Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April

Nicholas Beale (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Unjustified, inadequate time for discussion, and Admin CoI NBeale 22:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC). I must declare an interest because I am the subject of the article! But I think the decision is wrong both in substance and procedure. In substance there are plenty of refs for notability including 2 books, publication in Harvard Business Review and Sunday Times etc.. and was independently rated in the top 25% of all rated WP Bio articles. But the process is also deeply problematic:

1. The AfD was listed on 27 April by an experienced Editor who has reverted many of my edits but as the subject of the article I was not notified.
2. The debate was closed after 3 days so there was inadequate time to comment.
3. The Admin who closed the debate was actively disagreeing with my edits on the Atheism article which he was working hard (and successfully) to promote to FA status and therefore was not impartial. Sorry that was a misunderstanding, it was a separate admin

I respectfully request re-instatement and at least adequate time for AfD discussion. NBeale 22:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And at the risk of stating the obvious, my "vote" is Relist and allow new AfD to run a full 5 days. NBeale 10:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Anyone can nominate any article for deletion. My reasons were valid and had nothing to do with you, but with the article. It was closed in an orderly and timely fashion by an uninvolved editor. It was inappropriate for you to use a sock/meatpuppet to vote Keep in the AFD as you did. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 23:12Z

• I'll admit that this comment owes more to personal indignation than anything else, but your last statement above is completely inaccurate; NBeale and I have not communicated regarding the deletion of this article, or indeed regarding this article at all. I'm happy to admit to having a particular set of interests (these and my motivations may easily be observed from this article's discussion page) and I'm reasonably willing to provide personal details if that would help to allay your concerns, but I vehemently deny the charge of being any form of puppet. Chiinners 02:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Since Chiinners created the article and voted keep on the AfD it seems reasonable to count him as Relist NBeale 10:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, it wasn't closed in a proper and timely fashion. In fact, it was closed early, most likely due to an improper snowball. But if Ryulong comes up and has a good reason for snowballing the debate, then I'll vote to endorse it. However, I am disturbed by Brian's assumptions -- you must assume good faith on behalf of editors. Just because someone has a SPA does not mean their vote doesn't count. Furthermore, you can't just go labeling someone a sockpuppet if it isn't proven. Have you done a request for check-user on Chiinners? Because if not, it is extremely inappropriate for you to assume and label him as such. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• The checkuser request was denied because it's not important enough. This is an obvious case of meatpuppetry, or deranged sockpuppetry. I've never seen a new account start an article on another editor, then never edit again, while that 2nd editor makes a dozen expansions to his new article; then during the AFD the original creator account edits again, to vote Keep in the AFD. See Wikipedia:Single purpose account. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-01 02:58Z

• No, it's not an obvious case of "meatpuppetry, or deranged sockpuppetry." If it were, the RFCU would have been fulfilled. I urge you again to assume good faith, and just assume that Chiinners is not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. SPAs are not evil. Yes, they exist, and yes, sometimes they're sockpuppets, but just because one voted on an AfD page does not mean that the vote is discounted. It's also important to remember that while I'm making my point using a policy, you're making one using an essay. Rockstar (^T/_C) 03:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is obvious, and RFCU only gets involved when necessary, not for just any requests. They didn't get involved in this case because the article was deleted and the AFD was closed. I'm not making my point using an essay, I just linked to an essay for further reading. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-01 17:51Z

• Rockstar - pardon my ignorance, but what do you mean by a "request for check-user"? Also, is there a standardised way of asserting my independent identity on Wikipedia? I ask mainly because my alleged puppetry seems to be a major point of dispute here ... Chiinners 02:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• See Request for Checkuser. This is a procedure where logs can be checked to determine if teo different editors are usign the same or simialr IP addresses. Its use is limited to a very few trusted people, fo porivicy reasons, and to limited purposes. DES ^(talk) 02:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Relist the original AfD and let it run for another two days. No reason to close this early. ~ trialsanderrors 00:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Relist, for how else can anyone judge?DGG 01:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Relist, and let it run for five days this time. Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• This is not the place to debate whether the person is notabel or not, although from a quick look at the deleted version, it does not look like a clear-cut no, nor an overwhelming yes. Relist and let run for the full time to get as wide a consensus as possible. DES ^(talk) 02:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse delete - The AfD was correctly filed and the consensus on lack of notability would seem valid. Only "keep" in the discussion was from a (very) low-edit count user who created the article also pops up here though not clear what bridges these two together for the sock/meat accusation. The relist request and the "canvassing" of the deletion admin is actually from the subject of the article himself also which feels like a very bad case of WP:COI. Ttiotsw 02:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• There are three aspects of your comment that trouble me. First off, COI is not a reason to delete an article; if you feel an article might not have a neutral point of view, you can submit it to an article review on its talk page or a RfC. But you don't delete an article if it is a possible conflict of interset. Secondly, the idea that an editor with a "low-edit count" does not have an equal say in an AfD is absolutely unfounded (it should also be noted that a RFCU was declined). Finally, the AfD was obviously snowballed by Ryulong, as it was only open three days (instead of five). Four delete votes and one keep hardly seems evidence enough to snowball an AfD. Rockstar (^T/_C) 02:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• AfD are not decided as a voting system and editors need not be considered equally (Quotemining WP:AFD..."The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." and "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted...". Read what I said - the COI was about the "relist request" and partisan "canvassing". Read WP:COI (a guideline, yes, but "you should avoid or exercise great caution when: 1. editing articles related to you, your organization, .... and 2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization ...". Your claim of snowballed by Ryulong has nothing to do with me. Ttiotsw 06:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I realize that AfDs aren't decided on votes, they're decided on consensus. Snowballing occurs when there is obvious consensus, which there wasn't in this case. It has everything to do with what you said. Furthermore, I've read COI many times, and just because it urges you not to write on your own article does not mean that you can't. Finally, there is no evidence of canvassing. Care to provide some? Rockstar (^T/_C) 14:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please undelete me to Brian0918 (mistaken identity as the deleting admin) then Please undelete me to Ryulong (the real deleting admin; no other requests therefore partisan. Ttiotsw 04:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Still not seeing a problem. COI, yes, but as we all know COI isn't a reason for deleting an article. Rockstar (^T/_C) 04:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse delete / Do not relist. Consensus was already clear from the original discussion; undeleting to relist for 2 more days is a waste of time when non-notability and consensus to delete is already obvious through quick examination. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-01 13:55Z
• Procedural overturn because I don't see a basis for the early closure. However, let's not waste too much time by sending it back to AfD for what currently would still be a delete result. Instead, userfy for now to allow for additional sourcing and evidence of notability, at which time the article can be re-posted in mainspace and if necessary re-listed at AfD. Newyorkbrad 03:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The question of notability was extensively discussed in the talk page of the article, and there was (I think) consensus that there were 7 or more claims to notability, any 2-3 of which would have been enough. All of this can be reviewed in a proper AfD debate - the discussion is invisible at present because the article was prematurely deleted. I don't think it's WP:CIVIL to rush this^[1] or prejudice the outcome with a userfy, nor to WP:BITE User:Chiinners who has explained his motivations in creating this his first article on its talk page and clarified his slight relationship with me (the subject). Also this puppet/soliciting business is absurd - the first I knew of this AfD was after it had been prematurely closed and had I been aware of it I would certainly have contributed vigorously to it! NBeale 05:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This discussion is separate from that "consensus" discussion. Everyone here and at AFD is capable of judging notability on their own. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-01 13:44Z
• Relist AfD. Needs the minimum five days of review until final decision by closing admin. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 07:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Do not relist, what's the point of giving it two extra days if the outcome is abundantly clear? "Undelete so we can delete it properly this time" is nothing but red tape. >Radiant< 10:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment we should be fair to people, even if we think that a fair process would lead to the same outcome as one that is clearly unfair and doesn't follow the policy. If we have a proper 5-day-min AfD debate and people are guided by the evidence and the references I'm quite confident what the outcome will be. At the moment, as DGG says, we need to Relist, for how else can anyone judge? And I really don't think it is COI for the subject of the article (me) to raise legitimate concerns about the fairness of a decision.NBeale 14:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You've never seen an AfD rescued in its fifth day? I sure have. Rockstar (^T/_C) 14:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Of course I have, but that's entirely beside the point. Because of this DRV, the page already has had more than five days' worth of discussion, so putting it back to "complete" the "five days" is pointless. Don't follow rules for the sake of following rules. WP:NOT a bureaucracy. >Radiant< 08:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Relist, as there seems some doubt about the fairness of the procedure, even if there is little doubt about the (lack of) worth of the article. Nothing to lose by relisting. Gnusmas 14:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse delete Notability was always extemely marginal but I wish the AfD had been allowed to run its full course as NBeale is a tenacious editor. Sophia 17:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

*Endorse delete. The article was riddled with conflict-of-interest issues, with the subject of the article writing most of the content, and the copious pleading by NBeale on this page tends to confirm me in my suspicions about the article. Wikipedia is not a place for posting your blog, your CV or your largely unverified autobiography. Snalwibma 18:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Relist. Change of mind: having thought about it, this is the only fair way of dealing with this. But I am concerned about the possibility that the AfD debate will be skewed by numerous contributions from a range of sockpuppets/meatpuppets, single-purpose accounts, and NBeale's friends and relations. Previous AfDs that NBeale has been involved in appear to have suffered from vote-stacking in this way, and I would expect the same to happen in this case. Just something to bear in mind in assessing the outcome! Snalwibma 08:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

extract from Policy "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". FWIW the material was verified in Debretts etc.. but that's a q for the AfD debate. The point here is that closing it after 3 days was clearly an "error in process" NBeale 21:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Debretts is not a reliable source. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-01 22:17Z

Why on earth not? It's certainly published and "The selection of entrants is made by the editorial staff of Debrett's and entries are reviewed annually to ensure accuracy and relevance." NBeale 05:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Debretts certainly lists people Wikipedia will consider notable, but not all of the people Debretts lists can automatically be considered notable. They must be handled on a per-case basis. It's the same way as with the Find-A-Grave project on WP:MEA. They gave us their complete list of 40,000+ famous people, and now we're going through that list and separating out people who are most likely to be the least notable. Their list is also created and reviewed by their staff, but we don't assume that everyone in their list is compatible with our site. We handle the subjects on a per-case basis. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-02 13:24Z

• Relist to be fair. I'm not sure, but I think this is a situation where we should respect process. This issue has greatly upset NBeale, and he believes a proper judgement of the sources would establish notability. Whatever the result of an AfD, it is important that he doesn't see this as some conspiracy against him. --Merzul 12:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Relist- As one who had no previous involvement with this debate (indeed, who came across this review at the 'tail end'), it seems there are several matters which need to be clarified. Apparently, Wikipedia needs to establish firm criteria for who would be considered 'notable,' and whether it would be appropriate for an author of an article to present himself in this category. Perhaps there need to be procedures where those wishing to be considered notable should require review by a disinterested party. I also gather that, in this particular case, it is not the credentials, book publications, or autobiographical information which are in question, except that they do not generally relate to achievements as a social philosopher but rather in business. However, an editor with whom there is a debate about atheism, where the other party is hotly opposing him, perhaps cannot be considered disinterested either. I believe there is no reason not to relist the article, and that there is sufficient material for the subject to qualify as notable, my only reservation being whether it might appear that the designation as social philosopher seems self-applied. (Other qualifications are amply documented, IMO.) Gloriana35 20:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Gloriana35

Wow - second ever wiki edit and you seem to know an awful lot about the background to this article and its subject. Sophia 20:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget, Sophia, it's important to assume good faith. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And don't forget that you may be new to a problem without knowing all the background - this is exactly what happened on the last AfD we were involved in with NBeale. I see you as someone who wishes due process to run its proper course which is something I can whole heartedly agree on. Hijacking the process by vote stacking with friends is not what this is supposed to be about. We don't need to assuming good faith to the point of naiveness. Sophia 20:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not naive if it's not proven. If you think that we're dealing with a sockpuppet, request for a check-user. Until then, don't chastise someone for having few edits. If Nicholas Beale is notable (and I don't know if he is or not), then it is entirely possible for someone from the outside world to come in and know about his history. Naive? Possibly. But at least it's not shortsighted. Any closing admin should be able to see through sockpuppetry and evaluate the arguments on their merit. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser will show nothing as I am sure this is a meatpuppet. I was not chastising them for having few edits - I was making a pointed observation that yet again a new editor turns up who is fully briefed on the situation. Coincidence - maybe. Abuse of process - probably. If he is vote staking now how can we be sure any relisted article would truely represent his notability? Sophia 21:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not know why bad faith is assumed on my part. I had previously read the article itself, and also the comments on this very thread about the conflict over the 'atheism' article. It is quite true that I have not been editing on Wikipedia - though I intend to do so soon - but that does not mean I am not a reader. Notice that this is not 'stacking' votes. The information given about Mr Beale's background in business, and publication of his books, seemed to allow at least consideration of being 'notable,' though I believe there is no clear procedure in this area (and there is a need for such parameters.) I did not see that the qualifications listed were related to being a 'social philosopher,' (none of the books, articles, or references showed such a qualification) nor do I believe it appropriate in most cases for a self-composed article to list someone as notable without further review. My point here is that there need to be clearer, well delineated procedures. I would think that, in any case where anyone wrote an article about himself, there would need to be (as I said above) review by a disinterested party. Gloriana35 22:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Gloriana35

I have not assumed bad faith but I will admit that I assumed you were encouraged to visit this debate. So I'll ask the pointed question - do you know Nicholas Beale either personally or professionally? This is important to establish a potential conflict of interest. Sophia 06:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Disclosure of relationships Gloriana35 became an e-correspondent following the House of Lords Colloquium on the Ethical and Spiritual Implications of the internet^[2]. We exchange 1-2 emails/month, occasionally read eachother's blogs, and have met over the 10 years on 8-10 occasions: sadly we live in different continents. Gloriana is a very considerable thinker esp. in Mediaeval philosophy and religion whose contributions to WikiPedia would add a great deal of value - please remember WP:BITE and that people study WikiPedia without necessarily editing it. Equally Sophia has frequently disagreed with me strongly on WikiPedia, as have Ttiotsw and Brian0918 - so have Merzul and Snalwibma and I applaud and thank them for their objective stances in this discussion. NBeale 11:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hustlenomics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Yung Joc has confirmed in several interviews that this album will be released, and the first single "Coffee Shop" has been released and is gaining some buzz. Undelete, or at least Unprotect so someone with better information can restore it. Tom Danson 18:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, not a valid speedy for A7. If this should be deleted, it should be discussed at AfD, not done via an improper A7 speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy - no assertion of notability - no sources - no encyclopaedic content. Good deletion. However, I'm willing to consider allowing a re-write if any of assertions in this request can be verified.--Doc^ga pox on the boxes 20:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • An album is a "person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content?" Keep in mind, too, that Yung Joc is a Grammy-nominated artist, which shouldn't be relevant to this, but probably will be for the folks who need to justify this mistake. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I can't imagine how on earth you could justify this with A7. Just echoing above, an album is not a valid reason for A7. That said, even using a broad interpretation of A7, how could notability not have been asserted? It's an album by a multi-platinum hip hop artist? Being unreferenced or failing WP:MUSIC is never a criteria for speedy deletion. Period. Screw verifiability for the moment; take it to an AfD if you don't like it. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This MTV article notes that "Hustlenomics" is the title of Yung Joc's upcoming album. JavaTenor 20:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Another article from VIBE mentioning the title. JavaTenor 20:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn I found an MTV source. Like all "upcoming-stuff" articles, this should be closely watched for unsourced info, but it's certainly not a speedy candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Albums, books, and the like are not appropriate for speedy. Saying something is released or published or about to be is an assertion of notability. It may not be N, according to our rules, and a good many of such subjects aren't, but that has to be determined. I would normally take such items to prod first, and remember to notify the eds. involved so they could add the information that might be needed. DGG 01:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. If deletion is to be discussed, AfD would be the appropriate place. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 07:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, not even remotely a valid A7. And, while I'm certainly not a process wonk, I am getting very tired of the ongoing misapplication of A7. Furthermore, there seem to some quite decent arguments raised for undeletion in this particular case. List it at AfD if you want, but lets try not to turn deletion into a pure matter of admin whim, TYVM. Xtifr _tälk 01:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Could somebody please close the discussion? The overwhelming majority is in favor of the article being restored and relisted at AfD, so could we please make that happen? Tom Danson 18:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It's probably not happening because of Doc Glasgow's vote. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Well then, if Doc isn't willing to listen to the consensus, he is unfit to be an admin, therefore, I would open up his desysopping case. (Not meant to disrupt) Tom Danson 20:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • It's because DRVs generally stay open for 5 days. It'll be closed tomorrow and the article will be replaced. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Dr. James Andrews (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Most notable sports surgeon working today - a number of people are looking for information about him. Would recommend adding some information from this page: http://www.asmoc.com/getpage.php?name=andrews SteveA3 17:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete but blank and start from scratch. The reasoning from the closing administrator seems to be that there were content issues on this article - and that he was willing to put it in the userspace in order to provide reference to create a new article. However, Jimbo Wales, if there are content issues, has a history of just blanking the page, or cutting it to a stub: [1]. In order to keep the history, it seems best to undelete,, but start over, as in that article. 64.178.96.168 17:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• I personally think history is overrated. If you want to recreate the page from scratch, just click the link above and start a new page. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• But don't include "Dr." in the article title. Corvus cornix 21:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Amen! Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn altogether. As I remember the article and the discussion, there were fully sufficient sources for notability. I do not see the point of sacrificing work that has already been done. Content issues are for the article talk page.DGG 01:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per my comments on the AfD. Retitle per MoS and add additional information and sources. (Stir liberally, feeds six.) Newyorkbrad 03:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Newyorkbrad. This is one of (if not #1) the most notable sports doctors in the country. As someone else mentioned on the AFD, this is the doctor whose name you do not want connected with your favorite player because it means they need serious work. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and improve; he's probably the single most prominent figure in sports medicine today. Would be better located at James Andrews (doctor) or some similar title, though, per MOS. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure I don't see the procedural issue here. If you want to improve the article and return it into article space, this can be done without a DRV. Just ask the closing admin to userfy. ~ trialsanderrors 03:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. As the closing admin said: while there has been effort to clean this article up WP:BLP, WP:NPF and WP:NPOV are paramount, no article is better than a poor article. This deletion doesnt preclude any future article, I'm willing to restore and move into userspace the content of this article for any editor doing so. Seems fair. There was only one valid Keep in that debate anyway, as far as I can see. Note, too, that the requester here looks suspiciously like a sock of the article's author (and author of just about every edit on that article). Guy (Help!) 19:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Shadow Raiders planets (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Firstly, no consensus was yet achieved. If anything, this page should have been relisted. Secondly, of the three keep votes for this page, most did not properly quote policy. We have:

1. Keep - nominator gives no deletion rationale, and remember: WP:NOT#PAPER. Topic appears notable enough, merging wouldn't help. Matthew 08:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

   Officially quotes a policy, but WP:NOT#PAPER seems like a policy quoted to justify keeping absolutely anything. What's more, the nominator did give a rationale: WP:FANCRUFT, WP:NOT an indescriminate list of things, which was not addressed.

2. Keep Topic notable enough. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

   WP:JNN. Saying it's notable means nothing, not backed up.

Again, even if these were valid arguments, there was not enough time to achieve consensus. And this list is indeed very "crufty" - it's for a television series that lasted one year! I would go ahead and mass nominate all the planets for AFD, but I don't know how to do a mass nomination, and I'm anonymous. 64.178.96.168 17:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure - Consensus was reached, deleters didn't give any reason with so substance... so consensus seems reached to me. Matthew 17:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Matthew, you'll have to pardon me, but it looks like we're talking past each other here. I have said that you didn't provide any reason, and you said the deleters didn't provide any reason. But the point is consensus was most certainly not reached. 64.178.96.168 17:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• If you don't find consensus, the closing admin almost always defaults to keep. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. The closing of the AfD was proper. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse There was nothing wrong with the closure. Renominate with a better rationale if you want to get this deleted. ~ trialsanderrors 01:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. But if I was the closing admin, I would have let the AfD go a little longer. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 07:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Gareth White (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

He is still active in Canadian politics and plans to run in the next federal election, He is also a defendant in one of the many libel suits by Wayne Crookes that includes Wikipedia as a defendant

• Speedy undelete, prod deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Yup speedy undelete it because it was a prod deletion. Then let's see if it should be speedied or AfD'd. Rockstar (^T/_C) 15:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Restored and sent to AFD. Naconkantari 17:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Libricide (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

article got biased debate Neil zusman 13:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. I disagree with the nom here as to the why, but this is a pretty interesting case. When you have multiple people yelling "neologism" when the concept dates back over 150 years, you have to weight that properly. Combine that with the scholar/books links and there's no consensus for deletion here. Revisit it in a month if it's got no chance of cleanup, but don't delete it based on that discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, article was a completely POV OR essay that was redundant to book burning. Closer made the right call. Hopefully the cached version will appear soon for non-admins, otherwise I'll restore the history behind a tag later if no one else does. --Coredesat 15:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, valid AFD. Naconkantari 15:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD. Plus: neologism or not, you can't kill something inanimate. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion This was thoroughly discussed at the AfD, which went on for much longer than usual. It was a POV essay and an unnecessary duplicate of Book burning. --Folantin 17:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion in my understanding to not be considered a neologism it needs to be generally understood has always have been a "real" word. Age is only indirectly related to that, and of the four dictionaries I just checked, only wiktionary mentions it as "rare". AFD was conducted properly. --pgk 18:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - perhaps a valid article can be written about the book, "Libricide," but the article as it stood was redundant and parroting - it was essentially regurgitating the arguments made in the book, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. FCYTravis 18:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD. Perhaps book burning might be renamed "here", but that's a separate issue. (As for --badlydrawnjeff, the difference in concept between book burning and libricide has only existed for a few years, if that long.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - valid AfD, hopelessly POV and soapboxy article, and if you cut the junk you'd be left with just a dubious dicdef. It's apparently already at Wiktionary, so unless someone can write a better article by far, we don't need it here. Moreschi ^Talk 21:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion valid AfD, no reason given to overturn: How was the debate "biased"? In what way? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion This was not really a neologism, it was an article about a concept discussed elsewhere, and unique content should have been merged in. Taking only subjects and giving them additional new names does not warrant a new article in WP, just Wiktionary. DGG 01:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The AfD closure was valid. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 07:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion without prejudice against making it into a redirect. I partly agree with badlydrawnjeff in this doesn't seem to be quite as clear a case of neologism as some suggested at AfD, but that point was raised early on, and seems to have been given due consideration. I also agree with Pkg that age alone does not make something not a neologism, and most importantly, I agree with the several people who have suggested (both at the AfD and here) that we already have adequate coverage of the topic, and that a separate article at this name smacks strongly of POV-fork (or at least, pointless content fork). Bottom line, the consensus at AfD was clear, and nom's accusations of bias seem to lack any foundation, and smack of incivility and lack of good faith. All that said, I think a redirect seems like a very reasonable idea. Xtifr _tälk 01:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid closure, valid arguments of this being a POV-fork, so just make a redirect to Book burning, and if there is any difference between the terms it can be explained there, but having a separate article is not acceptable. --Merzul 12:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Bob Dobbs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Overturn: This deletion was not "nearly unanimous agreement" (as mentioned on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Dobbs and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Bob Dobbs). He is obviously notable just by how much debate his controversy's have generated on his AfD page. Plus, he has ties to spiritual channellers Paul Shockley, David Worcester, and Ralph Duby (all outlined at User:Eep²/Paul Shockley for now, pending article rewrite). -Eep² 03:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Plus, I find it odd that, for a satirical organisation as the Church of the SubGenius, this person isn't notable with respect to that "church". Seems like the "church" can't take what it dishes out... Hypocracy? -Eep² 03:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Listen to Cosmic Horizons with James Haarp: Bob Dobbs where Dobbs explains his non-affiliation with J.R. "Bob" Dobbs. -Eep² 06:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Watch Conversations with Harold Hudson Channer: Bob Dobbs, 10/12/06 where Dobbs explains his history. The guy's notable, even if what he says is bogus. -Eep² 09:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Read Paranoia Magazine: Synchronistic Linguistics in 'The Matrix': Or How Bob Dobbs Became the Tetrad Manager by Robert Guffey. Obviously, if anything, Dobbs is notable for exposing Marshall McLuhan to a greater audience (subculture, underground, punk, whatever) via Flipside (fanzine) and his controversy with SubGenius. -Eep² 06:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: More articles: Paranoia Magazine: The Death of 'The Matrix': A Dialogue With Bob Dobbs

• The Argonaut: Archivist Dobbs talks McLuhan theory at Bergamot Station in Santa Monica, University of Toronto: The Legacy of McLuhan: Symposium Participants

"Bob Dobbs was born in Paris and after World War Two worked with international intelligence agencies for many decades. He surfaced in 1987 on CKLN-FM in Toronto and began whistle-blowing. Two interpretations of Dobbs are circulating in the popular media: one is through the Church of the SubGenius that Dobbs inspired in 1978 in Dallas; the other is on two CDs, Bob's Media Ecology and Bob's Media Ecology Squared, put out in 1992 by Time Again Productions, early students of Marshall McLuhan. The best presentation of Dobbs' work is in his book, Phatic Communion with Bob Dobbs. Today, he travels the world explaining his/our victory over the Android Meme, and the tracings of these activities are regularly published in Flipside magazine."

• Toronto Globe: Things get ugly in the world of underground art - about Bob Dean/Marshall claiming to be Dobbs and its controversy

All of these articles show Dobbs/whoever's notability. Do a Google search for more, if you like. -Eep² 07:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Los Angeles Times: A Reading Club That's Getting Nowhere Fast, June 27, 1996 mentions Dobbs as a McLuhan archivist and Finnegans Wake fanatic; nothing about the SubGenius (at least in the abstract anyway). I am not proposing his article be restored as an affiliation of SubGenius (but his impostering of that "Bob" should be mentioned in Dobbs' proper's article. -Eep² 16:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Open CKLN: Bob Dobbs and Myke Dyer from a CKLN Archive Show from December 12, 1990, September 17, 2006 - if anything, Dobbs is notable for being on CKLN for at least 4 years (more interviews/appearances). All of these meet WP:BIO notability guidelines (despite the misleading "policy" redirect).-Eep² 18:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: 8Bit: The Rebirth of Bob Dobbs: Man, Myth, Hologram (date unknown), RockCritics: nowhere to run, nowhere to hide: an interview with bob dobbs, Scott Woods (date also unknown), Cloak and Dagger: Guest: Bob Dobbs, The Varsity: From Sound Bytes to Insights: New festival asks, "Why McLuhan and why now?", 10/25/2004, Marshall McLuhan/Finnegans Wake Reading Club: Events Archives: Def Con Bob and ROBERT DOBBS in dialogue with Gerry Fialka promotions, and WBAI Radio: It's Time to Vote: Robert Dean (legit?). If the article won't be restored as "Bob Dobbs", I'll simply create a new article at Robert Dean (whatever) that will show his fradulent affiliations as some claim--the point is, he is notable--even as a fraud (if true). -Eep² 18:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Dobbs/Dean/Marshall (whatEVER!) appeared with Eben Rey on Radio Alchymy on KPFK 90.7 FM in Los Angeles on May 3, 2007 at 3-4AM about the android meme, how to communicate without attachment, and explains the concept of media self-destruction. Listen to it here. Dobbs has been on Radio Alchymy 24 times since 2000.[2] -Eep² 12:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse original deletion. The exact text of the deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Dobbs) was: "There is nearly unanimous agreement, excluding SPAs and newbies, that this gentleman fails WP:BIO, and the current article sorely lacks WP:V." This is exactly how it was. This Deletion Review is little more than a troll anyways, as User:Eep²'s talk page shows him to be having trouble adjusting to Wikipedia: he has already used his user page to "preserve" two articles (Eep and Paul Shockley that had previously been deleted.)

