View source for Wikipedia:Deletion review

{{Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Vfu header}}

This page is about ''articles'', not about ''people''. If you feel that a sysop is routinely deleting articles prematurely, or otherwise abusing their powers, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators]]. If you nominate an article here, be sure to make a note on the sysop's user talk page regarding your nomination. A template, <code>{{tls|DRVNote}}</code> is available to make this easier.

Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.
[[Category:Wikipedia deletion|{{PAGENAME}}]]

[[de:Wikipedia:Wiederherstellungswünsche]]
[[ja:Wikipedia:&#21066;&#38500;&#12398;&#24489;&#24112;&#20381;&#38972;]]
[[simple:Wikipedia:Request_for_undeletion]]
[[vi:Wikipedia:Biểu quyết phục hồi bài]]
[[zh:Wikipedia:&#24674;&#22797;&#26465;&#30446;&#25237;&#31080;]]
[[Category:Wikipedia maintenance|{{PAGENAME}}]]

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

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

*<s>Please temporarily undelete [[Bypassing the Great Firewall of China]] so I may see the content of it.</s> [[Special:Emailuser/Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] 11:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
** Per the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bypassing the Great Firewall of China|AFD discussion]], this was [[m:transwiki|transwiki]]'d to Wikibooks.  Anyone may review the content [[Wikibooks:Transwiki:Bypassing the Great Firewall of China|there]].  [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 15:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
***Thanks.  Feel free to delete this request.
*Can someone please temporarily undelete [[Badger Badger Badger Parodies]] as I intend to place it on adhocipedia (see my userpage).

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

*

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

*[[Aww Nigga]] - I merged what I could remember into [[Internet phenomenon]] (though the speedying was debatable, I won't press it) then redirected, but it would help to see what was there before. --[[User:Rory096|Rory096]] 22:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*[[Hazelwood Central High School]] - This was actually [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hazelwood Central High School|kept]] in AFD, but deleted for being empty.  I made a redirect.  For the moment, I wish the history to be undeleted.  Then I can review it, and decide if it should be a stand-alone article, or remain a redirect.  Please note, some older versions have a copyvio, so be sure to restore an appropriate version.  It might be, that without the copyvio, there's not enough for an article, which I'll know when I see it. --[[User:Thivierr|Rob]] 15:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

== Decisions to be reviewed ==
{{Template:Vfu mechanics}}
<!-- 
New entry right below here. Please start a === section === for today's date if one does not exist, and put the entry in ==== a subsection ==== 
-->
<big>'''Important notice: all userbox undeletions are being discussed on a subpage: [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates]]. Please post all new such requests there (though you may link them from this page if you like)'''</big>

===18 May 2006===
The article on Matrixism was previously voted for deletion mainly due to a lack of references. The article has since been re-written and now includes scholarly and popular books as reference. Currently their is a re-direct from Matrixism to The Matrix. This is confusing and does not serve our readership. The new article on Matrixism with its references should be relisted in lieu of the re-direct. [[User:D166ER|D166ER]] 16:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

----
====[[Talk:Ancient Roman units of measurement/Hexadecimal metric system]]====
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient Roman units of measurement/Hexadecimal metric system]]
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 18#Talk:Ancient Roman units of measurement/Hexadecimal metric system]] 

'''Undeletion requested :'''
* Reasons :
# [[User:J. 'mach' wust]] demanded a speedy delation on 18 May 2006, 09:07 (UTC) with the only justification "Original research". <br> However: '''This criterion applies for articles, not for talk pages.'''
# The administrator [[User talk:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi]] deleted on 18 May 2006, 14:47 (UTC) by stating: "The result of the debate was speedy deleted as orphaned talk page."
* '''There was no real debate.''' [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 18#Talk:Ancient Roman units of measurement/Hexadecimal metric system|see archive]]. Other requests for SD, the same day, obtained at least several motions "Deletion". '''Not so this request.'''
* This talk page '''was not an "orphaned talk page".''' It was related to ''several other talk pages'' and mainly to '''[[Talk:Ancient Roman units of measurement/Hexadecimal foot/Archive 1|Talk:Hexadecimal foot/Archive 1]]'''.

I demand an undeletion. Thanks. -- [[User:Paul Martin|Paul Martin]] 16:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

===17 May 2006===
====[[User:Travb/Tactics of some admins regarding copyright]]====
[[User:Sean_Black]] speedy deleted a page discussing copyright issues after roughly 8 hours on [[WP:MfD]]. While there was a consensus to delete at the time of closing, only two people suggested a speedy of the 21 who spoke up in that time; both were fairly well contested. While it will ''likely'' result in a delete in the end, could we '''undelete and reopen''' for at least a few more days? There isn't a pressing concern about disruption which requires such hasty action. --[[User:Avillia|<font color="#228B22">Avillia</font>]] ([[User_talk:Avillia|<font color="#228B22">Avillia me!</font>]]) 21:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
**The goal of the page is quite explicity to organize disruption of the working of Wikipedia. I think this amounts to a pressing concern about disruption. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 22:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
::Disagree. The goal appeared (to me) to discuss what to do next with others who, like the author of the page, feel some elements of Wikipedia copyright policy are heavyhanded. The related thread at WP:AN shows that the user is -- admittedly rather cluelessly -- trying to discuss but being stonewalled. Sorry, but I see no element of a pressing concern about disruption that needed to be addressed while significant discussion was going on at MFD. More comments below. [[User:Martinp|Martinp]] 03:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', totally inappropriate page. Organized resistance is not in any way a valid response to Wikipedia policies, and we do not need pages that seek to organize such resistance. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 21:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' obviously.  I can't believe we have to explain this. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 21:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*:You do have to discuss this, putting a ''vote'' down doesn't count, this is not a retrial, it is a debate on the decision to close early based on a heavily contested suggestion that the page came under a CSD criteria. [[User:Ansell|<span style="color:#0000FF;">Ans</span>]][[User:Ansell/Esperanza|<span style="color:#009000;">e</span>]][[User talk:Ansell|<span style="color:#0000FF;">ll</span>]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Ansell|Review my progress!]] 22:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and reopen''', I see no reason to speedy delete it. [[User:Bbx|bbx]] 21:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. The page was profoundly unencyclopedic and served no purpose other than stroking the user's apparently bruised ego. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 22:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*:Assume Good faith in the editor. Non-admins are not privileged to see the page after its speedy deletion, and the content is not what is being debated here either way. [[User:Ansell|<span style="color:#0000FF;">Ans</span>]][[User:Ansell/Esperanza|<span style="color:#009000;">e</span>]][[User talk:Ansell|<span style="color:#0000FF;">ll</span>]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Ansell|Review my progress!]] 22:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and reopen'''.  This was not, I think, speediable, inasmuch as it the primary purpose wasn't to attack individual editors, but, instead, to suggest a change in policy, albeit one to be effected by other-than-discursive means; of course, even as the page likely shouldn't mention specific admins with whom Travb has had problems, it is permissible for him to reference the conduct of those admins.  Many of us have subpages on which we discuss (more decorously than Travb, I hope) problems we see with Wikipedia, in order that we might advocate for the remedy of these problems; where such discussion is not ''primarily'' in the form of personal attacks, pages are not speediable.  We are left, though, with [[WP:IAR]] and [[WP:SNOWBALL]], which might militate in favor of the early close, but I see no harm in our allowing the discussion to continue; the user, at least, has sought on a subpage to discuss an issue relevant to the encyclopedia (with benevolent intentions, no less; cf., other Travb subpages that, while not speediable, don't pertain to Wikipedia and likely violate [[WP:UP]]'s soft proscription against ''Opinion pieces not related to Wikipedia or other non-encyclopedic material''), as UP counsels that he should, and a full airing is appropriate.  [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 22:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', Ways how to sink Wikipedia by getting it into legal troubles should at least be discussed off-site. --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 22:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and reopen''' Discussion was closed out of process. This is not the place to say that the page was unencyclopedic. An admin who didn't have enough self-control to leave the discussion through to completion has made the error. [[User:Ansell|<span style="color:#0000FF;">Ans</span>]][[User:Ansell/Esperanza|<span style="color:#009000;">e</span>]][[User talk:Ansell|<span style="color:#0000FF;">ll</span>]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Ansell|Review my progress!]] 22:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
:*I assure you that I have plenty of self control, and I do not appreciate being told otherwise.--[[User:Sean Black|Sean Black]] 02:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. From the page: ''"This is a forum for like-minded wikipedians to organize effective resistance against untrained wikipedians who have no understanding of the law"''. If this is a positive forum for "discussing copyright issues", I'm a Dutchman. How much "discussion" do you expect to take place on a page which says ''"This is not a forum for Wikipedians to cite the reasons why what the admins are doing is correct, these opinions can be expressed elsewhere"''? Productive discussions aren't usually begun by telling one side to piss off. Attack page, [[WP:SNOW]], take your pick, valid speedy. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 23:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

