Unfortunately, it changes nothing for this article. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The point is that Wikipedia's 'official rules' are not specific enough to be feasible without subjective interpretations from Wikipedia users - these specifications in turn ruling out several examples (all discovered in about 15 minutes) which are likely considered quite standard Wikipedia articles. I would like to see the author of this article produce that source himself, as it would make it more believable, but failure to do so given the limitations listed above should hardly constitute reason for deletion. Find me verifiable sources for the very typical Wikipedia articles I mentioned, and I will recant. Don't do so and I cannot see how you wouldn't. And don't let this trigger the converse consequences of having most of Wikipedia's maths section taken down, it's been very useful to me. As an aside, highly impressive response rate. - 140.247.23.114
  • Comment The point is that Wikipedia's 'official rules' are not specific enough to be feasible without subjective interpretations from Wikipedia users. This sentence is very true; apart from a mechanic's manual (maybe), I know of no rule that does not, in its exercise, require the interposition of human judgment. You have once again argued successfully the truism that WP is not infallible. Congratulations. Although WP is not perfect, it still maintains the perogative to enforce its rules as best it can. Xoloz 07:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am perfectly ready to admit that I can not find any internet references that demonstrate any significant degree of notoriety. Many other musicians (besides myself) have heard of her; unfortunately they do not acknowledge this by discussing her in postings on the internet. They might be perfectly willing to vouch for her if asked, but unfortunately this does not carry much weight here in cyberspace. This leaves me in a quandry: I cannot direct you to any sites that mention her directly (other than the broken links to a few concert billings that a few of you have already found on Google, and a Harvard Crimson article that does not mention her directly, just states that some students played with Yo-Yo Ma). However, I do believe that she is known enough to be on WP, and that it will add to, not detract from, the quality and breadth of the encyclopedia if the article is kept. Yes, I know that this argument may seem flimsy without proper cyber-sources. However, I believe that one of the strengths of WP is the quantity of more esoteric knowledge (as the anon. user above mentioned) which, despite not being found all over the internet, is nevertheless useful for a number of users. Wikipedia is not just an indexed summary of all the information found on Google; it is stronger (and in many ways more useful to me) than Google because articles about objects or persons that may only be known to a rather limited community can be created, and then checked by that community.

Let me put it this way: when another musician searches for "Mimi Yu," he or she might find the page's existence quite useful. Then again, he or she may disagree with some of the facts and edit it. I do not think the article's existence will influence anyone else, one way or another, and from my point of view it is not contrary to the rules of Wikipedia. Arlohill 07:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(or, if you want to get technical, do your whole AGF, and cite me as a source.)

