Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Deusfaux (talk | contribs) at 14:30, 21 May 2006 (→[[List_of_video_game_collector_and_special_editions]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Vfu header

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

Content review

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

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

  • 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. Loom91 08:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

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

History only undeletion

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

  • 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. --Rory096 22:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hazelwood Central High School - This was actually 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. --Rob 15:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decisions to be reviewed

Shortcut

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

 
1.

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

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

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

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

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 December 18}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

4.

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

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 December 18}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 December 18|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

  • Endorse the original closing decision; or
  • Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
  • List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
  • Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
  • Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

  • *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
  • *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
  • *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
  • *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

  • If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
  • If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)

Speedy closes

  • Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
  • Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
  • Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
  • Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".

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

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. All votes to keep the page however were made after most progress had been made. Originally then, the nomination was much more valid, but as the page took shape and it's purpose and scope were better defined, it became a very useful and focused 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 to 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 when it was merely a literal list of titles). 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. Deusfaux 13:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also any comparisons to this being similiar to a list of special edition dvd movies is invalid as the total # of limited edition video games ever released would not equal even one year's worth of "special/limited" edition dvds (which sees nearly every title get such a release.) An easily maintainable list. Deusfaux 13:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Those arguing for deletion did not do so on the basis that the list was incomplete, so their rationales applied to the article as it stood at deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But all those above the first Keep vote did. I dont mean "incomplete" in which titles it included, I mean incomplete as in zero formatting, and <10 titles (names only) all on the same line with zero intro or discussion of what the page was attempting to do. If anything, they were based on the title then, as there was little to no article to vote on. How were they to understand what was trying to be acheieved with the page at that time? I would have nominated it for deletion myself. Deusfaux 14:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Ardric47 03:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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. --Cyde↔Weys 03:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, it ended up on the list at this change. Ardric47 03:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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. --Cyde↔Weys 03:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 (Pokémon test) while the primary reason given for deletion was a lack of reliable sources to support the article. Jester 13:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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'. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Mackensen (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure the precendent of other such articles existing is a very strong argument for keep, IMO.  Grue  14:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Metamagician3000 15:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, but slap a merge tag on there. --Rory096 16:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Xoloz 16:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Dsreyn 16:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete and Relist so we can get this deleted once and for all – forever. --Ezeu 22:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist - some claim to notability and the AfD was very unsatisfactory with only three ... ahem ... "votes". Metamagician3000 01:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. Kimchi.sg 10:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Rory096 08:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that ass

I propose that that ass be Undeleted. 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. Kɔffeedrinksyou 07:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Kɔffeedrinksyou 17:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
"that-ass" as a 2 word phrase: 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. Kɔffeedrinksyou 04:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. D166ER 16:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ancient Roman units of measurement/Hexadecimal metric system

Undeletion requested :

  • Reasons :
  1. User:J. 'mach' wust demanded a speedy delation on 18 May 2006, 09:07 (UTC) with the only justification "Original research".
    However: This criterion applies for articles, not for talk pages.
  2. The administrator Kimchi deleted on 18 May 2006, 14:47 (UTC) by stating: "The result of the debate was speedy deleted as orphaned talk page."
  3. There was no real debate. see archive. Other requests for SD, the same day, obtained at least several motions "Deletion". Not so this request.
  4. This talk page was not an "orphaned talk page". It was related to several other talk pages and mainly to Talk:Hexadecimal foot/Archive 1.

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


Like Septentrionalis explained above, "the talk was being split of" in several sub-pages therefore "talk page[s] corresponding to a non-existent page[s]"
"The deletion was" perhaps not "out of process", however too quick. Excepting User:J. 'mach' wust and Kimchi no one demanded it. -- Paul Martin 19:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse User:Kimchi, I erred.  But in this case:  Who was this A.A. (anonymous administrator), who deleted?  -- Paul Martin 21:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy?  Perhaps, why not.  However, in this case with a REDIRECT in "bonne et due" form.  -- Paul Martin 21:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS.  To be constructive:  If an administrator makes me a REDIRECT to User:Paul Martin/Hexadecimal metric system (including old history),  I can restore this Talk Page with my own local back-ups.
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.
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".
-- Paul Martin 07:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Male Unbifurcated Garment

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Male Unbifurcated Garment
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Male Unbifurcated Garment

Undeletion requested :
Reasons:

  1. This phrase and it's corresponding acronym, "MUG," have been with us at least since the early 90s.
  2. No term exists which even remotely covers the wide variety of unbifurcated garments worn by nearly 40% of the world's male population.
  3. 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.
  4. Numerous and vast errors with respect to "Google Hits" were falsely used in an attempt to discredit the importance of the article.
  5. When I responded with links to appropriately-constructed Google hits which undeniably demonstrated the numbers were well into the millions, my links were deleted.
  6. The vast majority of responses were very poordly reasoned, and merely underscored the lack of knowledge concerning the wide-spread use of this term.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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. Dr1819 19:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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? It is as it always was T | @ | C 19:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Friday (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 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. Just zis Guy you know? 20:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. LjL 20:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --Improv 20:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Fan1967 21:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 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?-- JJay 21:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. JoshuaZ 21:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Endorse closure (keep deleted) for three reasons. 1) I find no process problems in the deletion discussion other than some incivility and a failure to assume good faith. 2) The deleted content more lexical than encyclopedic. It was not an article about kilts, sarongs or dhotis. It was an attempt to define the phrase. 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 reliable sources have been cited verifying the use of this phrase. Rossami (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. Rossami (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see above. Note for 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. -- JJay 21:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. JoshuaZ 22:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. FreplySpang (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Just zis Guy you know? 22:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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". FreplySpang (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. · rodii · 22:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted, original research, no justification that this is a well-used word. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 [4]. 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"). -- JJay 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Just zis Guy you know? 06:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 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. -- JJay 19:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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|(talk) 20:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 [5], 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 [6], museums [7], clothing manufacturers [8], [9] [10], 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. -- JJay 15:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fashion Freedom. Neologistic concept that deserves some mention but doesn't appear worthy of an article of its own at this time. FCYTravis 03:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Unitedroad 07:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Kharb gaurav 12:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Lar.  RasputinAXP  c 12:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 18:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rossami is correct. —Encephalon 23:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - What, this has been deleted because someone didn't like the title? You can always rename the article if you want, you know. - ulayiti (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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... FreplySpang (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

17 May 2006

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. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 21:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Martinp 03:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Just zis Guy you know? 22:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and reopen, I see no reason to speedy delete it. bbx 21:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The page was profoundly unencyclopedic and served no purpose other than stroking the user's apparently bruised ego. -- ChrisO 22:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    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. Ansell Review my progress! 22:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Joe 22:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, Ways how to sink Wikipedia by getting it into legal troubles should at least be discussed off-site. --Pjacobi 22:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Ansell Review my progress! 22:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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...) LordAmeth 22:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's precisely the point. This is not Livejournal, and no 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.--Sean Black 02:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, WP:SNOW. Dr Zak 23:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete invalid speedy delete, A6 applies to articles, not user pages. --W.marsh 23:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 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 ++Lar: t/c 23:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete please it can be healthy to discuss disagreements even legal oriented ones Yuckfoo 00:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Xoloz 00:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What horrid ruleslawering. An attack is an attack.--Sean Black 02:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. - brenneman{L} 03:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Mackensen (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Xoloz 21:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion -- Malformed RfC kept in userspace to allow removal of response from one party. Inappropriate use of userspace. Jkelly 02:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted it, so yeah, keep it in the trash were it belongs.--Sean Black 02:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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–because I know someone will support me! Mackensen (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Trash. --Tony Sidaway 02:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Completely inappropriate page. Chick Bowen 03:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily reopen discussionObject 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. Martinp 03:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Martinp 21:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.--Sean Black 05:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 16:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - what a waste of time! --Doc ask? 07:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 —Phil | Talk 08:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - at best, totally wrongheaded; at worst, malicious; in any event, disruptive. Metamagician3000 08:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Jkelly. AnnH ♫ 08:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Everyking 09:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I recall precedent that says otherwise. But that's your call. Mackensen (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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. Everyking 12:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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. Everyking 12:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • 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. ++Lar: t/c 13:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --Fastfission 12:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if restored, it definitely should be renamed. I went to this page looking for new tactics to learn but was quite disappointed. - Liberatore(T) 15:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Johnleemk | Talk 16:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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 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 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 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. Joe 23:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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. Johnleemk | Talk 03:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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.++Lar: t/c 19:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted - WP:SNOW --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    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 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. Ansell Review my progress! 23:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, see WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 no real chance of surviving a full-term MFD. Angr (t • c) 19:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep deleted, personal attack page which has now been spewed all over WP:ANI. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Friday (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, dammit, whether this was justified or not, WP:SNOW ISN'T POLICY. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Proto||type 10:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Undelete and reopen More process abuse from the usual wikipedia admins, in more ways than one. --WheresYerHelicopterNoo 10:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"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). - Ta bu shi da yu 15:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Vadder 17:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Friday (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. ++Lar: t/c 19:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Friday (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 Cyde's talk page then having had no response to 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 my talk page. Cyde later replied on his 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. Ian3055 23:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and rename per local usage. Manifestly improper close, ignoring WP:Consensus to start the useless thing, an Anglo-American language dispute. Septentrionalis 04:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. — May. 12, '06 [22:04] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Note that the industry trade body is called the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and of course a Motor manufacturer produces more than Engines. Ian3055 12:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What a confusingly named organization. — May. 15, '06 [07:44] <freakofnurxture|talk>
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. Just zis Guy you know? 12:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major power

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major power

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

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. Martinp 02:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - well within reasonable admin discretion. Metamagician3000 02:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure The redirect result deleted nothing: all information is still available in the history. Closure of the debate was well within discretion. Xoloz 02:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 original research into Great power. I followed process as close as I can, and I think that was more than fair. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. BigDT 05:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, can't think of any other sensible way of closing this one, and as pointed out above it's not actually deleted. Petros471 09:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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? Just zis Guy you know? 09:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Trip: The Light Fantastic 15:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 reliable sources demonstrating that these categorizations are widely accepted, they are free to rewrite the article with WP:NPOV descriptions and proper citations. Barno 19:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This series of articles is highly problematic. Getting rid of this one was a good start. 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. ACamposPinho1:58, 18 May 2006

16 May 2006

Cock block

User:Doc_glasgow closed the 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. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. --Doc ask? 10:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --Philosophus T 01:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Metamagician3000 01:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete - deletion in this instance was not justified. Silensor 02:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted) but without prejudice against a temporary undeletion for 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. 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.) Rossami (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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? BigDT 05:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete, it was an unjustified deletion. bbx 06:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Just zis Guy you know? 09:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Proto||type 11:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete doesn't look like dicdef, and AfD result confirms that.  Grue  11:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. I'm having a hard time even seeing the potential for an actual article, and it's already been transwiki'ed. --Calton | Talk 11:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 :). It is as it always was T | @ | C 12:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete. Deletion was unjustified in this case. --Myles Long 13:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --Tony Sidaway 17:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So the way to deal with poorly written articles is to delete them, now? I don't find that logic encouraging, unfortunately. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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. --Tony Sidaway 00:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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." --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Vslashg (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse cruft block. When/if 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and undelete this please it is a notable subject we should document Yuckfoo 00:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.). -Silence 00:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per User:Tony Sidaway. Jkelly 02:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Tony Sidaway. Naconkantari 03:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Everyking 09:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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." Geogre 12:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Thryduulf 13:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist per Silence, the subject is viable. Yamaguchi先生 22:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. Thryduulf 08:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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, 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. Joe 19:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and delete clear consensus to delete, article not encyclopedic (wikipedia is not a game guide). --InShaneee 19:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Martinp 21:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. Joe 21:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Arguments per policy were strongly in favour of deletion, arguments for keep mostly amount to arm-waving. Just zis Guy you know? 21:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. It's not a vote, etc. - brenneman{L} 01:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per InShaneee. At the very least, they need to be merged into one or at the most three articles. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 04:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per JzG. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 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. Metamagician3000 12:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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". BigDT 05:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. Metamagician3000 10:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Xoloz 17:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(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. Martinp 02:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. TomStar81 05:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. BigDT 05:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete as per the above. WP:NOR is non-negotiable. Proto||type 11:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. ++Lar: t/c 13:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)... Joe 19:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per InShaneee. Naconkantari 03:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I agree with Xoloz here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Metamagician3000 04:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 (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 (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.  OZLAWYER  talk  14:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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. Just zis Guy you know? 18:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and Relist at AFD since substantial new information is available. JoshuaZ 17:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Xoloz 19:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete/relist at AfD per JoshuaZ and Xoloz. This likely should have been relisted in any case; I don't know that one could find a consensus in the minimal debate that occurred.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.) Joe 20:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, don't relist, and admit we were wrong. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist given weak AfD consensus. --Ezeu 22:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per above. With improvement, it will be able to meet the independent coverage criterion. --Rob 08:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist: per Xoloz and JoshuaZ --David.Mestel 17:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Metamagician3000 02:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist per Xoloz and JoshuaZ, we made a mistake here. Silensor 02:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per JzG. Ardenn 03:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist Borderline
  • Endorse deletion per JzG. OhNoitsJamieTalk 07:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete this please it should be improved instead Yuckfoo 00:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. · rodii · 12:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.  Grue  12:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested to hear the closer's reasoning as well - I left a message on Tawker's talk page. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.--WilliamThweatt 14:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn there was definately a consensus to delete here. Not sure how the admin arrived at that descision. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 14:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. BigDT 16:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. LjL 17:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse decision, AFD came to a very reasonable outcome. This is a perfectly reasonable article and I can imagine it being quite useful. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please present a plausible hypothetical situation in which it would be useful? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Branding research, e.g. tracking companies or films that employ an exclamation point vs. ones that don't. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.) Johnleemk | Talk 18:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Xoloz 19:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 keeps nor the deletes make a prima facie case, we ought to relist. Joe 19:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 actually have bangs in them or not, or whether saying they have a bang is neutral, it's just... useless. That's all AfD can say about lists most of the time. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist this please it can be used for branding research like suggested Yuckfoo 00:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 -- Tawker 01:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taking another look at the discussion above I've relisted -- Tawker 02:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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). Proto||type 09:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Xoloz 17:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Proto||type 11:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting, after reading about its relisting above, was not appropriate. Undeleted; please relist if you want to revisit the issue. +sj + 14:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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, Doc glasgow ignores the lack of consensus and decides to delete it. I say overturn and undelete.  Grue  08:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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) --Doc ask? 09:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 cleanup, though).  Grue  12:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.--Doc ask? 13:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. List is 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. Just zis Guy you know? 08:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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.  Grue  09:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Nandesuka 12:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Just zis Guy you know? 12:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, as there was no consenses that this is unverifiable. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 13:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. - brenneman{L} 14:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Keep deleted until a 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. Rossami (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure The close was perfectly called for. --W.marsh 14:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. --W.marsh 14:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Unverifiable, original research. AnnH ♫ 14:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 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. -- JJay 01:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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. Just zis Guy you know? 10:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        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 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. -- JJay 11:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • 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. Just zis Guy you know? 17:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, a link to multimap is not a suitable 'referenced component'. Proto||type 09:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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? -- JJay 20:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Just zis Guy you know? 11:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. -- JJay 16:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14 May 2006

