Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alpha269 (talk | contribs) at 22:49, 12 March 2006 (→‎[[John Bambenek]]: to hell with the facts.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Content review

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

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


Proposed deletions

Articles deleted under the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion procedure (using the {{PROD}} tag) may be undeleted, without a vote, on reasonable request. Any admin can be asked to do this, alternatively a request may be made here. However, such undeleted articles are open to be speedy deleted or nominated for WP:AFD under the usual rules.

History only undeletion

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

Decisions to be reviewed

Shortcut

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

 
1.

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

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

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

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

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 September 17}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

4.

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

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 September 17}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 September 17|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".

Important notice: all userbox undeletions are being discussed on a subpage: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates. Please post all new such requests there (though you may link them from this page if you like)

12 March 2006

Userboxes

This was deleted on March 7, 2006. It was a rediect that redirected to wikipedia:userboxes.Apparently, it was a "soft redirect", though it was no different than any other redirect. I fought fouriously to keep it undeleted after some whacked out conspiricy, but the other side got thier way. I request this gets undeleted, as it's a pain in the ass to get to the userbox page and because it wan't really a soft redirect. Thank you. The Republican 22:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arc Flashlights

On 1 February 2006 this article was deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arc Flashlights. The stated reason was spam/advertising, which seems in error. The company (Arc Flashlights LLC) no longer exists and their products are no longer manufactured. There is an existing company with a similar name, but I don't think the article was about that.

The article is needed for historical business/technical reference as Arc Flashlights LLC manufacturered the first Luxeon LED flashlight, the genesis of a product type now widely used. There are many current articles on various flashlight companies, watch companies, etc, so deleting this one seems very selective.

I have no relationship to the company or products, flashlights are just a hobby. Request the article be undeleted. If there are any spam/advertising elements (despite the company no longer existing), I'll be happy to fix them. Joema 13:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that an article should be written on Arc Flashlights, which are notable and encyclopedic as a generic product. Based on the AfD, I'd assume that this article was like that, however. At least in the case of advertising, sometimes no article is better than one that violates policy. Please, though, feel free to create a NPOV article about the history of the product. Endorse closure as usual, without prejudice against an improved recreation. Xoloz 16:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 March 2006

Category:Roman Catholic actors

Postdlf deleted Category:Roman Catholic actors today as a recreation of a previously deleted category, citing an August CfD. At the time I (re)created the category, I was unaware of the previous CfD, and was simply attempting to subcategorize Category:Roman Catholics.

The parent category is hard to use as it contains several hundred articles (Special:Categories lists 802, which is after I moved a few hundred into subcats). I think the deletion decision should be reviewed, as Wikipedia:Categorization states: When a given category gets crowded, also consider making several subcategories. Group similar articles together in a meaningful and useful way that will make it easy for readers to navigate later. In my opinion, dividing a category of people by their occupation is a meaningful division. Gentgeen 07:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colignatus

If I understand correctly: "To nominate a page for undeletion, place the page title on Wikipedia:Deletion review, with the reason why you think it should be undeleted. Sign and date your entry (Colignatus 02:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)). "[reply]

I noticed that the article Colignatus has been deleted with no trace of its existence.

If there is a strong opinion that this article should not exist, so be it, but then I would like to have the text, to use in wikinfo, and it would be wonderful, if that is not too much work, if it is sent to me by email (see my talk page).

I started the page Colignatus in the main body of the text since it would allow readers an overview of my work as an economist. (See list of economists where I don't occur now.) My work is in various directions, but it would help readers to link these directions (as I link them up). And readers would generally not look at a user talk page since they might not know that I am a user (for the time being).

I also wonder who deleted me, and with what argument. There now is a distressing dispute on Borda fixed point, where another user User:Fahrenheit451 referred a year ago to my invention of that particular voting system, where I corrected the text, linked up with voting system, and where User:Rspeer suddenly started an attack that I consider to be full of bias. He apologized a couple of times for being too rash, but always came back with new attacks. As he started to remove other contributions by me with similar bias, I just wonder whether he is behind this removal. Though he need not be, of course. It just would help clarity to know who deleted it, and with what purpose.

Obviously, wikipedians are sensitive to users creating their own articles, but if you see the text, then you might agree that it is only short and factual, allowing readers to link up on proper content.

And if you would disagree about the content, perhaps a re-edit is better than complete deletion. Colignatus 02:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 04:12, March 9, 2006 Sean Black deleted "Colignatus" (No claim to notability) is the text on the deletion log, so it was not Fahrenheit451. I have sent you the text in email per your request. --Syrthiss 03:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because of the inherent difficulties maintaining perspective, balance and a neutral point of view, we have a pretty strong prohibition against autobiographies. It's not an absolute rule but it is very good advice that if you're notable enough to be included in the encyclopedia, someone else should write the article. On that basis, I would strongly urge you to invest the time in other articles and in your userpage. Have faith - it it's relevant to their work, other people will find your userpage. Rossami (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Syrthiss. It is a relief to have the text again, and now I put it at Colignatus at wikinfo. (1) It is good to know how and why it got deleted. It is a pity that Sean Black did not warn me on my talk page. I hope he sees this and reconsiders his rash act. (2) Of course I'm not "notable". My work has been censored by the Dutch government, I'm waiting for this censorship to be lifted, and in the mean time (which is now for 16 years) I only show others indications about what the censorship is about, so that they can start doing something about that censorship. Thus there little chance to get "notable", at least in the common sense of citations, though I don't know how you would value the access statistics at my page at RepEc. Thus, I mean, that criterion is little helpful. (3) I knew about that autobio criterion, Rossami, but as you said, it is not an absolute rule. In this case I have really considered all aspects and decided that starting this overview article on my contributions to economic theory would be best, see the explanation I gave and wikinfo. I entered into wikipedia contributions on the minimum wage, tax void, Stagflation, Economic Supreme Court, Separation of powers, Arrow's impossibility theorem, Borda Fixed Point, Economics and Risk, not as original research as it was some time ago, but as encyclopedic review and reasoned argument with respect to the existing texts in wikipedia. My edits greatly improved the value of the articles to the readers. It would help readers to understand where these contributions came from and how these are linked in my work. For example you cannot understand the issue of the minimum wage if you don't understand that in the current set-up of economic policy making you are consistently lied to by the government. If that explanation of the usefulness of link up and reference to the original author is not convincing, so be it. (4) I have great optimistic faith that the censorship will be ended eventually so that people can freely use my work, but perhaps there first must be another world war or a Collapse. (5) However, it would be wrong for readers to go to my user page, since this page is editted by me for different purposes than an encyclopedia article on my work. Sincerely Yours, Colignatus 15:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 March 2006

Michael Crook

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Crook

This article was voted as a keep, despite a strong consensus for delete. The decision to keep it was a biased one, and a review is requested. This article has no relevance. More importantly, it is rife with inaccuracies. Numerous corrections have been made with accurate facts, only to be deleted by Rhobite and other WP admins who appear to be biased against the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.157.29.196 (talk • contribs) March 10, 2006 (UTC) Michael Crook (AfD discussion)

  • Endorse closure. Looks to be a valid AfD and AfD closure. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure This DRV nomination is unsigned, for starters. The closer is Splash; the chances of him making a mistake are very close to zero, for seconds. This discussion, however, wasn't even close. Valid AfD, notable subject, no relevant reason for review given. Xoloz 03:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Vandalism, WP:OWN and inaccuracy are not grounds for deletion, even if that were the case here (which I am not sure about). Just zis Guy you know? 09:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Clearly valid keep result on the AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, speedily if possible to prevent another outbreak of sockpuppetry here. Possible bad faith AfD, probably bad faith DRV, certainly utterly pointless when the reason for review is self-contradictory ("This article was voted as a keep, despite a strong consensus for delete"). There was aclear keep consensus. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a poorly written article on an eminently forgettable fellow. However, there can be no doubt as to the AFD consensus, nor the correctness of Splash's decision—he's right, as usual. On this matter of bad faith, I must disagree. When we say that someone is acting in bad faith, we imply that he is acting with malicious intentions; when the charge is unqualified, it usually means "malicious intentions with respect to the well-being or integrity of the encyclopedia". An example of someone acting in bad faith is the vandal who surreptitiously inserts subtle errors into articles, purely to damage the encyclopedia. I do not think that the nominator possesses any such frightful motivations: he's just a chap who dislikes the article, probably because he has been unable to make it stay the way he wants it to. Newer users or those not quite accustomed to Wikipedia norms may say things about consensus or article deletion or article policy that can strike Wikipedian ears as decidedly odd. This does not mean that they act in bad faith, and we should be careful not to label them so—it does little to promote understanding and goodwill. cf the third paragraph of WP:FAITH. —Encephalon 16:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. To address nom's concerns: Closure was not biased; it appropriately reflected the discussion that took place. DRV is not the place to discuss the relevance or factual accuracy of the article; relevance was discussed at the AfD, and factual inaccuracies (which are grounds for article improvement via consensus editing; never deletion) should be addressed at the article's talk page. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Azure_Sheep

Deletion details: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Azure_Sheep

This a Half-Life mod and was deleted based as part of a retaliation (check the deletion details). This mod haves more then 200,000 downloads and was released in several computer magazines. Only 5 people agreed with the delete and based on their personal option about the mod. Not liking something shouldnt be reason to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snewerl (talk • contribs)

  • Endorse closure The participants in the AfD said little about whether they liked or disliked this mod, only that it was non-notable. The fact that retaliation might have played a role in the nom. is irrelevant in cases where the questioning of notability is legitimate. We must AGF on the nominator's part, and obviously his concern with notability was legitimate, as the participants agreed with the nomination. Valid AfD, no relevant reason given to initiate review, no new evidence presented. Xoloz 03:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete They said it is non-notable based on their opinion. What defines a mod as notable? What evidences are needed? A complete list of the magazines that release the mod? A list of users that played the mod? Search the internet. You will find tons of sites that have Azure Sheep and talk about it. What you are saying? That Wikipedia is not a Free Excyclopedia where diferent contents can be found but a place that haves only what a small number of people that cares about the AfD allow to be here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snewerl (talk • contribs)
  • Endorse closure. Valid AfD decision, closed properly, no new evidence presented which would theoretically have changed it. Mods for online computer games have a sky-high cruft multiple; digging through the Google hits there is nothing that presents itself as a reliable source on which to base an article. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an experiment in anarchy, thus non-notable games have to be deleted because articles about them can't be properly verified and neutral. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted unanimously valid AfD. I like the DRV nominator's "only five people agreed with the delete" comment. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What evidences are needed? What makes a mod notable to avoid deletion? --Snewerl
    • If you'd like to see some examples of articles on notable mods, check out Hot Coffee mod (notable due to media furor it created) and Counter-Strike (notable as genre-defining game and created a culture all its own). By far, the vast majority of game mods, however, are not notable enough on their own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If a mod needs to be that notable, then all the mod pages have to deleted since only those two manage to do that or something similar... Snewerl
        • You're right, and nearly all of them are deleted when they come up for AFD. Just because a non-notable article exists doesn't mean Wikipedia wants it there, it just means nobody's noticed it and bothered to AFD it yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It makes sence but then why the Half-Life mods Category exists and other pages related to the subject? Snewerl
  • Keep Deleted unanimous valid AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kd per Sam and Xoloz. —Encephalon 17:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. 200,000 downloads likely meets the criteria laid out in WP:SOFTWARE. If this is true, the article should probably be undeleted, altered to reflect the evidence of notability, and relisted. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Following the WP:SOFTWARE, it was also released in this magazines: The Games Machine (Italy); Swiat Gier Komputerowych (Poland); PC Zone (Uk, also reviewed on Modwatch); PCGamer (UK); Computer Gaming World (USA); GameStar (Germany) and PC Format (UK). It was also reviewed in various mod/games related sites like, for example, PlanetHalfLife (a well known game/mod related site, part of gamespy). Snewerl

Samurang

This article underwent speedy deletion [1] soon after nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samurang). But I think the decision does not meet a criterion for speedy deletion. Deltabeignet claimed it was an "attack page". In my understanding, "attack pages" have to do with defamation of character just like the example: "John Citizen is a moron" (Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion). Samurang is not the case. Undelete. --Nanshu 01:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • For an article to be speedy-deleted as an attack page, every non-blanked version must be an attack. I think that some of the earliest versions of this article were judgment calls. Judgments are made thru AFD, not via speedy. Overturn the speedy-deletion and reopen the AFD discussion. Rossami (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and list on AfD per Rossami. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete/relist per Rossami. Xoloz 03:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, it was a valid interpretation of CSD A6, and I very much doubt it would have survived AfD; this article seems to me to serve no purpose other than to disparage the (non-titular) subject, Haidong Gumdo: Samurang is one of fabrications by Haidong Gumdo, who says it was a name for Goguryeo warriors and the origin of samurai. [...] The word Samurang is, however, never appeared in history books [...]] Haidong Gumdo coined this word so that it sounds similar to samurai in the modern Korean language. Considering the ultimate etymology of samurai, the verb samorafu, the fabrication is seemingly obvious to Japanese, but some uninformed Koreans and Westerners are deceived. If this minor fiction is of encyclopaedic merit it can be covered in Samurai (in neutral terms, unlike this article) and a redirect established here. Just zis Guy you know? 09:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per JzG above. Foreign-language loanwords and when they should and shouldn't be in WP was extensively debated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kawaii. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, and that precedent was a keep. Precedential power at AfD is weak anyway, but this one appears to point in the opposite direction. If you are making some point about the reasoning used in the prior debate, that sort of analysis (not the direct result) has even less precedental power. Please clarify. Xoloz 19:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halliburton_shill

This article underwent speedy deletion.

I received no notification until I visisted the site, even though the article is on my watch list. It is not a personal attack. Halliburton is a public corporation. Shill is a well defined term found in any dictionary. Dick Cheney is a public figure. Relevant Wikipedia articles are linked too.

I have a rewritten version that will make the general use of the term more understanable for those lacking background, and even those that abuse the term disparage in attemtping to make the article something that it isn't.

Regarding 1 of the comments that only 111 matches on google for the phrase Halliburton shill, here's some more statistics for you to consider that would be included in the revised article:

As of September 29, 2005, a search for Dick-Cheney shill returned 50,700 results. Today (2006.03.10), the same search returns 89,000 results[2].

