Wikipedia:Deletion review

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.

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

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.

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=2025 January 6}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 January 6}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 January 6|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

2006-01-04

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bonestown

I thought that AFDs were always kept even if the article nominated by the AFD was subsequently speedy-deleted. I looked in the various guideline and policy pages but couldn't find information about whether AFDs can be deleted when an article is speedy-deleted, perhaps when the AFD has only a nomination and no other contributors. I can see how it is more expedient in some cases than closing the AFD manually. In this case it was confusing. I had already voted on it; after the AFD was deleted, somebody else recreated the orphaned AFD. Perhaps the policy can be clarified? (By the way: I have written a user script, User:Quarl/autocloseafd.js to automate closing AFDs.) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-04 21:42Z

That's why AFD's shouldn't be deleted... just close it as speedy deleted by {{admin}}. When I close speedy AFD's, that's what I do (which is quite easy with my patchwork user script). Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Good call. Never delete an AFD nomination. There may be very few cases in which it could be a good thing, but this isn't one of them. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

John Noble Goodwin

• Erroneously deleted over a year ago as a copyvio; please compare the history[1] with his entry in the public domain Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. Postdlf 21:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• I've speedy restored it and begun to copyedit. David | Talk 21:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

List of real names of professional wrestlers

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professional wrestlers real names
This listing received nine votes to delete (the original of which was mine), one vote to merge and four votes to keep and redirect to List of real names of professional wrestlers. The vote was closed and the latter course decided upon, despite there being more than 2:1 opposition to keeping the article. No record of the vote was added to the article's discussion page. It's also worth noting that the article has still received absolutely no attention whatsoever, and that several "delete" votes (and none of the outright "keep" votes) came from members of the WikiProject Professional wrestling, who are the editors most likely to work on the article. McPhail 20:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Given there was not full consensus to delete (64% delete support), I think the closing admin took the right decision. David | Talk 20:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Consensus to delete is around 70-80%, so I think the right decision was made here, though I would have put "No consensus" instead. --Deathphoenix 20:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - Merge votes count with keep votes for the purposes of calculating whether there is a consensus to delete, bringing the delete votes to below 2/3s. I'd have voted to merge, but you don't need DRV to get that outcome, just find a normal consensus on the article page. --- Charles Stewart 20:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure though I agree that the decision probably would have been better worded as "no consensus". For AFD purposes, "keep", "merge" and "move" are generally equivalent as objections to deletion. 5 to 9 falls just below the generally accepted 2/3s threshold for "rough consensus". Rossami (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-03

Seth Ravin

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Ravin
Slightly hazy. A couple of clear delete opinions (one mine, please note), a couple of clear keep opinions (JJay and Kurt Weber). The rest are pretty clear that they consider him less notable than Rimini Street. We don't expect AfDs to be consistant, but the real issue are the pseudo-merges. I think that everyone who took part would be suprised at this outcome. My prefered option would be to ping the participants, un-close/extend this, and run it for a few more days. - brenneman^(t)(c) 07:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Eek... a pretty difficult AFD to close, further complicated by the fact that the suggested merge target, Rimini Street was deleted. I think that we should relist this one for a new AFD debate now that the staus of Rimini Street has clarified. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• It seems there was a consensus that this topic doesn't deserve it's own article. Votes to merge to a non-existant target should be discounted. Thus, it should have been deleted. Re-list if necessary. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:51, Jan. 4, 2006
• Delete. It should have been merged with Rimini Street and deleted along with it. Let's face it, it's vanity. Kurt Weber's opinion basically boils down to "he exists so he should have an article", a view he's expressed about anything that could theoretically exist, and has been universally rejected. Relist if need be, but deletion is preferable. -R. fiend 16:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, Any argument that rests on "it exists, so keep" should be rejected out of hand (at least Kmweber has laid off the "deletionist vandal" schtick), and votes that are later rendered impossible should be discounted, IMO, though JIP's handling of it as a no consensus also makes sense. android79 16:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - From here, the three merge votes count as delete votes given that the AfD said delete Rimini Street (two of them including Howcheng explicitly said they were delete in this case, the last said per Howcheng), and the four keep votes were all weak keeps. Note that Aaron voted delete in a roundabout manner (he said same as the Rimini AfD). That makes 7 delete against 4 weak keeps: given no real defence of the article was mounted, I count that as a consensus to delete. --- Charles Stewart 17:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I actually did say delete explicitly, I just didn't bold it. - brenneman^(t)(c) 17:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed, my error. --- Charles Stewart 17:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, per above, altho the original "no consensus" call was not unreasonable. Friday (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Despite the fact that merges often count as keeps, these merge votes all seemed to depend on the outcome of Rimini Street, and since Rimini Street was deleted, so should this. --Deathphoenix 20:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Funny one. Overturn and delete, as good arguments have been made, or failing that, just reopen and extend for 2 days, asking the merge voters to reconsider their opinions. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Mootstormfront

The AfD was closed out of process by Howcheng, after just 7 votes, including the primary editor— hardly enough input to provide consensus for such a marginal article. This promotional entry for a Web site/forum fails the basic criteria for Notability for a Web site— which none of the participants addressed in the AfD discussion. More critically, the site no longer even exists, nor is there a single reliable source which refers to it, which means there is no means to provide verifiable information— a fundamental requirement for any article. The Deletion process should be re-opened/re-listed, with a discussion of how this currently non-existent and non-verifiable site qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia. —LeFlyman 08:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• To clarify: what I am referring to as "out of process" is the closure of an AfD started the night before Christmas Eve and closed the day after New Year's-- a holiday period when activity is naturally going to be at a low, so that very few editors who might have a disinterested opinion on the article would have the opportunity to comment/vote. A lack of interest and participation should not be a beneficial qualifer for encyclopedic inclusion. I was particularly concerned that none of the Wikipedia standards were considered in the decision on whether this was an appropriate article to keep, but that the initial votes were based on the claims that it "seems important" or was "well known" but without any proof of such claims. Are we really to the point where the AfD etiquette which states that, "If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, and clearly base your recommendations on the deletion policy" is meaningless? —LeFlyman 16:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks to all who participated in this discussion, which not surprisingly, were more than who voted in the AfD -- the end result appears to be that the article will likely be merged into another, and so the verifiability problems raised will be dealt with. Thus, no need for further review. —LeFlyman 15:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Kept/endorse closure. First, the suggestion that howcheng's closure is out of order is erroneous. The debate ran for 10 days, twice the normal length, thanks to end-of-year lagtime. Secondly, you raised these points in the original debate, and they were unsuccessful. DRV is not the place to reargue a valid AfD. Xoloz 09:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - Don't think it was out of process closure, but I think your arguments are well-made. No verifiable sources and it doesn't look encyclopedic to me. FCYTravis 09:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure although it was, umm, poor. We shouldn't make a habit of prescribing relisting when there was no procedural error with the close. People hate relisting, and if it's done with a "Per discussion at WP:DRV" that lends some credibility that it mayn't deserve. If someone wants to nominate this again off their own bat, please drop me a note on my talk page so that I may participate, but this is outside the zone of DRV as far as I'm concerned. - brenneman^(t)(c) 10:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and keep. Closed within process, nowhere near a consensus for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, although I am sympathetic to verifiability concerns. I've added this to my watchlist, let's take up verifiability issues on the talk page, and if we must remove unverifiable content, so be it. If we're left without enough for a proper article, maybe we can find some place to merge it into. Friday (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. LeFlyman is incorrect in his/her assertion that the discussion was closed out-of-process. By design, there is no minimum quorum for AFD discussions. Nor is it inappropriate for the article's editor to participate in the deletion discussion. However, LeFlyman does raise some valid concerns over verifiability. I have no objections to an independent relisting after a reasonable period. Rossami (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: As the closing admin, I certainly feel it was justified, but I'll abstain from voting. Like Xoloz says, the debate ran for twice the normal amount of time. I suppose I could have been more generous and closed it with a "no consensus" but I thought a 2/5 vote was pretty clear (yes, I know it's a not a vote). Please also note that a number of other AfD nominations during the holiday period generated plenty of discussion so IMHO arguing that low activity invalidates the closure is unjustified. howcheng {chat} 16:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, 7 votes is certainly enough, I've closed votes with much less than that. --Deathphoenix 19:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, but without prejudice against renomination per Aaron Brenneman, as some of the reasons for keeping (e.g. "Seems important") are quite bad. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, even though AFD is not a vote. There were no good reasons presented in the AFD debate as to why the article should be kept, and it clearly fails WP:WEB. I endorse though, since I'm feeling particularly inclusionist at the moment. - ulayiti (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and no prejudice against immediate renomination. - ulayiti (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Back Door Sluts 9

Redirect to The Return of the Lord of the Rings to the Two Towers, a Southpark episode in which it plays a prominent role, improperly speedied several times. The deleting admin also blocked the editor that was creating the redirect. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, it's relevant to the article, and as long as we don't have an article for the real Back door sluts 9, might as well link it. Every kid who watches the show is going to google it anyhow for fun. a block seems misplaced. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 07:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

  Unblocked. My mistake. Everything is now clear. -- Longhair 07:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Full Bodying

• Undelete Full Bodying. This is a real act, which has been performed in films, and people should be able to learn about it. —the preceding unsigned comment is by DokkenDio (talk • contribs) 06:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, patent nonsense. —Cryptic (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I came out of a woman's vagina once, but I don't think it would be too plausible to get inside one such. -R. fiend 06:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Unbirth? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Rebirthing? User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, and BJAODN the thing. Non-admins can see the contents of it in this page's history. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It was already there. —Cryptic (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, then just salt the Earth, then. :) Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Obvious hoax. Thanks for the laugh, though! :) Xoloz 09:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and salt the earth with the tears I got when laughing after reading the history. --Deathphoenix 19:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Chris Jenny Harrison

• Undelete Chris Jenny Harrison. This is a real person and a real name and everything in the article is true. Chris Harrison is a real and well known person in this part of the world. You may not know him but Im sure a lot of people in other countries dont know who JFK or Gandhi are, I dont see you deleting them. —the preceding unsigned comment is by DokkenDio (talk • contribs) 06:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, attack page, no plausible claim of notability. —Cryptic (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Chris Jenny Harrison. It has just been brought to my attention that each administrator, or at least for sure "Natalinasmpf" is given their own pages on wikipedia. Why is it at all allowable for admins to post biographies, which are boring yet my dear friend Chris Jenny Harrison cannot be shared with the world, when his life is so exciting? This double standard seems unacceptable. How can this site call itself a fair/good site applying these double standards. You know who else applied these double standards men on women before the age of equal rights. It aint right.
• Comment - Anyone can have a user page. It's at User:Yournamehere. That's called userspace. Feel free to use it. Nobody is entitled to an *article* in *articlespace* about themselves. FCYTravis 09:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, see WP:BIO and note the difference between articles and userpages. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, this is not even userfy material. "Born from the fiery lava of Mount Ookalawaiah on a small Hawaiin Island", indeed. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Attack page on a non-notable person. --Deathphoenix 19:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFC/KM