*'''Undelete'''. I have not seen the content of the page in question, as it has been deleted. But I think it ought to go without saying that what someone puts within their own User pages is their own business. Just as I don't want LiveJournal to tell me what I can and can't put in my blog, just as I don't want Google censoring my email, so I don't want Wikipedia policing my User page. (I just hope I haven't attracted the attention of the Thought Police by writing this...) [[User:LordAmeth|LordAmeth]] 22:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
:*That's precisely the point. This is not Livejournal, and no [[WP:FREE|freedom of speech]] is guaranteed. It is not "your" userpage, it is the page assigned to your name, designed to assist in the building of an encyclopedia. Attacking those who are attempting to prevent Wikipedia from violating copyright law is not okay, period.--[[User:Sean Black|Sean Black]] 02:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', [[WP:SNOW]]. [[User:Dr Zak|Dr Zak]] 23:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' invalid speedy delete, A6 applies to articles, not user pages. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 23:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*I've looked at several versions (and I will not accept requests to restore the text at this time, sorry) and I see no encyclopedic value in this sort of arbitrary petitioning mechanism, even on a user page (see [[User:Mindspillage/userpages|this page]] and think about what it says), when there are lots of well accepted mechanisms for dispute resolution and for changing policy, which have not been tried. Further WP is not a democracy and there is no right to petition for redress of grievances. This page was properly speedied in my view. '''Keep deleted''' '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 23:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''undelete''' please it can be healthy to discuss disagreements even legal oriented ones [[User:Yuckfoo|Yuckfoo]] 00:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Reopen discussion''' As I point out in the debate, any claim of A6 speedy is a misreading and a pernicious precedent.  This should be deleted, and is likely to be, but in these sorts of cases, it is especially important to allow full discussion, lest dissent users feel silenced before having a chance even to be heard. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 00:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
:*What horrid ruleslawering. An attack is an attack.--[[User:Sean Black|Sean Black]] 02:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
:**No, I think that Xoloz is saying that we should bring it back ''not'' because we didn't follow the "rules" when deleting it but that when people feel disenfranchised it doesn't hurt to proceed slowly and methodically.  More "follow the rules to keep people happy" than "follow the rules because they are rules."  Not withstanding that this could be seen as having taken place well within the rules, of course. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#000000">brenneman</font>]]<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman<font color="000000" title="Admin actions"><sup>'''{L}''' </sup></font>]</span> 03:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 
:::Frankly, the sooner the newer folks become adjusted to the idea the rules serve the encyclopedia, and not the other way around, the better off we'll all be. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 03:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' -- Malformed RfC kept in userspace to allow removal of response from one party.  Inappropriate use of userspace. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 02:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*I deleted it, so yeah, keep it in the trash were it belongs.--[[User:Sean Black|Sean Black]] 02:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. What's the world coming to when the deletion of an attack page is attacked on process grounds? It's enough to make me start committing WP:POINT violations&ndash;because I know someone will support me! [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 02:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''.  Trash. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 02:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''.  Completely inappropriate page.  [[User:Chick Bowen|Chick Bowen]] 03:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Speedily reopen discussion'''. There was significant debate in the MFD ongoing and no reason to be in a rush to close 6 hours after listing. While the tone of this user subpage page was disgruntled, it was not directly attacking anyone, nor was it promoting any disruptive action (as far as I recall, I cannot see it now) beyond organizing to discuss what the author believes, correctly or incorrectly, to be issues with a policy or its implementation. There was no reason why rush to blast this away - let the discussion run its course. A couple of points in addition - even among proponents of deletion in the discussion, there was considerable and reasonable debate whether it was speediable or not. Ergo, wait and discuss, don't speedy right away. Second, as it happens the page author is currently blocked for 24 hours; to avoid perceived railroading we should then speedily delete in their userspace only if the page is particularly egregious; this one is at worst ill-advised. Finally, "trash" seems to be judgement of page content - dubious as a reason for ''deleting'' a page, even more dubious for ''reviewing a contentious speedy delete''. [[User:Martinp|Martinp]] 03:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' inappropriate page - <b>[[User:Crzrussian|CrazyRussian]]</b><small> [[User_talk:Crzrussian|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Crzrussian|contribs]]/[[Special:Emailuser/Crzrussian|email]]</small> 03:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' per above. [[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">'''kantari'''</font>]] 03:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I'm the DRV nominator, and I'd just like to point out that the userspace is not encyclopedia...ish at all. We shouldn't be deleting on that basis. Additionally, the comment removing is the work of the user himself; Bring him up on [[WP:ANI]] over that. ''Note that he has been given a 24 hour block over that very point already.'' --[[User:Avillia|<font color="#228B22">Avillia</font>]] [[User_talk:Avillia|<sup><font color="#228B22">(Avillia me!)</font></sup>]] 05:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
:*Incorrect. User pages and their subpages are designed for information related to the encyclopedia and to assist in the building of an encyclopedia, not to attack other users because they succeeded in preventing breach of copyright law and Wikipedia policy.--[[User:Sean Black|Sean Black]] 05:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
::*Well, without much knowledge of the Russian PD debates and such, it sounded more along the lines of stopping some administrators who were disregarding the Foundation ruling about it. Then again, I only skimmed it and I can't read through it again. --[[User:Avillia|<font color="#228B22">Avillia</font>]] [[User_talk:Avillia|<sup><font color="#228B22">(Avillia me!)</font></sup>]] 16:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' - what a waste of time! --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|<small><sup>ask?</sup></small>]] 07:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep deleted''': this project is an encyclopedia. Other namespaces than the main namespace are used to support the main purpose: they contain information which is not to be contained in the encyclopedia itself for various reasons, usually because it is ''meta''-information, including discussion of how the information itself should be presented or organised. Anything which is not in support of the main purpose is tolerated on sufferance; anything which works against that main purpose is to be rejected; anything which threatens to bring the project into disrepute or danger of legal proceedings is to be rejected with maximal force. A page which lists admins accused of "enforcing the copyright rules" and invites suggestions of how to combat them falls under the latter. Furthermore it is an attack on those admins, hence the suggested application of [[WP:CSD#A6]]: the fact that several well-experienced people agreed with that suggestion should suggest something in itself. HTH HAND —[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|Talk]] 08:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' - at best, totally wrongheaded; at worst, malicious; in any event, disruptive. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 08:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' per Jkelly. [[User:Musical Linguist|AnnH]] [[User talk:Musical Linguist|<b><font size="3">♫</font></b>]] 08:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

*Uh...of ''course'' '''undelete''' it. It's a user subpage, he can say whatever he wants there. The thinking in these votes really baffles me sometimes. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 09:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
**I recall precedent that says otherwise. But that's your call. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 12:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
***Well, I was exaggerating; he can't literally say ''whatever'' he wants there. But it would have to be something deeply offensive and/or clearly and unambigiously contrary to policy to warrant deletion. This page is apparently about "organizing resistance" to admins who are deleting images hastily. If "resistance" means car bombs, then no; if it means vandalism, then no; but I'd expect it just means a campaign to oppose instances of hasty deletion, complain about it, go through the standard processes, that kind of thing. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 12:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
****Here, to support what I'm saying, I'll quote from the deleted article: 
****:"The majority of wikipedians want to share information and contribute to building a better Wikipedia. A small, but vocal and well-organized minority of wikiusers want to interpret copyright and fair use law in a restrictive and counter-productive way, that does not reflect the laws of US copyright, and that is against the very spirit of Wikipedia.
****:I would like to collect comments about how to stop this behavior.  I would also like suggestions on how we can organize effectively against such actions."
****Now, come on. Does that suggest disruption by any serious definition? It strikes me as the expression of an opinion and an initiative to look for ways to promote that opinion. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 12:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*****Everyking: You ask ''Now, come on. Does that suggest disruption by any serious definition?''... but the quote you give right above it says ''I would also like suggestions on how we can organize effectively against such actions.''... well um... gee... I'd say the answer to your question is YES! '''"Organize"=="Disrupt" '''in this context.  Again, see [[User:Mindspillage/userpages]]. You don't get to say ''anything you want'' in your userspace. This is primarily an encyclopedia. No change in my view. But of course I'm just some clueless newbie compared to you. '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 13:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted''' - probably shouldn't have been speedied, but undeleting, revoting and deleting is just pointless red tape. [[User:The JPS|<font color="Purple">'''The JPS'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:The JPS|'''<font color="Purple">talk to me</font>''']]</sup> 12:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

*'''Undelete'''. The page did not fall under CSD criteria as I read them. The page was pretty benign -- it says it doesn't approve of the implementation of some policies, which is a completely legitimate complaint, and speedying it was completely inappropriate. There was no clear consensus as to whether to delete it or not at the time it was deleted, and the speedying was just gratuitous, out of process, and frankly unnecessary. I think the debates here about whether it was "encyclopedic" or not miss the point: it was not given a full and fair vote, it was speedied as something it was not. It should be undeleted, and go through the deletion process again if neccesary, because it was ''not'' properly carried out. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 12:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' if restored, it definitely should be renamed. I went to this page looking for new tactics to learn but was quite disappointed. - [[User:Paolo Liberatore|Liberatore]]([[User talk:Paolo Liberatore|T]]) 15:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
**<nowiki>:D</nowiki> <small>[[User:RN|It is as it always was]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 16:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. We can have the discussion right here, right now. Anyway, the page - as Lar says - was disruptive in that it appeared to be organising a guerilla campaign against our fair use policies. As I mentioned at the MfD, the foci of the page was on admins speedying orphaned fair use images that had only been used in userpages. While Travb can push for a policy change if he want to, opening a page to find ways to militate (what would "organise" in the context of the page imply? An organised votestacking campaign? An organised political pressure group? Whatever it is, it doesn't fit with our culture) against policy is just wrong. There's no point in keeping the page; userpages belong to the project, not to the user. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 16:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' - [[WP:SNOW]] --[[User:JiFish|JiFish]](<sup>[[User_talk:JiFish|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JiFish|Contrib]]</sub>) 16:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', perhaps the speedy was a little premature, but [[WP:SNOW]] anyways, so the result would have come out the same no matter what time it was to be deleted. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 16:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

====Automobile/Motor Manufacturer CFD====

At the end of a CFD to move Automobile/Motor Manufacturers to the "Company of Foo" format, there seemed to be a good body of [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_24#Automobile_manufacturers_categories|opinion]] in favour but with the caveat of Motor Manufacturers rather than Automobile Manufacturers where this is local usage, which was an alteration from the original nomination. [[User:Cyde]] then put [[User:Cydebot]] to work altering all of the categories as per the nomination without reference to the CFD disscussion. Noticing this in progress I posted to [[User_talk:Cyde#Automobile_manufacturers_.28Cydebot.29|Cyde's talk page]] then having had no response to [[Wikipedia_talk:Bots#User:Cydebot|Bots]]. Some 10 hours later [[User:Tim!]] closed the CFD noting that Cyde had already done the rename, I then posted to Tim! as per the advice given on the Bot noticeboard, who replied on [[User_talk:Ian3055|my talk page]]. Cyde later replied on his [[User_talk:Cyde#Automobile_manufacturers_.28Cydebot.29|talk page]] with a ''comment that seems to justify over ruling any CFD at the will of the closing Admin''. 

I suggest that the categories be renamed, or at least full consideration is given renaming them, inline with the CFD discussion. [[User:Ian3055|Ian3055]] 23:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and rename''' per local usage. Manifestly improper close, ignoring [[WP:Consensus]] to start the useless thing, an Anglo-American language dispute. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 04:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse status quo'''. "Motor manufacturers" would be manifestly misleading, as the companies in question actually produce whole cars, rather than merely exporting motors to be installed in some other country. — <small>May. 12, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[22:04] <[{{fullurl:user:freakofnurture}} freakofnur<sub>x</sub>ture][[special:contributions/freakofnurture||]][{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit&section=new}} talk]>'''</tt>
::Note that the industry trade body is called the [http://www.smmt.co.uk/ Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders] and of course a Motor manufacturer produces more than Engines. [[User:Ian3055|Ian3055]] 12:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
:::What a confusingly named organization. — <small>May. 15, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[07:44] <[{{fullurl:user:freakofnurture}} freakofnur<sub>x</sub>ture][[special:contributions/freakofnurture||]][{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit&section=new}} talk]>'''</tt>
::::Like the man said, local differences.  Car driver = motorist.  Car salesman = motor trader.  Automobile is almost unusued this side of the pond, we find "car" shorter and more convenient. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 12:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''This got no attention and I have no idea what to do with it, so I've moved it to the top of the heap.  And subst the subpage, because I hate them like poison.''' - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#000000">brenneman</font>]]<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman<font color="000000" title="Admin actions"><sup>'''{L}''' </sup></font>]</span> 12:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' to match local usage, no good reason to ignore the consensus that CFD came up with. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 20:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse status quo''' - I would prefer "motor vehicle manufacturers"  (which sometimes gets abbreviated to "motor manufacturers"), but surely this isn't worth ''much'' of a fuss over. The outcome reached was sensible enough to stand. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 11:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
:*For values of sensible which include using a term which is simply not used at all in some of the countries named... [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 16:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

==== [[Major power]] ====
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major power]]

[[User:ACamposPinho|ACamposPinho]]

I don't really know was delected the Major Power page in International Relations section. In the discussion about delecting the article there where a majority of Keep o Merge votes and anyway the page was delectd.
As Y said it should remain, now its redirecting to Great Power.
If you choose this to continue you should review the Great Power page, with more historical and geostrategich accuracy and show in that page the contents of the former Major Power article. 
Only this way you can be really redirecting and merging something. In the actual situation, waht is being done is totally delecting an article, that was good only needed to be improved.