    • WP:AGF does not go that far, and is not intended to trump WP:V. Further, I now learn that Ms. Yu played with Yo-Yo Ma while in a Harvard student group? This increases my doubt. Harvard students get to do loads of neat things that do not make them notable, as I know from personal experience. Let's wait till she graduates, ok? WP is not a promotional tool for talented undergrads. Xoloz 07:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Incidentally, because (I think) Arlohill mentioned that Ms. Yu might be in the thefacebook.com for Harvard, I checked, and she isn't. There is a Michelle Yu '03 (Chemistry and Physics concentrator), but that's the closest I get. Xoloz 08:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, not in a student group, with Yo-Yo Ma's group, while at Harvard. And nicknames / stagenames are not listed on thefacebook. contact me personally if you really want to see her entry, but I don't think that is for here. And, no, those anonymous comments are not mine. AGF, man, AGF. And lets stick with the facts. If you think the article should stay deleted, fine. But being an undergraduate does not mean someone cannot be well known. Want me to list examples, musicians and otherwise? Your allegations of a "promotion" miss the point entirely - the article is clearly intended to provide useful information, not boost an aspiring musician's acclaim.
      • I didn't intend to suggest the anon comments were yours. Enough of these comments are unsigned such that I can't always attribute accurately -- hence, my (I think). You do not have email enabled through WP, Arlohill; I do. Feel free to contact me privately anytime with Ms. Yu registered facebook name, and I will evaluate your claims to the best of my ability. Xoloz 09:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, I can't see the article. Kappa 07:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you suggesting every deleted article brought here should be undeleted so it can be considered? Personally, I trust the judgement of the admin, who labelled it nn-bio. -- SCZenz 11:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well if an nn-bio is disputed, yep. At least the alleged claims of notability. Kappa 11:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The author can just write another one, and include a "remotely plausibile assertion of notability" this time. I've seen no claim in this review that such an assertion was present in the deleted version of the article—merely that such claims could have been made if the article were finished—so there is no reason to doubt the word of the admin that the speedy was done correctly on that version of the article. -- SCZenz 11:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: I am disappointed with this discussion. Failure to provide sources is not now a reason for speedying an article (it is a proposed reason). Non-notability is, and appears to be the grounds for this speedy, but AFAICS noone with admin permissions has actually checked the article to double check that the article really fails to assert notability: which is to the point since this appeal does make notability claims. This review has in fact failed to review the speedy decision. --- Charles Stewart 14:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if you read the top, the user requesting the review never claimed the speedy was improper, at least not in the sense that there was an assertion of notability that was ignored. So it didn't seem necessary to review that aspect of it. -- SCZenz 16:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy. I've temp undeleted this, so nonadmins can review the content. Speedy appears proper, though I haven't looked at all revisions. —Cryptic (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and possibly userfy: The sentences Notable performances include Ravel's trio for piano and strings, and Piazzola's "Le Grand Tango", with Taktin Oey on piano. She has also performed with Yo-Yo Ma's Silk Road Ensemble. constitutes assertions of notability, so the speedy is out of process. I do not think this article will survive an AfD in its present form however: I think the best thing would be to userfy the page in Arlohill's user space, to give him a chance to bring the article up to the standards of natability in WP:MUSIC. It may have more of a chance as an article on emrging musicians than as a standalone article. I observe that, besides notability and brevity, the article is of a decent quality. --- Charles Stewart 14:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and possibly userfy per Charles. Paul August ☎ 15:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy delete As the last version stood before the articel was deleted, it included nothing that i would recognize as a claim of notability. Simply includign the words "is notable for" does not make soemthign a claim of notability, the statement that follows must, IMO assert soem fact or facts that, if true, would at least arguably makew the person notable. Playing with a famous musician and being a promisng student do not make a person notable, and so satements that those facts are true are not claims of notability. The obvious answer here is to create a revised version which does include true claims of notability. Preferably these clisms will be backed up by cited sources. as to the "work in progress"issue -- every wikipedia article is supposed to eb a work in progress, and every such artivle, even if a stub, is supposed to be complete enough to not meet any speedy deelte criteria and to be a useful articel for the next random reader. if an article is not yet up to that, but an intermediate version is being saved durign editing, use {{inuse}} or better yet, create it in user space and only move it when it is ready for other eyes. DES (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy, keep deleted, as the article doesn't make any assertion of notability; that said, I wouldn't object to a userfy so it can be expanded and referenced, then moved to the main namespace. Titoxd(?!?) 18:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy, keep deleted. And suggest the article creator take to heart sczenz and brenneman's comments. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The argument now seems to be whether "she is notable for," followed by claims of her performing with famous musicians and examples of her own well-known performances, constitutes a claim of notability. This seems like a silly question to me - obviously it is a claim of notability, that's why it is there, and you are simply arguing over whether you agree with it or not, once more an issue outside of CSD. Saying she performed with so-and-so is just as much a claim of notability as "he was heard on the Howard Stern Show" - a person has, arguably, become well known because he or she has been associated with a celebrity, and thus brought into the public eye. Furthermore, other notable performances were listed, and if one were to add "these performances are notable because many people in the classical music community are aware of them," it would not do much to improve the article although, again, it would be an obvious "claim of notability." The fact that this argument has degenerated to discussion of whether she actually is notable or not for having performed with Yo-Yo Ma is evidence that, as Charles said above, the speedy deletion was not in order. The assertion of notability is very obvious, even if its validity is not. Arlohill 21:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a constructive way of proceeding: it isn't much of an achievement to go through DRV to reverse speedies on articles that just then get deleted through AfD, and the notability claims you are making do not remotely match WP:MUSIC. DES has made a case that the article falls within CSD A7, on a reading of that rule that is the same as mine: the only difference between us is that I regard non-policy guidelines like WP:MUSIC problematic for speedies. If you care about the future of this article, I recommend that you take a less legalistic line in arguing for it. --- Charles Stewart 22:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I'll point out again that, since it is now claimed that Mimi Yu is a pseudonym, it is not possible to verify much of her biography under that name. I still wait for Arlohill to provide me with the name she has registered at Harvard. Xoloz 22:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two things: One, I have already made the "less legalistic" argument above that this article's existence will benefit, not detract from, the quality and breadth of wikipedia, as do many other undocumented articles on less well known subjects (indeed, these are some of the most useful articles for a number of people, as the anon. user above has pointed out); this argument has been ignored by all others, who will only continue in one vein, disputing her notability. I would go so far as to invoke IAR, saying that this article's creation was an action to improve the encyclopedia, and "rules may be disregarded if this is necessary to make the encyclopedia better." In this instance it was necessary, because there are really no citable sources, despite the notability of the subject. But this argument has been disregarded, and I have been reduced to arguing about the technical process of the speedy deletion itself (which clearly was not in order), rather than the usefulness of the article in the context of Wikipedia. Secondly, Mimi Yu is not a pseudonym, just the name she goes by, which is listed in the programs of her performances, etc. She is enrolled at Harvard under Hung Wen, but you will find no use in this name, other than perhaps her entry in the Harvard College Facebook. And it is pointless to stoop down to this more personal level; the important point is that she is worthy of an entry, and that entry will be useful in WP. Arlohill 04:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per the above. Radiant_>|< 01:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. No assertion of notability. *drew 03:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - on the basis that the article would likely fail AfD on the grounds of notability, or the lack thereof. While I wish Ms. Yu the best of luck in her career, she has not done anything so far that would merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. FCYTravis 17:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep deleted. If she is indeed "on the rise" and performing with Yo Yo Ma, then certainly finding at least one article discussing her is not a huge burden. Nandesuka 20:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am ready to retract my appeal of the deletion; I can see that it is of no use. However, I still feel very strongly that, as Charles Stewart has mentioned, the speedy deletion was not in order. Articles are not to be speedy deleted because they probably would have failed AfD. Going around the rules in that way puts an article at a huge disadvantage, as it already has been deleted before any discussion can take place.

I also hope that others will take my argument to heart that Wikipedia is not an indexed summary of Google, it is more useful to many people because you can find information on things that only a limited community (not necessarily an internet community) is familiar with. I am frustrated that this larger picture is being ignored by people only too ready to crack down with their interpretation of the rules. Arlohill 22:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 14