Speedy deleted many times, and now protected blank. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, POV redirect. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Phil Sandifer 04:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. How can a shortcut be POV? How does this hurt anything? The repeated deletion of this redirect is being perceived as an effort to stifle free expression on the userbox issue; whether true or not, that hurts our encyclopedia. -- SCZenz 04:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No it doesn't. The userbox issue would have to actually have something to do with the encyclopedia for this to hurt our encyclopedia. Phil Sandifer 04:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Pointless, but harmless. I fail to see what the fuss is about, unless it's a clever smokescreen to distract from something else. Strangely enough, everything we do here has something to do with writing an encyclopedia, or else I look forward to seeing the Wikipedia:Department of Fun nominated for deletion. Fo course, there's no telling which wrong version the wheel war will have left this in, but I see keep as a shortcut. You want a POV shortcut, how about WP:CUNT? - brenneman^(t)(c) 04:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Gads, that's a bluelink? (I've been kind of waiting for WP:FUCK to go along with WP:FUC over the past few days, mind...) —Cryptic (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I about fell out of my chair when I saw that. And give it time, WP:FUCK will find a use eventually. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 15:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Inappropriate perhaps, but "Cunt" is hardly POV. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Delted out of process. There is nothing in the WP:CSD nor the deletion policy that authorizes such a unilateral deletion. Since the RFC pointed to is a complaint about out-of-process and allegedly abusive deletions, this is an unforunate way to deal with this. Put it on RfD or MfD if you think it needs to go. DES ^(talk) 05:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• It was undeleted and listed on RFD half an hour ago. I'd've preferred it to have been undeleted, full stop, for now; now, everyone will be screaming about it over there. Ah well. —Cryptic (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Mike 06:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and keep until title becomes ambiguous. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:17, Jan. 3, 2006
• Undelete, no policy, procedure or guideline can justify the removal of this. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete, if Snowspinner felt this shortcut should have been removed, they could have gone through process like this since no policy or guideline covered it. However, he that this process, and thus got into a wheel war with me. Considering that the rfc(which is also about people ignoring any and all rules in a moment if they feel justified in doing so) was about the same thing, it's not surprising.
• The page this shortcut was linked to had hundreds of comments on it, people were going there often. There's no reason to delete this, and it serves a good purpose. I'm just disappointed at the state of Wikipedia since this is at DRV rather than WP:RFD since Snowspinner's initial actions were illegimate. karmafist 12:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - If there isn't a redirect policy which prohibits shortcuts that aid in the pillorying of a Wikipedia editor (whether that editor be Kelly Martin, Brazil4Linux, Marsden, or someone else entirely), there should be. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 13:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Like he said. --Calton | Talk 15:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 15:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete The RfD is already running, and needs to run its course. Xoloz 16:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Nobody is saying anything about deleting the RfC, the discussion is over this redirect, which has been deleted by several admins now. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Zoe, read my original comment carefully. The R-f-D is already going... I said nothing about an any RfC, I referred to the ongoing Redirect for Deletion debate already started. Xoloz 20:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
      • You are correct, I misread, and I apologize. All I can say is that it must be the fault of my glasses.  :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, there are no other redirects to individual RfCs, and this one is certainly unnecessary. --Deathphoenix 19:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment no other rfc has had over 100 people agree with the initial statement either. I'm also sending this over to WP:RFD since it was inappropriately deleted in the first place.karmafist 20:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• It's been speedy deleted by Tony Sidaway now.
  1. 21:52, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "WP:RFC/KM" (Not an appropriate use of article space)
  2. 21:52, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "WP:RFC/POTW" (Not an appropriate use of article space)

  --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I recreated it. Maybe he'll get the hint that, you know, he doesn't have anything remotely resembling consensus? Nah. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Hmm, don't know how it registered as two deletes. Possibly I got an error message. This shold be deleted because it's not an appropriate user of article space. We do tolerate shortcuts to policy pages and the like, but this isn't one of those, it's just an individual page for communication on a particular issue. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. El_C 04:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Seigenthaler

Supposedly an "article that serves no purpose but to disparage its subject". In fact it is simply parody/satire - "This user helped Seigenthaler kill John F. Kennedy." --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted as attack. I'm all for humour, but humour that accuses an innocent person of capital murder doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. If the innocent person is puttin it on their user page, I see no problem. --maru (talk) Contribs 01:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per Starblind. As a parody, it is an attack on Seigenthaler (or at least the anti-WP moment his story inspired in the media.) Really, though, if it is a parody, it's a bad one, since I'm not sure what it means. This qualifies as confusion creep, imo, and I endorse deletion on that basis as well. Xoloz 01:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, it has no constructive use. I've protected it against recreation. -Splash^talk 01:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete It's a user page, thats all there is to it. Mike 01:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It is a 'userpage' (note that it isn't; it's a template) that accuses Seigenthaler of killing Kennedy. That's not funny, as we have already learnt. -Splash^talk 01:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - According to the deletion log the only content added to the page was by Maradubshinki, who deleted it. It therefore appears to be a valid CSD G7. --- Charles Stewart 01:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • He told me he undeleted and deleted it the final time to get the code. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

First, Chalst, I'd appreciate it if you get the name right- a simple "maru" is more than acceptable. Second, the template was speedied twice by other admins, for no valid reason, when it should have been put through TFD. SPUI is entirely correct- if you examine the deletion history, the third time was me undeleting it to copy it over to my user space, and then promptly redeleting it to await a VFU decision. --maru (talk) Contribs 03:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and list on TfD - It's a pretty tasteless and inadvisable joke, but it's clearly not an attack page. Let's put the issue up for proper discussion. --- Charles Stewart 04:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. No need to screw around with a tastless joke that obviously hurts the credibility of our project. -- SCZenz 04:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Since this template is only useful as a userbox, isn't it just as harmful to have people cut and pasting the text from Maru's user page as to have them make use of the template? Hence, if he speedy is valid for the template, then isn't it right to insist that Maru remove the userbox from his page? I find this to be too much, but I am interested in how far the argument goes to delete from such reasons as the need to uphold the credibility of the project. --- Charles Stewart 04:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting point, Mr. Stewart. The difference between the template, and user-supplied text in userspace, as I see it, is this: Users are generally given wide (though not total) freedom in their own space, in the spirit of freedom of expression. Most WPians understand this; and most casual viewers, familiar with the freedom of speech common in the English-speaking world, grasp it intuitively. A template, because it is circulated among the community in a pre-set form, is subject to greater oversight at TFD, and through CSD; it would be easier for the casual viewer to mistake it as representing WP's views, at least through tacit complicity. This isn't to say that "John Seigenthaler killed Kennedy" belongs on a userpage, either; that discussion, regarding libel at WP, is ongoing, and such a statement might be called a personal attack, under the circumstances. What is clear to me is that the case for CSDing the template is on firmer ground than the deletion of a userpage, for the aforementioned reasons of purview, institutional oversight, and inituitive understanding. Xoloz 09:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • But you voted to keep deleted because it is an attack. Attacks are just as unacceptable on user pages as on templates. If you really think that it is an attack, you should edit Maru's user page and remove the box. Or per your comment below, do you think it is really a violation of WP:CIV? --- Charles Stewart 18:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. We have brains for a reason. Ambi 10:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No personal attacks, please. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 10:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • He's right, you should apologize, saying, "I'm sorry, you're right, we don't have brains for a reason." Or is it, "I'm sorry, you're right, we have brains for no reason"? --Calton | Talk 15:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'd cite CIV instead of NPA. Point is, we know we have brains, to remind us is patronizing. To defend reminding us doesn't help. Note that I agree with you regarding this UB. Xoloz 16:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Slightly funny but libellous and a personal attack. David | Talk 10:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, is an attack against Seigenthaler and only marginally funny. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, and nuke the version from maru's user page, too. --Calton | Talk 15:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This template is just trolling. Gamaliel 17:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, inappropriate in an article, and more inappropriate as a template. --Deathphoenix 19:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove all references to Seigenthaler or keep deleted. The weather in London should not be recreated... but personal attacks don't belong here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted -- You'd think that some people would remember how much the Seigenthaler episode hurt WP's credibility, and how much flak we caught in the public sphere as a result of it. To resurrect that stinking meme is self-destructive behaviour for a Wikipedian. --Peripatetic 13:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I speedy tagged it, and I feel so correctly, since there is no evidence to suggest Seigenthaler did kill JFK, it only stands to give him a bad name. Ian¹³_ID:540053 17:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-01

Template:Help Wikiboxes

Deleted out of process, this was in no way a personal attack, as claimed in the deletions. This was deleted while discussion at WP:TFD was in progress. Undelete and allow the TfD to continue normally. DES ^(talk) 12:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Proper speedy under A6 attack pages. David | Talk 12:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted RFC-box stuffing should be as vigorously opposed as AFD-ballot-box stuffing, and for precisely the same reasons. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 13:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per David and EU. [[Sam Korn]] 13:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This template was deleted per CSD A6, under which it clearly falls. Circumventing the RfC process in this manner is not helpful and, as Extreme Unction said, should be vigorously opposed. Movementarian 13:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse/Keep deleted As much as I support the underlying RFC, campaigning via templates is very bad form. Xoloz 17:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment technically A6 only applies to articles (it really should be a general criteria...). At any rate, earlier versions were A6 material, the last one I guess is sort of a judgement call, as it were. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 17:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Request for clarification: From a brief sampling of the deleted versions, I am not seeing the personal attack. Could someone familiar with this controversy please explain it to the rest of us? Perhaps by providing links to the relevant discussions or evidence? I ask because even if certain versions were hostile, the normal corrective action is to fix it. The very existence of the page and pretty much every non-trivial edit would have to be a personal attack in order to qualify for that particular speedy-delete criterion. I will withhold judgment for now but at first glance, this does not appear to have qualified as a speedy-attack. Rossami (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Articles which serve no purpose but to disparage their subject" Since the earlier versions mentioned the name of the deletor it was basically trying to disparage the subject. The later versions without the names are a very shaky case though and probably NOT a technically valid speedy. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 17:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Disagree - a template used to stack a discussion is disruptive and should be speedied. --Doc ^ask? 18:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm just saying that our current criterion doesn't appear to technically cover it. I'm not so sure myself that speedying it creates less controversy then the normal TfD way. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 18:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Some relevant links: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Userboxes&action=history, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Userboxes&action=history, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cryptic, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 3. More prose later, when I have more than a minute or so free in a row. —Cryptic (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Over my dead, broken, and de-adminned body will this be undeleted. Phil Sandifer 18:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and let the TfD run its course - This would qualify under Tony Sidaway's proposed CSD criterion, but it clearly does not and never will fit any CSD An criterion as it is not an article. Note on sources: I've based this opinion on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Help Wikiboxes, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 3 and the deletion log. I miss Special:Undelete... --- Charles Stewart 18:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I should say that my undelete vote is based on the understanding that the page is intended for vote-stacking purposes and is not explicitly an attack page. If the claim that it is a real attack page is substantiated, then I think I would change this vote. --- Charles Stewart 19:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The template was an attack and RFC stacking by template is a Bad Thing. Making an attack in template space is not an acceptable way to avoid speedy deletion of an attack page. Kelly Martin should have discussed her plans further, but this template isn't the best way to approach that problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as an attack. If the RfCs have merit, they can stand on their own, and promoting them in this way just makes the associated RFCs look bad. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete; not a personal attack. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse/Keep deleted Troll food. --Calton | Talk 06:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - Rather interesting that the original reasoning behind some of the userbox deletions was the rallying of voting blocs. "Oh no," they said, "that's never happened and never will"...and here they are, slapping templates about...campaigning over a request for comment. Bloody disgraceful. Rob Church ^Talk 10:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Ambi 10:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Asking people to reply to RFCs is fine, but using an general template to do so isn't. Move to Project or userspace and edit out the word unilateral. Let the user who receives the message make up their mind for themselves. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, proper speedy, clearly not appropriate as an attempt to pileon to KM's RfC. --Deathphoenix 19:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

2005-12-31

Category:Moneyball (CfD Discussion)

I think this deletion should be reviewed because, it seems like, no "baseball people" saw the deletion discussion to make the obvious counter-argument, and the category was deleted on bad evidence. I think this is wrong, and at least the CfD should be re-listed with an informed counter-argument to see what happens.

Moneyball is much more than just some book (a claim the CfD discussion never challenged), the book just gave name to and popularized among the masses a movement that had been brewing for years. Developed by Bill James and first truly implimented by Billy Beane at Oakland, the philosophy is the most controversial topic in baseball (other than steroids) in the past 10 years, and has changed the way nearly everyone thinks about the basic statistics of baseball (which is big, considering baseball is a game of statistics). So it's not just one of many baseball books published every year... it's the most important baseball book published in the past 20 years, and a major topic in baseball even had the book never been written.