James R. Gillespie and Osbourn Park High School

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James R. Gillespie

Undelete. 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. -- 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. Fan1967 02:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Osbourn Park High School has never been deleted. I endorse the closure of the discussion on the Gillespie page. No verifiable evidence has been offered to rebut those findings. The only "reference" cited in the recreated article was this line - Gillespie, James R. James R. Gillespie: An Autobiography (2006). 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." Rossami (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Xoloz 02:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, unverifiable from reliable sources. WP:NFT. Just zis Guy you know? 08:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - valid action. Metamagician3000 04:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maior (talk • contribs)
  • 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! Mackensen (talk) 03:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Mackensen. I think we're dealing here with a source that has been entirely and totally made up. --Cyde Weys 03:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Mackensen. Naconkantari 03:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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... Rx StrangeLove 03:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Bastique▼parler voir 03:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This debate has been vandalized. Compare the condition of the first two responses in this edit, with their current condition. And the deletion discussion was unanimous, with these sources. Closure in process; delete. Septentrionalis 03:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Votes restored to pre-vandal condition as indicated here: [11]. Bastique▼parler voir 03:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Heavens. I can't believe someone would do that. I apologize to anyone whose credibility I may have impugned the previous evening. Mackensen (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 ([12]) that he claims to have taken himself, but looks like it came from a website. Fan1967 13:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Nlu. --84.131.68.87 23:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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 [13], I have no confidence that they are not copyright violations. --Nlu (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, the blocked user's name is Idontwantanaccountijustwanttocreateapage-isthatsoevil? (talk · contribs). 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. --Nlu (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, the second and the third account were created because of Block vandalism by 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). --84.131.68.87 00:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Rossami (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:NOT: "Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion" - This is democracy... --84.131.94.27 12:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • 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|(talk) 23:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • 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. --84.131.79.59 15:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Xoloz 02:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Just zis Guy you know? 08:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Mills corp

Relist. The {{tfd}} notice was put on Template talk:Mills corp, rather than the template, and as such, 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. --Interiot 04:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist - there's a reason we put the annoying message on the template. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 12:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. ++Lar: t/c 14:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Xoloz 02:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 :). Just another star in the night T | @ | C 04:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

13 May 2006

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Narrow majority for undelete, relisting on AFD has been suggested. --Myles Long 16:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel News Agency

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel news agency

I am uncertain why this article was deleted. Danny's deletion comment is "vanity page by banned user", however it previously easily passed AFD, Google test shows a considerable number of hits. Google News lists it in searches. AFD discussion doesn't appear to have involved sock puppets. IMO, it's no less notable than Wikitruth or Google Watch. I am asking for this to be undeleted. No longer asking for it to be undeleted, but I think that this deletion review is still valuable. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per Danny's comments below, all the stories on the home page carry Joel Lyden's byline including www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediacensorshiplibelslanderisrael880512.html, so I'm guessing this is as described: editorial masquerading as a news service. Functionally indistinguishable from a blog, in other words, and carrying at least some highly questionable content. Deleted articles as created were self-evident spam. Just zis Guy you know? 10:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

myg0t

  • VFD Aug 2004 Delete
  • AFD March 2005 Delete
  • First DRV Overturn and Undelete
  • 2nd AFD May 2006 closed early as the article was deleted

There isn't a CSD that this article falls under so overturn and relist. Kotepho 20:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Deleted. It's been deleted twice before (just in AFDs; check the deletion history and you'll see that something like over 15 different admins have deleted it at various times), and the third (!) AFD was definitely trending towards delete, to say nothing of the subject's unimportance, difficulty of verification, and other such considerations. --maru (talk) contribs 20:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. This article has now been deleted twenty times by over fifteen separate admins and three or four AfDs - which must be some kind of record. Just zis Guy you know? 21:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Deleted per the above. This would be an A7 speedy anyway: being a mild annoyance to online gamers is not an assertation of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted: This thing again? Good heavens, what does it take? I have no idea how the deletion was overturned, don't want to know, but let's just say that getting properly deleted twice ought to be enough for anyone. Remember, authors: the presence of an article on Wikipedia doesn't make something good, and the absence of one doesn't make something bad. Geogre 23:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the presence of an article on Wikipedia doesn't make something good" - if history is of indications, things listed on WP usually become more popular, at least on the internet, which I think is part of the problem. This time around though I'll abstain for now (I was one of the [few] keep deleteds the first time around). Just another star in the night T | @ | C 04:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't we speedy keep deleted or something? Nothing has changed since it was last deleted that would warrant recreation. ~MDD4696 03:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I recommend against that. Several respected editors did support undeletion at the 1st DRV. Though I find the close of it flawed, these editors should be given a chance to speak. Xoloz 04:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per WP:SNOW, if nothing else. I am reluctantly forced to conclude that the 1st DRV (which I somehow missed) came to an inappropriate conclusion. The discussion included several editors apparently drawn to DRV specifically for the purpose of promoting this article; these editors should have been more heavily questioned and possibly discounted. Although the 2nd AfD was improperly closed early in consideration of the 1st DRV, I cannot endorse the closure of the 1st DRV on the merits or on the basis of the record, an uncomfortable position. I'm not sure whether a suggestion to vacate the previous DRV means anything, but that is, in effect, what I support doing. Xoloz 04:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't particularly like the closure of the DRV either, but is it really so much to ask that this get an AFD? It has been over a year since the last one. There is certainly a tiny bit of notability put forth, so I don't think it fits under A7 and since it was recreated after the DRV it does not fit G4. Someone said G1 on the AFD, but that is right out unless the article had been vandalized. Kotepho 05:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and Protect If people keep mucking it up so bad, why don't we just put it back the way it was and close it from being edited? This should have never been allowed to happen. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia.chozo_ninpo 04:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Article was improperly deleted, this time. AfD was closed less than 12 hours after it opened, and the article was speedily deleted for no apparent reason. The votes in the AfD contained both misleading information and outright lies. The administrator that deleted it, mentioned in IRC that he was biased against the group (the subject of the article), and this could have affected his better, NPOV judgement on the wikipedia article itself. It is claimed also that the article was deleted because it was "a giant flamewar", but no requests for page protection had been filed prior to this. The subject was notable, the article NPOV and accurate, well thought out and concieved. Wikipedia will be a better encyclopedia with this article in it. USER-cacophony 05:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed to remove "protect". cacophony 21:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page is being systematically edited. Just minutes ago there were 7 votes for undelete / undelete and protect, now there are two. I call shenannigans, apparently I need to take this to a higher authority, as some people in power are acting irresponsibly. USER-cacophony 05:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repost and Lock This comment is now EDITED: Kotepho, whoever you are, I deleted your comment on my box because you called me a new user, when I simply didn't log in. Your comment at that time became irrevolant. Stop changing my posts/vote.chozo_ninpo 04:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to this DrV, I have decided to contact Jimbo Wales on this issue. The administrator in question did not follow proper procedure; A DrV is not necessary if the article was not properly deleted in the first place. Further attempts to personally settle the issue with the administrator proved ineffective - said administrator was unwilling to compromise. USER-cacophony 06:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and allow the AFD to continue - IMO, notability was established, or, at the very least is disputable, and thus, it should not have been speedied as non-notable. I have no doubt that if the AFD continues, the article will (and should) be deleted, but that alone is not a criterion for a speedy. BigDT 06:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete For reasons pointed out by User:USER-cacophony above. OverlordQ 10:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete as per VFU. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 12:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete possibly with protection or semi-protection. notable. Modest Genius talk 15:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - for those requesting "protection", what exactly is it you are hoping to achieve? "Protection" wouldn't stop an administrator from (correctly or incorrectly) deleting it again. It would only stop the article from being edited. As it is all but certain that any undeletion would only result in a continuation of the previously aborted AFD, protection would do nothing except stopping you from improving the article in hopes of convincing the community that it should stay. BigDT 17:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm confident the content of article isn't the reason many people want it deleted - rather, the subject of it is what people dislike. Improving the article won't help, nobody has complained about the content of it. I agree with you, that it seems pointless to undelete, when people will immediately file an AfD soon afterwards, but we have to try. We have to try to make wikipedia a better and more informative encyclopedia, by filing DrV's, even if it's a lost cause. USER-cacophony 21:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other Comment - personally, I don't think that articles like this belong here - call it an interpretation of Wikipedia:Deny recognition, call it WP is not a soapbox, call it vanity, or call it notability - I just don't think it belongs here. HOWEVER, that is moot as far as this DRV goes. The ONLY question is whether the article should have been speedied. In my view, it should not have been. BigDT 17:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - myg0t already satisfied the notability requirement, see the last VfD - A group that has recived either mention or featuring in 3 international magazine publications and 2 major news outlets is notable enough for wikipedia. As such, Wikipedia:Deny recognition does not apply - the group in question already has fame/notoreity, so the claim that they are using wikipedia solely to promote themselves is a moot point. The only reason one would even see this page anyways, was if they saw mention of the group, and decided to visit wikipedia to find out what it was - something that the user couldn't do if this article is kept deleted. USER-cacophony 18:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and Protect Admin must delete page according to wiki policy rather than on his own opinions. Admin Marudubshinki was not impartial Sittinsideways 13:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted: History of article indicates unsuitability for Wikipedia coverage. Stephen B Streater 21:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • UNDELETE & UNPROTECT GUYZ KEEP IN MIND THAT myg0t HAD LOTZ OF ENEMIES WHO CHANGE THE ARTICLE TO THINGZ LIKE "OMG MYGOT R FAGZ". IN A CASE LIEK THIS U CANT RELY ON THE PREVIOUS DELETIONS. THE ARTICLE THIS TIME WAS MADE SERIOUSLY BY BLOCKY, A REAL MEMBER OF myg0t. ANY PERSON WHO Is CURIOUS TO THE HISTORY OF myg0t WOULD ENJOY READING THE ARTICLE JUST AS MUCH AS SOMEONE INTERSTED IN LEARNING ABOUT CULT_OF_THE_DEAD_COW, THE Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America OR L0pht — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.204.246 (talk • contribs)
    • I think we'd worked out that this self-aggrandizing bullshit was written by a member, thanks, not least because of the complete lack of any evidence that anyone other than members is even remotely interested. Just zis Guy you know? 23:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have anything to prove this? Please reply. USER-cacophony 01:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I resent that comment. I have never had anything to do with them (except being annoyed by one on a server once), but I'm still interested. myg0t are a notable group and there should be an article on them so members of the public who come across the name can find out what is being talked about. Besides, proper policy was not followed. 'It's been deleted before' is no defence. Modest Genius talk 00:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. I'd suggest closing this before it becomes a sockfest. Mackensen (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bit too late for that, I'm afraid, but all of those quasi-literate socks are making the deletion case most eloquently. The total unfamiliarity with Wikipedia shown by "undelete and protect" kind of highlights the fact that these are nonce accounts. Assumptions that there is some kind of enemy group at work betrays a web-blindness that undermines any claims they make about notability and importance. The presence of a Wikipedia article doesn't make something good, and the absence of an article doesn't make something bad. It's just an encyclopedia and a lousy advertising medium. --Geogre 02:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you assume there is some kind of "enemy group" at work? 166.127.1.201 12:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Geogre: only you could use the word "nonce" and expect people to understand it. :) --maru (talk) contribs 03:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least it's a small word. Usually, I get in trouble for saying things like, "the proliferation of mediocrity is not its own excuse, nor is the absence of a quality any obviation of the need for that quality." Is it worth explaining to the IPer that the sentence didn't say that I thought there was an enemy group but rather that his fellow anonymous cowards did? Nah. Geogre 14:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still vote Undelete and Protect We can sit here and argue back and forth about levels of intelligence until the internet overloads and goes into safe mode. All humor aside, several well respected authors made the decision to undelete myg0t for a reason. Now we have people re-deleting the article and basically saying, "I'm the only one who's opinion matters." This is not how things are supposed to be done here, as you can see by a few of the posts above mine people are agreeing that the quick deletion and closure of a deletion review within 12 hours due to one mans discretion was a very poor decision. This in itself is not only unfair, but suggests that wiki authors can edit or delete any information as they see fit. So what, an evening of Battlefield 2 was ruined for you. Now you have to abuse powers that were given to you in the assumption you would be unbiased just to prove some kind of point. myg0t will not die out because wiki won't put us in there, but the rightful users have a right to know the information that was origionally posted. The accuracy was 100%, with no extra fodder clogging up the article. IMHO the PROTECT that has been requested is so that people that dislike the group cannot vandalize the article. We liked what was posted, and would have prefered it to stay that way. chozo_ninpo 4:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be assuming I'd interacted with myg0t before. This is not true. I don't play any online games, so I could never have encountered them. --maru (talk) contribs 07:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Two off-hand mentions in niche periodicals aren't enough to make one of the thousands of self-described "big-name" game-related clans out there an encyclopedic topic, especially since neither of those provide enough verifiable information for an article. --Aquillion 08:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The group has been mentioned and/or featured in three international publications, including rolling stone magazine, and its actions have been the topic of news stories in two international news sources (CNN and BBC). USER-cacophony 08:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you get title, date, author, etc for those mentions? People don't seem to have that information even for the mentions in gaming magazines that people have taken pictures of. Kotepho 22:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The important issue to realize here is that myg0t wants an open forum where the deletion can be discussed. If it is found that an AFD or whatever you call it has a majority agreement that we are undeserving of a page, then that's that.
What myg0t wants is of no concern. Whether the article should be here is something we decide, not the subject.
What myg0t wants is democracy. Your act of speedy delete is completely contrary to the idea of a democratic vote. If you feel it is your place to decide what is acceptable on Wikipedia based solely on 5 hours of off-peak comments then you are, for all intents and purposes, not a fan of democracy.
Well, that's too bad. WP:NOT a democracy. --Rory096 04:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do you expect to claim ANTI-CENSORSHIP when you keep deleting the article (which was written professionally) simply because you can't see past your own nose? Ask anyone that plays online games. myg0t is well known to MILLIONS, and that's not on a national scale, that's on a global scale. Games included are anything STEAM related, Silkroad Online, the UNREAL series, Live for Speed 1 and 2, the complete DEER HUNTER series, Halo2 (XboX Live), the Battlefield Series, All Blizzard Games (WOW, D2, SC, WC3, etc.), the QUAKE series, the DOOM series, Anarchy Online, The Lounge (Which is still in BETA), CHURCH OF FOOLS was obliterated and reconstructed due to myg0t as was HABBO HOTEL. Chat invasions include: Any and All IRC channels, Vent channels, Teamspeak servers, MSN, YAHOO, AIM. More forums than you could ever go to in a lifetime have myg0t mentioned in them. This online group is feared all over the internet. Anyone seeking information on this group should absolutely be allowed to gain as much knowledge about them as possible. Negating any online rumors with FACT. PROVEN FACT, the [myg0t] tag is an instant BAN on literally hundreds of thousands of ANTI-CHEAT programs. So the question being asked, "Is myg0t well known enough for a wiki article?" Answer? "You bet your ass." --chozo_ninpo 12:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prior AFD's should have no bearing on current AFD's. The fact that an article has, in the past, been deleted is by no means a reason for it to be deleted again in the present. The very fact that you can petition for an undeletion is a testament to this basic premise. I will reiterate: prior consensus to delete should have no bearing on current deletion as long as the previous problems were addressed. In the case of myg0t, the problems were ones of notability and vanity. These were both deemed to be acceptable by Wikipedia standards in the March 2006 deletion review. Notability, as we can all agree, cannot decrease as time goes on. Relevancy, sure. Notability cannot. myg0t is notable for their period in history. Vanity was also established to not be an issue in the March 2006 review. The article that was deleted was an informative article, contained a neutral point of view, and had information that was true about a group that was relevant and had already established itself in the public's eye. None of these fall under what anyone would consider a reason to delete due to vanity any more than any other page on Wikipedia.
The existence of the undeletion process is a recognition mistakes can be made. Nothing more. Or are you suggesting two AFDs (and a third that was going to close as Delete before I made it moot) were both wrong? Once is coincidence, twice is enemy actions, as the saying goes.
How did you now the AFD was going to be wrong? Or that it was going to close as Delete? There was only *5* hours between the AFD and your Speedy. By the time the proponents knew of the AFD the page had already been deleted. OverlordQ 06:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the undeletion process was used and enforced in this case points to the fact that, as you said, a mistake was made. I agree though, once is coincidence and twice is enemy action. The enemy here, of course, is overzealous admins who have a grudge against myg0t, not myg0t itself. The two AFDs were on the basis of notability and vanity, both of which were overturned in the March '06 DR. There is no way to justify a SD on this article except administrative bias.
In the May 13, 2006 AFD which was Speedy Deleted by that maru kid, the groundwork brought forward to enforce a SD were G1 and A7. SD on the grounds of G1 is idiotic to the extreme as the article was coherent and relevant. A7 was addressed in the March 2006 deletion review which ruled in favor of undeletion and reinstatement. A relevant issue is, of course, G4. G4 refers to recreation of deleted material. It quite clearly states that G4 can only be applied if the page is "deleted according to the deletion policy, except if it is ... undeleted per the undeletion policy" which the myg0t article clearly was. Further, even if this were a candidate for G4, it would be ruled out under the fact that the article that was deleted on May 13, 2006 was significantly different from the articles deleted in 2004 and 2005.
I'm no "kid", but at least you got the name right... You place a lot of emphasis on the first DR, which was rather dubious. G4 can be applied to any of the numerous creations and deletions between the first and second AFDs, so it was relevant.
Calm down kiddo, the first DR must have a lot of emphasis placed on it because it was the most recent ruling. You don't use law precedents from the 1500 to rule on cases that are brought forward in 2006. G4 can be applied to many of the creations and deletions between the first and second AFD but, as I stated, cannot be applied to the most recent speedy deletion by you. It is a gross act of glossing over what happened and is plain wrong.
Now, the internet champion who deleted the article most recently, maru, has demonstrates a clear lack of understanding for the criterion that a speedy delete is acceptable under. He has stated at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Myg0t (sorry pals, I don't know how to use your crazy code to link) the following: "Two AFDs is quite enough for a marginal online crufty article." This quote exemplifies both the bias that maru has against myg0t and his inability to enforce Wikipedia's own rules fairly and with consistancy.
Internal links are hardly crazy... they're a lot simpler than HTML links. As for my bias, like all administrators, I am indeed biased against stuff that does not belong on Wikipedia. You don't show any evidence of inconsistency, and I think my deletion was eminently fair; at the very least, you must admit that any unfairness of mine is not at all transparent and obvious. Look at the votes on this page to see what I mean.
I'm not familiar with your Wikipedia editing system. I've only spent 30 minutes looking into your rules and regulations on deletions, I'm not too concerned about how your page formats. I don't much care for the myg0t article, despite being in myg0t. What I do care about is people who claim to be impartial and democratic going against all tenets of those two ideals. The inconsistancy is between you and what the Wikipedia guidelines for speedy deletion are. You clearly did not follow them and are, hence, being inconsistant. The votes on this page are moot in regards for the AFD, as this is a DR. If you want opinions on an AFD then you should have let the AFD go for more than 5 hours before closing it. You knew myg0t would win that AFD and you moved quickly to SD under false pretenses.
This vote should not even be happening as it is clear that the administrators must weigh in favor of myg0t and undelete the page. After the page is undeleted an AFD can be put forward or the one that is already opened can be continued without impartial activism by some Wikipedia admin that got raged by myg0t. As it stands, a speedy deletion cannot be explained under any circumstance and is entirely unacceptable. - [myg0t]NWA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.89.77 (talk • contribs)
Impartial activism? As I told some other fellows, I don't play online games, so I've never been "raged" by myg0t. --maru (talk) contribs 17:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
myg0t does not operate only in online games. More importantly however, impartial activism doesn't mean that you've had a run-in with myg0t before. It simply means that you should never have taken a look at the issue in the first place because you are, as you yourself have said, biased against articles you think shouldn't be on Wikipedia. You have already admitted to being biased against myg0t. You appear to operate under the same ideals as Judge Dredd where you are judge, jury, and executioner. Unfortunately for you, you underestimated myg0t in this case. While you may be the judge and executioner, we shall see what the jury has to say. - [myg0t]NWA
  • Undelete and Protect - It's good to know that administrator's here don't have to follow the rules and can just arbitrarily delete articles without any good reason. We fought for this article for over a year to become undeleted, and when we finally get a united Wiki-community consensus that we should be allowed to stay, some renegade admin deletes us without any merit. There shouldn't be any discussion, the article should stay up. --InfiniteIdeals
  • Undelete and de-admin anyone who deletes it again. This is fucking ridiculous, it was undeleted on DRV just one month ago. Suddenly it gets AfD'd yet again, and speedy deleted in violation of WP:CSD. Rhobite 20:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Restore. Deletion appears to have been out of process (speedied as recreation of deleted content that was overturned on DRV?). Plus, WP:DP says: "If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this should be seen as evidence for the need for an article." Good enough for me. An article on this group doesn't hurt Wikipedia at all, although the repeated removals certainly seem to be doing so. Powers 21:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted This article was deleted for very good reason, several times, to be exact. There is no reason to exhume it. Denni ☯ 21:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore. Completely asinine that this continually gets deleted. I rarely agree with Rhobite, but he's absolutely right here, any admin who continually deletes this should be brought into question. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - As I mentioned in the previous VFU - They are actually quite notable within the counter-strike community. A lot of people know of the myg0t "play style" and what they're philosphy is. However, I really doubt we'd be able to get any kind of properly sourced article there, so I'm not actually that bothered whether it's deleted or not. As I mentioned before, it's not like they're SK Gaming is it? - Hahnchen 21:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Why won't this die? It's trollbait and luring throwaway accounts into votestacking. Isopropyl 22:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - We need a page where people who don't know of myg0t can refer to, I agree this page does further publicize the group but that can't be avoided. It appears people only want this deleted because they have a dislike for the group which is their sole purpose. I think it should be semi-protected too. It seems silly there's pages like GNAA and List of shock sites articles and people are protesting this.--Andeee 07:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Nineteen84 18:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Undelete - A conversation with Marudubshinki (admin who deleted the article) in wikipedia IRC revealed that he was, in fact, a myg0t rage victim:[reply]