I think I opened the Big Pandora Box whan I talked of Italy as a Major Power and the establishment wants to see only a little Italy, when Italy is on pair or almost with France, Germany and UK.

Has someone said you consider Italy a great power till the end of the war and Itally today has many more attributes of a Major/Great Power than in Fascist era and before whan it was unquestionable considered a Great Power, one of the biggest in the world.
That person provided plenty of links confirmming Italy as a Major Power in all the requesits it must have and only then a user : NobleEagle, who writes many articles in International Relations was willing to put Italy as a Major Power.

THEN THE PAGE WAS SIMPLY DELECTED- NOT FAIR - 

I ASK TO UNDELET THAT PAGE

[[User:ACamposPinho|ACamposPinho]] 2:26, 17 May 2006
*'''Endorse closure (redirect to Great power)'''. Great majority of opinions in 1st half of AFD discussion were delete or merge with [[Great power]] since it appeared hopelessly OR. Then the discussion went ballistic with some pretty strange reasoning. Those who wish can salvage what they can (what is not OR) in the history (prior to the redirect) and put it into Great power. Cogent arguments had nothing to do with Italy. [[User:Martinp|Martinp]] 02:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' - well within reasonable admin discretion. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 02:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' The redirect result deleted nothing: all information is still available in the history.  Closure of the debate was well within discretion. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 02:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' As the original AfD closer (and it's a good thing I started looking at this page again, since I wasn't notified of this DRV), my reasoning is that the majority of votes were either to redirect or to delete. However, the consensus wasn't in favour of deleting the article, so I closed it as a redirect. No content was deleted, you can actually salvage the content by looking in the article history, as long as you heed the comments in the AfD and not insert content that is considered [[WP:NOR|original research]] into [[Great power]]. I followed process as close as I can, and I think that was more than fair. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 03:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' The history was not deleted and is still available - http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Major_power&action=history. If any of the content in this article can legitimately be used in another article, there is nothing stopping you from pulling it out and doing whatever you need to do. [[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 05:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''', can't think of any other sensible way of closing this one, and as pointed out above it's not actually deleted. [[User:Petros471|Petros471]] 09:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''', a redirect to a more widely-used and clearly defined term, covering the same content, and leaving the history intact per [[GFDL]].  What is there to criticise here? [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 09:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I must object to this. Whereas at first I agreed, when suggestions were made of getting rid of the other Power articles, I began to see that this was simply the failed beginning of another rampage to delete all the Power articles. This I most strongly object to. I must ask that the redirect of this article be recognised as a tidying exercise, not as protest against the Power series as a whole. This may lead to another Uber-AfD like we had last time when there was about 5/6 power articles up for deletion. I'm sure any editor worth his/her salt can see the issue I have with huge chunks of Wikipedia being removed in such a way. Also please note the interesting beginning of a swing in the other direction (alot of keeps or strong keeps) near the end of the AfD, seemingly cut off (be they ''"strange reasoning"'' or not, martinp). The vote only seemed to be going the delete/redirect way at the first half when, suprise suprise, no-one had bothered to tell the editors of the Power articles. [[User:Trip the Light Fantastic|Trip: The Light Fantastic]] 15:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
**My redirect of the article had nothing to do with a tidying exercise, or of anything in the "Power series" (?). My redirect of the article came about as a result of consensus from the AfD that I closed. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 17:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''.  AfD consensus was reached because "the editors of the Power articles" continued to promote their original research categorizations as if they were encyclopedic standards, in violation of [[WP:NOR]].  Closing admin's decision respected policy and process.  If editors can show [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] demonstrating that these categorizations are widely accepted, they are free to rewrite the article with [[WP:NPOV]] descriptions and proper citations.  [[User:Barno|Barno]] 19:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*This series of articles is highly problematic. Getting rid of this one was a good start. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 22:33, 
17 May 2006 (UTC)
* In the page you said the article is still existing I only saw a discussion.Anyway a merger is not what happened and the Great Power article has many faults besides behing very innacurate.
By the other way what you call a country that is not a Superpower but is more than just a Great Power:Major Power-is a country that altough not being a Superpower has influence in other countries and inthe policies of that countries.Was the definition that was on the Major Power page and its a level of countries above Great Powers.
[[User:ACamposPinho|ACamposPinho]]1:58, 18 May 2006

===16 May 2006===

==== [[Cock block]] ====
[[User:Doc_glasgow]] closed the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cock_block_%28second_nomination%29 second AfD] as a consensus delete.  A number of issues:  1) Strict vote-counting, while dismissing anons, has 5 keeps to 3 deletes.  2) The argument for deletion was that it was a previously transwikied dicdef, which is fine on its own, except that the article can and should have been expanded to include various references, and the current stub had to be a statement of what it was to remain a viable stub.  3) The nominator has a bit of a history nominating anything that looks sex-related for AfD, and this was the second attempt at an AfD.

I approached Doc on the talk page, and he claims no one offered how to make it into an article, and that "we delete dicdefs."  This is in direct opposition to what was actually asserted in the debate, where people noted, again, that it is a notable and viable term and should be expanded.

Thus, '''overturn and undelete''' as a no consensus close.  --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>([[Wikipedia:Notability (memes)|WP:MEMES?]])</small> 23:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

:'''Reply:''' It was a transwikied dicdef - we delete dicdefs - so the question was, could this become an article? What was the discusison saying? Most of those arguing keep did not addess the issue, making statements like 'viable term' or 'notable' - but that was not in debate and beside the point. No one indicated how a genuine article might develope from the term. Of course if someone wants to write such an article, I'd have no objections. If [[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] is willing to write a non-dicdef article, then he should just have done it (since it would be substantially different content, it would not be re-speedied), otherwise '''endorse my deletion'''. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|<small><sup>ask?</sup></small>]] 10:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
::Why it was transwikied, I don't really know.  Of course, if you're not against recreation, why delete the stub?  Serves the same purpose.  I'm certainly not going to write an article on something I know little about, but the point was your problematic close, given the inherent notability and the ability to expand this.  --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>([[Wikipedia:Notability (memes)|WP:MEMES?]])</small> 23:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse closure''': I believe the idea here is that the article was essentially a dictionary definition, and the "Keep, this is a notable term" didn't really give any reason why it shouldn't have been transwikied and deleted. They could even be viewed as supporting claims that it should be deleted by calling it a "term". Remember, AfD does not consist of a simple count of votes. That said, this could have used more explanation - no explanation as to the closing decision was given on the AfD page. --[[User:Philosophus|'''Philosophus''']] <sup>[[User talk:Philosophus|'''T''']]</sup> 01:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
**Just as one could say "notable term" doesn't give any reason why it shouldn't be deleted, one could say that "transwikied" doesn't give any insight as to why this can't be more than a dicdef.  An article like this has plenty of room for improvement if you can get some cooperation from the types who try to eliminate such articles. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>([[Wikipedia:Notability (memes)|WP:MEMES?]])</small> 02:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and undelete''' - the article was more than a simple dicdef; it contained quite detailed discussion of the phenomenon of "cock blocking". The worst that should have happened to it was merging somewhere, e.g. an article on contemporary sexual mores, or moving it to a better title (though I can't think of an obvious one). There was no consensus to delete, whether counted as votes, or weighing up reasoning as admins are supposed to do. The decision was unexplained and really quite mysterious. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 01:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and undelete''' - deletion in this instance was not justified.  [[User:Silensor|Silensor]] 02:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse closure''' (keep deleted) but without prejudice against a temporary undeletion for [[m:transwiki|transwiki]] if that hasn't yet been done.  This was a long and detailed definition but nothing more.  In a year and a half, the page was never expanded past a dictionary definition.  That is reasonable evidence to me that the topic could not be expanded past mere definition status.  [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a dictionary]].  (Note: I could live with a redirect if someone has a place to put it.  However, no suitable article jumps to mind.)  [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 03:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and relist for further consensus''' I count 5 deletes, not 3 - the nominator (implied), Alkivar, BigDT, Stifle, and Sam Blenning.  One of the keeps - the one labeled as nothingxs - was by an anon.  There is no user nothingxs and his "signature" links to a user who hasn't been active since last October.  Discounting that vote, that's 5-4 in favor of deletion.  That's still not a consensus, though, thus the vote to relist.  I don't like out of process deletes, even though my preference would be for it to be deleted.  Continue the AFD to develop a consensus.  I would point out, by the way, to anyone who really wants this article that nobody has tried to improve it since last September.  If want to keep, are you going to help improve the article? [[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 05:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
**You're right, I miscounted the one strikethrough and didn't add it to the side.  I also did not add the anon keep to the keep tally, so it's still 5 keeps - Myself, Richardcavell, Yuckfoo, backburner, and nothingxs.  There was a separate keep added later. Regardless, I never claimed, nor do I assert, that there was a consensus to do anything. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>([[Wikipedia:Notability (memes)|WP:MEMES?]])</small> 10:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
***What part of ''There is no user nothingxs and his "signature" links to a user who hasn't been active since last October'' was unclear? --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 11:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
****The part where I don't know if it was a failed login or not.  I'm not a checkuser after all, not that it makes a difference in the ability to find a lack of consensus, but hey. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>([[Wikipedia:Notability (memes)|WP:MEMES?]])</small> 23:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*****No, I'm pretty sure it's the part where you take a vote signed with a false signature and count it anyways because it's convenient for you. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 01:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
******Actually, no, but thanks for making the assumption. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>([[Wikipedia:Notability (memes)|WP:MEMES?]])</small> 01:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and undelete''', it was an unjustified deletion. [[User:Bbx|bbx]] 06:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''', this is a slang dictdef which has been transwikied to WIKT already.  As noted above, voting keep on the gorunds that somebeody else ought to improve it is a weak option given that nobody has in the last six months since the same argument was advanced last time. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 09:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
**What's the rush to get rid of a notable term, exactly? --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>([[Wikipedia:Notability (memes)|WP:MEMES?]])</small> 10:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
***''Most of those arguing keep did not address the issue, making statements like 'viable term' or 'notable' - '''but that was not in debate and beside the point'''.'' Man, that seems familiar. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 11:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''', dictionary definitions which have been transwikied to Wiktionary are deleted.  This is standard Wikipedia procedure, was entirely justified, and the only possible breach of policy would be in undeleting this. [[User:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none"><span style="text-underline:none"><font color="#007700">Proto</font></span></span>]]<font color="#555555"><b>||</b></font><small>[[User_talk:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none"><span style="text-underline:none"><font color="#007700">type</font></span></span>]]</small> 11:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' doesn't look like dicdef, and AfD result confirms that. [[User:Grue|<font style="background: black" face="Courier" color="#FFFFFF">'''&nbsp;Grue&nbsp;'''</font>]] 11:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. I'm having a hard time even seeing the ''potential'' for an actual article, and it's already been transwiki'ed. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 11:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
**Why not?  --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>([[Wikipedia:Notability (memes)|WP:MEMES?]])</small> 23:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
***Why ''not''? Dude, you have it precisely backwards: you're the one who has to outline the potential for an actual article. Do your own homework. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 01:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
****Civil much?  Sheesh. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>([[Wikipedia:Notability (memes)|WP:MEMES?]])</small> 01:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undecided''' Perhaps inclusionism is a bit extreme from the debate, however it does not appear to be a dicdef to me. Perhaps I have seen too many one-sentence dicdefs :). <small>[[User:RN|It is as it always was]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 12:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and undelete'''.  Deletion was unjustified in this case. --[[User:Myleslong|Myles Long]] 13:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''. This just doesn't seem to have the makings of a viable article to me, yet.  Perhaps something is missing.  It's full of vague, handwavy stuff like "Amongst people with relaxed gender definitions, it is possible to "cock block" a woman. The situation can also be challenged by a female. Here the person, usually a male, is hitting on a female and is then prevented from any further procedures by the female's friend(s)."  The use of regional colloquialisms like "hitting on" doesn't exactly enhance my confidence in this attempt to make a useful article.  I'd notch it up as a failure while welcoming renewed attempts by competent writers to produce a useful article on the subject--which may well be possible. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 17:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
**So the way to deal with poorly written articles is to delete them, now?  I don't find that logic encouraging, unfortunately. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>([[Wikipedia:Notability (memes)|WP:MEMES?]])</small> 23:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*** Not generally.  But here the content seems to be of very low quality.  I don't really want to keep an abysmally written article just because it's all we've got. This is an unusual statement for me.  I'm tolerant of very short stubs, and underresearched articles, and articles about obscure Persian poets and porn stars and drummers.  But this isn't any of those, and it's just a rather poor treatment of an abstract concept.  --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 00:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and Relist'''.  I would vote '''Delete''' if this were an AfD, but that's not what this vote is for.  The AfD vote looks like a "no consensus keep" to me. [[user:Vslashg|<span style="font-family:Georgia,serif">'''V'''slash'''g'''</span>]] ([[User_talk:vslashg|talk]]) 18:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse cruft block'''. When/if [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] become available to write a proper encyclopaedia article on this 'social phenomenon', they won't refer to it as 'cock blocking'. All that can exist here is a redirect to that hypothetical article. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 19:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''overturn and undelete''' this please it is a notable subject we should document [[User:Yuckfoo|Yuckfoo]] 00:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and relist'''. This seems marginal (and controversial) enough to merit a more thorough TfD, and the topic itself clearly has potential as a valid article. Moreover, many of Wikipedia's important articles can be described as "elaborate dicdefs", since the whole point of an encyclopedia is to define and explain concepts: [[sink]], for example, could be considered an "elaborate dicdef", yet few would dispute its relevance, and it's been around ''much'' longer than "cock block", since November 2002! The same applies to numerous other articles, like [[euphony]], [[grazing]], [[hope]], [[industry]], [[failure]], and countless hundreds of pages for phrases and idioms ([[elephant in the room]], [[figurehead]], [[grain of salt]], [[have one's cake and eat it too]], [[beating a dead horse]], [[black sheep]], [[trip the light fantastic]], etc.). -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 00:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' per [[User:Tony Sidaway]].  [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 02:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' per Tony Sidaway. [[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">'''kantari'''</font>]] 03:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 09:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''':  It's just a fashionable bit of slang, with a definition.  The fact that it is fashionable means that it is possible to track every single usage on television (idol of the ignorant), but tracking usages is a ''lexicon's'' business, not an encyclopedia's.  This is a very fundamental violation of the deletion policy that cannot be overcome by "techniques for blocking some other dude's cock" or "pictures of a guy getting cock blocked" or "every episode of ''Entourage'' that refers to it."  [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 12:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