As for "Bob Dobbs" (nee Bob Dean) himself, he's a guy who's done nothing but talk about himself, himself, and himself for the past twenty years, while making up outlandish stories about himself in a forlorn attempt to convince people he's important. This is why the article was deleted: in addition to its lack of notability, no one was able to verify Dean's ridiculous claims. Instead, they kept whining about the Church of the SubGenius' evil suppression of such a great man...someone who is so great, he has to resort to making up stuff about himself. Eight months later, the same arguments are being used -- even though this doesn't change the fact that Bob Dean (or Dobbs) is not notable, and his claims are not verifiable. The two podcast links provided by Eep² don't change this; in fact, Eep² himself notes right above: "...even if what he says is bogus." --Modemac 11:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn original deletion. Verifiability does not equal Truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ivan Stank (talk • contribs) 03:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Probable sock puppet. Edit history shows the only contribution of this account is to this deletion review. --Modemac 11:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn original deletion. One hundred years from now Bob Dobbs will be more relevant than the Church of the SubGenius. --Ivan Stank 02:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate "overturn" struck out. --Coredesat 05:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse original deletion. This review is making my head hurt, but the original article was nonsense. I support the creation of a neutral article. Ichormosquito 11:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hold on. Are we simply voting to delete a redirect page? The article is here now: J. R. "Bob" Dobbs Ichormosquito 11:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You have to admit, the article is pretty funny. I hope someone can make it neutral. Ichormosquito 11:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we're voting to retain the deletion of an ego page that a wanna-be "media ecologist" created about himself back in August. No one was able to verify the wild claims of the person in question (Bob Dean), and when asked to do so they whined that the Church of the SubGenius was coming down on him because of his use of the name "Bob Dobbs" (which he used in an attempt to make people think the Church is all about him). So the article was deleted for WP:V and WP:BIO.--Modemac 12:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, valid close of mostly-valid AfD (the exception being some decidedly odd comments). As the article said, While not widely recognized in the mainstream... Quite so. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: It doesn't matter if what Dobbs said was true in order to be notable. Just the fact that he has caused all of this controversy is notable in itself! Even if it's all a lie, so what? There are plenty of notable fictionalists in Wikipedia... -Eep² 11:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Dean doesn't claim his lies are fiction, he's trying to pass them off as the truth. That's so what. --Modemac 12:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Uh, again, so what? Lots of conspiracy theorists do that. So long as the article remains neutral, what's the big deal? -Eep² 13:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: While I think the whole thing is funny as hell, it's very likely not encyclopedic to talk about the Church of the Subgenius at all except in a survey article about hoax religions. Regardless, I'm afraid I must elect not to make any meaningful opinion known due to conflict of interest. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Um, with that mentality, you might as well delete all religion, science, and philosophy-related articles on Wikipedia. -Eep² 13:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Stand back, you sandal-wearing, goatcheese-chewing dupe! Think you I am a non slacker? Eat me. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Um...yea. And this is the kind of people who don't want the Bob Dobbs article restored? I never understood the whole slack movement anyway, but I still think Bob Dobbs is notable. -Eep² 14:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, who'd have thunk you had no apparent sense of humor? Isn't DRV sort of antithetical to the Church? I am abstaining because I've always considered myself a member (huh huh, he said 'member). --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 20:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, close seems proper after discounting SPAs. --Coredesat 15:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Coredesat said it right -- and consensus, therefore, looked pretty good. Rockstar (^T/_C) 15:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn original deletion. One simply do a search online to see the sheer amount of textual and audio work that Mr. Dobbs has created. There is also a film entitled 'Def Con Bob' that follows one of his lectures in L.A. It is ridiculous that this is even an issue and shows nothing but intolerance on the part of the Church of the SubGenius - a group reputedly famous for its hijacking of media and pranks. Without a Bob Dobbs article the whole of Wikipedia is, frankly, compromised. This author has just finished a 12,000 word interview with Mr. Dobbs, and represents one of many who consider Dobbs to be quite interesting and deserving of a Wikipedia article. If not Dobbs, then who? -User:Guestserviceinfinite (Talk | contribs) 08:32, May 1, 2007 (added by Eep² 03:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC) from Bob Dobbs)

Probable sock puppet (again). Edit history shows the only contribution of this account is to this deletion review. --Modemac 09:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• You'll have to prove that. As for the argument about the subject having to have an article here, see WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. Guestserviceinfinite may be a sockpuppet or SPA - its only contribution is posting that comment in the wrong place. --Coredesat 03:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Now now, Coredesat, WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING is not Wikipedia policy or even a guideline; it's a collection of opinions. -Eep² 04:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING not being policy or a guideline, but it's still something to avoid. On the other hand, WP:V is a policy, so you'll still need to prove it with reliable sources. --Coredesat 05:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write the claim; Guestserviceinfinite did. But I'll be sure to post on various Dobbs blogs about getting his followers/fans/whatever to post their support here, if you like. And then I'm sure you'll go to SubGenius sites and do the same. Wee...then what? Obviously, just this kind of tension is enough notability to have an article on Dobbs. Ridiculous all the oppression here... -Eep² 06:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, this little discussion is already known on the SubGenius newsgroup alt.slack: [3]. We're just sitting back, watching, and laughing at the antics going on here. --Modemac 13:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse deletion, although there might room to mention him in the Dobbs article proper. DS 14:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:PokeImageNR (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|TfD)

Template:Poke-nsd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache)

Template:Poke-nrd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache)

Template:Poke-no source (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache)

As the creator of two of the templates, i was not notified, and no one at the project who would be using this templates was notified. The reasons for deletion could have been addressed without actually deleting the templates. I'd also like to ask for some leniency, that even though the TFD was up for a week it occured during a period where most people who would be using these templates were likely involved in rl because the newest release of the games came out during this period. Aside from real world involvment, this also meant 100 page moves, and anon monitoring on those pages. Images were taking a backseat.-ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Relist - The original reason for deletion was that the templates were redundant to {{nrd}} and {{nsd}}. They were in fact intended to assist with those categories. Another concern was that it would create unneccessarily complicated backlogs. The templates can easily be modified to utilize the same categories and in fact would aid in clearing up the backlog by making people who might be able to properly source an image more aware of it. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. I wish I had realized that there was no notification, or I would have done it. Anyway, templates shouldn't be deleted without the input of those who use them. -Amarkov moo! 16:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I was the closing administrator on this. It was a completely valid discussion. And the consensus was almost unanamous. Do I wish that more had been notified? Yes. But honestly, #1 I'm not sure it would've made any difference. This was not real close. I am always leery with the "I wasn't notified" reasoning with TfD because the debate stays open for 7 full days. Someone should be able to catch it in that period. And. Besides all of that, the templates were redundant to existing templates. And they weren't being used either. All grounds for deletion. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 16:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. If those who weren't notified can tell us how these templates aren't redundant, then let them do it here. If they can't, then their involvement wouldn't have changed the outcome of the TfD. WikiProjects do not own templates/articles related to their chosen subject and have no special rights in deletion discussions. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • it was my understanding that I shouldn't discuss my reasons for not deleting here... that i should only try to explain why i think it should be relisted, as this is not the proper forum. However - if you ask, you will receive. The Pokemon genre tends to attract a large number of people who do not feel it neccessary to read and understand the policies before uploading content. As such, prior to a massive image overhaul back in March, there were many images that either had no source or rationale. Rather than tag them with nsd or nrd i created tags (PokeImageNR and Poke-no source) to place them in special categories that i and anyone else who was interested in looking at Category:Pokémon images could quickly and easily sift through - sourcing, nominating for deletion, etc. The two newer templates, I assumed, were created to address the problem brought up in the TFD about creating forked backlogs (i now have realized this may not have actually happened). The templates are not redundant because they actually help with the backlogs created by nsd and nrd. Many images do not become sourced because a general person will probably have no idea where the uploader could have found the image. If additionally categorized in a relevant subcategory of a topic, the image is more likely to become properly sourced, or receive an accurate fair use rationale. The fact that by the time the nominator found these templates they were no longer needing to be used supports this idea (had i tagged images nsd or nrd they would probably still be tagged that way, as evidenced by the number of images in those categories). Deleting these templates prevents helpful categorization, and they can easily be reworked to so that they utilize the current date categories as well. Arguing that because they're no longer used they can be deleted is like deteing nsd and nrd if we were ever to empty the backlogs. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid debate, no new evidence above. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • apparently I didn't make myself clear. The nominator made the statement that, "all images without source or fair use rationales are treated equaly and should be listed in one place for easy processing." Like i said, the templates did not (or should not) create forks of image categories that people would have to go through in addition to those linked to nsd and nrd. The scenario presented:

    Imagine if admins didn't just have to process everyting in "images with no source as of XXX", but also had to go though a dozen categories like "images of pokemon with no source", "images of dogs with no source", "images of cars with no source", "images of fish with no source" and so on. It would just make the system even more complex and tedious to administrate for no real benefit.

    was completely groundless, the perceived forked backlogs would NOT exist. And seeing as how nobody added any other reason to the debate, the refutation of this idea should be enough to support recreation. However, i've also refuted Woohookitty's claims of redundancy and non use. I'd also like to point out that no one who !voted semed to realize that these templates had been used and were being retained for future use. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Relist I know it isn't required by the rules, but it would be much better practice to always notify at least the the project when a template is under discussion,it order to avoid misunderstandings like this. Relatively few people watch TfD. The idea should be to do what is necessary to have a proper discussion with all parties affected. In this instance a good case has been made. DGG 20:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist, it seems the timing of the TfD was unfortunate in that it coincided with a period when those using the template were busy with other activities. This, combined with the lack of notification to the template creator and project and the additional reasoning presented here make a compelling case for a new TfD discussion. Regarding the notification issue, I endorse DGG's comment. I also have vague memories of what I presume was a proposal that the clock didn't start on XfD discussions until the creator had been informed, adopting that and the same for notification of any relevant projects (identification of relevant projects would seem to be easily accomplished by all projects wishing to be so informed placing a prominent note on the template talk page) would seem to me to be a good way of avoiding many, possibly even most, misunderstandings like this. I understand though that some thought would need to into how to achieve this without adding complexity. Thryduulf 21:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I would tend to go with Samuel on this one though. The Wikiproject or the users using the template should not get any kind of special treatment. And that's what this would be. These are not "their" templates just because they use them. It's not as if the TfD tags were hidden on the 3 pages affected. They had a full week to make their voices heard. If we overturn something that is this clear, what kind of precedent does that send? It's not as if this was even close to a mixed vote. If a unanimous result can be overturned, then what exactly is the point of TfD? And it isn't as though there was just one or two users saying delete. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 21:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. The deletion debate was unanimous, and the templates were unnessesary and redundant forks of existing templates. There is no lack of members associated with WP:POKE, and if these templates served any sort of purpose, they would have immediately been identified by one of those members during the week+ that the debate was open. Resolute 21:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion the deletion process ran its due course and the result was unanimous. The templates, as far as I could tell, had been properly tagged and anybody with them on their watchlist should have noted the ongoing deletion debate (We are not talking about a hidden notice in a locked closet in a abandoned toilet with a sign on the door reading "Beware of Tiger" here) and should have weighted in and notified others that would be affected. Also, as I pointed out in the TfD, I don't think we need a special template just for Pokemon related articles. The normal ones do just fine. CharonX/talk 22:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. The only thing more annoying than pokecruft is people whining about pokecruft. —ptk✰fgs 22:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • wow... using an essay to back you're opinions... i'm convinced... -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There is no reason to categorize deletion queues by subject. Uploaders need to give the correct information, we don't need to make one million categories to coddle them into following image policy. Regardless, most of the pokemon images are fair use anyway, it's not hard to find more. And I have nothing against pokemon... - cohesion 22:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your more appropriate tone. But by saying we shouldn't "coddle [users] into following image policy" isn't that like saying "noobs be damned"? And the idea of encouraging people to follow policies by discovering the image was deleted and then having to re-upload it doesn't seem helpful. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd encourage anything to help new image uploaders and am a strong proponent of moves in this direction. This particular solution though doesn't scale in my opinion. Also, many people will continue to add the normal templates to pokemon images anyway, so you have no guarantee of catching them all. (awesome unintentional pokemon double entendre!). - cohesion 02:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Just for the record I did notify a user who seemed to have been heavily involved with making the templates, guess he was not active. I'll concede that the category forking seems to be a non-issue. I only read the noinclude text and skimmed the code real fast and missed the part where it added the "official" category too. That said there are still good reasons not to make forks of these templtes. For example if lots of projects did the same and the speedy deletion criterea change at some point there would no mechanism to ensure that all the forks where properly updated to reflect current policy (guess we could maintain lists, but still a lot of work). Yes there are ways around that too, like making the pokemon template just transclude the official one and add it's own category or such, but I guess it ultimately boils down to wheter or not it's rely needed. I'm not entierly unsympathetic to the idea of having additional "filter" categories where people of varios Wikiprojects could investegate problem images related to theyr interests. More eyes on our images would defenently be a good thing. However I'm not convinced project spesific deletion templates are the way to go, there is no guarantee after all that non-members will know about and use these templates, so images they tag will never show up in these categories for project members to review (evidenced by the aparent non-usage of these templates). Perhaps it would be better if the Pokemon project (and any other project for that matter) where to create theyr own "image task force" that would routinely browse though the list of images tagged as missing source and rationales and just manualy add a relevant category to images they think relate to theyr project. --Sherool (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Compromise - Ok... i think i've come up with a solution that would make everyone happy. How about we just add an optional parameter to nsd and nrd that adds a category? Least amount of code, and would help the most people (those outside the poke-project as well). -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 23:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • ... wait... ick... then users will have to use the template typing in something like {{subst:nrd|Pokémon images without a Fair-use rationale}} maybe merely adding code supported magic words? the code is substed so it's not like it would have to check each time. But then again, when the tag is removed, the editor will have to be sure they remove all relevant categories. of course that's really no different than Sherool's option. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The overwhelming opinion from the TfD and this review is that there is no need for unsourced images to be placed into separate categories by subject. The technical way of doing it isn't the issue. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The TFD !voters offered nothing more than support of the nominator's admittedly inaccurate observations. So quite honestly seeing as how Sherool is making new arguements, i fail to see how the old TFD has any bearing. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment I see no convincing reason as why to allow the forking of those generic-use templates. The addition of categories might see useful, but does it warrant the creation of the fork - we might end up with nsd template for any topic imaginable. The addition of the parameter is also not very useful, since to use that parameter one would have to know the proper category which either leads to guess&check or listcruft at the parameterlists. CharonX/talk 00:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Just a couple of comments. Firstly, there is a long precedent on the TfD page for not having templates forked from existing templates unless the templates are used heavily. Now. This isn't like a policy (though the redundant piece of the policy is along that same line). :) But it's something I've seen on TfD time and time again. We have the generic templates for a reason...and that reason is to eliminate the use of specific templates for each and every case, which would clutter the server and make things more confusing. It just simply makes more sense to have one template for something like this and not many. Secondly, I do appreciate the fervor that you've brought to this, Zappernapper, but I think you are missing something. I don't think people said they wanted the template deleted because they didn't like the argument. I think they did it for what CharonX is expressing and for what I just said. There is just no reason to have a specific template for Pokeman articles when the generic ones do just fine. There is no reason for the template to specifically say Pokeman. It's redundant, no matter how you dress it up. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 02:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Endorse deletion, unanimous result from TfD was that these templates were redundant; nom has offered no evidence to challenge that. Notifying the creators is polite; notifying related Wikiprojects (especially over-specialized fan projects) is absolutely not required, and frequently counter-productive. (The more specialized a Wikiprojecct, the less likely, in general, that its members will be willing or able to endorse a neutral or balanced POV, in my experience.) And while it's not strictly relevant to this review, I'd like to point out that concern was expressed at the TfD about what would happen if more Wikiprojects started doing the same, and I confess that I fully agree with this concern. I have no personal objection to a Wikiproject tagging images for their own purposes, but I do object when they try to replace and override existing standard templates. A completely separate {{PokeImage}} template with project-specific arguments to place images in project-specific categories seems like a much better approach. Xtifr _tälk 02:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Or simply put categories on the page! You don't need templates to add categories to something. And you particularly don't need to add special parameters to existing templates to then "allow" arbitrary categories to be added to pages! Let alone create new templates that you can use to replace existing templates in order to place something in a standard category and your own special-purpose category. Xtifr _tälk 14:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This has established notability through mentions in seven news sources, including at least one (The Guardian) being primarily focused on ED. Also the MSNBC mention bad extensive coverage, which makes this even more notable. This has been mentioned various times since its creation in December 2004, and has more users than kept sites like Wikitruth or Memory Alpha. There are probably even more sources now. Alfedhun 20:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

We just had a DRV for this article less than a week ago. Check the logs. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I know that was closed by a troll. I agree with Alfed, this needs some consensus. OldDirtyBtard 20:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's time. And I am not a sysop on this site, just a supportter who would like to see how people feel. Actually someone tried to make a compromise at the Live Journal article, but MONGO, being an ass as usual, insisted on reverting that. Alfedhun 20:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Do not make personal attacks, and I think we should do a checkuser for OldDirtyBtard and Alfedhun. Sockpuppetry anyone? Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion since this established notability through its role in the Jason Fortuny controversy. It was not notable before then, but it is now. (I'm an admin here, I may be biased)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ldDirtyBtard (talk • contribs) 20:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
  • You're an admin here? Really? Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close and endorse deletion. Trolling and the like. No change since the last deletion log six days ago. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

He's an admin on ED. And DON'T speedy close. I think it's time to see consenus about this. It's been months. Alfedhun 20:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Do not, under any circumstances, change my vote. Consider this a warning. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if you spedy close we will never find consenus. This is NOT trolling, I am very annoyed by your refusal to include ED on this site. Alfedhun 20:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus was decided months ago. Show us new evidence for inclusion and maybe we'll change our tune. And when we say "evidence" we need proof. So don't just say "It was in an article." Give us a link. And remember to read WP:N before doing all of that. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Alexjohnc3/Archive 1 had links. I have mentioned that far too often. Alfedhun 20:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close. Nothing more need be said. Corvus cornix 20:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a reason for your comments. Alfedhun 20:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• How about we don't allow speedy close? None of us are saying "speedy overturn", thus you are more trllish than we are. Alfedhun 20:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Dead_Awaken (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON 74.72.119.9 22:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is my first time writing one of these so please pardon any mistakes.

I would like to see the article "Dead Awaken" in the "Browser-based games" category restored.

This entry was deleted twice in a two day period. One admin sited the site as "irrelevant content", the other said that "Wikipedia is not a web directory". However the "Browser-based games" category continues to exist, and I don't see any of the other entries in that category being deleted. I will specifically note that entry for the competing browser based game "Urban Dead", continues to exist also.

Earlier this month the Dead Awaken site removed a dozen of its most powerful players for sharing accounts and misusing administrator functions to read private e-mail and peek at player's profiles and statistics. I suspect this has something to do with the sudden need to remove information about the game from Wikipedia.

• Overturn. I don't care if it technically qualifies for A7, this should not be speedy deleted. Like I've said before, A7 is for things like "This is a really cool up-and-coming band. Their latest album sold 2 copies." -Amarkov moo! 23:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Looking right at WP:CSD#A7, any such web content with no assertion of notability is subject to it. Admittedly, the article was lengthy and seemingly well written, but this is irrelevent. Someguy1221 09:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• I'd doubt the conspiracy theory at the end of your comment... Wikipedia admins dislike articles like this that seem to be too close to being just game guides, rather than encyclopedia entries. This article was very lengthy, but it didn't cite any published sources, and the closest thing it had to a claim of importance was "There is a strong message board community with many forums devoted to various aspects of the game". If other articles have these same problems, they can be deleted too... with 1.7 million articles, even the most herculean of all admins could barely hope to assess 1% of them even over a span of a few years, so one article's unchecked existence doesn't guarantee retention for another, similar article. Anyway, this article in question was pretty lengthy and I don't see the harm in listing it at AFD, since it only very arguably qualifies for speedy deletion. --W.marsh 23:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - utter crap - obvious A7.--Doc^g 00:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Game guide, no third party sources, no claims of notability. Corvus cornix 01:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion for lack of assertion of notability. Someguy1221 09:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I am aware of this review. As one of the admins who deleted this article, I choose to make no further comment, while standing by my original reasons for deletion. I leave the decision to the community to make. If the decision is for deletion, I sincerely hope that the author will not take it personally, and will continue to contribute to the project--Anthony.bradbury 11:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. A7 is for web content that does not assert notability. This did not assert notability. The fact that the content was also unsourced game guide stuff doesn't help, but the fundamental problem was lack of any claim to notability. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Relist By speedy deleting the author was not even able to fix the mistakes. And a pretty cursory search under "Dead Awaken game" turned up this review which seems to ascertain notability, at least in October of 2006. We should restore the article, help the author understand what they did wrong, and if they are unable to fix it, then delete it. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid Articles-7. No prejudice against creation of a sourced encyclopaedia article in its place. Deleted versions were unsalvagable. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Hello again, I'm the person asking for the undelete. How about relisting the article and allowing thirty days to add sources and address the other concerns listed above? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.72.119.9 (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
  • It already had fifteen months. How about not. —Cryptic 01:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. A7 might be our most-misused speedy-criterion, but in this case, it seems to have applied perfectly correctly. No prejudice against recreation if non-trivial coverage by multiple, independent, reliable sources can be shown. (Yes, it could be sent to AfD with less than that, but what's the point if it only lives for five days. Just find the sources in the first place, and make a keepable article—if you can—rather than forcing us to waste time with bureaucratic tedium.) Create a user account and you'll get some place to start storing sources and working on draft versions. Xtifr _tälk 02:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion but list at afd - per Zappernapper, and at least to give the author a chance to prove notability. 64.178.96.168 17:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Tiffany Teen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Second AFD seems to have been closed by just doing a head count... the actual discussion was much more important. Arguments for keeping were, and this is all of them: "Obviously those who want it deleting aren't getting any", "A unique Google count of 806,000 can't be ignored", "She genuinely is famous (I'd heard of her)", "such a high alexa ranking should pass the bio notes", "last i checked 809,000 unique google hits was notable" and a "per above" vote. Just to clarify, no guidelines or policies approve inclusion based on Google/Alexa rank. The arguments for deletion were that she doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO and no reliable sources exist at all. The arguments for deletion were not countered, and the arguments for keeping were extremely weak (none of them cited a policy, and only Oakshade bothered to reply to challenges, and he eventually agreed there weren't any reliable sources, but that we should keep because of her supposed popularity). This AFD should have been closed by considering the strength of arguments, not just by counting heads as if it were a simple vote, especially as verifiability problems were the main issue. This article is unverifiable, because no sources exist... there's been plenty of time to find some. Even the closer apparently thinks the article is original research, after I requested he look at it more carefully. The question isn't whether we've heard of this person, it's about if she meets inclusion standards... and in this case, there's no serious argument that she does. We shouldn't just be able to vote to violate WP:V and include original research. --W.marsh 12:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. The AfD made plain that she does not pass WP:BIO. Notability is neither fame nor importance. The consensus among the participants citing policy was to delete. Pan Dan 13:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Once invalid and misguided !votes are discounted, as they must be, the weight of opinion is clearly to delete. Google and Alexa are especially unreliable in cases of porn subjects, which have a very high cruft multiple. One thousand porn ghits roughly equals one hit for anything else. Just having the word teen in the name is also going to inflate the google and alexa count. Guy (Help!) 15:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete Policy concerns were never addressed. Even some of the better reasoned keep votes acknowledged that the policy requirements couldn't be met at this time.—Ocatecir ^Talk 16:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Relist - per this very good policy reasoning: [4]. Also, the valid reasoning from the first AFD was not mentioned. Also, give the people another chance to prove her notability, as it does appear she may have it. 64.178.96.168 16:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Read the replies to that... the supposed source was about another Tiffany. Trust me, people have had years to find sources... another week isn't going to matter. If reliable sources are found at some point, the article can be undeleted. The reasoning in the first AFD was just more of the same "I've heard of her" arguing with no policies mentioned. --W.marsh 16:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Google hits, while they may serve as a rough determination of value and notability of an article, makes the article no better than a WP:HOAX.--WaltCip 17:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• I was the closing admin. After re-reviewing the whole situation and rechecking the article, which is quite terrible, I'm convinced I made the wrong decision. Overturn and delete. --Coredesat 19:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, no reliable sources provided in the AfD should mean an automatic delete. --86.31.121.57 21:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - porn with no indication of independent notability. "It gets a lot of g-hits"? Yes, well, that's because it's porn.--Doc^g 00:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. There's no way that this fulfills WP:BIO or even WP:PORNBIO as is stands. Just did a google news search as well as a lexisnexis search, to no avail. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete This article is truly dire. Comes nowhere near qualifying under WP:BIO, and as far as I can see does not even qualify for consideration under WP:PORNBIO, assuming that a minimal view of part of a nipple does not qualify as pornography. Certainly, wearing jeans, a top and a suggestive smile does not.--Anthony.bradbury 11:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete. The article has no sources and fails WP:BIO. As for the Google hits, Doc made the point well enough above - "Yes, well, that's because it's porn." ♠PMC♠ 01:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete for the various reasons stated above. Eusebeus 22:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete The persons saying Keepdid not cite policies or guidelines, just "ILIKEIT" or Google hitsd or Alexa rating. On the Delete side the arguments showed that the article fails WP:BIO and WP:A. The closing admin should not just count votes. Edison 15:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand that, hence my arguing to overturn and delete above. --Coredesat 07:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. How come people always seem to ignore Wikipedia:Search engine test#Non-applicable in some cases, such as pornography? ergot 19:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:User WikiProject Southern California (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The reason for deletion was, "New userbox created in template space; should have been created in userspace per WP:GUS". [5] This is a userbox for members of WikiProject Southern California. If this should be in a userspace and not a template space, please instead userfy it, a subpage of mine would be fine... /Template:WP SOCAL or something. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   11:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and userfy - invalid deletion by admin. 64.178.96.168 16:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, I don't care what comes after. "WP:GUS" is not a valid reason for speedy deletion. Amarkov moo! 17:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hrmmm, neither of you guys are correct. The correct answer would be "project space", not user space or template space. I've recreated it here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern California/Userbox. So just put {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern California/Userbox}} on your userpage and you're good to go. The reason this is better is because the location of the userbox makes it absolutely and immediately clear what it is a part of. All you have to do is follow the up link on it and there you are. Since it is associated with a WikiProject, it doesn't make sense to have it out in the wild of template space (where it cannot be found by a Special:Allpages prefix search on the WikiProject's name, which is a vital way to determine everything falling under the scope of a WikiProject), nor does it make sense to have it under only one user's userspace. This DRV is now moot. --Cyde Weys 17:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion As it has been recreated in the proper namespace CharonX/talk 17:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Gueroloco (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was speedied under A7 (no assertion of notability. But iMO it clearly asserets notability, claims of cover positiosn on local magazines, plus multiple TV appearences, pretty clearly claim notability, IMO. And sources are cited for at least soem of this. But the sources are not online, and I have not verified them. The original creator seems to have WP:COI issues, and the origianl version was highly promotional. But the current version (and the version delted) have had the peacock terms removed. I'm not sure if this should be taken to AfD, or what. Notabilitym even assuming that all claims are accurate, is borderline. So i have undelted and brought this here so that people can see what is involved. DES ^(talk) 06:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Since it has already been undeleted, it should be moved to AfD. --soum (0_o) 06:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:User no GFDL (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|TfD)

Per Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_3#Template:User_no_GFDL this template was nominated for deletion and no consensus was reached. And then, just today, with NO discussion whatsoever an admin deleted it. This was nominated for speedy deletion behind my back WITHOUT notifying me. I had no way of knowing that it was even nominated until it was removed from my user page! This admin accused it of inciting a breach of policy, and this was declared to be false in the deletion log by several other users.CyberGhostface 22:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - here's the original template. Note it even had a category attached - David Gerard 00:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - Template did not have an encyclopedic use, so at minimum it should have been userfied, and even then it probably should be deleted. VegaDark 22:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It was userfied. (See below.) That was speedily deleted, too. Apparently, this box expresses a very dangerous idea! Jenolen ^{speak it!} 01:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, divisive, polemical userbox, runs counter to fundamental policy. Devid Gerard's instinct is right here, this needs to go, at least form template space. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Should have been zapped on sight. That template was an abuse of this free project's servers. --Tony Sidaway 22:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• I deleted it. I boggle at the second part of the nominator and creator's assertion. I refer the honorable gentleman to WP:TFD#Template:User_no_GFDL, where I noted "grossly inappropriate and a direct incitement to violation of Foundation policy. It's as inappropriate as "Wikipedians against Neutral Point Of View". Or "Wikipedians against Wikipedia". Anyone who would use this template is on the wrong project and should think really hard about how their own goals match those of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation" and others' comments note such as "It abuses the resources of a free encyclopedia to agitate against the encyclopedia's founding principles", "One of the elements of the fair use defense is that no alternative image exists. It's hard to argue that you're not infringing someone's copyright massively if you put their property onto a top-ten website when you had access to an alternative" and "Disruptive for it incites people to make wikipedia liable for copyright infringement". The viewpoint that a poor GFDL image is to be preferred to a high-quality fair use image is Foundation policy - David Gerard 22:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • And, by the way: I'm a staunch fan of fair use as appropriate - talking about things requires quoting them, and that applies to images as well as text - but your viewpoint is completely at odds with what Wikipedia is about, implicitly and explicitly - David Gerard 22:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Long overdue really, comparable to "Wikipedians against NPOV" as stated on the TfD. – Steel 22:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - And I deleted the recreation under userspace for exactly the same reason as David gives above. The template directly contradicted our image policy. It simply has no place on Wikipedia, likewise for any other template, category, anything that directly contradicts policy as this template did. -- Nick ^t 22:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Goes against everything we are supposed to be trying to create here. I nominated it for speedy deletion (WP:CSD#T1) at the same time and was accused of assuming bad faith. Isn't that ironic? Keep deleted. — CharlotteWebb 23:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, divisive template. If you don't like a website's foundation policies, the solution is to find another website. I don't send emails to puppywar.com saying that puppies aren't cute and demanding they change their focus to kittens, I go to kittenwar.com. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I wasn't aware of it being speedily nominated. The nominator in question never notified me and the whole thing went behind my back so I was not able at all to make a statement. I only found it out that it was ever contested at all when someone removed it from my userpage.

Some quotes from the deletion review " It's only stating your personal preference, we all go along with the rules but we don't always like them - this is just our little way of saying that while we abide by the rules, we may not personally agree"; "wouldn't have that template in my user space, but free speech principles allow for a user to express his or her disagreement with policy. The display of the template is not in itself a violation of policy, it merely states that the user does not like the policy. There are loads of userboxes in use where editors express their dislike for wikipedia policies, and yes even laws. Examples Users who prefer serial commas, french periods, split infinitives, etc. and Users who oppose death penalty, support legalizing cannabis, etc. Its all free speech, and not causing any disruption to wikipedia, community-building, editing or readers. No harm, don't fix it, if it ain't broke. Just because concensus has been well-established for the policy this template states the user does not like, does not give us cause to develop into an Oligarchy, and root out that which opposes our concensus."

And as for disagreeing with some of Wikipedia's rules means I shouldn't be part of a project...please. Does that mean someone should leave America because they disagree with its stance on gay marriage? Give me a break. I've made over 7500 edits and I've created over 20 articles. Don't tell me that because I disagree with some of Wikipedia's rules that I should just leave.