User's ninth edit. Note that nothing I said in IRC (incidentally, are you aware it's considered bad form to quote stuff from #Wikipedia, or to log it?) actually supports Nineteen84's assertion. --maru (talk) contribs 19:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why Marudubshinki is acting so defensive? cacophony 20:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the quotes show nothing, but why is logging IRC considered bad form? that doesnt make any sense to me... Modest Genius talk 22:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, maybe maru is behaving "defensive"ly as you suggest because all of you myg0tters are attacking him unjustifiably? IRC logging is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and can be interpreted as a copyright violation, as well. Keep deleted, valid admin decision. And Wikipedia is not a democracy. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In case you haven't noticed, I'm not attacking him at all, but if you want to be litigious, it's actually not a copyright violation at all, as public speech on a public, open network is classified as fair use. cacophony 02:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the log snippets. Please read the blurb at the top of this page. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 01:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb noted. However, I have been unable to find a justification for that policy, care to point me in the direction of one? It seems a little strange that postings to a publically viewable IRC channel should be prohibited from further disemination. Oh and the policy clearly states that the relevant punishment for breaking the policy is banning from the channel(s) (or death by elephant), not censure on wikipedia itself. Modest Genius talk 12:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In case you haven't noticed, there has only been one AfD since the article was restored in accordance with public consensus, and it was prematurely closed, and the article speedied with no CSD, which is why this vote is here. cacophony 02:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, it is time to move on. I find it ironic though that you would claim "its [sic] time to move on" while petitioning for removal Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Myg0t. Interesting how you haven't "moved on." Let's move on though, and undelete and relist or whatever it is you people do here when your rules are broken. -[myg0t]NWA
  • Undelete and *sigh* send back to AFD. After reviewing both AFDs, the old DRV, this (awful) DRV, and the deleted article, I still find that the only claim to notability is a half-column in a PC gaming magazine and a picure caption(!) in another. Since there's a munged speedy delete, a munged AFD, and a munged DRV (munged because the old one got tangled up in rehashing the debate), we need to kick this one over to AFD and actually hash out whether this is a good enough claim to notability or not. I hate to feed the trolls, here, but the place to debate the relative encyclopedic quality of an article is on AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget the article in rolling stone magazine. cacophony 19:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can take the unusual step of applying sprot to the AfD to reduce the inevitable sock infestation. Just zis Guy you know? 09:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. The attention is just because it has attracted a lot of newly-registered users; we frequently see equally large groups of meatpuppets and sockpuppets for other non-notable web forums, clans, and webpages. Simply having a few hundred (or even a few thousand) people reading a forum doesn't automatically make a subject encyclopedic, not even if they're all directed to go to the AfD or DR and vote on it. Having every single member of Myg0t or whatever comment here, in other words, can result in an exceedingly long page but isn't going to do anything to get the article kept. --Aquillion 12:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As opposed to you telling all your friends to come here and vote against it? (If you can make unfounded assumptions, so can I.) cacophony 00:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well the alexa.com link I posted above showed how many users visit there site..--|«Andeh?»|Talk? 13:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, their site does not get many visitors. It is not even regularly in the top 300k sites in terms of popularity, which means perhaps 1000 visitors on a good day. +sj + 14:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Not notable, almost no independently verifiable content; would never be more than a stub; the only gaming articles about them are also created via active PR by the group, as was this one, and they're actively trying to game the system [above]. Which isn't surprising, all things considered. +sj + 14:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, you're assuming that every new user here is a myg0ter? That seems somewhat presumptuous Modest Genius talk 14:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't really anyway to tell if a user here is a myg0t..--|«Andeh?»|Talk? 05:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing comments: In general, DRV decisions are decided solely by vote count with the only discretion being removal of votes from entirely new users. My count put this at 14 to undelete/relist and 17 to keep deleted. There is a very real complicating factor however, namely a previous DRV just one month ago which produced a majority to undelete this very same article, and speedy deleting this again and demanding another DRV decision might appear to encourage deletion by attrition on DRV (i.e. keep deleting things until a DRV debate finally fails to produce a majority to undelete.) That appears to be a very valid concern expressed by Rhobite among others. Nonetheless, my view is that this is not the case here. A look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myg0t shows a strong consensus to delete and will therefore declare this deletion as endorsed. I will express my opinion that using the deletion summary "sayanora" on something as controversial as this is not very helpful. If you delete something speedily, make sure that you have a point in the criteria which backs it up and note that G4 does not apply for things undeleted through DRV. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

12 May 2006

Ryan Rider and BJG

Both are profiles of members of a major radio show in the wrestling community and profiles of the main people involved including myself should be included in the encyclopedia. If not, I would at least like to obtain the text written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanrider (talk • contribs)

  • Endorse deletion without prejudice against future creation of an encyclopaedia article whihc is not an autobiography or vanity page. Just zis Guy you know? 09:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.) Xoloz 16:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion (with prejudice towards recreation) of Ryan Rider. It violates WP:AUTO, easily meets 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. --Rory096 16:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja

I am moving this from the proposed deletion section since this webcomic went through AFD rather than PROD. Here is the full text of his original request:

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja, undelete request by PHDrillSergeant. This web comic has grown in poularity since the last time it was deleted through AFD, and although the site's archive has 'only three entries', each of those entries has about 20-40 pages, which adds up to over 100 pages total including the current storyline. This comic is extremely funny and is important, especially one who wishes to know more about this odd character and his adventures. I think this comic should get another chance. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 23:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has been recreated so frequently, the article for The Adventures of Dr. McNinja currently exists as a {{deletedpage}}. The relevant AfDs are listed on its talk page. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Two AfDs with strong consensus to delete. Come back when it's syndicated in non-trivial treeware. Just zis Guy you know? 14:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, they should come back when WP:WEB is satisfied. We shouldn't advise people to meet non-required requirements. We do have a criteria to handle webcomics, and physical paper (e.g. "treeware") is not part of it. And that is very deliberate. We do wish to encourage, not discourage contributions that satisfy consensus guidelines. --Rob 07:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that a cartoon which has no presence off the web is rarely notable. It is trivially easy to publish a webcomic. Just zis Guy you know? 09:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Nomination's only claim of new information is that the comic's archive actually comprises 100 pages of text - this is not a compelling claim, to put it mildly. My diary exceeds this length by far, for example. No reason to overturn valid AfDs has been offered. Xoloz 16:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? So why do TIN The Incompetent Ninja, Grim Tales from Down Below, and PowerPuff Girls Doujinshi get their own articles? They are all web comics—with less pages than Dr. McNinja. In other words, What makes Dr. McNinja so inappropriate for Wikipeda, while these others are not? Something seems amiss to me.
Remember, not everything is important to everyone, but some thigns are important to someone. If a good article can be assembled, then I am sure that it, too, can be a good addition to Wikipedia. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 17:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, I am volunteering to write the article. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 17:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of some articles of questionable notability is no reason to include another article of questionable notability. Feel free to nominate TIN The Incompetent Ninja, etc., for deletion if you wish. WP's deletion process is by-design piecemeal, and does not eliminate articles unless they are brought to community attention by CSD, PROD, or AfD tags.
You are welcome to compose any article you wish in your own userspace. After composition, bring it to DRV, and if it satisfies the requirements of WP policy and guidelines (WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:Notability, etc.) it will quickly be posted. Xoloz 17:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Chess, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Funny, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Billion pool, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Trillion pool (and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (13th nomination))

