Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Trialsanderrors (talk | contribs) at 16:09, 26 August 2006 (→[[Justin Bonomo]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< August 22 August 24 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 August)



23 August 2006

Justin Bonomo

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Bonomo

There were a few potential problems I notice with this close:

  1. The closing administrator discounted my 'vote' and ignored my arguments to keep the article because I had few edits. Since AfD is not a vote, arguments should take precedence, and despite my low edit count, I believe I pointed out several very strong reasons to keep the article.
  2. Since my 'vote' was discounted, the closing administrator apparently just treated AfD as a a democracy. However, even using that standard, the 'vote' was only three to two in favour of deletion.
  3. One of the 'votes' was made by the closing admin himself, which makes his, uh, let's say neutrality questionable, though it's not technically against policy. Why couldn't he have let someone else close the AfD?
  4. Many reliable sources were provided for the article, but the closing administrator claimed in his reasoning that none were.
  5. The closing administrator also claims that the subject of the article was not-notable, despite the fact that he is a very successful poker player, with many independant articles written about him, and is notorious for being a 'big name' professional player publically outted for cheating.

I believe these are strong grounds to reflect on the process used to delete the article and, I hope, undelete it. Love, Coyote (t) 22:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answers by closing admin:

  1. I noted that the vote was discounted, because 'head count' is still among the guidelines. Your agruments are your opinion only, without proofs based on solid references. Why didn't you add reputable references in the article?
  2. The vote was four to two, and the deletion was based on serious flaws of the article.
  3. There is a guideline that the nominating admin cannot be closing admin. I have no vested interests in poker. I never edited articles on the topic. I judged the article on its merits. I specifically indicated in the closing argument that I am not against its recreation provided minimum verifiability conditions satisfied.
  4. False statement. The article as it stood did not have a single source, reliable or not.
  5. False statement.
  6. Finally, I'd like to commend Coyote because they themselves informed me about this discussion.

I believe there are no valid grounds presented by Coyote. `'mikka (t) 23:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't like the fact that the closing admin voted and then closed, but the closure amounts to a "fails WP:V" closure, which is what the closing admin's "vote" expressed. Regarding "new editor", all your August 10 edits cite policy. Did you have a prior account? ~ trialsanderrors 22:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I alluded to in my post, there were many reliable sources providing verifiability for most of the information in the article. I believe that at worst, the article should have been made into a short, completely verifiable stub. Love, Coyote (t) 23:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't find anything even remotely reliable searching Newsbank and Lexis-Nexis. I find a lot of chatter on the internets, but in a case where unreliable information would amount to an attack page, I see how the blog and forum posts are being discounted. Any examples of the reliable sources you mention? (And I'm not talking about the Business Week link). ~ trialsanderrors 23:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's a big difference between alluding to reliable sources and actually producing them. All that's mentioned in the AFD is forum postings, which are most assuredly not reliable sources. The lack of sources is the problem here. Fan-1967 02:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not restore. If rewriting based on reputable sources is possible, by all means, please rewrite. There is no rule in wikipedia that forbids doing this: recreation is subject for speedy deletion, but rewriting (that addresses the concerns expressed during deletion process) is not. `'mikka (t) 23:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure despite reservations about the formulation. Once it is determined to be a WP:V violation headcounts don't really matter. ~ trialsanderrors 00:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn per Mangojuice's links. ~ trialsanderrors 18:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, and obviously allow recreation if not. Coyote is quite right that his comments should not be discounted just because (s)he is new. And before Mikkalai came along and voted right before closing, the "head count" was 3-2 for deletion, which is hardly a consensus. And while we're at it, WP:V is non-negotiable, but verifiability is different from being sourced, and articles don't have to be perfect. This article is clearly verifiable, as Coyote was saying, and as checks out in a google search: [1], [2]. The article should be undeleted so the effort doesn't have to be duplicated. Mangojuicetalk 08:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

  1. Well, Justin seems to have deleted any reference to his cheating from his website. However, a copy of his apology as well as some other facts can be found here.
  2. The Washington Post article, while written before Justin was outted for cheating, can certainly be used as a source for information about him, including his earlier career.
  3. Another reliable, independant source from a poker news site.
  4. A database entry detailing some of Justin's live tournament wins.
  5. Here is a forum posting from the subject himself describing his cheating.