Either way, if this stays deleted I'm going to make "This user supports fair use" userbox which shouldn't be considered 'inflammatory' as it states a simple opinion without deriding others.--CyberGhostface 23:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There already exists a "this user disagrees with the image policy" userbox, which is quite acceptable. Nobody is asking you to leave Wikipedia, so stop with all the dramatic fluff, it never helps the project. -- Nick ^t 23:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Anyone who would use this template is on the wrong project and should think really hard about how their own goals match those of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation". If thats not asking me to leave I don't know what is.--CyberGhostface 00:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting you should think really hard about how your own goals match those of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. If they're reconcilable, great! If not, well. - David Gerard 00:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have missed the part where it was necessary for contributors to agree 100% with all of Wikipedia's policies?--CyberGhostface 00:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I said or meant. The free content thing is much more fundamental. As I said, it's comparable to "Wikipedians against NPOV." - David Gerard 01:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Your appeal to "free speech" is a completly overstated. It's not that we want to forbade you to disagree with our policy, we just don't want you to use our resources for doing that, at least not that way. Put that userbox in your personal blog and nobody here will ask you to change it. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia's instance on "serial commas", "french periods" or "split infinitives" are not among it's core values. --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• undelete people opposed to foundation policy shouldn't be told to shut up or leave... there's an important difference (which seems to be going over people's heads) between stating an opinion against policy and actually acting against that policy. Many people have gone on the record as being opposed to or at least questioning core policies like WP:V and they weren't told to leave, in fact discussion of core policies is helpful. Also, content that has survived an XFD should almost never be speedy deleted. But for a free project, some free speech/free thought should be a good thing. The userbox alone will never make anyone violate core policy. --W.marsh 01:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Userfy is fine, rewriting is fine... not a userbox I'd ever use (not that I use userboxes in the first place). It's just this "you aren't allowed to express disagreement" mentality that I find annoying. --W.marsh 02:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete userfied version - As per previous discussion comments, I did create a userfied version. This, too, was speedily deleted by the same people responsible for this deletion. The idea this userbox contains is not so dangerous as to warrant this "extermination." Jenolen ^{speak it!} 01:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Create something a little different There are other ways of emphasizing the valuable aspects of this point of view. for example, "This user would prefer not to use low-quality free images if there are much better fair use ones available." given flexibility in how to interpret the differences between a proposed replacement, that might sometime make sense--and I think is actually closer to what was the intent. People can express their views about what they think is the appropriate direction for WP, even if the stretch current thinking a little. But one of the problems with a userbox is that it implies a formalized and inflexible approach. DGG 02:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

  That's an interesting idea, although I don't think your wording quite gets out of the "against fundamental Wikipedia policy" valley, to coin a phrase. If a suitable, though low quality, free image exists, likely using a non-free image cannot be classed as fair use. Two factors in the fair use defense cut in here: if there is no other suitable alternative, this tends to strengthen the fair use defense, and if the quality of the non-free image is low that also strengthens the case. If you're going to say "I want to use a high quality image that doesn't belong to me even when I owe a suitable low quality image", then that tends to blow a big hole in the legal defense. So while there may be an acceptable alternative wording, this isn't it. --Tony Sidaway 04:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Tony, it depends somewhat on how good and bad the two images are, because below a certain point an image isn't really "suitable". wording can always be adjusted. The principle that one can advocate drastic change in policy and still contribute if one follows policy is important also. (FWIW, I definitely do not myself think we should change the present image policy)DGG 20:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

• Overturn. Unless somebody is going to be harmed by its continued existence, things which survive an XfD should not be speedy deleted. Period. I don't know why that is even disputed. -Amarkov moo! 05:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Delete message contrary to foundation mandated policy. If you don't like building a resource as "free" as we can make it, you have the right to fork and the right to leave. --pgk 06:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia. Garion96 (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia...which permits fair use. And I'm a bit more partial to letting "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" speak in these matters. I actually think the whole "Encyclopedia" mission is critically fundamental to getting the whole "free" mission off the ground. As has been said many times before, you can't have "Wikipedia - The Free Enclopedia" without the encyclopedia. It is quite easy and popular, however, to have it without the "libre/free" aspect prized by so many, from Jimbo, to the Foundation, and down. It's sad their quite puzzling message about GFDL utopias, and how we should have no concern over turning over the rights to our creations, so that others can make money off our work, is getting trampled on by the popularity of the site, because believe me, no one is rushing here desperately looking for the latest free content photos of American Idol contestants, or free images showing actors who depict people's favorite characters, out of character. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 09:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Permits fair use under strict guidelines, one of those being that no free alternative is available. Not sure what the rest of your argument is about, seems to be suggesting we should court popularity of those who want to view unlicensed photos. There are 1000s of places on the web people can get those and in abundance complete with gushing writeups about the celeb/person/thing, I'm not convinced any are coming here for that (or at least I hope they aren't) --pgk 10:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
      • But people have taken the "no free alternative" clause to mean as no fair use as long as something that could possibly be used exists, whether or not the quality is abysmal, and whether or not it even belongs in the article. My opinion below expands upon this, but the truth of the matter is that there are not free images that would have been acceptable before the recent GFDL utopia move, that are now suddenly acceptable better something terrible than *gasp!* something fair use. There are also scores of images that have simply been deleted, leaving articles without those images and without a free alternative. Sometimes these are deleted under the guise of "no free use" and sometimes they deleted under the guise of "there must be something free use out there, find out". Miss Mondegreen | Talk   11:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
        • No they've taken the policy as what it says, none available or could be made. This is not unreasonable our goal is to make a free encyclopedia, if we applied the standard to the text we'd just rip off other peoples text saying "no free alternative currently available", that would simply not cut it for a free encyclopedia, neither does it for images. Realistically in some instances having a non-free image and someone judging it to be better than a free image will mean we never get a free image, not a good situation. "Better" in wikipedia's purpose (to produce a free encyclopedia) will mean a free image in actuality is always "better" since it is moving us closer to our goal. Personally I'm much more a words than pictures person, I prefer reading the book to watching the film, to me if an article about "Jack Sparrow" has or doesn't have a picture is of little real consequence, if the article is well written having a picture doesn't add substantially to the article and if the cost is that we are moved further from our goal (to produce a free encyclopedia), then I'd rather have no picture. (In actuality actors appearing in character aren't a depiction of the character, they are a depiction of the actor playing that character, in many cases the true depiction of the character only ever appears in words and is usually fairly vague). But all that is merely a diversion from the subject of this, the foundation mandates what is an is acceptable for unlicensed material, if we don't like it then we can exercise out rights... --pgk 11:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete Having followed only small parts of the fair use v. FREE debates, I found that the need for everything to be free really was outweighing the need for the encyclopedia to be good. There was an enormous discussion about whether a free image of an actor posing on a red carpet could be used for an article of about a character in a show, or the show itself. The need for this encyclopedia to only use free images started becoming so important that the discussion began to get more and more specific. Everyone agreed that an image of Johnny Depp would not acurately portray Jack Sparrow, but what about all of those actors who play characters and don't significantly change their appearance for the role? (Yes, there was a long discussion about actors v. characters and where their images were indistinguishable) It didn't seem to matter to people that images of charaters were not replacable by GFDL content-because something that looked similar was available.

Fair use has always been strict and always been a last result. And that's how I read this userbox--GFDL is important but not as important as a good encyclopedia. This userbox doesn't say throw out a GFDL picture for a marginally better fair use picture. In my mind, the big issue on Wikipedia is GFDL images that are dreadful, or just above when there are really good fair use images out there. Because of recent changes, we're changing what's acceptable in quality, and in my mind that isn't ok. And, I don't see how expressing this, on a talk page or a userbox is dangerous to Wikipedia. I also don't understand all of the people who think that this should be repharsed or that this can be easily expressed another way. This is someone's opinion, and telling them that they can easily express it by saying something similar, or that their opinion should be edited is bizarre IMO. Now can this userbox be used for multiple opinions that range and differ? Sure. There's a reason that there are tons of versions of userboxes. Because people want to express their opinion about something or inform people about something and find that the current version or versions of a userbox just don't fit their needs and they need something slightly different.

Leave it userfied if need be. But this isn't a danger or anything ridiculous like that, and the template is encyclopedic, so that excuse doesn't wash either. It's a userbox relating to how a user edits on Wikipedia and what they believe on Wikipedia. It conveys an opinion on a key Wikipedia issue and depending upon the editor, explains where the editor is coming from when they make certain editing choices. We don't have to like everyone's opinions on issues, and we don't have to like the principles that guide their editing. But they are free to express themselves through userboxes. The only harm I can see coming from this userbox is that that comes from userboxes in general, more so because this issue is devisive and users are acting hotheaded about this. Editors who use userboxes are letting other editors know their opinions and their behavoirs, and these can, and often are, used against them. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   11:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and userfy. There's nothing divisive about expressing an opinion on policy matters. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Question - I tried to userfy, and this was, as pointed out above, also speedily deleted. Would this require a separate deletion review? Jenolen ^{speak it!} 17:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Disruptive for it incites people to make wikipedia liable for copyright infringement. Should any user have the urge to complain about policy they can do so, but having a tempalte sticker to facilitate undermining wikipedia, no. And finally, becuase it mislead users to complain about something that doesn't happen: there cannot be a fair use alternative if a free image already exists -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 13:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Further comment. The userbox was deleted in accordance with CSD:T1 - "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory." - one only need look at this debate to see that the template was/is divisive and inflammatory. If a userbox shouldn't have been deleted, there's always going to be widespread support for it's recreation. That's not the case here which leads me to only one conclusion, it was a perfectly valid deletion. -- Nick ^t 16:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No, what was divisive and inflammatory was the deletion. And saying that there will be widespread support for something's recreation if it shouldn't have been deleted is absurd; and goes completely against the presumption in favor of keeping that we are supposed to have. -Amarkov moo! 17:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    • We are not supposed to have userboxes. They are tolerated, which is different. --Tony Sidaway 18:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I didn't say that we were supposed to have userboxes, I said that we're supposed to require a consensus for deletion, not keeping. Unless there's some rule that userboxes don't get that protection, the fact that they are only tolerated is irrelevant. -Amarkov moo! 18:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Question - Nick, you're refering to the template space version, right, although I assume you'd have the same problem with the deleted, userfied version? To review: This user would prefer not to use free images if there are better fair use ones available - hardly seems the kind of rallying "call to arms" that requires this kind of extermination from user space. Template space, fine -- but user space? I think this is an OPINION aqbout a Wikipedia policy that is constantly evolving, and just because it has recently veered sharply in one direction doesn't mean that it's not someday going to veer sharply back. Regardless, the campaign against the userbox to me is yet another example of how the entire campaign against certain types of fair use -- primarily the so-called "non free" images -- is at risk of doing serious and irreparable harm to Wikipedia's primary mission, which is, as we all know, to be an Encyclopedia. You can't have a "free" encyclopedia without.... the encyclopedia. And when it gets harmed, the "free" mission is jeopardized. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 17:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Inflammatory rejection of basic policy (would a template attacking NPOV have lasted as long as this did?) --CComMack (t–c) 18:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. 1ne 20:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion You don't get to use wikipedia resources to say you hate what Wikipedia stands for. We are a free-content encyclopedia. Don't like that? Go elsewhere.--Doc^g 20:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: That anyone could !vote to keep this abomination - even in userspace - shows a deep confusion of ideas and a complete failure on the part of a lot of new editors to grasp the fundamental principles Wikipedia was founded upon. And I don't mean things that can be "decided" on in a pseudo-vote or with a userbox. This userbox is as contrary to the way Wikipedia works and what it is here for as "Users against NPOV". You don't get to vote out free content winning every time any more than you get to vote out NPOV. The question is: what can we do to get the point across to these editors who have apparently completely missed what "Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia", as found on the puzzle-globe logo at the top left of EVERY PAGE ON THE WIKI, means? Short of telling them to go away and find a wiki that doesn't have that as a fundamental ideal. I welcome your thoughts - David Gerard 20:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Response - Much of this may in fact be thought of as a failure of Wikipedia administrators to properly apply project goals equally, evenly, logically, or consistently. I know I was certainly caught off guard when several images I had worked with admins to properly source, tag, and label as promotional were suddenly deleted. It is entirely fair to say the enforcement of Wikipedia "rules" and principles has changed, and changed dramatically when it comes to matters of fairly using promotional photos. And while this may have been the policy from the start, it was administrators who were helping to undermine it. They didn't get it, so why should we be surprised when others don't? The fact of the matter is, when I began contributing to Wikipedia, we'd never use a blurry, poor quality GFDL photo in place of a properly sourced, properly tagged fair use promotional photo - and yes, that was "wrong," and yes, enforcement of that is a lot stricter now. But it is a CHANGE... It is NOT something that has been enforced evenly, since day one, and so HAVING AN OPINION about this part of the project that is contrary to the current enforcement practices is not only reasonable, but should be both tolerated and respected. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 21:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm getting tired of the people going that because the rules are contrary to the opinion being stated, that stands as valid grounds for its deletion. Its stating a simple opinion, one that you don't happen to agree with. It is NOT endorsing people to deliberately break the rules, but rather for people who just aren't crazy about it. Those stating that its meant to incite anarchy are just being overtly paranoid.--CyberGhostface 22:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Something I've learned from Wikipedia... if I wanted to get everyone who was pro-death penalty to leave America, what I'd do is outlaw pro-death penalty bumper stickers. Yeah. --W.marsh 23:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Question to those people who say this should be deleted because it disagrees with Foundation policy. Arbcom is the highest form of dispute resolution because the Foundation made it so, and a consensus that wasn't would mean absolutely nothing, just as with this. Does that mean that we can't express criticism of the arbitration process, either? And then does that mean that we go to Citizendium's idea, where you must agree with those policies considered fundamental to edit? -Amarkov moo! 23:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Directly contrary to both Wikimedia Foundation policy and US copyright law also factually inaccurate. As has been said here before: If a free version exists, there is no fair use version, only copyright violating ones and the free ones. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I seem have to missed the part where it stated that none of us weren't familar with the rules...its just that we aren't crazy about them.This goes for all the other tiresome "Endorse deletion because of the Wiki-policies" comments.--CyberGhostface 02:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment' Actualy Z-man is incorrect above. The existance of an available alternative is only one of the aspects of whether something is legitimate fair use under US copyright law, and usually not the most important aspect. it is perfectly possible for soemthing to be legally fair use even if a PD or GFDL alternative exists. Whether Wikipedia choses to use such images, even if it legally could, is another question altogether. We rule out lots of things that are almsot surely leagally fair use, because we have made a choice to do so. That choice is one we can always discuss, and that in theory we could change or modify. DES ^(talk) 02:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Part about copyright law notwithstanding, this template is still contrary to a core belief/concept within the foundation. Its in the 4th sentence of the Foundation main page: "dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content" (also part of the Mission statement). This isn't the kind of rule that one can just be not "crazy about," this is part of the fundamental ideal that the project is based on. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as divisive, inflammatory, and unnecessary. We wouldn't allow a template that said "This user endorses POV pushing" or "This user believes in making personal attacks." For those who want this particular "I endorse not following core policy!" template, I'd encourage them to review what "free" means in the context of "the free encyclopedia." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment In re all of the people who keep saying that this goes against policy etc, what about all of the userboxes that express how people react to vandalism? Some of those userboxes quite clearly express that those users do not WP:AGF, and those userboxes are about actions, not opinions, and yet those userboxes are allowed. Of course, we don't like vandals and it's not like that's a divisive issue.

This is an opinion. Disagree if you want, and cite what you want, and it may be divisive to you, but please realize that there are people who feel exactly the opposite, and who feel that it is the deletion itself that is divisive. Perhaps your reading of WP:CONSENSUS says to tell everyone who disagrees with you to find a different place to edit, but my reading says that I need to recognize that there are always going to be people who seriously disagree with me, and whom I seriously disagree with. Not allowing others to even express their opinions under the guise of "policy" and "divisiveness" doesn't build a good encyclopedia, free or otherwise. And it completely ignores the spirit of trusting millions of people to get online and click edit. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   07:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• • That's a variation on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I'm sure many here would happily see such boxes gone. --pgk 08:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I assume you're referring to my comments on other userboxes, not the rest of what I said? If so, that's the point exactly here. These are opinions, but nothing has happened, because the people who disagree create opposing userboxes, the way good Wikipedians with too much time on their hands are supposed to solve things. Administrators aren't vandals--in fact, many administrators don't AGF with vandalism and I'm many probably use those boxes. Even for administrators who are unhappy with that practice, they let others' express their opinions, even though those opinions and actions are against policy etc. and they simply create userboxes of their own, and practice good faith and fight for it. But they don't fight for it by tfding or speedying those userboxes as divisive or against policy, even though those are userboxes where users blatantly state that they are acting against policy. We've drawn a line between opinion, between statement of POV, practice, humor, whatever, and actually behavoir. We've said that it's ok to express you're wikiopinions; about you as a wiki editor. That's what this does.
    • My comparing this userbox to others isn't othercrapexists. I'm simply trying to point out that lighting the torches to run people out of town whom you disagree with is against the spirit of Wikipedia, is against policy, and for the most part, is against general practices. If this type of deletion doesn't happen to similar templates, you can't just pull out othercrapexists. Articles and templates are supposed to be treated the same way, governed by the same policies and guidelines and practices, and unless a new policy sprung up overnight, or consensus suddenly changed, or those templates are also going up for deletion, it is perfectly acceptable to ask why identical things are being treated differently. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   11:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
      • This kind of deletion does happen to other templates, if you find one which is inappropriate you are more than welcome to tag if for speedy deletion or nominate it for TFD. The fact that no one has reviewed every single template and removed the crap does not excuse the existance of any other template. That is what othercrapexists is about. Who is "lighting torches to try an run you out of town?", I see some pointing out that this town is not the town you appear to think it is. wikipedia is not a democracy, social networking site, experiment in personal expression of free speech etc. . The foundation have set certain policies which are fundamental to the project, if those are contrary to your own view of what the project no amount of bumper stickers are going to change that. --pgk
        • Clearly you missed all of the comments saying "leave this site". And I'm not talking about social networking or any other crap. I'm the first person to say, not here. Does this have to do with Wikipedia? Yes, so the whole Wikipedia is not myspace thing is beyond irrelevant. In fact, if it were close to being relevant, this userbox wouldn't have been in danger of being deleted, because it would be a userbox expressing an opinion, possibly controversial, but not Wiki!controversial, and it's for the latter that it was deleted.

        • "Another common use is to let people know about your activities on Wikipedia, and your opinions about Wikipedia. So you might include current plans, a journal of recent activities on Wikipedia, and your (constructive) opinions on how certain Wikipedia articles or policies should be changed."

        • This is constructive. It is not trying to get people to go against current policy, or endorsing action against current policy. In fact, if I used wikiboxes for my wikiopinions, which I don't, I'd use this not because I disagree with policy, but because I disagree with the dreadful enforcement of it and I'm frankly too lazy to make a new userbox and I think this would suit my purposes just fine. Most people aren't hopping mad about fair use, they're hopping mad about it's enforcement. What I'm mad about is that no one even seems to recognize what's going here. There's the problem of one extreme, that is people overreacting and saying "go elsewhere if you disagree". And equally problematic is the other extreme, anytime someone refers to the former they are asked what on earth they are talking about. Forgive me if the torching metaphor was dramatic, but I don't think it mischaracterized the types of comments that have been received here. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   16:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Telling you that if the project is not the project you thought it was (i.e. A free, not partially free, not free so long as we "like" the text/image, encyclopedia) and that you are free to fork or leave is not running you or anyone out of town, or telling you to leave. You'd get the same reaction if you wanted to scrap NPOV or make it become a social networking site, or a democracy etc. etc. "I'd use this not because I disagree with policy" - I can't see how you can square this user box with the first point of the fair use policy "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information". If you endorse that policy then this userbox clearly doesn't represent your view point. --pgk 16:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy deletion, endorse no-consensus TfD closure The template states a point of view respectfully. What kind of place is this if it can't give a few pennies' worth of bandwidth to criticism of its policy? Live and let live. Kla'quot 07:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Uh, that TFD would be the previous TFD. So this process-related justification misses a step - David Gerard 14:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, I was referring to the TfD that started Feb 3 and was closed on Feb 13. Is the "step" you're referring to the TfD that started April 27 and ended on April 27 with your speedy deletion? For reasons I hope are obvious, I put more weight on the first as a measure of community opinion. Kla'quot 15:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • BTW, the deletions from both template space and user space were out of order, but I think it's OK to undelete only the user space one. Kla'quot 02:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete userfied version (not the version in Template space), for the reason I voted "keep" last time around: It's convenient to have a place listing the users whose image uploads need to be monitored especially closely. —Angr 16:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Ya got a point there - David Gerard 16:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Ooh, I love vague threats like this! More, please, more! Tell me how you're going to be keeping a close eye on me, please! This time, though, use a German accent, like an old World War II movie villian? "Ve vill be keeping a very close eye und you...." Do all people who disagree with User:Angr's extreme views on fair use qualify for "special monitoring"? Side note: His userspace includes a box calling for the elimination of fair use images; that's not currently EN policy, but is an advocacy box which expresses his feelings and desires about which direction Wikipedia policy should move toward; this is apparently allowed to exist unmolested, but other boxes, with other views, should be stifled? It's ridiculous, undemocratic, and unWikipedian to call for the deletion of one view, but not the other... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 18:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, since you asked, the easiest way to keep an eye on your uploads is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=Jenolen, and the easiest way to keep an eye on my deletions is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Angr. —Angr 06:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• endorse deletion - last I checked (it has been a while) this should be in user space anyhow... --T-rex 16:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion but allow user to recreate it in user space. This is a userbox problem; I don't think we need to discuss copyright issues to resolve it. Xiner (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • As previously noted (and buried in among the comments above, you may have missed it) I did create a userfied version. This, too, was speedily deleted by the same people responsible for this deletion. I suppose that would require a second deletion review, which seems quite tiresome, so I'd rather just deal with this one. And the case, so far, seems to be an admin arbitrarily speedily deleted a userbox which had previously survived the proper deletion process. That's more wrong than the preference stated by this userbox... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 18:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Also, speedying deleting within one day WITHOUT notifying any of its users and having a biased admin do the deleting is pretty unfair and very sneaky. At least last time abu notified me before he nominating it and there was enough time for everyone to speak their opinion. I wasn't even on a computer when the whole thing went down nor was I even aware that a discussion was going on in the first place. I think the closing admin should keep this in mind when going over this discussion.--CyberGhostface 16:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn This merely allows an editor to state his or her position on Images. It is ONLY designed for use in a user page and doesn't violate user page policy. If we keep this deleted then I feel that we might as well removed ALL userboxes. Kc4 18:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn Deletion This template actually deals with something real that most Wikipedians don't seem to get. GFDL is NOT designed for images. I have asked a number of times how all that carp on GFDL applies to images and NEVER gotten an answer--because no one knows, because GFDL is NOT designed to be used with images. KP Botany 18:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and userfy The action of deleting this box, which is only used in user space, is an example of oligarchical or paranoid overreaction. Editors have the right to express their opposition to wikipedia policies; martial law has not been declared by Jimbo. This box does not use up wikimedia resources to any appreciable exent. If the resource usage was truly an issue, we'd be getting rid of a whole hell of a lot more user space stuff than this tiny little box. That argument simply does not pass the smell test, people! My comments in the TfD were quoted above, but not attributed to me, so I reproduce them below: Jerry 18:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • (Strong Keep) I wouldn't have that template in my user space, but free speech principles allow for a user to express his or her disagreement with policy. The display of the template is not in itself a violation of policy, it merely states that the user does not like the policy. There are loads of userboxes in use where editors express their dislike for wikipedia policies, and yes even laws. Examples Users who prefer serial commas, french periods, split infinitives, etc. and Users who oppose death penalty, support legalizing cannabis, etc. Its all free speech, and not causing any disruption to wikipedia, community-building, editing or readers. No harm, don't fix it, if it ain't broke. Just because concensus has been well-established for the policy this template states the user does not like, does not give us cause to develop into an Oligarchy, and root out that which opposes our concensus. Jerry lavoie 00:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and userfy, per badlydrawnjeff, Clayoquot, and my own comments on the February TfD. Also, whoever speedied this needs to be smacked for doing something out-of-process. A no-consensus TfD result in February doesn't become a speedy delete in April without further discussion. -/- Warren 19:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Relist userfied version on MfD. Despite the heated debate, I think that a rough consensus exists that this is not an appropriate use of template space. But because the balance of harms in userspace is slightly different, I think that a new discussion is better than a speedy action. Eluchil404 19:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and, having userfied, relist on MfD (where keep as userfied should be in order) per badlydrawnjeff, Warrens, and Amarkov. A userbox that non-disruptively expresses an opinion as to where the priorities of a particular project or the Foundation writ large ought to lie cannot be understood as divisive and inflammatory, such that speedying was plainly inappropriate here. Whilst procedural issues themselves counsel relisting (viz., because we generally interpret CSD narrowly and take issues to XfD where there is non-trivial disagreement amongst the community as to the applicability of a given criterion for speedy deletion, and because DRV, IAR notwithstanding, is properly concerned with process), it should be observed that we absolutely should not suggest that a contributor whose fundamental beliefs contrast with the policies of the WMF might do well to consider taking his energy elsewhere, if only because we need only care about whether that user's contributions benefit the project as it is; I, for one, disagree in part with Mindspillage's free is better than good formulation, and will continue to advocate for the Foundation's tweaking its fundamental goals and overarching principles but nevertheless continue to contribute productively and constructively here within the confines of extant policy. Joe 21:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well said, Joe. If I didn't know any better, I'd guess you were a lawyer, student of law, paralegal, or sailor. All jokes aside, I fully concur with the proposal you have made, and appreciate the thoughtful, if not eloquent, manner in which you expressed it. Jerry 21:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion. While we allow users' personal opinions within the userbox arena, an opinion that runs contrary to the goals of the Foundation should not be allowed whatsoever. I would feel absolutely the same way if someone made a userbox that said "This user thinks the GFDL sucks and everyone should copyright their material" ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This is a response to pkg from a discussion above, and to everyone else who says that having opinions against policies isn't ok:

Jimmy Wales quote from Wikipedia:Userpage:

"Another common use is to let people know about your activities on Wikipedia, and your opinions about Wikipedia. So you might include current plans, a journal of recent activities on Wikipedia, and your (constructive) opinions on how certain Wikipedia articles or policies should be changed." (emphasis added)

Userbox restrictions from the Wikipedia:Userbox page. The emphasis is added:

"All items in template and user space are governed by the civility policy.
         * Userboxes must not include blatant incivility or personal attacks.
         * Userboxes must not be intentionally inflammatory or divisive.
         * Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for political campaigning.
Simply: If content is not appropriate on a user page, it is not appropriate within userboxes."

This userbox clearly isn't meant to be inflammatory or divisive, it doesn't political campain, it's not civil and it's not a personal attack. It simply states that the user would prefer to use better images as the marking point for articles rather than free first. It doesn't speak about action, it's simply saying that this user would prefer a change in policy. Or, depending upon how you read it, just the way that the policy is enforced.

And finally, other accepted userboxes that express politely and less-politely people's opinions against policies. You'll notice that some of these go so far as to express actions against policies. Trust me, these are only a few:

Anti AGF opinions:

This user despises vandalism and reverts it with extreme pride.

This user has a zero tolerance policy on vandalism.

Anti copyright:

This user respects copyright, but sometimes it can be a major pain.

This user finds copyright paranoia disruptive.

This expresses a viewpoint. I would prefer to eat macaroni and cheese, but I'm allergic. That doesn't say I do eat macaroni and cheese, or that I will or that I'm encouraging people to eat macaroni and cheese, allergic or not. That simply tells people a little about me. There are two things different here. One is that the qualifier that keeps the first thing from happening can change. It may not, it may have no chance, but it probably has more chance than the allergy (leave science out of this people I know there are things you can do, and you know, soy cheese). The second difference is that this box has to do with Wikipedia which actually makes it relevant to a userpage. It's an opinion. And I'm not quite sure why it upsets and scares people so much. The people who use this userbox clearly understand that Wikipedia is a free project--they are just expressing dislike of the extent to which that goes, or dislike of how it's enforced. You can disagree with something without leaving. I disagree with Wikipedia. I disagree with my family, with my friends, with lots of people. However, I express my thoughts, and I don't just walk away anytime I think differently than someone else. That's generally what most people in life do. And some people express their points of view through userboxes:

This user prefers making userboxes to arguing with other editors.

But however Wikipedians decide to express their views, or not, the idea that they should leave the project if they "can't get what it's about" or "disagree with the core principles" is really ridiculous. If they disagree, and express views that are contrary, then they clearly get what it's about. And if they disagree but decide to stay anyway, then good for them. They'll manage to get along in the real world because they've figured out that things don't always go their way and they can work for something and express their opinions and sometimes it just won't happen. But if everytime they attempt to express their opinions this happens, they probably won't stay very long. Not because they have issues with the ideas of Wikipedia, but because people seem so afraid to let the ideas stand for themselves that they attempt to squash everything that they think opposes Wikipedia in some way, going against the policies of Wikipedia themselves and going against Wikiprinciples themselves. You may get rid of a few more vandals and dissidents faster, but what's the point? You can't uphold rules and ideals if you don't follow them yourselves. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   01:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Question I understand that there was a second Tfd that went speedy. I'm confused why there was a Tfd at all if it was going to be closed so readily by the person who opened it, why it just wasn't put up for speedy deletion. Because as far as I can tell from reading that second Tfd it was closed on IAR, and not snowball Iar either. I'm also confused as to why the deletion log does NOT point to the second Tfd as to why it's deleted, and I'm assuming the whole Woohookitty deletion was an error as it was self-reverted a minute later? Can anyone weigh in on exactly how and why this got deleted? (not why it should or shouldn't be but what went on) Miss Mondegreen | Talk   01:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Looks like mall security is out in force again. In any case, the point of this userbox is to shape opinion, not to undermine the Foundation or other contrived crap offered in defense of the deletion. ~ trialsanderrors 02:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Another example of a userbox criticizing policy is Template:User anti-anon. We have this on several hundred userpages, it's over a year old, and the project hasn't imploded. Kla'quot 02:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This user thinks that registration should be required to edit articles.