2005.09.29 Halliburton shill returned 44,500 results. Other references to shills for Halliburton (e.g., "shill for Halliburton") obviously get missed on a simple phrase search. As of 2006.03.10, 54,800 results[3].

2005.09.29 pages that discussed Halliburton shill without any mention of Cheney equaled 10,500 (44,500 - 10,500 = 34,000 pages where Cheney is mentioned). As of 2006.03.10, 14,900 (50,700 - 14,900 = 35,800)[4]. 13,700 of those mention Bush instead[5]. --Halliburton Shill 04:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse speedy deletion. While it's debatable that it could be deleted as an attack page, since Cheney is a public figure, it was hopelessly, irreversibly POV, saying that Cheney gained money by giving contracts to Halliburton, and WP:SNOW tells me that it shouldn't matter that it might have been slightly out of process. --Rory096 04:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    List on AfD. Actually, the part of WP:SNOW that Radiant took from my user talk page points out that it sometimes can matter if something like this is done out of process. Viz: this deletion review, which wouldn't need to be happening if everyone could have expressed their opinion in a proper AfD. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and "Halliburton shill" in quotation marks (so it's not just someone using the word Halliburton and the word shill on the same page) yields only 112 results, some of which are Wikipedia, and several are someone making a fake profile on Myspace. --Rory096 04:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And what the hell is this? --Rory096 04:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion. I also note that the page was created by User:Halliburton Shill who has apparently made only two other non-deleted edits to Wikipedia and who may have to be counselled on appropriate usernames. Rossami (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar. Cheney did gain money. Read Wikipedia's own Halliburton page. It has an entire section called "Dick Cheney Ties". Read a CBS article published in 2003. As for the Halliburton search, if it's so common for someone to "just" happen (oops) to use shill and Halliburton on the same page with no intention of them relating to one another, I'm sure it should be easy to provide a link to an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halliburton Shill (talk • contribs)
    • Kommentar. Even if he did gain money off any contracts given to Halliburton- which is false and even REFUTED by the page you point to, this removes any possible doubt in my mind that you're just POV pushing. I try to WP:AGF, but it's very hard when I see something like that page. --Rory096 05:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted. Article created in bad faith, given above link to blog post. android79 05:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also note that the text of the article exists at User:Halliburton Shill as well. android79 05:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kommentar. A personal attack on me in an attempt to justify a delete based on an unsubstantiated personal attack. If you can't understand satire, which I make very clear that blog is on the so-called "POV" page, don't read it. And, no, the Halliburton page does not in any way refute what I claim. At worst, it supports the claim and tries to excuse by reference to a campaign promise. (Turn on satire detector.) I know I make all my decisions based on campaign promises. Just like I still have faith in the promise there are WMDs in Iraq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halliburton Shill (talk • contribs)
      • Kommentar. I'd prefer not to get into a political discussion here, as it's not even the point. Your page was clearly POV, and then you posted on a blog about how you were pushing your POV on Wikipedia. You then claimed Wikipedia was biased towards the right in another blog, while simultaneously saying that I was personally attacking you. By the way, sign your posts with 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~. --Rory096 06:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's established that it is not an attack page, which was the main argument for speedy deletion. And as for POV, that's not mentioned as a reason for any kind of deletion on the speedy page or AfD. That means there is no justification deletion.--Halliburton Shill 07:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion. Mr Shill, Wikipedia is not your soapbox. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion Dick Cheney is pure evil, but that doesn't mean WP will accept an article created in bad faith... "covert operation... sheesh. Xoloz 17:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 March 2006

Will McWhinney

See this version of RfPP for details. This has been used recently to insert attacks on its subject. As a result SlimVirgin is of the opinion this should remain indefinitely protected. FeloniousMonk thinks it should remain protected since it hardly gets edited. Both are wrong since an article that has no current vandal problem should at least give unprotection a whirl of more than the matter of minutes she allowed it, and FeloniousMonk appears to have misunderstood that protection will reduce the amount of edits the article gets.

Then, at WP:RFPP, it suddenly got deleted (on RFPP?!) becauase the "subject had asked for it" to be. A terminated AfD that was keeping it, no decision from Jimbo, no WP:OFFICE action. Just a summary deletion of an article as an alternative to unprotection. Deletion is not such an alternative. Undelete, and either refer to Jimbo or make the case at AfD. -Splashtalk 18:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • My point was this: past history indicates that engaging in a wheel war with Tony is an exercise in futility. While we might not like the way he sometimes goes about things, his judgment on underlying policies and principples is generally sound, and he knows how Jimbo thinks. I would suggest that the effect of disputing or reversing one of Tony's actions will be (a) acrimony and (b) in the end Tony's view will prevail. Like I said above, there is nothing about this character which indicates to me that the encyclopaedic merit is sufficiently great as to justify the effort and acrimony involved in maintaining a neutral biography. Sure, vandalism is not grounds for deletion - but the lack of any evident payback for the effort involved in constantly averting vandalism probably is. This guy gets about 600 Googles, and the number of reliable sources is small enough to make it hard to substantiate much beyond his publication history. I probably would not "vote" delete at AfD, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over his absence from the encyclopaedia - the subject simply doesn't inspire me to engage in yet another wiki-war. There is no deadline, let's wait a year and see what happens. Just zis Guy you know? 10:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I stand corrected, as Tony's reading was closer to the your meaning. If I ever come to agree that Tony and Jimbo are kindred thinkers, I'll have to give up Wikipedia, sadly. Xoloz 17:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • JzG, you are somewhat confused. FeloniousMonk executed the deletion, not Tony Sidaway. Tony Sidaway is not a monster (right, Tony?) to be scared of, and he errs as much as the next human. He also, below, agrees with my nomination suggestion of undeleting and seeking an WP:OFFICE action if re-deletion is warranted. -Splashtalk 17:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I don't think I am confused. I read the exchange at RFPP and there was agreement between three parties, Tony, Felonious and SlimVirgin, that deletion was reasonable. That's how I read it, anyway. Felonious was just the one who happened to click the button, it seems to me. Just zis Guy you know? 23:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete/list somewhere Folks... there isn't supposed to be a cabal. Three admins, working together, can't decide to delete something. Only Jimbo, AfD, or the Prod process can. Splash is correct. This guy is a professor of some note; whatever the facts regarding his son are, I doubt they justify removal. Nothing (save Jimbo) justifies unilateral removal. Xoloz 21:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I did strongly advise that this deletion should be carried out under WP:OFFICE [6]. There's no great hurry about it so I don't see a problem with undeleting until Jimbo or Danny or someone has looked at it and said it's okay to delete. Presumably the subject of the article has already written them. --Tony Sidaway 05:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wonder what will happen on that magic day when an undeniably very notable someone asks OFFICE to remove himself or herself. "Wikipedia -- a comprehensive encyclopedia, minus the people who complained to us about themselves." Sigh. That is for another day, though. Xoloz 05:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And as anyone who clicks on that link will see, we have a decently comprehensive article on John Seigenthaler Sr. No articles were harmed in the making of this film. Last I heard this Wikipedia is not a soap box for the expounding of controversial views - removing disputed biograpies of living people pending close scrutiny seems perfectly reasonable as long as we make it clear why it's happened, and as long as the final portrait includes those criticisms which can be verified from reliable sources. But there is no deadline, we can take our time about it and get it right. Just zis Guy you know? 10:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permanent (or long-term) removal is what concerns me. The integrity of the project also demands that these requests remain truly extraordinary and very rare. Seigenthaler didn't object to the existence of his article, either, only the falsities in it. One day a famous person will say, "I don't belong here -- Expunge Me", and I wonder if the OFFICE folks will have the wisdom and courage to say no, and fight whatever battles may be necessary. Xoloz 06:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per above.  Grue  12:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. This is most unfortunate. Tony and Splash have misrepresented the situation, which was that the article was created, and was being used, as part of a campaign of harassment, and was deleted for that reason, not because the subject requested it (although the subject would be happy to see it deleted, I am sure). Anyone who needs more details is welcome to e-mail me. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. It might be unreasonable to expect an article on Hitler or Japan or Pope John Paul to stay deleted because of harassment of a Wikipedian, but with an article of borderline notability like this one, the need to reduce harassment is more important than the need to keep it. AnnH ♫ 18:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist on AfD. Process matters, even if (as I suspect) the eventual outcome will be the same. See my user page for a brief essay about why. In particular, this out-of-process deletion is likely to inflame the sentiments of people who wish it hadn't taken place, to absolutely no good end. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. This article has been used as an instrument of harassment of an editor. This is a very different case than Seigenthaler. The harasser in this case has been involved in death threats to an editor and to a public person. We do not need to have an article on this subject, of borderline notability, at the present time. Wikipedia is a long term project and waiting a year or two until the harasser leaves is not tragic. Process is important, but not more important than outcome. -Will Beback 23:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. This article is simply being used to harass its subject, who is clear that he wants it deleted. FeloniousMonk 21:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. As Ann. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted as per Ann. Guettarda 22:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Savvica

This article was kept as a no consensus after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savvica. However, I disagree because both the users that voted 'keep' are contributors of the article. Also the administrator states the only reason for deletion is non-notability. Exactly! That is the reason for deletion! The article does not meet the WP:CORP guideline for notability and should be deleted. --Sleepyhead 11:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the closer, I will not vote either way. I will say that what swayed my decision from a "delete" to a "no consensus" was the following argument: "Savvica has been covered on ComputerWorld, eWeek, TechCrunch, InfoTech, MacNN, and hundreds of blogs all in the last 3 months", if this is true, the company would meet point 1 of WP:CORP. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. If Dritter is discounted as too new (5th edit) there is an 80% consensus to delete, usually sufficient, but given that the claims of outside coverage weren't addressed I think there's sufficient grounds to keep the article on the basis of the last AfD, and the article should possibly be relisted so those claims are explictly addressed. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can only find press releases from this company when I search on Google. That is not enough to meet the criteria for notability per WP:CORP. In regards to the user Dritter and Heyjohngreen it is not about the number of edits they have done. It is about what type of edits. Dritter has only edited the Savvica and Nuvvo (a product from Savvica) articles while Heyjohngreen started the Savvica and Nuvvo articles and his other contributions has only included adding links to this. Both these users votes are subjective as they probably work for the company. --Sleepyhead 13:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I understand the close, but the point offered by the that voter needs further inspection, and relisting will accomplish that. Xoloz 16:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure but only weakly, and relist is also acceptable. Nuovvo is, I think, notable - I saw it on a list Ow as pruning and it checked out OK to me. Whether the manufacturer is independently notable I wouldn't like to say. A redirect would be good enough, to my mind. Just zis Guy you know? 17:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorsement of closure. Closing admin used own judgement and understanding of WP policy and guidelines to avoid a possibly unwarranted deletion. Admins aren't robots and shouldn't be expected to behave like vote counting robots; this is a discussion, and the admins are meant to evaluate the consensus of the discussion and then render a final closure based on that discussion with reference to their (supposedly superior) understanding of WP policy and guideline. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random Acts Films

This article was deleted for no reason. -- Doo Doo 00:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Or so you think. It clearly didn't assert notability, nor does it show itself to be notable in Web searches. Keep deleted. --Nlu (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary. It was deleted the first time for being nothing but an external link; the second time for being nothing but an external link plus the text "More content this afternoon."; and the third time because it described a group of people with no apparent claim to notability (see WP:CSD#Articles, number 7). Keep Deleted. android79 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Actually, a reason was given for the latest deletion though it was a bit cryptic. (Prior versions were deleted months ago for being basically contentless.) The deleting admin believed that this qualified for speedy-deletion under criterion A7 - "an article about a real person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." Looking at the content of the article and the linked website, I'm afraid that I would have to agree with that assessment. However, if you can make an assertion that this article might meet one of the generally accepted inclusion criteria (such as WP:BIO, WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC), then we can undelete the article and submit it for a longer discussion and decision using the articles for deletion process. Rossami (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at many of the articles in Category:Comedy_troupes, Random Acts Films is like them. The films have even been shown on Australian TV. -- Doo Doo 02:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The most recent version of the article contains no references other than Random Acts' own website, and thus does not meet the verifiability policy. If Doo Doo can create an article that includes good, verifiable source citations to film magazines, national newspapers, major film websites like imdb, that meets the verifiability policy and that clearly shows how the article meets WP:BIO, WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC, he should compose it--offline or in his user space--then re-create the article when it is decent shape. This would be far better than insisting on dragging the present article through AfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's cool. Can someone post the deleted code into User:Doo Doo/ra. -- Doo Doo 02:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Will do in a minute. --Nlu (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Computerjoe 21:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, list on AfD. Article was deleted as a group of people making no assertion of notability, the interpretation of A7 as covering companies (rather than bands and school clubs, its intended purpose) is contentious, there are some unambiguous assertions of notability above, and this is not the place to debate the merits of the subject - this is to endorse or overturn dleetion decisions. This is definitely not a case of WP:SNOW, if the films have been shown on national TV. Just zis Guy you know? 21:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that it was not deleted as a nn-company, but as an nn-group (an assessment that I agree with given the article), which is subtly but importantly different. Specfically, deletion of nn-companies is not a supported position but nn-groups are, whether they purport to play with instruments or cameras. -Splashtalk 02:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, unprotect if the nominator thinks they can genuinely write a decent stub on this that actually says, with reliable sources (nominator: please read that link) why they are notable. The article as deleted, however, was a speedy in every revision, as observed above and there is no need to restore those absent an improved version to sit on top of them. They'd just get speedied again. -Splashtalk 02:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy, endorse userfication. Nom is invited to familiarize self with Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Notability. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seduction Community