====[[Eminem's enemies]]====
This article, although in need of cleanup, was a particularly in depth look at the enemies (past and present) of Eminem. Given that Wikipedia is  updating its hip-hop section, and the original debate was not particularly strong either way with spurious reasons given for deletion, I believe this article should be undeleted. POV arguments cannot really apply to verifiable facts, such as lyrics, physical confrontations and magazine articles. 'Unencyclopaedic' as a one word response in a debate is useless; it offers no real input into the article whatsoever. A cleaned up version of this article would be as 'encyclopaedic' as it is made to be. Arguments such as fancuft/rapcruft imply the need for cleanup, not deletion.The worst aspect of such a deletion is that the information available has simply been heavily edited and shoehorned into 'hip-hop rivalries', a huge article referencing a multitude of people and arguments; hip-hop rivalries should be a disambiguation page, not an evergrowing checklist. If hip-hop rivalries are worth storing in the first place, this article has value and should be merged in its entirity, not deleted. Given the need to present information that is both relevant and wanted, and given the large fan base/media presence/extended career of Eminem, I am amazed this article has been deleted. I'm beginning to think some suggestions for deletion may be more POV than the articles themselves.
:*'''Endorse closure'''. I can't even see how any article titled "x's enemies" could ever be NPOV. [[User:LjL|LjL]] 01:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
:*'''Endorse closure'''. "X's enemies" is not an appropriate title unless "X" is a video game or movie character. And even then, it sounds fairly unencyclopedic. --<font color="red">[[User:Kirbytime|Ķĩřβȳ]]</font>[[Image:KirbySig.JPG|30px]]<font color="pink">[[User_talk:Kirbytime|Ťįɱé]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/Kirbytime|Ø]]</font> 01:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
:*'''Transwiki to Wikibooks''' - can be used in a game strategy guide but is not fit for here -- [[User:Tawker|Tawker]] 02:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
:**'''Comment''' - despite the wording this is ''not'' about a videogame. Also please note that Wikibooks is no longer a destination for videogame strategies (see [[b:Wikibooks:Staff lounge#Wikibooks is not a depository for video game manuals|this Staff Lounge discussion]] for more). [[User:Master Thief Garrett|Garrett]]<sup>[[User talk:Master Thief Garrett|Talk]]</sup> 08:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
:***'''Comment''', this has nothing to do with a video game, the article was a unsourced article on Eminem's supossed enemies in the regular rap world, which violated gravely [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:NOT]], so '''Keep Deleted/Endorse closure''' [[User:Jaranda|Jaranda]] [[User_talk:Jaranda|<sup>wat's sup</sup>]] 01:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
:*'''Endorse closure''' - any relevant info contained in this article can be added to the Emenim article.--[[User:WilliamThweatt|WilliamThweatt]] 03:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
:*'''Endorse closure''', valid AfD, properly closed. 'Unencyclopaedic' is a perfectly valid reason to delete ''encyclopaedia'' articles, and some articles (like anything called 'X's enemies') are irredeemably unencyclopaedic. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 08:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
:*'''Endorse closure'''. This was an article in unencyclopaedic language on an unencyclopaedic topic. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 11:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
:*'''Endorse closure''' No new evidence presented compelling review of a valid AfD.  "Rivals" and/or "critics" are a good NPOV synonyms for "enemies" here, I think, and I'd assume both those groups are mentioned, as appropriate, at [[Eminem]]. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 17:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
:*'''Endorse closure''' [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eminem%27s_enemies|The original AfD]] appears to have elicited comment from many editors who adduce appropriate reasons for deletion (JzG well summarizes them here).  As Xoloz says, since there is no new evidence presented here, and since the closure as ''delete'' was proper, this baby should be put to bed.  [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 18:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
:*'''Endorse closure''' per all the above. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 01:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

===15 May 2006===
====[[Structures of the GLA]]====
It is well settled that one does not own a deletion discussion/nomination any more than he/she might own the article about which a discussion is held; indeed, [[WP:SK]] makes plain that an AfD may be closed as a ''speedy keep'' upon the withdrawal of the nomination only if no other valid ''delete'' "votes" have been cast.  Notwithstanding this, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structures of the GLA|this article’s AfD]] was closed after a full week’s discussion as ''nomination withdrawn; keep without prejudice to any further nomination by any party one month after closure'' (the latter proviso likely shouldn’t be included, in view our otherwise expressed general disfavoring of rapidly repeated AfD noms, but I’ll not quibble over that).  Plainly, many editors argued for deletion, and several argued as well for keep; in view of certain keep justifications, the original nominator agreed with a principal editor of the article to withdraw the nomination in order that the article might be cleaned up.  At least four editors, though, made clear that, in view of [[WP:NOT]] and [[WP:OR]], they could not see any prospective article that would be appropriate and thus advocated for delete irrespective of revisions.  I think ''delete'' might be a valid close (and I'd likely, were I the closing admin, interpret the debate as militating for deletion), but I understand that one may perceive ''no consensus'' from the debate.  In any case, ''nomination withdrawn'' was not, in this case, a valid close, and so I recommend that the closure be '''overturned and either''' that the discussion be '''closed as ''no consensus''''', '''or''', preferably, in view of some editors’ being confused over nomination withdrawal, '''relisted'''.  [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 19:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and delete''' clear consensus to delete, article not encyclopedic (wikipedia is not a game guide). --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 19:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. Discussion at AFD seems to have generated momentum to change the article to a form more acceptable. Give it a chance, let's not rush where we do not need to. I certainly don't see enough consensus to say '''delete''', and whether the close should be the way it was or should have been '''no consensus''' is not worth arguing about since the ultimate result is the same. [[User:Martinp|Martinp]] 21:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' ''No consensus'' and ''nomination withdrawn'' likely produce the same result in practice, but it is important to note that AfDs such as this should not be closed simply because the nominator asks that the nomination be withdrawn; the distinction is, from a policy perspective, significant.  [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 21:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and delete'''.  Arguments per policy were strongly in favour of deletion, arguments for keep mostly amount to arm-waving. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 21:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and delete'''.  It's not a vote, etc. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#000000">brenneman</font>]]<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman<font color="000000" title="Admin actions"><sup>'''{L}''' </sup></font>]</span> 01:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and delete''' per [[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]]. At the very least, they need to be merged into one or at the most three articles. &ndash; [[User:Someguy0830|Someguy0830]] ([[User talk:Someguy0830|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Someguy0830|contribs]]) 04:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and delete''' per nom, article went through more than a week's of AfD discussion with the consensus (discounting socks, etc) definitely at delete. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 04:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and delete''' per JzG. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 08:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - As the person who closed the AfD, I was going to simply abide by the decision, and accept it if the community decided my closure was mistaken. However, it's been suggested to me that it might be helpful if I comment. My reasoning was along the lines of [[User:Martinp|Martinp]] above. We had a dynamic situation with some prospect emerging of the article being rewritten, with a deadline on that process, and an agreement announced between the article's main critic - the nominator - and someone closely involved in writing it. The nominator was making slightly ambiguous noises about withdrawing the nomination, and there was already some discussion on the article's talk page between those people about how to tackle the task. The problems with the article didn't seem to be something necessarily fundamental. Given the other strong views for delete, my thought was to give this a chance but with a clear statement that it was without prejudice, so no one could cite that the article had survived an AfD and that a further AfD in only a month was abusive or whatever. People who voted ''delete'' didn't seem to me to be especially inconvenienced by this - the balance of convenience seemed the other way. There was also some other support for keep, admittedly not all that cogent in itself. I may have made a mistake in closing as ''nomination withdrawn'', in which case my humble apologies, although I believe I have seen other AfDs closed in that way even though there were other votes before the purported withdrawal. If that practice is considered to be against policy, that's fine; I'd appreciate that clarification. I still think the result obtained was a fair one in the rather unusual circumstances, but I'll happily accept whatever is decided here. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 12:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
** '''Comment''' - Imposing a one-month ban on anyone representing that article for AFD is a dangerous precedent, IMO.  I see no problem whatsoever with you deciding on a speedy keep considering the special circumstances, but the one month ban seems dangerous.  A speedy keep because of a withdraw is essentially saying, "it never happened". [[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 05:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
**'''Point of clarification''' for whatever it's worth. As I saw it the effect of my statement was the opposite: to ensure that a new AfD brought after ''only'' one month would not be prejudiced by the fact that there had been a recent AfD. Without that statement, there was a danger that someone would resist the next AfD by saying, "Survived an AfD only a few weeks ago." The statement protected people who would want to vote to delete if the article could not be rewritten in that timeframe into something more encylopedic. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 10:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
***'''Comment''' - Ok, I see what you are saying now.  Thank you for explaining it.  [[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 13:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist'''  The flat count here is 25d/9k = 73% del.  Given that Metamagician considered the substantive developments in the article's status, including a compromise between the nominator and creator, I cannot call his closure wrong on the result.  Unfortunately, Joe is quite correct that the wording of his closure was process-defective; friends above also make clear that there is heavy sentiment in favor of deletion.  In this circumstance, begin debate afresh, with the compromise on the table from the beginning, and see if the debate takes a different course. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 17:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
:(Have already voted above). This makes sense; clearly there is a mishmash of opinions here and lack of clarity. So relist it now as opposed to in a month. [[User:Martinp|Martinp]] 02:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. Before I comment on this I want to make this clear: I am the creator of the page and it was I that originaly notified six other users as to the pages AFD. In my opinion its already been settled that the page can not remain on wikipedia in its current form, which is why I agreed to a one month amnesty to see whether I could reorganize the page in to something more befitting wikipedia. In four weeks, if there is no improvement in the article then it will be mass merged with the other structure pages to fom one large page or deleted; there will be no acceptions. Given this there is no reason to relist, nor is there any reason to overturn and delete. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] 05:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Suggest Voluntary Move to Userspace''' - the article obviously doesn't belong on WP as is.  WP is not a random collection of whatever.  Move it to userspace and work out the kinks.  Then bring it back to represent.  [[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 05:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and delete''' as per the above.  [[WP:NOR]] is non-negotiable. [[User:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none"><span style="text-underline:none"><font color="#007700">Proto</font></span></span>]]<font color="#555555"><b>||</b></font><small>[[User_talk:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none"><span style="text-underline:none"><font color="#007700">type</font></span></span>]]</small> 11:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*Strange as it may seem for me to be saying this, we must not be ''slaved to process'' if a reasonable approach seems to be worked out among all the interested parties. Process is our guide, not our master. Reasonable outcomes are more important than strict process adherence. Despite the large number of people suggesting delete, I'd instead suggest that some time be given to see if this article can be improved. If that really doesn't seem workable for whatever reason, userify the article text so that the main proponent of the rewrite can work on it further and reintroduce it to articlespace once ready. I see what MM3K meant about non predjudice though I also see why it may have been confusingly worded. I suggest that normally it's reasonable that an article not be subjected to continuous AfD after it survives, and that a month or more is a reasonable amount of time to wait between suggesting it for AfD again. But in this case what MM3K was trying to say was that this wasn't a normal close and that it should be eligible for AfD without people using "but it just was" as a defense. Agree the result was fair and '''endorse closure''' with a provisional keep result. '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 13:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' I agree w/r/to process; I think the point others are making (though I'm not certain I agree entirely) is that, whatever time may be devoted to the rewriting of the article, an article apropos of this subject will never be encyclopedic, in view of [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:NOT]] (or some combination thereof).  Whether that debate actually belongs at DRV is a different discussion (though I'm inclined to think it does)...  [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 19:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and delete''' per InShaneee. [[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">'''kantari'''</font>]] 03:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist'''. I agree with Xoloz here. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 12:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