The articles on people involved and the basic concepts (on base percentage, On-base plus slugging, sabermetrics, etc.) seem to be improved by being listed in the category, it lets someone interested in moneyball easilly find other related articles. I'm sorry I missed the CfD and couldn't present this argument there... I guess all us baseball geeks take winter off like the players. --W.marsh 16:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• If you want to use it for a broader topic than just issues mentioned in the book, why not make Category:Sabermetrics? That would cover the issues involved. Firebug 17:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Sabermetrics is just the statistics, moneyball involves the people who use them, oppose them, etc. which is a big issue in baseball today. For example, you couldn't really put Billy Beane and other people in Category:Sabermetrics. I'll consider creating the category though, it would be useful for the statistics. --W.marsh 17:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, but "moneyball" (as a descriptor) isn't NPOV, is it? I mean, I usually hear the term in the context of the phrase, "f-ckin' moneyball." Of course, I'm a Royals fan -- yes we do exist. :) Anyway, Sabermetrics seems more objective to me. Xoloz 18:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
      • That's an interesting point... but it's not exactly POV to say someone or something is associated with moneyball, as long as that's well documented. The category also applies to well-known critics of moneyball, like Joe Morgan. I really don't see the POV here... it's well documented which people and topics associated with moneyball... it's just moneyball itself that is controversial. Some people think moneyball is bad, some think it's good... the same could be said of many categories we have. --W.marsh 18:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh sure... it's just that I don't know anyone who uses moneyball positively, who says, "Wow, isn't moneyball great!" Like I said, this could just be my bias -- but I wonder if "moneyball" isn't like "anti-choice" or "pro-murder" as applied in abortion debates -- exclusively a pejorative. Anyway, undelete and relist, this merits full discussion at a new debate. Substantial new, previously-unaddressed points have been raised. Xoloz 18:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete, reason for deletion contradicted by information here. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete Moneyball is IMO an incredibly important book, with implications for business managers outside of baseball: there is real value in employees that other organizations shun because they don't fit a cookie-cutter mold. I am only a casual fan of baseball & am really not interested in sabremetrics, but I think the concept has broad application. Billbrock 23:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC) Comment: oops, I misread. Didn't realize this was a category deletion, to which I have no objection. Billbrock 01:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist on CfD, see if there are more discussions this time around. --Deathphoenix 18:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Timeline for missing persons following the September 11, 2001 Attacks (AFD discussion)

This article should be undeleted because of significant new information that was not considered at discussion: the article was important enough to have been cited in the peer-reviewed article

Edkins, Jenny. The rush to memory and the rhetoric of war. Journal of Political & Military Sociology; Winter 2003, Vol. 31(2), p. 231-250

This printed article is kept in the world's academic libraries and a broken Wikipedia link gives an extremely unprofessional impression. For verification, I can email the article to anyone who provides me with their email address on my talk page. AxelBoldt 08:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• The people there were arguing is was redundant, not un-notable... WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 08:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Our policy/decisions should not be bound by links from outside. Keep Deleted --Improv 08:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The original nominator gave as main reason for deletion "I'm sure that would have been useful somewhere. Now it's just outdated statistics.", implying that it is not useful anymore. Newly discovered information disproves this. Old statistics are useful for historians. AxelBoldt 18:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - the article was not so IMPORTANT as ACTUAL. was. Kirils 08:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn/Undelete New Info Mike 11:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Temp Undelete for Transwiki Uhm... is there an option for a cut and paste of deleted content to the Sep11 wiki? yes it appears there is.  ALKIVAR™ 13:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• An undeletion just long enough for it to be transwikied seems the proper thing to do. —Cryptic (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Temp Undelete for Transwiki per Cryptic and Alkivar. I'm not sure why that wasn't done in the first instance. Xoloz 16:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Probably because the post-vfd transwiki queue wasn't being maintained at the time, and had an enormous, six-month-long backlog. —Cryptic (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Temp Undelete for Transwiki per Cryptic Billbrock 23:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Temp undelete and transwiki, statistical data belongs on WikiSource. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Temp undelete and transwiki. Ashibaka tock 03:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

2005-12-30

CommandN

CommandN has been deleted I wish for it do be appealed as it is a popular VidCast and just because the people who decided may not of known about it, it has many fans and should be reinstated. Mike 18:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CommandN. Please don't list things here merely because you disagree with an AFD outcome. Radiant_>|< 18:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse/Keep deleted Nomination simply makes no actionable claims -- no evidence of process flaw or new information. Xoloz 19:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment It is a well liked and popular podcast/vidcast hosted by a tv personality and is highly rated. It should not of been removed especially by people who dont know enough about the subject. Mike 19:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Afd was proper; all evidence provided was considered, and deletes outnumber valid keeps by about four to one. No compelling reason to overturn it has been provided. Do you have any new, third-party evidence of this podcast's notability from reliable sources, or are you just going to offer unsubstantiated opinions like the (sock|meat)puppets infesting the original discussion? —Cryptic (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I never got a chance to vote as it is hard to find these things and I'm sure if it was easier to find it more people would. I have added that its a popular show and there for should not have been deleted unless you can provide information on why it should NOT be deleted I think it should be overturned. Mike 19:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. No new information. "I didn't get the chance to vote" is not a reason to re-run the AfD. android79 19:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse per Radiant. I see nothing wrong with the outcome, as most of those "keeps" were from obvious meats. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 19:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD. --Deathphoenix 18:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Gang stalking (AFD discussion)

The re-creation was a significant improvement over the anecdotal original, which in spite of its obvious flaws, was deleted wholesale and done so in violation of Wikipedia deletion policy (i.e. the article received more "Keep" votes than "Delete" votes [hardly a rough consensus]).

A review of the re-creation will illuminate verifiable facts about an emerging and well-documented Web-based phenomenon.

In any event, wholesale deletion is a disproportionate (and likely visceral) response. Editing, expansion, or qualification through discussion is always an option. I realize we're not dealing with the atomic weight of plutonium, but as a cultural (or social psychological) phenomenon, there are a range of ways to present the info accurately.

--Tai Streets

• Comment Jimbo himself deleted this article just a couple of days ago... the actual page is at Gang stalking (the user is referring to a redirect, not the actual page), and the afd debate is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gang_stalking. Looks like sock/meat puppets gone wild there, but I havn't checked them out yet thuroughly, and I feel sorry for the people who have to :\... WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 05:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• This is the version deleted by afd. This is the most recent. They seem sufficiently similar to me to be a proper G4; barring formatting changes and section being moved around, I can find almost no differences. Endorse deletion [of the re-creation only, which is what was brought up here; I haven't thoroughly investigated the afd —Cryptic (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)] and, given that it was re-created three times in barely a day since its afd, continued protection against re-creation. —Cryptic (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that Brighting, Image:Bradjesnessc1.jpg, and Image:Bradjesnessc2.jpg were re-created as well. —Cryptic (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to vote on this, but I can't see the articles. A friend of mine voted Keep in the AfD and I want to see what the controversy is all about. Would someone please grant me the "deletedhistory" permission? —James S. 20:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• The AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking. The keep "votes" were largely anon IPs, the discounting of which is well within closer's discretion. Few established WPians voted to keep the article, as compared to the many who viewed its deletion favorably. Nomination does not offer compelling new information regarding the article. Keep Deleted/Endorse closure. Xoloz 05:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted valid AFD, most of the supports were annons that their vote didn't count. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endore closure / keep deleted Very messy AfD, but closer made the correct decision. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Relist gang stalking, with a warning to the contributor not to stuff the ballot box again. Even if the contributor has a POV, he did provide references. One article should be sufficient to cover the subject. Gazpacho 03:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Please note that almost exactly the same article content (with a few minor wording changes) is already currently being discussed on AFD, since it was also created as Sci.psychology.psychotherapy (AfD discussion) by Tai Streets (talk · contribs). This content has also been added to a whole slew of separate articles by this same author (who appears to be one and the same as 67.129.121.254 (talk · contribs), 172.149.8.228 (talk · contribs), and Wyatt Ehrenfels (talk · contribs)) including:
  • Cyberstalking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Stalking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Harassment by computer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Privacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Group psychological abuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Bully (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Chilling effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Gang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Google (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Cyber-terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Cyber bullying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Even if editors wish this relisted, one active AFD discussion is enough. Uncle G 06:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I notice Gang-stalking has been recreated today. Tearlach 13:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it and salted the earth. android79 13:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion and salting the earth. --Deathphoenix 18:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

2005-12-29

Template:Album infobox 2

TfD here: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/December 2005#Template:Album_infobox_2

Review so what happened to this whilst most of us were not watching over the holidays, there was no clear concensus so how was this to be a remove authority. There were issues with the clicking on the image but they had been solved. I cannot believe that such creativity should be stamped upon also I don't believe if we are able to use an image we fall foul if we are an image in such an innocuous way. Most of all what is the point of these votes is they are ridden roughshod over!

Clearer guidance should be given if this really is a fair use problem, I fail to see the reason for its use (the fair use arguement) here. If we are able to use the image to illustrate the album, we are able to use the image to illustrate the album, period.

In the forking point, surely the aim of the those working on the version was to make the "smarter" form, the new standard, (i.e. not forked). Perhaps this was not gone about the best way, but there it is.

Overriding these concerns, where is the adjudiction summary, and/or final reason given for the action taken. Please can people be a little more considerate of the effort people are putting in to create this resource. If the decision is to stand please do the 'losing' opinion the courtesy of a polite statement. Kevinalewis 09:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Overturn/Undelete, this TfD closed with 22 delete to 21 keep which is, in my opinion, too close to consider a consensus (further, one of the deletes didn't sign their vote). —Locke Cole • t • c 15:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn/relist On examining the TfD, I do see the defects complained of. Lack of closing rationale, closeness of the tallies, uncertainty over the fair argument. I would endorse the closure if I were convinced regarding lack of a fair use claim; however, album covers are intended for display, and uses that promote the album are generally permissible (and highly unlikely to generate an infringement claim in the first instance.) Decision is too muddled to stand as is. Xoloz 16:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - TfD is not a vote - less so than other pages, really, because of the relative lack of traffic and the high degree to which people want every stupid template but their own deleted - it has long been run on a system of "Read through the argument and make a call about which side gives the most persuasive reasons." I am thusly persuaded that an increase in the use of fair use images and the desire for a universal style of album infoboxes is a persuasive reason. Phil Sandifer 16:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a universal style, and this template follows it (hence why a simple redirect is all it took to change things; the parameters are identical, this template simply adds a few additional parameters). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Unredirect, closure in error, and per Phil as well, most persuasive arguments were to keep -- or rather, no persuasive argument was made to delete, which amounts to the same thing. While I would support dropping fair use images entirely, if we accept fair use as a rationale it certainly applies to these images. Template forking is not a problem; editors are perfectly capable of choosing among a variety of similar but slighly different templates. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse. TFD is not supposed to be a vote. Most 'keep' voters just joined the pileon and didn't specify a reason. The 'delete' voters had two solid arguments that nobody had a meaningful rebuttal to. 1) It is a fork. If you don't like a template, edit it, do not fork. And 2) It breaks fair use. There are legal problems with the way this template uses images. Legal concerns trump consensus. Radiant_>|< 01:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Most keep votes were agreeing with the disagreement over fair-use. Just because they chose not to comment doesn't immediately invalidate their voice; I take such votes as indicating that everything said up till their vote already addressed their points better than they could. As for forking, it's fully compatible with {{Album infobox}} (hence why a simple redirect was even possible as a stop-gap solution). And legal concerns do not trump consensus if there's no consensus about the legal concerns. That's circular logic. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Legal concerns would trump consensus if the consensus were openly defiant or ignorant of copyright law. However, although I am no IP expert, I take the informed view that fair use applies here. The image (at low resolution) is used only to direct the searcher to an encyclopedic article about the album. If anything, this innocently promotes the album; the character of the use is, in this case, so intermingled with the public commentary permitted under the fair use doctrine that I cannot imagine an infringement action being brought, or succeeding. This case is easily distinguished from claims of fair use on user-pages, which claims are asinine. Xoloz 05:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse. Fork templates cause a lot of headaches.. we made the right decision. Rhobite 00:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse per Rhobite, Radiant. There's also an overwhelming preference/consensus demonstrated by the people who create album articles, better than 10:1. Monicasdude 04:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, we should stop bloody gathering consensuses, then, if nobody's willing to abide by them. That would also solve a lot of the vandalism problems (makes note to suggest rigid hierarchy model sometime)--Agamemnon2 10:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. A number of users typing "keep" does not make something not a fork (nor does it trump "fair use" concerns). Nothing wrong with the judgement call made in the closing. Jkelly 04:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There's nothing wrong with a fork in this instance as it is perfectly compatible with {{Album infobox}} (hence why a simple redirect was all that was necessary to keep things working after the initial TFD). As to the issue of people typing "keep", I'm sorry, but when I saw those, I assumed good faith and presumed they were agreeing with all the people who'd typed "keep" and explained the reasoning for why fair-use was not a concern. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • See Wikipedia:Content forking -- I'm not clear what you're getting at with your compatibility / redirect comment though. And, as has been said before, there is a distinction between what we might get sued for and Wikipedia:Fair use guidelines. Finally, I was just expressing a version of m:Voting is evil with the last comment. Jkelly 06:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. None of the supporters of the disputed template have provided a substantial response to this concern: Quoting from the Wikipedia:Fair use guidelines, "it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia." Wikimedia Foundation policy is not subject to revision/exception by Wikipedia editors." Monicasdude 15:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

2005-12-22

Various stub template redirects

These were all listed on WP:SFD, despite WP:RFD being the palce to go for redirects. The SFD people in general dislike redirects that may be useful but do not follow their conventions. (Furthermore, the ensuing redirect is deleted by default when a stub template is moved, also in defiance of common sense.)