• Overturn, certainly the userfied version should not have been deleted. Mathmo ^Talk 05:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. W.marsh's argument above deserves to be cited:"people opposed to foundation policy shouldn't be told to shut up or leave... there's an important difference (which seems to be going over people's heads) between stating an opinion against policy and actually acting against that policy". This is indeed a fundamental point. Miss Mondegreen goes further, with remarkable clarity, stating that "We don't have to like everyone's opinions on issues, and we don't have to like the principles that guide their editing. But they are free to express themselves through userboxes". I am not sure that I can agree on the latter, since granting First Amendment protection to userpages may create unmanageable conflict. Still, this is a very relevant issue, which is popping up in other MfDs, with unpredictable results. Stammer 12:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni di Stefano (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was deleted perhaps because it became corrupted. It was a longstanding sourced article. mervyn 21:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, looking at the deleted article, although it has external links at the bottom of the article, many of them are spam, and there are absolutely no inline citations, even for very controversial statements. I generally view Jimbo deletions as WP:OFFICE-type deletions (I know this technically isn't, but still), and I wouldn't even think of undeleting this unless I had privately had a discussion with him about why he deleted it in the first place. Looking at the article, I wouldn't want it undeleted anyway. I think it has a better chance if it is recreated from scratch. I wouldn't have a problem with that, as long as it was meticulously sourced. Undeleting the old article would be a very bad idea in my view. Mak (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Leave it dead unless you have spoken with Jimbo about very good reasons it shouldn't be - David Gerard 22:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion but it should be possible to create a totally new, fully sourced article. He was well known in Scottish Football circles, having a stake in Dundee Football club, so there's going to be thousands of pages on he and his business via online newspaper sites. -- Nick ^t 22:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Deletion seesm to have been out of process. Going back a few versions, the links in the version of 13:06 ET, 19 December 2006 appear to provide reliable sources for most if not all of the statements in that version. If this is an OFFICE action, it should be marked as such. The subject seems to be controversial, nbut there seem a wealth of links in fairly recent versions to support the article. inline citations are better, but according to WP:CITE they are explicitly not required. if we want to change that policy, let's do so clearly and openly, with a proper policy proposal The most recent version appear to have mucked up the sourcing a bit, but still cite several articles from major newspapers that support much of the content. There may be sections that are unsourced and should be removed as per WP:BLP (I havenb't reveiewd all that throughly), but ther doesn't seem reason to delte the entire article. If this is overturned, perhaps it should be moved to userspace until it is properly cited and unsupported sections are removed. DES ^(talk) 00:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, not to advocate special authority for any particular user ... but did you happen to notice which admin did the deletion? And although I've disagreed with David Gerard today about other matters, I suspect in this discussion he knows what he is talking about. Newyorkbrad 00:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes i did. If Jimbo wants to mandate a policy of requirign inline citations for bio artilces, or even all articels, so be it. I might disagree, but that would be that. But if that is going to be done, ist should be done clearly and explictly. Simialrly, if this was deelted due to complaints or other info at the foundation, it should be marked as an OFFICE action, and that woudl be a completely different matter. If he didn't in any way indiacte that he was actign in a special capacity, then hsi edits hsould be subject to exactly the same kind of discussion and possible reversal as any editors, and his admin actions as those of any admin. i stand by waht I said, versions fairly recent in the hsitory contain sources tha support the mnjor statemetns in the article, so this doesn't look to me like a BLP issue. I don't see a valid reason to just delete, unless "But it was deleted by Jimbo" is such a reason. Maybe ther is a good reason there, but i haven't seen it yet.

• allow recreation unless specifically barred as an office action or something to that effect. But... this guy seems to meet WP:BIO in spades... [6], [7]. Just a matter of citing the sources in an article. By virtue of this guy's... uh, life story I guess, he seems quite spectacularly difficult to write about accurately though. --W.marsh 02:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If this were undeleted (to presereve history) moved to my user space, and not moved back until there were inline cites for any controversial or negative statements, what woulkd people think? (Note that I have never edit this art in the past, i have no bias on the subject, in fact i'd never heard of the guy until this DRV.) DES ^(talk) 03:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Like I said before, I don't have a problem with a clean re-creation of this article, but I don't see the need for a badly sourced and clearly problematic article to go back into the mainspace. When an article is undeleted, the history is there for all to see, ridiculous assertions and all. I've seen enough requests for specific versions of articles to be deleted on OTRS not to want the history of this article viewable by the public. I'm not saying it's oh-so-horrible, but I don't see what we get out of undeleting junk. Mak (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
      • My point is that, with the possible exception of the last few revisions, this does not look like junk to me. It is sourced (or most of it is), the sourcing is simply not inline. I also don't se this as "clearly problematic". I cna see selectivly deltign a few revisions, but not the huge number of revisions that look perfectly fine to me. DES ^(talk) 04:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comments. - my plea for undeletion was based on him being a significant figure in English law; the article had expanded and gathered many good citations over time (tho I'm sure not enough); and could easily be cleaned up and worked on without needing a total deletion. Not being an admin I can't currently view the most recent edit problems which seem to have resulted in the unannounced deletion, but can they not be overcome?. --mervyn 07:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking again at a cache, I see that it hasnt got proper inline citations, but the extlinks do carry good refs, so citation can easily be improved.--mervyn 12:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to echo mervyn's comments - I hadn't seen the article for some time (and can't see it now either), so can't comment on what it had become, but there is considerable information out there on this guy, and therefore no reason why a sensible, properly referenced article can't exist. If this is a sourcing problem, I note that the Clerkenwell crime syndicate (a more controversial and "unwise to write about" topic it would be hard to find!) lacks inline citations for the majority of its statements. The summary nature of this deletion just smacks of a lack of transparency in the way this has been handled. There are processes to deal with pages that are "mostly unsourced mostly nonsense". Anilocra 14:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

  I might indeed have to smack you. :-P If the article has been deleted by Jimbo, it is likely that the lack of transparency is entirely intentional, duh! Think potential libel? --Kim Bruning 16:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yesh, I agree. There's a reason he deleted it without further comment. We should let it rest. Jimbo doesn't know all, but he sure knows a lot. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with a recreation, but anyone with a chip on their shoulder about either this guy, or me, should kindly steer clear of it. I see no reason to undelete the previous version, which was a mess. A short, simple, factual article with extreme attention paid to sources (and making sure we stick to JUST what the sources say), ALONG WITH a serious attempt at neutrality (i.e. not a random recitation of controversial allegations plucked without context), and this could be a decent article.--Jimbo Wales 16:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at the prior versions, say back in dec (about 6 vers back) Tjose look better to me, although they still need work. Would you agree that such a version could be the basis of a factual, proeprly sourced article. DES ^(talk) 02:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. If Jimbo doesn't have a problem with its recreation, then we should just userfy it and recreate it when proper sources are cited. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, you're being dense. There's no need to undelete the history or put it in userspace. Just recreate it from scratch. If you really want I can grab the list of sources and put them in your userspace. Mak (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being dense. I personally don't give a crap about this article, I was just trying to make the recreation easier. Why the hell would you be opposed to that? Unless, of course, you're in the game of making illogical arguments, and if that's so that's fine. Oh, and if you're going to userfy it, userfy it to DES, not me. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If I rewited from sources, i'll do a history undelete, as my resaon for doing a rewirite would be to preserve the history. If it were anyone but Jimbo who had deleted this, i would be strongly tempted to undelete, userfy, cleanup and source myself -- but probably that would be a bad idea anyway, since this came here. I don't want to wheel war. i do want to see some principled (and specific) reason why this should stay deleted, or else an indiaction that this was done under OFFICE procedure. DES ^(talk) 00:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you see Jimbo's comment just above? Newyorkbrad 00:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this could be anything but an office action. Unless Jimbo's account got hacked. But I don't care about history, and I don't care about the old article. I just suggested userfying it because it would make recreation easier. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't seen Jimbo's edit, but now I have. He didn't say or even hint that this was an OFFICE action, although it sounbds very much as if her has BLP concerns. (Office actions are supposed to be explicitly labeled as such, to avoid confusion.) I do care about history -- that is an important issue here, normally. If people are ok with an undel and cleanup, with the most recent few versions selectively deleted, i have volunteered. But I won't do that unless ther is concensus here that that would be ok. I agree that the final version would need to be throughly sourced, and clearly stick to the sourced facts, and to WP:NPOV. DES ^(talk) 02:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way to check that with Jimbo to make sure that it doesn't just get deleted again? Rockstar (^T/_C) 02:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, I don't care who the heck deleted it, if this wasn't an office action, then it was out of process and completely inappropriate. Jimbo begs us to treat him just like any other editor when he's not acting in an official capacity. We should show the respect he deserves by doing what he asks and judging this case on its merits. I see a too-long article with too few references, but that's a justification for pruning, or maybe AfD; certainly not a speedy criteria! Frankly, I'm very puzzled, and hope Jimbo takes the time to explain his apparently-insupportable behavior. Xtifr _tälk 19:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oohhh... I'm just gonna sit back and wait for the wheel war. This should be fun. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion of any unsourced or poorly-sourced biography of a living person, especially if negative information is present. (If we must have a process reason for doing so, call it speedy deletion G10.) The article before was basically an attack piece, and very little of the attack material was sourced. The recreated material does far better at neutrality and sourcing, and looks fine. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Woah, that's a new definition of CSD#G10. Also, what about the reportedly better revisions in the article history (I can't see the history; I'm relying on the reports from others that cleaner versions exist) ? It is a big discouragement to good editors here to know that if they write a good version of an article and someone else dumps bad stuff in it later, the good will be deleted with the bad. Kla'quot 03:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. This is a clearly notable person, the article had adequate sources (at least it had when I was protecting it against vandalism by its subject[8]) — the only problem with it was that the subject (whose status and character have been amply covered in the press and other media, and commented on by High Court judges and the like) wanted the facts in it to be removed, as they were unflattering. The deletion was out of process, and I can think of no good reason within Wikipedia policy to have deleted it. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per WP:BLP--Doc^g 15:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

  I don't understand; which aspect of WP:BLP do you think was violated? All of it? Surely not — but then which part or parts? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Request I can't see the history. Could someone please email me some of the versions that we're talking about here? Kla'quot 03:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Sourced and notable. That took about thirty seconds to verify. ~ trialsanderrors 20:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore There is no doubt that he is a notable person in the UK at least. Haddiscoe 22:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Milo Emil Halbheer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I found this on CSD patrol and was editing it whan another admin delted it. It was unwikified and unsourced, but IMO it did claim notability, and now clearly does, albiet not major notability. I undeleted it and cleaned it up. i also moved it from the original name of Milo emil halbheer, so that is where the delete log will be. I bring it here for review. DES ^(talk) 20:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC) DES ^(talk) 20:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, though, theoretically it's already been overturned, but I don't think there's a need to list it, and there's really a need for a DRV -- the subject does assert notability and is no way qualified for an A7 deletion. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I am bringing it to DRV so as not to simply undo another admins actions without discussion, to help determin whether this article needs an AfD, and to help establish that this sort of articel shouldn't be speedy deleted. Take a lookate the inital version -- does anyone think that should have been speedied? DES ^(talk) 20:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I figured that was the case -- and absolutely not, the page should not have been speedied. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I was the one who speedied it. I'm fine with the restoration of the article though. Maybe it was just my reading of the article, but the original version was too broad. Things like "numerous exhibitions" don't necessarily equate to notability. An exhibition could be at a county fair or a world famous museum. There were only 11 google hits. However, "louvre in paris awarded him with the title of a masterpainter = maitre." was probably enough to give it notability which I guess I overlooked. DES has clarified quite a bit of the wording from the original version, which helps substantially. If someone else still doubts the notability, it can go to AfD. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I want to be clear, I am sure that PS2pcGAMER acted in good faith, and this is not intended to be in any way a criticism of that usere, just of one action. The origianl article did sound much like the all too common vanity articles we get, and was unsourced and caontained a number of peacock terms. I cna understand pushign the deelte button, i thought about doing so myself when I fert saw the article on a second read it looked to em as if there were clear claims of notability, and so I looked for sources. (Not too many online, but there were some). I want to urge people to think twice before deleting, that is all. DES ^(talk) 21:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close; AfD optional since A7 obviously did not apply to the current or any past version of the article, DES's undeletion was unquestionably the right thing to do, and the article remains undeleted.

  DES, if you want to "help establish that this sort of article shouldn't be speedy deleted," this doesn't seem the right forum in which to do so. I agree that there are trillions of improper speedies done every day (OK, maybe just millions), and that's an issue you can take to AN/I or the Village Pump or even Wikipedia talk:Deletion review, I suppose, but making an example out of this particular improper deletion at DRV, when you've already undeleted it, seems WP:POINTy. Pan Dan 21:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Didn't mean to be pointy, the guidelines seem to suggest that when overturning another admin's delte, it should usually be taken here if not put on AfD, didn't want to wheel-war. In the past, such discussions at AN or the pump have asked for evidence from DRV, if I recall correctly. DES ^(talk) 21:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't take it personally, although I do feel that a message on admin's talk page would probably be a better approach. A direct conversation about an admin's action, to him/her I think would make a bigger impact on getting people to be more cautious about deleting under A7. Along the same lines I'd drop a message with whoever added the CSD tag as a friendly reminder. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry DES, I shouldn't have so quick to bring up WP:POINT. However, since the deleting admin has now agreed to the undeletion, would you agree with a super-speedy close, or do you want to still use this DRV to make a (non-WP:POINTy) point about improper speedies? Pan Dan 21:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I have no objection to closing at this point, the issue ahs been raised in a public forum, and can be linked to if the more general issue is discussed on AN or the pump or wherever. Sorry if I seemed discourteous, such was not my intent. I will drop a direct msg to the tagger as suggested. This can be closed unless anyone else thinks further discussion is warrented. DES ^(talk) 22:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

One eds. opinion is as good as another eds. and that hold true for admins as well. If something is kept from speedy that anyone --admin or otherwise--doesn't like, they are welcome to bring it to AfD, which is much better than starting out here. If people make what one thinks consistently bad decisions, talk to them about it. If they make a mistake once, there's no need to press the point. But not starting out here. DGG 02:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Jason Kaplan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Putting this Howard Stern show producer and cast member up for DRV simply because there was no consensus to delete. 3 "keep" votes and 2 "delete" votes. Anticipating the Wikipedia is not a Democracy arguement, all the editors supported their stance beyond "just a vote." This warrents a review.--Oakshade 10:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment As the admin who closed this discussion here's my reasonings as to why I chose deletion over no-consensus. The arguments for deletion were based on the policies WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:N. There was no supporting references/citations to address the concerns raise in the nomination. The essay WP:AADD covers the basis of the keep arguments with use of WP:PEACOCK terms to add emphasis, and capitalizations of opinions to add further weight to the position. Gnangarra 10:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The article reads as personal opinion, there is no compelling claim to notability, and Keep arguments were variants on WP:ILIKEIT. No, nobody has "inherent notability" be association with anyone else, what's needed are non-trivial independent sources of the sort conspicuously absent from this article. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Relist for a better judge of consensus. He absolutely meets WP:BIO given his role on the Stern show, but the lack of sources at the time is compelling enough to not make me want to endorse a flat-out overturn. A google search seems to show enough to establish the notability his role provides, and having a recognizeable role on what was the most popular morning show on radio is something that simply can't be ignored. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. The outcome of the AfD was, plainly, that Jason Kaplan does not pass WP:BIO. As User:Jreferee pointed out, notability is neither fame nor importance. As for consensus, it doesn't really matter how many people show up at an individual AfD to vote yea or nay, what matters is the strength of the arguments based on policy. Pan Dan 12:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse clearly did not meet WP:BIO, per Pan Dan, and per JZG the only arguments for it seemed to be ILIKEITs. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 13:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Which particular keep arguments were ILIKEITs? --Oakshade 21:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and Relist as per badlydrawnjeff. DES ^(talk) 20:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, non-trivial coverage by independent sources not demonstrated. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is a compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. No citations from independent sources with a reputation for fact-checking. —Ocatecir ^Talk 16:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion unless sources are provided sufficient to pass WP:BIO. I have to admit that I was surprised that sources hadn't already been provided, and even more surprised when my own fairly-lengthy search came up empty. I found a lot of places where he's credited as photographer, but otherwise, outside of the Stern site and the blogosphere, I could hardly find even a passing mention. I won't be a bit surprised if sources do turn up, but at this point, I cannot claim to be convinced that they will. Xtifr _tälk 20:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

RoboImport (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

speedy was improper Beganstory 01:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Please indicate why you think the speedy was improper to prevent a speedy close. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: You took the words right outta my mou--er, the keys right offa my boar--uhm. Bah. What Kinu said? Wysdom 02:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Well, A7 doesn't technically cover software... does it? --W.marsh 02:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• You've a point, but it might have just been mistagged--that is to say, that the contention was "NN", be it fish or fowl. However, it seems to be somehow related to PicaJet which is being discussed in AfD [9]. Perhaps there some kind of 'Recreate/merge' solution? If PicaJet survives the AfD process? I don't know--substantial work needs to be done to PicaJet, and without seeing the article being discussed here, it's hard to say what a recreate/merge might add. Wysdom 03:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and list. A7 does not cover software. Was it spammy? If it was it should have been deleted under G11. But the deleting admin cited A7, which is only used for a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content. Rockstar (^T/_C) 03:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Has it been listed before? The page has been thrice recreated and thrice speedied--now salted. I mean, I have nothing against giving this due process, but I'm beginning to suspect the contributor isn't acting in good faith--which I guess means I'm not assuming good faith--for which I apologise. Bear with me a moment, though: Honordrive created PicaJet (now being discussed in AfD). No other contributions. Armypower joins WP out of the blue to defend PicaJet in AfD (and to list Softpedia--biggest proponent of PicaJet products--for reversal in this forum). Beganstory creates an account today to argue for the overturn of RoboImport's deletion--mounting an argument very similar to Armypower's (improper process). Not sure who created RoboImport, since it's not part of the deletion log... But I'm willing to bet my swanky new laptop it's a single-purpose recent account. As I stated on the PicaJet AfD: I want to assume good faith and all, but I smell socks. :/ Wysdom 03:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If the admin was aware of the PicaJet connection and what appears to be hoisery seeing to promote PicaJet products on all fronts, I can sort of see the logic of A7. Wysdom 03:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, though, software does not fall under A7. And as for AfD, one would hope that a closing admin would be able to see past SPAs and sockpuppets. If not... well, we won't go there. Rockstar (^T/_C) 04:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and list, invalid A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. No claim of notability, spammy and promotional, deleted a couple of times and each time re-created by a different single-purpose account - as indeed is this DRV request, see Beganstory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Generic unsourced spam article. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• It's really hard to see the deleted version surviving an AFD... "RoboImport is a digital photo utility program published by PicaJet. It can be used to auto-organize and auto-rotate photos. It also can be used to add location information to a photo. time-limited shareware." and that's it. If there's any reasonable argument it could be expanded with sources, then by all means undelete and relist. --W.marsh 12:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sure it could with the proper eyes. That's not what this review is about, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, given the fact it has been speedied several times before, and is from an SPA, I'd argue that it could even fall under general housekeeping....G6, because the deletion would likely be non-controversial (given it's past).⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 13:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Multiple improper speedies don't mean anything, and being an SPA is completely irrelevant - there is no violation in being an SPA. Given that the deletion is being challenged, it's obviously quite controversial. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Request: Could an admin or other user so empowered check Beganstory v. Armypower v. Honordrive v. (insert user who created RoboImport here)? I think we can all agree that a deletion challenged by the creator's sockpuppet isn't controversial, de facto. If I'm wrong about the sock puppetry, then I'll support an "overturn and list" on principle. If I'm right, however, I submit that listing this on AfD is a big waste of time. Wysdom 16:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and lsit on AfD. A7 simply does not apply to software, nor should it. This may or may not be notable, that is what AfD is for. DES ^(talk) 20:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• So call it G11, spam article created by single purpose account, re-created by multiple sockp[uppets of single purpose account, deletion review requested by yet another sockpuppet. Or - wait! - we could undelete it, waste five days on AfD and give the sockpuppeteering spammer what he wants for a bit longer. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• If you really think this is a blatent ad, i won't argue further. I wouldn't have speedyed it as such, but that is arguable. DES ^(talk) 22:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• I'sd have to see the content. The SPA argument is irrelevant. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• I pasted literally everything but the URL in my comment above... it really wasn't anything that would survive an AFD unless essentially rewritten. --W.marsh 12:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into Picajet, for which it will provide some badly-needed content. I don't think there's enough for two articles, but probably one solid one would be kept. I know merge isn't actually one of the options here, but why go in circles over proper procedure when there's a common-sense solution on the merits? Technically, withdraw the DRV and merge the content in, and then defend the unified article.DGG 03:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment That was my first thought--until I saw all the sock-puppetry going on with both articles. PicaJet is being discussed in AfD, itself, and probably won't make it. Let someone else--who hasn't made nine (at last count) SPA sock puppets to author, recreate, and argue to keep/recreate this info--submit a new article on these subjects. There's nothing worth preserving in either one, as far as I can tell--not to mention that this whole "Army of One" reeks of COI. >.> Huh. I appear to have finally decided. Wysdom 03:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong endorsement of deletion. Strong evidence of bad faith, COI/spam, sock puppets--see all my preceding comments. It's unfortunate that this wasn't done "by the letter", and I think nits are worth picking in some cases, but this article so plainly needs to stay deleted that listing it on AfD would be a waste of everyone's time and effort. IMHO. :-) Wysdom 03:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Reluctant Endorse deletion, even though I think we really need to start cracking down on admins misapplying A7, I think we need, even more, to continue whacking wikilawyering, puppet-abusing spammers. I see no point in undeletion simply to immediately re-delete as G11. Even if it would make the logs look more tidy. Xtifr _tälk 02:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

List of non-instrumental songs with titles that do not appear in the lyrics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

New Page, Old title Work permit 01:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This article was speedly deleted, I assume because it has the same title as one that was deleted in the past. My bad for choosing the same title and noting that in discussion page. This article is different in scope and definition. Specifically, it is limited to billboard top 100 hits (so it will be small and manageable) and has a clear definition of inclusion with no subjectivity (which apparently the old article did not).

• Keep deleted. How much different from each other can two articles with the title "List of non-instrumental songs with titles that do not appear in the lyrics" really be? Does limiting it to top-100 songs really constitute a real and substantial difference? Not in my book it doesn't. Herostratus 06:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid AFD here. Wikipedia is not a data dump. >Radiant< 08:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Canonical listcruft, the basis of any such article has been debated and consensus was that it is unencyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per above, unencyclopedic topic with previous deletion consensus. VegaDark 18:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion I fail to see (1) how limiting the list to Top 100 songs makes it any less indiscriminate, and (2) how that limitation should be self-evident in the title of the article. JuJube 04:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - The old list appears to have been so huge that "Firefox 1.0 and latest IE hang for a long time while trying to display the page". The limitation to top 100 songs obviously reduces the size of the list considerably. Perhaps the article should be renamed to List of Hit songs with titles that don't appear in the lyrics.

I fully understand the argument that the article is "unencyclopedic", "canonical listcruft", and that "Wikipedia is not a data dump". But these arguments would then be valid for just about any article in Category:Dynamic_lists_of_songs.--Work permit 17:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, I don't believe that limiting it to Billboard 100 would address all the issues raised at the AfD. I might, however, be convinced to change my mind if shown evidence that the topic has been noted by reliable sources. Because without that, the name alone constitutes original research. Xtifr _tälk 19:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• endorse deletion If limited to billboard top 100, it would be a copyvio. The place to see the billboard top 100 would be a billboard franchise, not wikipedia. The list is unencyclopedic, impossible to manage, and provides no real benefit to the reader. Jerry 14:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

United States military aid to Israel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

• See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive235#User:Jayjg and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States military aid to Israel.