I found these sources with just a few Google searches, and I'm sure more could be found. My recommendation is that we overturn and heavily edit the article to become neutral, well-sourced, and verifiable, which could have been done in the first place, rather than deleting the article. Love, Coyote (t) 14:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn per Coyote and Mangojuice. The discussion was, to me, clearly one of no consensus. It is unreasonable to discount the comments of a new (or even anonymous) editor, particularly when an AfD is a discussion and not a vote. In addition, I have no objection to this being relisted. Agent 86 18:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On what basis is there a need to "speedy" keep closed? And what do you think of the several links above that have been provided as sources? Surely if those are reasonable sources, it makes more sense to edit from the previous version of an article than to write a new article from scratch that should be deleted. And WP:V, by the way, does NOT say that all articles without sources should be deleted, and it especially does not say that there should be no need for debate in such cases. Mangojuicetalk 19:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at least three of us have expressed concern that the consensus was very weak, and that Mikka voted in the AfD before closing it. Mangojuicetalk 04:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Muneem Patel

Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Muneem Patel (multi article afd)

Afd subjects were individual articles on each of the suspects in the 2006 transatlantic aircraft terrorist plot. (suspects have details in main article) The arguments for deletion was WP:BLP concerns, due to lack of WP:RS, WP:NOT (news service/crystyal ball) and WP:N wasn't sufficent to warrent individual articles. Arguments for keeping were based on being notable as they're in the news, and more information will be forthcoming. (disclaimer, argued for delete, so that's my reading of the pros and cons)

In my view, the main argument was poorly sourced negitive material (many references were "a paper reported an unnamed person as saying...", very far from the "high quality references" required by WP:BLP.

I raised this with the closing admin, who said that he "wasn't overly concerned about WP:BLP in this case, since we are talking about terrorists", (which they are not, they are terror suspects) so I feel this closure as non consensus is incorrect as disregarding WP:BLP based on "personal opinion" is unacceptable, and the arguments for deletion WP:NOT/WP:BLP/WP:RS/WP:V/WP:N are all strongly based on policy, and vastly outweigh those for keeping. Regards, MartinRe 18:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure. Closing admin did the best job possible. Multi-noms can be messy, and this is a good example of why: those articles are not equally deletable. One could discount SlimVirgin's vote and those agreeing with SV for articles other than the one named, but if one article is worth keeping, it's probably worth having a more precise debate. My suggestion: if someone wants these merged, just merge them, an AfD debate isn't necessary. If people fight inappropriately to keep a tiny, unsourced article around, that makes a much better AfD nom. Mangojuicetalk 08:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per above. I remember I created the article backed by a BBC News report, which meets WP:V/WP:RS unless you dispute the reliability of the agency. - Mailer Diablo 16:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The information you created it with (name, age, and that he was a suspect) was (and is) already in the main article. I would also suggest that creating an article on a suspect in the news based on that minimal info for "organic growth" as you put it, is dangerous, potentially harmful, and contrary to the requirement to "write conservatively" as per WP:BLP. As you can see the additional information added to the article isn't as well supported with references, in fact there there were no listed references added, and only one inline one to a newspaper I haven't heard of. By having an article for indivisual suspects, this creates a honeypot where editors gather together tabloid/hasty spectualtion which has no place in an an encyclopedia. As you brought up precedent in the debate, please look at the precedent in another similiar article on a suspect that was in the news, namely Mohammed Abdul Kahar where the same thing happened, many negative/sensationalist information added, backed by a "source" which turned out to be complete rubbish. So why do the same thing again? Regards, MartinRe 17:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:BLP says remove the offensive portion, not delete the entire article just because there are parts where its contents are poorly sourced. Surely I see at least some of the suspects articles properly sourced by reputable news agencies (see Umar Islam). AfD would be totally clogged with thousands of biographies just because you think that, say 2 out 10 sources provided you consider to be "rubbish". - Mailer Diablo 18:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If removing the poorly sourced potion leaves little left (and that little is already elsewhere) then deletion would be expected. The article you reference doesn't have high qualtiy sources in my view, for one thing news reports printed the next day are generally more unreliable, and those sources also use "a neighbour told a paper that". I still believe that creating individual articles for crime suspects is potentially harmful, and totally against WP:BLP#Writing_style as a "strategy of eventualism" should not apply, which expecting organic growth based on breaking news stories is. YMMV, of course. Regards, MartinRe 18:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GamingPeak

This article was started today, as an artice on the history of GamingPeak and as an information source for those who want to learn more about the site. I feel this deletion was unneccessary and there was no good reason to delete it. I didn't even have the chance to finish writing the article. This article was deleted by User:CambridgeBayWeather. A reasonable reason was not given, all that I recieved was: It's not a notable website so please stop reposting that. You'll just end up being blocked for disruption. I didn't repost anything, I only just started writing the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zygar2k6 (talk • contribs)

