Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:45, 26 May 2006 view sourceXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing moribund discussion← Previous edit Revision as of 16:48, 26 May 2006 view source Xoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closed moribund discussionNext edit →
Line 439: Line 439:
*Previous discussion: ]. It was then speedied a bunch of times when recreated. --] 02:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC) *Previous discussion: ]. It was then speedied a bunch of times when recreated. --] 02:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
*Without voting one way or the other yet, I'll answer: ''no'', of course it's not being oppressed by political opponents. Repeat that too much and you'll just end up sounding like a bunch of paranoid kooks. Now, has anything changed since the AfD to make the Church of Reality more notable or give it more verifiable, published information? ] / ] 07:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC) *Without voting one way or the other yet, I'll answer: ''no'', of course it's not being oppressed by political opponents. Repeat that too much and you'll just end up sounding like a bunch of paranoid kooks. Now, has anything changed since the AfD to make the Church of Reality more notable or give it more verifiable, published information? ] / ] 07:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

====]====
] has been deleting the pages which link to the ] page under the assumption that "internet slang" is not covered under a reason for a redirect page, but I ] believe the alternative spelling is covered in Misplaced Pages's redirect reasons. On ] page the third reason for a redirect is for other spellings and punctuations. "Azn" or "AZN" are an alternative spelling for Asian. These alternative spellings are used on the internet, but the fact they are used on the internet has no bearing on their status of being an alternative spelling. --- ] 20:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
*<b>Keep deleted</b>, and delete other implausible redirects created by the same user. - ] 20:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
*<b>Keep deleted</b>. I'm another editor who's been going through and cleaning up the myriad of redirects you consider an alternative spelling, and I'm hard pressed to figure out how someone would type "Asain (Office of Management and Budget)" into the search box. ] ] 00:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' - highly tenuous. ] 01:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Kp dltd'''. ] 01:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. LjL stole my line. <b><span style="color: #f33">&middot;]&middot;</span></b> 02:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', but ''don't'' waste time on deleting other implausible redirects by the same user. His time would have been better spent creating articles with substance, but the presence of these redirects didn't, I think, hurt anyone. We shouldn't be wasting our time deleting harmless redirects. (If this discussion were about whether to perform the initial deletions or not, I would have voted '''Keep''', I think...) --] 05:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Redirects for typos are fine, being lazy and not typing all letters is not. - ]|] 10:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' Don't want to open the floodgates for other nonsensical internet-speak redirects. ] as a redirect to ], anyone? ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 17:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
:*You mean it wasn't already? ;) ] ] 20:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' "Azn" is more than just an internet slang term. Our local television cable provider carries AZN television, an English language network for Asian viewers (mainly Filipino). However, the vast numbers of redirects being created is silly and verging on disruptive, considering how much space they take up in Recent Changes. No vote. ]|] 22:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep Deleted''' and chase down the dozens of others: as one of the mop-wielders who had to clear this lot out of ] I can assure you that there were a huge number, all of which were pretty much nonsensical. HTH HAND —] | ] 08:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep deleted''' at the risk of sounding eletist, somone who can't tell the difference between IM slang and an encyclopedia probably won't learn too much here anyway. ] 15:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' per Thatcher131, Andrew Lenahan, & Rasputin.--] 15:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' An unencyclopedic and unnecessary term. Anybody who knows "AZN" knows Asian.--] 19:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', inappropriate redirect. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 02:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)




Revision as of 16:48, 26 May 2006

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/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 Misplaced Pages 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.

Proposed deletions

Articles deleted under the Misplaced Pages: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.

Decisions to be reviewed

Template loop detected: Template:Vfu mechanics


26 May 2006

Left-wing terrorism

Stella Maris College Scout Group

  • UnDelete - this article was still a stub. However, it was deleted. Misplaced Pages does not have information about scout groups in Malta. The page The_Scout_Association_of_Malta is the only Maltese scouting page. Misplaced Pages needs to have a page about the scout groups in Malta, their activities, programme, etc. The Stella Maris College Scout Group is an active group, which deserves to be listed. It has carried out a number of joint activities with different scout groups around the globe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.188.46.254 (talk • contribs)
  • The entire content of the article was
    "Stella Maris College Scout Group is part of The Scout Association of Malta"
    and an externel link. - I'd just recreate it with something more substantail. RN 15:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, discourage recreation. Individual Scout groups are not notable. "Misplaced Pages needs to have a page about the scout groups in Malta, their activities, programme, etc" - no, the organisation's website needs that, this is an encyclopaedia and not a vehicle for promoting Scout groups. --Sam Blanning 15:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

25 May 2006

List of Michael Savage neologisms

The AfD discussion can be found at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Michael Savage neologisms (second nomination).

  • UnDelete - list :offers insight into controversial cultural icon, unique extensive jargon reference
Its never been deleted... RN 23:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
It has, he just linked to the wrong article in the heading. I've fixed it. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep deleted. AfD was closed quite properly, and a look at the article shows nothing that would be missed from Misplaced Pages. If you'd like to take the content and host it on your own website, I'd be happy to provide it to you. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • endorse closure - keep deleted. This was a valid afd with a 100% consensus that there shouldn't be an article on Misplaced Pages (there were votes to transwiki to Wikiquote, 10 votes to delete and one unsigned comment by an anon that didn't express an opinion about the article). Thryduulf 23:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure but not the actual AfD result. Valid AfD here, but I wouldn't have put "no consensus, leaning towards delete" as the result in the AfD. After discounting the invalid votes, this was definitely a consensus towards delete. A "no consensus" means that the article is kept, not deleted. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC), valid AfD (changed my comments now that RasputinAXP provided a link to the most recent AfD). --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, as an AfD closer, I'm aware of that. As I've noted somewhere else, while AfD isn't a vote, and each entry in an AfD is a comment, I choose to name any comment which calls for an action (such as comments that start with Keep, Merge, Redirect, or Delete) a "Vote" for convenience and to differentiate it from an actual comment which doesn't call for an action (such as comments that have no heading, or start with Comment). If you would prefer that I use a different noun, I can call it an iVote, nVote, !Vote, notVote, or something like that. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep deleted: List of neologisms from a single person? That's a tribute page, a fan page, or an attack page, and it's not an encyclopedia article. Geogre 02:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: as the closer of the most recent AfD on this article, it was a pretty clear Delete.  RasputinAXP  c 03:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted The closure and deletion was proper, and valid reasons for deletion were expressed in the first and second AfDs and here above, while no reasons expressed for keeping it had any weight to them. (Even if the article were deemed to be proper for WP, it had many problems I had identified in the 1st AfD the maintainers of the page were apparently unwilling to address.) Шизомби 04:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • transwiki to Wikiquote list qualifies as a unique citation of quotes

Philip Sandifer

full deletion log (OMG WHEELWAR)
Adam Bishop deleted "Philip Sandifer" (give me a fucking break)

This was a sourced article expanded by editors such as Brenneman and SlimVirgin. The deletion was done for what appear to be emotional rather than legitimate reasons. --SPUI (T - C) 22:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Violation of WP:AUTO, he has had 1 news story, albeit a big one, but not enough to warrant an article. The story itself is more relevant to Misplaced Pages Review than to Snowspinner, because that is where the article started. No point choosing to favour Misplaced Pages admins just because this is Misplaced Pages. The more notable web site should be listed. This needs to stay deleted. 203.122.203.145 22:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it's a violation of WP:AUTO ("I do not consider myself notable, to be clear" doesn't strike me as someone to write an article about himself). --Rory096 22:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think I'm pretty solidly borderline notable, between academic work and the Pulp Decameron story. I trust y'all to keep the article from being libelous, and since I already have a talk page and a user page, it's not like deleting it removes targets for vandals. So please, don't delete the article for reasons having to do with protecting me. On the other hand, if you don't think I'm notable enough, whack it.

