Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 28

< January 27	Deletion review archives: 2008 January	January 29 >

28 January 2008

Dobby & The House Elves

I do not believe this page should be deleted as it satisfies rule number 7 in the notability page which states a band is notable if it Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Dobby & The House Elves HAVE become the most prominent representative of a wizard rock in brisbane, they are also the youngest wizard rock duo. This page has also been accused of only referencing myspace, but they had 2 references that were interviews and another that was their EP, the references to myspace were for the articles pictures. Therefore this article should not have been deleted and the allowance of the re-creation of this article would be appreciated by many. Yolanda-evergeeen (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard rock? Really? ^Avruchtalk 00:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard rock. If I may "a notable style or of the local scene". Emphasis added to "or". Thus Harry and the Potters represent the Wizard Rock scene, and say Powderfinger represents Brisbane, but the guideline isn't supposed to provide for the de facto notability of the most prominent band of every genre in every city. Most prominent emo band in Kinshasa, most prominent techno DJ in Des Moines, etc. --JayHenry (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn most recent deletion and unsalt. The most recent deletion was by G4, which doesn't really apply. Although there was an AfD, which was closed in delete, it wasn't deleted because of the AfD, it was deleted (three times) through A7. Most recent version also passes A7, since notability is asserted. Sources aren't that hot, so unless it can be sourced it'll fail an AfD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, just actually looked at their MySpace. No way they're gonna' pass WP:N right now, and, judging by how popular they looked, probably shouldn't be here. Yet, at least. Change to endorse per WP:UCS since it'd never pass an AfD like that and good sources won't be found. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Dobby & The House Elves are ALSO The Youngest successfull Wizard rock duo. Which i believe is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yolanda-evergeeen (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite embarrassed to have this information at my fingertips, but I believe that the Hungarian Horntails are the youngest successful Wizard Rock duo. --JayHenry (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the hungarian horntails are NOT a duo on there myspace it clearly states that there are 3 members , therefore dobby & The House Elves still remain the youngest wizard rock duo.

how would I go about sourcing the article better?

Overturn and send to AfD - G4 should not be used to overturn a speedy delete, A7 should not be used as there is a clear (if somewhat dubious) claim to their significance. I doubt the article will survive AfD on notability and verifability concerns, all articles must be based upon reliable sources, especially those concerning living people. Youngest, best, most prominent, etc. is no substitution for reliable sourcing. Guest9999 (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the sources are all reliable...how would I improve them?

and just a quick question what is AfD?

Barack Obama media controversy

I request that the AfD be reopened and the article restored on the grounds that the closing administrator misinterpreted policy and failed to fulfill his responsibility to personally evaluate the strength of argument in favor of his action.

I've had a colloquy with the administrator about this, [1] but he hasn't responded for 36 hours or so, so I think it may not be premature to ask for community input. The subject involves a current event and is receiving ongoing attention not mentioned in the article before its deletion ([2],[3],[4], and, I am sure, others) so I think the work done on this subject ought to be made available to Wikipedia's readers promptly if I am right that it ought to be available at all.

Argument:

1)WP:DRV"Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look." See [5]

2)WP:DRV"Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly..." Yamamoto_Ichiro explained that he closed the AfD as a "POV fork" on the grounds that a rough consensus of the participating editors had reached that conclusion (by my count only 5 of 21 editors "voted" "keep"), and that he could rely on the large disparity in the "vote" for the reliability of the conclusion and need not independently examine the strength of the arguments. Indeed, he wrote, "I don't really know which POV is being advocated myself nor I really care..."

3)WP:GD"Another volunteer (the "closing admin") will review the article, carefully read the AFD discussion, weigh all the facts, evidence and arguments presented and determine if consensus was reached on the fate of the article.<paragraph> The desired standard is rough consensus, not perfect consensus. Please also note that closing admins are expected and required to exercise their judgment in order to make sure that the decision complies with the spirit of all Wikipedia policy and with the project goal. A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached."

