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]].

*Can someone please temporarily undelete [[Badger Badger Badger Parodies]] as I intend to place it on adhocipedia (see my userpage).
** Who are you?  Please sign your post with <tt><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></tt>.  [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small>
* Could I get a copy of [[The monster raving looney party]], speedied today as a CSD G1? Not having seen the text, I can't tell if it should have been a G1, but since we have an article under the actual name of [[Official Monster Raving Loony Party]] I can't complain ''too'' much... but I would like to see the text just in case there's anything useful there that could be merged. <b><span style="color: #f33">&middot;[[User talk:Rodii|<span style="color: #669">&nbsp;rodii&nbsp;</span>]]&middot;</span></b> 23:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
** History restored.  I didn't see anything worth saving myself but it is apparently not [[Wikipedia:patent nonsense|patent nonsense]] as we use that term here.  [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 03:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
***Agreed. Not much there to work with, but not patent nonsense. It might have looked like it to an admin who didn't know it was a real party though. Anyway, the redirect is exactly the right way to handle it, I think. <b><span style="color: #f33">&middot;[[User talk:Rodii|<span style="color: #669">&nbsp;rodii&nbsp;</span>]]&middot;</span></b> 02:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

* I will be very grateful if a kind administrator posted the contents of the deleted userboxes Drug-free, atheist, evolution2, evol-N and antiuserboxdeletion at a subpage of my userbox for userification. By moving them to the userspace, T1/T2 won't apply. Thanks. [[User:Loom91|Loom91]] 08:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

== 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)
**Hmm... that was one of the few school articles I have voted to delete, and I am almost inclined to call the speedy deletion as a valid application of A3. Nonetheless, a history only undeletion isn't harmful so I have done so. Please make some real expansions to the article before "articleizing" this redirect. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 12:21, 19 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>

===21 May 2006===
====[[List_of_video_game_collector_and_special_editions]]====
The majority of the calls for deletion at the original AFD debate found here [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video game collector and special editions]] were made before the article was even complete 10% of its state at the time of deletion. Originally then, the nomination was much more valid, but as the page took shape and it's purpose was and scope was better outlined, it became a very useful and specific resource for people to use.  I DO however, suggest it is renamed to something like "List of NA video games with limited editions" to better call attention to what it covers.  The list is ''not'' unmaintainable as some asserted, only a handful of games get such a release every year; and it is not indiscriminate when you put focus on and understand the "limited" aspect, ''and'' limit inclusion of games released in the NA market (as admittedly numerous Japan released games get limited editions).  There are perhaps another dozen or two more games beyond what the list already covered.  Suggestions that people should visit hundreds of individual games pages to see if a game has a special edition is ridiculously inefficient (and makes the assumption those pages even mention such a release); this puts everything on one page, with the added benefit of describing what made each limited edition special (unlike the beginning it was merely a list). If anything I learned not to put up a page until it is more or less done.  Also I was insulted by the admin's insinuation I used multiple accounts on the AFD page to bias the discussion, if anything its proof there are people who value such information. [[User:Deusfaux|Deusfaux]] 13:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

===20 May 2006===

====[[:Category:Sylviidae]]====
The result of the original debate, [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 7#Category:Old World Warblers and Category:Sylviidae]], was to merge. Somehow, this got deleted afterwards, and nothing suggests that it should have been. [[User:Ardric47|Ardric47]] 03:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

*Apparently something got messed up when this was copied to [[WP:CFD/W]], and then I ran Cydebot on faulty information.  Sorry about that.  Obviously, I '''endorse''' whatever the outcome of the Cfd was.  Thanks for bringing this to our attention.  --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 03:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
**For what it's worth, it ended up on the list at [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Working&diff=53620980&oldid=53609471 this change]. [[User:Ardric47|Ardric47]] 03:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
***Ah, I see what happened.  Instead of being listed individually with the proper merge to category, they were both just listed with an "and".  When I saw that I assumed it meant they were both to be deleted.  Anyway, I'm not sure what the desired outcome of this is, so if someone could elucidate me I'll have Cydebot go to work.  --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 03:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
****Is there any reason not to restore it? [[User:Ardric47|Ardric47]] 03:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
*****Restore which one?  There's two cats and one or the other is apparently redundant.  I don't know what to do at this point.  --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 03:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
******The majority (but not consensus?) said to merge Old World Warblers into Sylviidae. Sylviidae seems to have been used more than Old World Warblers after the discussion, judging by page histories such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Category:Nesillas&action=history], but maybe we need more comments here before a decision is made. [[User:Ardric47|Ardric47]] 03:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

====[[WWE Divas Do New York]]====
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Divas Do New York|This articles AfD]] was closed as no consensus despite a clear mathematical consensus being present.  In addition the primary reason given to keep was a comparison to other non-notable subjects that currently have articles ([[Wikipedia:Pokémon test|Pokémon test]]) while the primary reason given for deletion was a lack of [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] to support the article. <font color="red">[[User:Court Jester|Jester]]</font> 13:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
*Relucant '''endorse closure'''. I would certainly have voted to delete if I'd come across this useless substub. However, at the risk of attracting Fuddlemark's wrath again, a 65-70% majority for deletion generally puts the closing within admin discretion - here there was a 66% majority, and with no pressing [[WP:V]] concerns or similar, this was a valid 'no consensus' close. Relist it in a week or two if it hasn't been expanded, and upon closing the admin should discount all "keep and expand" 'votes'. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 13:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and relist'''. Six to two, and the only argument to keep was that other such articles existed. The obvious reply is that those articles ought to torched also. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 13:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' the precendent of other such articles existing is a very strong argument for keep, IMO. [[User:Grue|<font style="background: black" face="Courier" color="#FFFFFF">'''&nbsp;Grue&nbsp;'''</font>]] 14:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' - I would probably have voted to delete if I'd noticed this, but that is not the issue. Closure was within legitimate admin. discretion. Given circumstances, closure should not prejudice a further AfD. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 15:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''', but slap a merge tag on there.  --[[User:Rory096|Rory096]] 16:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' This was a reasonable choice within admin discretion.  I don't think the subject is of great importance, but it is a DVD released by a major entertainment company, so maintaining the stub is neither absurd nor offensive to policy. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 16:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. If I were to vote in this AfD, I would have done ''delete'' as well, but in this case, it's a 2:1 ratio for delete to non-delete, which is insufficient to delete an article. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 19:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
* It preocuppies me the amount of editors who have said here that they would have "voted delete" on it, so a '''relist''' is not a bad idea. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 03:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
**I think a ''No consensus'' vote implies that the article can be re-AfDed relatively soon without having cries of a bad-faith nomination. ;-) --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 05:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