Though I don't think I'm a speedy candidate. :) Phil Sandifer 23:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Another note: I do hope, if this article survives, that someone will actually add mention of my publications and academic career, which, while minor, is a hell of a lot more notable and enduring than Boing Boing. Phil Sandifer 00:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted, tactical and legal reasons, good lord! Suggest we close this DRV asap. Kim Bruning 22:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
What "tactical and legal reasons" are those? --SPUI (T - C) 22:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Two of your "Misplaced Pages Review trolls" have posted on this page and think it should be kept deleted. Of course, Zordrac and myself don't speak for everyone and their diverse opinions, but it should be noted that not all of us would like to "sit and gloat over" an article on Phil. --72.160.71.156 23:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed? I'm pleased to hear that. Could Misplaced Pages Review's collective consciousness be developing a collective conscience? Or are you just muddying the waters, and not really ashamed of yourselves at all? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted – Not sufficiently notable, if he wasn't a Wikipedian he would never have had an article in the first place – Gurch 22:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed to Strong undelete – following discussion with Kim Bruning – Gurch 23:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep deleted. I'd vote to delete at an AfD no question -- the news item isn't very notable -- but the arguments for speedying this are a bit fuzzy to me. I've seen two one: a IAR appeal that the AfD would be massively disruptive. , and Kim Bruning's cryptic legal, ethical, and moral claims. I weakly agree with IAR here to avoid disruption and troll feeding. I have to admit I join those who don't currently understand Kim's point at all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Undelete, after talking with slimvirgin. :-) Kim Bruning 23:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Undelete and deal with this quietly is my only choice. Taking it to AfD is not an option in this case, because that would cause controversy and be assisting the trolls. Kim Bruning 11:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. I don't think this was speediable. I also think this doesn't have to be disruptive if we don't make it disruptive. If it goes to AfD, I hope everyone will be conscious of the potential for insult inherent in arguing a person's notability—but then, as Phil and others have pointed out, we should always be conscious of that. Finally, I note that if this contains information which is of concern to the subject of the article as being libelous or otherwise harmful, he can (as always) contact the foundation and they can intervene; I don't think we should be trying to do our own version of WP:OFFICE because we guess there could be such a problem. In short, we should handle this like any other article, and crack down firmly on those who don't. -- SCZenz 23:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. From what I hear, it was well-sourced, and even if it's a minor one-time news story, that's good enough for me. Of course, my standards of notability are very low, but well-sourced articles about nonnotable things certainly aren't going to hurt Misplaced Pages. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. The page was not an attack page, and this seems like it can become a major news story, especially after the latest developments. There's an assertion of notability too... not entirely sure it should go through AFD, but it shouldn't have been speedied. Titoxd 23:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    Don't let it go to AfD, that'd be a disaster. Kim Bruning 00:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Request: for the benefit of the non-admins (who can't read deleted pages) and the not-sufficiently-clued (who aren't reading the Misplaced Pages equivalent of Page 6), could someone point to some page that will give the slightest clue what the frak is going on, or would someone at least cough up an executive summary? --Calton | Talk 23:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay. (I stand ready to be corrected on details at any time, mark you). Phil Sandifer is a minor (very minor; about as minor as you can be without carrying a pickaxe and canary) academic who has been known to write gory stories about what it's like to be a stalker and/or murderer. Misplaced Pages Review, who hate Phil in his guise as Snowspinner, Admin of Death, discovered his works of fiction and decided that a 'phone call to the cops might be in order, just to see if they could be duped into harrassing him. It worked. The 'blog Boing Boing wrote a story about how dumb it all was. Then someone mused "hey, maybe this makes Fat Phil notable enough for an article" and, lo! There was an article! And we wonder why Adam speedied it ... fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • (This is probably only 50% accurate :)) Basically a article about the guy was started by a non-involved user, Aaron was going to prod it but then decided not to, then SlimVirgin came in and made a boatload of edits bringing it up to semi-decent quality (but still on the very edge of notability - I think http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=wikien-l&m=114838411432481&w=2 sums up a good part of it). Then it was deleted and restored by like six seperate admins, and brought here somewhere in the middle of that. I have no idea what discussion Kim Bruning is referring to with SlimVirgin though - I'm assuming it is on IRC or E-Mail. That's about all I can think of without undeleting it. RN 00:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted is my first choice, Undelete and list on AfD is my second choice, I'd probably vote delete in the AfD, but I don't think the page as it stood was a CSD A6 (attack page), and I don't think it's so obviously a CSD A7 (non-notable person) because the page was sourced. It takes an AfD to determine whether the sources are good enough, not a speedy delete. --Deathphoenix ʕ 23:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete (and keep undeleted) -- the unilateral deletions are becoming tiresome; if you contest the notability of any subject, you can propose it for deletion and wait a week, or bring it straight to AFD. Silensor 00:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    Not afd. If the choice is between keep deleted or take to AFD, then keep deleted please. A ForestFire would be bad. Kim Bruning 00:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted Being an English grad student who has a minor run-in with some confused, over-active cops does not make one notable -- nor do I really think its an assertion of notability sufficient to overcome A7. If "I'm a grad student" isn't an assertion of notability (and it isn't, per the policy's text), then I don't think "I'm a grad student mentioned in a local paper" does either. Xoloz 00:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted obviously. I'm not sure which of my "tiresome" unilateral deletions Silensor's referring to, nor why he or she would describe the actions of three admins and the assent of more as "unilateral", but the subject is a lightning rod for abuse from more than one quarter; any AFD is likely to be cursed by contention, and a "keep" isn't a reasonable result. There's no way a reader cares about this--the average professor is more notable, and the "average professor test" has long been in use for biographical notability--and the only reason we seem to care is that he's well known among us as an admin, and among the Misplaced Pages Review crowd as a totalitarian of some kind. In conversation with Kim Bruning, who has related to me SlimVirgin's "secret reasons" for keeping the article, I can assure you that they are in the vein of using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox, "getting the word out" about something which otherwise fewer people would read, and this is not Misplaced Pages's purpose. I'm a fan of doing things the proper, procedural way--you will never hear me shout "Process?! Oh no!" as if it's some kind of inherent evil--but we don't read our policies or procedures as a legal code, and it is occasionally incumbent upon us to do the right thing for the encyclopedia in exceptional circumstances, whatever the letter of the process is. Demi /C 00:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    No, the reasons to keep from SV were that the article was notable and referenced, as per wikipedia content policies. "Secret reasons" for better words (ick) were used to convince me that it may not harm Snowspinner to have this article around. Kim Bruning 01:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    I mean the reasons that hadn't already been stated. Demi /C 01:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    Fair enough :-) Kim Bruning 02:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages Review navel gazing is not notable. User:Zoe| 02:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted: I see nothing but A7 here. The web emphasizing the importance of a web performer is vanity of vanities, and vanity about something that disappears when the power goes out, to boot. I know that Snowspinner didn't write the article and wants it deleted, but it's still taking the form of a vanity piece to overcome the 'claim of notability' bar. It can only make the claim by arguing that what happens on the web has some actuality to it, some importance to it, or by making the similarly huge assumption that being alledged of a crime or offense is, in fact, a major event. Tens of thousands are accused every day. If he's convicted or kicked out, then we'll be somewhere. Until then, he's just someone studying the faddish "comics" field (Jane Tomkins would be pleased). Geogre 02:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It sort of helps that Corey Doctorow wrote about it though. Kim Bruning 02:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Not terribly, IMO. If it becomes a major cause for people who are well established, then it becomes part of their article. There are tons of people, and I'm afraid there are going to be more tons more shortly, getting harassed by anonymous complaints to bosses and presidents (the Musical Linguist stalker comes to mind). U. cops should know better, but sometimes they're like the cops in Alice's Restaurant and have all that cop equipment they need to use, and sometimes they figure that U.'s are the places where terrarists are. When there is an issue to the charges, when there is an arrest or conviction or punitive action, then something will have happened. Until then, it empowers the stalkers to celebrate their actions. Geogre 13:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment FYI, it appears that WikiTruth is picking this up, so forest fires may be unavoidable. --Maxamegalon2000 03:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted Xoloz, amongst others, properly appreciates that, even if we are sure that Phil (or this incident in particular) is non-notable, we ought to undelete and list at AfD if we can perceive an assertion of notability in the initial article. A7, of course, still permits us some discretion, and I'm inclined to believe that the article (or any possible apropos of Phil or the incident) failed to make even an assertion of notability; were I new page patrolling, I'd likely not have tagged the page for speedy, and were I an admin, I'd likely not have speedied, but I certainly think a contention that the article did not assert the notability of the subject can be understood to be reasonable. In cases where a question entails as to whether an article even has asserted notability, we can likely see controversy, for which the full debate of an AfD is appropriate; here, though, WP:SNOWBALL (through WP:IAR) should be dispositive. It is certain that the result of an AfD would be delete (even as one might oppose that result, he/she must concede that such result is inevitable), and so it is altogether fine that we should keep the article deleted (we needn't to worry about precedent, I think, in view of WP:NBD). I'd really like to redirect to Overzealous local law enforcement officials who fail to understand such concepts as free speech and fiction and ought to be sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, but apparently we don't have such an article. Joe 04:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and AFD Seem like a borderline for notability but it is hard to say without seeing the actual article. --God Ω War 07:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted Phil, Aaron, and SlimVirgin didn't start the article (that is, unless User:The bellman is one of their sockpuppets). Since I'm following up Joe here I'll go along the same line. I was new pages patrolling and I saw an article about a living person with little to no notability completely sourced from blogs and message boards (well, it wasn't sourced at all but it had external links) so I tagged it A7, but Aaron wasn't in an IAR mood apparently so he changed the speedy tag to prod. I also left a message for Phil on his talk page, who later produced the second gainsville sun article (the first being the one that mentions him in passing about some comics conference that I sourced the stub from). The deletion does not specifically meet A7 imo, as the assertion of notability is sourced now, but this is a perfectly valid IAR/SNOW deletion (but the wheelwar was funny!). One mention in a local newspaper and some blogs does not make notability and he certainly isn't a notable academic. Wikinews would certainly be a better place for an article on the story involving his story, but I do not think he is going to have 15 minutes of fame--and even if he does we can wait till after he actually has it to write about it. On the subject of Boing Boing as a souce: rubbish, don't do it. I don't care if you write for the New York Times, citing your blog is not a good idea for an encyclopedia. We are interested in the process (fact checkers and editors) and the publication (I'm sure I can find a copy of a NYT article 20 years from now). Yes, they fuck up sometimes, but verifiability not truth to use the catch phrase. Kotepho 08:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and deny recognition to neo-Nazis and trolls. Ignoring the WikiDrama, clearly doesn't meet encyclopaedic notability standards. --Sam Blanning 08:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted The JPS 12:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and take it to vfd. Vfd is the proper place to decide this. We should not let fear of what trolls may do at the vfd prevent us from having a proper deletion debate. The day I am afraid of trolls is the day i leave wikipedia. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per WP:SNOW. If this survives, relist on VfD.  Grue  12:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, SNOW doesn't apply here - that's for completely uncontroversial cases, and this clearly isn't uncontroversial - David Gerard 12:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Hello, Mr. Gerard. You may not have visited DRV recently. WP:SNOW is often cited, and a reasonable minority of editors (not including me, btw) consider every use controversial. If it were meant to be uncontroversial, then it should be deleted. As a friend of the departed Radiant, who wrote it, I believe it was meant to be an essay employed by parties in cases where they felt it appropriate, whether controversial or not. What we can say of WP:SNOW is that is does not apply where there are reasonable issues to be argued at an AfD. Personally, as my opinion above makes clear, I do not believe a reasonable argument can be made that this subject is encyclopedically notable at this time; hence, valid speedy. I didn't cite WP:SNOW, but I do believe it applies. Xoloz 16:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete This wasn't a controversy until we made it one. There wasn't a good reason for speedy deleting, so it should be undeleted. --W.marsh 12:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete or Take to AFD - borderline notability, but the speedy invoked the SNOW clause, which doesn't apply when it turns out it is controversial. I'm sure the article will be kept of quality, whether started by a troll or not - David Gerard 12:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted wikinews or the signpost may want it, but I can't see how this isn't the correct applciation of CSD A7.--Peta 12:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted Mr. Sandifer's story might meet the notability requirements of a local or campus newspaper, but not a freakin' encyclopedia. Also, if regular users (non-admins) are allowed any say at WP:DRV then the article text should be accessible, at least for the duration of such peer review. It would be helpful not to have to go to WikiTruth every time... ˉˉ╞┬╡ 12:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Amending to keep deleted or list on afd. ˉˉ╞┬╡ 13:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and list at AfD per Phil. Clearly doesn't meet any speedy deletion criterion. Haukur 12:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Simply too minor a figure. Not notable as a scholar with respects to works published and recognition in the field, nor do these law enforcement and otherwise institutional encounters appear particularly noteworthy for a country of 300 million, with a semifascistic regime in power; i.e. this happens all over, in many diverse froms for people equally bellow the range of notability, albeit with the the odd newspaper mention. When he's mentioned in Time, I will revise my opinion. Finally, no need to bring this to AfD if proceduralism is the main motivation. I doubt the discussion will swing much differently there (although it would involve recreating the article for review, at the event, it is available on wikitruth), so this is just to save time and energy that that process would entail. El_C 14:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Xoloz. Henry 14:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Really a pretty minor case, and not something which has attracted significant attention, even in the local media. I don't think we would have been discussing this if the subject were not a Wikipedian. Valid A7 deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Uh, A7 applies to articles which: not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. It should be abundantly clear that deletion under A7 doesn't apply here. --W.marsh 14:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
No, WP:SNOW simply does not "apply" here, as it reads, and the spirit of it supports, that it should only be used, and I quote, if an issue raises no controversy. Clearly this is not an issue that raises no controversy. --W.marsh 15:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion without prejudice: Though not stated in the deleted summary, which was not a good idea ("give me a fucking break" is not a valid reason to delete), CSD A7 applies in this case because the text of the article did not assert notability. Having something on LiveJournal reported to UF isn't good enough for that, I'm afraid. If, however, the article at least asserted notability, then it should have been AfDed. —BorgHunter (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted until there's evidence that this is a big story, but under A7 notability, not as an attack page. While I respect Kim Bruning's differing opinion, it reads like borderline WP:PANIC. An earlier poster had it right in saying we shouldn't try to do our own version of WP:OFFICE. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Superhorse

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Superhorse

I would respectfully request that another look be taken at this article. I have added more supporting evidence since the AFD started and I am not sure whether or not it was taken into consideration. This is my first article and I think that a little construtive criticism wouldn't hurt and would help me right write articles in the future.