Deleted through AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seduction Community. Please undelete this article. It describes a current relevant phenomenon. Streamless 15:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please provide evidence that it's a "current relevant phenomenon". android79 15:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • book called "The Game..." by Neil Strauss. anticipating the suggestion that there's already an article for the book, the community preceded the events of the book and appears to continue. Streamless 15:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some friendly admin please drop the content of this in my userspace; I have heard the term before, but I want to confirm what this thing said before speaking. Thanks Xoloz 16:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted, valid picking apart of a sockfest. Most sources seem to be blogs, and in any case it seems incredibly crufty, certainly not compelling enough to overturn an AfD. Article history prominently features User:SeductionCommunity which also strongly supports the diagnosis of vanispamcruftisement of the known faces in the AfD debate. Subsequent re-creation also looks like gaming the system. Just zis Guy you know? 17:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure The community does exist, and I (amateur sexologist) find it interesting; however, after a consideration of the available internet sources, I don't think a WP:V article is able to be written at this time. If this "community" does endure, it will become the object of independent interest, and at that time it will become encyclopedic. Xoloz 17:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why don't you think a verifiable article is able to be written? There is extensive coverage of the seduction community both in The_Game_(book_on_Pickup_Artists), and in the news media. What is not verifiable about these sources? Also, it's not true, as you presume, that the community is not an "object of independent interest." The community has received extensive media coverage, will soon be the subject of a movie, and possibly a reality TV show (see Talk:Seduction Community for documentation). That hardly sounds like a lack of "independent interest" to me. --SecondSight 02:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per both votes above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist. I have started documenting the size of the seduction community, and the increasing media attention it is receiving, on Talk:Seduction Community, and I request that everyone voting on the subject please review that page. Some of these news articles on the seduction community have come to light since the the deletion of the original article (such as the announcement that Columbia is making a movie out of The Game, which warrant a reconsidering of the deletion (though I personally think the deletion was undeserved in the first place). On this page alone, I see several misconceptions by voters who endorse closure: that the sources on the community are "mostly blogs," that a verifiable article cannot be written about the seduction community, and that the seduction community is not the "object of independent interest." Since the seduction community is covered in mainstream news sources, including the New York Times and San Francisco Chronicle, all of those claims are false. It seems to me that many opponents of a seduction community article are badly uninformed of the massive size and influence of the community, and of the extensive media attention it has received (which has increased since the original deletion). --SecondSight 02:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, SecondSight, I agree that you do show a very nice collection of sources on the talk page. Please use them to write a new draft of the article incorporating them. Since the article is currently protected, feel free to compose the draft as a subpage of your userspace. I do think that the SC will be encyclopedic sooner or later, but I am not convinced a WP:V article can be written yet -- I invite you to prove your point by showing that it can. If you substantially improve a recreation, it will not be speediable, and we will be happy to review it anew. Xoloz 03:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for acknowledging my efforts to demonstrate the notability of the seduction community. I have drafted a new version of the article on User:SecondSight, and I believe that it is compeletely verifiable. Feel free to suggest improvements to it. --SecondSight 01:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure I am very sorry SecondSight, but it seems to me all you have done is collect the accumulated press clippings that have been spawned by a book publicity campaign. This is an encyclopedia, not an extension of the marketing arm of Strauss' publiusher, Regan Books. Eusebeus 11:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why does it matter whether those articles are part of a "book publicity campaign" or not? They are still verifiable secondary sources published by reputable publishers (I don't see any policy on WP:V saying that book reviews are not admissable if they publicize a book). It is true that many of the articles do reference Strauss' book, though this one doesn't, and neither does Strauss' original NYT article (see Talk:Seduction for citation). Halo.Bungie.Org only has a few news references, yet it was found to be notable and survived deletion. Also, it confuses me that you seem to ignore the other notability evidence I provided. I challenge you, and anyone else who denies the notability of the seduction community, to explain why a community that is the subject of a bestelling book, that involves web communities with tens of thousands of members, that has international branches and meetings (called "lairs" and "summits"), that will be the subject of a movie and prospective reality TV show, and that has 1400+ Google hits (for "seduction community" and "pickup community," which are synonyms) is somehow not notable. Honestly, I believe that the evidence I have provided for notability is overkill (for instance, it much surpasses the notability of Halo.Bungie.Org). --SecondSight 01:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • New At This -- what does "endorse closure" mean? to Eusebeus, i would answer that the community is larger than merely the events of the book. indeed, many members of the community seem to be detractors of the book. admittedly, most of the sources are blogs and commercial websites; nevertheless, the members of the community are continuing to get more attention, irrespective of the source of the attention. moreover, while some of the members of the community have wikipedia articles devoted to them, there is no general article, which i would hope outlines some of the common/popular techniques, trends, strategies, principles, and jargon. please keep an open mind. thanks to SecondSight and Xoloz for their efforts/thoughts. Streamless 13:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate that my comment invites your reply, the fact remains that the process here was perfectly valid, and the fact that what you have accumulated pertains primarily to a publicity campaign regarding the publication of this book does little to answer the charge (pointedly raised in the AfD) that this is a viral marketing campaign. Pointing to other ephemera that have survived AfD because of the highly skewed perspective that the WP community finds notable is missing the point. Eusebeus 10:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse closure means that when the people here reviewed the deletion discussion on AfD, they found that it was closed according to wikipedia guidelines. In this case, the closing admin deleted the article...so Endorse Closure means keep it deleted. --Syrthiss 15:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Deletion review is not the place to rehash the discussion that took place on AfD; it is a place to question whether or not a closure of an AfD was performed appropriately. It was performed appropriately, in accordance with AfD consensus discussion and relevant WP policy. I second Xoloz' suggestion that if a policy-compatible version of the article can be written that addresses the concerns of the AfD discussion, it should be done, and then any admin should be glad on request to move that article into the currently protected articlespace. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kommentar A deletion review of the seduction community article is appropriate, because (a) users voting for deletion seem to have been unaware of the press coverage on the seduction community, which may have changed their perceptions on its notability and verifiability, and (b) new information on the seduction community has come to light since the original AfD. I have started documenting evidence on the notability of the seduction community on Talk:Seduction Community, so that users can now be properly informed on the subject. (Also, the charge that the seduction community wasn't notable during the AfD was not backed up, because nobody proposing deletion explained why a community that is the subject of a New York Times Bestseller is not notable.) I have just created a new seduction community article from scratch on my user page, at Xoloz' and your suggestion, and I believe that it is policy-compatible. I invite everyone to review it and suggest improvements (I am a relatively inexperienced wikipedia-editor). How do I go about requesting that it be moved into the protected page? --SecondSight 01:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 March 2006

Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy

This was nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy (2nd nomination), and also a third and fourth time it was AfD'd.It was deleted and then protected against re-creation.

This article is not a hoax, and is a genuine article. In fact, high schools in Merseyside, Greater Manchester, Staffordshire and West Yorkshire have taught about this as part of their World War II history syllabus.

Please re-consider your deletion, this article is genuine and verifiable - and our history department can prove it.

--Gairloch 15:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who this North Carolina vandal is, see my talk page. This article is genuine, and can be proven. It will take 2 - 3 weeks to find the sources. --Gairloch 13:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then come back then. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


John Bambenek

This was nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bambenek (2nd nomination). Sockpuppetry abounded on BOTH sides. The first nomination was a solid keep and was only about 2 months prior to this nomination with no recent changes. The original lister never participated in discussion and was a drive by hitter. It included shenanigans of a sysop deleting positive comments. The person in question has hundreds of unique google hits, has dozens of mentions by the media, and writes for an independed and self-financed paper of 20,000 a day (not include the columns that have gone out on the wire and been syndicated). I don't believe that this was seriously considered, there are no less than 4 different notablility criteria that this article meets and those were never considered. -- 12.203.38.138 13:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I continue to be impressed by the viewpoint that someone who was featured in a New York Times article, was recently in the Jackson-Clarion Ledger, and was interviewed by the Washington Post is cast aside because he "is just a blogger". I'm impressed that no one considered the actions of a sysop deleting positive comments, and I'm impressed by the complete disregard of the notability criteria that has been agreed upon by consensus. It's as if this whole process had a predetermined conclusion in mind and to hell with the facts. -- Alpha269 22:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirven's

  • Seems to have been speedied out-of-process as an "nn dead department store". Frankly IMO all department stores are notable enough to be merged with wherever they are located, so newbie-biting and admin button abuse of this nature is not helpful. Kappa 14:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Content of the article was "Kirven's was a local department store exclusive to Columbus, GA. Originally downtown, the family-owned store relocated to ill-fated Columbus Square Mall in 1979 only to close a few years later." As this seems to be a short stub on a department store with a short life, I don't really think that it stands a very good chance on AFD, stores are usually deleted while store chains are often kept. Nonetheless, as this is a disputed speedy of an article which didn't really fit the speedy criteria I will have to say undelete and list on AFD if you still want this undeleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Sjakkalle -- Alpha269 15:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist I almost invoked WP:SNOW, but I suppose (if given five days), someone could come forward with a really good reason to merge it somewhere. Xoloz 15:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar If Kappa wants this merged, and all the text has already been reproduced by Sjakkalle, why do we need to recreate the article just to turn it into a redirect? --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not convinced it merits merging at all. I'd like more perspectives and (if possible) more information regarding it. AfD is the forum to call for such in the case of an article that may or may not merit existing. Xoloz 20:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Surely the forum is the discussion page of wherever this is going to be merged. Insert the information about the department store, and, if someone removes it as 'rm info on nn department store' discuss it with them on the talk page. If no-one believes that it will be kept as an independent article, and the deleted content has already been reproduced so anyone can merge it, there's no point in AfDing.
      • If, on the other hand, the article can be recreated with more information, then it can be recreated without waiting for DRV as per the message on the top of this page. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Apparently, Kappa believes it can survive as an independent article. He brought this here. I only see it being merged, but his good-faith request is enough to allow debate at the proper forum, and I support that. Xoloz 03:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete as out of process speedy. Relist if necessary. This article's not causing any problems; I suggest leaving it be. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 March 2006

CommandN

Shown in a Superman comic, starring a co-host of an internationally-aired TV show, Frank Gehry-interviewing, heckofalot-more-notable-than-most-podcasts. Can we revive it? Here's my proposal redevelopment of the article... commandN/new. -- user:zanimum

Signa Vianen, Journalist

Page was proposed at Wikipedia:Articles for Creation on 2005-12-25. A page by that name was given the {{deletedpage}} tag on the same day. Another article, titled Signa Vianen was created the same day by User:Kappa and has since been expanded. I believe it would be okay to remove the protection from Signa Vianen, Journalist in favor of a redirect, or just an unprotected empty article. --Dystopos 20:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -Splashtalk 21:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:God of War/Tyranny and Fascism - Past and Present

This was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:God of War/Tyranny and Fascism - Past and Present and, mathematically, correctly closed as a 'no consensus'. However, regardless of the lack of consensus, WP:NOT a free web-host or a blog service. I don't want to censor anyone; openly declaring your POV may (arguably) assist in ensuring it doesn't subtly influencing your editing, but there is no way that posting political essays serves that purpose. At that point we have crossed the line from declaring POV, to pushing it. WP:NOT and WP:NPOV, and the strength of the argument in this debate, says overturn and delete. --Doc ask? 17:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bier Suppe

deletion details: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bier_Suppe

"A webcomic with 41 pages, found here and largely written by the webcomic author, a User:C Labombard. Alexa shows no data for the website, and a google for "Bier Suppe" webcomic gives under 50 links. Is this website notable? I don't think so. Hahnchen 23:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)"

Alexa definitely shows Bier Suppe, and Google definitely shows more than 50 links. Also, the page itself specifies M.A. Labombard as being the primary author and illustrator, and not User:C Labombard. As can plainly be seen, C Labombard is the primary promoter and webmaster, therefore has the right of the author to promote this site. The author can be contacted through the e-mail address given on that site to confirm this. Please undelete this page!


Syrian Kurdistan

This area is not known by this name by any organisation. Last time it was put up for deletion it was meant to be renamed to Kurds in Syria, but this article already exists and is well sourced so no merge is needed.

Please Speedy delete this as per talk --MysticRum 18:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it can be speedied for that. But it can be made into a redirect... Just zis Guy you know? 18:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. If it isn't obvious, this matter is now moot. Objections to the redirect (I cannot imagine why there would be any) should go to RfD before coming here. Xoloz 18:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 March 2006

Effinhot

Article was deleted as spam an then protected. As the private owner of effinhot.com i would like to bring this article back online so that it can be edited and better developed to provide an overview of the site it was to represent. I did not creat the original wiki for this article so it was a suprise to me when i found someone has beat me to it and then deleted for spam

It was spam as written. Before you create it, have you read WP:WEB? It looks to me as if you might have some trouble meeting that. Just zis Guy you know? 15:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Llamacon

Article deleted with 5 respondents outside of nom. All delete votes came before mention of notability via WP:BIO-style guidelines of press coverage. As AfD isn't a vote, the idea of 1 anon with 3 total contribs (two to the AfD), one "weak delete" and one delete vote without regard/note of the panelists or media coverage questions this deletion. We do not have a current process or guideline regarding conventions that I'm aware of, and it more than meets the standards set forth in, say, a bio of an individual or a group. At the very least, overturn and relist. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • An anime convention held for the first time a couple of weeks back? What say we wait and see if the second convention generates any coverage? Or better still, the tenth. Just zis Guy you know? 17:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I share JzG's concerns, but since bdjeff's point regarding unconsidered new information introduced during the debate is valid, and he is a longtime contributor making a good-faith request, undelete and relist. It is possible AfD could support his argument, hence WP:SNOW doesn't apply. Xoloz 18:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For any other situation, I would have never brought it here. The problem is a) the notable people in attendence, and b) the media coverage, which, combined with the poor turnout for the AfD, makes me feel a second look is warranted. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 23:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per nom. If it attracted three notable people in the field, as mentioned in the original AfD, I think it at least warrants a better AfD. Turnstep 22:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete/relist. Good faith DRV request; WP guidelines are not precisely crystal-clear with respect to the questions raised. No harm done by relisting. -ikkyu2 (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). I understand the arguments and have taken the second look requested. The relevant guideline is WP:CORP, not WP:BIO. (Neither are perfect fits but a convention is collective entity most similar to a business. It is clearly not a biography. But even if you used the WP:BIO guideline, the 5k threshold in WP:BIO does not apply. It is for authorship and specifically, for authorship of significant works like novels or textbooks. You do not automatically become notable for writing a single article in a newspaper. You certainly do not become notable for being mentioned once in the newspaper.) The most relevant criterion at WP:CORP appears to be the "multiple, non-trivial press coverage" criterion. A single mention in a local newspaper fails to qualify regardless of readership. Attendance by three perhaps-notable people does not convince me that a first-year convention with only 270 attendees automatically inherits notability. Frankly, I get more attendees and bigger speakers at my local industry seminars, none of which are appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see what you're saying. I don't agree, mind you, but I see what you're saying. One question, however, why do you believe WP:CORP is the more relevant guideline? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 22:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, as I tried to say above, WP:BIO is written to apply to individuals. The tests and criteria are fairly narrowly written to determine if a particular biography is appropriate to the encyclopedia or not. Conventions, on the other hand, are collective activities - activities involving multiple people working together for mutual benefit. That's the classic "social compact" definition of a Geschäft. Furthermore, most conventions are specifically run as a for-profit enterprise with the intent of providing goods and/or services to the participants and profits (either direct or through advertising value) to the organizers. WP:CORP is written broadly to cover not just corporations but all kinds of companies and even non-profits. The tests and criteria have been developed to help weigh these kinds of collective activities.
        To me, it boils down to whether a convention is more like a company or more like a human. I consider it more like a company and not very much like a human.
        On a more theoretical note, there are some situations which blur the lines. A sole proprietorship, for example, is a business of a single person. It's unclear whether the WP:BIO or WP:CORP guidelines would work best in that case. Luckily, very few sole propietorships would meet our inclusion standards under either criteria so it's been a moot point so far. Bands are another example where the line blurs but they have a separate and specific criteria (WP:MUSIC) which are better tailored for just this question. Hope that helps. Rossami (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not to dispute you Rossami, but if there is a question as to which guideline to apply in this grey area, isn't that more reason to relist? An AfD consensus is competent to decide which guidelines to apply to which articles, isn't it? Xoloz 05:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I considered a relist but could not convince myself that there was a reasonable chance that this article would survive the second AFD either. I'd rather we actually decided the question than running the question into another loop. Rossami (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • No disrespect intended, but a 2nd AfD would have a wider effect than simply convincing you; it'd convince everybody involved. Consider that if you were infallible, we could delete all Wikipedia policy pages and just put you in charge of everything.  :) --ikkyu2 (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • With a whopping 5 respondents to the original AfD, I certainly think that there's a reasonable chance that, with the relevant information presented up front, that a clear consensus one way or the other can be attained. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Cherevko