Are yoy sure it was not created before.? I see that it has been protected against recreation and that is rare for articles deleted for the first time. --Edgelord 18:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it was repeatedly posted, first as Gaming Peak ([3]) until that one was protected, and then as GamingPeak([4]). Fan-1967 19:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Theta Beta Potata

This article was first started by me and was deleted back in May '06. I was reading the punk house article and saw that the link for the TBP article was no longer red so I clicked on it and there was an article back up, started by another user. I dont know who started it because, it was deleted soon after I saw it. The decision made in the "Article for Deletion" debate should be reconsidered. The article is about a punk house not a fratenal organization. It seems that the debate, run by User:ChrisB and results were reported by User:Mailer Diablo, was run while this misperception prevailed amonst the participants. I will post this on their talk pages. This is the first time I have requested a deletion review so please let me know what else I need to do. If there is anything. I am on wikipedia frequently and I want to learn. Thanks. Xsxex 16:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not entirely sure how inherently notable any of these houses are on their own, but I do know that it seems a bit odd to merge this one into punk house while letting other similar houses stand as separate articles and/or redlinks destined to become separate articles. I also know that G4 does not cover new and substantially rewritten articles of previously deleted titles; to qualify as a G4 speedy, it has to be a reposting of the same article, and having compared the original AFD'd version to the most recent one, I can confirm they're vastly too different to apply G4 here. (If any non-admin wants to see for themselves, I'd be willing to post the two different versions to a subpage somewhere.) So I have to go with overturn deletion. If anybody still feels it's not notable enough, then there's always the option of conducting a new AFD, but speedying it on G4 grounds is absolutely a non-starter. Bearcat 23:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure It doesn't matter if it's a punk house or a fraternity. There are thousands of venues in the world - there is absolutely nothing noteworthy about this one. If you could feasibly tie it in with another band - eg, if a notable band played their first show there - maybe it would suffice. But consensus is that Wikipedia should not include articles on topics that aren't noteworthy.
This venue's existence doesn't make it notable. Linking to articles that show that bands played there doesn't make it notable. If you want this article to remain, explain what makes this venue important. Right now, the paragraph there doesn't make ANY assertions of notability. (For the record, articles mentioning its existence don't explain notability.) All it says is that it was founded and that bands played there. Honestly, there's nothing in that paragraph that even justifies its inclusion in the punk house article.
None of the punk house venue articles presently linked on punk house meet notability. Dial House should be merged into Crass (band) because the articles share content and the venue's notability is inextricably tied to the band. C-Squat is completely lacking any claim of notability, save for the extremely minor issue of ownership rights, which isn't unique - it's been an issue with many venues of this type.
There are no specific proposals that apply to music venues, but I think the explanations contained in Wikipedia:Notability (hotels) cover it pretty closely. We could theoretically have articles on every major hotel in existence, but we don't. See also WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
I must be missing some part of the discussion about the speedy deletion. The original article was deleted for notability concerns, and I can't see any indication that a subsequent rewrite has changed the original argument of notability. I see a bunch of new sources that don't assert notability, but that's the only obvious change. -- ChrisB 01:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's your prerogative to prod those articles or send them to AfD. On speedy delete, G4 doesn't include rewrites, only copies of the original articles. So unless any of the other speedy criteria applies a rewritten article deserves its day in AfD court. ~ trialsanderrors 02:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrites should clearly address the concerns of the original AfD. Simply rewording the original content shouldn't count as a "rewrite". (Even G4 doesn't say that content has to be exactly the same, just "substantially identical".) As far as I can tell, and assuming that the segment in punk house is his rewrite, he hasn't addressed ANY of the problems from the original AfD that resulted in its deletion, apart from the claimed "confusion" about it being a punk house and not a fraternity (even though his own version includes the fact that it was connected to a fraternity). He still hasn't established notability.
Another angle: the original AfD concluded that the subject was not notable. Unless the rewrite asserted further notability, the article could readily be speedied under A7. -- ChrisB 03:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See the same discussion directly below on Buy4Now. The key word here isn't "substantial" or "identical" but "copy". Rewrites aren't copies, reposts with minor edits are still copies. I agree on A7, which of course is restricted to people or groups, but that might apply here. ~ trialsanderrors 07:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wow, ChrisB, you sure show your true colors. You've made a comparison between punk houses and hotels. That comparison hardly helps clarify anything. As it stands, this discussion is about punk houses, and it would be sensible to regard punk houses as being completely separate from not only other types of music venues, but definitely apart from hotels. There may be a number of punk houses across the country/globe, but few of them are even listed here. Moreover, the nature of punk houses, as DIY, on the fly operations makes them very difficult to gather ANY information on them at all. The fact that the Theta Beta Potata is mentioned in a number of articles, tour lists, frequented by notable bands, and described by a notable band as the best place they've ever played at makes it a notable punk house within the context of the punk house universe. Furthermore, the fact that bands like Strike Anywhere, Cursive (band), Thursday (band), and Fall Out Boy played there is also important when coming to an understanding about the way the punk community works and how bands and styles develop. As it is there is an article called Honky punk which has been sittin' pretty for almost a year. Why not spend precious time trying to get rid of junk like that instead of expunging wikipedia of content which actually adds new dimensions to the encyclopedia. (Not that I would delete Honky Punk, because I dont take it upon myself to delete ANYTHING on wikipedia, tell me why i should). Wikipedia might actually be the only website in the world to have an article exclusively about punk houses. Since punk houses are a real phenomenon in the punk community it is a testament to the diversity and accuracy of wikipedia as a reflection of actual things in the world. To wrap it up, a topic such as punk houses should not be compared to hotels or other topics which would have many more thousands of times more potential articles. Punk houses are few and far between and the Theta Beta Potata is an exceptional example amongst them. There needs to be a much different criteria when considering if a punk house is notable or not. Also I'm not sure you want to Endorse Closure as currently the majority of the comments are to Overturn deletion Xsxex 04:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist or overturn and let someone relist it if they want. Speedy G4 doesn't apply, and enough work has been done on the article that it's more appropriate to debate keeping it at AfD than to debate whether it can be recreated here. Mangojuicetalk 08:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist AfD debate in good faith. - Mailer Diablo 10:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist at AfD, where it will without doubt be deleted by overwhelming consensus, so the whole thing is a waste of time and effort. But it doesn't meet G4 or any other CSD, so to AfD we go. Herostratus 18:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why do I even try? I must be a indelible moron! Xsxex 23:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buy4Now