Quite frankly my first experience was a bit nerve wrecking and I feel that I have learned little and am unsure if I am capable of at least starting an article that would be acceptable to Misplaced Pages' standards. Thanks for all your help and I look forward to a fair and ubiased discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meanax (talk • contribs)

  • Comment FWIW, the deleted article can be viewed at a Google cache. Fan1967 21:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: As the closing admin, I'd like to say that I would have liked to be informed about this DRV (please take a look at {{DRVNote}}). Now, to the AfD itself. First of all, it wasn't easy, sifting through the extremely long comments by all the new users (likely sockpuppets or meatpuppets). Next, after discounting those invalid votes, on a strict vote count, I counted four deletes and one keep, with the one keep being by the original author. The delete votes took into account the evidence you were presenting, and they still decided that the subject wasn't notable enough to be included. If this article is kept deleted, it's okay, it's not easy sometimes figuring out what's notable and what's not. It might be easiest for you to find a small music-related articles and expand those instead. Misplaced Pages could use some expansion of articles. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Once the band has more coverage will they be reconsidered for inclusion on Misplaced Pages or is this a life time delete? user = meanax
  • Comment: Dear Deathphoenix, I just want to clarify that all the long comment on that AFD were mine. Two of the keep voters I new. I third one I had no idea who or she was. I want to make clear that I was not trying to circumvent the system. I promise. user = meanax
    • No problem. I closed the AfD without malice and in as fair a way as possible. Oh, and note my additions to the response above.
  • No opinion to the deleted article, but there could be a good article under this name, I think. Isn't superhorse a breeding/racing term applied to specific horses like Secretariat which perform a standard deviation or two above literally any of their peers? I will look into it more and write a draft when I have time and am on my normal computer. --W.marsh 14:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I've removed the {{deletedpage}} now that the user is involved in DrV. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Exicornt

Exicornt is a slang term (or neologism) train buffs use to describe a train track junction that resembles the formation of the letter X. Six months ago, I created an article on this term. However, it ended up getting deleted and renamed to crossover (rail). Several attempts have been made by other editors (not me) to include this word on the article.

I understand that some editors object to having to word mentioned on Misplaced Pages. However, I would like to dispel one user's statement that mentioning exicornt on the article is considered vandalism. Therefore, I am writing to request that Exicornt (which is now a Junk Page) ) be deleted and redirected to crossover (rail)

I am requesting this because I noticed a recent edit war on the crossover (rail) page itself. I fear some editors might accusing me of being a so-called "sockpuppet" as a result.

Though I am prepared to take any criticism, I feel posting the word here for review is a proper course of action to take in light of the recent controversy. Edit warring isn't the answer to solving this problem. -- Eddie, Thursday May 25 2006 at 14:01 14:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted. The AFD was completely legit, apart from Eddie's attempts to make it go away. Edit warring doesn't change the reasons why "exicornt" was deleted. No need to create a redirect that would legitimate this word that is used only by a small (perhaps very small) local group. FreplySpang 14:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep deleted. I don't see that anything has changed since the AfD result, which was exactly correct. Google still shows no uses of this that aren't Misplaced Pages or Wiktionary-related. · rodii · 14:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
keep deleted I am a railfan, I've been a model railroader since the early 1980s, I helped build the Wisconsin Central project layout for Model Railroader Magazine (article series published in 1997), I'm the lead editor on Portal:Trains and I'm model contest co-chairman and a Director-At-Large for the Midwest Region of the National Model Railroad Association. I hadn't heard of this term before it popped up last November; I've only heard that track configuration referred to as a crossover. Slambo (Speak) 14:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted/NO redirect. Eddie, "exicornt" isn't "a slang term (or neologism) train buffs use", it's a term you made up yourself. This explains the recent edit warring over blanking its AFD -- it's either a crude attempt to hide the background (with its rampant sockpuppetry and vigorously unverified claims) and/or do some SEO cleansing. (I recommend reading the AfD discussion. It is...enlightening.
And by the way, the only reason I stumbled over the recent AfD edit warring was following the shenanigans of some sockpuppetry over the AFD of a made-up New Jersey baseball team, and those sockpuppets seemed interested in the old AFD. You wouldn't know about that, would you, Eddie? --Calton | Talk 14:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Obviously. But let me note that unless if anyone has good evidence the the contrary, it may be reasonable to imagine that the recent rash of vandalism is by an impersonator, not Eddie himself. I certainly don't have a way to tell. However, the fact that Eddie still doesn't "get it" about "Exicornt" and has used this opportunity to open this silly DRV doesn't seem very reassuring. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't find it reasonable, given his history of rampant sockpuppetry and unceasing attempts to get attention for his made-up word.
And speaking of possible sockpuppetry, I notice that a week ago that someone named Dnd293 (talk · contribs) created redirects to Crossover (rail) at Exicornts and Exicornt. -- which were the user's only edits. You wouldn't know about that, would you, Eddie? --Calton | Talk 15:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for finding those. And of course there's a good chance you're right. But Eddie edited in seeming good faith for a good number of months after he ceased the suckpuppetry and exicornting, so maybe I'm AGFing a little hard here in a spirit of optimism. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lock-icon.jpg

Speedy deletion in violation of the quoted WP:CSD "I1" (redundant): A JPEG is clearly not in the same format as an SVG, not only my browser knows this (unfortunately). The icon was in use for several weeks on almost all template talk pages using {{Protection templates}} after somebody proposed it on one of these pages as general "protected" icon. I tested it because visible is better than broken from my POV on Protection templates for about a month - there were no objections. Therefore I added it to the (few) unprotected protection templates (excl. the semi-protection templates, where a lock icon makes no much sense) today. The edit history clearly stated "working with more browsers". -- Omniplex 05:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Images cannot be restored. Please re-upload it and continue to discuss the issue of what image should be used.--Sean Black 05:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you have a copy of the image? It's not possible to undelete images, so unless you have a copy somewhere that you can upload if the DRV passes, it won't really help to list it here... Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I only saw it on Template talk:Vprotected - most Misplaced Pages icons don't work with my browser, it's too old for inline PNG. Therefore I won'tb miss the few exceptions like wikipedia_minilogo.gif or this JPG. I can transform PNG to say GIF and upload that. If the result is smaller (in bytes) without untolerable losses, otherwise that would be a stupid strategy. -- Omniplex 07:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete Reupload This truely puzzles me. I assume no bad faith on Borg Hunter's part, but I really don't have a clue how this happened =) Someone enlighten me =P --mboverload@ 07:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Google's cache is here. Hurry, it'll be gone soon. --Rory096 08:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I re-uploaded a new copy. Thankfully, I had it saved! --Sunfazer |Talk 09:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Re-delete What is the big deal? Citing CSD#1 was technicaly wrong, but {{redundant}} and {{BadJPEG}} images are deleted all the time when they are no longer used and replaced by a better version. Misplaced Pages policy is to replace lineart like this with SVG or PNG versions whenever possible. To quote the Format section of Misplaced Pages:Image use policy "Drawings, icons, political maps, flags and other such images are preferably uploaded in SVG format as vector images. Images with large, simple, and continuous blocks of color which are not available as SVG should be in PNG format.". Getting rid of this is entierly within policy. I urge everyone with old browsers that doesn't handle PNG's at all to upgrade or switch browser ASAP. --Sherool (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Just a minor addition, I do agree that this one should have been sent to IFD since it's "replacement" was not the same image in a different format and all that, that would have avoided some confution. However it would most scertainly have ended up getting deleted anyway wich is why I don't think it's a huge deal. By the way unless someone gets around to actualy adding some source info to this image it will get deleted again in 7 days regardles of the outcome of this debate. --Sherool (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, and re-delete per above. Ral315 (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Re-delete per Sherool. Dr Zak 14:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

24 May 2006

Why you deleted the 16 May article about Major Power undeletion?

You people at wikipedia seem to have a probelm with all the things I write. You keep delting them. I think I was opening a big and fair debate about the Major Power article undeletion, but then you deleted what I wrote as you have deleted the article Major Power. I would like to know if I will do changes in the articles(for better, of course) or undeleting some articles I think were fine, what you will do.You people don't want valuable contributes, you want the articles to say only whatyou and some users think it's true. That is not the way, because sooner or latter, you will lost credibility.

ACamposPinho 24 May 2006

  • The earlier debate was not "deleted", just closed. The decision was to endorse the redirect/status quo. Your nomination for reconsideration failed. See the Recently Closed section at the bottom of this page. Xoloz 22:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

23 May 2006

College Confidential

VfD, delete log

Its VfD was in August of 2005 and is no longer really relevant, as its 4500 Alexa ranking shows. Also, it clearly falls under the exception to G4 "ensure that the material is substantially identical, and not merely a new article on the same subject," which this was. I suggest listing on AfD. --Rory096 07:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Overturn and list on AfD. A 9-month-old VfD with only five participants ought to be reinforced, especially if new evidence for notability is claimed. Also note Rory's cite of the G4 exception, which is often ignored (or missed). Also note that repeated recreations can be considered evidence of notability (can't find the cite for that in WP's guidelines, though). Powers 13:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse continued deletion unless new evidence of notability is presented. Per WP:WEB, Alexa rank is not evidence of notability. --Sam Blanning 17:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak endorse but open to new AfD listing. I know of this site; I've used it before and found it very helpful. However, the content does not inspire much confidence in the article's potential, and as the others say, Alexa rank isn't a strong notability indicator. (Although IMO it still ought to count for something.) Still, I'm open to an AfD listing because I think we'd benefit either way. Still, there's no real hurt to the encyclopaedia if this remains deleted; it's a one-sentence stub. Johnleemk | Talk 18:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Ghits aren't too bad either. --Rory096 22:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist on AfD, but I do endorse the original deletion. The person bringing this up on AfD has presented some new evidence that could merit this article's inclusion in Misplaced Pages. An AfD is a good way to deletermin if it's more notable now than it was last August. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Naismith Family

This article was deleted through WP:PROD, but substantial objections were raised at Talk:Naismith Family. This is not an aspersion on the deleting admin, who probably didn't notice the talk page (the prod tag was never removed), but the prod was contested and I think it should be reviewed. My own vote would be to list it at AfD, or possibly just to merge it into James Naismith. Chick Bowen 04:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Tim Dingle

AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tim Dingle

The deletion vote for this article appears to have been initially judged based on the belief that is was a smear campaign. Later in the vote the story was confirmed to have appeared in the news, but the delete argument was then based on lack of notability under WP:BIO. However, WP:BIO specifically includes people who have become known through their involvement in a notorious event. As the subject was clearly in the news for notorious acts, it seems that it would fall into this category and thereby satisfy WP:BIO. Reconsider. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 23:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted. I'm unclear on why this is being brought up again now. Some people at the time set up a website TimDingle.com, which has been kept updated, if you want a summary of the story. At the time, the story was: headmaster accused in drug case. Now the story is: headmaster accused in drug case, charges later dropped. From what I can tell from googling (could be incomplete) it seems this was a local scandal, which certainly was not a big national news story, and I don't see that it's a big enough story to meet notability standards. Fan1967 00:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Note Interesting that TimDingle.com seems to feel the need to include Misplaced Pages in their coverage. There is a page that seems to have the story as it was before deletion (based on my vague recollection of it), as well as a link to the school's article, Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe, which has a lengthy section on the incident. Fan1967 01:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I can remember the news story, but after the initial five minutes of infamy it only received mention in a local context (I live in Buckinghamshire). This guy is still just a headteacher who got the chop, and there are plenty of those around. -- Francs2000 01:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted There's a pretty clear precedent that school headmasters/principals aren't notable enough for articles themselves, and a bit of scandal in the local press isn't enough to change that. There's already a full paragraph about it in Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe. I wouldn't object to redirecting Tim Dingle there, I guess. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, the later votes considered the news, and they were still all in favour of deletion. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Abstract People

Why, why, why is the Abstract People article being deleted? Abstract People were one of the biggest metal acts in Ireland in the 90's!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AbstractPeople (talk • contribs) .