Note: I would just re-create these, as I don't need anything actually undeleted, but they would just be speedied again and eventually protected blank. (Edit: I have re-created them, so we can see the idiocy in action.)

This is a very incomplete list of these redirects.

• {{Bike-stub}} → {{Cycling-stub}} (protected blank!)
• {{NYCS stub}} → {{NYCS-stub}}
• {{Us-rail-stub}} → {{US-rail-stub}}
• {{US-street-stub}} → {{US-road-stub}}
• {{Musicbio-stub}} → {{Music-bio-stub}}

Finally, I do not believe these give any increased server load, unlike meta-templates, due to being redirects. If you click edit on a page that uses a template redirect, only the actual name shows up below the edit box. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 16:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, for the good reasons explained on WP:SFD. This is part of a campaign by SPUI against WP:SFD as a whole, apparently because his opinion is in the minority there. See also his recent attempt to delete the entire process. Radiant_>|< 18:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per wise Radiant. Xoloz 00:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete I see no reason why useful redirects should be deleted. Demi ^T/_C 01:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, validly deleted in process. Just use plain {{stub}} if you don't like being forced into typing evil CamelCase names. —Cryptic (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I do use plain {{stub}}, but it would be nice if I could use the "proper" stub template. I have been accused of disruption - by an admin - for using {{stub}}. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • (I'm not sure how I missed that humongous link in your sig until after I posted the above.) —Cryptic (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't understand. Are you saying it's more important to keep these redirects deleted for the sake of consistency than to have properly-categorized and notified stubs? Demi ^T/_C 01:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • No, I'm saying that since the stubsorters enjoy making it so hard for normal people to do it, we should just let them happily sort away on their own. —Cryptic (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I'll second that. Stubsorting is a thankless job, and the strange gnomes fine users :) who accomplish it should have some deference for expertise and effort -- I just use "stub," and I don't mind at all. Xoloz 13:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. These were deleted out of process, since redirects are supposed to be deleted on WP:RFD, and the decisions are thus not valid. I don't see the point of making things difficult just for the hell of it. - ulayiti (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, and by the way, the person of the nominator is not a valid reason to vote against a nomination. - ulayiti (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This is simply wrong. You might as well state that templates and categories should always be deleted on TFD and CFD respectively. SFD was created to deal with stub issues and that apparently includes redirects. Radiant_>|< 10:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
      • SFD was created so that stub categories and stub templates could be deleted within the same process, so that there wouldn't be cases where only one or the other was deleted. This mandate applies to redirects only so far as the redirects point to templates or categories that are voted to be deleted anyway. Wikipedia:Redirect explicitly says that users should avoid deleting redirects if they help in accidental linking and/or are found useful by someone. - ulayiti (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Of course, now categories can now be speedied if they were populated solely by a template, so most of the justification for WP:SFD has been obviated anyway. —Cryptic (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Here we go with the re-deletions, once again out of process:

  23:31, 23 December 2005 Grutness deleted "Template:Us-rail-stub" (speedy deletion of formerly deleted re-creation by User:SPUI)

• --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Also note that a lot of these redirects have been recreated- and according to the above I suspect they were deleted. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete as above. —Locke Cole 11:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete per ulayiti. Not only were they deleted out of process. It's just plain nonsensical to make it harder to find the correct stub template. Logical redirects should stand to make stub sorting easier. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • As stated above, this allegation of being out-of-process is incorrect; WP:NOT a bureaucracy. Radiant_>|< 10:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Also WP:NOT an anarchy. If you can have redirects deleted in various places and with various criteria for deletion, you've got a problem on your hands. —Locke Cole 11:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete. I can't see why anyone could be bothered by variations with and without a hyphen. It doesn't have to be just one and only one version. -- Eddie
• Undelete. Obvious error by the deletion process here; harmless redirects should not be deleted. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete And speedy-keep stub template redirects that differ only in capitalization, spacing, or hyphenation, and anything else that might help non-experts sort stubs. Too many times I've inadvertantly left a red link at the bottom of a stub page due to unexpected and/or inconsistant naming conventions. I typically give up after clicking the preview button 3 times and not finding a valid stub type. Shouldn't the stub folks want it to be easier for others to help them? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 11:14, Dec. 26, 2005
• Overturn and undelete. This is the sort of situation in which I ordinarily would be arguing against the bureaucracy of blindly following "process," even when it defies common sense. In this case, however, the deletions were out-of-process; redirects fall under the jurisdiction of RfD, and there's absolutely no logical reason why the deletion of stub redirects should be handled at SfD (notwithstanding their instructions). As for the issue of common sense, I can't imagine why anyone would want to eliminate these harmless/useful redirects. Just last week, I couldn't remember what the naming convention was, and I didn't guess the correct spelling of a stub template ({{music-stub}}) until my third try. At the time, it occurred to me that redirects from the other obvious names ({{musicstub}} and {{music stub}}) would have been handy. I find it very difficult to believe that the regular stub-sorters would actually want to make it more difficult for "outsiders" to help, but I'm struggling to find another explanation for these deletions. —David Levy 16:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - For the interested among you, there is an ongoing discussion about the issue of stub redirects and how to address them at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for deletion. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 17:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete for those who still wish to use them. I must say I'm surprised that the Depredations of the Evil Stub Cabal are finally starting to generate some real backlash, even though I'm sure these would all just be deleted again if relisted at WP:SFD. Regardless, I know I'm through with jumping through arbitrary hoops and will still just be using plain {{stub}}; the whole stubsorting project is just a crutch to tide us over until meta:Category math is a reality. —Cryptic (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse decision (keep all deleted). IMO SFD is ther proper place for dealing with stub template redirects, just as TfD normaly deals with ordinarly template redirects. This is actually more important, because use of redirs that do not follow standard stub naming conventiosn (which have consensus support) makes it harder for to see and use those conventions, and damges the project as a whole. The appropriateness or otherwise of stub template redirs is thus best addressed by SfD, not RfD. DES ^(talk) 08:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• In terms of closing this, the numbers fall just short of a 3/4 threshold to undelete them outright. So I'm suppose to undelete and relist them on the relevant process. However, it is entirely unclear where I should relist them, that being the core of the problem. I see that two of them have been recreated and not challenged; that lends weight to the undeletion argument. Since DRV is not the place to determine policy, I'm going to undelete them and leave the relisting to those thrashing out the policy on where that relisting should take place. -Splash^talk 23:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • And they've already been speedy deleted - what the fuck? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Argh, not again. Undelete and relist on RFD. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I've undeleted their history. Someone who actually wants them deleted can list them on WP:RFD. —Cryptic (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
      • They've been listed on SFD again :\ --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Which is where they should be listed. RfD is for article redirects, SfD is for stub redirects. And the last time I checked, these five were stub redirects. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 18:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
          • But that is the entire controversy-whether to nominate them at RFD or SFD. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
            • That's not completely true. The debate (I wouldn't go so far as to call it a controversy) is whether to change an existing deletion process (voting on stub redirects via rfd instead of via sfd). Until that debate is concluded, the existing deletion process should be followed, which is the discussion of stub redirects at SFD. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 00:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The outcome here was to undelete. Well, perhaps if this undeletion process had been mentioned at SFD, the outcome would have been different, since, with the one dissenting voice of SPUI, the vote was overwhelmingly to delete these the first time. One of them even had to be protected because SPUI sqaw fit to undelete it nine times despite overwhelming reasons why it should not be undeleted, most notably, that since "bike" can refer to either a bicycle of a motorbike, it was too ambiguous to use as an alternative name for cycling. Please, if you intend to over-ride a perfectly legitimate deletion process such as WP:SFD, at least have the common decency to announce that a vote to do such is in process at WP:SFD. Don't simply dundelete files without warning, since it is only natural that they will be re-deleted as re-creations of previously deleted items. Is it any surprise that they have been re-listed. They should be speedily and permanently deleted. Grutness...wha? 07:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The deletion page is never notified. Surely there is no reason to notify the improper place for these to be listed. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

1. User boxes deleted by Tony Sidaway: speedily undeleted. 21:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
2. The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy deletion endorsed, noted on the discussions subpage. 23:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Gojin Motors undeleted and relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gojin Motors (2nd nomination). 23:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Wikimongering: kept deleted. 23:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Infosecpedia: closure endorsed, without prejudice against relisting (also without mandating it from this discussion). 23:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Homespring: kept deleted. 23:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Various stub template redirects: numbers short of threshold to simply overturn and undelete, but not clear on how to relist. See note in debate still listed above. 23:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Interwise: speedily undeleted and listed on AfD.
9. Shpants - History merge up until 12-2-2005 with Three quarter pants and then delete Shpants. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 08:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Gtplanet - Undeleted and relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gtplanet (2nd nomination). 21:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Halo.Bungie.Org - Undeleted and relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halo.Bungie.Org (2nd nomination). 21:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Mariah Stanley - Original deletion endorsed; different recreation now up for AfD here. 21:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
13. Template:User Capitalist - Though original speedy was not in error, template undeleted as useful. 17:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
14. OGTV2 - From Tha Hood to Hollywood - Original deletion endorsed. "Recreation" failed at AfD, article again deleted. 17:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
15. Shpants - non-standard resolution. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Shpants 07:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
16. Ayu Khandro - Original speedy deletion endorsed, different recreation made, recreation now under new AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayu Khandro. 17:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
17. The Gay Ghost, The Next Gay Ghost, and The Two Gay Ghosts - Kept deleted. 17:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
18. Fortune Lounge Group - Deletion endorsed; new recreation made during the debate without objection. 17:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
19. Webcest - Kept deleted. 17:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
20. Brian Peppers - recreated while under debate here, kept at new AfD. 17:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Bradley (Codename: Kids Next Door) - Speedy restored as clear deletion mistake. 17:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
22. Battle_of_Uhud - Speedy restored to an unvandalized version. 17:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
23. Cursing Sahaba is Kufr (Sunni doctrine) - Kept deleted, copyright violation. 17:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
24. Arthur Prieston - Kept deleted, with the caveat that undeletion may occur if copyright release is properly given. 17:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
25. James S. Putnam - Speedy deletion overturned; subsequently failed AfD, and was deleted. 17:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
26. 2011 Atlantic hurricane season - Kept deleted. 17:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This page is about articles, not about people. If you feel that a sysop is routinely deleting articles prematurely, or otherwise abusing their powers, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at 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.