AfD was originally closed by Doc glasgow as a "keep". [10]. Shortly thereafter, Jayjg reversed the decision, and deleted the page, calling the previous close "nonsense" [11]. I believe both the decisions and the appropriateness of the reversal should be examined here. (For what it's worth, I strongly disagree with the unilateral reversal, and the discussion looks like a no consensus to me.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Could it be undeleted for the DRV so I could actually see it? --Iamunknown 06:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. WjBscribe 06:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you. --Iamunknown 21:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: I just restored the AfD back to Doc's original closure and was about to place this on DRV before I saw that I was beaten to it, hehe. I just wanted to note that the AfD back to its original version, so it appears that the primary decision being discussed is Doc's, as Jay's edits should be rendered null and void gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 07:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Uh, I dunno, maybe overturn and delete? I don't see an obvious consensus in AfD, but its very hard to see the article as it stands in the final version as having slight OR issues and it isn't clear to me how listing weapons systems given to a country is somehow encyclopedic, so it isn't even clear to me that there is much worth merging to the main article. The article does also have a strong whiff of POV fork. If I had been the closing admin I probably would have closed it as delete. JoshuaZ 06:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete. Unilateral overturning of close should be reverted. Discussion looks like it reached no real consensus. The best result is probably to merge some of the better content to Israel-United States relations but for that we need to preserve the history at United States military aid to Israel by turning it into a redirect for GDFL compliance. WjBscribe 06:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• I would say Merge. As WJBscribe said: "The best result is probably to merge some of the better content to Israel-United States relations but for that we need to preserve the history at United States military aid to Israel by turning it into a redirect for GDFL compliance."--Aminz 07:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redir. No need to have a WP:POVFORK. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to Delete. Since WP is turning into a battleground, I'd rather be counted as a "usual suspect". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• It should be Deleted (along with redirect and merge as appropriate) according to the clear consensus. Jayjg was correct that Doc Glasgow was mistaken to conclude the consensus was "keep" when there was a 70% consensus to delete. There were only 9 keeps against 21 deletes (this includes 12 "delete", 1 "redirect"--which is form of delete, 3 "delete and merge", 4 "redirect and merge", and 1 "delete, redirect and merge"). --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • People who want things "merged" do not want them deleted, they want the content retained in another article. Apart from that, blind counting of votes in a fairly messy debate with several arguments such as this one is a poor way to close a decision. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Jay, Endorse Doc Glasgow. GFDL concerns have been raised; also, it appears to me to be a no-consensus keep, although I generally think those are cop-outs. Note, I love Jay's edit summary. Also the fact that overturning another admin's decision unilaterally is an edit marked 'minor'. Hornplease 08:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn -- just another sad example of Jayjg's sometimes destructive, irrational, and wayward editing habits. Also, it might be worth noting that not only does the U.S. have sway over questions relating to Israel's military, but sometimes the Israelis call the shots regarding the weapon systems in the U.S. For instance, Israeli military officials are trying to prevent the U.S. from selling armaments to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States -- see the NY Times abstract "Israel's Protests Are Said to Stall Gulf Arms Sale". --Wassermann 09:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per User:Aminz.--MONGO 10:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Doc Glasgow's closure of keep (or "no consensus", it has little bearing). The article is not in great shape but the bulk of it is well-sourced so there was no need to try to overrule consensus or the lack of consensus in this case on the basis of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV (since facts and statistics are not inherently biased in an obvious manner). Several people argued for merging, several argued for outright keeping, several argued for deleting, but there was no clear conclusion from the debate. I cannot see that the debate could have been closed in any other manner, and calling the close "nonsense" is nonsense. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion, endorse no consensus closure per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion, rename and rewrite article. A patently irregular deletion, as documented above. I'm disappointed that nobody seems to have thought of a more creative solution. I believe this article would be better recast as US-Israel military relations, as a content fork of US-Israel relations, within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. There is certainly scope for a series of articles on bilateral US military relations with a whole range of countries, covering military alliances, military cooperation, military aid and so on. For instance, US-Iraq military relations could cover the US DOD's efforts to train and equip the New Iraqi Army, the ongoing military aid programme, the ground-level cooperation in building security and so on. In the case of US-Israel military relations, the existing article would have to be expanded to cover other issues such as joint technology development (e.g. Tactical High Energy Laser) and joint exercises such as the biennial JUNIPER COBRA exercises. I'm sure there's plenty of well-sourced material that could be added. -- ChrisO 11:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This would be a good idea if done systematiclly. JoshuaZ 13:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep The delete votes generally came from the usual suspects who have for years engaged in biased editing with respect to Israeli issues. The merge and keep votes combined have much the better arguments. I think this subject is important due to the legal implications of the United States aiding actions by Israel which may violate international law, particularly the requirements for belligerent occupation. Fred Bauder 12:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure that it is really fair to label editors as "the usual suspects", especially when the same concerns exist for many of the keeps as well. Tewfik^Talk 16:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Fred, let's not pretend you are being neutral. This is not the first time you turn WP into a battleground. You convinced me to change my vote. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - There's a lot of confusion here. Some people are saying "overturn", meaning overturn Doc's "keep" decision, and others are saying "overturn", meaning overturn Jay's "delete" decision. Some are using this as an opportunity to censure Jay, but this is not the appropriate place. Others are maligning the opinions of anyone who disagrees with them politically, but that's not appropriate on Wikipedia at all. Many are commenting more on the political situation ("Should we over/under-emphasize U.S. military support for Israel?") than the merits of the deletion, but I suppose that's inevitable. Also, alleged GFDL concerns are silly; there are no copyright issues with merging articles. It would be most helpful if commenters could comment solely on whether, based on the comments in the original AFD, the article should be deleted or kept. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I beg your pardon- whose GDFL concerns are silly? The concern is that Jayjg's close (which was orginially being discussed) calls for the merging of deleted content which we cannot do. There is only no problem with merging if the history of the page merged remains visible- usually done by redirecting it to the destination of the merge with the page history intact. WjBscribe 16:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with WJB here. Delete & Merge is not a tenable outcome for any debate, per GFDL concerns. Also, "Delete and suggest merging" is even worse: if the article is deleted, how can we expect that someone else will merge as was "suggested"? Mangojuice^talk 18:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree confusion is being created. I believe this "Delete & Merge" and "Redirect & Merge" controversy is bogus. All that one need do is read what the editors wrote starting at the top of the AfD page. The first occurrence of "Delete & Merge" makes it clear that "merge" is not being used in any technical sense of the word; rather it means put any useful content from this article into the other.[[12]] Subsequent editors expressing merge & delete, redirect & delete, Redirect and Merge then either explicitly or implicitly reference this original expression of the idea. "Delete and merge anything useful into Israel-United States relations. The article is mostly a list of donated weapons and a couple of tables; there is not enough cited text to justify the existence of a separate article. Beit Or" -Doright 23:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Any useful information belongs in US-Israel relations, or perhaps a new United States military aid which could describe U.S. military aid to various countries. (Note that the military aid article is currently in awful shape.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep, as it was a notable subject matter with sources to verify it. I also sincerely hope that there is an investigation into Jayjg's actions regarding this AfD. Tarc 13:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• endorse keep per above. I generally think the arguments for keeping were stronger (e.g. Mister.Manticore's). I strongly discount "delete and merge" comments as that's not really an option under current policy (edit history needs to be maintained), and that constitutes a LOT of the delete votes. The only other verbose delete vote is based on a false assumption of what keep voters would do in another hypothetical AFD. Closing this as a keep decision was the right call, and no meaningful reason for reversing that was given. It's also odd that an admin would suggest merging deleted content... just make it a redirect. --W.marsh 13:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think when people say delete and merge, they generally mean redirect and merge or mean merge but want their merge to count more as a delete than a keep. In any event, since it is agreed that an effectively identical merger that is GFLD compliant can occur by leaving the redirect it isn't clear to me why we should discount the people who said merge/delete. JoshuaZ 14:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I know, I consider them more "redirect" supporters than people who want an outright deletion. But they probably don't consider themselves that so it's iffy. --W.marsh 14:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Information could be supplied in the yet to be started United States military aid Hughey 14:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. Keep is undeniably the incorrect result. However, there is enough argument here that I think a relisting and re-evaluation of community consensus is more appropriate than flat deleting. But there was a mistake in process here. -- Avi 14:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I have now started a United States military aid article that any useful information could be merged into. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep Fred Bauder said it better than I could. Also, reversing another admin's closing while calling it "nonsense" and marking it as a minor edit is disrespectful at best. Frise 15:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep - The United States' large and ongoing military support of Israel is eminently notable and certainly requires an article. This article may not be up to snuff yet, but it will get there. Deleting it won't help any. And I am really disappointed in Jayjg, not just for overturning Doc Glasgow's closure in an improper manner, but also for taking controversial actions in a subject matter he knows he doesn't have even the remote appearance of being unbiased in. --Cyde Weys 16:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep: The AfD was without consensus, so it should be kept. .V. _[Talk|Email] 16:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion with all due respect to Doc, 70% in favour of deletion, redirect and merge satisfies the rough consensus specified in the AfD guidelines. In response to the comments declaring the topic enyclopaedic, I don't think that anyone disagrees. The problem is that this entry is merely an unsourced list, whose minimal encyclopaedic information already exists in the section of the same name in Israel-United States relations. Such aid is treated that way for other similar cases like Egypt, and there is simply no precedent for singling out one case. Tewfik^Talk 16:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • A vote to merge is not a vote to delete... it's a vote to keep (the content). --W.marsh 16:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Considering all the delete & merges, it seems that the intent of the few redirect & merges to be the same. Tewfik^Talk 17:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
      • But the delete and merges are difficult to interpret since that's not a valid option. Nevertheless "merge" is interpreted as a keep vote at AFD... if people mean delete and leave a redlink where the article was, they need to say delete outright. --W.marsh 17:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Closing admin's comments - I am quite annoyed about being reversed without any discussion whatsoever here. I'm puzzled how any objective person could have thought my close "nonsense", and I have asked the editor concerned for an explanation [13]. I'm always willing to reconsider closes if asked, which I was not here. I am sometimes wrong, and happy to think again. However, on reconsidering, I recount: 14 deletes, 9 keeps, 4 merges, and 3 'delete and merge' (huh? can't do that!). 14 d v 13 k/m; that's clearly not a consensus to delete (even if we took the 'delete and merge' as straight deletes) which defaults to keep. For clarity, I have added the 'no consensus' rationale for my keep call. As I indicated from the outset, merge is still a valid option for consideration by editors. I've no objections to a relisting if anyone thinks a consensus to delete can be gathered, but a decision by anyone to relist needn't have involved a DRV.--Doc^g 16:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Further I've just noticed that one !voter chabged their vote after my closing [14]. So, my recount should have read 13 d vs. 13 k or m.--Doc^g 17:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I sympathize with the challenges you face as an admin. However, I believe you may have misunderstood what many of the editors were saying. Read what the editors wrote starting at the top of the AfD page. The first occurrence of "Delete & Merge" makes it clear that "merge" means put any useful content from this article into the other. Subsequent editors expressing merge & delete, redirect & delete, Redirect and Merge then either explicitly or implicitly reference this original expression of the idea: "Delete and merge anything useful into Israel-United States relations. The article is mostly a list of donated weapons and a couple of tables; there is not enough cited text to justify the existence of a separate article. Beit Or "[[15]] And, fewer than 1 in 3 editors expressed the view that it should be kept. -Doright 00:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid you misunderstand. It is not possible to delete and merge. The text of an article is copyright liecenced under the GFDL, the condition of the licence means that the edit history MUST be maintained if we keep the text. Thus, in order to "put any useful content from this article into the other" you need to keep the original article and make it into a redirect. That's why 'merge' must be understood as 'keep and merge'. There is simply no choice here. To try to interpret a merge vote as a delete vote is against policy. Meges don't require deletion and should be considered on the talk page not Afd.--Doc^g 08:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I’m afraid I must agree with Jayjg. You are not making any sense to me. For you to refuse to accept the editors’ statements, for example, ‘’Delete and merge anything useful’’,” as an expression of their view that the article should be deleted is extremely bizarre, IMO. Doright 09:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't know how much simpler I can make this. As an experienced editor like jay well knows, you CAN'T MERGE stuff from an article if you delete it. It isn't allowed. It violates copyright. Merge votes are always read as 'keep and merge', they always have been. Anyway, even if I take the 'delete and merge', mind read the votes to assume that the delete bit was more important to them than the merge bit, there is still no consensus.--Doc^g 09:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I'd like to point out that three of those merge & redirects (IZAK, Zeq, Number 57) which were assumed to have been keeps have clarified that they endorse deletion on this page, i.e. there seems to have been consensus after all. Tewfik^Talk 22:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
          • How many times must it be explained that merged pages cannot be deleted? Consensus isn't gauged by counting votes, let alone votes based on a misunderstanding of policy. —David Levy 22:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
          • It's certainly not the closing administrator's job to take notice of nonsensical opinions. It would have been better to ignore the "delete and merge" people altogether. The opinion of a clueless person is without value in the decision-making process. --Tony Sidaway 22:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
            • A vote for an invalid option is effectively a null vote. If this was a paper vote, it'd be the equivalent of spoiling your ballot paper. If users don't understand what they're voting for, they shouldn't be voting in the first place. -- ChrisO 22:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse original closure due to obvious lack of consensus. While I may have agreed with the delete !voters, any claims that the consensus was to delete are erroneous. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep as per Sjakkalle and Cyde Weys, V and Doc. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse original closure as No Consensus, which appeared appropriate based on the discussion. I have no qualms with a later merge and redirect, if a suitable target can be found, but as has been noted there's no such thing as "delete and redirect". JavaTenor 17:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep Most of the participants in this debate were voting, not discussing. As for the arguments, no one was ever able to really explain how this is a POV fork (needing deletion) as opposed to a mere topic fork (per WP:SUMMARY), which is appropriate. Other delete arguments amounted to trying to make precedent out of the existence of other articles, very weak. Merge opinions made sense & were justified, but AfD doesn't have to serve as a referendum on merging vs. keeping. And a reminder: here, we are discussing the closure of the debate, not the merits -- we can always have another AfD (and it seems to be headed that way). Mangojuice^talk 18:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Jayjg's spectacularly inappropriate closure, relist if necessary. When you want to challenge a result, you come to deletion review. You do not overwrite another sysop's opinions with your own. Picaroon 21:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn both and merge Although there was no consensus to delete, there was a consensus (between the deletes, merges and "delete-and-merges") that having a separate article is POV-pushing. In addition, many of the arguments were of type "The US gives massive military aid to Israel," which is not a valid reason to keep. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The vote was 21 who wanted the article gone versus 9 who wanted it kept, and the arguments in favor of deletion were, in my view, stronger in terms of policy. Marking this is a "keep", not even a "no consensus" was clearly some sort of error or oversight. Doc G had left for the day (and indeed did not return for another 12 hours), so I WP:BOLDly fixed the problem, though marking the edit as "minor" was accidental - I didn't realize I had done that. However, in hindsight my edit summary was aggressive and dismissive, and as a courtesy to Doc G, I still should have waited until he was back online and discussed it with him first. My apologies to Doc G for that.
  Regarding the various people who are hinting or stating outright that I have some sort of conflict of interest, or shouldn't be able to make administrative decisions on wide areas of article topics, or, most bizarrely, that I have in the past "illegally" deleted articles, I note the obvious bias that many (though certainly not all) of them have expressed in these areas themselves, and point out that an interest in a topical area is not a conflict of interest in that area. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Er, doesnt point two weaken point one - oh, never mind. Jay, the sooner you learn that someone with an explicit POV - which you have expressed yourself on talkpages and in edit summaries, as well as a dismissive attitude to discussants, should perhaps avoid major, controversial, administrative decisions that impinge on the issues for which that POV is relevant, the happier the community will be. Hornplease 21:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Every time someone closes an AFD differently than you would have it isn't automatically a "problem" or a mistake, it's life at AFD. I'll assume maybe you're just not familiar with the nitty gritty of AFD, but reversals like you made have been challenged in the past and as far as I know have never withstood that challenge... DRV and talk pages exist for a reason. --W.marsh 22:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Even if your interpretation of the debate was correct, unilaterally overturning another sysop's closure was not. That's what WP:DRV is for.
    Of course, there doesn't appear to be consensus that your interpretation of the debate was correct, and your "delete - with a strong suggestion to merge" wording simply doesn't make sense. —David Levy 22:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Using admin tools on topics you are interested in is not by itself a conflict of interest. However, when you have not only an interest in a topic but a dazzlingly obvious bias, using your tools in the direction of your bias is a bad idea. Kla'quot 05:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep, leave editorial discretion for merge, that's how it happened and how it should remain, I don't perceive faulty reasoning on Doc's part. --Iamunknown 21:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse original keep as no consensus and revert disruptive second closure. An admin should know that if one disagrees with a closure, one goes to DRV about it, and one does not simply overwrite the closure. What's next? Admins edit-warring over AfD closures? We don't need this silliness. Sandstein 22:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure by Doc glasgow. I haven't even looked at the article (so I have no opinion of it), but it's clear to me that there isn't consensus to delete it. "Merge" = "keep," and Jayjg's decision to lump such respondents together with the "delete" voters as people "who wanted the article gone" has no basis in policy, nor does his determination that we should strongly consider merging the deleted text. —David Levy 22:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Doc's original closure and consider merging as an editorial decision. There is simply no precedent on AFD or any other deletion process for considering merge and/or redirect discussion points as equivalent to delete. Furthermore, merge and delete is a violation of the GFDL because it eliminates necessary edit histories. I simply don't see any consensus to delete, and the "keep" arguments had substantial weight. Personally, I would have closed the discussion as a no consensus, but that makes no real difference since the result either way is the same. *** Crotalus *** 22:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Relist per Avi. Rather than guessing, we can simply ask the "mergers" to clarify their positions. <<-armon->> 23:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as "No Consensus" as there obviously wasn't any consensus. --Ezeu 23:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As an editor that did not have an opportunity to contribute to the AfD discussion before it was closed, I would like to point out that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information [16]. This appears to be a pov fork from Israel-United States relations and pointless by itself. I also note FEWER THAN 1 in 3 editors expressed the view that it should be kept, in the previously closed AfD. That does raise the question of whether the consesus view was recognized?Doright 23:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per MPerel, Quadell and Tewfik. (I am not sure which is "endorse" or "overturn" in this case so I am avoiding those terms.) I endorse Jayjg's action. I will resist the temptation to respond to claims of "bias", but I do not think it is helpful to throw those allegations around. I do think that Wikipedia is "broken" when it comes to articles about Israel and Israeli-Arab relations, and it is not going to be fixed on an article-by-article basis. 6SJ7 23:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep US military aid to Israel is a major and controversial issue. — MichaelLinnear 23:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Doc's closure - At best, it's a no-consensus - the unilateral switch to "delete" was completely inappropriate. I think there's plenty to be said in its own article about United States military aid to Israel, or to Saudi Arabia, or to South Korea, or to NATO countries, for that matter. There's nothing "POV fork" about it. FCYTravis 23:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep per Doc's closure. Someone has recently started an overall article called United States military aid. The article in question here, United States military aid to Israel, is already too long to merge with that overall article. It is also too long to merge with Israel-United States relations#United States military and economic aid. Doc's revised closing statement explains his original closing comment of "keep" better: "The result was No Consensus = default KEEP - merging is of course an editorial decision to be worked out on the talk pages" --Timeshifter 00:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article is a POV fork, and the majority of !voters favor being rid of it in some fashion or other. I will also note that the loudest cries against Jay as a biased editor seem to be coming from editors with a pronounced (and in some cases acknowledged) bias of their own. "Usual suspects" indeed. IronDuke 01:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork and merge any useful material onto US-Israel relations and/or United States military aid. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Uh approximately 50% of this thread is explaining why we can't delete and merge. --W.marsh 02:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Why must so many Israel-related articles be up for deletion because pro-Israel editors might dislike them??? Allegations of Israeli Apartheid is another example up for deletion, whereas Allegations of Brazilian apartheid is supported by the pro-Israel editors? Seems duplicitous. The subject article's second sentence states: "Israel has been the largest annual recipient of direct U.S. economic and military assistance since 1976 and the largest total recipient since World War II." It deserves a separate article for those reasons. Please stand up against censorship. Thanks.Kritt 01:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep It was a travesty what happened here. Jayjg was completely out of line. MetsFan76 02:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep This may be a case of abuse of powers. There was no consensus to delete. Valid arguments were made to keep the article. Mayhaps Jayjg should exercise more Administrative restraint.--Agha Nader 02:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• It is quite telling about the atmosphere in which we edit that this has been allowed to turn into a venue for attacking Jayjg. Please exercise a minimum of civility and assumption of good faith. Tewfik^Talk 03:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • People are voicing their opinions here as is their right to. I fail to see how Jay is "getting attacked." You may think Jay's actions were fine and you are entitled to voice your opinion but others do not and if they wish to express their feelings here in a civil manner, then you are in no position to turn their opinions into "attacks on Jay." MetsFan76 03:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • This is deletion review, whose sole aim is assessing whether the AfD warrants a deletion or undeletion. It isn't the place for reviewing anyone's actions, and much less for leveling accusations of 'censorship' or 'abuse of powers' (or even for being "completely out of line", even if we think he was). Tewfik^Talk 05:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Jayjg's actions are relevant to this deletion review and should be discussed. It is clear that he was out of line (he even apologized to Doc), but I think it goes to show that maybe he shouldn't be partaking in any deletion reviews for quite some time now as he simply does not know how to behave and respect other editors. Calling someone's edit "nonsense" is completely uncivil and he needs to learn how to assume good faith on here if he ever wants to be a productive editor. I'm not sure if that's what he wants however. MetsFan76 05:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Just for the record, WP:DRV says: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the AfD debate. This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content." Jayjg's actions were an issue of process, hence the relevance of them to this deletion review. -- ChrisO 07:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
          • So you think allegations of "abuse of power" and "censorship" are appropriate here? Tewfik^Talk 22:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
            • I wouldn't have put it that way myself, but the characterisation is understandable: Jayjg's use of his admin privileges was clearly improper, and in the absence of a convincing rationale for the nomination I have to agree with Doc's comment that "the deletion attempt looks like blatant POV-pushing." I can see why some would see it as an attempt to censor Wikipedia to suit a particular POV. -- ChrisO 23:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep. What is up with Jayjg anyway? Anyway it was closed as No Consensus so it can be brought back to AfD any time. Herostratus 06:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Take into account that the AfD was first closed as "Keep"[17], the "no consensus" was a clarification added later. Consider also that there was obviously no clear consensus to keep, and if anything it was leaning towards delete. It was to this that Jayjg reacted. In my opinion, there was fault of judgement from both invloved admins. Since both have since reconciled, perhaps we too should move on, and instead discuss the merits of the AfD closure as it stands now. --Ezeu 13:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete it, it's not worth the bother and it reports nothing new. IZAK 06:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per IZAK Zeq 06:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. IZAK 06:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, article should be merged into Israel-United States relations. Number 57 08:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow. Have you read this discussion? Deleted articles cannot be merged. We can create a situation in which the content no longer appears as a separate article (because its title has become a redirect to the article containing the merged text), but we must retain the original revision history.
    I'll also note that we're here to determine whether the proper process was followed at AfD; this is not the correct forum in which to argue that the article should be deleted because of content concerns. —David Levy 09:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per IronDuke. ElinorD (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Doc's close looks fine to me. Keep this article and possibly merge to a suitable candidate. --Tony Sidaway 10:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse original closure. No consensus seems clear to me. Thincat 10:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse original closure. Doc's close was fine. A merge might also be appropriate, but then a merge is not a delete. To the deleters, how do you discuss Israel's military without discussing US military aid? Mackensen (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep or endorse original closure, however you want to put. Unilateral overturning of a perfectly straightforward close by a partisan editor? Not even close to proper, and IronDuke's clumsy ad hominem drive-by doesn't help. --Calton | Talk 11:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - the article is biased and largely unsourced. It needs to be rewritten from scratch starting with context. Total US military expenditures. US military industrial complex. Cold war and US global political objectives. Vietnam military costs. Oil and US. Israel/the second coming/Christian fundamentalism. US government and private money going to Muslim states and peoples in gifts grants and purchases. Context people, context. WAS 4.250 11:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

How is that relevant to my closure? We've got 1.7 million articles, why would you not expect that among the hundreds pokemon stubs there might be a few subjects that the pro-Israeli and US-right would rather censor? This particular subject is certainly noteworthy and potentially capable of factual documentation. However, if you think you've a strong case for deletion then re-nominate it and try to get a consensus this time. I'm afraid the deletion attempt looks like blatant POV-pushing to me.--Doc^g 12:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Doc, you are making it increasingly difficult to assume good faith about your misinterpretation of editors' views voiced in the original AfD when as the closing admin, you are clearly assuming bad faith on the part of those that voiced their opinion that the article should not exist. It is clear to me when you explain the current controversy as involving a subject "that the pro-Israeli and US-right would rather censor," you have allowed your own extreme bias to limit your ability to accept the obvious consensus. As an admin, you should now reverse your closure and participate as an editor not an admin. -Doright 01:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Doc's closure as within admin discretion. But, since this is at DRV now, I endorse keeping as well ... the subject is encyclopedic and a decent article could be written about it. As always, a merge is up to the editors involved. However, I note again that the topic probably deserves its own article. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse close as keep. I count 8 staight "keep"s, and 15 "delete" or "delete and merge" !votes, plus 5 versions of "redirect and merge". Now any merge really ought to be considered a form of keep, since the history dhould be reatianed for the GFDL. Indeed that makes the ""delete and merge" views soemwhat contradictory. I would have closed this as no consensus, and either merged it or stuck a merge tag on it, because clearly there was a consensus that this not remain as a separate articel in its current form. DES ^(talk) 20:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Original Closure If the article isn't good enough why not try and improve it instead of getting rid of a clearly notable article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment and question. In the original AfD (in which I didn't take part) I see a lot of people were claiming the article was a "POV fork". Similar claims have been made here. I'm genuinely puzzled about this: what exactly was the POV problem here? The premise for the original nomination seems pretty thin. -- ChrisO 23:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I really don't see that either, and I've not seen it explained yet. The article seemed a bit POV to me, but that's fixable, and certainly the subject of US military aid to Israel is neutral and verifiable, and I'd imagine there's a ton of information available to support an article on the subject. Perhaps people were confused as to what a POV fork is? It's not an article that is currently POV, it's an article title that is inherently POV. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Doc's closure as approproate 'no consensus" and keep the article. Edison 20:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• endorse deletion After I counted the votes from the Afd, the result was delete 15, keep 9, redirect 2. It seems consensus was to delete during the second Afd.--Sefringle 03:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm afraid your count is a bit misleading. The figures were (per MPerel's comments above): 12 "delete", 9 "keep", 1 "redirect", 3 "delete and merge", 4 "redirect and merge", and 1 "delete, redirect and merge". "Redirect" and "redirect and merge" are effectively a form of "keep" (as they preserve the article history and name). As already explained repeatedly above, "delete and merge" and "delete, redirect and merge" are invalid options - they can't be actioned. Invalid "votes" have to be discarded; there's nothing you can do with them. So, excluding them, you end up with 12 "delete" / 9 "keep" and 5 valid variants of "redirect". Clearly no consensus there. -- ChrisO 07:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is "delete and merge" mean they have to be discredited. It is pretty clear to me that that is a vote for deletion of the content, and moving whatever is salvagable to a better article. Merge is more like delete than keep, because it calls for the content to be removed from this page. That makes no sense why voting would result that way.--Sefringle 20:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll quote what Doc G said above on this: "The text of an article is copyright liecenced under the GFDL, the condition of the licence means that the edit history MUST be maintained if we keep the text. Thus, in order to "put any useful content from this article into the other" you need to keep the original article and make it into a redirect. That's why 'merge' must be understood as 'keep and merge'." Just to emphasize the point, 'delete and merge' is a self-contradictory option; if you delete, you can't merge. This is nothing new, but evidently a number of users didn't understand it. -- ChrisO 21:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Update - new article created

Following the AfD debate and this DRV discussion on United States military aid to Israel, I've created Israel-United States military relations in an effort to resolve the outstanding issues. Key points:

• The new article has a wider scope, covering military relations in general, military aid, procurement, joint military activities and significant controversies.
• The article is intended to be the prototype for a series of x-United States military relations articles; I've written it around a template that can be used for any article of this type. See Talk:Israel-United States military relations for an explanation of the template.
• The article parallels the existing Israel-United States relations article as a spinout and expansion of the military relations aspects.
• All the content is referenced. :-) It's a combination of expanded relevant bits from Israel-United States relations, merged content from United States military aid to Israel and a substantial amount of new content, mostly from Jane's.

I've proposed a merger of United States military aid to Israel into Israel-United States military relations (although I should note that I've already merged everything I feel need to be merged).

Please take a look at the new article and leave comments on the talk page. -- ChrisO 10:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• support merge less POV.--Sefringle 21:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Captain Cannabis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The policy cited as cause for deletion was that the article was not notable. The Wikipedia notability guidelines clearly state the basis for determining notability which the article met. It had multiple, non-trivial, arms-length citations. There were no arguments given, just "delete votes. The Administrator failed in their duty to assign proper weight in an objective manner to the issues as set out in the Wikipedia notability policy. Verne Andru 02:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Closer's response: Guidelines guide participants (guide not instruct) - consensus and strength of arguments guide admins - there was a consensus to delete. Guidelines are not policy. --Doc^g 02:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The "guidelines" state quite clearly that "votes" without any argument or reasons should not be considered when making a determination. As most of the "Delete" votes cited no reasons, they should not have been given any weight. When applying the guidelines in a fair and dispassionate manner, the "Delete" votes should not have been considered and the consensus was to "Keep" the article. Verne Andru 02:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, met standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Jeff, I'm finding that procedurally strange from you. Are you now arguing that the closing admin should ignore his impression of consensus - indeed the debate itself and apply the notability guidelines as if binding policy?? Looks to me like you are trying to re-run the DRV by placing an opinion here that is about your opinion of content not process. That's a move I'd expect from me and not you.--Doc^g 00:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I think we have a strong consensus as to what constitutes a notable foo, and that a single AfD discussion shouldn't be overturning that. Yes, it's a process issue - the closure failed to reflect consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Can you point me to the policy that says the 'standards' now triumph over individual AfD discussion? Are the standards now policy? Seriously, I'm getting concerned that your once principled insistence on policy and process following is now degenerating into mere opportunistic inclusivism. Please explain per policy how 'met standards' is alone a reason to overturn. I think you are ignoring the real rules and applying what you'd like the rules to be. A lot like IAR, really.--Doc^g 00:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Jeff, which of the sources do you think establishes notability? I could not find any mention of the character in the ones I could access. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. Seeing as sources seem to have been added throughout the debate, and some people changed their mind, this deserves a run-through with all the information present, for the whole time. -Amarkov moo! 03:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
• Endorse deletion per Joshua. Plus the fact that the nominator has responded to everyone's opinion, and invoked "I'm a lawyer so I'm right"; that is a huge red flag. -Amarkov moo! 20:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• relist per Armakov. The stupidity of the subject aside, it does make a claim to notability with the sources and the situation changed midway through. This is why admins aren't supposed to be robots when closing AfDs. JoshuaZ 06:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC) endorse deletion Having now gone through the claimed sources, almost all of them dont mention the person in question, they are of questionable reliability and not a single one is both indepedent and non-trivial. A relisting will result in the exact same result. Let's not waste our time. JoshuaZ 06:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, several arguments to delete were made later in the argument, and at least one specifically addressed (and rejected as insufficient) the sourcing added. Correct read of consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no matter how many times you say, "these are sources, you can't ignore them", if the sources don't mention the character, then they are simply insufficient for establishing the notability of the character, and that argument was definitely raised at the AfD. Notability is not contagious; characters don't catch it from their authors or from the works they appear in. However, a non-notable character may still be relevant to (and thus worth mentioning in) an article about the author or the work. And the sources presented at the AfD do suggest that the author or the work might be notable. And, having given that very broad hint, Verne, I do hope you will keep our conflict of interest goidelines in mind. :) Cheers, Xtifr _tälk 07:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion While sources were provided, the ones that were actually available did not mention the character, but mentioned other things we are told are in some way related to the character. Xtifr put it best when he said "Notability is not contagious". I see no fault in how this debate was closed. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Citation Rebuttal The High Times, Skunk Magazine article and QsHouse radio show all explicitly mention the Captain Cannabis character by name, which is the criteria for being "non-trivial" according to Wikipedia guidelines, as well as the 420 comic book. All sources are arms-length, independent and reliable - High Times and Skunk Magazine being two of the most widely circulated publications to the market segment. Just because a source isn't available on the internet does not mean it does not exist. Verne Andru 15:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I am not sure why you think simply mentioning something automatically makes it meet the definition of non-trivial, there are trivial mentions, and non-trivial mentions. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • RebuttalThe criteria for "non-trivial" as defined in the Notability guidelines you used to open the charge against the article states very clearly that the threshold test for "non-trivial" is that the name of the item be referenced directly. That article further states the there is to be no subjectivity allowed in the decision and popularity is not to be taken into consideration. The citations, in 2 of the most widely subscribed publications, about Captain Cannabis and the comic book fully comply with the Wikipedia criteria to be deemed notable. Verne Andru 16:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, the appellant has a clear conflict of interest, and the AfD looks valid, to me. Corvus cornix 15:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • RebuttalWhile HighInBC has opened a charge against me for "conflict of interest," [plus just about every other charge he has been able to think up] this is an allegation and has not been determined at this point so this argument should be dismissed. Wikipedia guidelines are quite clear in not precluding anyone from creating or adding to an article, as long as it meets the criteria of being written from a NPOV, is properly cited and is "notable" under the Wikipedia definition of those terms. I submit the article fully complies with Wikipedia standards and maintain I have no conflict of interest. Verne Andru 16:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as being well within guidelines and policy. Nom may stridently disagree with this assessment but that doesn't change the fact the consensus was to delete the article. I'd have agreed anyway, the sources were trivial at best. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal My submission is that, had the deleter complied with the guidelines and not given any weight to the "Delete" votes without argument, the consensus was to "Keep." I further submit your allegation that the sources "were trivial at best" is a "subjective" determination, something specifically precluded from consideration under the Notability article. When the Notability guidelines are applied consistent with the way they are written, I submit the article and its citations pass the threshold tests with room to spare. Verne Andru 17:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Per the guidelines at WP:N - "Non-trivial" means that sources address the subject directly and no original research is needed to extract the content. It does not require that a topic be the sole focus of a source. I fail to see where, in the provided sources, "Captain Cannabis" was addressed as a subject directly and not as a passing mention. You may wish to read the footnote provided in the guideline, which makes it clear a one or two line mention does not qualify. No matter the reliability of the source if it does not amount to more than stating Captain Cannabis was a character in the comic, notability is NOT established. Please elaborate on your claim that the character passes threshold with room to spare. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Elaboration - Citations Thank you for pointing out the guidelines and providing an opportunity to elaborate. I have been reluctant to post this for fear of being charged [by HighInBC] with bias and had hoped another editor would have undertaken to reference the citation. I submit the following which were copied from the source articles and invite Wikipedia editors to embark on their own due-diligence to verify the veracity of this information.
        • SENSI SUPERMAN - High Times – February 2007 - BUZZ section, page 13 <unlicensed copyright text redacted>
        • 420 – Verne Signature Series - Skunk Magazine – vol 2, issue 8 - COOL STUFF section, page 85 <unlicensed copyright text redacted> Verne Andru 17:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
          • I redacted unlicensed copyrighted text; if you wish to view it, then you may use the edit history. Please do not restore it. --Iamunknown 01:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. WP:N's wording is under dispute, for good reason -- the notability of a subject as determined by its level of sourcing is judged on a case-by-case basis, and there was a pretty clear consensus that this subject doesn't cut it. Something not explicitly stated here, but very clearly part of this debate, was the concern about WP:VANITY / WP:COI, which will taint things a bit. A topic that has borderline notability will often be deleted if it exists because of a COI. This seems like a normal outcome for the debate. Mangojuice^talk 18:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal I submit none of the editors voting to delete have done any due-diligence on the citations. The consensus was - if they couldn't find it on the internet, it didn't exist, a position which is also in conflict with Wikipedia guidelines. Until the 17:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC) post above was made, none of these deliberations have had the benefit of full disclosure of all pertinent citation data. The article used as the basis for deleting the article was Notability, not Conflict of Interest. To argue that the decision was made on a criteria other than that stated in the charges, argues that the proceedings were unfair and a full hearing was not given and argues against deletion. The Notibility criteria are quite clear in stating no subjectivity must be used in making a determination. Until the outcome of HighInBC's Conflict of Interest charges against me are decided, they remain allegations only and must not be used in any way as a weighting factor in these deliberations. Verne Andru 18:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • What do you think this is, a criminal court? Innocent until proven guilty? Due diligence? Sorry, the "laws" of Wikipedia will not support you where consensus did not -- Wikipediea doesn't have firm rules and in any case, we ignore them when the spirit isn't being upheld. Mangojuice^talk 19:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, and it says right there in the nom that the article was created by the author of the book. WP:VANITY talks more about that issue, but the complaint is clear. Mangojuice^talk 19:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I have argued law before the BC Supreme and Courts of Appeal for 10 years and understand what comprises a good argument and a fair hearing. I also taught computer-sciences for 5 years in the College system, so I'm fully aware of what constitutes valid academic argument and procedures. What you're saying is "the rules are, there are no rules," which pretty much confirms my suspicions. It does a grave disservice to Wikipedia that such attitudes are allowed to prevail among it's editorial ranks. I have reviewed the guidelines on Vanity and Conflict of Interest and believe I have not run afoul with either. Everything I've written has been fully compliant with Wikipedia standards of being from a NPOV, properly cited and notable. The guidelines do not preclude anyone from providing contributions to Wikipedia as long as they are within the bounds of the guidelines. Verne Andru 19:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
        • No, what I'm saying is, the rules have enforceable spirit but no enforceable letter, and wikilawyering is not going to get you anywhere. You are arguing that we should nullify the entire debate because it wasn't fair enough because of a few minor points. As for these "attitudes," it's a good thing, because it allows us to ignore irrelevant crap and focus on the encyclopedia, which is after all the whole point. As for your own behavior, apart from the excessive wikilawyering, I see nothing wrong... and try not to take the deletion personally, it's not a referendum on YOU, just on the article. Mangojuice^talk 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per JoshuaZ. Plus the fact that the nominator has responded to everyone's opinion, and invoked "I'm a lawyer so I'm right"; that is a huge red flag. -Amarkov moo! 20:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I can't add much to what's already been said, but I would point out to the author that repeated argumentations where you have a self-evident conflict of interest is almost always counterproductive. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal I did not invoke "I'm a lawyer so I'm right," [because I am not] I merely noted I understand what a fair hearing is and what it isn't based on first hand experience, and this doesn't come close.
    Wikipedia has a systemic Conflict of Interest built into it that this case has been able to bring to light. Between your we ignore them rules and your Reward Board editors can be put in a conflict of interest by accepting monetary recompense for their actions that, in this case, go against the interests of Wikipedia establishing itself as a credible academic resource. As there appears to be a clear consensus against this case - not based on its merits, I would like to stress - I would ask that you delete my name space once you have finished here. Verne Andru 20:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure we don't intend to be a "credible academic resource" in any usual sense of the phase, and if we do, there are bigger obstacles to that than IAR and the reward board (which I agree is a bad idea). -Amarkov moo! 23:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, AfD was properly conducted, weighed, and closed. Rationales for upheld deletion arguments were based on policies and guidelines, such as WP:RS (the lack of non-trivial mentions) and WP:COI (creator of article is creator of subject of article). No evidence presented here that shows otherwise or that shows the rationale for deletion was based on misinformation or incomplete information. Process correctly followed in this case. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Myg0t (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Myg0t (August 2004, delete)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myg0t (2nd nomination) (March 2005, delete)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 April) (DRV April 2006, undelete)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myg0t (May 2006, delete)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 May) (DRV1 May 2006, endorse deletion)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Myg0t (second) (DRV2 May 2006, endorse deletion)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 July) (DRV July 2006, endorse deletion)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 August) (DRV August 2006, endorse deletion)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September) (DRV September 2006, endorse deletion)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 7 (DRV1 March 2007, speedy closed)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 25 (DRV2 March 2007, speedy closed)