  • Because they don't exist, thats why. Quite simple really - fictional bands don't get entries on the Misplaced Pages. --Kiand 22:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and speedied the article as a G4 and the bogus AfD page as useless. -GTBacchus 22:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion Bad faith DRV. OhNoitsJamie 22:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion Totally agree with redeleting as G4, bad-faith nom. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The page is now protected against recreation, and I've blocked the author after he created it a fourth time. Chick Bowen 22:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The original speedy-deletion was as a "hoax". As we have discussed often before, being a hoax is explicitly not a speedy-deletion criterion. As individuals, we are notoriously poor at sorting the hoaxes from the real though poorly written articles on obscure topics. The subsequent re-deletions were based on the incorrect assumption that the first speedy-deletion was appropriate.
    Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now. Like the participants above, I can find no evidence that this band really exists. I can not endorse the speedy-deletion but neither will I argue to overturn it without some evidence of existence. Rossami (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    Rossami, I think you're right. It would have been better if I'd taken it to AfD instead of re-speedying it. There's no point restoring it now (unless evidence comes along), but I'll keep in mind to be more careful with G4s. Thanks for the reminder. -GTBacchus 01:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse status quo - Metamagician3000 00:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC).
  • Endorse deletion(s) unless evidence of verifiable existence appears. -GTBacchus 01:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - obvious hoax, personal abuse from the author shows lack of good faith. Demiurge 08:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion We can't take chances on hoaxes or unverifiable material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Some remarks. As has been pointed out, this is an incorrect application of G4: that criterion was rewritten last year with just this sort of thing in mind, and it was hoped that it made clear that this kind of action is inappropriate. Just a gentle reminder.:-) As to the comment on the nominator, his crude remarks indicate rudeness and incivility; they do not mean that he is acting in bad faith. Do be careful when questioning the intentions of editors. —Encephalon 11:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion As an Irish rock fan, living in Ireland, I think I'd have heard of 'one of the biggest metal bands in Ireland' - and I haven't. Bastun 16:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Christian views of Hanukkah

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Christian views of Hanukkah

Congratulations! After a brief discussion (that I just noticed today), with a result 12d:4k:2m, they deleted the {{see also}} for the section Hanukkah#Interaction with other traditions. Was the article unsalvageable? Or the deletors simply ignorant? Now, I'm not sure of the state of the current article (could somebody please undelete for review), as I haven't looked at it since last Hannukah. But this isn't usually considered "Original Research" to document religious practices (editors aren't making up their own), and it affects a lot of folks in my neck of the woods where mixed-faith families are common. Yet, I doubt we really want to make the already long Hannukkah article even longer.... A nice short separate article would be best.

  • Undelete and fix any problems, as many (5) of the AfD commentors requested. --William Allen Simpson 15:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Concerns of those voting delete seem well-thought-out and valid. The article does a poor job of covering this notable issue, and has no sources. I'd say a sourced rewrite from scratch would be best. (I have history-undeleted for review.) -- SCZenz 16:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. As I am the admin who deleted the article, I will not "vote" here, but I will explain my decision. Firstly, and probably most importantly, there was a clear consensus to delete this article as it stood. Secondly, I felt that the delete votes were better informed by our policies than the keep votes were. I myself am Jewish, and am fully aware of the issues involved in this subject; however, I too felt that the article as it stood controvened WP:OR, therefore I saw no reason to go against the majority of votes. My deletion of the article does not mean that the subject is either non-encyclopaedic or unwelcome, but that the article as it stood was in contravention of our policies (a matter which numerous editors agreed upon). An article on this subject must be sourced in detail as the Christian view of Hanukkah is far from universal. Rje 17:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- thank you for making it available for review, the article is only a paragraph longer than it was last time I looked at it. IZAK (Jewish) wrote most of it, so I'll prod him. I've no idea what needs "sourcing" as most of it seems to be actual quotes from religious texts. Most of it I've heard in sermons from time to time on the Christian upbringing side, so there might be seminary material somewhere, but I'm long since lapsed and have nobody to ask. Believe me, there's nothing original to somebody raised 5 days a week North American Baptist (with Jewish relatives by marriage). --William Allen Simpson 17:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    I, along with those who voted to delete the article, am not suggesting that IZAK made up the conent of this article. The problem is that the views expressed in the article are not universal, they are those of certain individuals (I am unaware of any Christian denomination having a specific policy towards the religious festivals of other faiths). This being the case, the article absolutely must be sourced (this is made clear at WP:OR). Like I said earlier, I don't think anybody is disputing that some Christians observe Hanukkah; the problem is that it is such a minority, combined with the fact that there is no standard way in which they perform their observations, that it is necessary for this article to contain sources for it to conform with Misplaced Pages's established policies. Rje 18:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry that you're not familiar with a significant number of denominations here in the American Heartland. Merely millions of people is a "minority" when compared to Roman Catholicism.... Anyway, the only contribution I made at the time was to merge 2 similar articles, and that's how it ended up on my watchlist. While I had an important legal brief due last Thursday, I rarely check the watchlist more than once a week anyway. Now, I've done a simple Google, and among the 847,000 results, there are several that outrank even Misplaced Pages! They are eternalperspectives.com, biblestudy.org, and thetribulationforce.com, all "evangelical" or "messianic", just as the article says! Like I mentioned earlier, some seminarian probably has it printed in a book somewhere, but I'm not the person to ask. Looks like User:Bill Thayer is correct about the future viability of wikipedia.... --William Allen Simpson 19:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • IZAK's response: Hi everyone: Right off the bat let me make it very clear that I did not write this article (it's actually a stub). This material was mostly first added in 2004 by User:Chad A. Woodburn -- please contact him, his user page says he is a Christian pastor and he seems to still be active. I have not tracked it, but you guys have now forced me to look up its history, so here goes: After User:Chad A. Woodburn put it into the Hanukkah article it developed as something of a composite from a few subsequent editors, (examples:)  ;  ; (there are more). When I was editing the main article about the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah, rather than deleting this information which was causing constant friction between the Jewish and non-Jewish contributors I opted to move it into a more appropriate article in existence at that time called Evangelical Christian views of Hanukkah (interestingly, User:Chad A. Woodburn, the author seems to fit into that stream judging by what he writes about himself) which was then renamed in another move by User:William Allen Simpson where it got its new name of Christian views of Hanukkah. So that is why there is some confusion, also see the article's history page. Note that this issue of sources was also raised by User:TheRingess. Thus I hope I have clarified the questions you have here. Take care. IZAK 19:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: A cautionary tale -- in the AfD, somebody thought this was a copyvio. As the history revealed by IZAK shows, the cited page is actually a copy of wikipedia from several months later than the original section! --William Allen Simpson 19:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Look guys, I know this is an emotive subject, I really do, but the purpose of this process is not to challenge the outcome of the AfD debate. That debate has been concluded, the purpose of this page, as is clearly stated in the introduction, is to challenge my interpretation of that outcome. Without wishing to appear rude, it is not relevent to this discussion what your oppinion of the article was, or whether you missed the debate or not. What is relevent is whether you think a) I misjudged the consensus to delete, or b) that, if there was such a consensus, that the votes were not valid. I am sorry if I appear a little hot-headed about this, but the existence of this debate suggests quite a serious error on my part. Rje 19:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The votes were not valid. 3 cite a copyvio that did not exist. The nominator and several others call it original research. 4 call it "funny" and a "fork". And the most offensive:
      The "Christian" view of Hanukkah is like the "Dutch" view of Mount Kilimanjaro: not something to have an article about.
      --William Allen Simpson 20:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Even discounting the copyvio votes, there was a consensus to delete. As I have already stated the article failed our criteria for original research. While I agree that term may not be strictly accurate here, and this may be causing some confusion, if you read to policy page you will realise that the article wa in violation - hence the votes for deletion. Rje 20:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion Legitimate Afd with a clear consensus. OhNoitsJamie 20:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Original consensus was clear. Chick Bowen 21:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Cut-and-dry AfD. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Although my vote was the first that mentioned a copyvio, it is important to also note that my main reason was that the article contained original research. Kevin 23:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, consensus was obvious. Dr Zak 12:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. The WP:NOR argument, raised by the nominator and most of the other people in favour of deletion, was never rebutted by anyone arguing that it should be kept. The person who tried to say it wasn't OR failed to point to any sources, which is odd given that he claims to be studying the subject area. --bainer (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - consensus was clear and there were no special circumstances. Metamagician3000 05:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Claught of a bird Dairy Products

I made an article on this famous store on Manitoulin Island. Claught of a bird is indeed an actual person, and he does indeed own that store. I demand that it is un-deleted, for it has good information on one of Manitoulins most popular stores. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AppleJuicefromConcentrate (talk • contribs) .

LIP6

LIP6 is one of the two largest computer science laboratories in France, with researchers participating at the highest levels (program committees of international conferences, editorial boards of scholarly journals) across a wide variety of computer science disciplines. It is the computer science research arm of Pierre and Marie Curie University (UPMC), the largest science, technology, and medicine university in France, and the highest ranked French university in the University of Shanghai international research ranking. As the researchers also make up the teaching faculty in Computer Science at UPMC, it is, with over 100 faculty, one of the largest Computer Science departments in the world. It is hard to understand how such an institution could not be notable. The copyvio concerns are mitigated by the fact that the contribution came from the copyright holder (the lab) itself. The lab administrators were not contacted, as they should have been following Misplaced Pages's deletion policy, to see if this would be a problem. The answer would have been that the copyright problem is not a problem, and the needed permissions for use of the text and images can be granted. Furthermore, it is not a commercial promotion. It is true, clearly that the style and content must be modified so that it conforms to Misplaced Pages's style considerations and NPOV. However, the material provided should serve as a good basis for this, and the original authors are happy to work as part of the Misplaced Pages community in making the necessary edits. A rewrite is called for, but we do not understand the speedy deletion decision. -- 17:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Rewrite The topic seems to be notable, but Misplaced Pages does not want articles which are merely copy-and-paste jobs from official websites, even if they aren't technically copyvios. We also prefer that articles not be written by their subjects or anyone closely connected with the subject. If anyone cares to write a real article, it would probably stay. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Based on the evidence available at the time, I would also have deleted this as a probable copyright violation. We have had such severe problems with unsourced and illegal content, especially violations about images, that we have unfortunately been forced to take aggressive actions. A rewrite seems appropriate but please be very careful to document the copyright provenance of any text or images copied over. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Request undeletion of rewritten article I did precisely as suggested here, writing a short article with no copyvio, following the structure and style of an established article on another computer science laboratory, and, not even eight hours later, the new article has vanished. It seems whoever did this does not care to partake in the deletion review process, as no justification for deleting the rewritten article has appeared in this thread. Nor, does it seem, has this new deletion respected the general criteria for speedy deletion, which specifically says: "Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical", which it clearly is not. MyPOV 6:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: The deleting admin has already self-reverted the action and apologized in the edit summary. Rossami (talk)

Oz categories

CfD

There used to be several categories sorting the inamates in the Oz TV series:

Which were deleted recently by a few people who were against it. (Unfortunately, this deletion vote was not mentioned in any page, so no one could speak for these categories.