These debeates were closed as keep by sockpuppets of User:Science3456 (the author of two of these pages). —Ruud 00:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. While these MfDs did end in a keep, I think that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Billion pool and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Trillion pool (both created by a sockpuppet of User:Science3456) should be reconsidered in the light of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Quadrillion pool. —Ruud 01:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure of the GNAA one per the obvious reasons, even if the closer voted multiple times (according to the suspected cat). The Chess one seems fine, one delete vote and many keeps from regulars (hasn't this one been discussed before?). /Funny is mostly the same. Relist Trillion and Billion Kotepho 01:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't meant to endorse the actual actions of the closer, just that they had the correct result. If someone wants to strike out the closures and replace them with their own that is fine by me, but I do not see a reason to revisit them (besides the poll ones). Kotepho 16:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the sockpuppetry can be confirmed, a ban is in order. If not, these discussion should never have been closed by users of such inexperience. Speedy-reopen the debates and allow a seasoned administrator to make the call. If the answer comes out the same, fine. But closing deletion discussion is not an appropriate role for a user on his/her first day of logged-in edits. Rossami (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rossami is, of course, correct. Especially because this user has been implicated in sockpuppetry, he is no position to close debates even if they are obvious keeps (and overwhelming keeps are able to be closed by any user in good faith). However, I'd suggest that the outcome in the case of "Funny" and "Chess" is unassailably correct, and any administrator could ratify these closures easily. The close of GNAA, mandated by a de facto ruling of the administrators here and on WP:AN, is appropriate. Billion and Trillion should be Relisted (not reopened, as the debates are now aged, and suspect for puppetry anyway) for new consideration. Xoloz 15:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 May 2006

The following discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Majestic-12_Distributed_Search_Engine

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majestic-12_Distributed_Search_Engine

Well, I am confused as to how to add article for deletion review, apologies for not getting it right from the first attempt, please feel free to edit it to make it inline with format of the page :-/ alexc 00:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: No problem. The formatting is fixed. You still need to give us the rationale behind your request for review. And please don't regurgitate the AFD discussion. Please show what new evidence should be considered that was not available during the discussion or what failure of process you believe occurred. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The request is due to strange situation that even though there is clearly was no consensus for delition of the page, it was actually deleted and provided evidence was completely ignored. I was advised to post here by mediator as it provides opportunity for other admins to have a look over discussion and respond. Talking of new evidence there will be an article published in 3 weeks in a monthly IT UK magazine about the project, for obvious reasons I can't provide link/scan to it since it will be published in 3 weeks. alexc 01:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Only one keep vote from a historied user as far as I can see, and despite multiple input and comments from the creator of the project (alexc, the requester here) I see no evidence to contradict my original nomination - A distributed web crawler project with an Alexa rank of >40,000 - and guess what? Wikipedia is the top site linking in. Currently in alpha. Lots of "aims to", not much "has" Just zis Guy you know? 10:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am speechless. alexc 11:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see why. The evidence you offer above is also "will be". The entire thing has an air of speculation about it. Why not just wait until you've got a released version? It's not like there is a deadline to meet. Wikipedia is not here to promote that which may be notable, it's here to document that which already is. Just zis Guy you know? 14:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have nothing further to say on the subject apart from that I am grateful for providing me with such a valuable experience: as the result of it one of very few policies for us will be that in our project individuals (me or anyone else) won't have such power to decide for others if some web page is worthy to be deleted (effectively censoring information that end users see), unless it is obvious spam or owner requested it. Thank you and goodbye. alexc 18:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Undelete "Only one keep vote from a historied user as far as I can see" - No, there were three KEEP votes from (historical) users. See the votes from User:BarkerJr, User:Nsaa, and User:Zyron. Although I think this article will materialize after a while. In a better and more neutral way with more than one (neutral) external references (in English). I'm a bit confused and a bit angry that this kind of information is deleted. Why? There has been given at least three references to media coverage (although only one/two in English). And then the main reason for deleting it is Notability. My understandig of that concept is weird since I think Majestic-12_Distributed_Search_Engine was notable. I looked up this project when I first read about it in the news (Norwegian Digi.no article). Hoping for some neutral information and different viewpoints (typically for Wikipedia in areas with diverging viewpoints). Now its just deleted by far as I can see some far fetched concepts about notability and not working project (it is in full operation with search possibilities last time I checked the site). Nsaa 22:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry, Alexc: if your hopes for this engine materialize, it will be notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. Wikipedia has to be careful not to provide articles for projects, people, etc. that haven't yet firmly established themselves. You have begun to make a case for notability, but several articles in non-English language nations, and a speculative article in the Guardian don't yet add up to notability in the English-language WP. Coverage in blogs isn't considered reliable, because it is very hard to rate the editorial integrity of a blog. Just interpret this result as a "not yet"; it isn't a "never." For what constitutes "notability", see Wikipedia:Notability; for the nature of what Wikipedia considers reliable sources, see WP:RS. Endorse closure Valid AfD on the basis of evidence provided. Xoloz 15:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Xoloz here. The project seems to have a lot of potential, and is fairly interesting (I might sign up; not like my connection is doing all that much.) But as of right now, it just doesn't seem to be notable enough, and the prospects of future notability aren't enough. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and all that. But in a few months, who knows? --maru (talk) contribs 17:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. While the keep votes were indeed few and mostly from new users, the deletes weren't that numerous either, had little justification beyond "nn, delete", and were mostly made in the beginning of the debate before references were provided and article was improved. As far as I'm concerned, neither side has made a convincing argument nor established consensus — the nomination mostly deteriorated into endless bickering with little substance. In my opinion, with no disrespect to Sam intended, the proper closure under the circumstances would have to have been either "no consensus" or relisting. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn and relist. Essentially I agree with Ilmari Karonen, above. I have the additional to contribute. The Guardian article quoted makes the following statement: "Majestic-12's volunteers - 60 so far - are crawling about 50m pages a day using unlimited broadband connections and software that runs in the background. Over the past few months, 7bn pages have been crawled although, ...". At 7bn pages and a rate of 50m a day, the crawler software its self could be argued as notable, and it could be argued as justifiable to place a reference to it within the Web_crawler page.It would seem strange in that case for ( a toned down ) version of the original article to be regarded as vanity or spam? Lilstevey 17:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore this article, please. --Melancholie 03:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer's comment: The sources provided were addressed in the discussion - I saw no reason to believe that the people who made comments before further posts wilfully disregarded 'new evidence'. And as Guy said, the article itself was all "aims to" and no "has", and even if The Guardian verifies that you "aim to" do something, that isn't a claim to notability. On the other hand, this encyclopaedia is on the Internet, so if something to do with the Internet gets kept - even if, had they been playing guitars instead of crawling websites, the article would have been deleted as 'up-and-coming band, come back when you release your second album' - I can't really do much more than shrug. I wouldn't mind a less... long-winded discussion taking place to get a clearer consensus, whichever way it went. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted) for now. It's premature to have an encyclopedia on this particular topic. Please remember that we are an encyclopedia - a tertiary source by definition. There isn't enough independent material yet on which to base this prospective article. As an encyclopedia, we are in no rush to include content. We have no need to scoop anyone. Reconsider the topic for recreation of the article after it has clearly achieved notability. Rossami (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist for reasons given above. Silensor 22:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist if necessary to obtain a clearer consensus. Yamaguchi先生 22:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Overturn and relist. The original VfD linked to above looks like a 50/50 split, far less than the required majority for deletion. +sj + 07:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.


Recently concluded

2006 May

  1. Automobile manufaturers categories Sent back to CFD. 23:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  2. Naismith Family Contested PROD, restored and sent to AfD. 19:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  3. Philip Sandifer DRV aborted, listed at AfD. 2006-05-26 19:30:22 (UTC) Review
  4. Church of Reality Minimal discussion, but kept deleted on the basis of lack of stated grounds in the nomination. 16:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  5. Azn people in United States Kept deleted unanimously. 16:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  6. AlmightyLOL Kept deleted unanimously. 16:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  7. List of video game collector and special editions By strict "tally", discussion was "tied", 3-3; however, weight of argument tipped in favor of relisting. 16:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  8. User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims Speedy deletion endorsed. 02:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  9. WWE Divas Do New York Keep closure endorsed. 00:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  10. I Like Monkeys, speedy reversed and send to AFD. 20:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  11. Science3456 sockpuppetry AfDs, debates relisted except GNAA. 17:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  12. Structures of the GLA, debate relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structures of the GLA (second nomination) 17:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  13. Prhizzm, undeleted and relisting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prhizzm (second nomination). 17:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  14. List of proper nouns containing a bang This case was complicated by an out-of-process deletion during DRV. In consideration of the consensus afterwards expressed that this out-of-process deletion was in error, article will be relisted afresh at AfD. 03:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  15. Brooks Kubik Undeleted and relisted at AfD for further consideration. 17:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  16. ProgressSoft Undeleted and relisted at AfD for further consideration. 16:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  17. Aww Nigga Kept deleted and protected. 16:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  18. that ass Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  19. Matrixism Status quo (previous deletions and current redirect) endorsed. 03:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  20. Talk:Ancient Roman units of measurement/Hexadecimal metric system Discussion subpage undeleted. 03:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  21. Male Unbifurcated Garment Deletion closure endorsed. 03:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  22. Major power Redirect closure endorsed unanimously. 18:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  23. User:Travb/Tactics of some admins regarding copyright Deletion endorsed. 18:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  24. James R. Gillespie Deletion endorsed. 18:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  25. Longest streets in London Deletion endorsed. 18:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  26. JOIDES Resolution and Chikyu Deletion endorsed. 17:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  27. Template:Mills corp Undeleted and relisted on AfD. 17:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  28. Israel News Agency Undeleted, relisting on AFD has been suggested. 16:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  29. Eminem's enemies Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  30. Cock block Narrow majority, 12-11, favor undeletion and relisting at AfD. 16:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  31. Ryan Rider Userfied. 13:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  32. The Adventures of Dr. McNinja Kept deleted. 2006-05-23 12:18:11 (UTC) Review
  33. myg0t Kept deleted. 2006-05-23 08:06:33 (UTC) Review
  34. Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine relisted to AFD 20:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  35. Category:Sylviidae Accidental deletion, content restored. 19:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  36. Rationales to impeach George W. Bush Closure as merge endorsed unanimously. 16:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  37. DJ Cheapshot, SpyTech Records and 4-Zone (rapper) Speedy deletions endorsed. 16:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  38. The Juggernaut Bitch Kept Deleted. 02:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  39. Thirty Ought Six Deletion endorsed. (Current redirect is unrelated.) 02:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  40. RAD Data Communications Kept deleted. - 12:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  41. Link leak Kpet deleted. - 12:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  42. Conservative Underground Kept deleted. - 11:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  43. Template:Tracker Kept deleted. - 11:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  44. Gordon Cheng - Restored and relisted, now at AfD. - 11:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  45. Category:Wold Newton family members - Close of keep endorsed. - 11:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  46. Ryze - Undeleted and relisted on AFD per consensus. 23:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  47. Jack Berman - Restored history per consensus. 22:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  48. Ghey - kept deleted but protection removed. Redirect target undecided. 22:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  49. CEWC-Cymru - Restored as contested PROD. 03:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  50. Nephew (band) - Mistaken nomination. Kept deleted. No prejudice against creation of a different article at the same title. 03:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  51. Andrew Kepple - Disputed prod, restored and listed to AFD. 03:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  52. Sports betting forum Resotored and stubbed by deleting admin. 07:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  53. YMF-X000A Dreadnought Gundam Closure of "keep" endorsed. 07:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  54. Upfront Rewards Kept deleted and protected. 07:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  55. David Anber Kept deleted. 02:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  56. User_talk:Gomi-no-sensei/archive restored by deleting admin. 02:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  57. Rationales for not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008 Kept deleted and protected. 01:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  58. Willy on Wheels Kept deleted and protected. 01:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  59. Aaron Donahue Kept deleted and protected. 01:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  60. OITC fraud Closure endorsed without prejudice to NPOV article being written. 01:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  61. StarCraft_II Kept deleted and protected against recreation. 01:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  62. Michael Crook Kept deleted. 01:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  63. Dualabs Endorse "non-deletion" outcome but strong objections raised to closer's methods. 00:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  64. VOIPBuster Speedily restored by deleting admin, listed at AfD. 00:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  65. List of people with absolute pitch kept deleted. 21:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  66. Template:Infobox Conditionals never actually deleted but no support for undoing the redirect. 21:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  67. MusE returned to normal editing. 21:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  68. Template:Ifdef kept deleted. 21:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  69. Reverend and The Makers. Relisted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverend and The Makers. 06:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  70. Userbox, Userboxes. Both cross-space redirects restored by a slight 10-8 majority and relisted on WP:RFD. 06:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  71. Global Resource Bank Initiative. Relisted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Resource Bank Initiative. 06:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  72. Cool (African philosophy). Closure endorsed but page already redirects to African aesthetic anyway. 06:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  73. Cajun Nights MUSH Kept deleted unanimously. 00:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  74. Rosario Isasi Closure as keep endorsed unanimously, without prejudice to a future AfD nom. 00:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  75. El kondor pada Speedily restored by deleting admin, listed at AfD. 20:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  76. Futuristic Sex Robotz DRV nomination withdrawn. 23:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  77. Insert Text Redirect restored by unanimous consensus. 22:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  78. Scott Thayer Deletion closure endorsed. 22:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  79. Psittacine Beak and Feather Disease Recreation permitted. 22:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  80. Category:User kon Restored, tho I (Syrthiss) am about to relist it with a cogent explanation at CFD. 22:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review[reply]
  81. List of "All your base are belong to us" external links Deletion endorsed unanimously. 22:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  82. SilentHeroes Different from CSD A4 material, restored and relisted at AFD. 21:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  83. Bands (neck) Restored after copyright problem satisfactorily resolved. 14:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  84. The Amazing Racist Deletion closure endorsed. 13:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  85. User:Avillia/CVU_Politics Restoration permitted after removal of copyrighted material. 13:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  86. Gurunath Keep closure at AfD endorsed unanimously. 13:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  87. Rationales to impeach George W. Bush Relisted for 3rd AfD, after deprecation of prematurely-closed 2nd AfD. 12:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  88. The Game (game), most recent AfD endorsed, page restored. 02:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Review

Recent userbox discussions

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, {{subst:DRVNote}} 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.