====[[Prhizzm]]====
[[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prhizzm]]

I was somewhat annoyed to come back from a vacation to find this article, which I started, deleted.  It would have been nice if the AfD was postponed until I returned, but I suppose I couldn't expect that the nominator check my user or talk pages to see my vacation notice.  That said, I feel that my absence affected the outcome of the AfD unfavourably, and also that the AfD had too few participants to be able to show a consensus.  In addition, I feel that Prhizzm does meet the requirements in [[WP:MUSIC]], as follows:

I feel Prhizzm meets the two release requirement.  Not only does he have two releases on a very notable independent electronic label, he also has one on a second label which is pretty notable in itself.  This is in addition to his hippocamp.net release, which may not fit the bill, but which is also somewhat notable.  And I know that [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a crystal ball]], but Prhizzm does have a full-length album scheduled for release.  The term "album" in the requirements is contentious, as there are many EPs which could qualify but which are called EPs anyway.  Prhizzm's are quite substantial.  In addition, it should be noted that in the electronic music world, EPs are very common, to the point that some artists release primarily, or even exclusively, in that format.

I don't know where one would find information about being "placed in rotation," or even what that really means (does a few plays equal being in rotation?) but Prhizzm's music has been featured on three separate BBC 1 programs ([http://www.benbecula.com/release/prhizzm/prhizzm_ep.shtml see the bottom of this page]), as well as in other venues.  BBC 1 is pretty big--I think this should qualify him.

As for media attention, Prhizzm has had his fair share, notably in Eye Weekly a hugely popular entertainment weekly available all over the Greater Toronto Area ([http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_03.17.05/beat/extended.html see here]), and perhaps elsewhere in Ontario.

Also, just a final note, in case there was any possibility of incorrect Google checks being undertaken, the name is Prhizzm, not Phrizzm--this is a common mistake with regards to the name.  The former gets many results (over 26,000), the latter, not nearly as many. <span style="border: 1px solid #CC0000;">[[User:Osgoodelawyer|<font style="background: #CC0000" face="Times" color="#FFFFFF">'''&nbsp;O<small>Z</small>L<small>AWYER</small>&nbsp;'''</font>]][[User talk:Osgoodelawyer|<font style="background:#FFFFFF" face="Arial" color="#000000">'''&nbsp;talk&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span> 14:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse deletion''', having read around it.  As the article says "his first full-length release is expected in early 2007" ; thus far his releases are EPs, he has no Allmusic entry, he has a small amount of airplay (how many never-heard-of-since bands were played by John Peel? I bet there were a load!).  I'd say that a full-length release is the bare minimum for notability.  I'm sure he'll get there (unless he drops the ball), but right now I don't see how he passes [[WP:NMG]]. Assuming the best possible faith on the part of the creator, this is functionally indistinguishable form the many other up-and-coming-but-not-there-yet acts which we see all the time. Sorry. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 18:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

*'''Undelete''' and '''Relist at AFD''' since substantial new information is available. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete/relist at AfD''' per JoshuaZ.  The consensus at AfD was hardly strong (I am inclined to discount the speedy delete vote, since the commenter didn't grasp what  "claim to notability" means.)  Against this minimal debate, we have a good-faith article creator unaware of the first debate, and new information of media coverage: each of these is an independent ground for relisting under DRV guidelines.  This article deserves a new hearing, hopefully with more community input this time. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 19:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' Full disclosure: I voted to keep on the first AfD.  Though whether Prhizzm passes the exact letter of WP:MUSIC is debatable, I think he does pass the spirit of what WP:MUSIC is supposed to be about (essentially, protecting us from high-school garage bands and the like).  This is a notable artist with two releases on a notable label.  In the vinyl days, the distinction between an EP and an LP was an important one--in the era of CD, MP3, and iTunes, the distinction is much less important.  See the article [[Extended play]] for some examples of just how blurry the line between album and EP can get. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 19:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''/'''relist at AfD''' per JoshuaZ and Xoloz.  This likely should have been relisted in any case; <s>I don't know that one could find a consensus in the minimal debate that occurred.</s>I don't know that I'd have been able to find a consensus in the minimal debate that occured.  (I refactored this lest one should think me to be questioning the closer's judgment on the whole; I ought to have made clear that I didn't think the closure altogether unreasonable, even as I think it to have been wrong.) [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 20:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete, don't relist''', and admit we were wrong.  --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>([[Wikipedia:Notability (memes)|WP:MEMES?]])</small> 22:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and relist''' given weak  AfD consensus. --[[User:Ezeu|Ezeu]] 22:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' per above.  With improvement, it will be able to meet the independent coverage criterion. --[[User:Thivierr|Rob]] 08:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and relist''': per Xoloz and JoshuaZ --[[User:David.Mestel|David.Mestel]] 17:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and relist''' - the closing admin made a reasonable call on the evidence available at the time, but the circumstances suggest this be given another run. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 02:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and relist''' per Xoloz and JoshuaZ, we made a mistake here.  [[User:Silensor|Silensor]] 02:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' per JzG. <span style="border: 1px solid green;"><font style="background: green" face="Arial" color="#FFFFFF">[[User talk:Ardenn|Ardenn]]</font></span> 03:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and relist''' Borderline 
*'''Endorse deletion''' per JzG. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo]]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|itsJamie]]</font>[[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 07:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''undelete''' this please it should be improved instead [[User:Yuckfoo|Yuckfoo]] 00:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