As you may see, there are too many articles regarding oz's prisoners, and this categorizing must take place. It should be also mentioned that these categories had some text in them portraying these gangs, and describing the main event that had happened to them during the course of the series.

I will put a link in here in the series' article talk page. Thanks! OzOz 11:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • endorse closure and keep deleted. I suggested to the review nominator that he perhaps write an article like Gangs of Oz (TV series) and include the information that he wants to have in the categories there, but it looks like he has rejected that idea. Categories should not have significant text in them, just guidelines for what should be included in that category. He could then have little headers for Fooians of Oz, describe the gang, and link to whatever related articles were needed either in a text or list form. Original multiple category discussion was here and previous Irish prisoners deletion discussion was here, and I was the closing admin in both cases. Syrthiss 12:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete. Was a very usefull categorizing IMO. I don't care about the text, though. As far as I'm concerned, it can be sent to a different article. Jimbryho 09:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete. Randy MacFarFarAway 12:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure and keep deleted. Proper notice was given on the categories themselves, and the vote was unanimous to merge. No valid reason has been given for overturning the CFD. The text that OzOz mentions above is irrelevant, because anything beyond a brief description of a category's contents should be put in articles, not in categories. Postdlf 15:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, CfD got it right. This was an unnecessary categorization. --Cyde↔Weys 16:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is kind of irrelevant, but why were there redirects to those categories in articlespace? --Rory096 16:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure the admin arrived at the only conclusion available from the discussion, the categories were correctly tagged: process was followed correctly. Moreover the Category:Oz (TV series) characters does not seem to require subcategories at this time. Tim! 16:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. I voted to keep them (with some renaming), but nearly everybody else felt otherwise, so I think the admin came to the right conclusion. They can all go in the main Oz characters category.--Mike Selinker 23:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete. There are about 60 articles there not including the CO's (Which some of you suggested to be sent to the main category along with the inmates. It needs to be sorted better. Plus, I believe that many readers might be interested only in the inmates of a certain gang (Instead of the entire category where all of the inmates shown throughout the series' run are put together. Yuval madar 06:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hulk 2

  • Overturn. The article on Hulk 2 was previously voted for deletion because it was pretty much unverifiable. Web research on the topic at that time (June 2005) only produced actors confirming they _would not_ be involved in a Hulk sequel. On 28 April 2006, Marvel confirmed that a sequel to the 2003 film was under development.

Currently the article Hulk 2 is protected and redirects to Hulk (film). I therefore propose that the page be edited to redirect to The Incredible Hulk (film) (the apparent working title of the film) which in turn redirects to the Sequel section of the 2003 film article. When sufficient information about the new film becomes available, the sequel information can then be spun out into its own article. Journeyman 06:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


22 May 2006

Xombie

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Xombie

It was deleted due to not meeting WP:WEB. Xombie has been in two magazines so far Fangoria and Rue Morque]. This isn't advertising for the site, its about the flash cartoon that's being turned into a movie, how can Misplaced Pages not have this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonkoldyk (talk • contribs)

  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). I find no process problems with the AFD discussion. Had I seen this deletion discussion, I would also have argued to delete. I can not convince myself that it is appropriate for Misplaced Pages to include entries for every flash cartoon that comes along. Rossami (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, valid AfD. Af first glance, this seems to be a classic "No consensus" AfD, but only one of the delete votes was valid: one was from an anon, and the other was from a very new user. That puts it right on the border for admin's discretion, and in this case, the closing admin applied it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete. So here's a situation where the article clearly did not show it met WP:WEB upon its deletion, and we now have evidence that it, in fact, does meet WP:WEB. Without seeing what was there before, I don't know what the article looked like, but given that it seems that process is being followed by coming to DRV instead of just recreating, and WP:WEB (the justification for deletion) is now met, we should undelete. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure Valid AfD, per Deathphoenix's reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete, not every flash cartoon that comes along gets made into a feature-length film released on DVD. Furthermore, this series clearly meets criteria 1 of WP:WEB. AfroDwarf 15:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete no consensus on AfD and some claims to notability were presented.  Grue  12:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Gary Howell

In the heat of the moment of deletion, many failed to look at the facts. A notable West Virginian.

Nationally Known Automotive Person in TV and Print

International Credit Card Fraud Expert

--71Demon 16:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • This has been deleted twice; the first time following an AfD (Admins can see the final version before this deletion at ), with the consensus being that the article failed WP:BIO, WP:CORP and/or WP:VAIN. Having seen the content of the deleted version I would also have voted to delete for these reasons. The second time (earlier today) it was speedy deleted as an nn-bio (CSD:A7) but it could also have been deleted under CSD:G4 (recreation of previoulsy deleted material), that version contained even less information than the previously deleted version and no substantiated notability claims so this was a perfectly valid deletion. Endorse deletions but allow recreation iff notability can be established. I suggest that you start composing an article in your userspace and only move it to the main namespace when it substantially improves on the first version to avoid a further speedy deletion under G4 or A7. If notability is still not established then there should be no prejudice against a second AfD. Thryduulf 16:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore Never should have been deleted. Meets all criteria for a good Misplaced Pages article. --70.17.192.78 17:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn/Restore this never should have been deleted --63.243.30.51 17:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As far as I see it the facts weren't actually presented in such clarity during the afd debate, and so I don't see that the decision to delete was wrong. I'm with Thryduulf: if notability can be established then restore. -- Francs2000 17:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that I must disagree with the assertion that the facts above were not considered. In fact, they were clearly documented in the deleted version of the article. I find little evidence convincing me that they were ignored or overlooked by the discussion participants. I must also disagree with 71Demon's specific assertion above that Howell is an "international credit fraud expert". Three of the four articles he/she cites as evidence demonstrate no such thing. (The fourth is in Japanese so I could not evaluate it.) Howell was interviewed as a small business owner who has been affected by international credit card fraud. He is no more "expert" than any other small business owner so afflicted.
    I endorse closure (keep deleted) but, as Thryduulf said, there is no prejudice against a new article more thoroughly documenting his achievements. If such an article is written and upheld, we can do a history-restore at that time. Rossami (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, valid AfD. Allow re-creation if the article addresses the concerns mentioned above and in the AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • (Caveat: I was the nom on the AfD in question). Endorse closure as a valid, good-faith AfD. I have no prejudice to recreation as long as it illustrates notability. To do so, the article should focus on Howell's work in the world of hot rods and automobiles (where he may possibly be notable in a relative sense) and it should prove said notability in that field. His status as a guy that has been interviewed because his business was ripped off (at least until his book is published) and his goal of seeking a seat on a local county commission should only be mentioned as side-notes and do not contribute either way to his notability or lack there of. youngamerican (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

New Sincerity

This article needed expanding, not deleting. It is a verifiable media theory, although the article itself needed work. The opinion when discussed was mixed, but this is a real and serious theory that should have a place on Misplaced Pages. If the article is not reinstated, can I at least have the original content to be worked into a fuller, referenced article that can be? --Hippo Shaped 17:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion but allow userfication. This was a valid closure of the AfD, but based on the comments by some participants it seems as though there is potential for a valid, verifiable article and indeed some work was done to improve the article during the debate, but this was not enough to influence a turnaround in voting. I recommoned that Hippo Shaped be allowed the content to work on it. I feel that it do the article good not to be associated with some of its mid-life incarnations as these were detrimental to people's opinions of it at AfD. Thryduulf 17:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. I voted keep on the AfD discussion, but it was closed properly, if you can come up with a valid, verifiable article, then please recreate it in your User space and bring it back here for review. User:Zoe| 22:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, valid AfD. It was relisted twice, so it was a bit of a difficult one (though when I relisted it the second time, I didn't realise it was already relisted), but I think it was closed appropriately. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Successful Praying

I request the return of the article on the book Successful Praying because it was deleted without due respect for the deletion process. I would ask that this request be based on whether or not due process was followed (which I think is strong) and not on whether the article may or may not survive a more considered delete process (which I admit is less strong). See also the discussion with the admin about this deletion. Thanks, Brusselsshrek 08:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Technical undelete as it clearly wasn't a speedy candidate, however I recommend Brussels writes an article on the author Frederick Julius Huegel instead of or at least before writing an article on his book. Articles on authors can frequently contain most of the useful information about their writing. --Sam Blanning 10:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. While I have little doubt this was done in good faith, a table of contents of a book is copyrighted. After stripping the TOC and the copyrighted cover images (they can only be used in articles that discuss the book -- not ones that say Title is a book by so and so), all you have left is "Successful Praying, subtitled an explanation of ten rules which guarantee answered prayer is the title of a book by Frederick Julius Huegel." with an ISBN and a link. I don't think that result was an article. I would agree that an article about the author is probably more feasible, but if Brussel can mention something about the book other than the basic details (especially what makes the book special enough for an entry), I have little problems with a recreation. But I don't think the original should be reinstated. Userfy if he wants to expand. - Mgm| 10:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I had fully intended to write more information about the contents of the book, but the stub was deleted within DAYS of it being created. The TOC was there to form a skeleton for what I was about to write. To argue that the content was not sufficient to justify recreation misses many important points:
      1. the article had only been created a few days earlier (thus deleted contrary to wikipedia guidelines of allowing a stub a reasonable time to develop).
      2. the author of the article was not informed of the deletion, except as a "speedy-delete" (while he was asleep) and so had no chance to add the real value which is suggested was missing
      3. the proper procedure was not followed, and I as the person to have most suffered from this lack of procedure, am simply asking for the right to create the article which I wanted to create.
      I will add that I have now spent a huge amount of time simply fighting against this speedy-delete, and it is a real tragedy that I waste almost all of the time I spend on Misplaced Pages editing recently because what I see as this admins blunder, rather than contributing useful stuff.Brusselsshrek 12:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy-deletion as a copyright violation. Unfortunately, Brusselsshrek's statement of his/her intention to expand the stub past copy-vio status does nothing to protect the project. Every page must stand alone as is at the time you hit the "save page" button. The courts have not yet sanctioned us for tolerating copyvios for short periods but that is a theory that we should not test. Take the time to write a solid, non-copyvio stub. Then post it.
    As to Brusselsshrek's claims that he/she was not informed, no notice is required nor is any such notice appropriate (though it can, in some cases, be courteous). Please read (or re-read) WP:OWN. None of us has any claim to ownership of any page here. Rossami (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy, per Mgm & Rossami. Sorry, Brusselsshrek, dealing with copyvios takes precedence over everything. Even if you plan to expand the article, any content that is a copyright violation is simply not acceptable (for legal reaasons) and must be removed from the article history. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Deathphoenix. Although I would have taken a different route (tagging the copyvio and asking the editor to userfy it until it was further along) the destination is the same. Thatcher131 15:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, I get the point about copyvio. Question though, I have done the identical thing for the article The Cross and the Switchblade, that is, I have scanned the front/back cover of the book. Is that not copyvio? What is the guideline? I know there's a lot of general stuff written here about copyvio, but what is the story on book covers? Can I or can't I copy them? The book covers for the Successful Praying article were scanned at exactly the same resolution or size as the book cover for The Cross and the Switchblade for which nobody seems to be saying anything. Thanks for clarifying. Brusselsshrek 08:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
If you read the guideline at WP:FAIR it seems that a scan of a book cover to accompany an article about the book is ok. However, copying the text from the jacket so as to constitute the body of the article is definitely not. I would say that at least half of The Cross and the Switchblade is an unacceptable copyright violation. You should find some other way to describe the contents of the book in your own words. Thatcher131 14:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Videohypertransference