===19 May 2006===
====[[Brooks Kubik]]====
I believe that the deletion of the article on Brooks Kubik was not in line with the usual Wikipedia policies.  The original AfD nomination ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooks Kubik]]) claims that the page was "almost certainly a self-authored page".  However, there were multiple contributors to the page, and there was no evidence to suggest that Kubik himself was one of the contributors.  The nomination also claims lack of notability.  Kubik has written a book called ''Dinosaur Training'', available from many sources on the net (and listed on Amazon, though they no longer have it in stock), and has written articles in several magazines on weight training - ''Hardgainer'', ''Iron Master'', ''Milo'', and his own newsletter, ''Dinosaur Files''.  [[Wikipedia:Notability (people)]] gives the following as a guideline for living people:

:Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more

I don't have exact figures on the circulation of his book or the magazines mentioned above, but I believe he qualifies as notable on this basis.  I claim that the previous AfD was not made in good faith, and propose that the article be reinstated. [[User:Dsreyn|Dsreyn]] 16:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and Relist''' so we can get this deleted once and for all &ndash; forever. --[[User:Ezeu|Ezeu]] 22:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and relist''' - some claim to notability and the AfD was very unsatisfactory with only three ... ahem ... "votes". [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 01:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and relist''', yeah it looks like an insufficient amount of consensus to delete, so I would have slapped a relist to get more votes as well. Though I find a "speedy keep" vote by Monicasdude to be incorrect (it is not bad faith to put a deprodded article on AfD, it is actually proper policy to do so), it still goes down to keep, so there's insufficient consensus to delete. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 19:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

====[[ProgressSoft]]====
I do not understand why the article had to be redeleted and the earth salted, even though the article was re-written totally halfway into the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressoft|AfD]]. Even though the article was misleadingly named (at Progressoft and Progresssoft) to evade deletion as a repost, and a true vanispamicruftivertisement at the time of AfD nomination, the re-write should have been allowed to live and the AfD not closed prematurely. The closure of the AfD was keeping to the letter and not the spirit of the deletion policy. [[User talk:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi]].[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kimchi.sg&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new sg] 10:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*See also: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProgressSoft]]
* '''Self-recuse'''.  But let me explain the reason why I deleted it -- I don't think we should reward spammers by allowing their self-promotional entries to come back without a proper deletion review -- which is why I encouraged coming here for that purpose.  --[[User:Nlu|Nlu]] ([[User talk:Nlu|talk]]) 10:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' and reopen discussion. One thing which was mentioned in the last version, unlike the version deleted by the first AFD, was that this company had produced a significant product for the Qatar Central Bank for cheque processing, and there was a pretty good media reference [http://www.progressoft.com/EN/press/GeneralPress.aspx?PressReleaseImage=press2002/jordantimes.26.3.2002.jpg], as well as [http://www.progressoft.com/EN/press/GeneralPress.aspx?PressReleaseImage=press2002/ITP.11.11.2002.jpg this one] taken from the company's homepage. The new info on the significance on that product should stop the [[WP:CSD]] G4 recreation clause from taking effect. I think it is highly likely that this company passes the [[WP:CORP]] guidelines, and with the AFD debate currently running at a large "keep" majority it should be allowed to run its course. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 10:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' per above sound reasoning. <small>[[User:RN|Yet another lame sig I came up with]] <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> 10:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Speedy undelete''', deleting this was a startlingly poor decision. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 10:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*:Maybe, maybe not. This was, after all, a repost of a validly deleted article, at a subtly different location, a common technique of spammers, and althoguh there was an assertion of notability it was uncited.  It also claimed to have been the first cheque clearing system to require no human intervention, subsequently modified to be the first such system ''developed by a Jordanian company'', which is a massively less compelling claim. [[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?]] 11:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*::I didn't personally read the article while it was up, but Sjakkalle's post suggested that the claim of notability was sourced to [http://www.progressoft.com/EN/press/GeneralPress.aspx?PressReleaseImage=press2002/jordantimes.26.3.2002.jpg]. If there were no sources for the claim, that may be another matter. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 11:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' on Afd per Sjakkalle. —''[[User:Encephalon|<span style="font-family:Times;color:navy;">'''Encephalon'''</span>]] 23:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)''
*'''Relist''' - should have been allowed more time after being relisted for better consensus. Article is not obviously hopeless re notability. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 01:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

====[[Aww Nigga]]====
I can understand deleting the article, but it ''is'' an internet phenomenon, and a redirect there is perfectly valid (not to mention doesn't fall under any [[WP:CSD]].  If you want to prevent creation of the article, protect the redirect, but there's no point in deleting it. --[[User:Rory096|Rory096]] 08:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' - The [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aww Nigga|AfD]] was going to be a unanimous delete. [[WP:SNOW]] applies. --[[User:JiFish|JiFish]](<sup>[[User_talk:JiFish|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JiFish|Contrib]]</sub>) 10:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', [[WP:SNOW]] applies indeed.  [[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?]] 11:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
**It never applies. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>([[Wikipedia:Notability (memes)|WP:MEMES?]])</small> 21:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', nn pseudo-meme.  [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 20:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. I'm not asking for the ''article'' to be undeleted, just the ''redirect''. --[[User:Rory096|Rory096]] 21:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted and protected'''. Neither "article" nor redirect are of any merit. There is nothing of any encyclopedic merit in the subject on which an encyclopedia article may be written, and there is nothing at [[Internet phenomenon]] concerning it for a redirect to make sense. —''[[User:Encephalon|<span style="font-family:Times;color:navy;">'''Encephalon'''</span>]] 22:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)''
**Erm, yes there is. --[[User:Rory096|Rory096]] 15:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
*How about a redirect to [[Tony Eveready]]? --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/SPUI|C]]) 07:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
**Excellent find, SPUI! '''Keep deleted''' and make a redirect. [[User:Grue|<font style="background: black" face="Courier" color="#FFFFFF">'''&nbsp;Grue&nbsp;'''</font>]] 14:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
**That would probably be more fitting for [[Ass Dun Wanna Let My Nuts Out]], as I put a snippet about this into the [[internet phenomenon]] page (and this only refers to the meme). --[[User:Rory096|Rory096]] 15:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' This was listed on the AFD a few days ago. This should also be '''Protected''' if this keeps being recreated. [[user:Funnybunny|Funnybunny]] (<sup><i>[[user talk:Funnybunny|talk]]</i></sup>/<sub>[[WP:CVU|Counter Vandalism Unit]]</sub>) 19:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''question''': how does one vote on this when one can't see the content? [[user:kzzl|Kɔffee]][[drink more cɔffee|drinks]][[ɔ|you]] 19:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