4)WP:PRACTICAL: "To [find actual consensus] you actually need to carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves (including any additional concerns that may have been raised along the way), the basis of objection of those who disagree... If you are volunteering to carry out an action on the basis of rough consensus, only this thorough approach is acceptable."(emphasis added)

Although the epithet "POV fork" was thrown about quite freely in the AfD I think it's perfectly clear that the deleted article was nothing of the sort (WP:CFORK: "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines...), that it fit instead all the criteria for WP:SUMMARY style (WP:SPINOUT: "Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others."), and that no coherent argument appealing to policy was made for its deletion. Irregardless, the closure was out of policy and, as the 'policy WP:CON says, "unacceptable" due to the closing admins failure to understand his responsibility to "carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves". And should be reversed. Andyvphil (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion There doesn't seem to be any deficiency of process here. There is no closing rationale, which would probably help in a situation like this, but the consensus did seem to weigh towards the deletion of the article (I'm including those that voted for merging its content). If its a notable facet of the campaign, then it should be included in the campaign article. There is no compelling reason that I can see to have a whole article on just this issue (like any campaign minutiae, it gets huge numbers of mentions way out of proportion to its actual long-term notability). Additionally there is no compelling reason to suggest that the result of the AfD was incorrect based on the arguments presented or the process involved. ^Avruchtalk 00:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Dill

No explanation for deletion and unresponsive administrator DavidLDill (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page was nothing but a link to David Dill's web page. Do you have something to replace it with? --Kbdank71 20:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A link to your website should be on your userpage (User:DavidLDill) rather than in an encyclopedia article. Speedy deletion valid. Note the deleting admin has been inactive for almost a year. Hut 8.5 20:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Deletion is uncontroversial under A3 (though A1 and A7 probably apply as well). If the subject has been covered in reliable sources a recreation of the article with content would be acceptable but you should probably read WP:COI before you create it. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A link to a website should not be on a userpage if it's being used for advertising purposes. Corvus cornix_talk 00:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex

The proposed deletion of this page was a subsequent result of the recently-closed DRV. The administrator's rationale for deletion was "CSD G4: Recreation of deleted material", which is inapplicable for CSD at the first point. According to our official policy concerning the appropriateness of userpage and user subpage, if a subpage is a copy of other page, decision of whether this type of content should be included must be made in WP:MFD to counsel community's opinions. Realizing this inaccurate action from admin Jayron32, I restored the page for further discussion occurring on ANI. Soon after my restoration of the page, another admin, User:Jzg, who seems to maintain antipathy towards the Adult-child sex article, claiming it "unacceptable, quickly reverted my revision regardless of WP:WW violation. It should be noted that the content being "PoV-fork" plays substantial role in Jzg's decision to perform unsuitable speedy deletion [6]. Thus I bring the incident here for community's decision on the problem. Cheers. @pple complain 15:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. WP:CSD#G4 says "A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion", since the original article was deleted due to AfD, then the deletion endorsed by DRV, this is such a recreation and a valid G4 deletion. It being in userspace just puts it under another title, but G4 is clear that a recreation under any title is applicable. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 18:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as it was a copy of a deleted page and I had given the user fair warning that if the DRV on the article was unsuccessful that I would speedy tag it so the user certainly had more than 24 hours to transfer the information off site. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. This is not a copy of the deleted Adult-child sex, but of a draft TlatoSMD was working on for that article. WP:CSD quite clearly says that content moved to user space is excluded from CSD G4. I appreciate that this draft might no longer be needed. However, Wikipedia:Editors matter and Tlato should be allowed to decide for himself what to do with this draft now that the deletion of Adult-child sex has been endorsed, which happened only very recently. If he doesn't need it, it can be deleted. If he wants to keep it around, for instance, to try to integrate some of the material into existing pages, or even just to preserve the references he's found, that would be a legitimate use. Mango juice^talk 18:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me note that content forking is not a good reason to delete something in user space. We delete content forks because they represent a barrier to having all editors work together in order to keep things in balance. The same does not happen when one of the forks is in userspace, which is typically interpreted as for that one editor's use only. Mango juice^talk 18:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We prohibit content forking to preserve WP:NPOV, not because they are a hindrance to collaborative editing. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV applies to articles, not to user pages and subpages. Users are even allowed to directly express opinions, so long as they don't go too far. But in any case that would be an argument for MFD, not speedy deletion. Mango juice^talk 19:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People can use their userspace to give opinion on Wikipedia related topics, but not to post opinions about encyclopedic subjects that have been found by debate to be contrary to NPOV. I could make an essay about why I think a policy is good or bad, but not to espouse my beliefs about cannabis laws. If one is making an article in the userspace then that too needs to meet WP:NPOV. From WP:USER: "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content...". _(1 == 2)^Until 20:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CFORK#Temporary subpages - this is a well-recognized exception to the POV fork issue. I think that calling this pro-pedophile advocacy is a valid reason for deletion, but on the surface here at least, Tlato is working on article-building. Don't you think that at least should be the outcome of a debate, rather than a speedy deletion issue? Mango juice^talk 22:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion This article is an older version of an article that was deleted via AfD (deletion upheld at DRV). The deletion rationale was that the article was a POV content fork - relating to the title and content because all content was a rehash of content found in other articles. The series of debates has been very contentious and disruptive, and this version (and all versions in userspace) will continue to be a locus for this dispute. If TlatoSMD wants to work on a version, it should be provided to him so that he can do it offline. ^Avruchtalk 18:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Avruch - on @pple's user page he has a notice indicating that he is prepared to undelete articles with a few exceptions. I suggest he considers adding pro-pedophilia advocacy to this list. Addhoc (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Per past precedent and community consensus on mainspace article topic. MBisanz ^talk 20:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CSD#G4 absolutely applies to user space copies of former main space articles. On this subject, I decline to review the deleted copies of both pages to personally confirm that it is indeed a copy - but since nobody is disputing that it is a copy, then the answer should be clear. GRBerry 21:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:CSD#G4: This does not apply to content that has been moved to user space. --Kbdank71 21:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G4 doesn't automatically apply when a page has been userfied, but if the userfication is opposed by consensus than deletion is appropriate (we don't let people keep old or inappropriate articles around forever per WP:NOT#WEBHOST). Eluchil404 (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#WEBHOST doesn't apply here, given how quickly the article was deleted after the ACS DRV was closed. Mango juice^talk 22:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The page was properly deleted per policy and consensus and it should stay deleted. The reasons have been well-stated in all the "endorse deletion" comments above so I won't duplicate them. --Tikilounge (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from deleting admin: A POV-fork does not magically become something else by moving to user space. Userfication is an appropriate response for a crap article on a good subject, but in this case the subject itself has been debated and found to fail policy. We have other articles on this subject, those articles are where changes should be pursued. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - a consensus to delete the material was established both in the original AfD and the subsequent DRV. Whilst speedy delete criteria G4 states that it "does not apply to content that has been moved to user space", this exception can be interpretted to apply only when the material has been userfied independent of a deletion discussion. The exception is in a list of other exceptions which take place independent of a deletion discussion (such as speedy and proposed deletions). Guest9999 (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As Mangojuice mentioned, the page in question is not in fact a recreation of deleted material; it is something TlatoSMD had been working on since a while ago. It was meant for inclusion in the now deleted ACS article, but if the argument that ACS was a content fork has any merit at all, then it should be suitable material for other articles as well. Bikasuishin (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eufeeds