Wow... I really hope I am doing this right. Sincere apologies if I am getting this protocol wrong - I am quite a newbie. I have 2 points to make about the deletion of this article, or maybe 3. 1) May I have the text copied to my userspace? If all else fails here, I would at least be interested in getting the latest version of the text for my own personal use. 2) I didn't get any warning about the deletion notice (prolly because I didn't login for a couple of weeks), so I never got a chance to say anything about the deletion vote. I think the article is a valid attempt, and I would be happy to try and source the article a bit more thoroughly. However, as I pointed out on the discussion page, there isn't much information directly available on this topic via Google. It is a very recent phenomenon, and I did my best to scientifically describe the empirical facts. This is just my opinion, but I often find people have a very strange view of what science is! 3ish) I think the article can be improved if it is fully undeleted. The phenomenon of videohypertransference is a real one, and deserves documenting. It has grown out of the rise of video (and video nasties) in the west, and the popularity of video game culture in Japan. Thanks for your consideration, --Dan| 08:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I've moved the text to User:Dmb000006/Videohypertransference. Please stick a {{delete|unwanted user subpage}} notice on it when this deletion review is closed and you're otherwise done with the text, as Misplaced Pages is not a free webhost. Anyway, I think the main issue is: does anyone actually refer to this as "videohypertransference"? Otherwise the article is fundamentally original thought. In the absence of specific new evidence that would theoretically have caused the very clear consensus in the AfD to be otherwise, endorse closure. --Sam Blanning 10:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks... Would it be possible to get the discussion page restored too? I made some useful comments for the would-be deleter on that page, as well as some notes regarding the stories in the media. Thank you! --Dan| 06:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

21 May 2006

Church of Reality

I want to hear countering viewpoints of the Church of Reality, after seeing bumper stickers in San Francisco. It looks like the page is permanently deleted, but no explanation has been given as to why. It is an athiestic organization: is the page being suppressed by political opponents? Please reinstate to allow open information exchange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.103.182 (talk • contribs)


17 May 2006

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)

  • 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)
  • 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 <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)
What a confusingly named organization. — May. 15, '06 <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)
  • This got no attention and I have no idea what to do with it, so I've moved it to the top of the heap. And subst the subpage, because I hate them like poison. - brenneman 12:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to match local usage, no good reason to ignore the consensus that CFD came up with. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse status quo - I would prefer "motor vehicle manufacturers" (which sometimes gets abbreviated to "motor manufacturers"), but surely this isn't worth much of a fuss over. The outcome reached was sensible enough to stand. Metamagician3000 11:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Structures of the GLA (second nomination) 17:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  13. Prhizzm, undeleted and relisting at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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
  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 Misplaced Pages 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.

Proposed deletions

Articles deleted under the Misplaced Pages: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.

Decisions to be reviewed

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/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 Misplaced Pages 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.

Proposed deletions

Articles deleted under the Misplaced Pages: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.

Decisions to be reviewed

Template loop detected: Template:Vfu mechanics


26 May 2006

Left-wing terrorism

Stella Maris College Scout Group

  • UnDelete - this article was still a stub. However, it was deleted. Misplaced Pages does not have information about scout groups in Malta. The page The_Scout_Association_of_Malta is the only Maltese scouting page. Misplaced Pages needs to have a page about the scout groups in Malta, their activities, programme, etc. The Stella Maris College Scout Group is an active group, which deserves to be listed. It has carried out a number of joint activities with different scout groups around the globe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.188.46.254 (talk • contribs)
  • The entire content of the article was
    "Stella Maris College Scout Group is part of The Scout Association of Malta"
    and an externel link. - I'd just recreate it with something more substantail. RN 15:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, discourage recreation. Individual Scout groups are not notable. "Misplaced Pages needs to have a page about the scout groups in Malta, their activities, programme, etc" - no, the organisation's website needs that, this is an encyclopaedia and not a vehicle for promoting Scout groups. --Sam Blanning 15:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

25 May 2006

List of Michael Savage neologisms

The AfD discussion can be found at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Michael Savage neologisms (second nomination).

  • UnDelete - list :offers insight into controversial cultural icon, unique extensive jargon reference
Its never been deleted... RN 23:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
It has, he just linked to the wrong article in the heading. I've fixed it. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep deleted. AfD was closed quite properly, and a look at the article shows nothing that would be missed from Misplaced Pages. If you'd like to take the content and host it on your own website, I'd be happy to provide it to you. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • endorse closure - keep deleted. This was a valid afd with a 100% consensus that there shouldn't be an article on Misplaced Pages (there were votes to transwiki to Wikiquote, 10 votes to delete and one unsigned comment by an anon that didn't express an opinion about the article). Thryduulf 23:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure but not the actual AfD result. Valid AfD here, but I wouldn't have put "no consensus, leaning towards delete" as the result in the AfD. After discounting the invalid votes, this was definitely a consensus towards delete. A "no consensus" means that the article is kept, not deleted. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC), valid AfD (changed my comments now that RasputinAXP provided a link to the most recent AfD). --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, as an AfD closer, I'm aware of that. As I've noted somewhere else, while AfD isn't a vote, and each entry in an AfD is a comment, I choose to name any comment which calls for an action (such as comments that start with Keep, Merge, Redirect, or Delete) a "Vote" for convenience and to differentiate it from an actual comment which doesn't call for an action (such as comments that have no heading, or start with Comment). If you would prefer that I use a different noun, I can call it an iVote, nVote, !Vote, notVote, or something like that. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep deleted: List of neologisms from a single person? That's a tribute page, a fan page, or an attack page, and it's not an encyclopedia article. Geogre 02:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: as the closer of the most recent AfD on this article, it was a pretty clear Delete.  RasputinAXP  c 03:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted The closure and deletion was proper, and valid reasons for deletion were expressed in the first and second AfDs and here above, while no reasons expressed for keeping it had any weight to them. (Even if the article were deemed to be proper for WP, it had many problems I had identified in the 1st AfD the maintainers of the page were apparently unwilling to address.) Шизомби 04:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • transwiki to Wikiquote list qualifies as a unique citation of quotes

Philip Sandifer

full deletion log (OMG WHEELWAR)
Adam Bishop deleted "Philip Sandifer" (give me a fucking break)

This was a sourced article expanded by editors such as Brenneman and SlimVirgin. The deletion was done for what appear to be emotional rather than legitimate reasons. --SPUI (T - C) 22:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Violation of WP:AUTO, he has had 1 news story, albeit a big one, but not enough to warrant an article. The story itself is more relevant to Misplaced Pages Review than to Snowspinner, because that is where the article started. No point choosing to favour Misplaced Pages admins just because this is Misplaced Pages. The more notable web site should be listed. This needs to stay deleted. 203.122.203.145 22:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it's a violation of WP:AUTO ("I do not consider myself notable, to be clear" doesn't strike me as someone to write an article about himself). --Rory096 22:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think I'm pretty solidly borderline notable, between academic work and the Pulp Decameron story. I trust y'all to keep the article from being libelous, and since I already have a talk page and a user page, it's not like deleting it removes targets for vandals. So please, don't delete the article for reasons having to do with protecting me. On the other hand, if you don't think I'm notable enough, whack it.