This article was deleted by User:Esteffect because of alleged recreation of deleted article, while it was (most probably) completely different from deleted one in content and topic and perhaps even about different people. Either way round, it was not identical to deleted one, so it do not fall under speedy deletion criteria. --Lucinor 21:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As initiator of request, of course I vote undelete. --Lucinor 21:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, as deleting party. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Cherevko. Cherevko created the original article himself, I'm sure, with ludacrious statements in it. Basically, it was a 13-year old's an ego-boosting bio. The article has been created and re-deleted several times in the past. The original AfD was infested with keep-voting sockpuppets. Cherevko claimed back then (under usernames such as Mykola Petrenko) that he was a child prodigy, adding himself to that article repeatedly. I think it should remain deleted per common sense. If restored, however, I will AfD it and provide a more full argument. Esteffect 21:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, note that the article I CSDed simply stated that he is a Ukrainian Children's Rights Ombudsman, and the first child to be given that position. Just how notable are children's rights ombudsmans? The original article, AfDed last year claimed he was a 13-year old studying at the University of Kyiv, who could read at the age of three and who had an IQ of over 200. Both stated Cherevko's DOB as 1991, though, so I completely believe that they are the same person. Esteffect 21:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Interesting. This version does not appear to be a simple reposting of the previously deleted content. Both content and style are different. Some new facts are also alleged. However, the previous AFD discussion raised some serious questions about whether this person even exists. During that discussion, there were several allegations of sockpuppetry and other attempts to abuse the decision-making process. Given the history, I'm inclined to request a verifiable cite supporting the latest version of the article. If such a cite can be provided here, I will recommend that we overturn the speedy-deletion and submit the article to a second AFD. Absent such a cite, leave it deleted. Rossami (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got my information from TV broadcast, but I've found some info on the net - [9] (Georgiy Gongadze's Center of Political Prognosing), that tells: "В цих умовах все актуальнішою стає ініціатива, запропонована Уповноваженим щодо створення дитячих омбудсманів з числа самих дітей. Тому Омбудсман України сьогодні своїм розпорядженням призначила на громадських засадах дитячими омбудсманами Крук Юлію, студентку 1-го курсу факультету міжнародного права Інституту міжнародних відносин Київського Національного університету ім. Т.Г.Шевченка та Івана Черевка, студента ІІІ-го курсу Національного університету “Києво-Могилянська академія”". (rough English translation: In that circumstances (of complete poverty and human rights ignorance - Lucinor 20:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)) Ombudsman's initiative of choosing children's rights ombudsmans from children themselves. So, Ukrainian Ombudsman today appointed Julia Kruk, freshman student of International Relations Instute and Ivan Cherevko, junior student of KM Academy to the office of children's rights ombudsman). --Lucinor 20:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And another link - [10] (Regional Party website, reprinting DAY newspaper article (DAY is quite influencial Ukrainian newspaper)): "8 декабря своим распоряжением я назначила на общественных началах детскими омбудсманами Крук Юлию, студентку первого курса факультета международного права Института международных отношений Киевского национального университета им. Т. Г. Шевченко, и Ивана Черевко, студента третьего курса Национального университета «Киево-Могилянская академия»." (translation: At December 8th by my decree I've appointed to the office of children's rights ombudsmans Julia Kruk, student of International Relations Institute and Ivan Cherevko, student of KM Academy). --Lucinor 20:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moreover, TV broadcast, which I rely upon, was shown on Inter channel (one of two main TV channels in Ukraine), and told that Nina Karpachova, Ukrainian Ombudsman (minor reminder - in Ukraine Ombudsman's office is generally as influential as Premier-Minister's office) enrolled two children as her aides in children's rights questions, one 15-year old, Ivan Cherevko and one 16-year old, Julia Kruk. They are appointed as her Predstavnyk's (position almost equal to Cabinet member) and have to care about children's rights. --Lucinor 20:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list on AfD. Articles are substantially different and additional claims to notability are made over the May 2005 AfD. Just zis Guy you know? 22:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted pending a trace of WP:Verification. No need to willingly restore previously deleted material that had hoax concerns. The previous AfD might have weak applicability in this case, but I do think it does have some. -Splashtalk 23:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per WP:SNOW. With regard to the version by Lucinor: no reference is provided to confirm the statement that he holds the position of Ukrainian Children's Rights Ombudsman, or that he and Nina Karpachova (appointed jointly) are the first children to hold thatt position. These are the only claims made in the one-sentence article. I am completely baffled as to why Lucinor didn't provide a source. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. If not G4 its A7, as thre is no indication of what exactly Ukrainian Children's Rights Ombudsman is or why it's notable. -R. fiend 00:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted per Splash and Rossami. Without a source, this article seems... dubious, especially given the context of the previous AfD. Xoloz 19:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted as per Splash's arguments. The references above do not seem to assert notability. Turnstep 22:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse CSD G4 speedy of previously non-notable content. New information isn't even close to satisfying WP:LIVING. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim Islamic jurists

This AfD request was closed because the main titular article was deleted per {{prod}}. However, there were four secondary articles attached to the AfD whose outcomes have yet to be determined. I don't want to create a completely new AfD as that will lose all the votes pertaining to the articles in question. And so, I'm asking that this be re-listed with the main article changed to one of the current secondary articles. joturner 21:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Anything you do here is going to be a mess, but I suggest that actually the only fair solution is to relist the other four, since it's unclear how many of the responses thus far are exclusive to the deleted article. Just zis Guy you know? 22:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no point relisting. The outcome is plainly no consensus. It's also not reasonable to ask for a mandate to do so here, since you're asking whoever carries out the relisting to work out which article and what nomination. You can make the relisting yourself if you like, but I don't think DRV is really capable of effectively doing so in this case. Just boldly merge them or something, and then revisit the deletion of the ones that turn out to be truly useless. That said, M0o should have been much more careful. -Splashtalk 23:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

advisory capital

This article was deleted for alleged lack of context. In fact, the concept, although new, has recently been the topic of many blogs by well-read bloggers including Jeff Jarvis. technorati currently lists 106 posts in the last two weeks. Many of these blogs pointed to the wikipedia entry and the entry was intended to be a fulcrum for discussion and a place for the concept to involve. Tevslin 17:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


28 February 2006

Template:If defined (and others)

Original deletion debate

I can't say this any other way: Splash clearly ignored consensus (or, if you're charitable, the lack of consensus) to delete these templates. Further, he assumed bad faith per my remarks, and ignored the fact that (at least initially) the TFD nominations were malformed (Netoholic didn't even bother placing a TFD tag on the template talk pages or the templates themselves). If he has doubts about the motivations of editors votes, he should ask them instead of simply discounting them out of hand as he's done here.

  • Overturn and Undelete, totally flawed closure by an admin who ought to know better. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. They are unused, so keep them deleted. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - James S's vote was based on a false technical assumption. Locke Cole's (and the "per Locke Cole" votes) did not provide a solid rationale for preserving these templates... he chose to attack me and wiki-lawyer the nomination. -- Netoholic @ 04:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me? I provided a perfectly legitimate rationale. Splash's closure, OTOH, did not provide a reasonable explanation for discounting/ignoring legitimate concerns. He says that I hadn't done any work since the TFD nomination; had it not occurred to him that I was waiting to see if the rug was going to be pulled out from under me before I did said work? Further, he conditioned deletion of other templates on the outcome of this debate: it was highly inappropriate for him to then ignore consensus (or lack of consensus) and close it as delete. There is absolutely no reason or justification for the conclusion he came to. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you bolding your words above to try and confuse people? Splash closed the TFD with an excellent justification. You did not provide a reason for keeping other than commenting on what you interpret as my bad-faith nomination. It is up to the clsoing admin to weigh the result, which he did. -- Netoholic @ 04:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're excused. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe I made my case with this comment in the original TFD debate: Netoholic is well aware that I intend to go through many of the templates he broke while WP:AUM was policy, and those templates will rely on these meta-templates (short of re-writing the logic used formerly to use {{qif}}). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete, please. I don't see that they are not used. Rather, I'd like to see them made into redirects, as was suggested in the original discussion. Is there an inherent problem with these being redirects? Again, the result of the discussion was no consensus, not consensus to delete. ... aa:talk 04:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The effects of CSS hacks (click for full size image)
The same page with meta-templates in use (click for full size image)
  • Do we have any indication that any templates are actually broken because of this? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the two images I've provided here. One uses CSS hacks, the other uses meta-templates (which remove unnecessary rows on the server side). It's been shown that some screen reading software (and non-CSS compliant browsers) break on these "CSS hacks". There is no such issue with meta-templates (or "conditional templates" like {{qif}}). —Locke Cole • t • c 07:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, if I understand this correctly, all these templates are deprecated in favor of {{qif}}. So, why aren't they just replaced and we avoid all of this? Wouldn't that be much simpler? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Some of the templates were fairly complicated: having these around as a reference to what was going on would be useful (to me at least). As I say below, I'd be willing to have these userfied to discourage their use by new editors. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. My "per Locke Cole" vote was based on Cole's statement "I intend to go through many of the templates he [Netoholic] broke while WP:AUM was policy, and those templates will rely on these meta-templates (short of re-writing the logic used formerly to use )". I do not see how this statement does not provide a solid rationale for preserving the templates, and therefore discounting my comment and my vote to keep is inappropriate. It seems to me to be unnecessarily destructive to break the dependant templates. Just put a notice on the template page stating that the templates are deprecated in favor of {{qif}} so that new templates are not created using these. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 05:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and replace known uses with Qif and then leave undeleted until the taxoboxes which use this template are all known to be subst'ed, i.e., after what-links-here is fixed. What was the reason for deletion in the first place? --James S. 07:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, and kill CSS hacks. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't say I'm surprised to see these turn up here. I repeat that those claiming the templates are in use are completely wrong. They are not. The Whatlinkshere links are all to user subpages, and templates are not removed from those prior to deletion since it does no damage to the encyclopedia to have them go red, and gives the user a good idea about what just happened. Undelete them if you like, or keep them deleted if you like, but I continue to think that the only reasons given for keeping in the TfD were flawed to the point of being invalid. I have no position on AUM as a whole. I just use whatever templates are around. -Splashtalk 10:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions: Why not simply replace the faulty CSS code with {{qif}}? Do these templates provide functionality that {{qif}} lacks? If not, why do we need them? —David Levy 14:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't claim to be a template expert (though I'm picking up experience as I go)– having these around would make it easier to understand how templates worked prior to being moved to CSS hacks. Sort of like seeing the source code to a program is easier than guessing how it works under a disassembler. FWIW, the more I understand how {{qif}} works, the easier it is to just rewrite templates to use it directly (see, for example, Template:Infobox Software). To be absolutely clear, I am not suggesting we start using these templates again; I just want them around to look at if I need a reference. (I would even be happy with userfying them I suppose, to deter people from using them). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. As a process argument, there was a fairly strong set of keeps in the request, and the reason that so few references remained was an out of process replacement by technically clever (but practically problematic) CSS hacks. As a technical argument, while "qif" may do things more generally, it was "if defined" that I was trying to use, and would actually cause less potential stress on servers through fewer inclusions. Keep, it worked. --William Allen Simpson 15:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily undelete for the purpose of converting usage to {{qif}}. In the alternative, we could provide temporary substitutes in user sub-space for the duration of conversion works. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, of course; closing was flawed. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per everyone. Ashibaka tock 17:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recently concluded

  1. Bashas' withdrawn by nom. 23:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Sean Ripple deletion overturned (no relist requested). 23:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Hunter Ellis deletion overturned, undel history+revert from redir. 23:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Sustainable National Income history undel. 23:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jewfro 'kept deleted', actually as a redirect. 23:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Gail (goldfish) not speedy but already a redirect/merge which this debate ok's. 23:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Tom Dorsch deletion endorsed. 23:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Kamyar Cyrus Habib deletion endorsed. 23:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Demilich (band) already kept by new afd. 23:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. London Buses route 4 already remade, so history undel. 23:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Math of Quran kd, what little there is does not overturn. 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Crying While Eating deletion overturned, already undeleted, will unprotect. 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Various warcrimes bios keep close endorsed since changes editorial in nature. 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. SourceryForge already redel'd by afd. 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Male bikini-wearing speedy endorsed, kept deleted
  16. Mucky Pup re-created, speedy kept on AFD 09:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Blog Torrent restored and listed on afd 23:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. TimeSplitters: Future Perfect strategy guide has been transwikied properly now 23:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Glossary of Japanese film credit terms nominator appears happy with transwiki (right?) 23:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Template:Background, no majority to overturn 23:13, 4 March 2006 (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 administrators will honour requests to provide the content of a deleted article if asked politely. See Category:User undeletion.