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

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

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=2025 January 6}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 January 6}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 January 6|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

2006-01-04

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bonestown

I thought that AFDs were always kept even if the article nominated by the AFD was subsequently speedy-deleted. I looked in the various guideline and policy pages but couldn't find information about whether AFDs can be deleted when an article is speedy-deleted, perhaps when the AFD has only a nomination and no other contributors. I can see how it is more expedient in some cases than closing the AFD manually. In this case it was confusing. I had already voted on it; after the AFD was deleted, somebody else recreated the orphaned AFD. Perhaps the policy can be clarified? (By the way: I have written a user script, User:Quarl/autocloseafd.js to automate closing AFDs.) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-04 21:42Z

That's why AFD's shouldn't be deleted... just close it as speedy deleted by {{admin}}. When I close speedy AFD's, that's what I do (which is quite easy with my patchwork user script). Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Good call. Never delete an AFD nomination. There may be very few cases in which it could be a good thing, but this isn't one of them. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

John Noble Goodwin

• Erroneously deleted over a year ago as a copyvio; please compare the history[2] with his entry in the public domain Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. Postdlf 21:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• I've speedy restored it and begun to copyedit. David | Talk 21:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

List of real names of professional wrestlers

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professional wrestlers real names
This listing received nine votes to delete (the original of which was mine), one vote to merge and four votes to keep and redirect to List of real names of professional wrestlers. The vote was closed and the latter course decided upon, despite there being more than 2:1 opposition to keeping the article. No record of the vote was added to the article's discussion page. It's also worth noting that the article has still received absolutely no attention whatsoever, and that several "delete" votes (and none of the outright "keep" votes) came from members of the WikiProject Professional wrestling, who are the editors most likely to work on the article. McPhail 20:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Given there was not full consensus to delete (64% delete support), I think the closing admin took the right decision. David | Talk 20:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Consensus to delete is around 70-80%, so I think the right decision was made here, though I would have put "No consensus" instead. --Deathphoenix 20:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - Merge votes count with keep votes for the purposes of calculating whether there is a consensus to delete, bringing the delete votes to below 2/3s. I'd have voted to merge, but you don't need DRV to get that outcome, just find a normal consensus on the article page. --- Charles Stewart 20:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure though I agree that the decision probably would have been better worded as "no consensus". For AFD purposes, "keep", "merge" and "move" are generally equivalent as objections to deletion. 5 to 9 falls just below the generally accepted 2/3s threshold for "rough consensus". Rossami (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-03

Seth Ravin

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Ravin
Slightly hazy. A couple of clear delete opinions (one mine, please note), a couple of clear keep opinions (JJay and Kurt Weber). The rest are pretty clear that they consider him less notable than Rimini Street. We don't expect AfDs to be consistant, but the real issue are the pseudo-merges. I think that everyone who took part would be suprised at this outcome. My prefered option would be to ping the participants, un-close/extend this, and run it for a few more days. - brenneman^(t)(c) 07:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Eek... a pretty difficult AFD to close, further complicated by the fact that the suggested merge target, Rimini Street was deleted. I think that we should relist this one for a new AFD debate now that the staus of Rimini Street has clarified. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• It seems there was a consensus that this topic doesn't deserve it's own article. Votes to merge to a non-existant target should be discounted. Thus, it should have been deleted. Re-list if necessary. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:51, Jan. 4, 2006
• Delete. It should have been merged with Rimini Street and deleted along with it. Let's face it, it's vanity. Kurt Weber's opinion basically boils down to "he exists so he should have an article", a view he's expressed about anything that could theoretically exist, and has been universally rejected. Relist if need be, but deletion is preferable. -R. fiend 16:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, Any argument that rests on "it exists, so keep" should be rejected out of hand (at least Kmweber has laid off the "deletionist vandal" schtick), and votes that are later rendered impossible should be discounted, IMO, though JIP's handling of it as a no consensus also makes sense. android79 16:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - From here, the three merge votes count as delete votes given that the AfD said delete Rimini Street (two of them including Howcheng explicitly said they were delete in this case, the last said per Howcheng), and the four keep votes were all weak keeps. Note that Aaron voted delete in a roundabout manner (he said same as the Rimini AfD). That makes 7 delete against 4 weak keeps: given no real defence of the article was mounted, I count that as a consensus to delete. --- Charles Stewart 17:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I actually did say delete explicitly, I just didn't bold it. - brenneman^(t)(c) 17:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed, my error. --- Charles Stewart 17:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, per above, altho the original "no consensus" call was not unreasonable. Friday (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Despite the fact that merges often count as keeps, these merge votes all seemed to depend on the outcome of Rimini Street, and since Rimini Street was deleted, so should this. --Deathphoenix 20:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Funny one. Overturn and delete, as good arguments have been made, or failing that, just reopen and extend for 2 days, asking the merge voters to reconsider their opinions. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Mootstormfront

The AfD was closed out of process by Howcheng, after just 7 votes, including the primary editor— hardly enough input to provide consensus for such a marginal article. This promotional entry for a Web site/forum fails the basic criteria for Notability for a Web site— which none of the participants addressed in the AfD discussion. More critically, the site no longer even exists, nor is there a single reliable source which refers to it, which means there is no means to provide verifiable information— a fundamental requirement for any article. The Deletion process should be re-opened/re-listed, with a discussion of how this currently non-existent and non-verifiable site qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia. —LeFlyman 08:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• To clarify: what I am referring to as "out of process" is the closure of an AfD started the night before Christmas Eve and closed the day after New Year's-- a holiday period when activity is naturally going to be at a low, so that very few editors who might have a disinterested opinion on the article would have the opportunity to comment/vote. A lack of interest and participation should not be a beneficial qualifer for encyclopedic inclusion. I was particularly concerned that none of the Wikipedia standards were considered in the decision on whether this was an appropriate article to keep, but that the initial votes were based on the claims that it "seems important" or was "well known" but without any proof of such claims. Are we really to the point where the AfD etiquette which states that, "If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, and clearly base your recommendations on the deletion policy" is meaningless? —LeFlyman 16:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks to all who participated in this discussion, which not surprisingly, were more than who voted in the AfD -- the end result appears to be that the article will likely be merged into another, and so the verifiability problems raised will be dealt with. Thus, no need for further review. —LeFlyman 15:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Kept/endorse closure. First, the suggestion that howcheng's closure is out of order is erroneous. The debate ran for 10 days, twice the normal length, thanks to end-of-year lagtime. Secondly, you raised these points in the original debate, and they were unsuccessful. DRV is not the place to reargue a valid AfD. Xoloz 09:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - Don't think it was out of process closure, but I think your arguments are well-made. No verifiable sources and it doesn't look encyclopedic to me. FCYTravis 09:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure although it was, umm, poor. We shouldn't make a habit of prescribing relisting when there was no procedural error with the close. People hate relisting, and if it's done with a "Per discussion at WP:DRV" that lends some credibility that it mayn't deserve. If someone wants to nominate this again off their own bat, please drop me a note on my talk page so that I may participate, but this is outside the zone of DRV as far as I'm concerned. - brenneman^(t)(c) 10:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and keep. Closed within process, nowhere near a consensus for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, although I am sympathetic to verifiability concerns. I've added this to my watchlist, let's take up verifiability issues on the talk page, and if we must remove unverifiable content, so be it. If we're left without enough for a proper article, maybe we can find some place to merge it into. Friday (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. LeFlyman is incorrect in his/her assertion that the discussion was closed out-of-process. By design, there is no minimum quorum for AFD discussions. Nor is it inappropriate for the article's editor to participate in the deletion discussion. However, LeFlyman does raise some valid concerns over verifiability. I have no objections to an independent relisting after a reasonable period. Rossami (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: As the closing admin, I certainly feel it was justified, but I'll abstain from voting. Like Xoloz says, the debate ran for twice the normal amount of time. I suppose I could have been more generous and closed it with a "no consensus" but I thought a 2/5 vote was pretty clear (yes, I know it's a not a vote). Please also note that a number of other AfD nominations during the holiday period generated plenty of discussion so IMHO arguing that low activity invalidates the closure is unjustified. howcheng {chat} 16:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, 7 votes is certainly enough, I've closed votes with much less than that. --Deathphoenix 19:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, but without prejudice against renomination per Aaron Brenneman, as some of the reasons for keeping (e.g. "Seems important") are quite bad. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, even though AFD is not a vote. There were no good reasons presented in the AFD debate as to why the article should be kept, and it clearly fails WP:WEB. I endorse though, since I'm feeling particularly inclusionist at the moment. - ulayiti (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and no prejudice against immediate renomination. - ulayiti (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Back Door Sluts 9

Redirect to The Return of the Lord of the Rings to the Two Towers, a Southpark episode in which it plays a prominent role, improperly speedied several times. The deleting admin also blocked the editor that was creating the redirect. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, it's relevant to the article, and as long as we don't have an article for the real Back door sluts 9, might as well link it. Every kid who watches the show is going to google it anyhow for fun. a block seems misplaced. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 07:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

  Unblocked. My mistake. Everything is now clear. -- Longhair 07:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Full Bodying

• Undelete Full Bodying. This is a real act, which has been performed in films, and people should be able to learn about it. —the preceding unsigned comment is by DokkenDio (talk • contribs) 06:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, patent nonsense. —Cryptic (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I came out of a woman's vagina once, but I don't think it would be too plausible to get inside one such. -R. fiend 06:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Unbirth? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Rebirthing? User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, and BJAODN the thing. Non-admins can see the contents of it in this page's history. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It was already there. —Cryptic (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, then just salt the Earth, then. :) Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Obvious hoax. Thanks for the laugh, though! :) Xoloz 09:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and salt the earth with the tears I got when laughing after reading the history. --Deathphoenix 19:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Chris Jenny Harrison

• Undelete Chris Jenny Harrison. This is a real person and a real name and everything in the article is true. Chris Harrison is a real and well known person in this part of the world. You may not know him but Im sure a lot of people in other countries dont know who JFK or Gandhi are, I dont see you deleting them. —the preceding unsigned comment is by DokkenDio (talk • contribs) 06:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, attack page, no plausible claim of notability. —Cryptic (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Chris Jenny Harrison. It has just been brought to my attention that each administrator, or at least for sure "Natalinasmpf" is given their own pages on wikipedia. Why is it at all allowable for admins to post biographies, which are boring yet my dear friend Chris Jenny Harrison cannot be shared with the world, when his life is so exciting? This double standard seems unacceptable. How can this site call itself a fair/good site applying these double standards. You know who else applied these double standards men on women before the age of equal rights. It aint right.
• Comment - Anyone can have a user page. It's at User:Yournamehere. That's called userspace. Feel free to use it. Nobody is entitled to an *article* in *articlespace* about themselves. FCYTravis 09:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, see WP:BIO and note the difference between articles and userpages. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, this is not even userfy material. "Born from the fiery lava of Mount Ookalawaiah on a small Hawaiin Island", indeed. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Attack page on a non-notable person. --Deathphoenix 19:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFC/KM