Though I don't think I'm a speedy candidate. :) Phil Sandifer 23:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Another note: I do hope, if this article survives, that someone will actually add mention of my publications and academic career, which, while minor, is a hell of a lot more notable and enduring than Boing Boing. Phil Sandifer 00:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted, tactical and legal reasons, good lord! Suggest we close this DRV asap. Kim Bruning 22:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
What "tactical and legal reasons" are those? --SPUI (T - C) 22:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Two of your "Misplaced Pages Review trolls" have posted on this page and think it should be kept deleted. Of course, Zordrac and myself don't speak for everyone and their diverse opinions, but it should be noted that not all of us would like to "sit and gloat over" an article on Phil. --72.160.71.156 23:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed? I'm pleased to hear that. Could Misplaced Pages Review's collective consciousness be developing a collective conscience? Or are you just muddying the waters, and not really ashamed of yourselves at all? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted – Not sufficiently notable, if he wasn't a Wikipedian he would never have had an article in the first place – Gurch 22:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed to Strong undelete – following discussion with Kim Bruning – Gurch 23:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep deleted. I'd vote to delete at an AfD no question -- the news item isn't very notable -- but the arguments for speedying this are a bit fuzzy to me. I've seen two one: a IAR appeal that the AfD would be massively disruptive. , and Kim Bruning's cryptic legal, ethical, and moral claims. I weakly agree with IAR here to avoid disruption and troll feeding. I have to admit I join those who don't currently understand Kim's point at all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Undelete, after talking with slimvirgin. :-) Kim Bruning 23:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Undelete and deal with this quietly is my only choice. Taking it to AfD is not an option in this case, because that would cause controversy and be assisting the trolls. Kim Bruning 11:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. I don't think this was speediable. I also think this doesn't have to be disruptive if we don't make it disruptive. If it goes to AfD, I hope everyone will be conscious of the potential for insult inherent in arguing a person's notability—but then, as Phil and others have pointed out, we should always be conscious of that. Finally, I note that if this contains information which is of concern to the subject of the article as being libelous or otherwise harmful, he can (as always) contact the foundation and they can intervene; I don't think we should be trying to do our own version of WP:OFFICE because we guess there could be such a problem. In short, we should handle this like any other article, and crack down firmly on those who don't. -- SCZenz 23:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. From what I hear, it was well-sourced, and even if it's a minor one-time news story, that's good enough for me. Of course, my standards of notability are very low, but well-sourced articles about nonnotable things certainly aren't going to hurt Misplaced Pages. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. The page was not an attack page, and this seems like it can become a major news story, especially after the latest developments. There's an assertion of notability too... not entirely sure it should go through AFD, but it shouldn't have been speedied. Titoxd 23:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    Don't let it go to AfD, that'd be a disaster. Kim Bruning 00:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Request: for the benefit of the non-admins (who can't read deleted pages) and the not-sufficiently-clued (who aren't reading the Misplaced Pages equivalent of Page 6), could someone point to some page that will give the slightest clue what the frak is going on, or would someone at least cough up an executive summary? --Calton | Talk 23:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay. (I stand ready to be corrected on details at any time, mark you). Phil Sandifer is a minor (very minor; about as minor as you can be without carrying a pickaxe and canary) academic who has been known to write gory stories about what it's like to be a stalker and/or murderer. Misplaced Pages Review, who hate Phil in his guise as Snowspinner, Admin of Death, discovered his works of fiction and decided that a 'phone call to the cops might be in order, just to see if they could be duped into harrassing him. It worked. The 'blog Boing Boing wrote a story about how dumb it all was. Then someone mused "hey, maybe this makes Fat Phil notable enough for an article" and, lo! There was an article! And we wonder why Adam speedied it ... fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • (This is probably only 50% accurate :)) Basically a article about the guy was started by a non-involved user, Aaron was going to prod it but then decided not to, then SlimVirgin came in and made a boatload of edits bringing it up to semi-decent quality (but still on the very edge of notability - I think http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=wikien-l&m=114838411432481&w=2 sums up a good part of it). Then it was deleted and restored by like six seperate admins, and brought here somewhere in the middle of that. I have no idea what discussion Kim Bruning is referring to with SlimVirgin though - I'm assuming it is on IRC or E-Mail. That's about all I can think of without undeleting it. RN 00:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted is my first choice, Undelete and list on AfD is my second choice, I'd probably vote delete in the AfD, but I don't think the page as it stood was a CSD A6 (attack page), and I don't think it's so obviously a CSD A7 (non-notable person) because the page was sourced. It takes an AfD to determine whether the sources are good enough, not a speedy delete. --Deathphoenix ʕ 23:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete (and keep undeleted) -- the unilateral deletions are becoming tiresome; if you contest the notability of any subject, you can propose it for deletion and wait a week, or bring it straight to AFD. Silensor 00:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    Not afd. If the choice is between keep deleted or take to AFD, then keep deleted please. A ForestFire would be bad. Kim Bruning 00:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted Being an English grad student who has a minor run-in with some confused, over-active cops does not make one notable -- nor do I really think its an assertion of notability sufficient to overcome A7. If "I'm a grad student" isn't an assertion of notability (and it isn't, per the policy's text), then I don't think "I'm a grad student mentioned in a local paper" does either. Xoloz 00:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted obviously. I'm not sure which of my "tiresome" unilateral deletions Silensor's referring to, nor why he or she would describe the actions of three admins and the assent of more as "unilateral", but the subject is a lightning rod for abuse from more than one quarter; any AFD is likely to be cursed by contention, and a "keep" isn't a reasonable result. There's no way a reader cares about this--the average professor is more notable, and the "average professor test" has long been in use for biographical notability--and the only reason we seem to care is that he's well known among us as an admin, and among the Misplaced Pages Review crowd as a totalitarian of some kind. In conversation with Kim Bruning, who has related to me SlimVirgin's "secret reasons" for keeping the article, I can assure you that they are in the vein of using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox, "getting the word out" about something which otherwise fewer people would read, and this is not Misplaced Pages's purpose. I'm a fan of doing things the proper, procedural way--you will never hear me shout "Process?! Oh no!" as if it's some kind of inherent evil--but we don't read our policies or procedures as a legal code, and it is occasionally incumbent upon us to do the right thing for the encyclopedia in exceptional circumstances, whatever the letter of the process is. Demi /C 00:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    No, the reasons to keep from SV were that the article was notable and referenced, as per wikipedia content policies. "Secret reasons" for better words (ick) were used to convince me that it may not harm Snowspinner to have this article around. Kim Bruning 01:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    I mean the reasons that hadn't already been stated. Demi /C 01:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    Fair enough :-) Kim Bruning 02:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages Review navel gazing is not notable. User:Zoe| 02:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted: I see nothing but A7 here. The web emphasizing the importance of a web performer is vanity of vanities, and vanity about something that disappears when the power goes out, to boot. I know that Snowspinner didn't write the article and wants it deleted, but it's still taking the form of a vanity piece to overcome the 'claim of notability' bar. It can only make the claim by arguing that what happens on the web has some actuality to it, some importance to it, or by making the similarly huge assumption that being alledged of a crime or offense is, in fact, a major event. Tens of thousands are accused every day. If he's convicted or kicked out, then we'll be somewhere. Until then, he's just someone studying the faddish "comics" field (Jane Tomkins would be pleased). Geogre 02:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It sort of helps that Corey Doctorow wrote about it though. Kim Bruning 02:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Not terribly, IMO. If it becomes a major cause for people who are well established, then it becomes part of their article. There are tons of people, and I'm afraid there are going to be more tons more shortly, getting harassed by anonymous complaints to bosses and presidents (the Musical Linguist stalker comes to mind). U. cops should know better, but sometimes they're like the cops in Alice's Restaurant and have all that cop equipment they need to use, and sometimes they figure that U.'s are the places where terrarists are. When there is an issue to the charges, when there is an arrest or conviction or punitive action, then something will have happened. Until then, it empowers the stalkers to celebrate their actions. Geogre 13:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment FYI, it appears that WikiTruth is picking this up, so forest fires may be unavoidable. --Maxamegalon2000 03:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted Xoloz, amongst others, properly appreciates that, even if we are sure that Phil (or this incident in particular) is non-notable, we ought to undelete and list at AfD if we can perceive an assertion of notability in the initial article. A7, of course, still permits us some discretion, and I'm inclined to believe that the article (or any possible apropos of Phil or the incident) failed to make even an assertion of notability; were I new page patrolling, I'd likely not have tagged the page for speedy, and were I an admin, I'd likely not have speedied, but I certainly think a contention that the article did not assert the notability of the subject can be understood to be reasonable. In cases where a question entails as to whether an article even has asserted notability, we can likely see controversy, for which the full debate of an AfD is appropriate; here, though, WP:SNOWBALL (through WP:IAR) should be dispositive. It is certain that the result of an AfD would be delete (even as one might oppose that result, he/she must concede that such result is inevitable), and so it is altogether fine that we should keep the article deleted (we needn't to worry about precedent, I think, in view of WP:NBD). I'd really like to redirect to Overzealous local law enforcement officials who fail to understand such concepts as free speech and fiction and ought to be sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, but apparently we don't have such an article. Joe 04:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and AFD Seem like a borderline for notability but it is hard to say without seeing the actual article. --God Ω War 07:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted Phil, Aaron, and SlimVirgin didn't start the article (that is, unless User:The bellman is one of their sockpuppets). Since I'm following up Joe here I'll go along the same line. I was new pages patrolling and I saw an article about a living person with little to no notability completely sourced from blogs and message boards (well, it wasn't sourced at all but it had external links) so I tagged it A7, but Aaron wasn't in an IAR mood apparently so he changed the speedy tag to prod. I also left a message for Phil on his talk page, who later produced the second gainsville sun article (the first being the one that mentions him in passing about some comics conference that I sourced the stub from). The deletion does not specifically meet A7 imo, as the assertion of notability is sourced now, but this is a perfectly valid IAR/SNOW deletion (but the wheelwar was funny!). One mention in a local newspaper and some blogs does not make notability and he certainly isn't a notable academic. Wikinews would certainly be a better place for an article on the story involving his story, but I do not think he is going to have 15 minutes of fame--and even if he does we can wait till after he actually has it to write about it. On the subject of Boing Boing as a souce: rubbish, don't do it. I don't care if you write for the New York Times, citing your blog is not a good idea for an encyclopedia. We are interested in the process (fact checkers and editors) and the publication (I'm sure I can find a copy of a NYT article 20 years from now). Yes, they fuck up sometimes, but verifiability not truth to use the catch phrase. Kotepho 08:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and deny recognition to neo-Nazis and trolls. Ignoring the WikiDrama, clearly doesn't meet encyclopaedic notability standards. --Sam Blanning 08:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted The JPS 12:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and take it to vfd. Vfd is the proper place to decide this. We should not let fear of what trolls may do at the vfd prevent us from having a proper deletion debate. The day I am afraid of trolls is the day i leave wikipedia. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per WP:SNOW. If this survives, relist on VfD.  Grue  12:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, SNOW doesn't apply here - that's for completely uncontroversial cases, and this clearly isn't uncontroversial - David Gerard 12:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Hello, Mr. Gerard. You may not have visited DRV recently. WP:SNOW is often cited, and a reasonable minority of editors (not including me, btw) consider every use controversial. If it were meant to be uncontroversial, then it should be deleted. As a friend of the departed Radiant, who wrote it, I believe it was meant to be an essay employed by parties in cases where they felt it appropriate, whether controversial or not. What we can say of WP:SNOW is that is does not apply where there are reasonable issues to be argued at an AfD. Personally, as my opinion above makes clear, I do not believe a reasonable argument can be made that this subject is encyclopedically notable at this time; hence, valid speedy. I didn't cite WP:SNOW, but I do believe it applies. Xoloz 16:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete This wasn't a controversy until we made it one. There wasn't a good reason for speedy deleting, so it should be undeleted. --W.marsh 12:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete or Take to AFD - borderline notability, but the speedy invoked the SNOW clause, which doesn't apply when it turns out it is controversial. I'm sure the article will be kept of quality, whether started by a troll or not - David Gerard 12:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted wikinews or the signpost may want it, but I can't see how this isn't the correct applciation of CSD A7.--Peta 12:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted Mr. Sandifer's story might meet the notability requirements of a local or campus newspaper, but not a freakin' encyclopedia. Also, if regular users (non-admins) are allowed any say at WP:DRV then the article text should be accessible, at least for the duration of such peer review. It would be helpful not to have to go to WikiTruth every time... ˉˉ╞┬╡ 12:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Amending to keep deleted or list on afd. ˉˉ╞┬╡ 13:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and list at AfD per Phil. Clearly doesn't meet any speedy deletion criterion. Haukur 12:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Simply too minor a figure. Not notable as a scholar with respects to works published and recognition in the field, nor do these law enforcement and otherwise institutional encounters appear particularly noteworthy for a country of 300 million, with a semifascistic regime in power; i.e. this happens all over, in many diverse froms for people equally bellow the range of notability, albeit with the the odd newspaper mention. When he's mentioned in Time, I will revise my opinion. Finally, no need to bring this to AfD if proceduralism is the main motivation. I doubt the discussion will swing much differently there (although it would involve recreating the article for review, at the event, it is available on wikitruth), so this is just to save time and energy that that process would entail. El_C 14:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Xoloz. Henry 14:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Really a pretty minor case, and not something which has attracted significant attention, even in the local media. I don't think we would have been discussing this if the subject were not a Wikipedian. Valid A7 deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Uh, A7 applies to articles which: not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. It should be abundantly clear that deletion under A7 doesn't apply here. --W.marsh 14:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
No, WP:SNOW simply does not "apply" here, as it reads, and the spirit of it supports, that it should only be used, and I quote, if an issue raises no controversy. Clearly this is not an issue that raises no controversy. --W.marsh 15:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion without prejudice: Though not stated in the deleted summary, which was not a good idea ("give me a fucking break" is not a valid reason to delete), CSD A7 applies in this case because the text of the article did not assert notability. Having something on LiveJournal reported to UF isn't good enough for that, I'm afraid. If, however, the article at least asserted notability, then it should have been AfDed. —BorgHunter (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted until there's evidence that this is a big story, but under A7 notability, not as an attack page. While I respect Kim Bruning's differing opinion, it reads like borderline WP:PANIC. An earlier poster had it right in saying we shouldn't try to do our own version of WP:OFFICE. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Superhorse

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Superhorse

I would respectfully request that another look be taken at this article. I have added more supporting evidence since the AFD started and I am not sure whether or not it was taken into consideration. This is my first article and I think that a little construtive criticism wouldn't hurt and would help me right write articles in the future.