Category:Soviet spies

Was not deleted and split due to lack of consensus on CfD. This fact is immaterial, as the category is hopelessly POV, and the community is not empowered to vote away NPOV rules. Phil Sandifer 06:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Edit: I'm saying that the category should be deleted or split regardless of supposed consensus or lack thereof, because it is in flat violation of existing policy, and a CfD vote cannot overrule NPOV. Phil Sandifer 07:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm confused: what's being asked here? --Calton | Talk 07:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that Snowspinner is requesting a review of the closing of the CfD vote based on a supposed lack of consensus, because the category is inherently based on a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. The category includes individuals who have not been convicted of or even charged with spying, such as Harry Magdoff. As it was pointed out in the CfD discussion, the existence of this category puts Wikipeida at risk for a defamation suit. 172 07:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought this page was for review of stuff that's been deleted already, not a second shot at AfD or CfD.
      • In any case, I suggest being bold:
      • There's more than one way to skin an NPOV cat, as it were. --Calton | Talk 07:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, however when clear evidence that something is not NPOV has been provided, it has to go, and no amount of foot-stamping can make a difference. I would have simply been bold, but I'm tired of the backbiting that ensues when one is bold in ways that people disagree with. Phil Sandifer 07:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Shrug. Like the Nike slogan goes, Just Do It. Like I said, if the supporters want the category, they have to use it properly (make bed, lie in it, etc) instead of using it as a kind of McCarthyite club to beat their opponents with. BTW, I went ahead and created Category:Accused Soviet spies: I'd populate it immediately, but I gotta go now. --Calton | Talk 08:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page isn't just for review of what's deleted; it is for reviewing any decision related to deletion. So yes, a close-as-no-consensus is reviewable, especially if the object to be deleted is in violation of one of our core policies. But here the problem doesn't seem to be the existence of the cat, but the fact that it's used wrongly. I'd say a viable solution would be to rename the cat to Category:Alleged Soviet spies and put in a cat redir, then add a cat Category:Convicted Soviet spies. Radiant_>|< 10:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As usual, Radiant is correct. Great idea! Xoloz 19:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close do not delete or rename out of process. While snowspinner is correct that a consensus on CfD cannot over-ride the NPOV policy, the question of whether this category is inherently PoV, or is simply being used in a PoV way, or indeeed is neither, is a factual question, properly to be determind by the specific consensus in a CfD discussion. This should remain until theere is a consensus to rename or delete it. I woudl advise submitting a new ans separate CfD nomination aimed specifically at a rename as a first step towards User:Radiant's solution. Remember that unlike articels, categorys are only suppsoed to be renamed by consensus, and that CfD handles renames as well as deletions. If anyone incorrectly applies "Be Bold" to this non-editing action, and renames or deletes this category unilaterally, the action should be summeraily reversed and the actor admonished at a minimum. DES (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the case of a contentious topic and what it would be understatement to call "serious questions" about the fairness of the trials and judicial system on, I think the POV questions are pretty clear cut. Phil Sandifer 00:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, moving of categories is handled at CfD, but that's largely only a convenience as far as I know. Moving articles to a different category is an editing action, and can be done at any time by anyone who thinks it improves the Wiki. All the stuff in this category needs to be fixed regardless of the AfD result, and be bold clearly applies. -- SCZenz 02:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone ahead and been bold in recategorizing several people for whom there is no evidence of an admission of espionage or a conviction for an espionage-related crime. FCYTravis 01:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mazel tov. Each of the articles is watched by a contingent of editors with a quite a strong ideological bent. If bets were being taken on Wikipedia, I'd place a pretty large sum on your efforts at recategorizing some of the individuals getting reverted in no less than 12 hours. 172 01:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What, to me, is really ugly, are all the people pages named "John Doe (spy)" - that's just a flat-out accusation in the very page title. FCYTravis 02:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've done some recategorizing myself, and Lord, it's a mess: I can see why Snowspinner was bothered by this. Many of the ones I've come across are so blatantly POV, like the one that began, Samuel Dickstein (5 February 1885 - 22 April 1954) was a Democratic Congressional Representative from New York, a New York State Supreme Court Justice, and spy for the Soviet Union, whose only proof or backing was "The VENONA Project says so."
        • Click around on articles from Category:Soviet spies and you'll find far worse examples, substubs beginning with the form "NAME graduated from UNIVERSITY. In 19XX, he worked for AGENCY, and was a Soviet spy"; they usually contain little actual biographical detail (missing things such as, you know, YEAR of birth or death, actual life accomplishments or jobs, legal entanglements or verdicts, etc.); nothing except "SPY SPY SPY says the Venona Project".
        • And if the cats get reverted; well, the reverters with strong ideological bent wouldn't have a policy leg to stand on, since NPOV trumps their ideology every time. --Calton | Talk 02:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close of no consensus: As DES said, there is no POV violation in the existence of the category, only in the part of the pages that includes them in the category. Good for FCYTRavis in fixing. The CfD discussion (which had no delete votes besides the proposer, only keep and rename votes) has a suggestion by User:TJive to start the category Category:Americans named in VENONA, which seems appropriate here. --- Charles Stewart 19:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Body parts slang