Speedy deleted many times, and now protected blank. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, POV redirect. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Phil Sandifer 04:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. How can a shortcut be POV? How does this hurt anything? The repeated deletion of this redirect is being perceived as an effort to stifle free expression on the userbox issue; whether true or not, that hurts our encyclopedia. -- SCZenz 04:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No it doesn't. The userbox issue would have to actually have something to do with the encyclopedia for this to hurt our encyclopedia. Phil Sandifer 04:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Pointless, but harmless. I fail to see what the fuss is about, unless it's a clever smokescreen to distract from something else. Strangely enough, everything we do here has something to do with writing an encyclopedia, or else I look forward to seeing the Wikipedia:Department of Fun nominated for deletion. Fo course, there's no telling which wrong version the wheel war will have left this in, but I see keep as a shortcut. You want a POV shortcut, how about WP:CUNT? - brenneman^(t)(c) 04:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Gads, that's a bluelink? (I've been kind of waiting for WP:FUCK to go along with WP:FUC over the past few days, mind...) —Cryptic (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I about fell out of my chair when I saw that. And give it time, WP:FUCK will find a use eventually. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 15:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Inappropriate perhaps, but "Cunt" is hardly POV. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Delted out of process. There is nothing in the WP:CSD nor the deletion policy that authorizes such a unilateral deletion. Since the RFC pointed to is a complaint about out-of-process and allegedly abusive deletions, this is an unforunate way to deal with this. Put it on RfD or MfD if you think it needs to go. DES ^(talk) 05:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• It was undeleted and listed on RFD half an hour ago. I'd've preferred it to have been undeleted, full stop, for now; now, everyone will be screaming about it over there. Ah well. —Cryptic (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Mike 06:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and keep until title becomes ambiguous. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:17, Jan. 3, 2006
• Undelete, no policy, procedure or guideline can justify the removal of this. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete, if Snowspinner felt this shortcut should have been removed, they could have gone through process like this since no policy or guideline covered it. However, he that this process, and thus got into a wheel war with me. Considering that the rfc(which is also about people ignoring any and all rules in a moment if they feel justified in doing so) was about the same thing, it's not surprising.
• The page this shortcut was linked to had hundreds of comments on it, people were going there often. There's no reason to delete this, and it serves a good purpose. I'm just disappointed at the state of Wikipedia since this is at DRV rather than WP:RFD since Snowspinner's initial actions were illegimate. karmafist 12:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - If there isn't a redirect policy which prohibits shortcuts that aid in the pillorying of a Wikipedia editor (whether that editor be Kelly Martin, Brazil4Linux, Marsden, or someone else entirely), there should be. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 13:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Like he said. --Calton | Talk 15:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 15:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete The RfD is already running, and needs to run its course. Xoloz 16:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Nobody is saying anything about deleting the RfC, the discussion is over this redirect, which has been deleted by several admins now. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Zoe, read my original comment carefully. The R-f-D is already going... I said nothing about an any RfC, I referred to the ongoing Redirect for Deletion debate already started. Xoloz 20:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
      • You are correct, I misread, and I apologize. All I can say is that it must be the fault of my glasses.  :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, there are no other redirects to individual RfCs, and this one is certainly unnecessary. --Deathphoenix 19:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment no other rfc has had over 100 people agree with the initial statement either. I'm also sending this over to WP:RFD since it was inappropriately deleted in the first place.karmafist 20:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• It's been speedy deleted by Tony Sidaway now.
  1. 21:52, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "WP:RFC/KM" (Not an appropriate use of article space)
  2. 21:52, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "WP:RFC/POTW" (Not an appropriate use of article space)

  --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I recreated it. Maybe he'll get the hint that, you know, he doesn't have anything remotely resembling consensus? Nah. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Hmm, don't know how it registered as two deletes. Possibly I got an error message. This shold be deleted because it's not an appropriate user of article space. We do tolerate shortcuts to policy pages and the like, but this isn't one of those, it's just an individual page for communication on a particular issue. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. El_C 04:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Seigenthaler

Supposedly an "article that serves no purpose but to disparage its subject". In fact it is simply parody/satire - "This user helped Seigenthaler kill John F. Kennedy." --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted as attack. I'm all for humour, but humour that accuses an innocent person of capital murder doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. If the innocent person is puttin it on their user page, I see no problem. --maru (talk) Contribs 01:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per Starblind. As a parody, it is an attack on Seigenthaler (or at least the anti-WP moment his story inspired in the media.) Really, though, if it is a parody, it's a bad one, since I'm not sure what it means. This qualifies as confusion creep, imo, and I endorse deletion on that basis as well. Xoloz 01:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, it has no constructive use. I've protected it against recreation. -Splash^talk 01:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete It's a user page, thats all there is to it. Mike 01:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It is a 'userpage' (note that it isn't; it's a template) that accuses Seigenthaler of killing Kennedy. That's not funny, as we have already learnt. -Splash^talk 01:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - According to the deletion log the only content added to the page was by Maradubshinki, who deleted it. It therefore appears to be a valid CSD G7. --- Charles Stewart 01:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • He told me he undeleted and deleted it the final time to get the code. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

First, Chalst, I'd appreciate it if you get the name right- a simple "maru" is more than acceptable. Second, the template was speedied twice by other admins, for no valid reason, when it should have been put through TFD. SPUI is entirely correct- if you examine the deletion history, the third time was me undeleting it to copy it over to my user space, and then promptly redeleting it to await a VFU decision. --maru (talk) Contribs 03:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and list on TfD - It's a pretty tasteless and inadvisable joke, but it's clearly not an attack page. Let's put the issue up for proper discussion. --- Charles Stewart 04:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. No need to screw around with a tastless joke that obviously hurts the credibility of our project. -- SCZenz 04:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Since this template is only useful as a userbox, isn't it just as harmful to have people cut and pasting the text from Maru's user page as to have them make use of the template? Hence, if he speedy is valid for the template, then isn't it right to insist that Maru remove the userbox from his page? I find this to be too much, but I am interested in how far the argument goes to delete from such reasons as the need to uphold the credibility of the project. --- Charles Stewart 04:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting point, Mr. Stewart. The difference between the template, and user-supplied text in userspace, as I see it, is this: Users are generally given wide (though not total) freedom in their own space, in the spirit of freedom of expression. Most WPians understand this; and most casual viewers, familiar with the freedom of speech common in the English-speaking world, grasp it intuitively. A template, because it is circulated among the community in a pre-set form, is subject to greater oversight at TFD, and through CSD; it would be easier for the casual viewer to mistake it as representing WP's views, at least through tacit complicity. This isn't to say that "John Seigenthaler killed Kennedy" belongs on a userpage, either; that discussion, regarding libel at WP, is ongoing, and such a statement might be called a personal attack, under the circumstances. What is clear to me is that the case for CSDing the template is on firmer ground than the deletion of a userpage, for the aforementioned reasons of purview, institutional oversight, and inituitive understanding. Xoloz 09:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • But you voted to keep deleted because it is an attack. Attacks are just as unacceptable on user pages as on templates. If you really think that it is an attack, you should edit Maru's user page and remove the box. Or per your comment below, do you think it is really a violation of WP:CIV? --- Charles Stewart 18:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. We have brains for a reason. Ambi 10:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No personal attacks, please. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 10:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • He's right, you should apologize, saying, "I'm sorry, you're right, we don't have brains for a reason." Or is it, "I'm sorry, you're right, we have brains for no reason"? --Calton | Talk 15:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'd cite CIV instead of NPA. Point is, we know we have brains, to remind us is patronizing. To defend reminding us doesn't help. Note that I agree with you regarding this UB. Xoloz 16:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Slightly funny but libellous and a personal attack. David | Talk 10:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, is an attack against Seigenthaler and only marginally funny. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, and nuke the version from maru's user page, too. --Calton | Talk 15:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This template is just trolling. Gamaliel 17:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, inappropriate in an article, and more inappropriate as a template. --Deathphoenix 19:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove all references to Seigenthaler or keep deleted. The weather in London should not be recreated... but personal attacks don't belong here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted -- You'd think that some people would remember how much the Seigenthaler episode hurt WP's credibility, and how much flak we caught in the public sphere as a result of it. To resurrect that stinking meme is self-destructive behaviour for a Wikipedian. --Peripatetic 13:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I speedy tagged it, and I feel so correctly, since there is no evidence to suggest Seigenthaler did kill JFK, it only stands to give him a bad name. Ian¹³_ID:540053 17:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-01

Template:Help Wikiboxes

Deleted out of process, this was in no way a personal attack, as claimed in the deletions. This was deleted while discussion at WP:TFD was in progress. Undelete and allow the TfD to continue normally. DES ^(talk) 12:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Proper speedy under A6 attack pages. David | Talk 12:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted RFC-box stuffing should be as vigorously opposed as AFD-ballot-box stuffing, and for precisely the same reasons. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 13:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per David and EU. [[Sam Korn]] 13:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This template was deleted per CSD A6, under which it clearly falls. Circumventing the RfC process in this manner is not helpful and, as Extreme Unction said, should be vigorously opposed. Movementarian 13:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse/Keep deleted As much as I support the underlying RFC, campaigning via templates is very bad form. Xoloz 17:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment technically A6 only applies to articles (it really should be a general criteria...). At any rate, earlier versions were A6 material, the last one I guess is sort of a judgement call, as it were. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 17:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Request for clarification: From a brief sampling of the deleted versions, I am not seeing the personal attack. Could someone familiar with this controversy please explain it to the rest of us? Perhaps by providing links to the relevant discussions or evidence? I ask because even if certain versions were hostile, the normal corrective action is to fix it. The very existence of the page and pretty much every non-trivial edit would have to be a personal attack in order to qualify for that particular speedy-delete criterion. I will withhold judgment for now but at first glance, this does not appear to have qualified as a speedy-attack. Rossami (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Articles which serve no purpose but to disparage their subject" Since the earlier versions mentioned the name of the deletor it was basically trying to disparage the subject. The later versions without the names are a very shaky case though and probably NOT a technically valid speedy. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 17:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Disagree - a template used to stack a discussion is disruptive and should be speedied. --Doc ^ask? 18:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm just saying that our current criterion doesn't appear to technically cover it. I'm not so sure myself that speedying it creates less controversy then the normal TfD way. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 18:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Some relevant links: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Userboxes&action=history, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Userboxes&action=history, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cryptic, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 3. More prose later, when I have more than a minute or so free in a row. —Cryptic (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Over my dead, broken, and de-adminned body will this be undeleted. Phil Sandifer 18:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and let the TfD run its course - This would qualify under Tony Sidaway's proposed CSD criterion, but it clearly does not and never will fit any CSD An criterion as it is not an article. Note on sources: I've based this opinion on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Help Wikiboxes, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 3 and the deletion log. I miss Special:Undelete... --- Charles Stewart 18:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I should say that my undelete vote is based on the understanding that the page is intended for vote-stacking purposes and is not explicitly an attack page. If the claim that it is a real attack page is substantiated, then I think I would change this vote. --- Charles Stewart 19:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The template was an attack and RFC stacking by template is a Bad Thing. Making an attack in template space is not an acceptable way to avoid speedy deletion of an attack page. Kelly Martin should have discussed her plans further, but this template isn't the best way to approach that problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as an attack. If the RfCs have merit, they can stand on their own, and promoting them in this way just makes the associated RFCs look bad. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete; not a personal attack. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse/Keep deleted Troll food. --Calton | Talk 06:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - Rather interesting that the original reasoning behind some of the userbox deletions was the rallying of voting blocs. "Oh no," they said, "that's never happened and never will"...and here they are, slapping templates about...campaigning over a request for comment. Bloody disgraceful. Rob Church ^Talk 10:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Ambi 10:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Asking people to reply to RFCs is fine, but using an general template to do so isn't. Move to Project or userspace and edit out the word unilateral. Let the user who receives the message make up their mind for themselves. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, proper speedy, clearly not appropriate as an attempt to pileon to KM's RfC. --Deathphoenix 19:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

2005-12-31

Category:Moneyball (CfD Discussion)

I think this deletion should be reviewed because, it seems like, no "baseball people" saw the deletion discussion to make the obvious counter-argument, and the category was deleted on bad evidence. I think this is wrong, and at least the CfD should be re-listed with an informed counter-argument to see what happens.

Moneyball is much more than just some book (a claim the CfD discussion never challenged), the book just gave name to and popularized among the masses a movement that had been brewing for years. Developed by Bill James and first truly implimented by Billy Beane at Oakland, the philosophy is the most controversial topic in baseball (other than steroids) in the past 10 years, and has changed the way nearly everyone thinks about the basic statistics of baseball (which is big, considering baseball is a game of statistics). So it's not just one of many baseball books published every year... it's the most important baseball book published in the past 20 years, and a major topic in baseball even had the book never been written.