Content review

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

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

  • 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. Loom91 08:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

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

History only undeletion

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

  • 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. --Rory096 22:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hazelwood Central High School - This was actually 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. --Rob 15:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decisions to be reviewed

Shortcut

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

 
1.

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

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

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

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

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 December 18}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

4.

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

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 December 18}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 December 18|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

  • Endorse the original closing decision; or
  • Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
  • List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
  • Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
  • Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

  • *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
  • *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
  • *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
  • *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

  • If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
  • If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)

Speedy closes

  • Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
  • Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
  • Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
  • Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".

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

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. All votes to keep the page however were made after most progress had been made. Originally then, the nomination was much more valid, but as the page took shape and it's purpose and scope were better defined, it became a very useful and focused 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 to 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 when it was merely a literal list of titles). 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. Deusfaux 13:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also any comparisons to this being similiar to a list of special edition dvd movies is invalid as the total # of limited edition video games ever released would not equal even one year's worth of "special/limited" edition dvds (which sees nearly every title get such a release.) An easily maintainable list. Deusfaux 13:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Those arguing for deletion did not do so on the basis that the list was incomplete, so their rationales applied to the article as it stood at deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But all those above the first Keep vote did. I dont mean "incomplete" in which titles it included, I mean incomplete as in zero formatting, and <10 titles (names only) all on the same line with zero intro or discussion of what the page was attempting to do. If anything, they were based on the title then, as there was little to no article to vote on. How were they to understand what was trying to be acheieved with the page at that time? I would have nominated it for deletion myself. Deusfaux 14:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Ardric47 03:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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. --Cyde↔Weys 03:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, it ended up on the list at this change. Ardric47 03:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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. --Cyde↔Weys 03:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 (Pokémon test) while the primary reason given for deletion was a lack of reliable sources to support the article. Jester 13:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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'. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Mackensen (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure the precendent of other such articles existing is a very strong argument for keep, IMO.  Grue  14:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Metamagician3000 15:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, but slap a merge tag on there. --Rory096 16:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Xoloz 16:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Dsreyn 16:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete and Relist so we can get this deleted once and for all – forever. --Ezeu 22:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist - some claim to notability and the AfD was very unsatisfactory with only three ... ahem ... "votes". Metamagician3000 01:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. Kimchi.sg 10:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Rory096 08:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that ass

I propose that that ass be Undeleted. 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. Kɔffeedrinksyou 07:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Kɔffeedrinksyou 17:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
"that-ass" as a 2 word phrase: 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. Kɔffeedrinksyou 04:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. D166ER 16:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ancient Roman units of measurement/Hexadecimal metric system

Undeletion requested :

  • Reasons :
  1. User:J. 'mach' wust demanded a speedy delation on 18 May 2006, 09:07 (UTC) with the only justification "Original research".
    However: This criterion applies for articles, not for talk pages.
  2. The administrator Kimchi deleted on 18 May 2006, 14:47 (UTC) by stating: "The result of the debate was speedy deleted as orphaned talk page."
  3. There was no real debate. see archive. Other requests for SD, the same day, obtained at least several motions "Deletion". Not so this request.
  4. This talk page was not an "orphaned talk page". It was related to several other talk pages and mainly to Talk:Hexadecimal foot/Archive 1.

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


Like Septentrionalis explained above, "the talk was being split of" in several sub-pages therefore "talk page[s] corresponding to a non-existent page[s]"
"The deletion was" perhaps not "out of process", however too quick. Excepting User:J. 'mach' wust and Kimchi no one demanded it. -- Paul Martin 19:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse User:Kimchi, I erred.  But in this case:  Who was this A.A. (anonymous administrator), who deleted?  -- Paul Martin 21:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy?  Perhaps, why not.  However, in this case with a REDIRECT in "bonne et due" form.  -- Paul Martin 21:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS.  To be constructive:  If an administrator makes me a REDIRECT to User:Paul Martin/Hexadecimal metric system (including old history),  I can restore this Talk Page with my own local back-ups.
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.
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".
-- Paul Martin 07:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Male Unbifurcated Garment

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Male Unbifurcated Garment
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Male Unbifurcated Garment

Undeletion requested :
Reasons:

  1. This phrase and it's corresponding acronym, "MUG," have been with us at least since the early 90s.
  2. No term exists which even remotely covers the wide variety of unbifurcated garments worn by nearly 40% of the world's male population.
  3. 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.
  4. Numerous and vast errors with respect to "Google Hits" were falsely used in an attempt to discredit the importance of the article.
  5. When I responded with links to appropriately-constructed Google hits which undeniably demonstrated the numbers were well into the millions, my links were deleted.
  6. The vast majority of responses were very poordly reasoned, and merely underscored the lack of knowledge concerning the wide-spread use of this term.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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. Dr1819 19:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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? It is as it always was T | @ | C 19:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Friday (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 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. Just zis Guy you know? 20:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. LjL 20:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --Improv 20:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Fan1967 21:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 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?-- JJay 21:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. JoshuaZ 21:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Endorse closure (keep deleted) for three reasons. 1) I find no process problems in the deletion discussion other than some incivility and a failure to assume good faith. 2) The deleted content more lexical than encyclopedic. It was not an article about kilts, sarongs or dhotis. It was an attempt to define the phrase. 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 reliable sources have been cited verifying the use of this phrase. Rossami (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. Rossami (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see above. Note for 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. -- JJay 21:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. JoshuaZ 22:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. FreplySpang (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Just zis Guy you know? 22:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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". FreplySpang (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. · rodii · 22:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted, original research, no justification that this is a well-used word. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 [17]. 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"). -- JJay 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Just zis Guy you know? 06:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 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. -- JJay 19:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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|(talk) 20:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 [18], 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 [19], museums [20], clothing manufacturers [21], [22] [23], 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. -- JJay 15:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fashion Freedom. Neologistic concept that deserves some mention but doesn't appear worthy of an article of its own at this time. FCYTravis 03:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Unitedroad 07:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Kharb gaurav 12:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Lar.  RasputinAXP  c 12:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 18:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rossami is correct. —Encephalon 23:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - What, this has been deleted because someone didn't like the title? You can always rename the article if you want, you know. - ulayiti (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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... FreplySpang (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

17 May 2006

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. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 21:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Martinp 03:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Just zis Guy you know? 22:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and reopen, I see no reason to speedy delete it. bbx 21:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The page was profoundly unencyclopedic and served no purpose other than stroking the user's apparently bruised ego. -- ChrisO 22:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    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. Ansell Review my progress! 22:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Joe 22:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, Ways how to sink Wikipedia by getting it into legal troubles should at least be discussed off-site. --Pjacobi 22:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Ansell Review my progress! 22:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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...) LordAmeth 22:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's precisely the point. This is not Livejournal, and no 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.--Sean Black 02:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, WP:SNOW. Dr Zak 23:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete invalid speedy delete, A6 applies to articles, not user pages. --W.marsh 23:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 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 ++Lar: t/c 23:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete please it can be healthy to discuss disagreements even legal oriented ones Yuckfoo 00:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Xoloz 00:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What horrid ruleslawering. An attack is an attack.--Sean Black 02:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. - brenneman{L} 03:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Mackensen (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Xoloz 21:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion -- Malformed RfC kept in userspace to allow removal of response from one party. Inappropriate use of userspace. Jkelly 02:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted it, so yeah, keep it in the trash were it belongs.--Sean Black 02:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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–because I know someone will support me! Mackensen (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Trash. --Tony Sidaway 02:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Completely inappropriate page. Chick Bowen 03:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily reopen discussionObject 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. Martinp 03:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Martinp 21:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.--Sean Black 05:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 16:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - what a waste of time! --Doc ask? 07:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 —Phil | Talk 08:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - at best, totally wrongheaded; at worst, malicious; in any event, disruptive. Metamagician3000 08:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Jkelly. AnnH ♫ 08:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Everyking 09:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I recall precedent that says otherwise. But that's your call. Mackensen (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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. Everyking 12:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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. Everyking 12:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • 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. ++Lar: t/c 13:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --Fastfission 12:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if restored, it definitely should be renamed. I went to this page looking for new tactics to learn but was quite disappointed. - Liberatore(T) 15:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Johnleemk | Talk 16:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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 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 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 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. Joe 23:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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. Johnleemk | Talk 03:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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.++Lar: t/c 19:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted - WP:SNOW --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    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 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. Ansell Review my progress! 23:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, see WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 no real chance of surviving a full-term MFD. Angr (t • c) 19:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep deleted, personal attack page which has now been spewed all over WP:ANI. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Friday (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, dammit, whether this was justified or not, WP:SNOW ISN'T POLICY. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Proto||type 10:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Undelete and reopen More process abuse from the usual wikipedia admins, in more ways than one. --WheresYerHelicopterNoo 10:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"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). - Ta bu shi da yu 15:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Vadder 17:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Friday (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. ++Lar: t/c 19:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Friday (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 Cyde's talk page then having had no response to 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 my talk page. Cyde later replied on his 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. Ian3055 23:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and rename per local usage. Manifestly improper close, ignoring WP:Consensus to start the useless thing, an Anglo-American language dispute. Septentrionalis 04:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. — May. 12, '06 [22:04] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Note that the industry trade body is called the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and of course a Motor manufacturer produces more than Engines. Ian3055 12:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What a confusingly named organization. — May. 15, '06 [07:44] <freakofnurxture|talk>
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. Just zis Guy you know? 12:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major power

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major power

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

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. Martinp 02:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - well within reasonable admin discretion. Metamagician3000 02:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure The redirect result deleted nothing: all information is still available in the history. Closure of the debate was well within discretion. Xoloz 02:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 original research into Great power. I followed process as close as I can, and I think that was more than fair. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. BigDT 05:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, can't think of any other sensible way of closing this one, and as pointed out above it's not actually deleted. Petros471 09:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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? Just zis Guy you know? 09:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Trip: The Light Fantastic 15:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 reliable sources demonstrating that these categorizations are widely accepted, they are free to rewrite the article with WP:NPOV descriptions and proper citations. Barno 19:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This series of articles is highly problematic. Getting rid of this one was a good start. 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. ACamposPinho1:58, 18 May 2006

16 May 2006

Cock block

User:Doc_glasgow closed the 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. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. --Doc ask? 10:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --Philosophus T 01:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Metamagician3000 01:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete - deletion in this instance was not justified. Silensor 02:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted) but without prejudice against a temporary undeletion for 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. 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.) Rossami (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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? BigDT 05:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete, it was an unjustified deletion. bbx 06:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Just zis Guy you know? 09:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Proto||type 11:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete doesn't look like dicdef, and AfD result confirms that.  Grue  11:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. I'm having a hard time even seeing the potential for an actual article, and it's already been transwiki'ed. --Calton | Talk 11:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 :). It is as it always was T | @ | C 12:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete. Deletion was unjustified in this case. --Myles Long 13:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --Tony Sidaway 17:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So the way to deal with poorly written articles is to delete them, now? I don't find that logic encouraging, unfortunately. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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. --Tony Sidaway 00:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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." --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Vslashg (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse cruft block. When/if 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and undelete this please it is a notable subject we should document Yuckfoo 00:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.). -Silence 00:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per User:Tony Sidaway. Jkelly 02:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Tony Sidaway. Naconkantari 03:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Everyking 09:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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." Geogre 12:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Thryduulf 13:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist per Silence, the subject is viable. Yamaguchi先生 22:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. Thryduulf 08:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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, 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. Joe 19:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and delete clear consensus to delete, article not encyclopedic (wikipedia is not a game guide). --InShaneee 19:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Martinp 21:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. Joe 21:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Arguments per policy were strongly in favour of deletion, arguments for keep mostly amount to arm-waving. Just zis Guy you know? 21:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. It's not a vote, etc. - brenneman{L} 01:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per InShaneee. At the very least, they need to be merged into one or at the most three articles. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 04:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per JzG. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 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. Metamagician3000 12:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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". BigDT 05:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. Metamagician3000 10:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Xoloz 17:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(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. Martinp 02:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. TomStar81 05:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. BigDT 05:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete as per the above. WP:NOR is non-negotiable. Proto||type 11:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. ++Lar: t/c 13:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)... Joe 19:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per InShaneee. Naconkantari 03:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I agree with Xoloz here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Metamagician3000 04:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 (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 (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.  OZLAWYER  talk  14:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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. Just zis Guy you know? 18:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and Relist at AFD since substantial new information is available. JoshuaZ 17:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Xoloz 19:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete/relist at AfD per JoshuaZ and Xoloz. This likely should have been relisted in any case; I don't know that one could find a consensus in the minimal debate that occurred.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.) Joe 20:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, don't relist, and admit we were wrong. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist given weak AfD consensus. --Ezeu 22:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per above. With improvement, it will be able to meet the independent coverage criterion. --Rob 08:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist: per Xoloz and JoshuaZ --David.Mestel 17:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Metamagician3000 02:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist per Xoloz and JoshuaZ, we made a mistake here. Silensor 02:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per JzG. Ardenn 03:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist Borderline
  • Endorse deletion per JzG. OhNoitsJamieTalk 07:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete this please it should be improved instead Yuckfoo 00:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. · rodii · 12:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.  Grue  12:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested to hear the closer's reasoning as well - I left a message on Tawker's talk page. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.--WilliamThweatt 14:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn there was definately a consensus to delete here. Not sure how the admin arrived at that descision. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 14:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. BigDT 16:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. LjL 17:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse decision, AFD came to a very reasonable outcome. This is a perfectly reasonable article and I can imagine it being quite useful. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please present a plausible hypothetical situation in which it would be useful? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Branding research, e.g. tracking companies or films that employ an exclamation point vs. ones that don't. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.) Johnleemk | Talk 18:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Xoloz 19:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 keeps nor the deletes make a prima facie case, we ought to relist. Joe 19:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 actually have bangs in them or not, or whether saying they have a bang is neutral, it's just... useless. That's all AfD can say about lists most of the time. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist this please it can be used for branding research like suggested Yuckfoo 00:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 -- Tawker 01:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taking another look at the discussion above I've relisted -- Tawker 02:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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). Proto||type 09:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Xoloz 17:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Proto||type 11:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting, after reading about its relisting above, was not appropriate. Undeleted; please relist if you want to revisit the issue. +sj + 14:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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, Doc glasgow ignores the lack of consensus and decides to delete it. I say overturn and undelete.  Grue  08:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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) --Doc ask? 09:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 cleanup, though).  Grue  12:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.--Doc ask? 13:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. List is 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. Just zis Guy you know? 08:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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.  Grue  09:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Nandesuka 12:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Just zis Guy you know? 12:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, as there was no consenses that this is unverifiable. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 13:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. - brenneman{L} 14:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Keep deleted until a 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. Rossami (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure The close was perfectly called for. --W.marsh 14:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. --W.marsh 14:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Unverifiable, original research. AnnH ♫ 14:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 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. -- JJay 01:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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. Just zis Guy you know? 10:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        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 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. -- JJay 11:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • 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. Just zis Guy you know? 17:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, a link to multimap is not a suitable 'referenced component'. Proto||type 09:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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? -- JJay 20:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Just zis Guy you know? 11:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. -- JJay 16:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14 May 2006