Proposed deletions

Articles deleted under the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion procedure (using the {{PROD}} tag) may be undeleted, without a vote, on reasonable request. Any admin can be asked to do this, alternatively a request may be made here. However, such undeleted articles are open to be speedy deleted or nominated for WP:AFD under the usual rules.

History only undeletion

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

Decisions to be reviewed

Shortcut

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

 
1.

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

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

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

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

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 September 17}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

4.

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

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 September 17}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 September 17|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".

Important notice: all userbox undeletions are being discussed on a subpage: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates. Please post all new such requests there (though you may link them from this page if you like)

12 March 2006

Userboxes

This was deleted on March 7, 2006. It was a rediect that redirected to wikipedia:userboxes.Apparently, it was a "soft redirect", though it was no different than any other redirect. I fought fouriously to keep it undeleted after some whacked out conspiricy, but the other side got thier way. I request this gets undeleted, as it's a pain in the ass to get to the userbox page and because it wan't really a soft redirect. Thank you. The Republican 22:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arc Flashlights

On 1 February 2006 this article was deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arc Flashlights. The stated reason was spam/advertising, which seems in error. The company (Arc Flashlights LLC) no longer exists and their products are no longer manufactured. There is an existing company with a similar name, but I don't think the article was about that.

The article is needed for historical business/technical reference as Arc Flashlights LLC manufacturered the first Luxeon LED flashlight, the genesis of a product type now widely used. There are many current articles on various flashlight companies, watch companies, etc, so deleting this one seems very selective.

I have no relationship to the company or products, flashlights are just a hobby. Request the article be undeleted. If there are any spam/advertising elements (despite the company no longer existing), I'll be happy to fix them. Joema 13:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that an article should be written on Arc Flashlights, which are notable and encyclopedic as a generic product. Based on the AfD, I'd assume that this article was like that, however. At least in the case of advertising, sometimes no article is better than one that violates policy. Please, though, feel free to create a NPOV article about the history of the product. Endorse closure as usual, without prejudice against an improved recreation. Xoloz 16:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 March 2006

Category:Roman Catholic actors

Postdlf deleted Category:Roman Catholic actors today as a recreation of a previously deleted category, citing an August CfD. At the time I (re)created the category, I was unaware of the previous CfD, and was simply attempting to subcategorize Category:Roman Catholics.

The parent category is hard to use as it contains several hundred articles (Special:Categories lists 802, which is after I moved a few hundred into subcats). I think the deletion decision should be reviewed, as Wikipedia:Categorization states: When a given category gets crowded, also consider making several subcategories. Group similar articles together in a meaningful and useful way that will make it easy for readers to navigate later. In my opinion, dividing a category of people by their occupation is a meaningful division. Gentgeen 07:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colignatus

If I understand correctly: "To nominate a page for undeletion, place the page title on Wikipedia:Deletion review, with the reason why you think it should be undeleted. Sign and date your entry (Colignatus 02:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)). "[reply]

I noticed that the article Colignatus has been deleted with no trace of its existence.

If there is a strong opinion that this article should not exist, so be it, but then I would like to have the text, to use in wikinfo, and it would be wonderful, if that is not too much work, if it is sent to me by email (see my talk page).

I started the page Colignatus in the main body of the text since it would allow readers an overview of my work as an economist. (See list of economists where I don't occur now.) My work is in various directions, but it would help readers to link these directions (as I link them up). And readers would generally not look at a user talk page since they might not know that I am a user (for the time being).

I also wonder who deleted me, and with what argument. There now is a distressing dispute on Borda fixed point, where another user User:Fahrenheit451 referred a year ago to my invention of that particular voting system, where I corrected the text, linked up with voting system, and where User:Rspeer suddenly started an attack that I consider to be full of bias. He apologized a couple of times for being too rash, but always came back with new attacks. As he started to remove other contributions by me with similar bias, I just wonder whether he is behind this removal. Though he need not be, of course. It just would help clarity to know who deleted it, and with what purpose.

Obviously, wikipedians are sensitive to users creating their own articles, but if you see the text, then you might agree that it is only short and factual, allowing readers to link up on proper content.

And if you would disagree about the content, perhaps a re-edit is better than complete deletion. Colignatus 02:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 04:12, March 9, 2006 Sean Black deleted "Colignatus" (No claim to notability) is the text on the deletion log, so it was not Fahrenheit451. I have sent you the text in email per your request. --Syrthiss 03:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because of the inherent difficulties maintaining perspective, balance and a neutral point of view, we have a pretty strong prohibition against autobiographies. It's not an absolute rule but it is very good advice that if you're notable enough to be included in the encyclopedia, someone else should write the article. On that basis, I would strongly urge you to invest the time in other articles and in your userpage. Have faith - it it's relevant to their work, other people will find your userpage. Rossami (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Syrthiss. It is a relief to have the text again, and now I put it at Colignatus at wikinfo. (1) It is good to know how and why it got deleted. It is a pity that Sean Black did not warn me on my talk page. I hope he sees this and reconsiders his rash act. (2) Of course I'm not "notable". My work has been censored by the Dutch government, I'm waiting for this censorship to be lifted, and in the mean time (which is now for 16 years) I only show others indications about what the censorship is about, so that they can start doing something about that censorship. Thus there little chance to get "notable", at least in the common sense of citations, though I don't know how you would value the access statistics at my page at RepEc. Thus, I mean, that criterion is little helpful. (3) I knew about that autobio criterion, Rossami, but as you said, it is not an absolute rule. In this case I have really considered all aspects and decided that starting this overview article on my contributions to economic theory would be best, see the explanation I gave and wikinfo. I entered into wikipedia contributions on the minimum wage, tax void, Stagflation, Economic Supreme Court, Separation of powers, Arrow's impossibility theorem, Borda Fixed Point, Economics and Risk, not as original research as it was some time ago, but as encyclopedic review and reasoned argument with respect to the existing texts in wikipedia. My edits greatly improved the value of the articles to the readers. It would help readers to understand where these contributions came from and how these are linked in my work. For example you cannot understand the issue of the minimum wage if you don't understand that in the current set-up of economic policy making you are consistently lied to by the government. If that explanation of the usefulness of link up and reference to the original author is not convincing, so be it. (4) I have great optimistic faith that the censorship will be ended eventually so that people can freely use my work, but perhaps there first must be another world war or a Collapse. (5) However, it would be wrong for readers to go to my user page, since this page is editted by me for different purposes than an encyclopedia article on my work. Sincerely Yours, Colignatus 15:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 March 2006

Michael Crook

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Crook

This article was voted as a keep, despite a strong consensus for delete. The decision to keep it was a biased one, and a review is requested. This article has no relevance. More importantly, it is rife with inaccuracies. Numerous corrections have been made with accurate facts, only to be deleted by Rhobite and other WP admins who appear to be biased against the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.157.29.196 (talk • contribs) March 10, 2006 (UTC) Michael Crook (AfD discussion)

  • Endorse closure. Looks to be a valid AfD and AfD closure. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure This DRV nomination is unsigned, for starters. The closer is Splash; the chances of him making a mistake are very close to zero, for seconds. This discussion, however, wasn't even close. Valid AfD, notable subject, no relevant reason for review given. Xoloz 03:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Vandalism, WP:OWN and inaccuracy are not grounds for deletion, even if that were the case here (which I am not sure about). Just zis Guy you know? 09:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Clearly valid keep result on the AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, speedily if possible to prevent another outbreak of sockpuppetry here. Possible bad faith AfD, probably bad faith DRV, certainly utterly pointless when the reason for review is self-contradictory ("This article was voted as a keep, despite a strong consensus for delete"). There was aclear keep consensus. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a poorly written article on an eminently forgettable fellow. However, there can be no doubt as to the AFD consensus, nor the correctness of Splash's decision—he's right, as usual. On this matter of bad faith, I must disagree. When we say that someone is acting in bad faith, we imply that he is acting with malicious intentions; when the charge is unqualified, it usually means "malicious intentions with respect to the well-being or integrity of the encyclopedia". An example of someone acting in bad faith is the vandal who surreptitiously inserts subtle errors into articles, purely to damage the encyclopedia. I do not think that the nominator possesses any such frightful motivations: he's just a chap who dislikes the article, probably because he has been unable to make it stay the way he wants it to. Newer users or those not quite accustomed to Wikipedia norms may say things about consensus or article deletion or article policy that can strike Wikipedian ears as decidedly odd. This does not mean that they act in bad faith, and we should be careful not to label them so—it does little to promote understanding and goodwill. cf the third paragraph of WP:FAITH. —Encephalon 16:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. To address nom's concerns: Closure was not biased; it appropriately reflected the discussion that took place. DRV is not the place to discuss the relevance or factual accuracy of the article; relevance was discussed at the AfD, and factual inaccuracies (which are grounds for article improvement via consensus editing; never deletion) should be addressed at the article's talk page. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Azure_Sheep

Deletion details: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Azure_Sheep

This a Half-Life mod and was deleted based as part of a retaliation (check the deletion details). This mod haves more then 200,000 downloads and was released in several computer magazines. Only 5 people agreed with the delete and based on their personal option about the mod. Not liking something shouldnt be reason to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snewerl (talk • contribs)

  • Endorse closure The participants in the AfD said little about whether they liked or disliked this mod, only that it was non-notable. The fact that retaliation might have played a role in the nom. is irrelevant in cases where the questioning of notability is legitimate. We must AGF on the nominator's part, and obviously his concern with notability was legitimate, as the participants agreed with the nomination. Valid AfD, no relevant reason given to initiate review, no new evidence presented. Xoloz 03:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete They said it is non-notable based on their opinion. What defines a mod as notable? What evidences are needed? A complete list of the magazines that release the mod? A list of users that played the mod? Search the internet. You will find tons of sites that have Azure Sheep and talk about it. What you are saying? That Wikipedia is not a Free Excyclopedia where diferent contents can be found but a place that haves only what a small number of people that cares about the AfD allow to be here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snewerl (talk • contribs)
  • Endorse closure. Valid AfD decision, closed properly, no new evidence presented which would theoretically have changed it. Mods for online computer games have a sky-high cruft multiple; digging through the Google hits there is nothing that presents itself as a reliable source on which to base an article. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an experiment in anarchy, thus non-notable games have to be deleted because articles about them can't be properly verified and neutral. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted unanimously valid AfD. I like the DRV nominator's "only five people agreed with the delete" comment. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What evidences are needed? What makes a mod notable to avoid deletion? --Snewerl
    • If you'd like to see some examples of articles on notable mods, check out Hot Coffee mod (notable due to media furor it created) and Counter-Strike (notable as genre-defining game and created a culture all its own). By far, the vast majority of game mods, however, are not notable enough on their own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If a mod needs to be that notable, then all the mod pages have to deleted since only those two manage to do that or something similar... Snewerl
        • You're right, and nearly all of them are deleted when they come up for AFD. Just because a non-notable article exists doesn't mean Wikipedia wants it there, it just means nobody's noticed it and bothered to AFD it yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It makes sence but then why the Half-Life mods Category exists and other pages related to the subject? Snewerl
  • Keep Deleted unanimous valid AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kd per Sam and Xoloz. —Encephalon 17:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. 200,000 downloads likely meets the criteria laid out in WP:SOFTWARE. If this is true, the article should probably be undeleted, altered to reflect the evidence of notability, and relisted. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Following the WP:SOFTWARE, it was also released in this magazines: The Games Machine (Italy); Swiat Gier Komputerowych (Poland); PC Zone (Uk, also reviewed on Modwatch); PCGamer (UK); Computer Gaming World (USA); GameStar (Germany) and PC Format (UK). It was also reviewed in various mod/games related sites like, for example, PlanetHalfLife (a well known game/mod related site, part of gamespy). Snewerl

Samurang

This article underwent speedy deletion [12] soon after nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samurang). But I think the decision does not meet a criterion for speedy deletion. Deltabeignet claimed it was an "attack page". In my understanding, "attack pages" have to do with defamation of character just like the example: "John Citizen is a moron" (Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion). Samurang is not the case. Undelete. --Nanshu 01:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • For an article to be speedy-deleted as an attack page, every non-blanked version must be an attack. I think that some of the earliest versions of this article were judgment calls. Judgments are made thru AFD, not via speedy. Overturn the speedy-deletion and reopen the AFD discussion. Rossami (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and list on AfD per Rossami. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete/relist per Rossami. Xoloz 03:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, it was a valid interpretation of CSD A6, and I very much doubt it would have survived AfD; this article seems to me to serve no purpose other than to disparage the (non-titular) subject, Haidong Gumdo: Samurang is one of fabrications by Haidong Gumdo, who says it was a name for Goguryeo warriors and the origin of samurai. [...] The word Samurang is, however, never appeared in history books [...]] Haidong Gumdo coined this word so that it sounds similar to samurai in the modern Korean language. Considering the ultimate etymology of samurai, the verb samorafu, the fabrication is seemingly obvious to Japanese, but some uninformed Koreans and Westerners are deceived. If this minor fiction is of encyclopaedic merit it can be covered in Samurai (in neutral terms, unlike this article) and a redirect established here. Just zis Guy you know? 09:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per JzG above. Foreign-language loanwords and when they should and shouldn't be in WP was extensively debated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kawaii. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, and that precedent was a keep. Precedential power at AfD is weak anyway, but this one appears to point in the opposite direction. If you are making some point about the reasoning used in the prior debate, that sort of analysis (not the direct result) has even less precedental power. Please clarify. Xoloz 19:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halliburton_shill

This article underwent speedy deletion.

I received no notification until I visisted the site, even though the article is on my watch list. It is not a personal attack. Halliburton is a public corporation. Shill is a well defined term found in any dictionary. Dick Cheney is a public figure. Relevant Wikipedia articles are linked too.

I have a rewritten version that will make the general use of the term more understanable for those lacking background, and even those that abuse the term disparage in attemtping to make the article something that it isn't.

Regarding 1 of the comments that only 111 matches on google for the phrase Halliburton shill, here's some more statistics for you to consider that would be included in the revised article:

As of September 29, 2005, a search for Dick-Cheney shill returned 50,700 results. Today (2006.03.10), the same search returns 89,000 results[13].