I'm sorry if I'm making some mistakes but i can not understand the reasons why Eufeeds was deleted by the administrator.

Eufeeds is a rss aggregator as a lot of website that are mentioned on wikipidia. Is a very good tool for journalist and al people that want to be informed about the EU newspapers. If i making technical mistakes please contact me because i'm reading all your guide line but i'm not an native english speaker and it's possible i don't understand somethings. I apologize for this. Kugno (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing in the article which explained why Eufeeds was more notable or significant than any of the other millions of websites in the world. When creating articles about websites, it's important to clearly state why it is a significant website which justifies an encyclopedia article. Have a read of Wikipedia:Notability (web), and if you feel that Eufeeds meets the notability criteria described there, feel free to recreate the article, citing reliable sources to back up that claim of notability. --Stormie (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Poker Hall of Fame

A similar category (that I was unaware of when I created this category was deleted in CFD back in November. There were only a handful of !votes. The nominator tied the Poker Hall of Fame (which is reputatble) with the obscure European Poker Hall of Fame. The Nominator then used the rationale that it was a non-defining characteristic. I think if you looked up the winners, they consider it to one of the greatest honors in Poker. He also argued that "The American hall of fame is awarded by a single casino." Who owns/manages the HoF doesn't matter, what matters is if the HoF is recognized as such and is reputable. Everybody ~~in the Poker world~~ recognizes the Poker Hall of Fame, as the official Poker Hall of Fame---including ESPN Columnist Gary Wise who is critical of the HoF. The deleting editor rationalized the deletion with, none "are regularly called "Hall of Famer Doyle Brunson" (or whatever) on TV broadcasts." Er, yes they are. In fact, WHILE writing this DVR, I was watching the WPT event at Foxwood (aired 8-1-07), where they were talking about how Bradley Berman was the son of Poker Hall of Famer Lyle Berman---they didn't mention Lyle's 3 WSOP bracelets! Of the 35 inductees, there are only 12 that are still living and not all of them play tournament poker on a regular basis, thus he the admin probably simply hadn't seen any episodes where one of those 12 players made a final table. The HoF recognizes not just success at WSOP/WPT events, but also CASH games!