No matter the merits or demerits of this article, it was deleted without a consensus being achieved; "8-7" is not a consensus, but rather a slim majority. Further, much like the recent AFD retry for List of sexual slang, this article was resubmitted quickly after a failure to reach a consensus the first time. Beyond the "legal" case for undeletion, this article can indeed be included via WP:NOT 1.5.2, but I will freely admit the article needs serious cleanup, in line with what was recommended for List of sexual slang. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 18:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted. I count 4 legit keep votes. That's a 2/1 consensus, and since the article seems mostly contrary to policy. -R. fiend 19:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. As noted, the AfD was sock-infested, just like the 1st one. Actually the tally us 8-5, as I only see 5 valid votes. And without links or existing article of the names of ~97% of those terms, WP 1.5.2 just does not apply. Any decent intro to this topic would just be a restate of the "Sexual Slang" article's intro, which is redundant.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 19:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several editors have already pointed out, several times, that this is not and never was a structured list of internal hyperlinks. It was a thesaurus, plain and simple, and contrary to our Wikipedia is not a dictionary official policy. There was no actual encyclopaedia article content in this article at all. Without the thesaurus content, which is contrary to official policy, this article would have been empty. There is a table on Talk:Body parts slang which points to most of the relevant WikiSaurus entries that this was duplicating. Keep deleted. Uncle G 19:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This is (just barely) within range of an administrator's leeway, since he explained his reasoning and cited policy in the close. Afd isn't strictly about vote-counting; otherwise we could make a bot that did it. (Please don't point me to places where this has been suggested before, though I'm sure it has been.) The 8-7 vs 8-5 argument is a red herring, since the "60%" figure shows the closer's intention. —Cryptic (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not only do few admins bother to even show a tally, and they certainly don't have to. But I said 60% and "IPs not counted", which supports my 8-5 tally. The 7 is clearly a typo. I am not changing anything. If you "dont count IPs" you get 8-5, and even Yukfoo's vote legitimacy is disputed, yet I counted it anyway and I am keeping it that way. Basing an argument off a typo refuted by my other statements on the AfD (because it was a typo and therefore is incorrect and does not agree with the other 2 statements) is very dirty tactic.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 22:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • He was registered user with an actual edit history so I counted it. I don't know much beyond that other than that R. fiend disputes it. I believe you if you say that he is a good editor, MIB, either way his vote was and still is counted. The literacy remark was definitly a bit harsh.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 23:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps it was a bit harsh, but I've looked through his edits, and though I certainly have not seen them all, every single random one I selected was along the lines of adding a (usually unnecessary) link or such, or voting "keep" on many of the very worst articles at AFD in a very rambling, almost nonsensical fashion. If English is not his first language, that should be taken into consideration, but punctuation is pretty universal. And anyone who doesn't speak English with a pretty high degree of fluency really should not be editing the English Wikiepdia. I took several years of German, but I wouldn't dream of making any edits to the German Wikipedia. Whatever language he may speak fluently, I'll bet there's a Wikipedia in that language that needs his efforts more than we do. And, let's just say his username doesn't exactly inspire confidence. I also note no one has pointed out a substantial edit yet. -R. fiend 23:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • [32]. —Cryptic (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough. That does begin to change my view of Yuckfoo. When I first encountered him I got the impression he was something of a troll of sorts, and up until this moment I never saw anything to contradict that. Nearly all his edits (at least in the past few months) seem to be to AFD (though, on further inspection, I was surprised to actually find one or two votes to delete). How I would count his vote at AFD if it were to come up (it hasn't so far) is questionable. Since it's (allegedly) supposed to be more about the discussion than about the votes (yet it somehow always comes down to a ratio of keeps to deletes), I can't say Yuckfoo has ever made any sort of argument I would call terribly convincing (please provide a link if he has). Rossami, in his count below, which he obviously put some thought into, counts only 4 keeps as well, so he's discounting someone, though I don't know whether it's Yuckfoo, or Alexander007 for being too new (or someone else altogether). -R. fiend 03:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, this article was already transwikied to Wiktionary/Wikisaurus. Titoxd(?!?) 22:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a fascinating case to review. The initial deletion discussion was closed as "no consensus". I tally that discussion at 12 clear delete, 5 keep only if severely cut down, 5 keep as is (+1 anon) and 1 transwiki (+1 anon). Despite an overwhelming consensus that the article should not be retained in it's current state, the article was essentially unchanged through the second discussion. In the second discussion, I tally 8 deletes to 4 valid keeps with (and here's the interesting part) no overlap of participants with the previous debate. Taken together, we have 20 unambiguous deletes to 9 unambiguous keeps. (The conditional votes from the prior discussion have to be left out since the condition was not met.) Since then, the article has been transwiki'd to Wiktionary (where in my strong opinion, it should have been in the first place). Furthermore, it is very clear that the closing admin read all the comments carefully and made the decision in light of established policy and did not resort to mere vote-counting. I endorse the closing decision. Rossami (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted per Rossami. Dottore So 23:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted per Uncle G. Xoloz 05:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted per Uncle G. *drew 08:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close as per Uncle G and as per Rossami. DES (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete, per nom as well as to save the huge list created here for posterity and/or educational/social research. Wiktionary/Wikisaurus doesn't seem to have even 5% of this article's content, etc etc... Ahh I see it now at Transwiki. Adding [link to talk page -Andrew 19:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Obviously the destruction of this useful encyclopedic content is going to stand. My gut tells me the real reason behind its destruction is puritans pouring into the Wikipedia and using "Wikipedia tech jargon" to mask their distaste for vulgarity. But alas, that's the way the cookie bounces sometimes in the Wikipedia. Clearly, this article could have been redrafted to fit better within the rules, but instead, people say "destroy, destroy!". Stevietheman 22:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion when so many Wikipedians are also Wiktionarians. The page has been moved, not destroyed. If we really were making our decisions based on prudery, we'd be arguing to delete it over on Wiktionary, too. As far as I know, that's not happening. Rossami (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I resent User:Stevietheman's comments. I can't speak for anyone esle, but I ahve been uncompromising in opposing any sort of censeorship based on prudery or "distaste for vulgarity". I opoosed the delteion of the autofellation image, and I favored the deeltion of {{obscene}} and various other waning and censorship tags. My opnion above was based solely on the clear consensus displayed in the AfD debates, in which I did not happen to participate. And as User:Rossami points out, the content has not been eradicated, it is available on Wiktionary. DES (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Endorse the original closure, and commend the closing admin on providing a succinct yet thorough explanation of how the closure determination was made. The Literate Engineer 21:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 12

Bananas come from Pluto

Bring back: You are supposed to allow enough time for someone to write an article before deleting it. Adding the delete fast and then deleting the page while someone has just started the article is generally rude and against wiki policy. Also, why a speedy delete for this article bananas come from pluto, I don't believe there was any criteria for this? Since it does not meet criteria for speedy delete, there should have been a regular delete discussion. Is there a discussion on this subject? If you don't have an answer for this I motion that the page be undeleted. (Perhaps then you might attempt to have it deleted properly in the regular delete section.)(please follow policy): User user:R._fiend has a specific interest in this article and should not be able to delete all by himself. He indicated below for the article rules of make believe that:

  • "...So Bananas come from Pluto, an idea I just had, deserves an article because the idea exists. I just thought of it. Let's see if that link turns blue now. Anyone else feel this request is a waste of time?"

Perhaps his interest is to delete this article because it represent a type of refutation to his argument. I however strongly believe that a discusion about the deletion of this article should occur. here is a backup copy of what it looked like --CyclePat 18:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My faith in the system of wikipedia administrators knowlege has gone down so low I think the abys would look like a dent in the road. Seriously... "vandalism"? We all know that this attempted article user:cyclepat/bananas come from pluto is a good attempt at writting a logical article.
  • Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia.
Now a mere definition doesn't seem logical because, it doesn't even have that section (but that's a good idea to add that... (definition: a sentence, blah blah, etc.))
For the nonsense, I think I could work something into the article if you give me some time (according to wikipedia guidelines for nonsense). However what specifically makes the article nonsense? Is it the name, history, ethymology? I don't see anything that seems to go against wikipedia guidelines for patented nonsense
Finally You know the most common thing to say would be (Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought)(and "bananas come from pluto" is probably all original research, no?))[33](unless theirs a book out there on that!)(if this was a test for administators I think most of you should have failed... except maybe the one that delete the article in the first place, but even then... a little discusion would be good. I understand not everyone is an experienced administrator, neither are users... Administrators should try to understand; if they want to give faith and have people believe in the system it's up to YOU/US. Try to teach someone that realy needs it... don't just delete the article. Sheesh!)(okay enough preaching for today for me)--CyclePat 04:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I think we have a misunderstanding. I'm sure your article was very funny. Thanks for the self-admitted joke. However, this being an encyclopedia, we try to find reasons to get rid of jokes quickly. I don't mean to say that your joke was evil, or unfunny, or that you should be chastised strongly for it. Consider, though, that WP gets lots of funny people submitting lots of jokes all the time, and if we don't clean up fast, the jokes outpace the verifiable information that is the real business of an encyclopedia. So, I'm sorry for any offense, and please don't take the "bad-faith" label personally. All I meant was that you submitted a joke knowing it was a joke, and you can't reasonably expect it to hang around long. Xoloz 04:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Okay! I give in! your right. (I was hoping for it to stay up for at least a day though... I tried to make it as authentic as possible. Everything in it is pretty much verifiable) I guess next time I have an article to write that has to deal with a silly subject I'll put it in the wiki joke section (which I just found but can't remember the link). :s --CyclePat 06:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of Make Believe