====[[that ass]]====

I propose that '''that ass''' be '''Undelete'''d. I think someone uptight thought it was a joke. I think people get scared if something vulgar comes along, but if one spends 2 minutes reading [[AAVE]] one will see that serious people study non-standard forms of speech and it's not an uncommon phrase. [[user:kzzl|Kɔffee]][[drink more cɔffee|drinks]][[ɔ|you]] 07:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. Nonsensical redirect to [[African American Vernacular English]]. 'That ass' is not exclusively black slang. Besides, we don't redirect every single phrase to its relevant language or dialect. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 10:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
:what does "exclusively black slang" mean? I def. don't propose every single phrase be redirected, just ones that are used thousands of times a day in america. this place is so biased against non-standard language. also- you guys should expand your vocab- you call everything potentially innapropriate "nonsense". if something has any amount of discern-ablity, not a random smattering of symobls/letters, it's not really ''[[nonsense]]'', even if it's perfectly delete-able. [[user:kzzl|Kɔffee]][[drink more cɔffee|drinks]][[ɔ|you]] 17:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', we are not obliged to have an article/redirect for every phrase. [[User talk:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi]].[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kimchi.sg&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new sg] 10:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' per Sam Blanning. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 10:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*I deleted it.  I thought it would be a redirect to the tune from the crappy Renault adverts.  Which shows that it is at least ambiguous.  I agree with the above (obviously). [[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, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', pointless redirect. Incidentally, [[AAVE]] is a good example of how slang articles should be written, e.g., it does not list individual terms. - [[User:Paolo Liberatore|Liberatore]]([[User talk:Paolo Liberatore|T]]) 12:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', as said above, it is not exclusive to AAVE/BEV, and it is quite pointless indeed, as I've heard white dudes say it, yo. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 17:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*What Paolo Liberatore said. —''[[User:Encephalon|<span style="font-family:Times;color:navy;">'''Encephalon'''</span>]] 23:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)''

:ok, got it. attention world: "that ass" is at worst ''a feature of'' AAVE speech. are there any uses of "that ass" in some context wholly separated from an AAVE-oriented discourse? I have to assume there must be but I think it originated in that [[speech community]]. other uses ''might'' be considered pejorative. from [[AAVE]]: 

 In areas of close socialization between speakers of AAVE and other groups of people, a greater 
 number of non-black speakers exist.

:<u>"that-ass" as a 2 word phrase:</u> is clearly most prominent in it's AAVE context. if an occasion arose where "that ass" had some prominence in some other context not directly derived from the AAVE context, make disambig. that's all. '''endorse deletion'''. [[user:kzzl|Kɔffee]][[drink more cɔffee|drinks]][[ɔ|you]] 04:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

===18 May 2006===

====[[Matrixism]]====

'''Relisting requested'''

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)
* Previous AfDs: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrixism]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrixism (2nd nomination)]] --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 20:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*Right now [[Matrixism]] redirects to [[The Matrix]]. If you don't think the redirect should exist, see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for Deletion]]. If you want to revert from the redirect to an article, you can, that's an article-level decision, not for DRV. But if you recreate the deleted article it will probably be speedy deleted. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 20:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''.  I see no problem with reviewing the deletions here, and the conclusion appears correct: that "matrixism" is not a verifiably significant "religion". I suspect it has fewer adherents than flying spaghetti monsterism, in fact. [[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?]] 20:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', valid AfDs. There is no new information presented here that makes the previous AfDs invalid. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 20:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Deletion'''. Valid VfDs, nothing has changed. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 20:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Deletion''' Two valid previous deletion discussions. Nothing has changed. If somewhere to merge the text cannot be found ([[Fringe religions]]??) leave it in the history. '''<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]] 03:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*Does "endorse deletion" mean an endorsemnt to delete the redirect? If so I do concure. Google and other search engine hits for the keyword "matrixism" that redirect to [[The Matrix]] are misleading. [[User:D166ER|D166ER]] 07:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*Either Delete Re-direct or Relist new version of article. [[User:207.200.116.203|207.200.116.203]] 08:22, 19 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)


*"Demands" are not helpful; and what traces of the discussion survive suggest that this was not a particularly persuasive argument. But the page was a subpage of the perfectly good [[Talk:Ancient Roman units of measurement]], which records it being split off. If this is an orphan, so is every archived talk page we have. No sound reason for deletion '''Undelete'''. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 17:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', it's a talk page corresponding to a non-existent page, the deletion was out of process how exactly? [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 18:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

:: Like [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] explained above, ''"the talk was being split of''" in several sub-pages therefore ''"talk page[s] corresponding to a non-existent page[s]"'' <br> ''"The deletion was" '''perhaps not''' "out of process"'', however '''''too quick'''''. Excepting [[User:J. 'mach' wust]] and [[User talk:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi]] no one demanded it. -- [[User:Paul Martin|Paul Martin]] 19:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

*I'm not an admin, I just saw that the page had already been deleted and closed the AfD. [[User talk:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi]].[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kimchi.sg&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new sg] 18:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
:: Excuse [[User talk:Kimchi.sg|User:Kimchi]], I erred.&nbsp; ''But in this case:''&nbsp; Who was this A.A. (anonymous administrator), who  deleted?&nbsp; -- [[User:Paul Martin|Paul Martin]] 21:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 
*'''Userfy''' perhaps is a reasonable alternative?<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> 21:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
:: Userfy?&nbsp; Perhaps, why not.&nbsp; However, in this case with a REDIRECT in "bonne et due" form.&nbsp; -- [[User:Paul Martin|Paul Martin]] 21:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC) <br><small> PS.&nbsp; To be constructive:&nbsp; If an administrator makes me a REDIRECT to [[User:Paul Martin/Hexadecimal metric system]] (including old history),&nbsp; I can restore this Talk Page with my own local back-ups.</small>

* Orphan Talk pages are always speedy deletable.  '''Endorse deletion'''.  [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 02:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
:: In context of this discussion: [[Talk:Ancient Roman weights and measures/Archive 2]], I explained [[User:Jimp]] and others what's the new digital foot. <br> '''So it is not an "Orphan Talk page"'''. Even by repeating, this will not become true. How to split a talk page, if not by creating a new one. Necessarily "without article". <br>  -- [[User:Paul Martin|Paul Martin]] 07:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

*'''Undelete''' [[User:Paul Martin|Paul Martin]] has made a convincing case for undeletion.--[[User:WheresYerHelicopterNoo|WheresYerHelicopterNoo]] 10:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

*'''Undelete''' - didn't fall under speedy criteria.  &mdash; [[User:Laurascudder|Laura Scudder]] [[User talk:Laurascudder|&#9742;]] 12:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