James R. Gillespie and Osbourn Park High School

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James R. Gillespie

Undelete. 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. -- 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. Fan1967 02:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Osbourn Park High School has never been deleted. I endorse the closure of the discussion on the Gillespie page. No verifiable evidence has been offered to rebut those findings. The only "reference" cited in the recreated article was this line - Gillespie, James R. James R. Gillespie: An Autobiography (2006). 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." Rossami (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Xoloz 02:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, unverifiable from reliable sources. WP:NFT. Just zis Guy you know? 08:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - valid action. Metamagician3000 04:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maior (talk • contribs)
  • 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! Mackensen (talk) 03:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Mackensen. I think we're dealing here with a source that has been entirely and totally made up. --Cyde Weys 03:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Mackensen. Naconkantari 03:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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... Rx StrangeLove 03:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Bastique▼parler voir 03:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This debate has been vandalized. Compare the condition of the first two responses in this edit, with their current condition. And the deletion discussion was unanimous, with these sources. Closure in process; delete. Septentrionalis 03:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Votes restored to pre-vandal condition as indicated here: [24]. Bastique▼parler voir 03:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Heavens. I can't believe someone would do that. I apologize to anyone whose credibility I may have impugned the previous evening. Mackensen (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 ([25]) that he claims to have taken himself, but looks like it came from a website. Fan1967 13:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Nlu. --84.131.68.87 23:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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 [26], I have no confidence that they are not copyright violations. --Nlu (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, the blocked user's name is Idontwantanaccountijustwanttocreateapage-isthatsoevil? (talk · contribs). 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. --Nlu (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, the second and the third account were created because of Block vandalism by 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). --84.131.68.87 00:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Rossami (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:NOT: "Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion" - This is democracy... --84.131.94.27 12:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • 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|(talk) 23:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • 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. --84.131.79.59 15:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Xoloz 02:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Just zis Guy you know? 08:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Mills corp

Relist. The {{tfd}} notice was put on Template talk:Mills corp, rather than the template, and as such, 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. --Interiot 04:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist - there's a reason we put the annoying message on the template. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 12:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. ++Lar: t/c 14:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Xoloz 02:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 :). Just another star in the night T | @ | C 04:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

13 May 2006

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Narrow majority for undelete, relisting on AFD has been suggested. --Myles Long 16:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel News Agency

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel news agency

I am uncertain why this article was deleted. Danny's deletion comment is "vanity page by banned user", however it previously easily passed AFD, Google test shows a considerable number of hits. Google News lists it in searches. AFD discussion doesn't appear to have involved sock puppets. IMO, it's no less notable than Wikitruth or Google Watch. I am asking for this to be undeleted. No longer asking for it to be undeleted, but I think that this deletion review is still valuable. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per Danny's comments below, all the stories on the home page carry Joel Lyden's byline including www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediacensorshiplibelslanderisrael880512.html, so I'm guessing this is as described: editorial masquerading as a news service. Functionally indistinguishable from a blog, in other words, and carrying at least some highly questionable content. Deleted articles as created were self-evident spam. Just zis Guy you know? 10:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

myg0t

  • VFD Aug 2004 Delete
  • AFD March 2005 Delete
  • First DRV Overturn and Undelete
  • 2nd AFD May 2006 closed early as the article was deleted

There isn't a CSD that this article falls under so overturn and relist. Kotepho 20:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Deleted. It's been deleted twice before (just in AFDs; check the deletion history and you'll see that something like over 15 different admins have deleted it at various times), and the third (!) AFD was definitely trending towards delete, to say nothing of the subject's unimportance, difficulty of verification, and other such considerations. --maru (talk) contribs 20:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. This article has now been deleted twenty times by over fifteen separate admins and three or four AfDs - which must be some kind of record. Just zis Guy you know? 21:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Deleted per the above. This would be an A7 speedy anyway: being a mild annoyance to online gamers is not an assertation of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted: This thing again? Good heavens, what does it take? I have no idea how the deletion was overturned, don't want to know, but let's just say that getting properly deleted twice ought to be enough for anyone. Remember, authors: the presence of an article on Wikipedia doesn't make something good, and the absence of one doesn't make something bad. Geogre 23:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the presence of an article on Wikipedia doesn't make something good" - if history is of indications, things listed on WP usually become more popular, at least on the internet, which I think is part of the problem. This time around though I'll abstain for now (I was one of the [few] keep deleteds the first time around). Just another star in the night T | @ | C 04:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't we speedy keep deleted or something? Nothing has changed since it was last deleted that would warrant recreation. ~MDD4696 03:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I recommend against that. Several respected editors did support undeletion at the 1st DRV. Though I find the close of it flawed, these editors should be given a chance to speak. Xoloz 04:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per WP:SNOW, if nothing else. I am reluctantly forced to conclude that the 1st DRV (which I somehow missed) came to an inappropriate conclusion. The discussion included several editors apparently drawn to DRV specifically for the purpose of promoting this article; these editors should have been more heavily questioned and possibly discounted. Although the 2nd AfD was improperly closed early in consideration of the 1st DRV, I cannot endorse the closure of the 1st DRV on the merits or on the basis of the record, an uncomfortable position. I'm not sure whether a suggestion to vacate the previous DRV means anything, but that is, in effect, what I support doing. Xoloz 04:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't particularly like the closure of the DRV either, but is it really so much to ask that this get an AFD? It has been over a year since the last one. There is certainly a tiny bit of notability put forth, so I don't think it fits under A7 and since it was recreated after the DRV it does not fit G4. Someone said G1 on the AFD, but that is right out unless the article had been vandalized. Kotepho 05:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and Protect If people keep mucking it up so bad, why don't we just put it back the way it was and close it from being edited? This should have never been allowed to happen. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia.chozo_ninpo 04:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Article was improperly deleted, this time. AfD was closed less than 12 hours after it opened, and the article was speedily deleted for no apparent reason. The votes in the AfD contained both misleading information and outright lies. The administrator that deleted it, mentioned in IRC that he was biased against the group (the subject of the article), and this could have affected his better, NPOV judgement on the wikipedia article itself. It is claimed also that the article was deleted because it was "a giant flamewar", but no requests for page protection had been filed prior to this. The subject was notable, the article NPOV and accurate, well thought out and concieved. Wikipedia will be a better encyclopedia with this article in it. USER-cacophony 05:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed to remove "protect". cacophony 21:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page is being systematically edited. Just minutes ago there were 7 votes for undelete / undelete and protect, now there are two. I call shenannigans, apparently I need to take this to a higher authority, as some people in power are acting irresponsibly. USER-cacophony 05:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repost and Lock This comment is now EDITED: Kotepho, whoever you are, I deleted your comment on my box because you called me a new user, when I simply didn't log in. Your comment at that time became irrevolant. Stop changing my posts/vote.chozo_ninpo 04:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to this DrV, I have decided to contact Jimbo Wales on this issue. The administrator in question did not follow proper procedure; A DrV is not necessary if the article was not properly deleted in the first place. Further attempts to personally settle the issue with the administrator proved ineffective - said administrator was unwilling to compromise. USER-cacophony 06:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and allow the AFD to continue - IMO, notability was established, or, at the very least is disputable, and thus, it should not have been speedied as non-notable. I have no doubt that if the AFD continues, the article will (and should) be deleted, but that alone is not a criterion for a speedy. BigDT 06:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete For reasons pointed out by User:USER-cacophony above. OverlordQ 10:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete as per VFU. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 12:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete possibly with protection or semi-protection. notable. Modest Genius talk 15:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - for those requesting "protection", what exactly is it you are hoping to achieve? "Protection" wouldn't stop an administrator from (correctly or incorrectly) deleting it again. It would only stop the article from being edited. As it is all but certain that any undeletion would only result in a continuation of the previously aborted AFD, protection would do nothing except stopping you from improving the article in hopes of convincing the community that it should stay. BigDT 17:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm confident the content of article isn't the reason many people want it deleted - rather, the subject of it is what people dislike. Improving the article won't help, nobody has complained about the content of it. I agree with you, that it seems pointless to undelete, when people will immediately file an AfD soon afterwards, but we have to try. We have to try to make wikipedia a better and more informative encyclopedia, by filing DrV's, even if it's a lost cause. USER-cacophony 21:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other Comment - personally, I don't think that articles like this belong here - call it an interpretation of Wikipedia:Deny recognition, call it WP is not a soapbox, call it vanity, or call it notability - I just don't think it belongs here. HOWEVER, that is moot as far as this DRV goes. The ONLY question is whether the article should have been speedied. In my view, it should not have been. BigDT 17:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - myg0t already satisfied the notability requirement, see the last VfD - A group that has recived either mention or featuring in 3 international magazine publications and 2 major news outlets is notable enough for wikipedia. As such, Wikipedia:Deny recognition does not apply - the group in question already has fame/notoreity, so the claim that they are using wikipedia solely to promote themselves is a moot point. The only reason one would even see this page anyways, was if they saw mention of the group, and decided to visit wikipedia to find out what it was - something that the user couldn't do if this article is kept deleted. USER-cacophony 18:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and Protect Admin must delete page according to wiki policy rather than on his own opinions. Admin Marudubshinki was not impartial Sittinsideways 13:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted: History of article indicates unsuitability for Wikipedia coverage. Stephen B Streater 21:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • UNDELETE & UNPROTECT GUYZ KEEP IN MIND THAT myg0t HAD LOTZ OF ENEMIES WHO CHANGE THE ARTICLE TO THINGZ LIKE "OMG MYGOT R FAGZ". IN A CASE LIEK THIS U CANT RELY ON THE PREVIOUS DELETIONS. THE ARTICLE THIS TIME WAS MADE SERIOUSLY BY BLOCKY, A REAL MEMBER OF myg0t. ANY PERSON WHO Is CURIOUS TO THE HISTORY OF myg0t WOULD ENJOY READING THE ARTICLE JUST AS MUCH AS SOMEONE INTERSTED IN LEARNING ABOUT CULT_OF_THE_DEAD_COW, THE Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America OR L0pht — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.204.246 (talk • contribs)
    • I think we'd worked out that this self-aggrandizing bullshit was written by a member, thanks, not least because of the complete lack of any evidence that anyone other than members is even remotely interested. Just zis Guy you know? 23:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have anything to prove this? Please reply. USER-cacophony 01:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I resent that comment. I have never had anything to do with them (except being annoyed by one on a server once), but I'm still interested. myg0t are a notable group and there should be an article on them so members of the public who come across the name can find out what is being talked about. Besides, proper policy was not followed. 'It's been deleted before' is no defence. Modest Genius talk 00:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. I'd suggest closing this before it becomes a sockfest. Mackensen (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bit too late for that, I'm afraid, but all of those quasi-literate socks are making the deletion case most eloquently. The total unfamiliarity with Wikipedia shown by "undelete and protect" kind of highlights the fact that these are nonce accounts. Assumptions that there is some kind of enemy group at work betrays a web-blindness that undermines any claims they make about notability and importance. The presence of a Wikipedia article doesn't make something good, and the absence of an article doesn't make something bad. It's just an encyclopedia and a lousy advertising medium. --Geogre 02:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you assume there is some kind of "enemy group" at work? 166.127.1.201 12:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Geogre: only you could use the word "nonce" and expect people to understand it. :) --maru (talk) contribs 03:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least it's a small word. Usually, I get in trouble for saying things like, "the proliferation of mediocrity is not its own excuse, nor is the absence of a quality any obviation of the need for that quality." Is it worth explaining to the IPer that the sentence didn't say that I thought there was an enemy group but rather that his fellow anonymous cowards did? Nah. Geogre 14:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still vote Undelete and Protect We can sit here and argue back and forth about levels of intelligence until the internet overloads and goes into safe mode. All humor aside, several well respected authors made the decision to undelete myg0t for a reason. Now we have people re-deleting the article and basically saying, "I'm the only one who's opinion matters." This is not how things are supposed to be done here, as you can see by a few of the posts above mine people are agreeing that the quick deletion and closure of a deletion review within 12 hours due to one mans discretion was a very poor decision. This in itself is not only unfair, but suggests that wiki authors can edit or delete any information as they see fit. So what, an evening of Battlefield 2 was ruined for you. Now you have to abuse powers that were given to you in the assumption you would be unbiased just to prove some kind of point. myg0t will not die out because wiki won't put us in there, but the rightful users have a right to know the information that was origionally posted. The accuracy was 100%, with no extra fodder clogging up the article. IMHO the PROTECT that has been requested is so that people that dislike the group cannot vandalize the article. We liked what was posted, and would have prefered it to stay that way. chozo_ninpo 4:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be assuming I'd interacted with myg0t before. This is not true. I don't play any online games, so I could never have encountered them. --maru (talk) contribs 07:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Two off-hand mentions in niche periodicals aren't enough to make one of the thousands of self-described "big-name" game-related clans out there an encyclopedic topic, especially since neither of those provide enough verifiable information for an article. --Aquillion 08:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The group has been mentioned and/or featured in three international publications, including rolling stone magazine, and its actions have been the topic of news stories in two international news sources (CNN and BBC). USER-cacophony 08:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you get title, date, author, etc for those mentions? People don't seem to have that information even for the mentions in gaming magazines that people have taken pictures of. Kotepho 22:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The important issue to realize here is that myg0t wants an open forum where the deletion can be discussed. If it is found that an AFD or whatever you call it has a majority agreement that we are undeserving of a page, then that's that.
What myg0t wants is of no concern. Whether the article should be here is something we decide, not the subject.
What myg0t wants is democracy. Your act of speedy delete is completely contrary to the idea of a democratic vote. If you feel it is your place to decide what is acceptable on Wikipedia based solely on 5 hours of off-peak comments then you are, for all intents and purposes, not a fan of democracy.
Well, that's too bad. WP:NOT a democracy. --Rory096 04:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do you expect to claim ANTI-CENSORSHIP when you keep deleting the article (which was written professionally) simply because you can't see past your own nose? Ask anyone that plays online games. myg0t is well known to MILLIONS, and that's not on a national scale, that's on a global scale. Games included are anything STEAM related, Silkroad Online, the UNREAL series, Live for Speed 1 and 2, the complete DEER HUNTER series, Halo2 (XboX Live), the Battlefield Series, All Blizzard Games (WOW, D2, SC, WC3, etc.), the QUAKE series, the DOOM series, Anarchy Online, The Lounge (Which is still in BETA), CHURCH OF FOOLS was obliterated and reconstructed due to myg0t as was HABBO HOTEL. Chat invasions include: Any and All IRC channels, Vent channels, Teamspeak servers, MSN, YAHOO, AIM. More forums than you could ever go to in a lifetime have myg0t mentioned in them. This online group is feared all over the internet. Anyone seeking information on this group should absolutely be allowed to gain as much knowledge about them as possible. Negating any online rumors with FACT. PROVEN FACT, the [myg0t] tag is an instant BAN on literally hundreds of thousands of ANTI-CHEAT programs. So the question being asked, "Is myg0t well known enough for a wiki article?" Answer? "You bet your ass." --chozo_ninpo 12:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prior AFD's should have no bearing on current AFD's. The fact that an article has, in the past, been deleted is by no means a reason for it to be deleted again in the present. The very fact that you can petition for an undeletion is a testament to this basic premise. I will reiterate: prior consensus to delete should have no bearing on current deletion as long as the previous problems were addressed. In the case of myg0t, the problems were ones of notability and vanity. These were both deemed to be acceptable by Wikipedia standards in the March 2006 deletion review. Notability, as we can all agree, cannot decrease as time goes on. Relevancy, sure. Notability cannot. myg0t is notable for their period in history. Vanity was also established to not be an issue in the March 2006 review. The article that was deleted was an informative article, contained a neutral point of view, and had information that was true about a group that was relevant and had already established itself in the public's eye. None of these fall under what anyone would consider a reason to delete due to vanity any more than any other page on Wikipedia.
The existence of the undeletion process is a recognition mistakes can be made. Nothing more. Or are you suggesting two AFDs (and a third that was going to close as Delete before I made it moot) were both wrong? Once is coincidence, twice is enemy actions, as the saying goes.
How did you now the AFD was going to be wrong? Or that it was going to close as Delete? There was only *5* hours between the AFD and your Speedy. By the time the proponents knew of the AFD the page had already been deleted. OverlordQ 06:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the undeletion process was used and enforced in this case points to the fact that, as you said, a mistake was made. I agree though, once is coincidence and twice is enemy action. The enemy here, of course, is overzealous admins who have a grudge against myg0t, not myg0t itself. The two AFDs were on the basis of notability and vanity, both of which were overturned in the March '06 DR. There is no way to justify a SD on this article except administrative bias.
In the May 13, 2006 AFD which was Speedy Deleted by that maru kid, the groundwork brought forward to enforce a SD were G1 and A7. SD on the grounds of G1 is idiotic to the extreme as the article was coherent and relevant. A7 was addressed in the March 2006 deletion review which ruled in favor of undeletion and reinstatement. A relevant issue is, of course, G4. G4 refers to recreation of deleted material. It quite clearly states that G4 can only be applied if the page is "deleted according to the deletion policy, except if it is ... undeleted per the undeletion policy" which the myg0t article clearly was. Further, even if this were a candidate for G4, it would be ruled out under the fact that the article that was deleted on May 13, 2006 was significantly different from the articles deleted in 2004 and 2005.
I'm no "kid", but at least you got the name right... You place a lot of emphasis on the first DR, which was rather dubious. G4 can be applied to any of the numerous creations and deletions between the first and second AFDs, so it was relevant.
Calm down kiddo, the first DR must have a lot of emphasis placed on it because it was the most recent ruling. You don't use law precedents from the 1500 to rule on cases that are brought forward in 2006. G4 can be applied to many of the creations and deletions between the first and second AFD but, as I stated, cannot be applied to the most recent speedy deletion by you. It is a gross act of glossing over what happened and is plain wrong.
Now, the internet champion who deleted the article most recently, maru, has demonstrates a clear lack of understanding for the criterion that a speedy delete is acceptable under. He has stated at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Myg0t (sorry pals, I don't know how to use your crazy code to link) the following: "Two AFDs is quite enough for a marginal online crufty article." This quote exemplifies both the bias that maru has against myg0t and his inability to enforce Wikipedia's own rules fairly and with consistancy.
Internal links are hardly crazy... they're a lot simpler than HTML links. As for my bias, like all administrators, I am indeed biased against stuff that does not belong on Wikipedia. You don't show any evidence of inconsistency, and I think my deletion was eminently fair; at the very least, you must admit that any unfairness of mine is not at all transparent and obvious. Look at the votes on this page to see what I mean.
I'm not familiar with your Wikipedia editing system. I've only spent 30 minutes looking into your rules and regulations on deletions, I'm not too concerned about how your page formats. I don't much care for the myg0t article, despite being in myg0t. What I do care about is people who claim to be impartial and democratic going against all tenets of those two ideals. The inconsistancy is between you and what the Wikipedia guidelines for speedy deletion are. You clearly did not follow them and are, hence, being inconsistant. The votes on this page are moot in regards for the AFD, as this is a DR. If you want opinions on an AFD then you should have let the AFD go for more than 5 hours before closing it. You knew myg0t would win that AFD and you moved quickly to SD under false pretenses.
This vote should not even be happening as it is clear that the administrators must weigh in favor of myg0t and undelete the page. After the page is undeleted an AFD can be put forward or the one that is already opened can be continued without impartial activism by some Wikipedia admin that got raged by myg0t. As it stands, a speedy deletion cannot be explained under any circumstance and is entirely unacceptable. - [myg0t]NWA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.89.77 (talk • contribs)
Impartial activism? As I told some other fellows, I don't play online games, so I've never been "raged" by myg0t. --maru (talk) contribs 17:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
myg0t does not operate only in online games. More importantly however, impartial activism doesn't mean that you've had a run-in with myg0t before. It simply means that you should never have taken a look at the issue in the first place because you are, as you yourself have said, biased against articles you think shouldn't be on Wikipedia. You have already admitted to being biased against myg0t. You appear to operate under the same ideals as Judge Dredd where you are judge, jury, and executioner. Unfortunately for you, you underestimated myg0t in this case. While you may be the judge and executioner, we shall see what the jury has to say. - [myg0t]NWA
  • Undelete and Protect - It's good to know that administrator's here don't have to follow the rules and can just arbitrarily delete articles without any good reason. We fought for this article for over a year to become undeleted, and when we finally get a united Wiki-community consensus that we should be allowed to stay, some renegade admin deletes us without any merit. There shouldn't be any discussion, the article should stay up. --InfiniteIdeals
  • Undelete and de-admin anyone who deletes it again. This is fucking ridiculous, it was undeleted on DRV just one month ago. Suddenly it gets AfD'd yet again, and speedy deleted in violation of WP:CSD. Rhobite 20:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Restore. Deletion appears to have been out of process (speedied as recreation of deleted content that was overturned on DRV?). Plus, WP:DP says: "If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this should be seen as evidence for the need for an article." Good enough for me. An article on this group doesn't hurt Wikipedia at all, although the repeated removals certainly seem to be doing so. Powers 21:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted This article was deleted for very good reason, several times, to be exact. There is no reason to exhume it. Denni ☯ 21:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore. Completely asinine that this continually gets deleted. I rarely agree with Rhobite, but he's absolutely right here, any admin who continually deletes this should be brought into question. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - As I mentioned in the previous VFU - They are actually quite notable within the counter-strike community. A lot of people know of the myg0t "play style" and what they're philosphy is. However, I really doubt we'd be able to get any kind of properly sourced article there, so I'm not actually that bothered whether it's deleted or not. As I mentioned before, it's not like they're SK Gaming is it? - Hahnchen 21:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Why won't this die? It's trollbait and luring throwaway accounts into votestacking. Isopropyl 22:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - We need a page where people who don't know of myg0t can refer to, I agree this page does further publicize the group but that can't be avoided. It appears people only want this deleted because they have a dislike for the group which is their sole purpose. I think it should be semi-protected too. It seems silly there's pages like GNAA and List of shock sites articles and people are protesting this.--Andeee 07:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Nineteen84 18:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Undelete - A conversation with Marudubshinki (admin who deleted the article) in wikipedia IRC revealed that he was, in fact, a myg0t rage victim:[reply]