The articles on people involved and the basic concepts (on base percentage, On-base plus slugging, sabermetrics, etc.) seem to be improved by being listed in the category, it lets someone interested in moneyball easilly find other related articles. I'm sorry I missed the CfD and couldn't present this argument there... I guess all us baseball geeks take winter off like the players. --W.marsh 16:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• If you want to use it for a broader topic than just issues mentioned in the book, why not make Category:Sabermetrics? That would cover the issues involved. Firebug 17:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Sabermetrics is just the statistics, moneyball involves the people who use them, oppose them, etc. which is a big issue in baseball today. For example, you couldn't really put Billy Beane and other people in Category:Sabermetrics. I'll consider creating the category though, it would be useful for the statistics. --W.marsh 17:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, but "moneyball" (as a descriptor) isn't NPOV, is it? I mean, I usually hear the term in the context of the phrase, "f-ckin' moneyball." Of course, I'm a Royals fan -- yes we do exist. :) Anyway, Sabermetrics seems more objective to me. Xoloz 18:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
      • That's an interesting point... but it's not exactly POV to say someone or something is associated with moneyball, as long as that's well documented. The category also applies to well-known critics of moneyball, like Joe Morgan. I really don't see the POV here... it's well documented which people and topics associated with moneyball... it's just moneyball itself that is controversial. Some people think moneyball is bad, some think it's good... the same could be said of many categories we have. --W.marsh 18:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh sure... it's just that I don't know anyone who uses moneyball positively, who says, "Wow, isn't moneyball great!" Like I said, this could just be my bias -- but I wonder if "moneyball" isn't like "anti-choice" or "pro-murder" as applied in abortion debates -- exclusively a pejorative. Anyway, undelete and relist, this merits full discussion at a new debate. Substantial new, previously-unaddressed points have been raised. Xoloz 18:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete, reason for deletion contradicted by information here. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete Moneyball is IMO an incredibly important book, with implications for business managers outside of baseball: there is real value in employees that other organizations shun because they don't fit a cookie-cutter mold. I am only a casual fan of baseball & am really not interested in sabremetrics, but I think the concept has broad application. Billbrock 23:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC) Comment: oops, I misread. Didn't realize this was a category deletion, to which I have no objection. Billbrock 01:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist on CfD, see if there are more discussions this time around. --Deathphoenix 18:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Timeline for missing persons following the September 11, 2001 Attacks (AFD discussion)

This article should be undeleted because of significant new information that was not considered at discussion: the article was important enough to have been cited in the peer-reviewed article

Edkins, Jenny. The rush to memory and the rhetoric of war. Journal of Political & Military Sociology; Winter 2003, Vol. 31(2), p. 231-250

This printed article is kept in the world's academic libraries and a broken Wikipedia link gives an extremely unprofessional impression. For verification, I can email the article to anyone who provides me with their email address on my talk page. AxelBoldt 08:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• The people there were arguing is was redundant, not un-notable... WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 08:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Our policy/decisions should not be bound by links from outside. Keep Deleted --Improv 08:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The original nominator gave as main reason for deletion "I'm sure that would have been useful somewhere. Now it's just outdated statistics.", implying that it is not useful anymore. Newly discovered information disproves this. Old statistics are useful for historians. AxelBoldt 18:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - the article was not so IMPORTANT as ACTUAL. was. Kirils 08:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn/Undelete New Info Mike 11:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Temp Undelete for Transwiki Uhm... is there an option for a cut and paste of deleted content to the Sep11 wiki? yes it appears there is.  ALKIVAR™ 13:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• An undeletion just long enough for it to be transwikied seems the proper thing to do. —Cryptic (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Temp Undelete for Transwiki per Cryptic and Alkivar. I'm not sure why that wasn't done in the first instance. Xoloz 16:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Probably because the post-vfd transwiki queue wasn't being maintained at the time, and had an enormous, six-month-long backlog. —Cryptic (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Temp Undelete for Transwiki per Cryptic Billbrock 23:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Temp undelete and transwiki, statistical data belongs on WikiSource. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Temp undelete and transwiki. Ashibaka tock 03:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

2005-12-30

CommandN

CommandN has been deleted I wish for it do be appealed as it is a popular VidCast and just because the people who decided may not of known about it, it has many fans and should be reinstated. Mike 18:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CommandN. Please don't list things here merely because you disagree with an AFD outcome. Radiant_>|< 18:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse/Keep deleted Nomination simply makes no actionable claims -- no evidence of process flaw or new information. Xoloz 19:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment It is a well liked and popular podcast/vidcast hosted by a tv personality and is highly rated. It should not of been removed especially by people who dont know enough about the subject. Mike 19:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Afd was proper; all evidence provided was considered, and deletes outnumber valid keeps by about four to one. No compelling reason to overturn it has been provided. Do you have any new, third-party evidence of this podcast's notability from reliable sources, or are you just going to offer unsubstantiated opinions like the (sock|meat)puppets infesting the original discussion? —Cryptic (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I never got a chance to vote as it is hard to find these things and I'm sure if it was easier to find it more people would. I have added that its a popular show and there for should not have been deleted unless you can provide information on why it should NOT be deleted I think it should be overturned. Mike 19:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. No new information. "I didn't get the chance to vote" is not a reason to re-run the AfD. android79 19:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse per Radiant. I see nothing wrong with the outcome, as most of those "keeps" were from obvious meats. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 19:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD. --Deathphoenix 18:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Gang stalking (AFD discussion)

The re-creation was a significant improvement over the anecdotal original, which in spite of its obvious flaws, was deleted wholesale and done so in violation of Wikipedia deletion policy (i.e. the article received more "Keep" votes than "Delete" votes [hardly a rough consensus]).

A review of the re-creation will illuminate verifiable facts about an emerging and well-documented Web-based phenomenon.

In any event, wholesale deletion is a disproportionate (and likely visceral) response. Editing, expansion, or qualification through discussion is always an option. I realize we're not dealing with the atomic weight of plutonium, but as a cultural (or social psychological) phenomenon, there are a range of ways to present the info accurately.

--Tai Streets

• Comment Jimbo himself deleted this article just a couple of days ago... the actual page is at Gang stalking (the user is referring to a redirect, not the actual page), and the afd debate is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gang_stalking. Looks like sock/meat puppets gone wild there, but I havn't checked them out yet thuroughly, and I feel sorry for the people who have to :\... WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 05:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• This is the version deleted by afd. This is the most recent. They seem sufficiently similar to me to be a proper G4; barring formatting changes and section being moved around, I can find almost no differences. Endorse deletion [of the re-creation only, which is what was brought up here; I haven't thoroughly investigated the afd —Cryptic (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)] and, given that it was re-created three times in barely a day since its afd, continued protection against re-creation. —Cryptic (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that Brighting, Image:Bradjesnessc1.jpg, and Image:Bradjesnessc2.jpg were re-created as well. —Cryptic (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to vote on this, but I can't see the articles. A friend of mine voted Keep in the AfD and I want to see what the controversy is all about. Would someone please grant me the "deletedhistory" permission? —James S. 20:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• The AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking. The keep "votes" were largely anon IPs, the discounting of which is well within closer's discretion. Few established WPians voted to keep the article, as compared to the many who viewed its deletion favorably. Nomination does not offer compelling new information regarding the article. Keep Deleted/Endorse closure. Xoloz 05:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted valid AFD, most of the supports were annons that their vote didn't count. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endore closure / keep deleted Very messy AfD, but closer made the correct decision. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Relist gang stalking, with a warning to the contributor not to stuff the ballot box again. Even if the contributor has a POV, he did provide references. One article should be sufficient to cover the subject. Gazpacho 03:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Please note that almost exactly the same article content (with a few minor wording changes) is already currently being discussed on AFD, since it was also created as Sci.psychology.psychotherapy (AfD discussion) by Tai Streets (talk · contribs). This content has also been added to a whole slew of separate articles by this same author (who appears to be one and the same as 67.129.121.254 (talk · contribs), 172.149.8.228 (talk · contribs), and Wyatt Ehrenfels (talk · contribs)) including:
  • Cyberstalking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Stalking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Harassment by computer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Privacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Group psychological abuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Bully (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Chilling effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Gang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Google (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Cyber-terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Cyber bullying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Even if editors wish this relisted, one active AFD discussion is enough. Uncle G 06:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I notice Gang-stalking has been recreated today. Tearlach 13:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it and salted the earth. android79 13:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion and salting the earth. --Deathphoenix 18:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

2005-12-29

Template:Album infobox 2

TfD here: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/December 2005#Template:Album_infobox_2

Review so what happened to this whilst most of us were not watching over the holidays, there was no clear concensus so how was this to be a remove authority. There were issues with the clicking on the image but they had been solved. I cannot believe that such creativity should be stamped upon also I don't believe if we are able to use an image we fall foul if we are an image in such an innocuous way. Most of all what is the point of these votes is they are ridden roughshod over!

Clearer guidance should be given if this really is a fair use problem, I fail to see the reason for its use (the fair use arguement) here. If we are able to use the image to illustrate the album, we are able to use the image to illustrate the album, period.

In the forking point, surely the aim of the those working on the version was to make the "smarter" form, the new standard, (i.e. not forked). Perhaps this was not gone about the best way, but there it is.

Overriding these concerns, where is the adjudiction summary, and/or final reason given for the action taken. Please can people be a little more considerate of the effort people are putting in to create this resource. If the decision is to stand please do the 'losing' opinion the courtesy of a polite statement. Kevinalewis 09:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Overturn/Undelete, this TfD closed with 22 delete to 21 keep which is, in my opinion, too close to consider a consensus (further, one of the deletes didn't sign their vote). —Locke Cole • t • c 15:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn/relist On examining the TfD, I do see the defects complained of. Lack of closing rationale, closeness of the tallies, uncertainty over the fair argument. I would endorse the closure if I were convinced regarding lack of a fair use claim; however, album covers are intended for display, and uses that promote the album are generally permissible (and highly unlikely to generate an infringement claim in the first instance.) Decision is too muddled to stand as is. Xoloz 16:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - TfD is not a vote - less so than other pages, really, because of the relative lack of traffic and the high degree to which people want every stupid template but their own deleted - it has long been run on a system of "Read through the argument and make a call about which side gives the most persuasive reasons." I am thusly persuaded that an increase in the use of fair use images and the desire for a universal style of album infoboxes is a persuasive reason. Phil Sandifer 16:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a universal style, and this template follows it (hence why a simple redirect is all it took to change things; the parameters are identical, this template simply adds a few additional parameters). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Unredirect, closure in error, and per Phil as well, most persuasive arguments were to keep -- or rather, no persuasive argument was made to delete, which amounts to the same thing. While I would support dropping fair use images entirely, if we accept fair use as a rationale it certainly applies to these images. Template forking is not a problem; editors are perfectly capable of choosing among a variety of similar but slighly different templates. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse. TFD is not supposed to be a vote. Most 'keep' voters just joined the pileon and didn't specify a reason. The 'delete' voters had two solid arguments that nobody had a meaningful rebuttal to. 1) It is a fork. If you don't like a template, edit it, do not fork. And 2) It breaks fair use. There are legal problems with the way this template uses images. Legal concerns trump consensus. Radiant_>|< 01:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Most keep votes were agreeing with the disagreement over fair-use. Just because they chose not to comment doesn't immediately invalidate their voice; I take such votes as indicating that everything said up till their vote already addressed their points better than they could. As for forking, it's fully compatible with {{Album infobox}} (hence why a simple redirect was even possible as a stop-gap solution). And legal concerns do not trump consensus if there's no consensus about the legal concerns. That's circular logic. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Legal concerns would trump consensus if the consensus were openly defiant or ignorant of copyright law. However, although I am no IP expert, I take the informed view that fair use applies here. The image (at low resolution) is used only to direct the searcher to an encyclopedic article about the album. If anything, this innocently promotes the album; the character of the use is, in this case, so intermingled with the public commentary permitted under the fair use doctrine that I cannot imagine an infringement action being brought, or succeeding. This case is easily distinguished from claims of fair use on user-pages, which claims are asinine. Xoloz 05:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse. Fork templates cause a lot of headaches.. we made the right decision. Rhobite 00:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse per Rhobite, Radiant. There's also an overwhelming preference/consensus demonstrated by the people who create album articles, better than 10:1. Monicasdude 04:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, we should stop bloody gathering consensuses, then, if nobody's willing to abide by them. That would also solve a lot of the vandalism problems (makes note to suggest rigid hierarchy model sometime)--Agamemnon2 10:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. A number of users typing "keep" does not make something not a fork (nor does it trump "fair use" concerns). Nothing wrong with the judgement call made in the closing. Jkelly 04:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There's nothing wrong with a fork in this instance as it is perfectly compatible with {{Album infobox}} (hence why a simple redirect was all that was necessary to keep things working after the initial TFD). As to the issue of people typing "keep", I'm sorry, but when I saw those, I assumed good faith and presumed they were agreeing with all the people who'd typed "keep" and explained the reasoning for why fair-use was not a concern. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • See Wikipedia:Content forking -- I'm not clear what you're getting at with your compatibility / redirect comment though. And, as has been said before, there is a distinction between what we might get sued for and Wikipedia:Fair use guidelines. Finally, I was just expressing a version of m:Voting is evil with the last comment. Jkelly 06:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. None of the supporters of the disputed template have provided a substantial response to this concern: Quoting from the Wikipedia:Fair use guidelines, "it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia." Wikimedia Foundation policy is not subject to revision/exception by Wikipedia editors." Monicasdude 15:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

2005-12-22

Various stub template redirects

These were all listed on WP:SFD, despite WP:RFD being the palce to go for redirects. The SFD people in general dislike redirects that may be useful but do not follow their conventions. (Furthermore, the ensuing redirect is deleted by default when a stub template is moved, also in defiance of common sense.)