*'''Undelete''', subpages of talk pages are not orphaned so no speedy deletion criteria applies. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 12:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

====[[Male Unbifurcated Garment]]====
:[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Male Unbifurcated Garment]]
:[[Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Male Unbifurcated Garment]]
Undeletion requested :<br>Reasons:
# This phrase and it's corresponding acronym, "MUG," have been with us at least since the early 90s.
# No term exists which even remotely covers the wide variety of unbifurcated garments worn by nearly 40% of the world's male population.
# The suggestions that they simply be referred to as "skirts" or "dresses" is highly offensive to many men, as these refer primarily to women's clothing, and "kilt" is a very specific type of MUG.
# Numerous and vast errors with respect to "Google Hits" were falsely used in an attempt to discredit the importance of the article.
# When I responded with links to appropriately-constructed Google hits which undeniably demonstrated the numbers were well into the millions, my links were deleted.
# The vast majority of responses were very poordly reasoned, and merely underscored the lack of knowledge concerning the wide-spread use of this term.
# Their responses did underscore a wide-spread fear/loathing of seeing men in unbifurcated garments.  This was primarily limited to Westerners, who're not used to seeing men in MUGs.  
# Wiki isn't limited to the West - it's a global effort, translated into many languages.  Men throughout the non-western world don't have any problem with the term (nor do Western men who wear MUGs), because many men throughout the world wear MUGs.
# The references to "neologism" were in error, as "MUG" is an acronym, not a word, and it's components have been with us for centuries and are all found in Wikionary.
# Men have worn MUGs since the dawn of mankind.  Because terms for the various types of MUGs (sarongs, kilts, etc.) were localized, there was never a need for an all-encompassing term until the Internet brought together men from a wide variety of backgrounds, many of whom routinely wear one form of MUG or another.  There are currently more than 70 known, documented terms for various types of MUGs throughout the world.  Confusion abounded, and attempts to say, "it's just a skirt in another language" were met with offense due to the feminine connotations of the word "skirt," and "kilt" simply wasn't appropriate because of it's specialized association throughout the UK.
# All of these and more were covered in excrutiating detail in the discussion pages of the article itself, before it's deletion, and to a lesser extent on the Recommended for Deletion page, linked above.
# The admin who actually deleted the page is very new - less than one month as an admin here at Wiki.  By contrast, I've been a systems administrator on boards since 1986, when the Internet was known as the [[DARPANET]].  Nor does he appear to be from any part of Africa where MUGs are common.  Furthermore, the use of the phrase and it's acronym is not common overseas.  Thus, he has no inherent qualifications to rule one way or another on this phrase, and his lack of exposure to the phrase/acronym due to his geographical location in Belgium (where they're called "mannerrock - men's skirts" is probably a principle reason he deleted it without any serious consideration or comment.
Closing Comments: At each turn, prejudice, ignorance, and incompetance (with Google searching) have resulted in the negative comments you see on the RFD page.  The time for Wiki to change the way it does business, so that common sense (which is often not all that common), rational thought, critical analysis, and lack of personal bias, determine the validity of whether or not an article stands or falls.  This article and it's many references stood on it's own.  It's the factors listed above, brought in by each respondant, which resulted in it's downfall, not any inherent fault in the article itself.