This article was deleted based solely on its Alexa rank, even though there were other guidelines in the Website guidelines that deem this comic notable. They are:

  • Having a forum with 5,000 or more apparently unique members. - ROMB's forum has over 7000 members, and there are easily over 5000 unique members.
  • Coverage or inclusion outside the webcomics community. - I've read reviews of ROMB in my local newspaper and local college-targeted magazine, both of which had circulations cover much of Worcester, MA and its universities.
  • Notable Achievement or Characteristic. - ROMB is done in a Chinese manhua style, which is very unique among web comics, since most tend to use a western or Japanese style.

While the third criteria came after the page's deletion, the first two were present when the original VFD took place, yet no attempt to check them was done. Given that all three apply to ROMB, this makes it qualify as notable and should therefore be undeleted. It would be enough to simply put back its history to allow access to previous versions. Xuanwu 09:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ROMB's art style is not a matter of "turning it upside down." The manhua style is from the primary culture of Asia (China) and is generally underrepresented online (if you can point to another English web comic that uses it, please do so). Therefore, ROMB's style is significant both in terms of where it comes from and its rarity. It's not a matter of simply drawing moustaches on pictures. I think a case can also be made that ROMB is the first web comic to use the manhua style, which makes it even more notable, in the same sense that Polymer City Chronicles is notable as the first video game comic. Xuanwu 22:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know what Manhua is, my little wiki:babel may be a bit of a clue. If the thing is underrepresented online, is Wikipedia meant to misrepresent it? What? You've shown no assertion of its influence, and the comic has a low readership. My upside down comic was a bit of a joke, but it basically applies. I could do the first comic in the style of the ancient egyptians, totally authentic culture and one of the first civilizations on earth, but wiki wouldn't instantly include an article for it just because it is unique in that sense. It has to assert its notability in the outside world. And I didn't know this until reading Brenneman's point below, but the "notable for unique style" criteria, you added yourself, and then argued about it here. You also added a thing about webcomic toplists, which I removed. Toplists?! The notability criteria was drawn up after weeks of discussion, and whereas boldness has to be admired in some respects, your edits there did seem a bit self serving. - Hahnchen 01:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, it comes down to the third claim only. Is this a new type of animation that leads to imitators? Is it a sole example of a style that is substantial? Arguably, each artist has a new "style," and obviously the guidelines are not meant for anything so idiosyncratic as that. Implicit in the guideline is "new style that establishes a trend." I cannot quite assess that, but the article doesn't help us out any, either, by giving us any documentation of the way in which this comic leads the way. It's good if we can do the research to confirm an article's claims, but it's not obligatory. I have to say re-delete/keep deleted. Geogre 21:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Notes on #3 could be added (though not right now since it's been protected). The article was written before need to mention notability was present, so that part was not focused on. Also, remember that the second criteria (coverage) also applies, though its reviews only exist on hard copy. Xuanwu 22:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Innovism

This article on an admittedly worthless philosophy was deleted with a grand total of three votes based on an incorrect claim that it is a "one-man movement" (not that that would be a valid reason to delete an article on a philosophical system anyway, however intellectually viable that system may be). Kurt Weber 02:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innovism

November 11

Leeroy Jenkins

I move to undelete this article. For the record, I am/was in no way involved with the original article or it's AfD vote. However, I feel that it meets the requirements stated in Wikipedia:Importance, specifically:

  • There is clear proof that a reasonable number of people are or were concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community).
  • If an article is "important" according to the above then it should not be deleted on the basis of it being insufficiently important, famous or relevant.

The current page is a redirect to World of Warcraft (WoW), where it gets a one-line mention of it being a video. Note also that I am NOT a WoW player, I was interested in this article due to the term being bandied around on the internet, and among multiplayer games especially. I was particularly annoyed to end up at yet another WoW advertisement.

But I digress. The fact that while this was originally a WoW phenomenon matters not (I looked up Leeroy Jenkins elsewhere on the net). As a point of fact, there is another poster on the WoW talk page complaining about this same issue. Apparently he's a teacher/lecturer trying to better understand his students. The article is obviously of interest to some people (although I must say that the original article was somewhat biased towards vanity).

Finally, the popularity of this article appears to have skyrocketed since the AfD. A current google search for "Leeroy Jenkins" (with the quotes) returns over 35,000 hits on separate pages.

In conclusion, I ask that the AfD be revoked. Wikipedia is not paper.