2005.09.29 Halliburton shill returned 44,500 results. Other references to shills for Halliburton (e.g., "shill for Halliburton") obviously get missed on a simple phrase search. As of 2006.03.10, 54,800 results[14].

2005.09.29 pages that discussed Halliburton shill without any mention of Cheney equaled 10,500 (44,500 - 10,500 = 34,000 pages where Cheney is mentioned). As of 2006.03.10, 14,900 (50,700 - 14,900 = 35,800)[15]. 13,700 of those mention Bush instead[16]. --Halliburton Shill 04:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse speedy deletion. While it's debatable that it could be deleted as an attack page, since Cheney is a public figure, it was hopelessly, irreversibly POV, saying that Cheney gained money by giving contracts to Halliburton, and WP:SNOW tells me that it shouldn't matter that it might have been slightly out of process. --Rory096 04:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    List on AfD. Actually, the part of WP:SNOW that Radiant took from my user talk page points out that it sometimes can matter if something like this is done out of process. Viz: this deletion review, which wouldn't need to be happening if everyone could have expressed their opinion in a proper AfD. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and "Halliburton shill" in quotation marks (so it's not just someone using the word Halliburton and the word shill on the same page) yields only 112 results, some of which are Wikipedia, and several are someone making a fake profile on Myspace. --Rory096 04:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And what the hell is this? --Rory096 04:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion. I also note that the page was created by User:Halliburton Shill who has apparently made only two other non-deleted edits to Wikipedia and who may have to be counselled on appropriate usernames. Rossami (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar. Cheney did gain money. Read Wikipedia's own Halliburton page. It has an entire section called "Dick Cheney Ties". Read a CBS article published in 2003. As for the Halliburton search, if it's so common for someone to "just" happen (oops) to use shill and Halliburton on the same page with no intention of them relating to one another, I'm sure it should be easy to provide a link to an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halliburton Shill (talk • contribs)
    • Kommentar. Even if he did gain money off any contracts given to Halliburton- which is false and even REFUTED by the page you point to, this removes any possible doubt in my mind that you're just POV pushing. I try to WP:AGF, but it's very hard when I see something like that page. --Rory096 05:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted. Article created in bad faith, given above link to blog post. android79 05:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also note that the text of the article exists at User:Halliburton Shill as well. android79 05:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kommentar. A personal attack on me in an attempt to justify a delete based on an unsubstantiated personal attack. If you can't understand satire, which I make very clear that blog is on the so-called "POV" page, don't read it. And, no, the Halliburton page does not in any way refute what I claim. At worst, it supports the claim and tries to excuse by reference to a campaign promise. (Turn on satire detector.) I know I make all my decisions based on campaign promises. Just like I still have faith in the promise there are WMDs in Iraq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halliburton Shill (talk • contribs)
      • Kommentar. I'd prefer not to get into a political discussion here, as it's not even the point. Your page was clearly POV, and then you posted on a blog about how you were pushing your POV on Wikipedia. You then claimed Wikipedia was biased towards the right in another blog, while simultaneously saying that I was personally attacking you. By the way, sign your posts with 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~. --Rory096 06:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's established that it is not an attack page, which was the main argument for speedy deletion. And as for POV, that's not mentioned as a reason for any kind of deletion on the speedy page or AfD. That means there is no justification deletion.--Halliburton Shill 07:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion. Mr Shill, Wikipedia is not your soapbox. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion Dick Cheney is pure evil, but that doesn't mean WP will accept an article created in bad faith... "covert operation... sheesh. Xoloz 17:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 March 2006

Will McWhinney

See this version of RfPP for details. This has been used recently to insert attacks on its subject. As a result SlimVirgin is of the opinion this should remain indefinitely protected. FeloniousMonk thinks it should remain protected since it hardly gets edited. Both are wrong since an article that has no current vandal problem should at least give unprotection a whirl of more than the matter of minutes she allowed it, and FeloniousMonk appears to have misunderstood that protection will reduce the amount of edits the article gets.

Then, at WP:RFPP, it suddenly got deleted (on RFPP?!) becauase the "subject had asked for it" to be. A terminated AfD that was keeping it, no decision from Jimbo, no WP:OFFICE action. Just a summary deletion of an article as an alternative to unprotection. Deletion is not such an alternative. Undelete, and either refer to Jimbo or make the case at AfD. -Splashtalk 18:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • My point was this: past history indicates that engaging in a wheel war with Tony is an exercise in futility. While we might not like the way he sometimes goes about things, his judgment on underlying policies and principples is generally sound, and he knows how Jimbo thinks. I would suggest that the effect of disputing or reversing one of Tony's actions will be (a) acrimony and (b) in the end Tony's view will prevail. Like I said above, there is nothing about this character which indicates to me that the encyclopaedic merit is sufficiently great as to justify the effort and acrimony involved in maintaining a neutral biography. Sure, vandalism is not grounds for deletion - but the lack of any evident payback for the effort involved in constantly averting vandalism probably is. This guy gets about 600 Googles, and the number of reliable sources is small enough to make it hard to substantiate much beyond his publication history. I probably would not "vote" delete at AfD, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over his absence from the encyclopaedia - the subject simply doesn't inspire me to engage in yet another wiki-war. There is no deadline, let's wait a year and see what happens. Just zis Guy you know? 10:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I stand corrected, as Tony's reading was closer to the your meaning. If I ever come to agree that Tony and Jimbo are kindred thinkers, I'll have to give up Wikipedia, sadly. Xoloz 17:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • JzG, you are somewhat confused. FeloniousMonk executed the deletion, not Tony Sidaway. Tony Sidaway is not a monster (right, Tony?) to be scared of, and he errs as much as the next human. He also, below, agrees with my nomination suggestion of undeleting and seeking an WP:OFFICE action if re-deletion is warranted. -Splashtalk 17:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I don't think I am confused. I read the exchange at RFPP and there was agreement between three parties, Tony, Felonious and SlimVirgin, that deletion was reasonable. That's how I read it, anyway. Felonious was just the one who happened to click the button, it seems to me. Just zis Guy you know? 23:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete/list somewhere Folks... there isn't supposed to be a cabal. Three admins, working together, can't decide to delete something. Only Jimbo, AfD, or the Prod process can. Splash is correct. This guy is a professor of some note; whatever the facts regarding his son are, I doubt they justify removal. Nothing (save Jimbo) justifies unilateral removal. Xoloz 21:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I did strongly advise that this deletion should be carried out under WP:OFFICE [17]. There's no great hurry about it so I don't see a problem with undeleting until Jimbo or Danny or someone has looked at it and said it's okay to delete. Presumably the subject of the article has already written them. --Tony Sidaway 05:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wonder what will happen on that magic day when an undeniably very notable someone asks OFFICE to remove himself or herself. "Wikipedia -- a comprehensive encyclopedia, minus the people who complained to us about themselves." Sigh. That is for another day, though. Xoloz 05:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And as anyone who clicks on that link will see, we have a decently comprehensive article on John Seigenthaler Sr. No articles were harmed in the making of this film. Last I heard this Wikipedia is not a soap box for the expounding of controversial views - removing disputed biograpies of living people pending close scrutiny seems perfectly reasonable as long as we make it clear why it's happened, and as long as the final portrait includes those criticisms which can be verified from reliable sources. But there is no deadline, we can take our time about it and get it right. Just zis Guy you know? 10:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permanent (or long-term) removal is what concerns me. The integrity of the project also demands that these requests remain truly extraordinary and very rare. Seigenthaler didn't object to the existence of his article, either, only the falsities in it. One day a famous person will say, "I don't belong here -- Expunge Me", and I wonder if the OFFICE folks will have the wisdom and courage to say no, and fight whatever battles may be necessary. Xoloz 06:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per above.  Grue  12:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. This is most unfortunate. Tony and Splash have misrepresented the situation, which was that the article was created, and was being used, as part of a campaign of harassment, and was deleted for that reason, not because the subject requested it (although the subject would be happy to see it deleted, I am sure). Anyone who needs more details is welcome to e-mail me. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. It might be unreasonable to expect an article on Hitler or Japan or Pope John Paul to stay deleted because of harassment of a Wikipedian, but with an article of borderline notability like this one, the need to reduce harassment is more important than the need to keep it. AnnH ♫ 18:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist on AfD. Process matters, even if (as I suspect) the eventual outcome will be the same. See my user page for a brief essay about why. In particular, this out-of-process deletion is likely to inflame the sentiments of people who wish it hadn't taken place, to absolutely no good end. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. This article has been used as an instrument of harassment of an editor. This is a very different case than Seigenthaler. The harasser in this case has been involved in death threats to an editor and to a public person. We do not need to have an article on this subject, of borderline notability, at the present time. Wikipedia is a long term project and waiting a year or two until the harasser leaves is not tragic. Process is important, but not more important than outcome. -Will Beback 23:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. This article is simply being used to harass its subject, who is clear that he wants it deleted. FeloniousMonk 21:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. As Ann. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted as per Ann. Guettarda 22:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Savvica

This article was kept as a no consensus after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savvica. However, I disagree because both the users that voted 'keep' are contributors of the article. Also the administrator states the only reason for deletion is non-notability. Exactly! That is the reason for deletion! The article does not meet the WP:CORP guideline for notability and should be deleted. --Sleepyhead 11:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the closer, I will not vote either way. I will say that what swayed my decision from a "delete" to a "no consensus" was the following argument: "Savvica has been covered on ComputerWorld, eWeek, TechCrunch, InfoTech, MacNN, and hundreds of blogs all in the last 3 months", if this is true, the company would meet point 1 of WP:CORP. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. If Dritter is discounted as too new (5th edit) there is an 80% consensus to delete, usually sufficient, but given that the claims of outside coverage weren't addressed I think there's sufficient grounds to keep the article on the basis of the last AfD, and the article should possibly be relisted so those claims are explictly addressed. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can only find press releases from this company when I search on Google. That is not enough to meet the criteria for notability per WP:CORP. In regards to the user Dritter and Heyjohngreen it is not about the number of edits they have done. It is about what type of edits. Dritter has only edited the Savvica and Nuvvo (a product from Savvica) articles while Heyjohngreen started the Savvica and Nuvvo articles and his other contributions has only included adding links to this. Both these users votes are subjective as they probably work for the company. --Sleepyhead 13:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I understand the close, but the point offered by the that voter needs further inspection, and relisting will accomplish that. Xoloz 16:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure but only weakly, and relist is also acceptable. Nuovvo is, I think, notable - I saw it on a list Ow as pruning and it checked out OK to me. Whether the manufacturer is independently notable I wouldn't like to say. A redirect would be good enough, to my mind. Just zis Guy you know? 17:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorsement of closure. Closing admin used own judgement and understanding of WP policy and guidelines to avoid a possibly unwarranted deletion. Admins aren't robots and shouldn't be expected to behave like vote counting robots; this is a discussion, and the admins are meant to evaluate the consensus of the discussion and then render a final closure based on that discussion with reference to their (supposedly superior) understanding of WP policy and guideline. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random Acts Films

This article was deleted for no reason. -- Doo Doo 00:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Or so you think. It clearly didn't assert notability, nor does it show itself to be notable in Web searches. Keep deleted. --Nlu (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary. It was deleted the first time for being nothing but an external link; the second time for being nothing but an external link plus the text "More content this afternoon."; and the third time because it described a group of people with no apparent claim to notability (see WP:CSD#Articles, number 7). Keep Deleted. android79 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Actually, a reason was given for the latest deletion though it was a bit cryptic. (Prior versions were deleted months ago for being basically contentless.) The deleting admin believed that this qualified for speedy-deletion under criterion A7 - "an article about a real person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." Looking at the content of the article and the linked website, I'm afraid that I would have to agree with that assessment. However, if you can make an assertion that this article might meet one of the generally accepted inclusion criteria (such as WP:BIO, WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC), then we can undelete the article and submit it for a longer discussion and decision using the articles for deletion process. Rossami (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at many of the articles in Category:Comedy_troupes, Random Acts Films is like them. The films have even been shown on Australian TV. -- Doo Doo 02:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The most recent version of the article contains no references other than Random Acts' own website, and thus does not meet the verifiability policy. If Doo Doo can create an article that includes good, verifiable source citations to film magazines, national newspapers, major film websites like imdb, that meets the verifiability policy and that clearly shows how the article meets WP:BIO, WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC, he should compose it--offline or in his user space--then re-create the article when it is decent shape. This would be far better than insisting on dragging the present article through AfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's cool. Can someone post the deleted code into User:Doo Doo/ra. -- Doo Doo 02:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Will do in a minute. --Nlu (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Computerjoe 21:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, list on AfD. Article was deleted as a group of people making no assertion of notability, the interpretation of A7 as covering companies (rather than bands and school clubs, its intended purpose) is contentious, there are some unambiguous assertions of notability above, and this is not the place to debate the merits of the subject - this is to endorse or overturn dleetion decisions. This is definitely not a case of WP:SNOW, if the films have been shown on national TV. Just zis Guy you know? 21:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that it was not deleted as a nn-company, but as an nn-group (an assessment that I agree with given the article), which is subtly but importantly different. Specfically, deletion of nn-companies is not a supported position but nn-groups are, whether they purport to play with instruments or cameras. -Splashtalk 02:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, unprotect if the nominator thinks they can genuinely write a decent stub on this that actually says, with reliable sources (nominator: please read that link) why they are notable. The article as deleted, however, was a speedy in every revision, as observed above and there is no need to restore those absent an improved version to sit on top of them. They'd just get speedied again. -Splashtalk 02:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy, endorse userfication. Nom is invited to familiarize self with Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Notability. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seduction Community