I therefore give my strongest recommendation that the article be restored immediately, and that the admin responsible for it's unrightful demise be heavily censured.  [[User:Dr1819|Dr1819]] 19:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*Heh, I laughed out load in the middle of some people whilst reading the article - very, erm... good stuff. Anyway, I can't really decide - apparently the consensus is the term is not notable but the concept itself is. The question in my mind remains why delete a notable concept with an unknown current name? <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> 19:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' Looking at the deleted article, I see no references at all, so I'm not sure where the "many references" are that the nominator refers to.  I don't see anything obviously wrong with the Afd closure. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 19:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''', keep deleted.  How did I know this would come to DRV?  Dr1819 has made all the above assertions multiple times and the response has remained constant throughout: there is '''no evidence''' that this is a widely used term to describe this concept.  In fact, there is almost no use of the term outside of a very small group of people associated with kiltmen.com and calling themselves the [[Fashion Freedom]] Movement.  Google for "male unbifurcated garment" and excluding mirrors currently yields exactly 265 hits, of which under 70 qualify as unique ane none (0) counts as a [[WP:RS|reliable source]].  Put simply, this is a neologism - if not a protologism - and Dr1819 is in the process of aggresively pushing both it and a heavy barrow. Note that his preferred Googl;e searches provide some amusingly irrelevant results, since the supposed acronym MUG is, in Google's terms, functionally indistinguishable from the drinking vessel.  The length of time that Dr1819 has been a sysadmin is irrelevant to the discussion of Wikipedia policy, as is the fact that large numbers of men around the world do not wear trousers.  Kilt scores millions of ghits, man-skirt over ten thousand, Djellaba some hundreds of thousands - and male unbifurcated garment scores about 200 plus Wikipedia mirros.  And most fo them seem to track back to the same source.  This has all the appearances of being a protologism in the process of being vigorously promoted.  [[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?]] 20:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': a Google search for "male unbifurcated garments" does turn up quite a few results, and there are some (few) in Google Groups too. The term seems decently attested overall. If the concept itself is considered notable, then I'd see nothing wrong with bringing it under this title. I cannot really say anything about the AFD process, though. [[User:LjL|LjL]] 20:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Deletion''' - The term is only slightly more specific than "clothing", and any content it might have would fit well into articles on clothing as well. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 20:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
**See [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hs=gh9&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22male+unbifurcated+garment%22+-wikipedia how many].
***Perhaps [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hs=gh9&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22male+unbifurcated+garments%22+-wikipedia try again] with "garments" at the plural. [[User:LjL|LjL]] 21:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
**** Comment: The singular version returns [http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22male+unbifurcated+garment%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=90&sa=N 58 unique hits].  The plural form returns [http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22male+unbifurcated+garments%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=90&sa=N only 51] with some overlap between the two lists.  Every one I spot-checked was a blog, failing to meet Wikipedia's standards for a [[WP:RS|reliable source]].  [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 21:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Deletion''' I want to specifically address the claim, ''"Numerous and vast errors with respect to "Google Hits" were falsely used in an attempt to discredit the importance of the article."''. The issue in question is that DR1819 kept trying to claim as valid google hits any site that contained the word "MUG" in addition to an item of clothing. (Google searches are not case-sensitive.) Whenever I looked through the results returned, I found very few references to "MUGs" and a lot of references to mugs, whether for coffee, tea or beer. I'm also a little tired of his repeated insistence on how many non-western men wear such garments. He offered no claims that any non-western men use the term. [[User:Fan-1967|Fan1967]] 21:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
* '''Overturn'''. The AFd discussion was apparently very misinformed and some of the comments above about the lack of complete sources is worrisome as it indicates either an inadvertent or willfull denial of the sources that do exist. I say this because when I saw the AfD discussion, I immediately added four references into the debate. In my opinion, they are all from reliable sources, but they have yet to ellicit any response, either from [[User Talk:JzG|JzG]] who continues to deny that a reliable source exists, or from some of the others above. Therefore, I would strongly ask that we address the reality of the situation, and the possibility of building a decent article on this subject, rather than discussing unrelated matters such as google. The references include (emphasis added):
*:From the '''NY Times''':
*::''Some 100 men march down Fifth Avenue in skirts to proclaim their right to wear ''''unbifurcated garments'''' without being called transvestites, homosexuals or cross-dressers...Yesterday, in what future generations may look back on as the birth of the '''Male Unbifurcated Garment''' movement, some 100 men in skirts marched from the Guggenheim Museum to the Metropolitan Museum of Art to proclaim their rights to women's clothing.... The sightseers gazed in awe at the crowd of men in '''unbifurcated garments'''. Someone in the crowd called up to ask the tourists what they thought. "What I think?" said one young man with a clearly foreign accent. "I think I love New York."''ALAN FEUER, "''Do Real Men Wear Skirts? Try Disputing A 340-Pounder''", New York Times, Feb 8, 2004; 
*:The '''The Economic Times''' (Bombay, India):
*::"''the Lakme India Fashion Week decided to strut its stuff in Mumbai with Rohit Bal sending out his men in lungis, known by the trendier acronym MUG, which stands for '''Male Unbifurcated Garment'''.''" "''Yeh hai Bombay meri jaan''", Economic Times (Bombay, India), January 5, 2004
*:The '''Australian Magazine''':
*::''For anatomical reasons alone, "'''male unbifurcated garments'''" (MUGS) make good sense. The problem with trousers, according to one popular Web site, is that "all these seams and accompanying fabric converge at what is already the most crowded intersection in the male anatomy"''..."''What sarong with that?''", Australian Magazine, November 29, 2003
*:The '''Sun Herald''' (Syndney,Australia):
*::''there's a growing global movement of blokes who believe in a man's right to wear the '''Male Unbifurcated Garment or MUG (the correct term for legless menswear)'''. In February, 100 skirted men from the Men's Fashion Freedom group marched through New York, protesting "trouser tyranny". "We're not transvestites," said one. "We're men. Men who want the right to wear a skirt."
*::''Meanwhile, the '''pro-MUG''' group Kiltmen are battling on behalf of their private parts. "If we are proud of our maleness, we should treat our male organs with greater respect than by cramping them in trousers," says their website. Manly men throughout history wore '''MUGs''', they say, and trousers "are no longer a symbol of manhood but rather a unisex garment customarily worn by women''"''. Amy Cooper, "''Great lengths''", Sun Herald, June 20, 2004
*:There are other press mentions available, but the question is can the AfD stand given that all the participants in the discussion were unaware (and seemingly remain unaware) that the term is being used by major newspaper and magazines to describe a a movement of skirt wearing men?-- [[User:JJay|JJay]] 21:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' and '''Relist''' JJay's citations are substantial new information but are not enough to make this a clear keep, it should therefore be sent back to AfD. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
* (edit conflict) '''Endorse closure''' (keep deleted) for three reasons. 1) I find no process problems in the deletion discussion other than some [[WP:CIVIL|incivility]] and a failure to [[Wikipedia:assume good faith|assume good faith]]. 2) The deleted content more lexical than encyclopedic. It was not an article about [[kilt]]s, [[sarong]]s or [[dhoti]]s. It was an attempt to define the phrase. [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a dictionary]]. (Evidence: The article contained a History section on the origins of the acronym. That is content which would be appropriate in an unabridged dictionary but not normally found in an encyclopedia entry.) 3) No [[Wikipedia:reliable sources|reliable sources]] have been cited [[WP:V|verifying]] the use of this phrase. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 21:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
** Clarification:  I was not able to confirm all of JJay's cites but several did check out (and the others are probably failures on my part).  Reviewing them, they strike me as incidental use of the phrase in human interest stories.  I can not convince myself that this is sufficient evidence to document that this phrase has yet moved out of the neologism stage.  [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 21:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
* Please see above. Note for [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]], those references were in the AfD. That is why I am somewhat perplexed by the continued insistence that this is OR or fails [[WP:V]]. I even messaged JzG about it without response. -- [[User:JJay|JJay]] 21:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