This article was deleted by User:Phaedriel as a CSD G4, when its not. The original but substantially different article was AfD'ed back in July, but the replacement article bears little resemblence to the original one, so a G4 is invalid. The replacement article could have been placed on AfD legitimately, however. --Kiand 14:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • At Kiand's request I have undeleted for the purposes of discussion, and removed the speedy tag that came with it. I agree the content is different, but am not sure it's "substantially" different. I adjuge the article to still suffer the same issues, as it stands now as it did at the time of the AfD. It needs evidence of notability (merely being used by major companies doesn't fit) per WP:CORP. I think Phaedriel, who is a very thoughtful, albeit new, admin, took that into consideration in her delete, and I Endorse deletion (barring someone substantially changing this article to address concerns) without prejudice against a subsequent recreate. I will redelete at the end of this discussion if necessary. ++Lar: t/c 16:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close send to AfD, we're not here to discuss content but deletion decisions (in short: AfD valid, G4 not valid). ~ trialsanderrors 17:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC) | Updated, see below. ~ trialsanderrors 18:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought of a speedy and send to AfD, actually but I think this one (on the face of the evidence presented and my review of the content) was G4 valid, hence my comment. I recognise others may differ... ++Lar: t/c 20:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Depends how you look at it. This isn't an exact copy of the article, making G4 slightly dodgy. On the other hand, it's not hugely different and the article got slaughtered at AFD last time. Why put it through process again so soon? --kingboyk 21:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like the editors were somewhat divided on WP:CORP but slammed the article for spamming. The current one clearly cuts down on the processed meat compared to the AfD'd one, so not really a G4, especially since G4 requires an substantially identical copy. ~ trialsanderrors 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think we differ on what "substantially identical" means... I'm a bit more loose with it than you are I suspect... which is fine, and I won't be too sussed if this goes to AfD again, or even if it gets vastly improved. But I suspect that as it stands now (as of last I checked) it would not survive AfD again. I don't require word for word, and the facts are more or less in congruence with the deleted version which is identical enough to me. So if it's going to get deleted at AfD, why force the process for process's sake. If the article is substantially improved by the time the DrV ends, fine, but otherwise I think endorse is the most efficient outcome. Why process wonk for no reason? ++Lar: t/c 04:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There would be many ways to express your interpretation in a simple rule, but the words "identical" and "copy" should better not be used. The problem with reading G4 as "similar in substance" is that rewrites are often done by new editors who are completely unaware that an old article was deleted, and who are then rightfully surprised that their work disappears within minutes of creation. My reading is that G4 is solely for the case were editors try to revert the AfD decision. The current version suffers from microsourceitis more than anything, but sadly that is not a speedy criterion either. ~ trialsanderrors 07:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I see no effort to address the concerns of the AfD at all; this is substantially identical material, and I think G4 applies. Oh, and I don't think we should allow recreation here without some very new material and sources: this seems like an obvious WP:CORP violation. Mangojuicetalk 08:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Actually looking at the edit history I have to call this a valid G4 now per admission by the recreating editor: original deleted due to people not having a clue how to research notibility, recreated. Even though the text differs, the intent to revert the AfD consensus is clear. My apologies to Phaedriel for not spotting this earlier. ~ trialsanderrors 18:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The intention was to recreate the article legitimately, as is completely allowed. I had no access to nor no idea of the original content, hence it cannot be a G4 - its a different article. DRV deals with process, and nothing else. --Kiand 20:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also stand by what I said, because the organisation is notable, and everyone who voted to delete based on its Hormel-packaged-meat content could easily have removed the offending content themselves but took the all-too-common sheep like approach of just voting delete, in the knowledge that an article can be recreated. Which it was, and then deleted entirely out of process. And that out-of-process deletion is all DRV covers, you're welcome to AfD the current content, but not speedy it. --Kiand 20:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Delphine Wikipedians