Myg0t is notable, having been covered by Teen People magazine, Mandy Moore admitting to being a famous member of this "clan". Also, the group has been covered in other sources, notably the British Now! celebrity magazine. The Teen People issue was way back in November 2003, while the Now! mention was in July 2006. These are reliable enough sources, that mean this is discussion-worthy, and besides, myg0t should not have been deleted. This information wasn't mentioned at the time when the original articles were written. Samllaws300 11:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletionSpeedy keep deleted, the claims made by the nominator are nonsense after looking into them. Also, the nominator here appears to be a single purpose account, as s/he has no other edits. --Coredesat 12:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I've linked all the previous AFDs and DRVs on this - the last DRV was endorsed three weeks ago. If proof of the nominator's claims doesn't show up, this should be speedily closed. --Coredesat 12:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Non-speedy endorse deletion, to give time to substantiate the claims given. But mere claims aren't enough to overturn. -Amarkov moo! 14:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep deleted. No sources mentioned, hence no sources. Why is there no double jeopardy rule in Wikipedia?--WaltCip 15:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep deleted, if the SPA who re-opened this had bothered to produce even one reliable source, then I might have a different opinion, but with no sources whatsoever, this should be speedy closed procedurally. Corvus cornix 18:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• The source, Teen People magazine, stated Mandy Moore has said she's a member of this "clan". Anyhow, it's not on the Internet, but that's not relevant, is it?? But it is reliable, that's all I will say. It's a non-trivial mention, by the definition of "notability" on here. Anyhow, it's substantiated and verifiable. This is NEW EVIDENCE that was NOT MENTIONED in any previous reviews. If someone brings it up again, well, I've got the evidence. And how can you say "no sources mentioned"??Sheesh, I just quoted two, yes, TWO sources above! Now! magazine, also states that Danielle Lloyd and page 3 girl Claire Andrisani are also members of this "clan", and that's verifiable too, like the Teen People source I gave above.This is turning into a history lesson, but, these sources are reliable primary sources. And, before you ask, yes, I'm a history student, I know the reliability of primary/secondary sources so you dont need to explain about that (i dont think).It's all explained above, OK?? This isnt an impassioned appeal, just the facts. And from primary sources. --Samllaws300 21:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You claim that there are sources which say this. But you have not provided any evidence that the sources say what you claim they say. Corvus cornix 21:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• The sources explicitly say that Mandy Moore is a "celebrity member of gaming clan myg0t", and it goes into detail about it.This was in the issue out in November 2003 - i remember it, mandy moore on the cover and whatnot. as for the Danielle lloyd reference, that's in itself reliable. evidence being that "Internet game myg0t is one of Danielle Lloyd's interests!".this should be a reason to restore the article just so people can vote for it to be kept/deleted/dissolved whatever again. --Samllaws300 21:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Unless you give us these specific sources with links to them, this is almost certainly WP:HOAX.--WaltCip 22:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This page doesn't show her as having been in Teen People, or on its cover, in 2003. And there is nothing about her for 2003 at http://www.people.com/people/mandy_moore/news. Corvus cornix 22:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Linda Christas International School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This school is notable, and the policy on schools says it has to be the subject of multiple sources, which it has been. It's been mentioned in the Southport Visiter, back in June 2002, the Daily Star in April 2003, and then November 2004, so notability is there. It seems no-one's taken any notice of these sources - and the debate should be allowed to run again, due to this new evidence! Whiteleaf30 08:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Can you provide those sources so we can come up with an opinion on what to do? --Coredesat 13:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Other points of interest Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Linda_Christas Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Association of Schools and Colleges plenty of mentions in different sections on this page Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive177#Linda_Christas_again Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive141#Sockpuppetry_on_Linda_Christas_International_School_AfD and numerous other places. --pgk 17:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per all of the links provided above by Pgk. Corvus cornix 18:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted given the links pgk provided. --Coredesat 22:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore There was not enough of a consensus to delete, especially as articles about high schools exist in their thousands. Haddiscoe 14:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not a high school. Corvus cornix 15:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• invisible The Google cache link above is giving a document not found result, and nothing else shows up in Google. But there is at least information on the school at [18], and it is indeed not a high school, but primarily a tutoring organization. So it probably should get the tolerance we give to many High School pages, but judged as a commercial organization. DGG 18:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Were it not for the fact that, despite several requests at all of the various links provided above, there has not been one single reliable source provided. In fact, there are only three Google hits for "Linda Christas International School", one the organization itself, one a discussion forum, and one a page which won't come up but appears to be a Wikipedia fork. Corvus cornix 20:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: proper process followed, no WP:RS have been given here or elsewhere to show that any of the previous deletions (whether by AfD or CSD A3/A7/G11/etc.) were inappropriate and based on misinformation or then-unavailable information. (To reiterate the point of the previous deletions: I am convinced that it's a business, not a school, self-accredited by the International Association of Schools and Colleges"—which is actually something the company invented, per the first line here.) I highly doubt that anything can be provided (i.e., in the way of multiple WP:RS potentially indicating WP:CORP) to overturn deletion and warrant a relist or retention at this time. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Craig Barber (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was deleted because people thought he was not notable. But he seems to be notable, having been in Company magazine in February 2006, and also in Real People magazine, in August 2006 (both British magazines). I would hope these meet your criteria for reliable sources, but as it stands, he's had non-trivial coverage, so the article should be undeleted. At the time of the original debate, this evidence wasnt mentioned! Delacruz162 08:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC) — Delacruz162 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Which issues? Provide those and we can probably consider relisting it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure that Real People magazine or 'Company' would generally be considered a reliable source for our purposes. --pgk 17:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Which yardstick are you using? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:BLP "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.". One of these is paid for personal stories, one appears to be a gossip magazine. --pgk 19:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for clarifying. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 20:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with badjlydrawnjeff, we can't judge whether or not the references are reliable if we don't have links to see whether he's featured or just mentioned. Corvus cornix 18:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• In Real People, he was mentioned in a full article, not a passing mention, in the July 2006 issue - it was not sensationalist, or BLP-violating - just written giving the facts about him, and his notability pertaining to computing.It can be considered a reliable source, and it's not tabloid-sensational. Just because it's not on the Internet does not mean it's not a reliable source. The article should be undeleted with the full editing history/records whatnot, so people can judge for themselves. Just relist it at the "article for deletion" thing, since I revealed these new sources. --Delacruz162 20:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• As a response to Corvus cornix's question, it was not a "mention" as such, but a full-length article that was more of a"this-is-the-facts-about" rather than "oh-my-god-it's-a-tabloid-trash!" article. it certainly was NPOV enough for your standards anyhow. this was back in July 2006, y'know. This article should be restored, and people allowed to discuss it at the "article for deletion" thingy. --Delacruz162 20:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Please provide a link. Corvus cornix 21:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• It is not on the Internet. Just because it's not on the net doesn't make it any less reliable, eh?? but it's verifiable.Mr.Barber is notable enough in computing, this should be discussed at that wikiproject about computing. --Delacruz162 21:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Where has anyone said that it has to be on the net to be reliable? I have made general comments about the apparent nature of the publications, the same comments would apply if they were online publications of the same nature. The question which has been posed is which issues of those magazines did these articles appear in, so others can check them out. --pgk 21:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• pgk, dude.... chill, man. --Samllaws300 21:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Just relist the article at "article for deletion", put this new evidence, generalised as it is, i cant really add any more details, ive put in what i know, and then the general opinion will decide. heh, you gotta try that. Mr. Barber is as notable as John Bambenek, WHO BLOODY SHOULDNT HAVE BEEN DELETED. JOHN BAMBENEK IS NOTABLE, SORRY, JZG. SO BRING THIS BACK TO ARTICLE FOR DELETION. Sheesh, the amount of things I do for u on here... --Delacruz162 21:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Relist I doubt very much the guy is notable, but the discussions was closed without letting anyone see the article. DGG 03:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't understand -- the AfD was open for five days and was closed properly. Why would you want to list it again? That seems foolish. If he's going to be notable, let the information come now. Otherwise, we should endorse the deletion. Rockstar (^T/_C) 03:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, properly conducted AfD, no evidence provided to the contrary. Agree with User:Rockstar915 in that sufficient, verifiable information about reliable sources when made available may provide sufficient grounds for recreation. Aside: the last version of the article was full of generalizations that barely contained a weak (if any) assertion of notability, and I'm actually surprised that it wasn't A7ed. More is needed for a legitimate article. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AfD is valid, article sucked royally. Removing all unsourced or poorly sourced material might leave the name, if we can find a source for it. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, but do not salt; if someone writes a new article under the same title, it should be considered on its own merits. *** Crotalus *** 22:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• For your convenience, the flood of SPA accounts that decided to "participate" in the discussion are indented below. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn per new evidence. Relist it. Also, there was not enough people participating in the last one. This should be restored. --Thomasdelamotte1210 08:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC) — Thomasdelamotte1210 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Undelete, relist Article did not have enough people to properly form consensus. Only 3 people participated, so you can hardly call this "consensus" - really, is this consensus?? no way! Relist on basis of the new evidence above. The guy is not a speedy A7, in any way. --Bekdaja-2 08:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC) — Bekdaja-2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Relist Original article was poorly-written stub, but it should still be nominated again. Lack of consensus, AfD didn't even get proper discussion, just "delete per nom". The new evidence is well convincing. --Fala3033 08:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC) — Fala3033 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Overturn, undelete, relist - and all because of the new evidence not mentioned in the original debate. Please undelete this and put the {{drv}} template on it, with the full history, and let the debate run. --Heberele0 08:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC) — Heberele0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Overturn per new evidence. --Tabersyn30 08:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC) — Tabersyn30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Overturn New evidence mentioned WAS NOT AROUND at the time of the original AFD, LET THE DEBATE RUN. --Lobbyweek2007 1r3 09:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC) — Lobbyweek2007 1r3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Overturn on basis of NEW EVIDENCE. He is notable, meets your notability criteria. --Torne90322* 10:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC) — Torne90322* (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Overturn deletion was WAY WAY out-of-process. Not enough participation, so not a proper consensus. This should be re-run. Mailer diablo should be censured for this action. --Barry Nevill wickj3 12:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC) — User:Barry Nevill wickj3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Overturn Subject meets Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) (that BIO shortcut) - article should not have been deleted. Sources provided are reliable, and most importantly, they assert his notability. --YouTube Lakersfan3200 12:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC) — YouTube Lakersfan3200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Overturn He is notable. He was also mentioned in Now! magazine, and HEAT magazine alongside Aisleyne Horgan-Wallace, as recently as January 2007, so he's obviously got non-trivial coverage. This should be undeleted, relisted, yadda yadda, you know what I mean.... --Spectral Wlals030 12:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC) — Spectral Wlals030 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Overturn This will rile some people, but he's as notable as John Bambenek (obviously) is. The Heat magazine source was a full interview with the dude, and Heat is a non-trivial source, which proves he's notable. Gotcha. Now undelete it! --Palkbr30 12:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC) — Palkbr30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Overturn, relist at AFD Subject is not speedily deletable. This should be relisted. --Arthritis Expert AT CAMBRIDGE UNi 12:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC) — Arthritis Expert AT CAMBRIDGE UNi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Endorse deletion per Guy. Block the socks, salt the article. · j e r s y k o talk · 12:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AfD was open for five days and all !votes were delete. Unless there is either a link or proper reference given to this "new evidence", then there is no verifiable evidence that this person is notable and so no reason to overturn. Will (aka Wimt) 12:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If you are going to label accounts as socks please still include YOUR OWN SIGNATURE in what you are adding on as YOUR OPIONION of the account being a socket. The admin making the decision here has the right to see who it was adding these comments.--Dacium 15:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

  If you are referring to the spa tags, adding these is not labelling the users as socks - it is simply stating that these users have made "few or no other edits outside this topic". The tag handily gives a link to their contributions, so you can verify this as a fact not an opinion. Will (aka Wimt) 15:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

  Also, if the closing admin does want to see which users have added the tags, they can easily check the history. Will (aka Wimt) 15:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Big Four (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

It seems the main reason this category was deleted was because it was considered neologism, even "redundant neologism" when in fact the expression 'Big Four' has been used to describe these grunge bands from Seattle numerous times. You can go to a search engine and look it up. It took me about five minutes to find the term used on Answers.com <http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:tOZ4201p2kYJ:www.answers.com/topic/big-four+%27big+four%27&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us> and Sputnik Music <http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:59lcGC8CC_IJ:www.sputnikmusic.com/band/Pearl%2BJam+%27big+four%27&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us>. Even on Wikipedia, if the administrators who claimed neologism had bothered to do their job and look into the matter, 'Big Four' is used on the Soundgarden page and the Pearl Jam page, both complete with listings of the other two bands included. Perhaps Big Four Seattle Bands would have been a more aptly named category? If so that is fine with me. It just bothers me that some administrators who take pride in their 'contributions' (which ironically end up hurting wikipedia) don't even look into the matter at hand before voicing their opinions. Not only that, but by looking at the categories for discussion page for march 29, it seems that some take pride in being sarcastic assholes as well. Keyver17 05:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per unanimous CFD. --Coredesat 05:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, unanimous CfD, sources above do not really address the issue and the tone of the request pretty much begs for speedy rejection and close. Guy (Help!) 06:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Multiple people, including people familiar with the music, thought that this was a bad category for multiple reasons, not just because it appeared to be a neologism. I also recommend that Keyver17 review WP:CIVIL. Dr. Submillimeter 08:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - unanimous CfD on a neologistic category with no chance of expansion. Not a useful category. Moreschi ^Talk 12:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - Unanimous CfD, plus as far as I know 'Big Four' was much more widely used to refer to the 'Big Four' thrash metal bands of the 80s - Metallica, Slayer, Megadeth and Anthrax. DarkSaber2k 14:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per unanimous CfD as mentioned many times. It would need a different name anyway, because of the above. -Amarkov moo! 14:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, and anyway, the "Big Four" is Collis Huntington, Leland Stanford, Charles Crocker and Mark Hopkins [19] [20]. Or maybe it's Sony BMG, Universal Music Group, EMI and Warner Music Group [21] [22]. Either one of those has to be far more notable than something scraped off a rockfan's blog. My GOD I want to kill the pop culture cruft fans on this site sometimes (even though I am one). Xtifr _tälk 17:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • 'round here it's a bridge and before that a railroad. So yeah... --W.marsh 19:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I was just following the advice the nominator gave: "You can go to a search engine and look it up". Unfortunately for nom, this advice did not convince me to support his position. I could have said "endorse deletion per nom", but I think that might have confused people. :) Xtifr _tälk 21:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Hehe. Aside from being Woodrow Wilson, David Lloyd George, Vittorio Orlando, and Georges Clemenceau, in the UK, the Big Four could be the Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary, or the unions Amicus, the GMB, the Transport and General Workers' Union, and UNISON. Endorse deletion per Xtifr. Heather 14:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion This was being used for about the 3,213st most important use of the term "Big 4". Haddiscoe 14:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, properly run and closed CfD, no evidence provided in deletion review rationale indicating that it was not or that this category provided any reasonable aid in navigation of the encyclopedia. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; this category name is far too vague to convey any useful information and could refer to any number of things. No evidence of procedural impropriety was presented. *** Crotalus *** 22:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion after a properly-run and closed CfD. Keyver17's request for deletion review doesn't offer any persuasive new information: per the discussion above 'Big Four' has been used to describe lots of different things in the field of music, and probably countless groupings elsewhere. It's not relevant to my !vote here, but it was also inappropriate for Keyver17 to canvass me by email. I think that it's a good idea to notify all participants in a CfD when the matter is brought to deletion review, but those notifications should be done openly and to all participants in the CfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

1. This was changed after Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_12#Category:Judeo-Christian_illuminated_manuscripts from Category:Judeo-Christian illuminated manuscripts. The nomination, by User:Andrew c had been to rename, originally to Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts (miscellaneous), which he changed in mid-debate to Category:Other Christian illuminated manuscripts, after several editors (all in fact) said they disliked the (miscellaneous).
2. The nomination arose from a re-organization of the Illuminated manuscript categories, extensively discussed for some months on the main article talk page at Talk:Illuminated manuscript, which included moving to a flatter tree, where the big categories including Category:Gospel Books, Category:Psalters and Category:illuminated biblical manuscripts, the last of which contains Jewish manuscripts as well as Christian, would no longer be sub-categories of this category, but come directly under Category:Illuminated manuscripts. As a result of this, the category would no longer have sub-categories, including that containing the Jewish Biblical MS, hence the move from "Judeo-Christian" to "Christian".
3. A number of editors (none I think ever active in the category) wanted to remove any qualifier from the category name, and restore the old scheme. None showed awareness that this would once again place Jewish MS in the category, and that the name should logically remain as Category:Judeo-Christian illuminated manuscripts, if this was to be the case. This was only pointed out late in the debate.
4. The total number of editors commenting was 7, of whom 4 supported the nomination. Nonetheless, and despite the fact that that he had been alerted to the Jewish aspect, and said he had read the talk pages, the closer, User:jc37 chose to close supporting the minority view. He said that all editors commenting had been in favour of renaming the article to something including the words Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts! This lowest common denominator has left an untenable situation, with Jewish manuscripts in a Christian-only category. In my view he should have supported the majority, which also included the only 2 editors commenting who are active in the subject area, or at the very least closed as no concensus, leaving the name as it was.
5. I understand the dislike of self-referencial category names, and especially the "((miscellaneous)" in the original nom. Now that I have had longer to think about it, I propose renaming the category to: Category:General Christian illuminated manuscripts. Alternatively, if the more layered hierarchy is to be returned to, the category should return to the old name of Category:Judeo-Christian illuminated manuscripts.
6. To resolve the situation, I would like, in order of preference:

• Closure overturned, rename to Category:General Christian illuminated manuscripts (ok its a new suggestion), or relist that proposal.
• Closure overturned, rename to Category:Other Christian illuminated manuscripts (the final nom of the debate), or relist that proposal.
• Closure overturned, No consensus/keep as Category:Judeo-Christian illuminated manuscripts.

It might be helpful if any editors endorsing the close could state if they think it is ok for Jewish MS to remain in a sub-category called Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts, or, if not what they think should be done to resolve the situation. Johnbod 02:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry for closing this early; it wasn't clear what you were intending to nominate. -Amarkov moo! 02:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Now, endorse rename. As the closing admin said, nobody actually advocated Category:Judeo-Christian illuminated manuscripts, and there was no consensus to include the "other" phasing. Disagreeing with the people who didn't want it is not enough to overturn. -Amarkov moo! 02:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment:This was written before most of my reasons had been added! Johnbod 02:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Rest assured I have read them. -Amarkov moo! 02:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, it is not at all obvious why someone would try to include Jewish manuscripts in this category. -Amarkov moo! 02:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

They are already there, in Category:Illuminated biblical manuscripts. Please read the above. Johnbod 02:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

But that category isn't even mentioned in your nomination. Why is it relevant, and why does that mean that Jewish manuscripts will be included in this category? -Amarkov moo! 02:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarified, I hope. All the editors in the last debate who supported Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts understood, I hope, that this only made sense as a head category. The great majority of Christian Illuminated MS are in other categories, as explained above. This is not about renaming, but re-organizing, but they presumably were unaware that the re-organization they wanted would once again bring the Jewish MS under this category. If you prefer, another way to look at it is that this closure has left a category called Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts, which currently contains only 29 of the 126 Christian Illuminated manuscript articles, the others (and some Jewish ones) being in the more precise categories. Johnbod 03:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Perhaps I'm missing it, but I'm not seeing the procedural issue with the closure. What I see in this nomination above is merely a request to renominate a category for a different rename. Why don't you just do that, and nominate the new Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts for renaming? I believe (hopefully) that I made it clear in the closure that adding a "modifying word" (such as "miscellaneous" or "other") had No consensus. That means that you can renominate concerning that, if you wish, in the hopes of generating consensus from further discussion. (Just be aware for the future that repeatedly renominating in a short period of time "could" be considered disruptive.) I also might disagree with how you characterise the discussion, but I'll leave you entitled to your opinion and perspective. - jc37 06:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As you say "renominating in a short period of time "could" be considered disruptive" - I personally strongly disapprove of many such renomimations, or near renominations, so believe here is the place to raise the matter. In the first place you closed supporting a clear minority, without stating a reason. By the time you closed, the implications for the Jewish MS had been mentioned, so that you should have been aware that the rename you chose would be simply inaccurate, either because A) if the sub-categories were left where they were, the great majority of "Christian Illuminated manuscripts" would not in fact be in this category, or B) if the sub-categories were rearranged (as the three editors in favour of that explicitly said they wanted) then the category would also contain Jewish manuscripts. The rename you chose simply does not work. You could and should have closed the whole debate as no consensus, if for some reason (never explained) you did not want to support in favour of the majority. Johnbod 11:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

First, just a reminder: CfD is not a "vote", it's a discussion. So words such as "majority" aren't helpful. But let's humor the supposition. Even if we were to "count votes" as you seem to wish to: 5 editors said rather clearly either that they didn't wish the modifying word, or specifically selected Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts. Compare this to the 3 (including you) who wanted a modifying word. So much for the "majority/minority" argument. And since there was obvious consensus that a rename was wanted, and since there was no consensus to add a modifying word, removing a modifying word - other/(miscellaneous)- leaves us with an overwhelming consensus that at least Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts should be the name. And this is only if we "count votes". I'm a strong proponent of the idea that majority does not necessarily equal consensus. I did a fair amount of reading of the other discussions before closing this. Hence my comment in the closure that much of the argument was concerned about what articles should go where. However, sorting the articles was irrelevant to the discussion, except in argument for the modifying word, which (as noted) had no concensus. So that leaves us with the question of whether the category should be renamed. As already noted, that had rather clear consensus. Even in looking at your preferences in this DRV nomination you prefer a rename as two options before suggesting keeping to the previous name. As someone said above, disagreeing isn't enough. You need a consensus of editors. Again, if you want to see some modifying word added to the category's name, please feel free to renominate. - jc37 12:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is distorting the discussion. Three editors supported Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts and all stated clearly they favoured re-organizing the sub-categories. Only one edited after it was pointed out that if the categories were re-organized as they wanted, the category would contain Jewish as well as Christian Manuscripts. Four editors supported the nomination. To say that a comment in favour of a particular rename is a comment in favour of any rename is ridiculous. Sorting the articles is not "irrelevant to the discussion", it was the only reason for the nomination, and was given as the reason for their comment by the three minority editors. Johnbod 12:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Distorting the discussion? No, I think you're seeing what you want to see. But be that as it may, if the DRV results in "relist", that's essentially "renominating", so I'm not sure what you're attempting to achieve here. - jc37 07:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Relist It seems clear from the above discussion that there was no consensus. DGG 03:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse CfD closure I agree with jc37; a further CfD nomination can be undertaken to clarify these issues without resort to DRV. I appreciate Johnbod's desire to avoid "disruptive" behavior; he should rest assured that a new CfD on the unaddressed issues would not be so considered. Xoloz 14:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Zach White (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

There was a page written about an influential gay rights activist in northeastern Ohio, and at first it was done poorly, but the final version of the article was done quite well and in good taste. I currently have the final copy in my files, so I can show it if need be. Please allow this to continue to stay on wikipedia. Thank you. --The909 01:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Moved here from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active. Note: This seems to about the A7 speedy, not the 2005 AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 01:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, looks like a valid A7 to me; the article is a short biography without anything that would pass as an assertion of notability, except for maybe how he died (but that would be a huge stretch, and although they're not required, there are no sources). And actually, on second look, this might even be a thinly veiled attack page. --Coredesat 04:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Looks like a valid A7 to me. Deleted by four separate admins, every single version appears to be the work of a single purpose account and given that he first version was by user:JachWhite there must be a strong suspicion that the subsequent versions were also autobiographical. Guy (Help!) 06:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - valid A7 as well as recreation of deleted material. If there is anything, cite reliable sources in your userspace and we'll have another look here, WP:RS, WP:N, etc. Moreschi ^Talk 12:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, since I probably shouldn't endorse my own speedy deletion: I've made a copy of the last version of the article I deleted at User:Kinu/Zach White. I plan on deleting that page after this deletion review closes (obvious reasons aside, since it doesn't contain the proper GFDL history), but anyway, my point is... read it. It was a clear CSD A7, and given the lack of any sources, I would say that a majority of it falls under CSD G10 as an attack page as well. Given WP:AGF, there really isn't much more I'm going to say about that... --Kinu ^t/_c 19:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Don't see a problem with the procedure of AfD. Rockstar (^T/_C) 03:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Point (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was speedily deleted as promotional material. The user that created it has requested a copy of the text of it, so they can either work on a less promotional version or merge with other content. I see no harm in this and request a copy be placed on their user page if possible. Artw 16:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• restored to User:Michaelpoint/Michael Point. Thryduulf 17:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rickey Henderson.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