Note: I would just re-create these, as I don't need anything actually undeleted, but they would just be speedied again and eventually protected blank. (Edit: I have re-created them, so we can see the idiocy in action.)

This is a very incomplete list of these redirects.

• {{Bike-stub}} → {{Cycling-stub}} (protected blank!)
• {{NYCS stub}} → {{NYCS-stub}}
• {{Us-rail-stub}} → {{US-rail-stub}}
• {{US-street-stub}} → {{US-road-stub}}
• {{Musicbio-stub}} → {{Music-bio-stub}}

Finally, I do not believe these give any increased server load, unlike meta-templates, due to being redirects. If you click edit on a page that uses a template redirect, only the actual name shows up below the edit box. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 16:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, for the good reasons explained on WP:SFD. This is part of a campaign by SPUI against WP:SFD as a whole, apparently because his opinion is in the minority there. See also his recent attempt to delete the entire process. Radiant_>|< 18:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per wise Radiant. Xoloz 00:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete I see no reason why useful redirects should be deleted. Demi ^T/_C 01:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, validly deleted in process. Just use plain {{stub}} if you don't like being forced into typing evil CamelCase names. —Cryptic (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I do use plain {{stub}}, but it would be nice if I could use the "proper" stub template. I have been accused of disruption - by an admin - for using {{stub}}. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • (I'm not sure how I missed that humongous link in your sig until after I posted the above.) —Cryptic (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't understand. Are you saying it's more important to keep these redirects deleted for the sake of consistency than to have properly-categorized and notified stubs? Demi ^T/_C 01:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • No, I'm saying that since the stubsorters enjoy making it so hard for normal people to do it, we should just let them happily sort away on their own. —Cryptic (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I'll second that. Stubsorting is a thankless job, and the strange gnomes fine users :) who accomplish it should have some deference for expertise and effort -- I just use "stub," and I don't mind at all. Xoloz 13:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. These were deleted out of process, since redirects are supposed to be deleted on WP:RFD, and the decisions are thus not valid. I don't see the point of making things difficult just for the hell of it. - ulayiti (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, and by the way, the person of the nominator is not a valid reason to vote against a nomination. - ulayiti (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This is simply wrong. You might as well state that templates and categories should always be deleted on TFD and CFD respectively. SFD was created to deal with stub issues and that apparently includes redirects. Radiant_>|< 10:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
      • SFD was created so that stub categories and stub templates could be deleted within the same process, so that there wouldn't be cases where only one or the other was deleted. This mandate applies to redirects only so far as the redirects point to templates or categories that are voted to be deleted anyway. Wikipedia:Redirect explicitly says that users should avoid deleting redirects if they help in accidental linking and/or are found useful by someone. - ulayiti (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Of course, now categories can now be speedied if they were populated solely by a template, so most of the justification for WP:SFD has been obviated anyway. —Cryptic (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Here we go with the re-deletions, once again out of process:

  23:31, 23 December 2005 Grutness deleted "Template:Us-rail-stub" (speedy deletion of formerly deleted re-creation by User:SPUI)

• --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Also note that a lot of these redirects have been recreated- and according to the above I suspect they were deleted. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete as above. —Locke Cole 11:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete per ulayiti. Not only were they deleted out of process. It's just plain nonsensical to make it harder to find the correct stub template. Logical redirects should stand to make stub sorting easier. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • As stated above, this allegation of being out-of-process is incorrect; WP:NOT a bureaucracy. Radiant_>|< 10:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Also WP:NOT an anarchy. If you can have redirects deleted in various places and with various criteria for deletion, you've got a problem on your hands. —Locke Cole 11:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete. I can't see why anyone could be bothered by variations with and without a hyphen. It doesn't have to be just one and only one version. -- Eddie
• Undelete. Obvious error by the deletion process here; harmless redirects should not be deleted. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete And speedy-keep stub template redirects that differ only in capitalization, spacing, or hyphenation, and anything else that might help non-experts sort stubs. Too many times I've inadvertantly left a red link at the bottom of a stub page due to unexpected and/or inconsistant naming conventions. I typically give up after clicking the preview button 3 times and not finding a valid stub type. Shouldn't the stub folks want it to be easier for others to help them? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 11:14, Dec. 26, 2005
• Overturn and undelete. This is the sort of situation in which I ordinarily would be arguing against the bureaucracy of blindly following "process," even when it defies common sense. In this case, however, the deletions were out-of-process; redirects fall under the jurisdiction of RfD, and there's absolutely no logical reason why the deletion of stub redirects should be handled at SfD (notwithstanding their instructions). As for the issue of common sense, I can't imagine why anyone would want to eliminate these harmless/useful redirects. Just last week, I couldn't remember what the naming convention was, and I didn't guess the correct spelling of a stub template ({{music-stub}}) until my third try. At the time, it occurred to me that redirects from the other obvious names ({{musicstub}} and {{music stub}}) would have been handy. I find it very difficult to believe that the regular stub-sorters would actually want to make it more difficult for "outsiders" to help, but I'm struggling to find another explanation for these deletions. —David Levy 16:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - For the interested among you, there is an ongoing discussion about the issue of stub redirects and how to address them at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for deletion. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 17:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete for those who still wish to use them. I must say I'm surprised that the Depredations of the Evil Stub Cabal are finally starting to generate some real backlash, even though I'm sure these would all just be deleted again if relisted at WP:SFD. Regardless, I know I'm through with jumping through arbitrary hoops and will still just be using plain {{stub}}; the whole stubsorting project is just a crutch to tide us over until meta:Category math is a reality. —Cryptic (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse decision (keep all deleted). IMO SFD is ther proper place for dealing with stub template redirects, just as TfD normaly deals with ordinarly template redirects. This is actually more important, because use of redirs that do not follow standard stub naming conventiosn (which have consensus support) makes it harder for to see and use those conventions, and damges the project as a whole. The appropriateness or otherwise of stub template redirs is thus best addressed by SfD, not RfD. DES ^(talk) 08:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• In terms of closing this, the numbers fall just short of a 3/4 threshold to undelete them outright. So I'm suppose to undelete and relist them on the relevant process. However, it is entirely unclear where I should relist them, that being the core of the problem. I see that two of them have been recreated and not challenged; that lends weight to the undeletion argument. Since DRV is not the place to determine policy, I'm going to undelete them and leave the relisting to those thrashing out the policy on where that relisting should take place. -Splash^talk 23:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • And they've already been speedy deleted - what the fuck? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Argh, not again. Undelete and relist on RFD. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I've undeleted their history. Someone who actually wants them deleted can list them on WP:RFD. —Cryptic (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
      • They've been listed on SFD again :\ --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Which is where they should be listed. RfD is for article redirects, SfD is for stub redirects. And the last time I checked, these five were stub redirects. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 18:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
          • But that is the entire controversy-whether to nominate them at RFD or SFD. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
            • That's not completely true. The debate (I wouldn't go so far as to call it a controversy) is whether to change an existing deletion process (voting on stub redirects via rfd instead of via sfd). Until that debate is concluded, the existing deletion process should be followed, which is the discussion of stub redirects at SFD. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 00:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The outcome here was to undelete. Well, perhaps if this undeletion process had been mentioned at SFD, the outcome would have been different, since, with the one dissenting voice of SPUI, the vote was overwhelmingly to delete these the first time. One of them even had to be protected because SPUI sqaw fit to undelete it nine times despite overwhelming reasons why it should not be undeleted, most notably, that since "bike" can refer to either a bicycle of a motorbike, it was too ambiguous to use as an alternative name for cycling. Please, if you intend to over-ride a perfectly legitimate deletion process such as WP:SFD, at least have the common decency to announce that a vote to do such is in process at WP:SFD. Don't simply dundelete files without warning, since it is only natural that they will be re-deleted as re-creations of previously deleted items. Is it any surprise that they have been re-listed. They should be speedily and permanently deleted. Grutness...wha? 07:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The deletion page is never notified. Surely there is no reason to notify the improper place for these to be listed. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

1. User boxes deleted by Tony Sidaway: speedily undeleted. 21:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
2. The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy deletion endorsed, noted on the discussions subpage. 23:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Gojin Motors undeleted and relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gojin Motors (2nd nomination). 23:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Wikimongering: kept deleted. 23:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Infosecpedia: closure endorsed, without prejudice against relisting (also without mandating it from this discussion). 23:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Homespring: kept deleted. 23:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Various stub template redirects: numbers short of threshold to simply overturn and undelete, but not clear on how to relist. See note in debate still listed above. 23:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Interwise: speedily undeleted and listed on AfD.
9. Shpants - History merge up until 12-2-2005 with Three quarter pants and then delete Shpants. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 08:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Gtplanet - Undeleted and relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gtplanet (2nd nomination). 21:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Halo.Bungie.Org - Undeleted and relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halo.Bungie.Org (2nd nomination). 21:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Mariah Stanley - Original deletion endorsed; different recreation now up for AfD here. 21:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
13. Template:User Capitalist - Though original speedy was not in error, template undeleted as useful. 17:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
14. OGTV2 - From Tha Hood to Hollywood - Original deletion endorsed. "Recreation" failed at AfD, article again deleted. 17:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
15. Shpants - non-standard resolution. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Shpants 07:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
16. Ayu Khandro - Original speedy deletion endorsed, different recreation made, recreation now under new AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayu Khandro. 17:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
17. The Gay Ghost, The Next Gay Ghost, and The Two Gay Ghosts - Kept deleted. 17:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
18. Fortune Lounge Group - Deletion endorsed; new recreation made during the debate without objection. 17:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
19. Webcest - Kept deleted. 17:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
20. Brian Peppers - recreated while under debate here, kept at new AfD. 17:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Bradley (Codename: Kids Next Door) - Speedy restored as clear deletion mistake. 17:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
22. Battle_of_Uhud - Speedy restored to an unvandalized version. 17:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
23. Cursing Sahaba is Kufr (Sunni doctrine) - Kept deleted, copyright violation. 17:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
24. Arthur Prieston - Kept deleted, with the caveat that undeletion may occur if copyright release is properly given. 17:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
25. James S. Putnam - Speedy deletion overturned; subsequently failed AfD, and was deleted. 17:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
26. 2011 Atlantic hurricane season - Kept deleted. 17:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)