====[[List of proper nouns containing a bang]]====
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of proper nouns containing a bang|AfD]] closed as "No consensus so keep"; 13 votes to delete (including the nomination), 4 to keep (including article author). I know AfD isn't a vote, but this looked like a clear delete to me, so I was surprised by the closing. I'd be interested in hearing the closer's reasoning. <b><span style="color: #f33">&middot;[[User talk:Rodii|<span style="color: #669">&nbsp;rodii&nbsp;</span>]]&middot;</span></b> 12:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
:I was also surprised by outcome (even though I voted keep), but I don't think this article harms anyone, so it was the right decision. [[User:Grue|<font style="background: black" face="Courier" color="#FFFFFF">'''&nbsp;Grue&nbsp;'''</font>]] 12:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
:I'm interested to hear the closer's reasoning as well - I left a message on Tawker's talk page. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 12:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' (I would say "overturn" but, since I didn't get a chance to "vote" in the original AfD, I won't use this forum to "vote").  This seems like a clear "delete" to me and, pending an explanation from the closing admin, it appears there was consensus to delete.--[[User:WilliamThweatt|WilliamThweatt]] 14:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' there was definately a consensus to delete here. Not sure how the admin arrived at that descision. <small>[[User:RN|Just another star in the night]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 14:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' / '''Delete''' - if there is any real reason for this, it could always be made into a category.  13-4 is a consensus and the closing admin did not make any note of sockpuppetry or anything else that would invalidate the count, thus, it should be deleted.  [[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 16:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' - non notable. We could make list of proper/common/whatever nouns containing any letter or punctuaction mark, but that's not an encyclopedia topic IMHO (more like an idea for a better search engine perhaps). Also, I agree that 13/4 is consensus. [[User:LjL|LjL]] 17:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse decision''', AFD came to a very reasonable outcome. This is a perfectly reasonable article and I can imagine it being quite useful. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 17:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
::Could you please present a plausible hypothetical situation in which it would be useful? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 17:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Branding research, e.g. tracking companies or films that employ an exclamation point vs. ones that don't. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 18:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC) 
*'''No vote yet...''' I'd like to hear [[User:Tawker]]'s reasoning first. This could conceivably fall in the range of reasonable sysop discretion, but I'd really like to hear it explained. It was highly inappropriate to close it this way without putting an explanation in the close itself. The reasoning behind some of the "keeps" seems dubious ("It is an exciting look into the history of entertainment, which is not possible to find using Wikipedia's search engine"), and the reasoning behind some of the "deletes" seems sound... particularly "First write an encyclopedic article on the use of exclamation marks in proper names, of course adhering to [[WP:V]], [[WP:RS]], and most importantly [[WP:N]]. Then create the list and link to that article at the header." When I look at the discussion I see: a vote clearly exceeding the 2/3 rule of thumb;  no obvious voting irregularities; and no rationales on either side that are so excessively inappropriate as to warrant anything beyond a simple count. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 17:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and delete'''. Couldn't this be better served by a category, anyhow? As the article stands, it's just unwieldy and impractical to maintain. (Oh, and the original AfD closing looks...odd. But I'm basing my opinion on the article as it stands.) [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 18:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
**A category would be a poor choice as from the perspective of someone reading the article like [[Oklahoma!]], this will likely be viewed as clutter. Anyone looking for the information in this list will probably arrive either from Google or from [[exclamation point]], and anyone else will probably regard it as fairly trivial. Such information as this page contains is useful, so it's worth keeping, but we should keep it on its own page as its likely audience is relatively small. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 19:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' I agree with Dpbsmith that it is a major flaw of policy and process to render this kind of decision without an extensive explanation: quite frankly, though I'd like to hear what Tawker has to say, I think too late for him now to offer a rationalization for the close.  At the same time, I appreciate that this result is not terribly inappropriate; we have a 75% deletion consensus, which could default to "no consensus/keep" given complicating circumstances.  Mr. Parham raises a good possible use for the list.  When a closure is this flawed, but the article is neither clearly meritorious, nor clearly meritless, the solution is to throw out the closure, and restart the process. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 19:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' I was altogether prepared to advocate for ''overturn and delete'', but I suppose I am persuaded by Xoloz that the closure can be understood as not wholly baseless (even as this may not be Xoloz's main point), and that, because neither the ''keep''s nor the ''delete''s make a prima facie case, we ought to relist.  [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 19:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist.''' [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 01:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' previous close, close relist according to consensus, whichever, just '''delete'''. "Useless" is a perfectly valid reason for deletion. It's a list - there's no question of whether the nouns [[WP:V|actually]] have bangs in them or not, or whether saying they have a bang is [[WP:NPOV|neutral]], it's just... useless. That's all AfD can say about lists most of the time. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 08:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''relist''' this please it can be used for branding research like suggested [[User:Yuckfoo|Yuckfoo]] 00:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

=====My Rationale=====
I'm not going to go into a vote by vote rationale (unless someone wants me to) but in short I put the no consensus so keep as it was very grey on the border of deletion, it is not "votes" per say in AfD, its more what people have to say.  In short, most of the deletes were leaning on "useless" or "cruft" whereas the keeps were along the "useful until search engine is improved" and or starting point.  Wikipedia is not paper, the costs of keeping such a list are partically nil and seeing how it was very grey on consensus and seeing a pretty valid keep reason I thought it would be best to error on the side of caution and keep.  I am not objected to a relist / review by another admin, thats just how I saw it -- [[User:Tawker|Tawker]] 01:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
:Taking another look at the discussion above I've relisted -- [[User:Tawker|Tawker]] 02:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
::And further to this, after relisting, I've deleted the article, as the consensus was now heavily towards delete (and I'm just going through the whatlinkshere). [[User:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none"><span style="text-underline:none"><font color="#007700">Proto</font></span></span>]]<font color="#555555"><b>||</b></font><small>[[User_talk:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none"><span style="text-underline:none"><font color="#007700">type</font></span></span>]]</small> 09:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Please don't delete.  Several of us had suggested a relist.  If we closed the DRV now (after these out-of-process moves), it would deserve a relist. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 17:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
::::Again, pointing out that I'd already deleted the article, as it hadn't been removed from the initial AFD page (think it was May 10), and I was clearing out the backlog.  Please undelete if you really feel it would be necessary. [[User:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none"><span style="text-underline:none"><font color="#007700">Proto</font></span></span>]]<font color="#555555"><b>||</b></font><small>[[User_talk:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none"><span style="text-underline:none"><font color="#007700">type</font></span></span>]]</small> 11:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''.  My comment on the AfD was "No good reasons for deletion have been advanced. While terribly dull, this is a perfectly encyclopedic list article."  I don't think any more needs to be said. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 02:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

====[[Longest streets in London]]====
:[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longest streets in London (2nd nomination)]]
Looks like this deletion needs some review. There are at least many keep votes as delete ones and the reason for deletion provided by [[User:Doc glasgow]] is quite strange: "Unverifiable - it has had long enough to show otherwise." Since when [[WP:V]] is a reason for deletion? It is especially strange since the article cited several sources and thus was pretty verifiable at the time of deletion. The article just needed some cleanup and given some time to grow and it could end up as, say, [[Tallest structures in Paris]]. Instead, [[User:Doc glasgow|Doc glasgow]] ignores the lack of consensus and decides to delete it. I say '''overturn and undelete'''. [[User:Grue|<font style="background: black" face="Courier" color="#FFFFFF">'''&nbsp;Grue&nbsp;'''</font>]] 08:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
::[[WP:V]] is core policy - unverifiable things don't get to stay on wikipedia (Tallest structures in Paris ''is'' verifiable). The deletion nomination requested deletion on verification grounds, so the only question then was 'is this verifiable?'. If there was a valid dispute over whether it was or not, I would not have delete this. However, six delete votes argreed with the nom - unverifiable and any attempts would be OR. Of the keeps, three ignored the issue totally ('interesting' 'per previous no consensus' 'it refers to Greater London) - leaving only two valid keep votes. I might have issues with the logic of even those keeps - but they still left a clear consensus that the article was unverifiable. (and '''endore my deletion''' please) --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|<small><sup>ask?</sup></small>]] 09:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC) 
:::The nominator requested deletion on the grounds of original research (it's quite ironic that WP:V wasn't invoked ''anywhere'' on the AfD before you closed it). Of course everyone ignored the issue of verifiability, because it was ''not an issue'' and it's also a rather poor reason for deletion (it's a good reason for [[Wikipedia:Cleanup|cleanup]], though). [[User:Grue|<font style="background: black" face="Courier" color="#FFFFFF">'''&nbsp;Grue&nbsp;'''</font>]] 12:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
::::Stop wikilawyering - sources and verification were precisely the point of the nomination, even if WP:V was not explicitly cited. Further, if an article ''has not been verified'' - that is, or course, grounds from cleanup not deletion - however, if an article ''is not verifiable'' (other than by OR) that is grounds for deletion. Else we'd keep every probable hoax with a verification tag on it.--[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|<small><sup>ask?</sup></small>]] 13:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*Well, [[WP:V]] is a core policy and things not meeting that should probably be deleted and closers should have 
some discretion in that area (especially true in those cases where not one "keep"-voter bothers to take into account verifiability concerns). But in this (rather poor) article sources ''were'' cited, so in this particular case I don't think that closing this as a "delete" against a 5d-5k was the correct decision. '''Overturn, undelete and keep as no consensus'''. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 08:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. [[WP:V]] has been a reason for deletion ever since it has said "The free '''encyclopaedia'''" at the top left of every page, and voting cannot overturn policy. With two AfDs, there has been ample time to find a reliable source - none was found (as adequately discussed in the AfD). Doc drew the correct conclusion from the discussion. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 08:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''.  List is [[WP:NOR|original research]] and in any case a list for the sake of having a list.  I would probably support an article on London street curioisities, with verifiable references for them being considered curious (shoot up hill?) but this is too idiosyncratic and (as Sam says) has consistent proven unverifiable.  [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NOR]] are policy, [[WP:Could be interesting]] and [[WP:Previous lack of consensus]] are not. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 08:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
**Yes, [[WP:V]] is a policy. It says that unverified articles should be tagged, not deleted. There is no single mention of deletion on the policy page. It would be very nice, if you guys would read the policies before pointing me at them. Anyway, the point is moot since the article was verified and cited its sources. [[User:Grue|<font style="background: black" face="Courier" color="#FFFFFF">'''&nbsp;Grue&nbsp;'''</font>]] 09:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
:::* Well, except for all the places where it didn't cite sources or wasn't verifiable.  For example, the "citation" for the longest road in the article, "Western Avenue" is just a link to an onliine map. [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] 12:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
::*So, after being flagged as unverified and unsourced at two AfDs, how long do we leave it before we bow to the inevitable? It's not that the source has not been cited, it's that ''there is no source''.  All the sources advanced at two AfDs and in the time between have required original research. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 12:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
::*We tag articles in case sources can be found, not to make ourselves feel better. If an article goes through two AfDs and still shows no sign of becoming encyclopaedic, putting it into the elaborate yet unfunny joke known as [[:Category:Articles lacking sources]] will not attract the attention of the Magical Sourcing Elf. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 12:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete, as there was no consenses that this is unverifiable. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/SPUI|C]] - [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SPUI|RFC]]) 13:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' without prejudice to a properly sourcd article that satisfies verification requirements.  I know I'm no road-cruft genius, but I'd have thought that ''this'' was exactly the sort of thing that was written about by guys who liked this sort of thing, and I'm quite suprised to see that sources haven't been found. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#000000">brenneman</font>]]<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman<font color="000000" title="Admin actions"><sup>'''{L}''' </sup></font>]</span> 14:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse closure'''.  Keep deleted until a [[WP:V|verifiable]] source is found.  This has been given ample opportunity for a source to be found.  The failure in this much time and after this much discussion does lead to a presumption that no such source exists.  [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 14:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse closure''' The close was perfectly called for. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 14:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
:Of course, as I said in the AfD, absolutely without prejudice against recreating if reliable source(s) that actually lists the longest, second longest, etc. become known. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 14:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. Unverifiable, original research. [[User:Musical Linguist|AnnH]] [[User talk:Musical Linguist|<b><font size="3">♫</font></b>]] 14:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
* '''Overturn'''. The list had referenced components. I should know because I added them as a proof of concept. Hence, the closing logic of the admin is false. I am also extremely surprised by the boldly authoritative comments from [[User Talk:JzG|JzG]], since he is an active contributer to articles such as [[List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning]], which are, at least in part, based on the "original research" sin of querying databases to find out what schools are not included. Perhaps policy enforcement becomes less important when engaged in the higher mission of exposing scams, particularly those with a religious angle. However, I think exposing streets - through the itemization of their verifiable length - is just as necessary as exposing scams. Let's end the double standard. -- [[User:JJay|JJay]] 01:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
** Databases are reliable sources for whether something is in them or not. Multimap is not a reliable source for measuring the length of a street, as was discussed, and even if it was, it wouldn't be a source for the ''longest'' street - for that you have to measure ''every single street'' in London. That is clear original research which cannot be reasonably repeated by people looking for verification. The only source provided actually contradicted the article as it stood, and consisted of two roads - not enough for an article. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 08:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
***Just so.  The point of the lists of unaccredited institutions and unrecognised accrediting bodies (which incidentally I initially proposed we delete, but was persuaded otherwise) is that these groups have a history of ab using Wikipedia to pretend to genuine academic status, essentially making the project part of their fraudulent business model.  There is a pressing reason why we should take the unusual step of actually querying the multiple databases ourselves to maintain these lists.  Even if such an authoritative source were available for London streets - which it doesn't - there is no obvious encyclopaedic purpose to be served by deciding to list the longest / shortest / widest / yellowest. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 10:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
***: Thanks for your responses but you would seem to be confirming my exact points. Namely that a different standard is applied on other lists if the perceived goal is deemed to be more important than the enforcement of policy. And this is so even though wikipedia is not meant to be a consumer protection site, any more than it is meant to be an almanac of roads. That seems to be the real underlying issue to me, given the obvious distaste shown by some users for all articles on roads, or "roadcruft" as stated by [[User:Aaron Brenneman|Brenneman]]. Returning to this article, besides the one source that I provided for the article, it would seem patently obvious that more sources exist, starting with the A-Z and working from there. I also can not accept the argument that building a list of this type requires the measurement of every single street (although the information obviously exists), because if it did the same would be true for every list we have of this type, whether tallest buildings, highest mountains, or longest rivers. The closing admin asserts that [[Tallest_structures_in_Paris]] is "verifiable" (setting aside the fact that most of the listed builldings are not even located in Paris). I should like to note that the article cites as its reference three incomplete online databases. Those databases have to be queried. They do not provide a measurement for every building in Paris. Clearly we do not need a source that provides a measurement for ''every'' building in Paris or NY to know that the Empire State is the tallest building in the Big Apple. Nor do we need to tape measure every hill or stream to sanctify Everest or the Nile. That is just common sense.  The same can be said for London roads where a glance at a map gives an immediate idea of which are the candidates for a list of the longest roads. Afterwards, it is simply a matter of applying a source that provides a measurement and in the 21st century those sources can and should include online point-to-point databases. Furthermore, there seems to be a misconception that we were trying to provide an authoritative ranking of the streets of London, when actually the goal was to provide a list of some of the longest streets with measurements. Finally, I'm curious about why this list has attracted such intense animosity? What exactly are the dangers? Would lives have been ruined if this list was not fully accurate or complete? Were we messing with a fragile cosmic pecking order among the streets that might have caused unforseen consequences, perhaps the end to Londinium as known and loved for generations...or at the very least caused some ugly brawls at trivia night down at the pub? Because no one seems too bothered when accredited schools get added to the list of unaccredited institutions because they are not included in an incomplete database, despite the very real impact that mistakes of that type can have on lives and reputations. -- [[User:JJay|JJay]] 11:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
*****Not as such, no.  A different interpretation of the same standard is applied to a very small number of other lists for particular and well-defined reasons (preventing abuse of the project).  Even if we allowed all articles which are the result of querying an external database - which we don't, they very often get deleted because the database is available online and is authoritative in a way an out-of-date query result is not, or because [[WP:NOT]] a directory - in this case ''there is no database''.  The article requires original research, measuring lengths from maps or whatever, whereas the database-based lists are a synthesis of already extant knowledge from reliable sources. So this list arrives at novel conclusions, which is explicitly banned under [[WP:NOR]], in a way that the other lists do not. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 17:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''', a link to multimap is not a suitable 'referenced component'. [[User:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none"><span style="text-underline:none"><font color="#007700">Proto</font></span></span>]]<font color="#555555"><b>||</b></font><small>[[User_talk:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none"><span style="text-underline:none"><font color="#007700">type</font></span></span>]]</small> 09:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
:* I don't know anything about "Multimap", but are you challenging the reliability of the Time Out article I used as the reference for this article? -- [[User:JJay|JJay]] 20:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
::*Last I heard, Time Out was not considered a reliable source in respect of matters geographical, and there is no source for these being the longest overall, or for the lengths of other streets.  Why not cite some articles and books which list the streets in London by length?  And which give a reliable definition of length.  What about the Great West Road, for example?  Subject and content are both ill-defined here. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 11:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