User's ninth edit. Note that nothing I said in IRC (incidentally, are you aware it's considered bad form to quote stuff from #Wikipedia, or to log it?) actually supports Nineteen84's assertion. --maru (talk) contribs 19:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why Marudubshinki is acting so defensive? cacophony 20:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the quotes show nothing, but why is logging IRC considered bad form? that doesnt make any sense to me... Modest Genius talk 22:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, maybe maru is behaving "defensive"ly as you suggest because all of you myg0tters are attacking him unjustifiably? IRC logging is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and can be interpreted as a copyright violation, as well. Keep deleted, valid admin decision. And Wikipedia is not a democracy. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In case you haven't noticed, I'm not attacking him at all, but if you want to be litigious, it's actually not a copyright violation at all, as public speech on a public, open network is classified as fair use. cacophony 02:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the log snippets. Please read the blurb at the top of this page. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 01:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb noted. However, I have been unable to find a justification for that policy, care to point me in the direction of one? It seems a little strange that postings to a publically viewable IRC channel should be prohibited from further disemination. Oh and the policy clearly states that the relevant punishment for breaking the policy is banning from the channel(s) (or death by elephant), not censure on wikipedia itself. Modest Genius talk 12:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In case you haven't noticed, there has only been one AfD since the article was restored in accordance with public consensus, and it was prematurely closed, and the article speedied with no CSD, which is why this vote is here. cacophony 02:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, it is time to move on. I find it ironic though that you would claim "its [sic] time to move on" while petitioning for removal Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Myg0t. Interesting how you haven't "moved on." Let's move on though, and undelete and relist or whatever it is you people do here when your rules are broken. -[myg0t]NWA
  • Undelete and *sigh* send back to AFD. After reviewing both AFDs, the old DRV, this (awful) DRV, and the deleted article, I still find that the only claim to notability is a half-column in a PC gaming magazine and a picure caption(!) in another. Since there's a munged speedy delete, a munged AFD, and a munged DRV (munged because the old one got tangled up in rehashing the debate), we need to kick this one over to AFD and actually hash out whether this is a good enough claim to notability or not. I hate to feed the trolls, here, but the place to debate the relative encyclopedic quality of an article is on AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget the article in rolling stone magazine. cacophony 19:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can take the unusual step of applying sprot to the AfD to reduce the inevitable sock infestation. Just zis Guy you know? 09:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. The attention is just because it has attracted a lot of newly-registered users; we frequently see equally large groups of meatpuppets and sockpuppets for other non-notable web forums, clans, and webpages. Simply having a few hundred (or even a few thousand) people reading a forum doesn't automatically make a subject encyclopedic, not even if they're all directed to go to the AfD or DR and vote on it. Having every single member of Myg0t or whatever comment here, in other words, can result in an exceedingly long page but isn't going to do anything to get the article kept. --Aquillion 12:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As opposed to you telling all your friends to come here and vote against it? (If you can make unfounded assumptions, so can I.) cacophony 00:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well the alexa.com link I posted above showed how many users visit there site..--|«Andeh?»|Talk? 13:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, their site does not get many visitors. It is not even regularly in the top 300k sites in terms of popularity, which means perhaps 1000 visitors on a good day. +sj + 14:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Not notable, almost no independently verifiable content; would never be more than a stub; the only gaming articles about them are also created via active PR by the group, as was this one, and they're actively trying to game the system [above]. Which isn't surprising, all things considered. +sj + 14:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, you're assuming that every new user here is a myg0ter? That seems somewhat presumptuous Modest Genius talk 14:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't really anyway to tell if a user here is a myg0t..--|«Andeh?»|Talk? 05:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing comments: In general, DRV decisions are decided solely by vote count with the only discretion being removal of votes from entirely new users. My count put this at 14 to undelete/relist and 17 to keep deleted. There is a very real complicating factor however, namely a previous DRV just one month ago which produced a majority to undelete this very same article, and speedy deleting this again and demanding another DRV decision might appear to encourage deletion by attrition on DRV (i.e. keep deleting things until a DRV debate finally fails to produce a majority to undelete.) That appears to be a very valid concern expressed by Rhobite among others. Nonetheless, my view is that this is not the case here. A look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myg0t shows a strong consensus to delete and will therefore declare this deletion as endorsed. I will express my opinion that using the deletion summary "sayanora" on something as controversial as this is not very helpful. If you delete something speedily, make sure that you have a point in the criteria which backs it up and note that G4 does not apply for things undeleted through DRV. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

12 May 2006

Ryan Rider and BJG

Both are profiles of members of a major radio show in the wrestling community and profiles of the main people involved including myself should be included in the encyclopedia. If not, I would at least like to obtain the text written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanrider (talk • contribs)

  • Endorse deletion without prejudice against future creation of an encyclopaedia article whihc is not an autobiography or vanity page. Just zis Guy you know? 09:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.) Xoloz 16:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion (with prejudice towards recreation) of Ryan Rider. It violates WP:AUTO, easily meets 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. --Rory096 16:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja

I am moving this from the proposed deletion section since this webcomic went through AFD rather than PROD. Here is the full text of his original request:

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja, undelete request by PHDrillSergeant. This web comic has grown in poularity since the last time it was deleted through AFD, and although the site's archive has 'only three entries', each of those entries has about 20-40 pages, which adds up to over 100 pages total including the current storyline. This comic is extremely funny and is important, especially one who wishes to know more about this odd character and his adventures. I think this comic should get another chance. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 23:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has been recreated so frequently, the article for The Adventures of Dr. McNinja currently exists as a {{deletedpage}}. The relevant AfDs are listed on its talk page. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Two AfDs with strong consensus to delete. Come back when it's syndicated in non-trivial treeware. Just zis Guy you know? 14:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, they should come back when WP:WEB is satisfied. We shouldn't advise people to meet non-required requirements. We do have a criteria to handle webcomics, and physical paper (e.g. "treeware") is not part of it. And that is very deliberate. We do wish to encourage, not discourage contributions that satisfy consensus guidelines. --Rob 07:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that a cartoon which has no presence off the web is rarely notable. It is trivially easy to publish a webcomic. Just zis Guy you know? 09:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Nomination's only claim of new information is that the comic's archive actually comprises 100 pages of text - this is not a compelling claim, to put it mildly. My diary exceeds this length by far, for example. No reason to overturn valid AfDs has been offered. Xoloz 16:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? So why do TIN The Incompetent Ninja, Grim Tales from Down Below, and PowerPuff Girls Doujinshi get their own articles? They are all web comics—with less pages than Dr. McNinja. In other words, What makes Dr. McNinja so inappropriate for Wikipeda, while these others are not? Something seems amiss to me.
Remember, not everything is important to everyone, but some thigns are important to someone. If a good article can be assembled, then I am sure that it, too, can be a good addition to Wikipedia. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 17:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, I am volunteering to write the article. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 17:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of some articles of questionable notability is no reason to include another article of questionable notability. Feel free to nominate TIN The Incompetent Ninja, etc., for deletion if you wish. WP's deletion process is by-design piecemeal, and does not eliminate articles unless they are brought to community attention by CSD, PROD, or AfD tags.
You are welcome to compose any article you wish in your own userspace. After composition, bring it to DRV, and if it satisfies the requirements of WP policy and guidelines (WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:Notability, etc.) it will quickly be posted. Xoloz 17:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Chess, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Funny, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Billion pool, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Trillion pool (and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (13th nomination))