No reason to have this image deleted Timneu22 16:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Restore I do not know which administrator deleted this image or why it was deleted. There was no copyright issue; please undelete this image. Timneu22 16:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you know exactly which image it was? There's no deletion log for what's listed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Exists here: Image:Rickey henderson.jpg. --Ezeu 16:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The Game (game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted due to lack of multiple sources. Now 2 sources exist: The De Morgen article http://www.losethegame.com/gamepics/demorgen.jpg and The Daily Nebraskan article http://www.losethegame.com/gamepics/nebraskan.jpg Kernow 15:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The second source is a college newspaper. The first almost looks fake. --Coredesat 15:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The Daily Nebraskan refrence (link to article, not photo of article) is a college newspaper and thus low on the reliability scale. The reference in De Morgen was mentioned in the last version to be deleted and apparently not considered sufficient then. Thryduulf 16:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Besides being speedy deleted at least four times, this article has been discussed on a number of prior occasions: AfD Dec 05 - keep, AfD Feb 06 - delete, AfD March 06 - delete, DRV - keep deleted, AFD April 06 - no consensus, DRV - restored as no consensus, AFD July 06 - no consensus, AfD Dec 06 - delete and DRV Jan 07 - Deletion endorsed overwhelmingly. --Ezeu 16:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and stop bringing this up here: anytime you do, we all lose the game. --Cyde Weys 16:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The sources given don't provide enough reliability nor sufficient proof of notability of the topic. CharonX/talk 16:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Gotta love eight million AfDs. But this last one was procedurally correct. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Replace the Daily Nebraskan with something a little more reliable and you'll probably be golden. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - we've been here before. College newspapers are hardly reliable sources for anything except film listings. Moreschi ^Talk 16:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Wdefcon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was previously kept in WP:TFD debates. Abeg92We are all Hokies! 14:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted previously deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiDefcon. Anyhow, utterly useless - serves to encourage vandalism by turning vandalism and vandalism prevention into a cops and robbers game. Maybe, just maybe, a mechanism for asking people to assist at times of high vandalism might be useful - but we don't need the paramilitary role-play shit. Defcon 1-5 with 5 requesting a 'database lock' - absurd? Valid deletion per IAR, T1 or recreation - take your pick.--Doc^g 15:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Withdraw /shrug/.--Doc^g 16:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I deleted this under the first speedy deletion criterion for templates, divisive and inflammatory templates. This template clearly portrays a militaristic view of editing, and it has also been said that it encourages vandalism. Consider also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiDefcon. The only argument that has ever been raised in favour of this template is its utility; but noone seems to have considered creating a template that is informative but not inflammatory. I'm all in favour of a template for distributing information about current vandalism issues, but it shouldn't be one that does so in a divisive and inflammatory way. --bainer (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete and perhaps send to TFD: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_12#Template:Wdefcon (kept), Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_24#Template:Wdefcon (SNOWed as keep), Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_28 (withdrawn by nominator), Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_5#Template:wdefcon (withdrawn by nominator) - while consensus can change, one admin's determination that this is somehow "divisive and inflammatory" does not persuade me. Take it back to TFD with a valid nomination so that it can get a fair hearing. In unrelated news, thank all the gods developers that Special:Whatlinkshere now separates out by namespace! -- nae'blis 15:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Restore. Widely used by many users heavily involved in the critical task of reverting vandalism. If you think some other template would do the job better then go and create it. Haukur 15:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• You haven't explained how the template, which is named and styled after certain practices of the military of the United States, is not militaristic and not inflammatory. --bainer (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• It is militaristic. But if that's what it takes to get more people involved in anti-vandalism work then so be it. And I say that as a dues-paying member of a pacifist organization. Haukur 15:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• List at TfD. The page was kept at TfD 4 times; although consensus can change, the TfD discussions showed that there were several people in favour of keeping it, and the speedy-delete seems to ignore their arguments now. I won't bring up content arguments at DRv, but I still agree with what I said in the third TfD (and was unaware of the fourth until just now). --ais523 15:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• As I said, I'm all in favour of a template to inform people about current vandalism issues, but not one that is militaristic and treats vandalism as combat. --bainer (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Restore or send to TFD. I find (found) this template useful for vandalism fighting, and sometimes added that AIV was full, in order for admins to check it. · AndonicO ^Talk 15:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You haven't explained how the template, which is named and styled after certain practices of the military of the United States, is not militaristic and not inflammatory. --bainer (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't care much for the actual number, but knowing if I should start vandalfighting rather than doing what I normally do, and where to focus my efforts, is useful. I'll expand on the arguments in a TfD, if it happens. --ais523 15:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, there was one (at least) that wasn't related to the DEFCON meter, but to a weather forcasting system. · AndonicO ^Talk 15:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted — I agree with the deletion reason, treating vandalism like DEFCON levels is a classic case of failing to heed the leasons of WP:DENY. If we stop glorifying vandalism so much there will be less of it. --Cyde Weys 15:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • In my experience only a miniscule percentage of the vandalism we get is from glory-seeking vandals. It's mostly bored school kids who won't be at all affected by inside baseball stuff. Haukur 15:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • And how exactly does DEFCON help defend against bored school kids? DEFCON implies some sort of coordinated attack; if it's just a bunch of bored kids vandalizing independently, how is DEFCON useful whatsoever? --Cyde Weys 16:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • That's a good question, Cyde. I guess some time periods have more active bored school kids and/or fewer active vandal reverters and that telling people when this is the case can be useful. Haukur 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Personally, I always saw DEFCON as a coordinated defense, not attack. Hence the "please pay attention to this area or that" bits. I find it particularly useful because, if we're at 2 or 3, I'm more likely to stay on the computer at night and help out than if we're at 4 or 5 and I could do something else (like dishes; I much prefer vandal fighting to dishes, but then again, there's very little I don't...). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• List at TfD seems to be the best alternative if you want to delete it, I don't agree that neither IAR (why should we ignore the procedure in this case), T1 nor recreation are relevant here. I am not commenting on the usefulness of the template (even if I have my opinion) but on the procedure used to delete it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• REstore and list at Tfd Per AndonicO Felixboy 15:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Restore No need for another Tfd Felixboy 16:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I already restored the template, completely unaware that there was a DR on it. As I stated on my talk page, speedily deleting a template that has survived multiple attempts at deletion through the proper channels is bullshit. CSD isn't a blank check for admins to get rid of whatever they happen to dislike; {{Wdefcon}} should have sent it through TfD again, not swept under the rug with T1. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There is seldom a need to rush to undelete anything. Did you ask Bainer to reconsider first?--Doc^g 15:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't; actually, I've already gotten a talking-to about what I should have done (and agree that I jumped the gun a bit). About the only thing I can say is "my bad". :\
I will say, however, that if this DR comes to the conclusion that it should stay deleted (which doesn't look likely, but anyway), I'll respect that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That's ok EVula, there was nothing wrong with you undeleting it. It's what WP:BRD is all about. I took a bold action, you reverted, and that's kick-started discussion. --bainer (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Restore and list at TfD - any template that has been kept at a TfD is ineligible for speedy deletion. Thryduulf 16:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Restore after nonsensical unilateral action. I recommend we discuss modifications to the Defcon system on talk page to help address concerns about WP:DENY. A message system like this is extremely useful for the majority of editors who do not monitor IRC channels. I don't see any need for another TfD. Danski14^(talk) 16:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Restore and send to TfD if you still don't like it. I'm not sure there really are valid DENY concerns here, but at any rate this surviving multiple TfDs does mean that speedying it is not going to work. Possibly the fact that it's useful to have a pointer as to when to do a bit of RC patrol should be considered? At any rate, this doesn't explicitly glorify the vandals, just tells you when to turn on VandalProof or whatever. Moreschi ^Talk 16:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Restore and list at TfD as an inappropriate speedy. --ElKevbo 17:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Restore hate the template, "level" is totally subjective and effectively meaningless, I'd hope we'd all grow up from playing cops and robbers at some point and this would just die a natural death, but I guess we aren't there yet. --pgk 17:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Restore and list at TfD Speedy deletion was inappropriate in light of past TfDs. The argument against this template is, I think, reasonable, but a TfD would allow wider input and perhaps spur the development of a less divisive & more effective informational template. — Scientizzle 17:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Restore, no need to bring back to tfd (should have been done by admin in the first place, and can still be done by him any time he would like) - t1 was a category created to deal with userbox wars, like template:user pedophile, or perhaps POV pushers like template:notjewish (see here. But goodness, it certainly didn't mean anybody could delete a template he happened to dislike just because like it. WP:ROGUE. I'm tempted to say more, but WP:AGF disallows me. Part Deux 17:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The criterion covers any templates which are divisive and inflammatory. I consider the militaristic attitudes promoted by this template to be divisive and inflammatory (consider this and the many debates around the "counter-vandalism unit"). I'm happy to listen to any reasons you can offer why the militaristic attitudes promoted by this template are not inflammatory. --bainer (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Restore/keep restored, TFD if you insist - can't see how this is divisive or inflammatory, personally. Rather useful when the vandalism picks up for mobilising and directing vandalfighters, and getting admins to WP:AIV and CAT:CSD when the backlogs start to pile up like a dead cow on the M25. If there is a problem with the name, request a move. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. OK here we go. I understand that WP:ILIKEIT that some people are using here isn't a valid restore rationale. However, let's consider this from another angle. It was speedied under CSD T1 i.e. being divisive and inflammatory. Well it's hard to see how it can be considered divisive (note the fact that people are divided on whether it should be there doesn't make the template itself divisive). It does suffer the weakness of being subjective, but that isn't relevant here. So is it inflammatory? Advocates of this opinion above argue that it is because of its name and the fact it "glorifies" vandalism. I do agree that a debate about changing its name and format would be a good idea but I certainly haven't ever seen any evidence myself that anyone has vandalised because of it (I know that would be hard to prove). After all, it's not like the "this page has been vandalized X times" userbox that clearly shows the results of an act of vandalism - this template is just indicating a general trend. Another point I would like to dispute is arguments that state "there are better ways to monitor the current level of vandalism". Well maybe there are, but that doesn't mean that this template is useless. Personally speaking, I have never added it to a page myself. I have on a number of occasions, however, noticed this on other people's user pages and noticed that someone has indicated that vandalism is high, and decided to whip out my vandalfighting tools. So this template may be poorly named and designed but it is not useless and, considering it has passed a TFD before, it is not clear cut speedy material. Will (aka Wimt) 19:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • An aside to this discussion really, but saw it suggest vandalism as high and decided to look out is also meaningless, reasonably when you saw it you had no way of telling if things were any better/worse than normal. Maybe we should just fix it on "high" to encourage more people to look out for vandalism. (Or maybe it has an element of being self fulfilling and those seeing it on high think they have a better chance of getting away with vandalism) --pgk 19:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Well as I said, it suffers from being rather subjective - and if someone could make it otherwise I'd definitely support them (perhaps Martinbot could set the status!). However, there are ways by which it can suggest whether vandalism is more or less than normal. It indicates which user changed the status and so, if a regular recent changes patrolling user has changed the status to 2, I might reasonably expect that they are doing this because there has been an upturn in vandalism as indicated by the recent changes. As for the fact that, if it is high it might encourage people to vandalise in the hope of getting away with it, I guess it could happen, but I'm skeptical that it does to any great degree. I think that if a vandal is devious enough to plan their vandalism around busy times, then the presence or absence of this template will probably be of little effect. Will (aka Wimt) 19:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I consider the template to be inflammatory primarily because it is militaristic in its naming and styling (which is now admitted by some of the supporters of the template in this discussion), and it promotes the idea that dealing with vandalism is a combat sport, attitudes that have been regularly rebuffed by the community. The argument that it glorifies vandalism is secondary, because the inflammatory nature of this is damaging to the community. --bainer (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Its name being mildly militaristic and, in turn, inflammatory, makes absolutely zero sense to me. I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't consider myself a supporter of the template as such, and I have already stated that I would be in favour of a redesign. That said though, I agree with EVula that the fact that it is militaristic doesn't necessarily make it inflammatory. Does it really promote dealing with vandalism as a contact sport? I find it unlikely that a styling would be doing that, and I certainly don't think this template is harming the community. I for one haven't noticed people with the template on their user page being any more heavy handed in their treatment of vandals than those without it. But by all means take this template back to TfD for a full discussion - I just don't see it as a CSD T1 candidate. Will (aka Wimt) 10:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• List at TfD If the only problem is that the name is militaristic, we can change that. If we had the same template, but called it "Vandalism meter" or something neutral-ish like that, the template itself would not be militaristic. (Defcon is also a little US-centric) Given all the TfD's, it's definitely not speedy deletable. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted or list at TfD- inherently unencyclopedia, keep it out of template space just like the userboxes. -M^ask? 00:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete - Real96 03:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This isn't a vote. Do you have any reasoning? --Cyde Weys 03:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Cyde and others, I apologize for my lack of reasoning. However, I wanted to keep this template because it serves a real purpose. 1.) It tells me if I should revert vandalism, OR 2.) Improve pages. If you want this to be deleted, then list at TFD. Real96 19:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• List at TfD. The reasoning used to delete it as divisive and inflammatory is very sketchy - if this is a naming dispute we can fix that. Everyone ought to know by now that deleting things that have been Xfded multiple times before is a bad idea. Grandmasterka 04:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Restored deleted out of process, four prior xfd's show that speedy delete is certainly the wrong course of action here. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• On behalf of everybody here who had a mind-numbingly boring childhood, I pose a question. Who here has never breathed on a thermometer to watch the needle rotate or the mercury rise? Who honestly said to himself "lol, that was kinda neat!" and walked away? Who instead chose to heat the thermometer with a butane lighter or a kerosene torch? Who instead dropped the thermometer into a pot of boiling chicken grease or onto the turntable of a microwave oven to watch it slowly spin 'round and 'round? Bored kids are funny that way. And fucking dangerous. Keep deleted. —freak(talk) 10:38, Apr. 25, 2007 (UTC)
  • Are bored kids dangerous? Sure, not gonna say they aren't. Are they specifically vandalizing Wikipedia because of this template? No. I've seen very little coordination between vandals; it's usually a thousand or so random people from random places being random dicks, not some massive coordinated effort by the Vandalism Cabal. I don't want to say AGF since we're talking about true vandals here, but... I think you're being severely paranoid here.
    Besides, if there was a massive coordinated effort to vandalize Wikipedia, wouldn't that mean we really would need something to organize our own editors and admins to address that threat, ie, this template? Your concept is fallacious, but if true, it generates a new reason for the template's existence. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That's circular arguing. You are suggesting that if this template was inciting mass vandalism we'd need to keep it to deal with the vandalism. Huh?--Doc^g 14:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Heh, I was pointing out that this particular argument appears to rest on the concept that vandalism is a heavily organized, which it is not. My argument makes no less sense than that to which I was responding. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• For the record, this brilliant exemplar of an attractive nuisance has no legitimate place on Wikipedia. It must die. --Tony Sidaway 13:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You're free to think that, but T1 doesn't cover attractive nuisance; as a DR, we're here to discuss whether it was deleted properly. Feel free to attempt a fifth TfD. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Restored, the template is merely a median to communicate. I find freakofnurture's WP:POINT disruptive. -- Cat ^chi? 20:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I found it to be in poor judgement. Diffs: [23] [24]. Pretty sad (though the image is amusing). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, get over yourselves. —freak(talk) 20:56, Apr. 25, 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Softpedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

talk page of undeleted article Armypower 12:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• The article was undeleted by the deleting admin and is currently at AfD. I've restored the talk page pending the outcome of that discussion. Thryduulf 13:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

MadV (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Notable Internet Celebrity - on par with Geriatric1927, Paul Robinett, Ben Going, Cory Williams (all referenced by Wikipedia as 'notable').

See also references to television appearances on MTV

and The FIZZ

Credentials: YouTube Awards 2006 - nominated for Most Creative Video and holds the record for the Most Responded Video OF ALL TIME as recorded by YouTube - this is the largest recorded response to an online viral video on the internet.

MadV in the press: Townhall.com AC media company PEPSI top 10 HOT list ABC News Lungsboat 10:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and list. Not sure if these things were mentioned in the article proper, but should get a full hearing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD. The press citations and MTV appearance were not mentioned in the version of the article that was deleted, but the YouTube Awards and "most responded to video" were mentioned. Thus in my opinion the original speedy was borderline. The new claims of notability certainly merit it a hearing at AfD. Thryduulf 13:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• I can of course re-edit the original article to include press citations and television appearances Lungsboat 24 April 2007

Archibald Motley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I was checking old edits of mine and noticed that the Archibald Motley page was deleted. After checking the deletion log it seemed it was tagged for copyright violation by Zscout370. I of course followed the link to the "source" website, and lo and behold--there is the entire Wiki article. I wrote that article over a year ago, and this website has taken it without crediting Wikipedia. I can tell you with absolute sincerity that I am the author of that article and this website, http://www.areaofdesign.com/americanicons/motley.htm, has shamelessly nicked, word for word, my (well, Wikipedia's) article. I was very disturbed to see my writing up there and I did not, repeat, did not, steal from that website. I wrote it for Wiki, and it should belong to Wiki. The webpage was last modified Wednesday, February 28, 2007 11:25:51 PM, LONG after I had written the article (April or so of 2006). Because the editor says he could not verify with absolute certainty which came first, he stands by the deletion. I think this is ridiculous. I wrote that article, it belongs to Wikipedia, and that website should be forced to at least credit the source or cease and desist rather than shamelessly stealing, word for word, the entry that should belong to Wikipedia. Torie 06:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? That's incredible! I think you should just ask an admin to undelete it to verify that it was yours using timestamps. That is pretty funny though, and you should feel proud that you wrote so well that another website (not answers.com) would steal your work! Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I guess I am kinda flattered. :) Torie 06:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Edited to add: Something I realized could be a dead giveaway that this was a Wikipedia article: Check out the intro paragraph. The fact that I used sentences like "Archibald Motley was an American Painter" should be a giveaway that I was using the phrase "American Painter" to link to the article on American Painters. Also note that I begin the paragraph with "Archibald John Motley, Junior (September 2, 1891, New Orleans, Louisiana – January 16, 1981, Chicago, Illinois)" (the standard Wikipedia format. NONE of the other biographies on the website do so--they all begin with "Born in 19XX, blah blah.." or something much more casual. There is absolutely no resemblance between this article and the other biographies. I hope this helps as proof. Torie 06:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The article came to my attention via the OTRS mailing system (ticket number is in the deletion log). The copyright statement from the website goes from 2002-2007; our article was first created in 2005. Even then, the text from the first additions, not by Torie, are a complete match to the website that had the same text. I used the wayback machine and other websites to determine if our page came first or not. The Wayback Machine wasn't able to determine the age or edits to the website in question. Honestly, I have no problems with the article being recreated, but as my determination as admin and OTRS staff, I feel better the article is not restored with the copyright questionable text. We have a lot of websites that people take content from and put it on Wikipedia word for word and most of the time, it is deleted. Sometimes, it is caught early, but in this case, I think it was caught late. I been discussing this with Torie for the past day and what I am saying now is what I told the user earlier; I want to be safe than to be sorry. (Also, Rockstar915, answers.com is one of the top mirrors of Wikipedia, so we admins know all content from here gets copied to there). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As a user with access to the OTRS system, I can confirm that a complaint was recieved at ticket 2007032610002985, and that Zscout370 responded to it. Beyond that, I cannot comment about which version is a copyright violation of which. However, to be safe, endorse deletion until further information about which article is copyright-compliant and which isn't becomes available. Daniel Bryant 06:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If the previous version of the Motley article also appeared on that website, that should only be further proof that they not only have nicked this article but have done so repeatedly. I find that conclusion entirely more likely and plausible than the theory that, as you claim, two entirely separate users have stolen the article from the SAME random arts organization website over a year apart. Additionally, I thought the Wikipedia policy was to assume good faith on the part of its editors and it seems that the assumption being made is that my version of the facts is inherently untrustworthy and should be disregarded, a disappointing contradiction of policy.Torie 07:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We assume good faith up until the time that doing so puts us into legally comprimised position, like this one. Daniel Bryant 07:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the style and content of the article being radically different from the other articles on the arts website, it is highly unlikely that different Wikipedians would have stolen from that site -- the Motley biography on areaofdesign.com doesn't even appear within the first five pages of Google results for Motley's name. All the less likely that two separate Wikipedians would crib the same website twice in a row, over a year apart. I'm kind of troubled that we are not being more aggressive about protecting the contributions of Wikipedia editors. I can appreciate the desire to be safe rather than sorry, but I'd prefer Wikipedia be safe-not-sorry about enforcing its own rights to prevent private websites from robbing the commons. I would overturn deletion and restore the Wiki article.JSoules 07:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC) — JSoules (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Further research shows a striking resemblance between that same website (areaofdesign.com)'s biography of Sol LeWitt at http://www.areaofdesign.com/americanicons.htm and the one from the Guggenheim at http://www.guggenheim.org/artscurriculum/lessons/sf_lewitt.php. Presumably the Guggenheim wasn't the plagiarist in that case...JSoules 07:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Overturn deletion, that takes the cake for me. I'll get in contact with them. Daniel Bryant 07:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I did one more search; [25] is a direct copy from the New York Times. At Wikipedia, copyrights are a serious issue, so even though it turns out we made the article first and the other website stole, we delete possible copyvios for further investigation. Page has been restored and now it is up to the other admins to persue a GFDL Violation Letter or let the other organizations persue their own actions against the site. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

MyCFO (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

MyCFO, myCFO Inc., also operating as Harris myCFO, is a substantial multinational corporation started in 1999, involved in many activities including complex financial services, accounting, banking, tax advice, and tax preparation. myCFO is easily verifiable and relates to a range of topics. The Wikipedia article, the only one describing myCFO, is directly attributed to a reliable newsprint and online credible objective reference source, The Wall Street Journal specfically a March 6, 2007 Internationally Published Newspaper Front Page Cover Fold Story (thus public domain headline, news text, and cover image are also public display copyright fair use with attribution). The reference article is externally linked to a source reference attribution [[26]] This attributed WSJ article is itself linked to the wsjonline.com were attributed references used for the investigative report can be found, and the wsj even provides further online links directly to original source documents referenced and cited in the WSJ source article. The WSJ myCFO article references many corporations and individuals who each meet Wikipedia notability criteria. This same WSJ article also references multiple US Government agencies and public record actions specifically referenced by the WSJ article and notable. Notable facts are reported in a neutral point of view that merits this article about myCFO to be included in Wikipedia.

Request Delete Speedy keep this myCFO article. Thanks. Vwt 06:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Vwt (^T/_C): Vwt is the editor originating this article’s references to the 2007 Wall Street Journal and the online linked reference sources.

Request Delete Consolidate: myCFO also recommend to consolidate and merge all directly myCFO related references into one article: "myCFO" Vwt 06:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Vwt (^T/_C).

• Comment. I'm still confused about this one... however, given the WSJ article, I would say that this subject still doesn't fit WP:N. But then again, I'm still trying to decipher the DRV. Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Vwt (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account trying to insert mention of how MyCFO is being investigated for some financial problems. Most all edits have been properly reverted as POV-pushing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.202.245.68 (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
• Overturn and list at AfD. The Wall Street Journal reference (which was included in the article) is an assertion of notability. I am not certain whether it is sufficient notability for an article, but that is a question for AfD. The AfD could also consider whether to merge it with the Harris Bank article (the parent company). Thryduulf 13:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Despite the incoherence of the nomination, overturn and list per Thryduulf. There does look to be an assertion of notability in the deleted article. This may not survive an AFD, given the COI and SPA problems here, but that's where this should be done. --Coredesat 15:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah, I agree. Overturn and list per above. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn + Send to AfD Minor assertion of notability; strong enough to make A7 inappropriate, but doubtful that it is strong enough to survive a proper AfD. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• overturn not a valid A7, any assertion of notability is enough, but send to Afd since some eds. think it doubtfull, so it might as well go there directly.DGG 20:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• is notabity still in question? Regarding notability, this WSJ article and some referenced and involved relate to and follows from a related October 17 2005 Official US Goverment press release "The Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) today announced the filing of a superseding criminal indictment in the largest criminal tax case ever filed." according to the Official US Goverment DOJ Reference, Linked: [[27]] The March 2007 Investigative report by the WSJ is extensive, edited, and sights many source reference documents directly linked. re-request Overturn Delete Speedy keep these articles please Vwt (^T/_C).
  • Well, per WP:RS the subject of the article must be the subject of third party sources. I don't see either of the sources you provided listing MyCFO as the subject... Rockstar (^T/_C) 09:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The myCFO article is about myCFO & activities (pre Harris Bank). myCFO is the central subject in the referenced source WSJ article linked (there are many possible references, this March 2007 The Wall Street Journal choice is reliable, objective, credible, clear, simple, links, and independently verifies all their sources on this). This reference used opens WSJ: "...Called myCFO Inc., the firm set out to provide rich people a full menu of financial services, from wealth management to estate planning. It succeeded with only one: tax shelters that helped clients shield hundreds of millions of dollars from taxes. Less than two years after myCFO began selling them in 2000, the Internal Revenue Service said they were bogus." This second DOJ, IRS joint press release reference, only added here as another POV source to help ground this discussion (not used in the Wikipedia myCFO article) but independently and objectively affirms the notability of the scale of these "CARDS" tax products that the Wikipedia article subject, myCFO was involved with selling. This reference, offered here indicates the DOJ&IRS considered these things notable activities. The WP:RS WSJ source for the WP myCFO article's independently validates the 2000-2002 business activities of myCFO. The Wikipedia references to myCFO are still deleted, as the references to this particular Wall Street Journal Article are also deleted from WP and other internet news. Is it proper to use Restore for further discussions of the multiple deletions of myCFO articles and WSJ news references? --Vwt (^T/_C)
• Overturn and don't bother listing. It's a notable firm-cum-crash, covered by CNET, Business Week, and the New York Times, even without the Wall Street Journal bit. That meets every applicable notability standard. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list of AfD, which is the best place to discuss notability & Co. Tizio 14:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

BrainKeeper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was deleted for lack of Notability. Since the deletion, several articles featuring BrainKeeper have been published (Miami Herald, CNet), and BrainKeeper was specifically mentioned by a Forrester analyst in Processor Magazine[28]. I believe this page now passes the qualifications for Notability. Cganskewiki 04:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If what you say is true, just recreate it and cite your sources, and it will be kept in Wikipedia. I don't see a need for a DRV. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you in principle, however I'm not too fond of the wording "featuring" and "mentioned", the coverage has to be non-trivial. Looking at the Forrester article linked, I would possibly be able to write an article about collaborative technologies, but I could write very little about BrainKeeper since it is merely a passing mention in a list of products. --pgk 06:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with your concerns. But my point is that if (and I mean if) the article fulfills WP:N, then the original creator should just rewrite it, as obviously it didn't fulfill it before. The new rewrite would be looked at as a new entry. Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. The article as deleted was a sub-stub, just start again. If the subject is notable you will exceed both the quantity and quality of the deleted article without trying. If you need time to work on the article to get it to a standard where it will not be speedily deleted, create it as a subpage in your userspace and move it to article space when it is ready (ask if you don't know how to do this). Thryduulf 13:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I apologize if I have gone through the wrong process, but the BrainKeeper page was deleted and protected from recreation, so I am not able to start a new article. If the page could be unprotected, I would love to start a new article that could be added to by the wikipedia community. Also BrainKeeper was very much 'featured' in the Miami Herald and CNet articles, but I thought the mention by Forrester was the most compelling arguement, since it is the job of Forrester analysts to know and mention 'notable' technologies and products. Stated differently: why would Forrester be mentioning a company that was not notable? Cganskewiki 02:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • We need reliable sources to base an article on, i.e. the content must be verifiable. A passing mention doesn't provide anything to use in the article, beyond that it was mentioned. --pgk 17:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Grr. Very close. The Miami Herald "article" is actually an ad. [29] It says right at the bottom, "please check with advertiser". So that wouldn't help at all. Forrester is just a mention of the name and URL in a list, that's not any good at all either. The CNet bit isn't an ad, and it isn't just a mention, but it is quite short, two paragraphs in a much larger article. [30] WisTechnology is also short.[31] OK. I may well regret this, but I'm going to unprotect it, and let you try again; fair warning though, it's not guaranteed to pass Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, those sources that are any good at all for establishing notability, are borderline.--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, changed my mind, upon further research, I won't unprotect it. I read your talk page. Cganskewiki is clearly a company employee, in fact, apparently Chad Ganske, described as company spokesman in the articles linked to above. Mr. Ganske, it does seem like your product is growing in notability, but I don't think it's clearly enough there yet that I'm willing to make an exception to our Wikipedia:Spam guideline. Between the borderline notability, and the fact that we're supposed to discourage use of the Wikipedia for advertising, I would have regretted it. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • In short, if another experienced editor wants to take a shot at writing the thing, wrote me, or another admin, to unprotect the page. I at least will do it. But per the Wikipedia:Spam guideline, we really shouldn't encourage official company spokesmen to write articles about their products. (Note the "experienced" bit; in other words, asking the guy who sits in the next cubicle from Mr. Ganske to quickly sign up for an account isn't recommended either.) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Sorry to push on this, but I just want to make sure the page gets a fair shot. The Miami Herald article is very much an article in their 'Small Business Seminar'. The interface is provided by some company called Travidia, which is referencing the Herald as the advertiser. Here is the full article: [32], which shows BrainKeeper as a featured tool for small businesses- and very much not an advertisement. In combination with the other articles, I sincerely believe that the qualifications for Notability are met.
  • I also understand that it is not desireable for me to develop the page as someone close to the company, but it is my understanding that if I create a page very similar to the ones for other wiki products, this does not violate any wikipedia rules. I would be happy to alert an administrator to the page when I create it to ensure that it meets wikipedia standards.Cganskewiki 01:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:2007 NL Wild Card Standings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|TfD)