Thank you Wahming 07:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • The page is currently a redirect. After the VfD (old style), it was recreated several times, and eventually redirected (rather than speedied as recreation) by Mgm. The VfD was already superceded by events at that time, May 30. The question of whether it should be expanded, maintained, speedied, or relisted is open. My vote is Take no action. Xoloz 08:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, I noted that it is currently a redirect to WoW
  • I only deleted one patch of vandalism, but it has been deleted for vandalism and recreation multiple times by others see Special:Undelete/Leeroy Jenkins. Also: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Leeroy Jenkins which had an overwhelming delete consensus (not counting sockpuppets and anons as allowed by the rules). The article is about a person who fails to follow protocol, runs in screaming his name, followed by an entire party getting them killed. I don't see how such a trivial character deserves their own article. If it's a notable event within the game, it should be mentioned in World of Warcraft which it is. Keep deleted. - Mgm|(talk) 12:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a notable event within the game, it should be mentioned in World of Warcraft which it is.
Did you even read my post.. -_-' Leeroy Jenkins is no longer a person, it is now a catchphrase online, especially in multiplayer games. It is on that basis that I am calling for a review. Wahming 12:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Leeroy Jenkins was described as a "meme" and not a person in the original VfD. Indeed, it was compared to AYBABTU. android79 13:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Valid VfD, no new information provided to overturn result. "leeroy jenkins" still only gets 708 unique Google hits. This phenomenon is mentioned in the WoW article, which is enough, IMO. android79 13:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted ... uh, redirected/merged. Valid AfD, nothing particularly convincing to warrant revisiting the issue. Low unique Google hits don't suggest any huge rise in popularity/notability. Frankly, there's not a whole lot of point to writing an article on an MMORPG player character... they're one of the few things that are always deleted... I can't think of a single case when one was kept, and even the most hardline inclusionists don't bother to argue for them. Leeroy should be happy with the redirect and mention in the main WoW article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore or at least expand the reference in the WoW article. One problem seems to be the variety of versions of the article; I have not read each and every version. Some were probably worthy of being kept, but the deletion seems to have taken aim at a moving target. I suspect that at this point most players of any MMORPG have heard of Leeroy Jenkins, which makes it fairly significant as an Internet meme. Smerdis of Tlön 19:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per Ihcoyc/Smerdis of Tlön. Leeroy is at least as notable as Ellen Feiss. ~~~~ 13:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (keep deleted) as per Android79 and Starblind. MCB 23:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore or expand reference in WoW article: widely recognized Internet phenomenon, showcased in a PC Gamer article and has influenced the way many people play online games. Also note that Leeroy Jenkins' spelling differs thanks to the term being shouted: adding extra "e"'s can turn out more results on Google.
  • Undelete Everyking 11:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. As much as I love shouting "Leeeerooooooy Jeeeeeenkins!" in chatrooms, its just not notable enough to warrent undeletion. Besides, its already mentioned in the WoW article.--Kross | Talk 21:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - per Encyclopædia Dramatica, "Leeroy Jenkins" is actually another one of those misogynistic and physically impractical "sex moves" along the lines of the "Angry dragon" (a previously deleted article). BDAbramson T 16:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and expand as per the original WoW reference and context. The current connotation now has absolutely nothing to do with the original player character, so it's not vanity. It's not even strongly tied to the original video anymore. The alleged misogynistic sex move was inspired by the WoW reference and not vice versa. As a meme it is well-known within the general MMORPG community, and not just WoW. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 20:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm... still, a minor ref - a redirect to WoW works just fine. BDAbramson T 23:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. It's probably the single biggest player-derived meme to spawn from WoW, which itself is currently the largest MMORPG. I'm no longer active in MMORPGs and I still hear it. The snippet in the WoW article is insufficient. Expanding it within the WoW article isn't appropriate, either, since it has a life beyond that game. It merits an article. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 03:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and expand, I am not a WoW player and have heard this term bandied about in the offline world now. Kit 01:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 10

Yoism (undelete view)

I was the closing admin for this, and the main proponents would like to see my decision reviewed. Because they believe that there might be a bias if they bring it here, they requested I do so.

  • Here is the Afd: [37].
  • Here is my more detailed explanation of my process as I originally wrote it: [38]
  • This discussion grew, and here is the current version.

The users in question that would like the review are:

Wikibofh 15:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I stated "If you have a real question about the VfD that you would like to ask administrators to consider, that might be worthwhile. Kriegman 06:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)" I do not see the VfD process as being truly open to looking at the issues I raised here, unless an administrator were to ask other administrators to take a look at this article and the process issues its deletion raised, i.e., I do not think that it makes a difference who puts the article in for review if it is seen as "at our request." The first response by R. fiend (below) is what can be expected if there is no request by an administrator to consider the issues raised. Kriegman 16:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, it's difficult and time consuming. But characterizing it as "argumentative" without responding to any of the issues raised is also problematic, no? Kriegman 16:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for numerous reasons.
Main reason: the article went through a deletion process two years earlier and, after considerable debate, the article was reworked and a decision was reached to keep. There was no question raised about the article's existence for the next two years until someone tried a link to the external website that was temporarily down (it had been hacked a few weeks earlier). The external link didn't work and it was temporarily redirected (while the site was being rebuilt on a new server) to a page with a message saying what was happening. This brief message of a few paragraphs was taken to indicate that the phenomenon in question, Yoism, was a bogus micronation type phenomenon (unlike the decision reached two years earlier in which examination of the hacked website was a crucial part of the review process). Thus the entire decision to place the article in VfD and the ultimate decision was due to a misinterpretation of data that was a replacement for important information that was temporarily unavailable and remained unavailable during the review process. The site is now largely up and running, though certain important links are still not working (and I would not have put the article up for undeletion until they were working).
Other reasons are detailed here (in the section titled "On Socks & Puppetfests" in the second box at page bottom), here, and here.
Additional reason: Though I repeatedly noted the rigorous 501(c)(3) process Yoism had gone through (that documents its existence and legitimacy far better than many phenomenon on the Wikipedia), it was later pointed out to me that Yoism, Inc. was not just recognized as a legitimate non-profit enterprise by the IRS. It was specifically recognized as a religion, i.e., a church, which is a far more restrictive category that gets extraordinarily close scrutiny by the IRS. The evidence that Yoism is a real phenomenon is simply overwhelming (even if some people are underwhelmed by the phenomenon itself). Kriegman 17:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I think it's quite important that Yoism has been officially recognized as a religion by the U.S. government. Add on top of that that there are multiple newspaper mentions, a significant physical presence in a few different locations, a significant web presence, the fact that in previous wikipedia reviews it was kept, etc... All this seems to seems to indicate that Yoism is in fact a real phenomenon and not an ficticious invention or vanity page. Also my vote was discarded in the previous count (merely because of my connection to Yoism), which I resent. I'm not a wikipedia addict, but I have made significant improvements to wikipedia articles, especially correcting the Occam's Razor and Philosophy of Science articles which had critical errors. OverZealousFan 18:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. Do not count clear meatpuppets, but do make sure those editors who are voting have information on why the article was kept two years ago. -- SCZenz 18:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, I'm not following that statement. I don't see any nomination for deletion two years ago, so of course the article was kept. There's a big difference between saying that an article was decided not to be deleted and saying that an article has merely been around for a while. The latter is not any sort of justification for keeping. I'm sure thre are plenty of articles that should be deleted that have been around for a long time; they haven't earned squatters rights or anything. Votes are just as valid a year after creation as they are a minute after creation. -R. fiend 18:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The original yoism article was removed to Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense and listed on VfD almost as soon as it was created (19:15, 22 July 2003 . . Maveric149 (Content moved to Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. Page listed on Votes for deletion.) A debate then ensued and it was relisted. It was this exact debate that first brought wikipedia to my attention, so I remember it well. OrionK 20:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the "undelete view" link, see the entries dated July 22, 2003 through August 4, 2003. Kriegman 21:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (keep deleted) for numerous reasons.
First of all, there must be reliable sources giving verifiable information about Yoism per Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability If there are no reliable sources giving verifiable informaiton about Yoism, then all we are left with is original research or autobiographical information which inherently reflects a non-neutral POV (reference Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). Secondly, if there are reliable sources giving verifiable information about Yoism, it must be notable enough to be on Wikipedia (reference Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not).
Thus far, there are only two reliable sources giving verifiable information about Yoism: the Boston Globe article and the government documents. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, the Yoism website inherently presents POV and it not a reliable source of verifiable information. By providing uncorroborated information about itself, there is strong evidence to suggest that this is violating Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Autobiography. Per Wikipedia:Autobiography, Daniel Kriegman, as the founder of Yoism and a primary source of information pertaining to Yoism (in Wikipedia and in the Boston Globe article), should not be heavily involved in editing the Yoism article as there is strong evidence to suggest that this is violating Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. This also pertains to his articles on Open source religion, Intersubjective verifiability, Evolutionary psychoanalysis, and even Daniel Kriegman. Wikipedia is to reflect the body of knowledge external to Wikipedia and not to be used for self-promotion. --Edwardian 18:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I contributed to the article on myself as a "young" Wikipedian (and I MAY have started it, I actually don't recall; I didn't have a username back then), before I knew much about the culture here (much of which I have learned only recently); and the same is true of evolutionary psychoanalysis. Though I believe they still are valid articles, they do need others to edit them. And now I would be more circumspect in starting or contributing to them. The others (open source religion and intersubjective verifiability) are much less clear. I think they are legitimate articles in their own right. OSR will eventually have much less focus on Yoism (my obvious starting point) as others contribute to it; and the link to the issue of religion in the intersubjective verifiability article---which is about a major concept in the philosohy of science---is important as this might be the central difference between religion and science. Yoism gets into the picture because, in fact, it was created to overcome this problem. But Edwardian and I got into an unfortunate and unpleasant exchange in the VfD. Maybe we can avoid repeating that. Kriegman 21:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Yoism website has a point of view, but so do numerous websites and groups listed in wikipedia. The Yoism article was written with NPOV -- no one seems to be disputing that. The information about Yoism is corroborated by independent media, the official Yoism website, the US Gov't, the IRS, the state of MA, independent blogs, numerous individuals, and eye witness testimony. If Dan Kriegman is interested in open source religion, and is an expert in evolutionary psychoanalysis and intersubjective verifiability, why shouldn't he be adding to these articles? Since there is an article about himself, why shouldn't he be allowed to correct/update it? The important point is the quality of the artilce, the phenomena it is reporting on, and ensuring it meets wikipedia standards for NPOV, no original reserach, etc. There are many people involved in Yoism, and many more who know about it and find the article informative. The question is whether it is notable enough for wikipedia, not who contributes to it. OrionK 20:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse/keep deleted per above. The objection by the creator of this sect smacks of vanity. Friday (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That may be. But how does that obviate any need to respond to the content of the objection? Kriegman 20:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would someone care to undelete the history of Talk:Yoism? Practice two years ago was to move the discussions of kept articles to their talk pages, and from the edit summaries of the deleted revisions, that seems to be what happened here. (It's not linked from Wikipedia:Archived delete debates, but it is from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents/Archive, and probably shouldn't have been deleted.) —Cryptic (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Yoism is part of a young and growing phenomena of open source religions, and this is of interest to many within the open source movement more generally. The article is NPOV, independently verifiable, and not a vanity page. Legitmate votes have been discounted as "meat puppets" even though no puppetry (in terms of manipulation of the process, which is what the term originally refers to if you actually bother to read about it) occurred. Fans of the Yoism site did vote to keep it, and some of them are active wikipedia editors (like myself) who ALSO identify as Yoans. Because of vociferous comments by Dan Kriegman, many wikipedia editors are irrationaly biased against the article. But a rational and level headed assessment indicates that the original reason for deletion, i.e., vanity page, is not applicable to the Yoism article. OrionK 20:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if any of the discounted opinions were in fact valid, it's perfectly understandable why