** Yes, I saw that. I should have been less terse. The sources you gave were put in the AfD the last day of the AfD, it is therefore likely that they were not seen by most of the people who discussed the AfD. Pursuant to that, it should be relisted. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse deletion'''. JJay, thank you for finding those sources. I appreciate your work to focus the debate on the use of the term, not the garment. I actually did see them before the discussion closed, but, like Rossami above, I don't see them as evidence of general acceptance of the term. They mostly use the term in the specific context of the MUG movement. If there were citations showing clear use of the term in a general context I would be more supportive. [[User:FreplySpang|FreplySpang]] [[User talk:FreplySpang|(talk)]] 22:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
:*That was exactly my conclusion.  I am sure there ''is'' a widely-used term for this, but as it stands man-skirt appears to be much more widely used than "MUG" and I see no evidence whatever that this is a usual term applied to them. The one lasting unanswered question is what, exactly, the correct term might be.  But with the prevalence of this type of garment in Africa, it's maybe the case that there simply doesn't ''need'' to be one because most men in the world see no need for one. [[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?]] 22:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
::*I think you're right with that last point. For instance, we don't have a word for anything-you-might-wear-to-cover-your-butt. To paraphrase a comment from the AFD, it's simply "clothes". [[User:FreplySpang|FreplySpang]] [[User talk:FreplySpang|(talk)]] 22:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
* My goodness. I waded through the original AfD, and now the above as well... And people call ''me'' longwinded. I plan to keep a link to that AfD to answer them! There is some merit in being able to make one's point cogently and crisply, and those who could not get to the root of the assertions for the vast thicket of parsiflage thrown up cannot be faulted for having missed the key points. That said, I could perhaps see an article about the MUG movement, if it's substantiated, but I'm not seeing this material needing its own ''separate'' article. I could be wrong. I say userify it, and try to reintroduce into article space in a month or so. No need to overturn the AfD at this time and run it through another one. A note: Articles (perhaps unfortunately) sometimes live or die on the strength and clarity (and brevity!) of the rhetoric of their defenders. I'd suggest that Dr1819 needs to work on brevity, clarity and assuming good faith before he comes back to AfD or he'll fare no better than before. '''Keep Deleted''' but with userifcation. '''<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]] 22:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
:*One possible solution is to include it in [{Fashion Freedom]] as being a temr coined by that movement.  After that article has been vigorously cleaned up, of course. [[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?]] 22:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse closure, keep deleted''' without prejudice. I appreciate JJay's work, and eventually changed my vote to keep, but the deletion was within process, Dr1819's killer argument (he's visited 35 countries!) notwithstanding. It's a shame his inane, scattershot arguments polarized the discussion and drowned out any chance of working toward an answer that would satisfy both sides, and I hope someone else will write a better article that will stick sometime. I like Lar's take on this whole farce. <b><span style="color: #f33">&middot;[[User talk:Rodii|<span style="color: #669">&nbsp;rodii&nbsp;</span>]]&middot;</span></b> 22:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure, keep deleted''', original research, no justification that this is a well-used word.  [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 02:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
:* While I admire your consistency, I would ask that you justify your comment concerning original research. I have +20 articles from major publications that use the term (see a few excerpts above) to describe a specific phenomenon. Utilikilt, a multi-million dollar kilt manufacturer (and a company profiled in U.S. News & World Report, Entrepreneur and Womens Wear Daily among others), prominently describes their products as Mens Unbifurcated garments on the opening page of their website [http://www.utilikilts.com/catalog.htm]. Furthermore, some sort of activist movement has popularized the term in the last few years. I appreciate some of the well-reasoned comments from other users above, particularly after the largely misinformed and uncivil AfD discussion that just concluded. I don't know what is the best solution- the term seems to have born within the last five years, but also looks to be gaining traction- but I fail to see how it is original research. Please enlighten me (and this is not my "pet project"). -- [[User:JJay|JJay]] 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
::*JJay, I think the problem here is that those publications only used the term in the context of describing its use by the small "male fashion freedom movement".  The [[Fashion Freedom]] article is grossly POV; I think the solution is to fix that up, include this term in that article and redirect as Travis suggests. I will get on that later today. [[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?]] 06:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
: You may be right that MUG should be dealt with in the Fashion Freedom article or elsewhere. You are quite wrong about the references though (after denying repeatedly that any existed). I thus have to assume you have not read any of the articles.  And I didn't think [[User:Zoe|Zoe]] would respond to my question. AfD would actually serve a more useful purpose if people spent less time on accusations and attacks, and more on research and brainstorming on how to make wikipedia a better reference source. -- [[User:JJay|JJay]] 19:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
::I didn't respond to your question because I wasn't here to respond to it.  As soon as I saw it, I am responding.  First, by wondering why you think that '''''I''''' am making accusations and attacks, when it's you who are doing so.  It's original research when someone invents a term and then gets newspapers to discuss it.  When it becomes known '''''outside''''' of the "Fashion Freedom" movement, then it ''might'' deserve an article.  Right now, it's only used by this non-notable group.  [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 20:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
: Firstly, I most certainly didn't mean to attack you when I asked for an explanation of why you considered this article to be "original research". I apologize if you felt attacked, although I would never state that it was your "pet project" to see it deleted [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FMale_Unbifurcated_Garment&diff=53340060&oldid=53339942], which might be viewed as less than civil. Secondly, although I have no proof that this concept was invented by the "Fashion Freedom" movement, I'll take your claim at face value. I'm a bit more surprised to learn that global newspapers such as the New York Times, Economic Times, NY Magazine [http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:X2GJBuY9BgIJ:newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/arts/art/reviews/n_9477/+non-bifurcated&hl=en&gl=fr&ct=clnk&cd=34&client=firefox-a], museums [http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:OxMA20pEbjwJ:www.villagevoice.com/nyclife/0346,yaeger,48531,15.html+unbifurcated+skirt+&hl=en&gl=fr&ct=clnk&cd=18&client=firefox-a], clothing manufacturers [http://www.macabiskirt.com/mens_home.php?PHPSESSID=7cf2ee29f125a179d77c76559783bc8b], [http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:J2yozygnHwEJ:www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/s_126761.html+unbifurcated+skirt+&hl=en&gl=fr&ct=clnk&cd=52&client=firefox-a]  [http://www.amazon.com/gp/sitbv3/reader/102-4425724-1696927?%5Fencoding=UTF8&pageID=S095&keywords=unbifurcated&asin=1402203772&checkSum=mn30uhUliRnpWdUzlv78J1RlMsjgTzTkc%252FufSpLm%252Fig%253D], etc. are all so under the sway and influence of the shadowy "fashion freedom" people- in fact so under the sway, that the group is often not even mentioned by the sources. I also didn't realize that reporting on concepts that are being discussed- not by blogs, or partisan websites- but in major, global, printed newspapers and magazines (all of which fully qualify as per WP:RS) constituted "original research". Thanks for taking the time to explain your thinking. -- [[User:JJay|JJay]] 15:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Redirect''' to [[Fashion Freedom]]. Neologistic concept that deserves some mention but doesn't appear worthy of an article of its own at this time. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] 03:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' The term has the critical currency to be covered here on Wikipedia. Aboutt he article being a sortof definition of what MUG's are, it's still a stub and the more we contribute to it , the more it will expand. I was planning to contact the movements spearheading men's rights to wear MUG's so as to get more information to expand this article before all this happened. I feel that '''if''' we findthe term to be not popular enough then we should rename and redirect the article to Man's skirt but not keep it deleted. [[User:Unitedroad|Unitedroad]] 07:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' Male Unbifurcated garment is now term which decent proportion of english seapking population in the english speaking world is aware of. Also, MUG's have been worn by men over the ages and are still very popular in many parts of the world. [[User:Kharb gaurav|Kharb gaurav]] 12:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' per Lar. [[User talk:RasputinAXP|<font color="#FFFFFF" style="background: maroon;">&nbsp;RasputinAXP&nbsp;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/RasputinAXP|<small>c</small>]] 12:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. FreplySpang hits the nail on the head: if the evidence was brought up in AFD before, and editors still thought that it should be deleted, there's no reason to believe that they did not see the evidence, as they could have just found it unconvincing. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 18:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*Rossami is correct. —''[[User:Encephalon|<span style="font-family:Times;color:navy;">'''Encephalon'''</span>]] 23:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)''