Deleted through AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seduction Community. Please undelete this article. It describes a current relevant phenomenon. Streamless 15:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please provide evidence that it's a "current relevant phenomenon". android79 15:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • book called "The Game..." by Neil Strauss. anticipating the suggestion that there's already an article for the book, the community preceded the events of the book and appears to continue. Streamless 15:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some friendly admin please drop the content of this in my userspace; I have heard the term before, but I want to confirm what this thing said before speaking. Thanks Xoloz 16:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted, valid picking apart of a sockfest. Most sources seem to be blogs, and in any case it seems incredibly crufty, certainly not compelling enough to overturn an AfD. Article history prominently features User:SeductionCommunity which also strongly supports the diagnosis of vanispamcruftisement of the known faces in the AfD debate. Subsequent re-creation also looks like gaming the system. Just zis Guy you know? 17:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure The community does exist, and I (amateur sexologist) find it interesting; however, after a consideration of the available internet sources, I don't think a WP:V article is able to be written at this time. If this "community" does endure, it will become the object of independent interest, and at that time it will become encyclopedic. Xoloz 17:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why don't you think a verifiable article is able to be written? There is extensive coverage of the seduction community both in The_Game_(book_on_Pickup_Artists), and in the news media. What is not verifiable about these sources? Also, it's not true, as you presume, that the community is not an "object of independent interest." The community has received extensive media coverage, will soon be the subject of a movie, and possibly a reality TV show (see Talk:Seduction Community for documentation). That hardly sounds like a lack of "independent interest" to me. --SecondSight 02:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per both votes above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist. I have started documenting the size of the seduction community, and the increasing media attention it is receiving, on Talk:Seduction Community, and I request that everyone voting on the subject please review that page. Some of these news articles on the seduction community have come to light since the the deletion of the original article (such as the announcement that Columbia is making a movie out of The Game, which warrant a reconsidering of the deletion (though I personally think the deletion was undeserved in the first place). On this page alone, I see several misconceptions by voters who endorse closure: that the sources on the community are "mostly blogs," that a verifiable article cannot be written about the seduction community, and that the seduction community is not the "object of independent interest." Since the seduction community is covered in mainstream news sources, including the New York Times and San Francisco Chronicle, all of those claims are false. It seems to me that many opponents of a seduction community article are badly uninformed of the massive size and influence of the community, and of the extensive media attention it has received (which has increased since the original deletion). --SecondSight 02:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, SecondSight, I agree that you do show a very nice collection of sources on the talk page. Please use them to write a new draft of the article incorporating them. Since the article is currently protected, feel free to compose the draft as a subpage of your userspace. I do think that the SC will be encyclopedic sooner or later, but I am not convinced a WP:V article can be written yet -- I invite you to prove your point by showing that it can. If you substantially improve a recreation, it will not be speediable, and we will be happy to review it anew. Xoloz 03:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for acknowledging my efforts to demonstrate the notability of the seduction community. I have drafted a new version of the article on User:SecondSight, and I believe that it is compeletely verifiable. Feel free to suggest improvements to it. --SecondSight 01:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure I am very sorry SecondSight, but it seems to me all you have done is collect the accumulated press clippings that have been spawned by a book publicity campaign. This is an encyclopedia, not an extension of the marketing arm of Strauss' publiusher, Regan Books. Eusebeus 11:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why does it matter whether those articles are part of a "book publicity campaign" or not? They are still verifiable secondary sources published by reputable publishers (I don't see any policy on WP:V saying that book reviews are not admissable if they publicize a book). It is true that many of the articles do reference Strauss' book, though this one doesn't, and neither does Strauss' original NYT article (see Talk:Seduction for citation). Halo.Bungie.Org only has a few news references, yet it was found to be notable and survived deletion. Also, it confuses me that you seem to ignore the other notability evidence I provided. I challenge you, and anyone else who denies the notability of the seduction community, to explain why a community that is the subject of a bestelling book, that involves web communities with tens of thousands of members, that has international branches and meetings (called "lairs" and "summits"), that will be the subject of a movie and prospective reality TV show, and that has 1400+ Google hits (for "seduction community" and "pickup community," which are synonyms) is somehow not notable. Honestly, I believe that the evidence I have provided for notability is overkill (for instance, it much surpasses the notability of Halo.Bungie.Org). --SecondSight 01:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • New At This -- what does "endorse closure" mean? to Eusebeus, i would answer that the community is larger than merely the events of the book. indeed, many members of the community seem to be detractors of the book. admittedly, most of the sources are blogs and commercial websites; nevertheless, the members of the community are continuing to get more attention, irrespective of the source of the attention. moreover, while some of the members of the community have wikipedia articles devoted to them, there is no general article, which i would hope outlines some of the common/popular techniques, trends, strategies, principles, and jargon. please keep an open mind. thanks to SecondSight and Xoloz for their efforts/thoughts. Streamless 13:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate that my comment invites your reply, the fact remains that the process here was perfectly valid, and the fact that what you have accumulated pertains primarily to a publicity campaign regarding the publication of this book does little to answer the charge (pointedly raised in the AfD) that this is a viral marketing campaign. Pointing to other ephemera that have survived AfD because of the highly skewed perspective that the WP community finds notable is missing the point. Eusebeus 10:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse closure means that when the people here reviewed the deletion discussion on AfD, they found that it was closed according to wikipedia guidelines. In this case, the closing admin deleted the article...so Endorse Closure means keep it deleted. --Syrthiss 15:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Deletion review is not the place to rehash the discussion that took place on AfD; it is a place to question whether or not a closure of an AfD was performed appropriately. It was performed appropriately, in accordance with AfD consensus discussion and relevant WP policy. I second Xoloz' suggestion that if a policy-compatible version of the article can be written that addresses the concerns of the AfD discussion, it should be done, and then any admin should be glad on request to move that article into the currently protected articlespace. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kommentar A deletion review of the seduction community article is appropriate, because (a) users voting for deletion seem to have been unaware of the press coverage on the seduction community, which may have changed their perceptions on its notability and verifiability, and (b) new information on the seduction community has come to light since the original AfD. I have started documenting evidence on the notability of the seduction community on Talk:Seduction Community, so that users can now be properly informed on the subject. (Also, the charge that the seduction community wasn't notable during the AfD was not backed up, because nobody proposing deletion explained why a community that is the subject of a New York Times Bestseller is not notable.) I have just created a new seduction community article from scratch on my user page, at Xoloz' and your suggestion, and I believe that it is policy-compatible. I invite everyone to review it and suggest improvements (I am a relatively inexperienced wikipedia-editor). How do I go about requesting that it be moved into the protected page? --SecondSight 01:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 March 2006

Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy

This was nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy (2nd nomination), and also a third and fourth time it was AfD'd.It was deleted and then protected against re-creation.

This article is not a hoax, and is a genuine article. In fact, high schools in Merseyside, Greater Manchester, Staffordshire and West Yorkshire have taught about this as part of their World War II history syllabus.

Please re-consider your deletion, this article is genuine and verifiable - and our history department can prove it.

--Gairloch 15:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who this North Carolina vandal is, see my talk page. This article is genuine, and can be proven. It will take 2 - 3 weeks to find the sources. --Gairloch 13:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then come back then. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


John Bambenek

This was nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bambenek (2nd nomination). Sockpuppetry abounded on BOTH sides. The first nomination was a solid keep and was only about 2 months prior to this nomination with no recent changes. The original lister never participated in discussion and was a drive by hitter. It included shenanigans of a sysop deleting positive comments. The person in question has hundreds of unique google hits, has dozens of mentions by the media, and writes for an independed and self-financed paper of 20,000 a day (not include the columns that have gone out on the wire and been syndicated). I don't believe that this was seriously considered, there are no less than 4 different notablility criteria that this article meets and those were never considered. -- 12.203.38.138 13:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I continue to be impressed by the viewpoint that someone who was featured in a New York Times article, was recently in the Jackson-Clarion Ledger, and was interviewed by the Washington Post is cast aside because he "is just a blogger". I'm impressed that no one considered the actions of a sysop deleting positive comments, and I'm impressed by the complete disregard of the notability criteria that has been agreed upon by consensus. It's as if this whole process had a predetermined conclusion in mind and to hell with the facts. -- Alpha269 22:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirven's

  • Seems to have been speedied out-of-process as an "nn dead department store". Frankly IMO all department stores are notable enough to be merged with wherever they are located, so newbie-biting and admin button abuse of this nature is not helpful. Kappa 14:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Content of the article was "Kirven's was a local department store exclusive to Columbus, GA. Originally downtown, the family-owned store relocated to ill-fated Columbus Square Mall in 1979 only to close a few years later." As this seems to be a short stub on a department store with a short life, I don't really think that it stands a very good chance on AFD, stores are usually deleted while store chains are often kept. Nonetheless, as this is a disputed speedy of an article which didn't really fit the speedy criteria I will have to say undelete and list on AFD if you still want this undeleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Sjakkalle -- Alpha269 15:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist I almost invoked WP:SNOW, but I suppose (if given five days), someone could come forward with a really good reason to merge it somewhere. Xoloz 15:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar If Kappa wants this merged, and all the text has already been reproduced by Sjakkalle, why do we need to recreate the article just to turn it into a redirect? --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not convinced it merits merging at all. I'd like more perspectives and (if possible) more information regarding it. AfD is the forum to call for such in the case of an article that may or may not merit existing. Xoloz 20:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Surely the forum is the discussion page of wherever this is going to be merged. Insert the information about the department store, and, if someone removes it as 'rm info on nn department store' discuss it with them on the talk page. If no-one believes that it will be kept as an independent article, and the deleted content has already been reproduced so anyone can merge it, there's no point in AfDing.
      • If, on the other hand, the article can be recreated with more information, then it can be recreated without waiting for DRV as per the message on the top of this page. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Apparently, Kappa believes it can survive as an independent article. He brought this here. I only see it being merged, but his good-faith request is enough to allow debate at the proper forum, and I support that. Xoloz 03:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete as out of process speedy. Relist if necessary. This article's not causing any problems; I suggest leaving it be. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 March 2006

CommandN

Shown in a Superman comic, starring a co-host of an internationally-aired TV show, Frank Gehry-interviewing, heckofalot-more-notable-than-most-podcasts. Can we revive it? Here's my proposal redevelopment of the article... commandN/new. -- user:zanimum

Signa Vianen, Journalist

Page was proposed at Wikipedia:Articles for Creation on 2005-12-25. A page by that name was given the {{deletedpage}} tag on the same day. Another article, titled Signa Vianen was created the same day by User:Kappa and has since been expanded. I believe it would be okay to remove the protection from Signa Vianen, Journalist in favor of a redirect, or just an unprotected empty article. --Dystopos 20:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -Splashtalk 21:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:God of War/Tyranny and Fascism - Past and Present

This was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:God of War/Tyranny and Fascism - Past and Present and, mathematically, correctly closed as a 'no consensus'. However, regardless of the lack of consensus, WP:NOT a free web-host or a blog service. I don't want to censor anyone; openly declaring your POV may (arguably) assist in ensuring it doesn't subtly influencing your editing, but there is no way that posting political essays serves that purpose. At that point we have crossed the line from declaring POV, to pushing it. WP:NOT and WP:NPOV, and the strength of the argument in this debate, says overturn and delete. --Doc ask? 17:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bier Suppe

deletion details: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bier_Suppe

"A webcomic with 41 pages, found here and largely written by the webcomic author, a User:C Labombard. Alexa shows no data for the website, and a google for "Bier Suppe" webcomic gives under 50 links. Is this website notable? I don't think so. Hahnchen 23:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)"

Alexa definitely shows Bier Suppe, and Google definitely shows more than 50 links. Also, the page itself specifies M.A. Labombard as being the primary author and illustrator, and not User:C Labombard. As can plainly be seen, C Labombard is the primary promoter and webmaster, therefore has the right of the author to promote this site. The author can be contacted through the e-mail address given on that site to confirm this. Please undelete this page!


Syrian Kurdistan

This area is not known by this name by any organisation. Last time it was put up for deletion it was meant to be renamed to Kurds in Syria, but this article already exists and is well sourced so no merge is needed.

Please Speedy delete this as per talk --MysticRum 18:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it can be speedied for that. But it can be made into a redirect... Just zis Guy you know? 18:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. If it isn't obvious, this matter is now moot. Objections to the redirect (I cannot imagine why there would be any) should go to RfD before coming here. Xoloz 18:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 March 2006

Effinhot

Article was deleted as spam an then protected. As the private owner of effinhot.com i would like to bring this article back online so that it can be edited and better developed to provide an overview of the site it was to represent. I did not creat the original wiki for this article so it was a suprise to me when i found someone has beat me to it and then deleted for spam

It was spam as written. Before you create it, have you read WP:WEB? It looks to me as if you might have some trouble meeting that. Just zis Guy you know? 15:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Llamacon

Article deleted with 5 respondents outside of nom. All delete votes came before mention of notability via WP:BIO-style guidelines of press coverage. As AfD isn't a vote, the idea of 1 anon with 3 total contribs (two to the AfD), one "weak delete" and one delete vote without regard/note of the panelists or media coverage questions this deletion. We do not have a current process or guideline regarding conventions that I'm aware of, and it more than meets the standards set forth in, say, a bio of an individual or a group. At the very least, overturn and relist. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • An anime convention held for the first time a couple of weeks back? What say we wait and see if the second convention generates any coverage? Or better still, the tenth. Just zis Guy you know? 17:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I share JzG's concerns, but since bdjeff's point regarding unconsidered new information introduced during the debate is valid, and he is a longtime contributor making a good-faith request, undelete and relist. It is possible AfD could support his argument, hence WP:SNOW doesn't apply. Xoloz 18:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For any other situation, I would have never brought it here. The problem is a) the notable people in attendence, and b) the media coverage, which, combined with the poor turnout for the AfD, makes me feel a second look is warranted. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 23:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per nom. If it attracted three notable people in the field, as mentioned in the original AfD, I think it at least warrants a better AfD. Turnstep 22:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete/relist. Good faith DRV request; WP guidelines are not precisely crystal-clear with respect to the questions raised. No harm done by relisting. -ikkyu2 (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). I understand the arguments and have taken the second look requested. The relevant guideline is WP:CORP, not WP:BIO. (Neither are perfect fits but a convention is collective entity most similar to a business. It is clearly not a biography. But even if you used the WP:BIO guideline, the 5k threshold in WP:BIO does not apply. It is for authorship and specifically, for authorship of significant works like novels or textbooks. You do not automatically become notable for writing a single article in a newspaper. You certainly do not become notable for being mentioned once in the newspaper.) The most relevant criterion at WP:CORP appears to be the "multiple, non-trivial press coverage" criterion. A single mention in a local newspaper fails to qualify regardless of readership. Attendance by three perhaps-notable people does not convince me that a first-year convention with only 270 attendees automatically inherits notability. Frankly, I get more attendees and bigger speakers at my local industry seminars, none of which are appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see what you're saying. I don't agree, mind you, but I see what you're saying. One question, however, why do you believe WP:CORP is the more relevant guideline? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 22:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, as I tried to say above, WP:BIO is written to apply to individuals. The tests and criteria are fairly narrowly written to determine if a particular biography is appropriate to the encyclopedia or not. Conventions, on the other hand, are collective activities - activities involving multiple people working together for mutual benefit. That's the classic "social compact" definition of a Geschäft. Furthermore, most conventions are specifically run as a for-profit enterprise with the intent of providing goods and/or services to the participants and profits (either direct or through advertising value) to the organizers. WP:CORP is written broadly to cover not just corporations but all kinds of companies and even non-profits. The tests and criteria have been developed to help weigh these kinds of collective activities.
        To me, it boils down to whether a convention is more like a company or more like a human. I consider it more like a company and not very much like a human.
        On a more theoretical note, there are some situations which blur the lines. A sole proprietorship, for example, is a business of a single person. It's unclear whether the WP:BIO or WP:CORP guidelines would work best in that case. Luckily, very few sole propietorships would meet our inclusion standards under either criteria so it's been a moot point so far. Bands are another example where the line blurs but they have a separate and specific criteria (WP:MUSIC) which are better tailored for just this question. Hope that helps. Rossami (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not to dispute you Rossami, but if there is a question as to which guideline to apply in this grey area, isn't that more reason to relist? An AfD consensus is competent to decide which guidelines to apply to which articles, isn't it? Xoloz 05:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I considered a relist but could not convince myself that there was a reasonable chance that this article would survive the second AFD either. I'd rather we actually decided the question than running the question into another loop. Rossami (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • No disrespect intended, but a 2nd AfD would have a wider effect than simply convincing you; it'd convince everybody involved. Consider that if you were infallible, we could delete all Wikipedia policy pages and just put you in charge of everything.  :) --ikkyu2 (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • With a whopping 5 respondents to the original AfD, I certainly think that there's a reasonable chance that, with the relevant information presented up front, that a clear consensus one way or the other can be attained. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Cherevko