Doyle Brunson — Five Decades of Poker and Still Going Strong! Allyn Jaffrey Shulman by Allyn Jaffrey Shulman Cardplayer Magazine 2004 discusses Doyles HoF status.
Video of 2005 Doyle Brunson's show "Doyles Room"] where he is honoring 2005 inductees Jack Binion and Crandell Addington
Amarillo Slim's Official page has a list of all poker hall of famers.
When Chip Reese recently died, Cardplayer magazine noted that he "was the youngest member to be inducted into the Poker Hall of Fame." (As did Pokerlisting.com, Rounder Magazine, About.com, and many other sources.
Phil Helmuth, mentions his induction into the Hall of Fame in the second sentence of his official webpage.
Barbara Enright said that she considered her induction into the Poker Hall of Fame as "a lifetime achievement honor" Balloonman (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject poker notified of this DVR

Overturn. Immediate, obvious overturn as recent deletion was done without a CFD. There is no reason to even discuss it at this point as it is not approriate to just go and delete categories without any discussion. The previous CFD is unrelated to this action. 2005 (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as valid G4. All the talk about things being done out of process has conveniently ignored the fact that instead of reviewing the CFD (which would have had a better outcome), the creator of the category simply recreated the page in defiance of the outcome. JuJube (talk) 08:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to WP:AGF. As I indicated above, when I created this category, I was unaware of the previous CFD. To say that I 'ignored the fact' and simply 'recreated the page in defiance' is NOT AFG--especially when I explicitly state otherwise. Plus, I am ultimately, contesting the ORIGINAL CFD, not the G4 Speedy.Balloonman (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one is "conveniently" forgetting anything. The deletion was totally inappropriate, and also rude to the work of good faith editors. Deleting categories just because you can can never be justified. Obviously anyone can revert these edits because they are rogue edits, but the editor should revert his deletions so others don't have to waste time on nonsense. If someone wants to do a CFD, they can. 2005 (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. I closed the previous nomination, which included the much more obscure European hall of fame. The nominator makes fair criticisms of my closing arguments, enough that I see rationale fo relisting this, and possibly renaming to Category:Poker Hall of Fame inductees. (However, Balloonman, you have absolutely no idea how many or which poker broadcasts I've watched. It's a bad idea to criticize someone's credentials when you're criticizing their arguments.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse of the G4, Endorse the original Nov 5 CFD. Closer, take your pick. The nomination here is for Category:Poker Hall of Fame, which was the G4 speedy, but the nominator states above that he is contesting the ORIGINAL CFD, not the G4 Speedy. [7] --Kbdank71 15:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Therein lies the crux of an issue. By the LETTER of the law, this wasn't a recreated category... by the spirit it was... IMHO, the deletion as G4 is valid (because otherwise we would end up parsing words and having people simply reword every category until one stuck.) Thus, I am contesting the original CFD.Balloonman (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NEUBanner.gif (closed)