they were ignored, given their meatpuppettish ranting. Repeating it here's unlikely to win you any support. WP:DRV is not the place to come to to re-argue your position after you failed to convince anyone during the afd; we examine the process here. —Cryptic (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand you -- my comments are about the process. Since I am not an admin, should I not be commenting? If so I apologize but that wasn't clear to me. It would be helpful if we could clarify who is being accused of being a meatpuppet and why? Clear wikipedia editors who voted for keeping yoism are myself, dan kriegman, overzealous fan, presnell and rob (user (24.60.21.122) has numerous, unrelated, prior edits) -- that is at least 5 legitmate votes in favor of keeping, no? There ought to be some reflection about how the term meat puppetry is used in an illegitmate way -- this is a process observation. OrionK 22:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn/relist. Counting non-puppets, the vote is 4-1 in favor of deleting: right on the borerline of consensus. For this reason and this reason alone, it should be relisted in order to get more non-puppet voters. It is very important to note that deletion review is for deciding whether or not a deletion was done out of process, and votes saying things like "Overturn, it is notable" are irrelevant and likely to be discounted. ~~ N (t/c) 20:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NEW INFORMATION In addition to IRS recognition as a religion/church and the Boston Globe article, I have found another newspaper article in Spare Change (August 22-September 4, 2002, pp. 12, 16) describing a major YO project (the major focus of Yoan activity in the Boston area for two years). The links to information about this major project are the part of the yoism.org website that is still not working. Hopefully it will be soon. Kriegman 20:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 'bout that. I guess I would have hoped you would have tried to take at least a brief look at the website of a religion/organization, an article about which you were putting up for deletion. What was clear was that Edwardian tried to look at it and found the redirected temporary replacement for the hacked site and made an interpretation of what he found there. He then stayed heavily involved in the VfD (possibly because he and I got into an unpleasant exchange). While I can surmise from your commitment to skepticism and your exchange with Bernie in another forum, I do not know your motives. Kriegman 18:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
a significant percentage of the website can be found through the wayback machine.Geni 20:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Bring it back. Relist if necessary. Was No vote. This Wikipedia hearing is only about the "process," not about the content. And the "process" was as sound as Christ's crucifixion. That is, the Wikipedia process for deletion of the Yoism page proceeded to its conclusion without regard for facts, history, or reality. I myself have attended Yoan gatherings and indeed personally I co-led one Yoan gathering. And you could too if you would only stand up and say what is true for you. It is about time that humanity take responsibility for the evil in the inherited human longing for a relationship with the alpha-male God. And in my opinion, Yoans do better than any other group of thirty people I know alive on this planet today in attempting to address and heal the inherently evil nature of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism without just starting another -ism that, sure enough, just finds another manifestation of the alpha-male God which evidently can be imagined almost anywhere. But despite all those facts, and despite the very real promise that the Yoism approach has, the Wikipedia process for deleting the Yoism page was flawless. And the process of the crucifixion of Christ was also flawless--even though there is no God and even though whatever Christ there was rotted in the grave turning to only pieces of worm, flower, and tree for any living system that actually reached to what was left of him and to wherever he lay and to wherever they took him in their desperation to avoid the reality of his death. May the Yoism page rest in peace. I personally have no hope for Wikipedia or humanity. That is what I learned from Yoism, and I am not Yoan. But the Yoism page should have never been deleted, and Christ should never have been crucified. Have you no conscience? Rednblu | Talk 21:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as per many of the arguments above. Relist if necessary.--Nicodemus75 23:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (keep deleted) for both process and content reasons, and please, spare us all the new-age psychobabble. MCB 23:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MORE NEW INFORMATION: ZUZU'S PLACE The major Yoism project that was reported in Spare Change (and dismissed by some people as an unauthoritative source) was also described here along with a photograph of the first Zuzu's Place coop. I hope a photo of an actual coop created by the Yoan community is not considered an unauthoritative hallucination. Zuzu's Place is the part of the Yoism.org website that is just now being fixed. It should be accessible in a day or two. Kriegman 21:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This new information is not the basis for this VfU. It is just being reported as part of the new information available. Along with the fact that Yo, Inc. was closely examined by the IRS which recognized it as a religion/church, there is new information that should be examined. But new information was not the basis for this VfU. Kriegman 06:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Hi this is Rob Levy. I'm in favor of undeleting. Thanks much. What is UTC? (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.21.122 (talk • contribs) 22:50, November 16, 2005 (UTC)
This user has 29 unrelated edits prior to this VfU, and he is using his real name and can be verified as a non-sockpuppet. Kriegman 03:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Hi this is Rob Levy. I signed up with an account just now but I have casually editted Wikipedia pages for years and I very often use the site for reference and learning. I've been involved in Yoism since 2001, so I am not unbiased, but Yoism as I see it is an established enough phenonomenon to warrant presence on Wikipedia. Furthermore the fact that our webpages were temporarily inaccessible due to a malicious attack made us more vulnerable in the AfD process. So considering how much traffic comes into our site, the fact that we have IRS recognized legal faith-based status, the external verification in news sources, and other independednt 3rd party sources, it should be agreed on that undeletion is the natural course of action. Robert p levy 05:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This vote is a duplicate of the one above it. Rob Levy was apparently responding to Wikkibofh's note that "Votes made without accounts are not counted," by redoing his vote with a newly registered user name. Regarding sock puppetry concerns, please note that Rob Levy had 29 unrelated prior edits prior to the VfU using the IP address 24.60.21.122. Kriegman 05:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly endorse deletion. Process was plainly followed; all of the supposed "new information" presented is trivia, and none of it is relevent to the reasons presented for deletion in the original vote. --Aquillion 09:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This whole action is only about conscience. And if you really had a conscience you would abstain from strongly voting against the content that you oppose. Accordingly, if you will retract your biased vote, I will likewise retract my biased vote. --Rednblu | Talk 10:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I always vote my conscience. If you believe that your own vote is invalid and does not accurately represent your judgement of process, then I strongly encourage you to reverse it; but for myself I am confident that I have made the correct decision. --Aquillion 10:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - For the same reasons I voted keep on the original AfD. Namely, it's verifiable (501 status), notable (some press coverage), and I just found it to be an interesting read after stumbling across it (had never heard of it before then). --Presnell 16:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, more new information: Manifestations of Yoism beyond the minds of its main proponents, include the Zuzu's Place project (referenced already above) and SPAM, which was noted in one of the NY Times top ten most emailed articles: ". . . the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster flourishes. It even has schisms. A rival faction, based on SPAM (Spaghetti & Pulsar Activating Meatballs), has formed." (New York Times, August 29, 2005)" The parody religion known as SPAM is a Wholly Yoan creation (pun intended), that, unlike Yoism itself, does exist only in Yoism webspace. Kriegman 13:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I said it was a manifestation/creation of Yoism that has been noted outside of the minds of Yoans, not that Yoism was recognized by the NY Times. Had that happened, you can be sure I would have mentioned it, and we wouldn't be involved in this process ;-) The SPAM page at yoism.org, many shorter discussions of it along with links to it, and brief references like the one in the Times article are the only places you will find any evidence of SPAM, the religion. Kriegman 18:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recently concluded

  1. Fuckfrance: kept deleted.
  2. GnuFU: undeleted, pending transwiki to Wikibooks.
  3. Niki Ashton: speedy undeleted and posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niki Ashton.
  4. Nayla bint Farasa: kept deleted
  5. Regret: speedy undeleted, not posted AFD; G4 speedy was invalid, as article was entirely different from the originally deleted one
  6. William Renner: kept deleted
  7. Diary-X: undeleted, posted at AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diary-X 2
  8. Linen closet: invalid, article was never deleted, remains a redirect
  9. Songs in triple meter: Kept deleted, although a similar page was creaed and now at AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs in triple meter (1990-1999)
  10. Golden Sun Password: kept deleted; option remains open for transwiki, though consensus seems to be that no wiki will likely want it
  11. Your mom: speedy-deletion reversed. subsequently moved to Wiktionary.
  12. Death of God: mistaken nomination. created as redirect to God is dead
  13. Warsaw Fire Brigade, now on Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warsaw Fire Brigade (second nomination).
  14. Sigmund Freud University Vienna: undeleted and merged in with current content, permission received to use copyrighted material
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=29107815"