===14 May 2006===


====[[James R. Gillespie]] and [[Osbourn Park High School]]====
:[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James R. Gillespie]]
<b>Undelete.</b>  Proper citations have been given for the facts concerning James R. Gillespie.  Two reputable sources have been given, both an autobiography and a newspaper article.  The page should be unprotected and undeleted, as it has been deleted on very weak grounds.  Originally the page was made without being cited, which caused its initial deletion before the sources could be put up.  Now that the page has been revised and sources added, the administrators assumed that it was still false, and deleted it again on that pretenses.  The two sources cannot be formally verified, but then again, most sources aren't, and this page should be given the same opportunity. -- [[User:Maior|Maior]]
*'''Keep deleted'''. Sources that have been added to the [[Osbourn Park High School]] article are: (1) an autobiography by Gillespie that, based on Google, doesn't seem to exist; and (2) an article in the Potomac News by a reporter who does not seem to exist. There are many books by a James R. Gillespie, but, as they all seem to be on animal husbandry, I think it's safe to assume it's a different person. [[User:Fan-1967|Fan1967]] 02:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
* (edit conflict) [[Osbourn Park High School]] has never been deleted. I '''endorse''' the closure of the discussion on the Gillespie page. No [[WP:V|verifiable]] evidence has been offered to rebut those findings. The only "reference" cited in the recreated article was this line - <tt>Gillespie, James R. <i>James R. Gillespie: An Autobiography</i> (2006)</tt>. Given the pattern of abuse, I must also '''endorse''' the protection of the page from recreation. As someone said during the deletion discussion, "Wikipedia is not a place to tease your math teacher." [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 02:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' There is a valid AfD for Mr. Gillespie.  One would need to cite substantial new evidence to suggest the inapplicability (or support the reversal) of that AfD. A suspicious reference, unable to be verified, is far from sufficient for this purpose. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 02:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', unverifiable from reliable sources. [[WP:NFT]]. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 08:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' - valid action. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 04:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' - As has been strongly argued before, there is no proof against the verifiability of either sources for this article, which should have been left up and given equal treatment as all other articles.  There is still time to correct this mistake. {{unsigned|Maior}}
*'''Keep deleted'''. I'm going to be civil, but only because I value Wikipedia. There is no proof that this source exists. None has ever been offered. No one has ever demonstrated that this book exists, or that it has ever been published. Just because somebody adds a line that looks like bibliographic citation does not mean that the book exists! [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 03:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' per Mackensen.  I think we're dealing here with a source that has been entirely and totally made up.  --[[User:Cyde|<span style="cursor: w-resize; color:#0055aa">'''Cyde&nbsp;Weys'''</span>]] 03:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' per Mackensen. [[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">'''kantari'''</font>]] 03:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' No links....no search results. There's nothing to indicate that it exists at all...besides an unlinked citation here. Needs something more than that... [[User:Rx StrangeLove|Rx StrangeLove]] 03:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' per Mack.  I tried searching, to find some credibility.  In this day and age, any buck published is easily searchable online.  This book apparently doesn't exist.  Non-notable.  [[User:Bastique|'''B'''astique]]<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">&#09660;</span>'''<sup>[[User talk:Bastique|parler]]</sup>''' <sub>'''[[Special:Contributions/Bastique|voir]]'''</sub> 03:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' This debate has been vandalized. Compare the condition of the first two responses in [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&diff=53249146&oldid=53248678 this edit], with their current condition. And the deletion discussion was unanimous, with these sources. Closure in process; '''delete'''. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 03:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*:'''Comment''' Votes restored to pre-vandal condition as indicated here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review&diff=53797407&oldid=53797190].   [[User:Bastique|'''B'''astique]]<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">&#09660;</span>'''<sup>[[User talk:Bastique|parler]]</sup>''' <sub>'''[[Special:Contributions/Bastique|voir]]'''</sub> 03:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*:Heavens. I can't believe someone would do that. I apologize to anyone whose credibility I may have impugned the previous evening. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 12:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
::'''Comment''' The author appears to be a student at the high school, who's been trying this for quite a while. He has some other issues, like uploading a picture ([http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Image:Leeann.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=53428901]) that he claims to have taken himself, but looks like it came from a website. [[User:Fan-1967|Fan1967]] 13:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

====[[JOIDES Resolution]] and [[Chikyu]] ====
Copycreated out of [[Scientific drilling]] as stubs, former captions of deleted images. Valid informations, deletion vandalism (no regular nomination for deletion) by [[User:Nlu|Nlu]]. --[[User:84.131.68.87|84.131.68.87]] 23:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' until and unless proper version is created via a Wikipedia-policy-adherent manner.  They were created by an user who was using an intentionally [[WP:POINT]]-violative name, and I have no confidence in their accuracy, and since this user had past history of using copyright violations and has vowed to flaunt Wikipedia policies that he/she does not agree with [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANlu&diff=53229566&oldid=53227659], I have no confidence that they are not copyright violations.  --[[User:Nlu|Nlu]] ([[User talk:Nlu|talk]]) 00:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*For the record, the blocked user's name is {{user|Idontwantanaccountijustwanttocreateapage-isthatsoevil?}}.  The name is not only [[WP:POINT]]-violative in itself, but shows the user's intent to violative Jimbo's policy of not allowing anons to create pages.  --[[User:Nlu|Nlu]] ([[User talk:Nlu|talk]]) 00:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
**First, the second and the third account were created because of [[Wikipedia talk:Block log#Block vandalism|Block vandalism]] by [[User:Naconkantari|Naconkantari]]. Second I don't have to agree with Jimbo or anyone, Wikipedia = freedom of speech, this includes user names as long as they are not insulting. Third the articles are accurate and I have no "history of copyright violations", I'm contributing to WP for a long time without any copyright violation (as IP). --[[User:84.131.68.87|84.131.68.87]] 00:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*** I haven't yet researched the pages above but have to comment because you are operating from a fundamentally mistaken position.  Wikipedia has nothing to do with freedom of speech.  We are here for one purpose - to volunteer to write the best possible open-source encyclopedia.  We do so at the sufferage of the initiator of the project and owner of the servers.  As such, we must agree to abide by the project's policies and goals or find some other place to make our contributions.  [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a democracy]].  [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 02:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
**** [[WP:NOT]]: "Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion" - This '''is''' democracy... --[[User:84.131.94.27|84.131.94.27]] 12:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*****This is a privately-owned website.  You have no more "rights" here than the owner of the site allows.  Those rights consist of forking and leaving.  Other than that, you are to abide by the rules as established by the owner.  You have failed to do so.  Does MySpace allow you to spew whatever you want on a page?  Does imdb?  Does Yahoogroups?  I think not.  [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 23:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
******You're wrong too. As you can read on [[Wikipedia]], the infrastructure and the software is owned bei a non-profit-foundation named [[Wikimedia Foundation]]. The content is published under an open license, so nobody owns it. This is completely different than the commercial MySpace, IMDb or Yahoo. And without the support of us, no Jimmy Whales or anybody can decide anthing, because he can't risk to loose the support of the community (concrete: the donations). So in fact, ''we'' make the rules. --[[User:84.131.79.59|84.131.79.59]] 15:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' I actually don't object to the blocked username itself, as it could be intended jocularly rather than defiantly; however, the editor's behavior substantiates a charge of bad-faith editing.  That behavior provides a reasonable basis for speedying questionable contributions. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 02:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' as a valid interpretation of vandalism and [[WP:POINT]], but without prejudice against subsequently creating genuine articles on these ships, which do appear to be verifiable and in the case of Chikyu potentially uniquely significant. Better than all those articles on fictional characters, anyway. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 08:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
**Since when is a discussion started by a contributor a reason to delete articles? They weren't vandalism and had nothing to do with [[WP:POINT]], the reason for creating the original account was to outhouse this from an existing article, a quite normal process at Wikipedia. I'm not responsible for the discussion that followed the block vandalism of Naconkantari. Blame him. --[[User:84.131.94.27|84.131.94.27]] 12:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
***"[[Outhouse]]"? <b><span style="color: #f33">&middot;[[User talk:Rodii|<span style="color: #669">&nbsp;rodii&nbsp;</span>]]&middot;</span></b> 12:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
****to outhouse - bring something out of the original place of storage. o not O --[[User:84.131.94.27|84.131.94.27]] 12:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*****Finally found a couple citations of that sense in the OED--pretty obscure! <b><span style="color: #f33">&middot;[[User talk:Rodii|<span style="color: #669">&nbsp;rodii&nbsp;</span>]]&middot;</span></b> 13:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
******It makes much more sense in the traditional meaning of the word :-) [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 11:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