These debeates were closed as keep by sockpuppets of User:Science3456 (the author of two of these pages). —Ruud 00:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. While these MfDs did end in a keep, I think that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Billion pool and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Trillion pool (both created by a sockpuppet of User:Science3456) should be reconsidered in the light of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Quadrillion pool. —Ruud 01:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure of the GNAA one per the obvious reasons, even if the closer voted multiple times (according to the suspected cat). The Chess one seems fine, one delete vote and many keeps from regulars (hasn't this one been discussed before?). /Funny is mostly the same. Relist Trillion and Billion Kotepho 01:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't meant to endorse the actual actions of the closer, just that they had the correct result. If someone wants to strike out the closures and replace them with their own that is fine by me, but I do not see a reason to revisit them (besides the poll ones). Kotepho 16:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the sockpuppetry can be confirmed, a ban is in order. If not, these discussion should never have been closed by users of such inexperience. Speedy-reopen the debates and allow a seasoned administrator to make the call. If the answer comes out the same, fine. But closing deletion discussion is not an appropriate role for a user on his/her first day of logged-in edits. Rossami (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rossami is, of course, correct. Especially because this user has been implicated in sockpuppetry, he is no position to close debates even if they are obvious keeps (and overwhelming keeps are able to be closed by any user in good faith). However, I'd suggest that the outcome in the case of "Funny" and "Chess" is unassailably correct, and any administrator could ratify these closures easily. The close of GNAA, mandated by a de facto ruling of the administrators here and on WP:AN, is appropriate. Billion and Trillion should be Relisted (not reopened, as the debates are now aged, and suspect for puppetry anyway) for new consideration. Xoloz 15:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 May 2006

The following discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Majestic-12_Distributed_Search_Engine

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majestic-12_Distributed_Search_Engine

Well, I am confused as to how to add article for deletion review, apologies for not getting it right from the first attempt, please feel free to edit it to make it inline with format of the page :-/ alexc 00:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: No problem. The formatting is fixed. You still need to give us the rationale behind your request for review. And please don't regurgitate the AFD discussion. Please show what new evidence should be considered that was not available during the discussion or what failure of process you believe occurred. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The request is due to strange situation that even though there is clearly was no consensus for delition of the page, it was actually deleted and provided evidence was completely ignored. I was advised to post here by mediator as it provides opportunity for other admins to have a look over discussion and respond. Talking of new evidence there will be an article published in 3 weeks in a monthly IT UK magazine about the project, for obvious reasons I can't provide link/scan to it since it will be published in 3 weeks. alexc 01:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Only one keep vote from a historied user as far as I can see, and despite multiple input and comments from the creator of the project (alexc, the requester here) I see no evidence to contradict my original nomination - A distributed web crawler project with an Alexa rank of >40,000 - and guess what? Wikipedia is the top site linking in. Currently in alpha. Lots of "aims to", not much "has" Just zis Guy you know? 10:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am speechless. alexc 11:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see why. The evidence you offer above is also "will be". The entire thing has an air of speculation about it. Why not just wait until you've got a released version? It's not like there is a deadline to meet. Wikipedia is not here to promote that which may be notable, it's here to document that which already is. Just zis Guy you know? 14:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have nothing further to say on the subject apart from that I am grateful for providing me with such a valuable experience: as the result of it one of very few policies for us will be that in our project individuals (me or anyone else) won't have such power to decide for others if some web page is worthy to be deleted (effectively censoring information that end users see), unless it is obvious spam or owner requested it. Thank you and goodbye. alexc 18:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Undelete "Only one keep vote from a historied user as far as I can see" - No, there were three KEEP votes from (historical) users. See the votes from User:BarkerJr, User:Nsaa, and User:Zyron. Although I think this article will materialize after a while. In a better and more neutral way with more than one (neutral) external references (in English). I'm a bit confused and a bit angry that this kind of information is deleted. Why? There has been given at least three references to media coverage (although only one/two in English). And then the main reason for deleting it is Notability. My understandig of that concept is weird since I think Majestic-12_Distributed_Search_Engine was notable. I looked up this project when I first read about it in the news (Norwegian Digi.no article). Hoping for some neutral information and different viewpoints (typically for Wikipedia in areas with diverging viewpoints). Now its just deleted by far as I can see some far fetched concepts about notability and not working project (it is in full operation with search possibilities last time I checked the site). Nsaa 22:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry, Alexc: if your hopes for this engine materialize, it will be notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. Wikipedia has to be careful not to provide articles for projects, people, etc. that haven't yet firmly established themselves. You have begun to make a case for notability, but several articles in non-English language nations, and a speculative article in the Guardian don't yet add up to notability in the English-language WP. Coverage in blogs isn't considered reliable, because it is very hard to rate the editorial integrity of a blog. Just interpret this result as a "not yet"; it isn't a "never." For what constitutes "notability", see Wikipedia:Notability; for the nature of what Wikipedia considers reliable sources, see WP:RS. Endorse closure Valid AfD on the basis of evidence provided. Xoloz 15:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Xoloz here. The project seems to have a lot of potential, and is fairly interesting (I might sign up; not like my connection is doing all that much.) But as of right now, it just doesn't seem to be notable enough, and the prospects of future notability aren't enough. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and all that. But in a few months, who knows? --maru (talk) contribs 17:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. While the keep votes were indeed few and mostly from new users, the deletes weren't that numerous either, had little justification beyond "nn, delete", and were mostly made in the beginning of the debate before references were provided and article was improved. As far as I'm concerned, neither side has made a convincing argument nor established consensus — the nomination mostly deteriorated into endless bickering with little substance. In my opinion, with no disrespect to Sam intended, the proper closure under the circumstances would have to have been either "no consensus" or relisting. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn and relist. Essentially I agree with Ilmari Karonen, above. I have the additional to contribute. The Guardian article quoted makes the following statement: "Majestic-12's volunteers - 60 so far - are crawling about 50m pages a day using unlimited broadband connections and software that runs in the background. Over the past few months, 7bn pages have been crawled although, ...". At 7bn pages and a rate of 50m a day, the crawler software its self could be argued as notable, and it could be argued as justifiable to place a reference to it within the Web_crawler page.It would seem strange in that case for ( a toned down ) version of the original article to be regarded as vanity or spam? Lilstevey 17:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore this article, please. --Melancholie 03:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer's comment: The sources provided were addressed in the discussion - I saw no reason to believe that the people who made comments before further posts wilfully disregarded 'new evidence'. And as Guy said, the article itself was all "aims to" and no "has", and even if The Guardian verifies that you "aim to" do something, that isn't a claim to notability. On the other hand, this encyclopaedia is on the Internet, so if something to do with the Internet gets kept - even if, had they been playing guitars instead of crawling websites, the article would have been deleted as 'up-and-coming band, come back when you release your second album' - I can't really do much more than shrug. I wouldn't mind a less... long-winded discussion taking place to get a clearer consensus, whichever way it went. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted) for now. It's premature to have an encyclopedia on this particular topic. Please remember that we are an encyclopedia - a tertiary source by definition. There isn't enough independent material yet on which to base this prospective article. As an encyclopedia, we are in no rush to include content. We have no need to scoop anyone. Reconsider the topic for recreation of the article after it has clearly achieved notability. Rossami (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist for reasons given above. Silensor 22:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist if necessary to obtain a clearer consensus. Yamaguchi先生 22:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Overturn and relist. The original VfD linked to above looks like a 50/50 split, far less than the required majority for deletion. +sj + 07:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.


Recently concluded

2006 May

  1. Automobile manufaturers categories Sent back to CFD. 23:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  2. Naismith Family Contested PROD, restored and sent to AfD. 19:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  3. Philip Sandifer DRV aborted, listed at AfD. 2006-05-26 19:30:22 (UTC) Review
  4. Church of Reality Minimal discussion, but kept deleted on the basis of lack of stated grounds in the nomination. 16:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  5. Azn people in United States Kept deleted unanimously. 16:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  6. AlmightyLOL Kept deleted unanimously. 16:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  7. List of video game collector and special editions By strict "tally", discussion was "tied", 3-3; however, weight of argument tipped in favor of relisting. 16:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  8. User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims Speedy deletion endorsed. 02:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  9. WWE Divas Do New York Keep closure endorsed. 00:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  10. I Like Monkeys, speedy reversed and send to AFD. 20:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  11. Science3456 sockpuppetry AfDs, debates relisted except GNAA. 17:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  12. Structures of the GLA, debate relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structures of the GLA (second nomination) 17:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  13. Prhizzm, undeleted and relisting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prhizzm (second nomination). 17:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  14. List of proper nouns containing a bang This case was complicated by an out-of-process deletion during DRV. In consideration of the consensus afterwards expressed that this out-of-process deletion was in error, article will be relisted afresh at AfD. 03:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  15. Brooks Kubik Undeleted and relisted at AfD for further consideration. 17:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  16. ProgressSoft Undeleted and relisted at AfD for further consideration. 16:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  17. Aww Nigga Kept deleted and protected. 16:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  18. that ass Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  19. Matrixism Status quo (previous deletions and current redirect) endorsed. 03:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  20. Talk:Ancient Roman units of measurement/Hexadecimal metric system Discussion subpage undeleted. 03:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  21. Male Unbifurcated Garment Deletion closure endorsed. 03:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  22. Major power Redirect closure endorsed unanimously. 18:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  23. User:Travb/Tactics of some admins regarding copyright Deletion endorsed. 18:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  24. James R. Gillespie Deletion endorsed. 18:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  25. Longest streets in London Deletion endorsed. 18:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  26. JOIDES Resolution and Chikyu Deletion endorsed. 17:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  27. Template:Mills corp Undeleted and relisted on AfD. 17:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  28. Israel News Agency Undeleted, relisting on AFD has been suggested. 16:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  29. Eminem's enemies Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  30. Cock block Narrow majority, 12-11, favor undeletion and relisting at AfD. 16:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  31. Ryan Rider Userfied. 13:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  32. The Adventures of Dr. McNinja Kept deleted. 2006-05-23 12:18:11 (UTC) Review
  33. myg0t Kept deleted. 2006-05-23 08:06:33 (UTC) Review
  34. Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine relisted to AFD 20:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  35. Category:Sylviidae Accidental deletion, content restored. 19:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  36. Rationales to impeach George W. Bush Closure as merge endorsed unanimously. 16:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  37. DJ Cheapshot, SpyTech Records and 4-Zone (rapper) Speedy deletions endorsed. 16:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  38. The Juggernaut Bitch Kept Deleted. 02:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  39. Thirty Ought Six Deletion endorsed. (Current redirect is unrelated.) 02:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  40. RAD Data Communications Kept deleted. - 12:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  41. Link leak Kpet deleted. - 12:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  42. Conservative Underground Kept deleted. - 11:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  43. Template:Tracker Kept deleted. - 11:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  44. Gordon Cheng - Restored and relisted, now at AfD. - 11:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  45. Category:Wold Newton family members - Close of keep endorsed. - 11:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  46. Ryze - Undeleted and relisted on AFD per consensus. 23:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  47. Jack Berman - Restored history per consensus. 22:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  48. Ghey - kept deleted but protection removed. Redirect target undecided. 22:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  49. CEWC-Cymru - Restored as contested PROD. 03:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  50. Nephew (band) - Mistaken nomination. Kept deleted. No prejudice against creation of a different article at the same title. 03:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  51. Andrew Kepple - Disputed prod, restored and listed to AFD. 03:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  52. Sports betting forum Resotored and stubbed by deleting admin. 07:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  53. YMF-X000A Dreadnought Gundam Closure of "keep" endorsed. 07:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  54. Upfront Rewards Kept deleted and protected. 07:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  55. David Anber Kept deleted. 02:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  56. User_talk:Gomi-no-sensei/archive restored by deleting admin. 02:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  57. Rationales for not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008 Kept deleted and protected. 01:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  58. Willy on Wheels Kept deleted and protected. 01:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  59. Aaron Donahue Kept deleted and protected. 01:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  60. OITC fraud Closure endorsed without prejudice to NPOV article being written. 01:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  61. StarCraft_II Kept deleted and protected against recreation. 01:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  62. Michael Crook Kept deleted. 01:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  63. Dualabs Endorse "non-deletion" outcome but strong objections raised to closer's methods. 00:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  64. VOIPBuster Speedily restored by deleting admin, listed at AfD. 00:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  65. List of people with absolute pitch kept deleted. 21:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  66. Template:Infobox Conditionals never actually deleted but no support for undoing the redirect. 21:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  67. MusE returned to normal editing. 21:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  68. Template:Ifdef kept deleted. 21:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  69. Reverend and The Makers. Relisted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverend and The Makers. 06:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  70. Userbox, Userboxes. Both cross-space redirects restored by a slight 10-8 majority and relisted on WP:RFD. 06:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  71. Global Resource Bank Initiative. Relisted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Resource Bank Initiative. 06:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  72. Cool (African philosophy). Closure endorsed but page already redirects to African aesthetic anyway. 06:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  73. Cajun Nights MUSH Kept deleted unanimously. 00:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  74. Rosario Isasi Closure as keep endorsed unanimously, without prejudice to a future AfD nom. 00:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  75. El kondor pada Speedily restored by deleting admin, listed at AfD. 20:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  76. Futuristic Sex Robotz DRV nomination withdrawn. 23:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  77. Insert Text Redirect restored by unanimous consensus. 22:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  78. Scott Thayer Deletion closure endorsed. 22:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  79. Psittacine Beak and Feather Disease Recreation permitted. 22:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  80. Category:User kon Restored, tho I (Syrthiss) am about to relist it with a cogent explanation at CFD. 22:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review[reply]
  81. List of "All your base are belong to us" external links Deletion endorsed unanimously. 22:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  82. SilentHeroes Different from CSD A4 material, restored and relisted at AFD. 21:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  83. Bands (neck) Restored after copyright problem satisfactorily resolved. 14:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  84. The Amazing Racist Deletion closure endorsed. 13:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  85. User:Avillia/CVU_Politics Restoration permitted after removal of copyrighted material. 13:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  86. Gurunath Keep closure at AfD endorsed unanimously. 13:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  87. Rationales to impeach George W. Bush Relisted for 3rd AfD, after deprecation of prematurely-closed 2nd AfD. 12:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  88. The Game (game), most recent AfD endorsed, page restored. 02:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Review

Recent userbox discussions
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=54355742"