*'''Undelete''' - What, this has been deleted because someone didn't like the title? You can always rename the article if you want, you know. - [[User:Ulayiti|ulayiti]] [[User talk:Ulayiti|<font color="#226b22"><small>(talk)</small></font>]] 23:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
:*That's not exactly it. The gist of the article was that it used the term "Male Unbifurcated Garment" to make claims about the worldwide politics of men wearing sarongs/kilts/lungi/whatever. So, we could rename the article *and* rewrite it to take out the POV, but... [[User:FreplySpang|FreplySpang]] [[User talk:FreplySpang|(talk)]] 23:23, 19 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)
::*Factions are discouraged.  Pages recruiting factions are undoubtedly encouraged.  Pages recruiting factions to oppose application of policy are precisely what we ''don't'' need.  And above all else if debate is to happen it absolutely must not be in terms of ''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'', excluding all but those who agree. If there is an issue with interpretation of copyright (which there is: far too many people assert fair use incorrectly, with potentially disastrous consequences for the foundation) it needs to be discussed in the usual places, not on a user subpage. As far as I can tell this comes under the heading of blindingly obvious. [[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?]] 22:43, 18 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)
::::People adapt more easily to anything when you listen to them before interrupting to them they're wrong.  The discussion that might have taken place here would have furthered that adaptation.  Ending this prematurely was the equivalent of interrupting the discussion.   Furthermore, I still see no personal attacks here (and many editors above and below agree with me), so it would have been nice to have had a pre-DRV discussion about where these are, exactly. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 21:53, 19 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)
*'''<s>Speedily reopen discussion</s>Object to close, but keep deleted'''. 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)
:Vote changed. I stand by my reasoning, but on WP:AN, Travb is well on his way to either being indefblocked or leaving the project in frustration, so [[WP:SNOW]] applies. I hope that when we all calm down, we can learn something from this. [[User:Martinp|Martinp]] 21:29, 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)
**'''Comment''' Well, ''organize'' as used here might mean Travb's finding a group of editors who think similarly as he and believe Wikipedia ought to change its policies apropos of fair use and then working with those editors to try to convince other editors, on the relevant talk pages, that his proposed fair use policy would improve the encyclopedia (I can't see his ever making that argument successfully, if only because his primary concern seems to be the usage of certain images on user pages, and most of us, I think, find user page content discussions to be only tangentially related to the project (and often to be disruptive).  Consider, for example, the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians]; the group exists, in part, to advocate for interpretations of [[WP:NOT]] and [[WP:N]] ostensibly inconsistent with the letter of each (though, of course, [[WP:N]] is neither policy nor guideline), and we think this to be fine, inasmuch as the members participate constructively at XfDs and [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy]], hoping to convince other users of the propriety of inclusionism, toward propitious and encyclopedic ends.  As I [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=53913392&oldid=53913012 said] at AN, I'm not particularly up for defending Travb anymore; having first thought him to be a prospective valuable editor, I now see that his activities are becoming increasingly disruptive and in any event unencyclopedic, and I would even abide one's [[WP:AGF|assuming less than good faith here]]; I simply mean to suggest that I can conceive of ''organizing'' that would be consistent with encyclopedic goals and not prove deleterious to the project, although I'm not at all convinced that this is what Travb had in mind.  [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 23:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
***Well, as I said, in the ''context'' of the page, it definitely was (as you say) meant to indicate an organised militant campaign against fair use policy. Considering the venomous bile on the page and other writings of Travb's against admins, it's hard to believe anything else could be implied. I never said that organisation in itself runs counter to our culture or convention, but that the organisation as used in this ''context'' clearly is. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 03:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
***If someone wanted to create an association (within the confines and context of our traditions) to work within the system and make the case that the Foundation Board's policy errs too far on the side of caution as regards Fair Use images, that would be one thing, heck I might even sympathise (probably not though). But this was not that thing. The attempts to foment discontent by messaging people who commented on Ta bu shi da yu's RfC suggest that the time for [[WP:AGF]] is over in this case. No change in position, 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]] 19:08, 19 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)
*:It may be so that the page would not survive but relying on WP:SNOW as a defence is dangerously like saying that community consensus, or at least an explanation of the reasons by a large selection of the community, is neither important, nor needed. An MfD that went to full term would have [[WP:REDUCE|avoided this costly discussion]] in time and resources. It would have also given people like me who never had the chance to see the page after its deletion, a chance of making a good decision about it. [[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!]] 23:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
**It's nothing of the sort. We can determine consensous right here rather than wasting everybody's time be relisting on AfD. --[[User:JiFish|JiFish]](<sup>[[User_talk:JiFish|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JiFish|Contrib]]</sub>) 10:52, 19 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)
*'''Endorse deletion''', see [[WP:SNOW]]. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 18:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' but without endorsing the deletion. I was quite shocked to see the MFD that I brought ended so soon, especially when some people had argued to keep the page. I do think speedying it was out of order. Nevertheless, I say '''keep deleted''' because it has [[WP:SNOW|no real chance]] of surviving a full-term MFD. [[User:Angr|Angr]] ([[User talk:Angr|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Angr|c]]) 19:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Speedy keep deleted''', personal attack page which has now been spewed all over [[WP:ANI]].  [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 02:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', but please, don't call it a personal attack.  It's not.  It's incredibly foolish, sure, but that's not the same thing.  [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 02:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''', dammit, whether this was justified or not, '''WP:SNOW ISN'T POLICY.''' --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>([[Wikipedia:Notability (memes)|WP:MEMES?]])</small> 02:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
**Many things aren't policy. Doesn't mean we can't use them to explain the rationale behind our actions. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 03:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', attack page humbuggery can't wriggle out of the criteria for speedy deletion by not being in article space.  I like Mackensen's point about people needing to realise the rules serve the encyclopaedia, and not vice versa.  I'm going to shamelessly pillage that. [[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> 10:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
**Er, unless you plan to loot and burn, I think you meant "pilfer" rather than "pillage". But I hear you, it's rather pithy. :-) '''<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]] 19:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
<s>*'''Undelete and reopen''' More process abuse from the usual wikipedia admins, in more ways than one. --[[User:WheresYerHelicopterNoo|WheresYerHelicopterNoo]] 10:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Sorry, what do you mean by that? Process is here to help us, and guide us, not enslave us. '''<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]] 19:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