I see no consensus for keeping the template. Discussion ended with 7 users endorsing deletion and 4 users endorsing keeping the template, yet result of the discussion was "to keep." I propose to overturn and delete as nom. Michael Greiner 03:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Keep - Admin clearly spelled out rationale. No point in deleting something that will be recreated in 4 months time. At least 3 deletes stated that the article would be recreated and 3 others were vague. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 05:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Clearly an invalid close, as the consensus seems pretty clear to delete. If the closing admin isn't going to listen to the community's consensus, why have a TfD in the first place? Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete -- If we aren't gonna use it now, then what's the point? Even if it will be recreated later, it would be better to remove something that isn't gonna be used rather than ignoring the fact that it's there. Therefore, this should be deleted, as it isn't gonna be used and so it won't take up space. --Ksy92003 06:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment -- Why go against the consensus, anyway? If consensus was to delete the template, then why was the result to keep it? --Ksy92003 06:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. The right way to close this would have been just to userfy the template to be recreated in four months. Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't think that we need to worry about the amount of space that this is consuming, since it is only 1540 bytes. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• keep per After Midnight. Just makes more sense... --W.marsh 13:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• "Endorse keep, we don't count numbers but determine rational conclusion from the discussion. Deletion/move is an unnecessary use of resources in this case. Keep the end goal in mind, folks. -- nae'blis 15:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - admin was correct in judgment, no process was misused. And just as importantly as there not being "any consensus to keep", there wasn't any consensus to delete, so no consensus would be the default ruling if anything Part Deux 18:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Closing admin's statement: I agree with the keep voters here. Deleting a template that some participants in its TfD discussion state will be re-created is pointless. Deleting this template would be deletion for the sake of deletion. It will be re-created, and deletion for deletion's sake sounds a lot like a bureaucracy, which is explicitly advised against in WP:NOT. Not only that, but there is precedent for keeping something which was created before its time, but most people agree would be re-created reasonably soon if it were deleted, such as here. I know that example is of an article, but the principle is the same: deleting something which doesn't meet policy but will at an easily forseeable point in the future, and will be re-created at that time, is counter-productive. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 19:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Go figure that the people who policy wonk other DRVs against deletion are calling for "common sense" now... strange how that works out. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse consensus Keep TfD's are not a vote. They are a debate. The arguments for keep were superior, and had consensus behind them. -M^ask? 01:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I never said it was a vote. And I see a consensus, and it's not for keep. It sure looks like delete to me. The closing admin even said there wasn't a consensus to keep, but kept anyway because he "agreed with the keep voters." Looks like a clear violation of policy. I will ask again: why have a discussion for deletion in the first place if consensus is going to be ignored? Rockstar (^T/_C) 03:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I see no evidence that the template will be recreated. There are no templates for wild card standings from either league from the last two seasons (2005 and 2006). Michael Greiner 20:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Clear consensus was in favour of Delete. It's not the role of an admin to override the consensus established by an XfD, otherwise we might as well just scrap XfD outright and have admin discretion. Policy and process are important; Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but it's not meant to be an admin dictatorship either. Walton ^{Need some help?} 19:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Walton Monarchist89. If the consenus was delete, why did the admin override it? He explained it above, but the community voted for deletion. Hornberry 01:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Initially deleted as a copyright violation, new information regarding AFI's 100 lists here indicates that these lists are in the public domain. The ORTS ticket is included on the page too. Although the article was recreated and deleted multiple times, I hope that if it is relisted, the admin can find the original version. UnfriendlyFire 02:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn I think the information provided sounds authentic, though it needs to be confirmed in a more reliable way than the email. It seems reasonable too: media companies produced these lists for he purpose of having them talked about,not for the purpose of having them hidden behind copyright. That's what some of us said during the discussion, and it seems we were right. But it was appropriate for others to insist on obtaining the evidence. DGG 02:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion!! Good, solid, fascinating article. People like and need to read this stuff! :) --172.131.174.231 03:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, obviously, per DGG (although I think the instant e-mail and the relevant OTRS ticket to provide sufficient verification that there are no copyvio problems). Kudos are also due those who pursued the matter. It should be observed, I suppose, that the article has already been recreated under a differently-formatted title, but anything relevant in the present article will surely be well merged into the older, now-deleted article. Joe 04:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I sent another email to AFI to confirm if the OTRS ticket is legit or not. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. So they are PD? So what? What part of copy-pasting someone else's list is encyclopaedic? WP:INTERESTING seems to be the maor justification for keeping. Guy (Help!) 06:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - So it means that the original reason for deleting this page is no longer valid. If these lists don't belong, we can AfD them, but after we sort this one out. Also, I did not know that the article was recreated; however, I do support a relist and merge because if my memory serves, this article is a better version. UnfriendlyFire 04:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• End this discussion The whole point is moot with consideration that this new page has been created. We should probably debate the matter on that page. Yanksox 11:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment (transwiki?). Since this is public domain, could we not send it to WikiSource?--Wafulz 05:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to WikiSource, if they want it. An encyclopedia article it isn't. Heather 14:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, restore the best version (probably the one before the first deletion) and list on afd if someone wants to. The previous reason for deletion obviously doesn't apply, and debating new reasons that might apply isn't the point of this page. - Bobet 20:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, list on AFD, then possibly delete. Preious reason doesn't apply, like Bobet said. Abeg92We are all Hokies! 00:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Cole Hunter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Famous Bodyguard Demonthesis 00:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC) — Demonthesis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I do not understand why this page has been deleted? Cole Hunter for you who are not in the Bodyguard or close protection environment is well known for protecting celebrities and his current client is very high profile in the sports world. Just do some proper research on Bodyguards and sports stars bodyguards. He is also due to appear in a major film to be released in January of 2008.

• Endorse my deletion, valid A7. Absolutely no such assertion in either deleted article, and if you want to present new information, you must reliable sources that verify it. History restored behind tag. --Coredesat 00:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

He was the WWE bodyguard Majesticangel 00:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC) — Majesticangel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

For Christ sake...this Wikipedia is like the papers say a Joke. Cole Hunter is a very well known Bodyguard to the Sports stars. He was Eric Cantonas Bodyguards 4 years ago and now protects a very well known US sports star.

• Endorse Article did not assert any notability. A quick google search turns up a hockey player, a fictional character, and Kenneth Cole. As for the claims of being in a future movie, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. And a search for "eric cantona" and "cole hunter" turns up zero results. I'm really doubting that any reliable sources can be found here. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 01:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Actually, if Wikipedia is, as you say, a "Joke", it's because articles like this exist. No notability asserted, valid speedy/prod/what-have-you. JuJube 01:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion, because article asserted notability. --172.131.174.231 03:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

there is info but hard to find Well to be fair my fellow friend I have spent the last 2 hours researching "Cole Hunter" which I have found out is an alias. he used to be a bodyguard for a rich asian called Li ka Shing I am trying to find his real name as he changed it when he moved to canada and then the UK. He is very elusive. I will report back. By the way hes half chinese and half english. AndrewJoJo 03:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)— AndrewJoJo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Endorse deletion. A7 use was valid. Holy frijoles, this looks like it's going to be a dirty DRV. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was fascinating that there were so many technical abbreviations used in this discussion. It was literally worse than going through a legal brief. It really is offensive that such a game - and that *is* a game - would be used when discussing an article related to a victim of the Virginia Tech shootings. Get off your high horses and allow the article. Honoring and remembering these victims and helping people to heal is much more important than playing some game with technicalities.

Sincerely,

Tim Rigney

Erm, this article has nothing to do with the Virginia Tech shootings. This is an article on what appears to be a bodyguard. --Coredesat 08:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you should let this article remain. There seems to be a lot of interest in this article from what I see. I spent all of last night (sad indeed) looking up this "Cole Hunter". From what I gather he was a Bodyguard for some rich asian dude. He then moved to Canada to look after the asian mans son before moving back to the UK. In the process he changed his name to the adoptive "Cole Hunter" possibly to keep a low profile. I was reading march 2004 copy of HEAT magazine and in their is one of the only pics you will see of him. Endorse the article. You may get an influx of people who know something about this elusive guy. But on all accounts he is a Bodyguard to some of the top people. And he is only 30. Nemisis50 11:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)— Nemisis50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Prove it. --Coredesat 15:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion I see no grounds to overturn the speedy deletion. I would be happy to reconsider if additional evidence were produced asserting the subject's notability. --ElKevbo 17:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion until such a time as reliable sources are provided, this smells like a hoax. Funny how many SPAs cropped up all of a sudden with assertions of notability without any proof. Corvus cornix 20:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Coredesat's rationale is extremely convincing. No importance or significance asserted = WP:CSD#A7. No sources = keep deleted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Excellent example of what speedy deletion is for. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This is a perfect example of a candidate for A7. No assertion of notability, references or anything. Will (aka Wimt) 21:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I said i would be back...Another member Demonthesis said Cole Hunter was going to be in a film and it is actually listed on IMDB under the following film "Cordially Invited" (2007) (post-production) and if you look through the cast members you will come across Cole Hunter so I think that while this guy is hard to trace maybe his Job forces him to. Worth considering AndrewJoJo 00:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Google's almost never heard of that movie, and the IMDB listing seems to have been added today (keep in mind that anyone can contribute to IMDB). Searching for the production company ("Equalaris Productions") gives a MySpace as the first result (of only 32). Word of mouth isn't a reliable published source. --Coredesat 01:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats bullshit....look up all the other actors....and check their film listing and they will all say that film title. I think that is proof enough if you compare it to some of the shit and obviously untrue article this site produces. I honestly think that this guy is for real. Just because you may have a bullshit job does not mean that everyone else does. In reply to cordesat AndrewJoJo 01:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Try reading the other articles. And if you see an "untrue article," please feel free to edit it to change it. Before then, stop with the personal attacks or you'll be blocked. Period. Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

imdb is almost like Wikipedia, as far as allowing anybody to edit. And they have no requirement for proof. And even if the entry were true, the fact that he's about 40th in the cast list and this is the only movie he's ever made, is hardly a verification of notability. Corvus cornix 03:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Pfft, I'm listed on IMDB; that doesn't mean that I should get an article. (though that would be pretty cool) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I find use of the afdanons template insulting when in fact there are DRV discussions that do get decided by majority vote by the closing admins. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That's actually a good point. I guess you just have to cross your fingers and hope that the closing admin isn't a total moron. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Since I added it in the first place, and there are only a couple of problematic users, I've removed it. --Coredesat 22:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

After watching this guys page or whatever you may call this I can see that people like the Administrators on here were the type of people that got bullied during school. Pathetic losers with not much of a social life and definately either the "ugliest girlfriend or wife (but a nice personality) or no-one at all.) I do not care what the retaliation comment the Administrators or whoever gets to choose if the articles stay or not all I can really say is that I have no sympathy for people like the admin who are destined to be sad lonely people with constant harrassment from their younger years to their deaths. Now everyone watch the smart comments from the admin. This is my last comment on this subject and would all the people I emailed (by the way it was bulk email 34,000 - on Black market press - great site and excellent replies thanks guys) start the email/ "article" display for this site I asked for at midnight (GMT). That should get the admin going and Ive copied this page for you guys to read through and also emailed it. I THINK MR HUNTERS ARTICLE SHOULD STAY. Lets see if people can add to the article and we can all really find out something about Mr Hunter. Demonthesis 10:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone a) block this dude for personal attacks and b) do a check-user for sockpuppetry against the other people voting on this DRV? Nemisis50, MajesticAngel, AndrewJojo and Demonthesis have no edits outside of this DRV and write in a strangely same manner. Thanks, Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Demonthesis for the reasons mentioned in the block log and on their talk page (essentially what User:Rockstar915 said above). Perhaps someone with checkuser access could see if there is indeed sock puppetry going on as mentioned above. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse deletion Per all of the above, sans socks. >.> My, that was interesting. And not a little creepifying. Wysdom 02:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Zydeisland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

there is proof that the site used to exist and was popular using the internet wayback machine at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.zydeisland.com Ikahootz 18:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: That a thing exists is not the same as establishing notability, but if you or other editors assert notability and provide valid citations, we may be able to get the admins to reverse the speedy AfD delete decision. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  It was not a speedy delete. The article was deleted in a valid Articles for deletion discussion in February. Please cite new evidence which tends to suggest the closing decision was in error, or that new sources have appeared which better verify the subject's encyclopedicity. FCYTravis 19:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • • If you're talking to the original complainant, you may wish to split up your comment/reply. I'm not really the person with the stake invested in the matter. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 20:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse valid AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, AfD was properly closed with no evidence provided contrary to decision. DRV rationale does not present any new information to suggest overturn. --70.115.226.102 23:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. No problem with the closing of the AfD, which we are here to discuss. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid Afd. Any new information to improve the article? --Dragonfiend 15:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, here are some links that should help credit the notability.

http://www.mpogd.com/news/?ID=445 - a well known online gaming site (bible like) that quotes "The constant updates are just one of the many reasons for their almost 12,000 players. "

http://www.gamesdex.com/gameview.php/359 which sent almost 8,000 users to the site

http://www.geocities.com/zydeislandhelp/ fan site thats not been updated since the game was active in 2002

there were many other fan sites etc back in 2000 - 2002 but they have all become obsolete and deleted since, I'd say it deserves a mention here so that when people do look it up (which they do or the new domain owners wouldn't continue to renew their lease on teh domain) they can see what it was. the games fan base was for early teens in 2000 before they all started making websites, thats probably teh main reason there isn't much reference to it on the web. Critticage has an article and Zyde was bigger than that then and now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.172.116.172 (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

• Endorse deletion: neither the deletion review rationale above nor the set of links above (which seem to fail WP:RS... a Geocities site?!) add any information about notability such that recommendations to delete were misinformed or underinformed. Evidence indicates that this was a properly run AfD closed in line with consensus. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Castles in France (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

The debate on Category:Castles in France, which resulted in the category being deleted, was wrong and needs to be reversed.

Firstly, I should say that I did not take part in the discussion because I did not know it was taking place. (I was actually in France following the presidential election campaign and, ironically, taking photos of French castles!)

My reasons for questioning the decision are:

1. As far as I can discover, the debate was not advertised on the Wikipedia:WikiProject France page, so that editors with a declared interest in topics related to France could be aware of it.

2. Similarly, no mention was made on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Castles page.

(It would have been sensible to at least mention the proposal in these projects and to seek advice.)

3. The debate, such as it was, mainly centred on how to spell. Few reasoned arguments were given for deletion.

4. The debate was closed in a great hurry.

5. The problem identified is very real. The French word château does not translate easily into English. It can mean a castle (in the usual English understanding of the word - a medieval, military defensive structure). It can mean palace/stately home/ mansion (and in fact, English speakers will frequently use the word château with that meaning). It can mean a vineyard, with or without a castle or palace attached. And, even more confusingly, the thousands of water towers in France are named château d'eau.

6. Even the French sometimes need clarification. In recent years, French language guide books have often described castles as châteaux-forts to distinguish them from the palaces.

7. Some months ago I came across a page in Wikipedia called List of castles in France (see original). This made the mistake of including article links solely because of the word château in the title; in fact only about half of the list were real castles - the rest were palaces etc and even some vineyards. I set about revising the list and along with other editors we managed to get the page as it appears now. We have gone on to add dozens more articles, particularly by translating pages from the French Wikipedia. All of these articles were categorised as Castles in France; any then categorised under Châteaux in France were moved over to Castles in France. The Châteaux in France category was left to be just for French palaces etc (i.e. what we as English speakers would call châteaux).

8. The Category:Castles by country lists 56 sub-categories and many of these are further divided (e.g. Castles in the United Kingdom is divided into Castles in England, Castles in Scotland, etc). The only country without a category concentrating on castles is France and this is a serious oversight. Anyone looking for details of castles in France now has to wade through a category that is not dedicated to castles!

9. The problems you identified with the original Category:Châteaux in France are real and need to be sorted, but this has been made worse by now lumping in all of the castle articles. Château de Puivert, for example, does not belong in the same category as Palace of Versailles, any more than Conisbrough Castle belongs with Buckingham Palace.

This category needs to be reinstated, particularly to give French castles the same category status as castles in Denmark, Spain, England and other countries. I have to say, the only way I can see that happening is to reinsate the Castles in France category as it was and for some work to be done on where the real problem lies - in the Châteaux in France category. (on behalf of User:Emeraude)

• Comment The Category was actually merged into Category:Châteaux in France, not deleted, strictly. I think this was correct, although yes the projects should have been notified. I would be against recreating it as "castles", on the whole. The ambiguities around castle/chateau are too well known. I think French castles should be "fortified chateau" in most contexts on WP, so the List should go to this title, and a Category:Fortified French chateaux (or "in France") created which is a sub-cat of Castles by country, & of Chateaux of France. Inconsistent with the other castle categories, but for good reason. If you have "Castles in France" as a sub-cat of Category:Châteaux in France that would be confusing. On a quick look round most of the articles now in the Chateaux category are country houses etc, and not fortified. Johnbod 13:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Response Not true. There are approx 250 articles listed, excluding User pages. 175 of those appear in the List of castles in France article and previously in the Category:Castles in France. They have been checked as being real castles, as indicated at the top of that page, by editors. As you say, the ambiguities around castle/château are well-known, but this is an English vocabulary issue. If the ambiguities are well known, better to have castle for castles and château for châteaux rather than confuse with just one category or inventing silly phrases like "fortified French chateau" (which is not the translation of château-fort) just for France. Emeraude 21:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep your hair on. Chateaux are castles - which is the problem. I see nothing silly about "fortified French chateau". Johnbod 23:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Except, when used in English (and this is English Wiki), châteaux are NOT castles, and that's my point. "Fortified French château" is silly when we have a perfectly good word - castle! Emeraude 12:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I support the recreation of this category for the reasons given by the person initially requesting the article be recreated. --164.107.223.217 22:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - From my perspective as a regular participant at WP:CFD, this category discussion did not seem all too unreasonable. This looked like a simple, uncontroversial semantics issue, and WP:CFD gets many rename requests that are based on semantics. It would have been inappropriate after the discussion had the administrator closed this discussion as "keep". The lack of input from the appropriate WikiProjects, however, is unfortunate. It would be useful to get commentary from the original nominator (User:Jamie Mercer) on User:Emeraude's comments. Dr. Submillimeter 09:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse merge. I can see nothing wrong with the debate, but given the huge argument above I think a new debate proposing a reorganisation of the category with wider input might be of benefit. I suggest you advertise the new discussion to the France, Castles and any other relevant wikiprojects, along with perhaps a note at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and on the talk pages of some high-profile articles about French castles, including Château. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) 16:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Comment - The Architecture project should also be informed. Johnbod 19:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and send back to CSD for continued discussion. The questions raised above are suitable for discussion there, with a wider participation the 5 eds. DGG 20:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and Relist - It's unfortunate the information wasn't able to be aired the first time, but looks like a full discussion could now occur with all the necessary folks involved. A Musing 21:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse merge The debate was closed correctly, and reviving this category would create nothing but confusion and inconsistency. Haddiscoe 14:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Confusion? Inconsistency? If you want to find castles in any other country there is a category "Castles in XXXX". If you want to find castles in France, the category no longer exists - you have to look for "Chateax in France" and use intuition to work out which of the entries are castles and which are not!. That's confusion. For consistency, it must be the same for every country surely. Emeraude 12:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Blabbermouth.net (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

What is Blabbermouth.net? it is a news source for information on heavy metal bands, such as album dates, sales, interviews, touring information visited by thousands each and everyday. Who owns Blabbermouth? the record company Roadrunner Records. It was deleted because apparently "no notability asserted (a7)" yet musicians from bands such as Slayer, KISS, The Haunted, Kittie have commented on the website and was mentioned on The Howard Stern Show. The article did not go through a AFD nor had any clean-up tags. It also features CD and DVD reviews by the staff at Roadrunner Records and it's linked on many album pages, i don't see any cause for a speedy deletion M3tal H3ad 12:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: In these cases, providing actual citations in this discussion can help inform the discussion immensely. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources below and [33]. M3tal H3ad 13:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• The article was nominated for speedy deletion by User:Leuko under CSD A7. And in the text, there was no notability asserted. The article makes no mention of the userbase that it has (except for "fans can post comments on selected articles") and no reference to show that it was the subject of an article by reliable sources were put up. The article was largely unsourced, and written in a totally unencyclopedic (and not always NPOV) manner. On a google search, most of the hits are either blogs or forums. Thats what prompted me to do a hit the delete button, and my rationale stands even now as I endorse deletion. --soum (0_o) 12:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read it before you deleted it? Did you read any of the links from interview excerpts with musicians commenting about the site? Did you read the interview with the creator who created it? The source is the website itself. You didn't add any clean-up tags, although i can clean it up if it is restored. M3tal H3ad 12:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did. And comments like "Most recently was the tendency for Disturbed/David Draiman and KISS/Gene Simmons-related articles to be posted. These articles receive numerous scathing comments from Blabbermouth's users, who almost all have a strong dislike for Disturbed and KISS. This is very similar to the frequent articles on Fred Durst that would appear in 2003, which the users would often reply to in disgust", "These are a big draw for many of Blabbermouth's visitors, as many Blabbermouth users regard these articles and the comments that follow them as amusing", "The popularity of Blabbermouth.net is thought to be sending a bad image about metal and rock fans, but it is a select online community, so others advise not to take it seriously. Some of Blabbermouth.net's users have taken it so far as to criticize specific Blabbermouth.net users en masse" in absense of a reference smell original research to me. As for interviews, I read a few of them, but could not find links to their original source to verify them.

As for cleanup, you can anytime create a cleaned up version of the article. If you want the old text, any admin would retrieve the text and move it to userspace for you to work on.

Anyways, I have put forth my rationale. I would wait for others to comment now. --soum (0_o) 13:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yea it had a lot of crap in it, but some warning would be nice so these things can be fixed... Rather then delete it. As for original sources many are magazine excerpts [34] or from Myspace [35] . M3tal H3ad 13:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Source said here [36] source here [37] source here with Metallica [38] source here [39] heres the interview the creator mentioning Howard Stern [40] It's notable - it just needs cleanup. M3tal H3ad 13:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and list. Of course the notability of the site may be put in doubt, but I believe a speedy-deletion is too excessive — especially since some notability was asserted. I strongly advice properly listing this at AfD. Michaelas¹⁰ 15:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Put page back This is the most notable metal website online likely. Needs to be reinstated immediately, and there needs to be less of this administrative dictatorship. LuciferMorgan 16:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore No prejudice against deleting admins. Now that notability has been asserted any other deletion of this article should go through AfD so that the article has time to be written properly and the citations properly reviewed. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The article as deleted not only contained no assertion of notability, it contained it at vast length and in prolifically self-cited self-referential terms. Not everything mentioned in passing on Howard Stern is going to get an article, and nothing should get an article like this. Seriously. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Although the claims that real rockers edit there might be a tangential claim of notability, other than that, there is nothing there other than OR and self-references, and a lot of POV. If there are reliable sources to verify that the people claiming to be the rockers really are the rockers, and the article can be written so that half of it isn't links to the website, then I would not object to recreation, but what was there was not an encyclopedia article (I have self-censored). Endorse deletion. Corvus cornix 21:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• If you were going to write that it was a festering heap of shit and the average quality of Wikipedia increased by a measurable increment when it was deleted, then I'd not have self-censored :-) Guy (Help!) 22:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. The article was in bad shape, but the interview and Roadrunner Records connection asserted notability. Also, over 120 incoming wikilinks is a good sign that further investigation (Afd) would be useful. A quick Google search found this. Prolog 01:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

More likely it's evidence of internal link spamming. Guy (Help!) 06:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is really not the case. Featured articles such as Slayer, Christ Illusion, Angel of Death (song), Reign in Blood and Megadeth heavily use Blabbermouth.net as a source. I'm pretty sure that if you go through the rest of the articles also, you can see that referencing from this website has been done by established editors for verifiability, and not spam purposes. Prolog 07:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Send to AfD'. The original deletion was valid as no notability was asserted, however notability has been asserted in this review and this deserves investigation at an AfD hearing. Thryduulf 16:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The Jeopards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

• The Jeopards (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• The Jeopards (German band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

See also The Jeopards (band) and The Jeopards (German band). Deleted and, in some places, salted repeatedly as an A7 although most versions had clear assertions of notability. Improper to speedy them per A7, should have gone to AfD. Overturn and list. badlydrawnjeff talk 11:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Four deletions at three separate titles by three separate admins, and guess what? All were created by the same user, Cruzenstern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 11:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • And this addresses what, exactly? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That several others concur with calling it an A7. Some sources and/or published albums would help. Endorse. >Radiant< 12:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, the international touring establishes notability. The versions I saw all noted as such. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Brass tacks. My googling didn't find verifiable links. Many many listings on clearinghouses, many not English-language (so difficult for me, at least, to read), several myspace hits, some non-English forums, some tour date listings. No reviews. Got any, Jeff? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant to A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • While I agree, I've been advised by Admins I've promised not to sell out that DRV is also for reviewing whether articles would survive an AfD review, and if not, allowing speedies to go through anyway. I realize this is in contravention of the whole asserted purpose of DRV, and am waiting for my life to settle down but intend to visit this topic on the DRV talk and DRV purpose pages with an eye toward making the written policy consistent with the facts, or vice versa. Until then, I'm trying to wealk the fine line between trying to advise the letter of the policy and not getting too much in the way of process. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd not allow for that. Whoever requested that of you made a very inappropriate request, as that's an entirely incorrect assertion by whoever requested that of you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
        • You mean the selling out or the changing the policy? Both were things I volunteered. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 19:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
          • The selling out. DRV should not be about running the AfD here that should have happened instead of a speedy, and shame on the multiple people trying to make it as such. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Yes, the promise put me in a bind, so I'd like to relieve the tension by having the conversation on Wikipedia_talk:Deletion review or by making the edits to the Purpose of DRV, or getting the folks who I believe are part of the problem to have the conversation and find out if there needs to be a new consensus. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 19:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
          • P.S. I am attempting to start the conversation on Wikipedia_talk:Deletion review. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 19:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, appears to be a valid A7. --Coredesat 13:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • So an article that asserts notability is a valid A7? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Doesn't assert notability = A7. That sure looks like an A7 to me, and if four (well, six) admins agree that that's still A7, then there's a pretty good chance it's A7. Furthermore, there's nothing about international touring, and there's nothing to prove that they're even going on the tour they're "planning" to go on (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Stop being so confrontational about it. --Coredesat 18:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Are you reading the most recent deletion, for instance? If the article asserts notability, it's not an A7, no matter how many admins make the same mistake. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Fine, then, overturn and list. I strongly believe this will not survive an AFD, however, and I doubt it's worth the time. I'm tired of being trolled. --Coredesat 01:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, certainly, having your improper endorsement pointed out is you being trolled. That makes sense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• The version of The Jeopards Radiant deleted on March 20 is as clear an A7 as a band article can possibly be. The three versions (one per title) deleted by JzG and Irishguy are very different from that but are nearly identical to each other; they mention tv appearances, which is enough that I'd've prodded it instead. (Which clearly would have been a complete waste of time, given that the article's creator continued to repost it despite the title being salted.) There's nothing to suggest they'd pass WP:MUSIC, though, and the only sources given in the article are the band's myspace page and this, which has all of two sentences. While I don't speak Czech, that's not a whole lot to build an article out of. Vaguely endorse unless someone comes up with a reason to overturn that isn't just process for process's sake. —Cryptic 13:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That it may survive an AfD if it actually got looked at like it's supposed to? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, within the range of discretion. – Steel 15:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • False, again. Assertion was clear. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• COmment: Here's a cached version of another deleted version. Note the multiple television appearances and being finalists in various contests. Note the national tour. Those are assertions of notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree with Jeff here. The reading I make is that once notability is asserted, A7 is no longer valid criterion for speedy. If anyone's got a problem with that they should change the policy, not subvert it. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn: Wrong process. Notability having been asserted, article should, if need be, go through AfD and be reviewed properly. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 20:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

*Endorse deletion. A7 can be both loosely and strictly interpreted. In this case it was loosely interpreted, but the deletion was done correctly. I also think that this DRV is somewhat POINTy (and pointless) and smells like a cocktail. A Darvon cocktail. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Speedy was, indeed, improper. Overturn and list. Why not? If it stands a chance at being kept, let it breathe for five days. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• • No, speedies are not meant to be loosely interpreted, they are "worded narrowly" for a reason. Thus, there was nothing correct about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree, it's worded narrowly, but can be interpreted otherwise. It's up to the deleting admin to decide. Furthermore, I really don't like the idea of having a DRV just to prove a point. Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      • How can it possibly be interpreted to delete an article that asserts notability? And no, this isn't to prove a point, it's to undelete an article on a notable band. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
        • If it walks like a duck... Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Yup. So why are you endorsing again? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)