This category was deleted after a CFD closed and its result was listed as "delete", but in actuality there were two votes for deletion and two votes (one was my own) to keep it. (This is my first time requesting an undeletion; let me know if this isn't the correct place to start my efforts.)

The category in question was a user category created to accompany the userbox Template:User delphine, both of which are intended solely for humor (unless we actually do have dolphins editing Wikipedia, although that seems rather improbable to me ;) )

CameoAppearance 00:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to link the CFD: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 8#Category:Delphine Wikipedians. CameoAppearance 00:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - CFD is not a vote. Syrthiss 12:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. CfD may not be a vote, but the closer ought to at least provide some reasoning for a decision if it isn't obviously in sync with the raw numbers. This looks like a clear no-consensus to me; even if both "Keep" recommendations were discounted (and I note that we don't know why the closer did so), that leaves only two people commenting on the deletion. That's not enough for a consensus in my view. Powers T 13:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonsense. When closing a discussion, the strength of the argument is judged — here, we have well-thought out, logical rationales for deletion, but all that is used in support of keeping is the fact there are other categories like it, and one that even admits that the category is "not that useful". Clearly, keep deleted.--SB | T 20:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. If you're talking "raw numbers", you're talking voting. Regardless, though, in my mind this came down to common sense. Nobody who uses the userbox is, in fact, a dolphin. Never has been a dolphin, never will be a dolphin. If you want to go insisting you are a dolphin via a userbox, that's your business. But that doesn't mean we need to have an accompianing category for it. As for the number of people commenting, I've closed discussions that had one person with an opinion, the nominator. Rationale: Of the people that chose to comment (the nominator), the consensus was unanimous. In closing, common sense, you're not a dolphin, the number of actual dolphin users in the category is zero and will always be zero, because there are no dolphin users. --Kbdank71 13:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the person who nominated the category for deletion. I am going to remain neutral on this discussion, but I will point out that the issue is whether or not humorous categories are appropriate. Quite a few have been put up for deletion, and there isn't much consistency in how they turn out. Some get deleted and some don't. Personally, I am against humorous categories because they interfere with legitimate uses of categories, but there are others who disagree with this view and believe that Wikipedians should be free to put themselves in whatever categories they want. --Cswrye 16:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it is important to reiterate that there is a difference between a category (or article, or essay) that uses humor to make a point or improve delivery of a message etc, (very appropriate) and one that exists purely for humor. This one seems rather the latter and thus I think deletion was appropriate but I haven't dug in enough to actually say, hence I leave this as a comment. ++Lar: t/c 20:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While a humorous user category is relatively harmless as these things go, I can't say I think this is important enough to warrant reconsideration; I'm comfortable with the closing admin's reasoning. Endorse deletion. Bearcat 23:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. What some people see as humor, other see clutter and falsehood. This category is against the main goal of wikipedia: to create an encyclopedia, not a jolly playground. There are plenty of places in the internets for humor and pranks. `'mikka (t) 02:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Mikka and others. Debates are not a vote, and this is one of those bizarre cases where the keep voters made arguments that supported deletion. You can express a preference either way, but what matters is the outcome of the debate and how that matches up with wikipedia practices. This category could be moved to WP:BJAODN. Mangojuicetalk 08:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. There are no delphenic Wikipedians. The category is useless. KleenupKrew 21:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion It's funny until it's brought up at DRV. Then it's just wasting other people's time. ~ trialsanderrors 05:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_August_23&oldid=72020045"