User:VigilancePrime/Doc:SqueakBox

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

MfD inappropriately closed same-day. Almost entirety of DELETE comments centered on accusing KEEP "voters" of being pedophiles. No policies were violated in the page. The closing comment re: RFC beg the question of the necessity of this page (because right now, with page deleted, the "evidence" for the RFC is no longer easily accesible). Clear consensus was to keep, even speedy keep. Appears to be a case of admin jumping the gun in favor of personal desire (true or not, the same-day-deletion contrary to consensus seems to give little other reading). VigilancePrime (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong overturn Not one single admin of those posting in the MfD considered the deleted piece an attack site, in fact one (User:Bduke) even said that the nomination itself was a hostile attack, and two others (User:SGGH and User:12 Noon) voted for speedy keep due to bad faith nomination and conflict of interest of nominator which according to policy automatically :rendered the nomination invalid. This was not an attack site, even though it recorded severe uncivil attacks constantly made by the nominator. Those people voting for delete could only voice their reasoning by severe flaming and personal insults, which in fact were their only reasons they were able to provide. Such a quick closure conflicting with most posts, the more balanced reasonings made by those without conflicts of interest, and the policy regarding conflict of interest nominations is very suspicious and questionable. --TlatoSMD (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had to fix the link syntax, those links had actually been pointing nowhere. --TlatoSMD (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly endorse closure, which user VP also seems happy with. I am not sure why tlato would oppose the closure of such an attack page, assuming, as I do, good faith. Simply we dont need such spaces and therefore the closure was correct. Nothing controversial here and no reason to drv, especially givent ehg canvassing, and hey Tlato cnavasses too, see the ACS afd. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn/relist-This page did not meet any criteria for speedy deletion. The allegations that it was an attack page are quite simply false, based on at best a misunderstanding of the relevant polices. The page consisted of nothing more than quotations, supported by diffs no less. Failing that, there was no justifiable cause for an early closure.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, for exactly the same reasons as Fyre2387. Also, nay to consensus-busting premature admin decisions that make a mockery out of what is already a madhouse. GrooV (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong overturn and an admonishment of closing admin is in order. This closure was patently ridiculous, and I am surprised it wasn't overturned by another admin on the spot instead of coming down to a DRV. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 04:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On their own talkpage, the closing admin has now stated that the main reason to close as delete was the amount of drama that surfaced from the mere MfD within such a short time. I'd like to point out that it's merely the drama Squeak and other people behaving like him, that is the the other two delete voters I named above, commonly engage in wherever I see them. Even just the MfD and this Review alone should be evidence enough for that. The deleted piece was exclusively made to keep track of and evidence especially Squeak's instrumental role in this and take that evidence to admin intervention. --TlatoSMD (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn A well-intentioned deletion, but an overreaching conclusion, according to my review of the closure and of conversations on the closing admin's talk page. The deleted page itself collected and indexed what Squeakbox had actually written here, and was not, by my understanding of the term, an attack page. Consensus to delete had not developed at the time of closure. A Wikipedian should be able to cross-reference and organize information such as this, for example in preparation for participating in an RFC, arbitration, or other circumstance. If the creator's conduct with regard to this page becomes problematic, then an RFC can be filed. Let's afford this page the traditionally wide latitude given to items in userspace. --SSBohio 05:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion of attack page. The closing admin made the correct decision. VigilancePrime's publicly visible page accused Squeakbox of personal attacks and other serious offenses in the text and in the section headings, but without taking the accusations to a proper forum. He claimed he was doing that to format diffs for a planned "admin intervention" request. If that is really his purpose, he can easily do so off-wiki in a text document. When he's ready with his case, he can file an RFC/U or AN/I report. Maintained on-wiki without engaging in due process, it was an attack page that served no purpose other than to further inflame an already tense situation. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. i\It qualified as a speedy delete. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, laundry lists of grudges are not an acceptable use of userspace. Feel free to work up an RfC using the relevant templates if you wish, but note that the spotlight in such cases will inevitably shine equally brightly on all concerned. Guy (Help!) 14:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I think that you are misundertanding the policy of speedy deletion. This is not an attack page, as it is not predominantly subjective. These are links which speak for themselves, no? Karla Lindstrom 16:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion There are ways to do certain things - if you want to address a pattern of conduct, use an RfC or make a request for arbitration. Laundry lists of subjectively 'bad actions' of one user are attack pages and deleted appropriately, per long-standing custom and policy. Further - the dispute between these editors has tracked through two AfDs, two MfDs and three DRVs. You guys need to leave eachother alone and find something constructive to do with your time here. Continuous disruption on this level will lead to an ArbCom case and ultimately sanctions for all involved. ^Avruchtalk 17:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Carribbean made a gross error in judgement in closing the debate after such a short amount of time. MFD would have led to the right conclusion, now that this DRV has gotten started we have no alternative but to have that same debate here, which will be less productive because half the people will be focussing on process abuses. Karla explains very succinctly why this is not a speedy-deletable attack page (plus, all the nasty words are quotes). In other words, this deletion escalated things. Ok, so why am I endorsing deletion? Because per Guy and Avruch, and lots and lots of precedents, this is not appropriate even in user space, unless it's intended to be part of an WP:RFC or an WP:RFAR. Vigilance hasn't even claimed this was the purpose. I am okay with relisting, but would prefer that the decision gets made here in DRV. Mango juice^talk 18:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - dispute resolution should be used, instead of soap boxing. Addhoc (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Concur with reasons listed by Addhoc and Guy. --Tikilounge (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]