This article was deleted by User:Esteffect because of alleged recreation of deleted article, while it was (most probably) completely different from deleted one in content and topic and perhaps even about different people. Either way round, it was not identical to deleted one, so it do not fall under speedy deletion criteria. --Lucinor 21:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As initiator of request, of course I vote undelete. --Lucinor 21:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, as deleting party. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Cherevko. Cherevko created the original article himself, I'm sure, with ludacrious statements in it. Basically, it was a 13-year old's an ego-boosting bio. The article has been created and re-deleted several times in the past. The original AfD was infested with keep-voting sockpuppets. Cherevko claimed back then (under usernames such as Mykola Petrenko) that he was a child prodigy, adding himself to that article repeatedly. I think it should remain deleted per common sense. If restored, however, I will AfD it and provide a more full argument. Esteffect 21:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, note that the article I CSDed simply stated that he is a Ukrainian Children's Rights Ombudsman, and the first child to be given that position. Just how notable are children's rights ombudsmans? The original article, AfDed last year claimed he was a 13-year old studying at the University of Kyiv, who could read at the age of three and who had an IQ of over 200. Both stated Cherevko's DOB as 1991, though, so I completely believe that they are the same person. Esteffect 21:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Interesting. This version does not appear to be a simple reposting of the previously deleted content. Both content and style are different. Some new facts are also alleged. However, the previous AFD discussion raised some serious questions about whether this person even exists. During that discussion, there were several allegations of sockpuppetry and other attempts to abuse the decision-making process. Given the history, I'm inclined to request a verifiable cite supporting the latest version of the article. If such a cite can be provided here, I will recommend that we overturn the speedy-deletion and submit the article to a second AFD. Absent such a cite, leave it deleted. Rossami (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got my information from TV broadcast, but I've found some info on the net - [20] (Georgiy Gongadze's Center of Political Prognosing), that tells: "В цих умовах все актуальнішою стає ініціатива, запропонована Уповноваженим щодо створення дитячих омбудсманів з числа самих дітей. Тому Омбудсман України сьогодні своїм розпорядженням призначила на громадських засадах дитячими омбудсманами Крук Юлію, студентку 1-го курсу факультету міжнародного права Інституту міжнародних відносин Київського Національного університету ім. Т.Г.Шевченка та Івана Черевка, студента ІІІ-го курсу Національного університету “Києво-Могилянська академія”". (rough English translation: In that circumstances (of complete poverty and human rights ignorance - Lucinor 20:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)) Ombudsman's initiative of choosing children's rights ombudsmans from children themselves. So, Ukrainian Ombudsman today appointed Julia Kruk, freshman student of International Relations Instute and Ivan Cherevko, junior student of KM Academy to the office of children's rights ombudsman). --Lucinor 20:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And another link - [21] (Regional Party website, reprinting DAY newspaper article (DAY is quite influencial Ukrainian newspaper)): "8 декабря своим распоряжением я назначила на общественных началах детскими омбудсманами Крук Юлию, студентку первого курса факультета международного права Института международных отношений Киевского национального университета им. Т. Г. Шевченко, и Ивана Черевко, студента третьего курса Национального университета «Киево-Могилянская академия»." (translation: At December 8th by my decree I've appointed to the office of children's rights ombudsmans Julia Kruk, student of International Relations Institute and Ivan Cherevko, student of KM Academy). --Lucinor 20:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moreover, TV broadcast, which I rely upon, was shown on Inter channel (one of two main TV channels in Ukraine), and told that Nina Karpachova, Ukrainian Ombudsman (minor reminder - in Ukraine Ombudsman's office is generally as influential as Premier-Minister's office) enrolled two children as her aides in children's rights questions, one 15-year old, Ivan Cherevko and one 16-year old, Julia Kruk. They are appointed as her Predstavnyk's (position almost equal to Cabinet member) and have to care about children's rights. --Lucinor 20:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list on AfD. Articles are substantially different and additional claims to notability are made over the May 2005 AfD. Just zis Guy you know? 22:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted pending a trace of WP:Verification. No need to willingly restore previously deleted material that had hoax concerns. The previous AfD might have weak applicability in this case, but I do think it does have some. -Splashtalk 23:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per WP:SNOW. With regard to the version by Lucinor: no reference is provided to confirm the statement that he holds the position of Ukrainian Children's Rights Ombudsman, or that he and Nina Karpachova (appointed jointly) are the first children to hold thatt position. These are the only claims made in the one-sentence article. I am completely baffled as to why Lucinor didn't provide a source. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. If not G4 its A7, as thre is no indication of what exactly Ukrainian Children's Rights Ombudsman is or why it's notable. -R. fiend 00:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted per Splash and Rossami. Without a source, this article seems... dubious, especially given the context of the previous AfD. Xoloz 19:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted as per Splash's arguments. The references above do not seem to assert notability. Turnstep 22:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse CSD G4 speedy of previously non-notable content. New information isn't even close to satisfying WP:LIVING. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim Islamic jurists

This AfD request was closed because the main titular article was deleted per {{prod}}. However, there were four secondary articles attached to the AfD whose outcomes have yet to be determined. I don't want to create a completely new AfD as that will lose all the votes pertaining to the articles in question. And so, I'm asking that this be re-listed with the main article changed to one of the current secondary articles. joturner 21:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Anything you do here is going to be a mess, but I suggest that actually the only fair solution is to relist the other four, since it's unclear how many of the responses thus far are exclusive to the deleted article. Just zis Guy you know? 22:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no point relisting. The outcome is plainly no consensus. It's also not reasonable to ask for a mandate to do so here, since you're asking whoever carries out the relisting to work out which article and what nomination. You can make the relisting yourself if you like, but I don't think DRV is really capable of effectively doing so in this case. Just boldly merge them or something, and then revisit the deletion of the ones that turn out to be truly useless. That said, M0o should have been much more careful. -Splashtalk 23:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

advisory capital

This article was deleted for alleged lack of context. In fact, the concept, although new, has recently been the topic of many blogs by well-read bloggers including Jeff Jarvis. technorati currently lists 106 posts in the last two weeks. Many of these blogs pointed to the wikipedia entry and the entry was intended to be a fulcrum for discussion and a place for the concept to involve. Tevslin 17:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


28 February 2006

Template:If defined (and others)

Original deletion debate

I can't say this any other way: Splash clearly ignored consensus (or, if you're charitable, the lack of consensus) to delete these templates. Further, he assumed bad faith per my remarks, and ignored the fact that (at least initially) the TFD nominations were malformed (Netoholic didn't even bother placing a TFD tag on the template talk pages or the templates themselves). If he has doubts about the motivations of editors votes, he should ask them instead of simply discounting them out of hand as he's done here.

  • Overturn and Undelete, totally flawed closure by an admin who ought to know better. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. They are unused, so keep them deleted. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - James S's vote was based on a false technical assumption. Locke Cole's (and the "per Locke Cole" votes) did not provide a solid rationale for preserving these templates... he chose to attack me and wiki-lawyer the nomination. -- Netoholic @ 04:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me? I provided a perfectly legitimate rationale. Splash's closure, OTOH, did not provide a reasonable explanation for discounting/ignoring legitimate concerns. He says that I hadn't done any work since the TFD nomination; had it not occurred to him that I was waiting to see if the rug was going to be pulled out from under me before I did said work? Further, he conditioned deletion of other templates on the outcome of this debate: it was highly inappropriate for him to then ignore consensus (or lack of consensus) and close it as delete. There is absolutely no reason or justification for the conclusion he came to. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you bolding your words above to try and confuse people? Splash closed the TFD with an excellent justification. You did not provide a reason for keeping other than commenting on what you interpret as my bad-faith nomination. It is up to the clsoing admin to weigh the result, which he did. -- Netoholic @ 04:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're excused. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe I made my case with this comment in the original TFD debate: Netoholic is well aware that I intend to go through many of the templates he broke while WP:AUM was policy, and those templates will rely on these meta-templates (short of re-writing the logic used formerly to use {{qif}}). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete, please. I don't see that they are not used. Rather, I'd like to see them made into redirects, as was suggested in the original discussion. Is there an inherent problem with these being redirects? Again, the result of the discussion was no consensus, not consensus to delete. ... aa:talk 04:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The effects of CSS hacks (click for full size image)
The same page with meta-templates in use (click for full size image)
  • Do we have any indication that any templates are actually broken because of this? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the two images I've provided here. One uses CSS hacks, the other uses meta-templates (which remove unnecessary rows on the server side). It's been shown that some screen reading software (and non-CSS compliant browsers) break on these "CSS hacks". There is no such issue with meta-templates (or "conditional templates" like {{qif}}). —Locke Cole • t • c 07:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, if I understand this correctly, all these templates are deprecated in favor of {{qif}}. So, why aren't they just replaced and we avoid all of this? Wouldn't that be much simpler? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Some of the templates were fairly complicated: having these around as a reference to what was going on would be useful (to me at least). As I say below, I'd be willing to have these userfied to discourage their use by new editors. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. My "per Locke Cole" vote was based on Cole's statement "I intend to go through many of the templates he [Netoholic] broke while WP:AUM was policy, and those templates will rely on these meta-templates (short of re-writing the logic used formerly to use )". I do not see how this statement does not provide a solid rationale for preserving the templates, and therefore discounting my comment and my vote to keep is inappropriate. It seems to me to be unnecessarily destructive to break the dependant templates. Just put a notice on the template page stating that the templates are deprecated in favor of {{qif}} so that new templates are not created using these. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 05:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and replace known uses with Qif and then leave undeleted until the taxoboxes which use this template are all known to be subst'ed, i.e., after what-links-here is fixed. What was the reason for deletion in the first place? --James S. 07:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, and kill CSS hacks. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't say I'm surprised to see these turn up here. I repeat that those claiming the templates are in use are completely wrong. They are not. The Whatlinkshere links are all to user subpages, and templates are not removed from those prior to deletion since it does no damage to the encyclopedia to have them go red, and gives the user a good idea about what just happened. Undelete them if you like, or keep them deleted if you like, but I continue to think that the only reasons given for keeping in the TfD were flawed to the point of being invalid. I have no position on AUM as a whole. I just use whatever templates are around. -Splashtalk 10:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions: Why not simply replace the faulty CSS code with {{qif}}? Do these templates provide functionality that {{qif}} lacks? If not, why do we need them? —David Levy 14:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't claim to be a template expert (though I'm picking up experience as I go)– having these around would make it easier to understand how templates worked prior to being moved to CSS hacks. Sort of like seeing the source code to a program is easier than guessing how it works under a disassembler. FWIW, the more I understand how {{qif}} works, the easier it is to just rewrite templates to use it directly (see, for example, Template:Infobox Software). To be absolutely clear, I am not suggesting we start using these templates again; I just want them around to look at if I need a reference. (I would even be happy with userfying them I suppose, to deter people from using them). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. As a process argument, there was a fairly strong set of keeps in the request, and the reason that so few references remained was an out of process replacement by technically clever (but practically problematic) CSS hacks. As a technical argument, while "qif" may do things more generally, it was "if defined" that I was trying to use, and would actually cause less potential stress on servers through fewer inclusions. Keep, it worked. --William Allen Simpson 15:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily undelete for the purpose of converting usage to {{qif}}. In the alternative, we could provide temporary substitutes in user sub-space for the duration of conversion works. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, of course; closing was flawed. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per everyone. Ashibaka tock 17:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recently concluded

  1. Bashas' withdrawn by nom. 23:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Sean Ripple deletion overturned (no relist requested). 23:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Hunter Ellis deletion overturned, undel history+revert from redir. 23:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Sustainable National Income history undel. 23:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jewfro 'kept deleted', actually as a redirect. 23:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Gail (goldfish) not speedy but already a redirect/merge which this debate ok's. 23:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Tom Dorsch deletion endorsed. 23:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Kamyar Cyrus Habib deletion endorsed. 23:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Demilich (band) already kept by new afd. 23:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. London Buses route 4 already remade, so history undel. 23:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Math of Quran kd, what little there is does not overturn. 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Crying While Eating deletion overturned, already undeleted, will unprotect. 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Various warcrimes bios keep close endorsed since changes editorial in nature. 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. SourceryForge already redel'd by afd. 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Male bikini-wearing speedy endorsed, kept deleted
  16. Mucky Pup re-created, speedy kept on AFD 09:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Blog Torrent restored and listed on afd 23:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. TimeSplitters: Future Perfect strategy guide has been transwikied properly now 23:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Glossary of Japanese film credit terms nominator appears happy with transwiki (right?) 23:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Template:Background, no majority to overturn 23:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=43497185"