====[[Rationales to impeach George W. Bush]]====
'''Undelete'''. There was nothing approaching consensus on the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination)|(third) AfD]] (see [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination)#Closed]]); summary of [[User:MarkSweep|closing admin]] is incorrect. &#0151;&nbsp;[[User:Jeremygbyrne|JEREMY]] 04:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
* Interesting.  The closer called this one as "merge and delete" however, it does not appear that deletion was actually executed (and it's unclear if the merger occurred either).  The article was instead [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rationales_provided_by_advocates_of_the_impeachment_of_George_W._Bush&redirect=no redirected] with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rationales_provided_by_advocates_of_the_impeachment_of_George_W._Bush&action=history history] intact.  <br>Actually reviewing this discussion took a great deal of time.  Due to the allegations of abuse during the discussion, I reviewed every user's contribution history and used a slightly higher-than-normal standard to ensure that the discussion was fairly conducted.  On a strict vote-count, I tallied 104 to "delete" (9 excluded as anonymous or suspiciously new users, 1 as a probable troll), 42 to "keep as is" (5 excluded as anonymous or suspiciously new, one as a probable troll) and 17 to "merge" (1 anon excluded).  3 abstained or were too ambiguous to call.  I count that as 94 to 52 in favor of deleting the page history - which does not, in my opinion, reach the threshold for rough consensus for deletion.  However, I also count 111 to 36 against retaining this as an independent page.  Those conclusions do not change based on the inclusion of the anon and new users.  <br>Given the requirements in GFDL to preserve attribution history, I do not believe that "merge and delete" is an acceptable resolution in all but the rarest of cases.  So while I personally would prefer that this page be deleted from the history, I '''endorse''' what has actually happened - creation of the page as a redirect with history intact.  [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 06:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. This was the best thing to happen, all useful information is preserved. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 07:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' per Christoper Parham. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 07:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' per above. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] <small>([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color="brown">note?</font>]])</small> 15:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse de facto closure''' per Rossami. "Merge and redirect" is fine; "Merge and delete" (still an incompatible vote as far as I know) works worrisome havoc on attribution history, and is not acceptable.  I suggest altering the close of the AfD to reflect the current reality. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 15:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' per above.[[User:1652186|1652186]] 17:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''', assuming that the closer meant to type "merge and ''redirect''."  &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 17:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse status quo'''. I have no idea what Jeremy is talking about: how is my closing summary "incorrect"?  Calling for undeletion is utterly without merit: My tally of the opinions, which was confirmed by Rossami's independent recount above, indicated that there was an overwhelming consensus to not retain a stand-alone article on this topic. My original recommendation of "merge and delete" was based on the frequent observation that the article was a fork of an existing one, in which case it's standard procedure to perform a history merge and delete the forked version. But the present solution of "merge and redirect" works equally well.  There was no overwhelming consensus for either suboption (delete vs. redirect), but we have to pick one or the other in order to implement the overall consensus of not having this article around anymore. --[[User:MarkSweep|MarkSweep]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:MarkSweep|(call me collect)]]</small> 19:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''', per MarkSweep (although I would have preferred to see the history merged as well).--[[User:WilliamThweatt|WilliamThweatt]] 21:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' [[User:172|172]] | [[User talk:172|Talk]] 22:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. Well done Mark. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 00:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''--[[User:Cyberjunkie|cj]] | [[User talk:Cyberjunkie|talk]] 04:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. My preference would have been to have taken it out back and set it on fire, but this is jes' fine. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 04:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. Good close by MarkSweep. With the content merged, this article was redundant and I figured that  placing a redirect was due. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 05:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. I think this was a difficult discussion to distill, but I endorse MarkSweep's analysis and closing of the discussion. —[[User:Doug Bell|Doug&nbsp;Bell]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Doug Bell|talk]]'''•'''[[Special:Contributions/Doug Bell|contrib]]</sup> 06:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''', applause for markSweep in sorting through a very complex debate.  If ever there were a demonstration of "AfD is not a vote" then this is it. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 09:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''', please let us just put this behind us.  --[[User:Cyde|<span style="cursor: w-resize; color:#0055aa">'''Cyde&nbsp;Weys'''</span>]] 09:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Closure''' - Redirect should acutally be deleted.--[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 23:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''', per Christoper Parham above [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 23:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. [[User:Musical Linguist|AnnH]] [[User talk:Musical Linguist|<b><font size="3">♫</font></b>]] 23:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''', let's move on. Leave situation as is. No reason to delete the redirect and informative talkpage.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] [[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]]<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Nescio|Gnothi seauton]]</font></sup> 23:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' and subsequent redirect, it was a tough decision but someone had to make it and they weren't completely out of line in their decision. Lets focus on improving [[Movement to impeach George W. Bush]] instead. [[User:Ansell|<span style="color:#0000FF;">Ans</span>]][[User:Ansell/Esperanza|<span style="color:#009000;">e</span>]][[User talk:Ansell|<span style="color:#0000FF;">ll</span>]] 01:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

====[[Template:Mills corp]]====
'''Relist'''.  The {{tl|tfd}} notice was put on [[Template talk:Mills corp]], rather than the template, and as such, [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_7#Template:Mills_corp|only one person (1.5?) voted]].  Per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Various "Mills"]], it's likely there would have been a number of voters had the TFD been known about.  --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 04:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' - there's a reason we put the annoying message on the template. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/SPUI|C]] - [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SPUI|RFC]]) 12:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
*Agree with SPUI, Overturn deletion, with an admonishment to the listing user to put the notice in the right place next time, '''undelete  and relist'''. Once relisted I plan to suggest '''Keep'''. This was a ''bad deletion'', a template used in this many articles should never be deleted without a clearer discussion, one comment does not consensus make..., the closing admin should not have closed at all, or should have closed ''no consensus''. '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 14:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and Relist''' This is a case where a slight defect in process likely had a substantial effect on the result.  Users of the template deserve fair notice of the TfD. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 02:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' process was followed here as far as I was concerned, there was just some minor kinks in it. So we are here and we undelete it and relist it :). <small>[[User:RN|Just another star in the night]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 04:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

===13 May 2006===
{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Israel News Agency}}
{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Myg0t (second)}}

===12 May 2006===

====[[DJ Cheapshot]], [[SpyTech Records]] and [[4-Zone (rapper)]]====
'''Undelete''' The user [[User:Tawker]] recently deleted three articles that I created. These are the articles: [[DJ Cheapshot]], [[SpyTech Records]], and [[4-Zone (rapper)]]. I definitley think that the [[DJ Cheapshot]] article should remain. He is one of the most sought after DJs in Hollywood, and a key member of both [[Styles Of Beyond]], and the [[Demigodz]]. He is a well known Hip-Hop producer. He has produced for the likes of the [[Beastie Boys]], [[Linkin Park]], [[Fort Minor]], [[Styles Of Beyond]], and the [[Demigodz]]. He is very notable on his own. He still does solo shows, and he has started his own record label [[SpyTech Records]], that has also been deleted, that I would like '''Undeleted''' also.<br>
Now as for [[4-Zone (rapper)]]. He is a up and coming rap artist, currently signed to [[DJ Cheapshot]]'s record label [[SpyTech Records]]. He is not very notable on his own ''yet'', but his debut album is currently on [[iTunes]], and a hard CD release of his debut album [[My Turn (album)]], will be released on June 6th. He has been a guest artist on the [[Styles Of Beyond]] single [[Pay Me (single)]], in which he also made a guest appearence in the ''Pay Me'' music video. So, if no one objects, I would like all three articles to be '''Undeleted'''.<br>
Thank You. [[User:JackSparrow|Jay]] 23:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
* After reviewing the deleted versions of all three articles, I '''endorse the speedy-deletions'''.  I probably, however, would have done so for different reasons than those noted by the deleting admin.  [[DJ Cheapshot]] qualified as [[Wikipedia:patent nonsense|patent nonsense]].  See, for example, the first two sentences:  "Cheapshot “Raisin” Fisher, born in the back of an ice cream truck on Grape St., Watts, was raised by the streets, literally. He quickly became friends with stop signs, man hole covers, and recycle bins."  The page references MySpace pages which specifically fail to qualify as [[WP:RS|reputable sources]] for anything.  [[SpyTech Records]] is [[WP:V|unverified]], written in a tone of advertising/spam and fails to meet any of the criteria at [[WP:CORP]].  [[4-Zone (rapper)]], an artist whose "debut album" has not yet been released fails to meet the criteria at [[WP:MUSIC]] and is a valid use of [[WP:CSD|speedy-deletion criterion A7]].  [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 00:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''.  DJ Cheapshot was a copyvio plus some trivia, notability not asserted.  SpyTech Records was a blatant advertisement and contact attempt.  4-Zone showed no claim of notability.  All valid speedies. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 09:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' DJ Cheapshot is probably afd'able, but the rest are valid speedies. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo]]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|itsJamie]]</font>[[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 07:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

==== [[Ryan Rider]] and [[BJG]] ==== 
Both are profiles of members of a major radio show in the wrestling community and profiles of the main people involved including myself should be included in the encyclopedia. If not, I would at least like to obtain the text written.  {{unsigned|Ryanrider}}
*'''Endorse deletion''' without prejudice against future creation of an encyclopaedia article whihc is not an [[WP:AUTO|autobiography]] or [[WP:VAIN|vanity page]]. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 09:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/The Adventures of Dr. McNinja}}

{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/The Juggernaut Bitch}}
{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Science3456}}

===11 May 2006=== 
{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Majestic-12_Distributed_Search_Engine}}

=== 10 May 2006 ===
{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Thirty Ought Six}}

=== 9 May 2006 ===
{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Ryze}}
{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/RAD Data Communications}}

=== 8 May 2006 ===
{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Link leak}}
{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Conservative Underground}}
{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Template:Tracker}}
{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Gordon Cheng}}
{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Category:Wold Newton family members}}

=== 7 May 2006 ===
{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Jack Berman}}
{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Ghey}}

== Recently concluded ==
<!-- When creating a new month, place the following two lines at the top removing the comment tags from the first. -->
<!-- == MonthName Year == -->
<!-- Place new listings at top of section -->
{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 May)}}

* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 April)]]