**User's fifth edit; appears to be a sockpuppet of {{vandal|AmazingRacist}}. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 12:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' I added this next comment to a closed AFD, not realising there is a DRV ongoing. Anyway, for those who say that it isn't an attack, I would lik to point out that it would be worthwhile trawling through Travb's messages to many, many editors. One example can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jtmichcock&diff=prev&oldid=53685666 here]:
::"Hello, this message is because of your comments at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2]]. Because of the abuse of authority of [[User:Ta bu shi da yu]], '''Tens of thousands''' of images have been deleted by a small handful of wikipedians, citing "fair use".
::Would you be interested in joining a group on wikipedia which counters the heavy handed tactics of the copyright police. We can't fight them on our own. [[User talk:Ed g2s]] has began deleting fair use image on every person's user page and on several other pages, inspired by [[WP:FUC]] which was written by another paternal copyright policeman with '''absolutly no legal training''' and little understanding of copyright law. [[User:Ta bu shi da yu]] created the [[WP:FUC]] page and was responsible for deleting hundreds of Time magazine covers and refused to stop even after Time magazine sent an e-mail allowing wikipedia to use the images."
:I think that this is somewhat instructive of why it ''might'' be construed as an attack against an admin (myself). - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 15:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' I don't get how what the editor was doing constitutes an attack. Saying something like "editor X is dumb" or "admin Y is a jerk" is an attack. Saying something along the lines of "admin Z is doing A, B, and C which are harmful to Wikipedia and must be stopped." doesn't sound like an attack to me, no matter how uncomfortable it makes admin Z feel. [[User:Vadder|Vadder]] 17:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
:*I agree completely- there is an important difference between criticism and an attack.  Way too many people here (even otherwise reasonable editors) don't seem to be able to see the distinction, and they automatically dismiss critics as trolls and troublemakers.  This is exactly the wrong thing to do- any reasonable editor should welcome good-faith criticism of their actions.  [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 17:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
::*You're an admin, go look at the deleted text and tell us that it wasn't an attack. I looked and that's how I read it.No way was it the sort of positive, constructive criticism we all should welcome. '''<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]] 19:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
:::*I just read it, again.  I still don't see the attack.  A strongly worded criticism of behavior, yes, but not an attack.  The closest thing to an attack is probably "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."  To me, this is what Vadder was saying above, basically "admin Z is doing A, B, and C which are harmful to Wikipedia and must be stopped."  I don't happen ''agree'' with what was written there, but that doesn't make it an attack.  Removing criticism doesn't help, it only looks like we have something to hide.  If the criticism is reasonable, leave it there and people will see that it's reasonable.  If the criticism is unreasonable, leave it there and people will see that it's unreasonable.  [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 21:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
::*I agree with the sentiment that the page was not a personal attack. The appropriate reason for speedy deletion was that it was intended to disrupt Wikipedia processes. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 22:13, 19 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)
*******Actually, yes, since it's, you know, what you actually did. Let's review: Is there any such user as [[User:nothingxs]]? Answer: no. Did you count [[User:nothingxs]] as a valid Keep voter? Answer: yes. Was this pointed out to you? Answer: yes. Is this a case of taking a vote signed with a false signature and counting it anyways because it's convenient for you? Answer: all signs point to "yes". Any questions?  --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 07:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
********Lots of assumptions there, actually.  But I'm uninterested in a pissing contest. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>([[Wikipedia:Notability (memes)|WP:MEMES?]])</small> 23:05, 19 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)
*****Pointing out your logical fallacy is uncivil? Requiring you to justify your claim is uncivil? My bad, then. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 07:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
******More a general comment. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>([[Wikipedia:Notability (memes)|WP:MEMES?]])</small> 23:05, 19 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)
****So cut it down and stub it.  I have absolutely no qualms with starting it back at a stub and working from there, but we have plenty of stubs as is, and I don't see a rush to get rid of them, likely because of the lack of the word "cock." --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>([[Wikipedia:Notability (memes)|WP:MEMES?]])</small> 12:56, 20 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)
*'''Keep deleted''' per Tony Sidaway. The term is notable enough for inclusion in a Wikimedia project that defines and documents the meaning and usage of words and phrases, that project is Wikitionary not Wikipedia. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 13:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and relist''' per Silence, the subject is viable.  [[User:Yamaguchi先生|Yamaguchi先生]] 22:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
**In its time on Wikipedia (about a year IIRC) this has not been expanded beyond a dictionary entry (it is already on Wiktionary). This suggests that there isn't much encyclopaedic that can be written about it. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 08:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
***We have plenty of notable folks who lack entries here after years of WP existing.  Does that suggest that nothing encyclopedic can be written about them? --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>([[Wikipedia:Notability (memes)|WP:MEMES?]])</small> 12:56, 20 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)
*After thinking this over for the past few days, '''endorse outcome (if not the precise wording)''' - article has been kept with no prejudice against (or as I would say "without prejudice to") a further AfD at an early date. I still think this was the commonsense result in the circumstances. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 04:18, 21 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)
::::: Deleting, after reading about its relisting above, was not appropriate.  Undeleted; please relist if you want to revisit the issue.  [[User:Sj|+sj ]][[User Talk:Sj|+]] 14:34, 20 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)
**Except possibly to inquire as to your definitions -- and their applicability to this article -- of "perfectly" and "encyclopedic". --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 07:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
* '''Undelete''', reasonable admin judgment; potential relist. [[User:Sj|+sj ]][[User Talk:Sj|+]] 14:34, 20 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)
:* Time Out is a premier authority on London and passes all criteria of [[WP:RS]] sec. "Evaluating Sources", particularly the part about the source "being there", since Time Out editors can walk those streets every day. The article named two streets as being among the longest and provided distances. Hence, those two streets were verified, per WP:V, and the deletion was erroneous. There is also a certain "straw manesque" quality in your comment, since sources that might give very accurate definitions, such as GPS and the like, have been disallowed. Furthermore, a source that listed the streets of London by length could not be recreated here because of copyvio concerns. Hence, we have to build our own article using sources such as Time Out. Bear in mind, the policy is "verifiability not truth". This article, at least when limited to my additions, did not violate the policy. -- [[User:JJay|JJay]] 16:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
::*Two streets is not enough for a list article. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 16:10, 20 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)
*'''Keep deleted''' per Mackensen. [[User:Yamaguchi先生|Yamaguchi先生]] 22:50, 19 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)



====[[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===



==== [[Ryan Rider]] and <s>[[BJG]]<s> ==== 
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)
*Well, BJG is currently getting a run at AfD anyway.  I suppose I'll strike him through as a subject of this DRV (supercession by events).  As for Mr. Rider, his radio show is currently failing miserably at AfD, so I suppose I'll '''endorse deletion''' per WP:SNOW (here, we have empirical evidence to back up the assertion of WP:SNOW, so I think it is fairly compelling.) [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 16:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' (''with'' prejudice towards recreation) of [[Ryan Rider]].  It violates [[WP:AUTO]], easily meets [[WP:CSD#A7|A7]] and your radio show is not major; it's not even on a real radio station.  '''Userfy''' the former contents to Ryanrider's userspace.  Let [[BJG]]'s AfD run its course. --[[User:Rory096|Rory096]] 16:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/The Adventures of Dr. McNinja}}
{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Science3456}}

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



== 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)]]