Quite frankly my first experience was a bit nerve wrecking and I feel that I have learned little and am unsure if I am capable of at least starting an article that would be acceptable to Misplaced Pages' standards. Thanks for all your help and I look forward to a fair and ubiased discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meanax (talk • contribs)

  • Comment FWIW, the deleted article can be viewed at a Google cache. Fan1967 21:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: As the closing admin, I'd like to say that I would have liked to be informed about this DRV (please take a look at {{DRVNote}}). Now, to the AfD itself. First of all, it wasn't easy, sifting through the extremely long comments by all the new users (likely sockpuppets or meatpuppets). Next, after discounting those invalid votes, on a strict vote count, I counted four deletes and one keep, with the one keep being by the original author. The delete votes took into account the evidence you were presenting, and they still decided that the subject wasn't notable enough to be included. If this article is kept deleted, it's okay, it's not easy sometimes figuring out what's notable and what's not. It might be easiest for you to find a small music-related articles and expand those instead. Misplaced Pages could use some expansion of articles. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Once the band has more coverage will they be reconsidered for inclusion on Misplaced Pages or is this a life time delete? user = meanax
  • Comment: Dear Deathphoenix, I just want to clarify that all the long comment on that AFD were mine. Two of the keep voters I new. I third one I had no idea who or she was. I want to make clear that I was not trying to circumvent the system. I promise. user = meanax
    • No problem. I closed the AfD without malice and in as fair a way as possible. Oh, and note my additions to the response above.
  • No opinion to the deleted article, but there could be a good article under this name, I think. Isn't superhorse a breeding/racing term applied to specific horses like Secretariat which perform a standard deviation or two above literally any of their peers? I will look into it more and write a draft when I have time and am on my normal computer. --W.marsh 14:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I've removed the {{deletedpage}} now that the user is involved in DrV. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Exicornt

Exicornt is a slang term (or neologism) train buffs use to describe a train track junction that resembles the formation of the letter X. Six months ago, I created an article on this term. However, it ended up getting deleted and renamed to crossover (rail). Several attempts have been made by other editors (not me) to include this word on the article.

I understand that some editors object to having to word mentioned on Misplaced Pages. However, I would like to dispel one user's statement that mentioning exicornt on the article is considered vandalism. Therefore, I am writing to request that Exicornt (which is now a Junk Page) ) be deleted and redirected to crossover (rail)

I am requesting this because I noticed a recent edit war on the crossover (rail) page itself. I fear some editors might accusing me of being a so-called "sockpuppet" as a result.

Though I am prepared to take any criticism, I feel posting the word here for review is a proper course of action to take in light of the recent controversy. Edit warring isn't the answer to solving this problem. -- Eddie, Thursday May 25 2006 at 14:01 14:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted. The AFD was completely legit, apart from Eddie's attempts to make it go away. Edit warring doesn't change the reasons why "exicornt" was deleted. No need to create a redirect that would legitimate this word that is used only by a small (perhaps very small) local group. FreplySpang 14:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep deleted. I don't see that anything has changed since the AfD result, which was exactly correct. Google still shows no uses of this that aren't Misplaced Pages or Wiktionary-related. · rodii · 14:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
keep deleted I am a railfan, I've been a model railroader since the early 1980s, I helped build the Wisconsin Central project layout for Model Railroader Magazine (article series published in 1997), I'm the lead editor on Portal:Trains and I'm model contest co-chairman and a Director-At-Large for the Midwest Region of the National Model Railroad Association. I hadn't heard of this term before it popped up last November; I've only heard that track configuration referred to as a crossover. Slambo (Speak) 14:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted/NO redirect. Eddie, "exicornt" isn't "a slang term (or neologism) train buffs use", it's a term you made up yourself. This explains the recent edit warring over blanking its AFD -- it's either a crude attempt to hide the background (with its rampant sockpuppetry and vigorously unverified claims) and/or do some SEO cleansing. (I recommend reading the AfD discussion. It is...enlightening.
And by the way, the only reason I stumbled over the recent AfD edit warring was following the shenanigans of some sockpuppetry over the AFD of a made-up New Jersey baseball team, and those sockpuppets seemed interested in the old AFD. You wouldn't know about that, would you, Eddie? --Calton | Talk 14:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Obviously. But let me note that unless if anyone has good evidence the the contrary, it may be reasonable to imagine that the recent rash of vandalism is by an impersonator, not Eddie himself. I certainly don't have a way to tell. However, the fact that Eddie still doesn't "get it" about "Exicornt" and has used this opportunity to open this silly DRV doesn't seem very reassuring. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't find it reasonable, given his history of rampant sockpuppetry and unceasing attempts to get attention for his made-up word.
And speaking of possible sockpuppetry, I notice that a week ago that someone named Dnd293 (talk · contribs) created redirects to Crossover (rail) at Exicornts and Exicornt. -- which were the user's only edits. You wouldn't know about that, would you, Eddie? --Calton | Talk 15:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for finding those. And of course there's a good chance you're right. But Eddie edited in seeming good faith for a good number of months after he ceased the suckpuppetry and exicornting, so maybe I'm AGFing a little hard here in a spirit of optimism. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lock-icon.jpg

Speedy deletion in violation of the quoted WP:CSD "I1" (redundant): A JPEG is clearly not in the same format as an SVG, not only my browser knows this (unfortunately). The icon was in use for several weeks on almost all template talk pages using {{Protection templates}} after somebody proposed it on one of these pages as general "protected" icon. I tested it because visible is better than broken from my POV on Protection templates for about a month - there were no objections. Therefore I added it to the (few) unprotected protection templates (excl. the semi-protection templates, where a lock icon makes no much sense) today. The edit history clearly stated "working with more browsers". -- Omniplex 05:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Images cannot be restored. Please re-upload it and continue to discuss the issue of what image should be used.--Sean Black 05:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you have a copy of the image? It's not possible to undelete images, so unless you have a copy somewhere that you can upload if the DRV passes, it won't really help to list it here... Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I only saw it on Template talk:Vprotected - most Misplaced Pages icons don't work with my browser, it's too old for inline PNG. Therefore I won'tb miss the few exceptions like wikipedia_minilogo.gif or this JPG. I can transform PNG to say GIF and upload that. If the result is smaller (in bytes) without untolerable losses, otherwise that would be a stupid strategy. -- Omniplex 07:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete Reupload This truely puzzles me. I assume no bad faith on Borg Hunter's part, but I really don't have a clue how this happened =) Someone enlighten me =P --mboverload@ 07:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Google's cache is here. Hurry, it'll be gone soon. --Rory096 08:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I re-uploaded a new copy. Thankfully, I had it saved! --Sunfazer |Talk 09:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Re-delete What is the big deal? Citing CSD#1 was technicaly wrong, but {{redundant}} and {{BadJPEG}} images are deleted all the time when they are no longer used and replaced by a better version. Misplaced Pages policy is to replace lineart like this with SVG or PNG versions whenever possible. To quote the Format section of Misplaced Pages:Image use policy "Drawings, icons, political maps, flags and other such images are preferably uploaded in SVG format as vector images. Images with large, simple, and continuous blocks of color which are not available as SVG should be in PNG format.". Getting rid of this is entierly within policy. I urge everyone with old browsers that doesn't handle PNG's at all to upgrade or switch browser ASAP. --Sherool (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Just a minor addition, I do agree that this one should have been sent to IFD since it's "replacement" was not the same image in a different format and all that, that would have avoided some confution. However it would most scertainly have ended up getting deleted anyway wich is why I don't think it's a huge deal. By the way unless someone gets around to actualy adding some source info to this image it will get deleted again in 7 days regardles of the outcome of this debate. --Sherool (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, and re-delete per above. Ral315 (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Re-delete per Sherool. Dr Zak 14:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

24 May 2006

Why you deleted the 16 May article about Major Power undeletion?

You people at wikipedia seem to have a probelm with all the things I write. You keep delting them. I think I was opening a big and fair debate about the Major Power article undeletion, but then you deleted what I wrote as you have deleted the article Major Power. I would like to know if I will do changes in the articles(for better, of course) or undeleting some articles I think were fine, what you will do.You people don't want valuable contributes, you want the articles to say only whatyou and some users think it's true. That is not the way, because sooner or latter, you will lost credibility.

ACamposPinho 24 May 2006

  • The earlier debate was not "deleted", just closed. The decision was to endorse the redirect/status quo. Your nomination for reconsideration failed. See the Recently Closed section at the bottom of this page. Xoloz 22:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

23 May 2006

College Confidential

VfD, delete log

Its VfD was in August of 2005 and is no longer really relevant, as its 4500 Alexa ranking shows. Also, it clearly falls under the exception to G4 "ensure that the material is substantially identical, and not merely a new article on the same subject," which this was. I suggest listing on AfD. --Rory096 07:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Overturn and list on AfD. A 9-month-old VfD with only five participants ought to be reinforced, especially if new evidence for notability is claimed. Also note Rory's cite of the G4 exception, which is often ignored (or missed). Also note that repeated recreations can be considered evidence of notability (can't find the cite for that in WP's guidelines, though). Powers 13:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse continued deletion unless new evidence of notability is presented. Per WP:WEB, Alexa rank is not evidence of notability. --Sam Blanning 17:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak endorse but open to new AfD listing. I know of this site; I've used it before and found it very helpful. However, the content does not inspire much confidence in the article's potential, and as the others say, Alexa rank isn't a strong notability indicator. (Although IMO it still ought to count for something.) Still, I'm open to an AfD listing because I think we'd benefit either way. Still, there's no real hurt to the encyclopaedia if this remains deleted; it's a one-sentence stub. Johnleemk | Talk 18:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Ghits aren't too bad either. --Rory096 22:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist on AfD, but I do endorse the original deletion. The person bringing this up on AfD has presented some new evidence that could merit this article's inclusion in Misplaced Pages. An AfD is a good way to deletermin if it's more notable now than it was last August. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Naismith Family

This article was deleted through WP:PROD, but substantial objections were raised at Talk:Naismith Family. This is not an aspersion on the deleting admin, who probably didn't notice the talk page (the prod tag was never removed), but the prod was contested and I think it should be reviewed. My own vote would be to list it at AfD, or possibly just to merge it into James Naismith. Chick Bowen 04:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Tim Dingle

AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tim Dingle

The deletion vote for this article appears to have been initially judged based on the belief that is was a smear campaign. Later in the vote the story was confirmed to have appeared in the news, but the delete argument was then based on lack of notability under WP:BIO. However, WP:BIO specifically includes people who have become known through their involvement in a notorious event. As the subject was clearly in the news for notorious acts, it seems that it would fall into this category and thereby satisfy WP:BIO. Reconsider. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 23:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted. I'm unclear on why this is being brought up again now. Some people at the time set up a website TimDingle.com, which has been kept updated, if you want a summary of the story. At the time, the story was: headmaster accused in drug case. Now the story is: headmaster accused in drug case, charges later dropped. From what I can tell from googling (could be incomplete) it seems this was a local scandal, which certainly was not a big national news story, and I don't see that it's a big enough story to meet notability standards. Fan1967 00:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Note Interesting that TimDingle.com seems to feel the need to include Misplaced Pages in their coverage. There is a page that seems to have the story as it was before deletion (based on my vague recollection of it), as well as a link to the school's article, Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe, which has a lengthy section on the incident. Fan1967 01:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I can remember the news story, but after the initial five minutes of infamy it only received mention in a local context (I live in Buckinghamshire). This guy is still just a headteacher who got the chop, and there are plenty of those around. -- Francs2000 01:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted There's a pretty clear precedent that school headmasters/principals aren't notable enough for articles themselves, and a bit of scandal in the local press isn't enough to change that. There's already a full paragraph about it in Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe. I wouldn't object to redirecting Tim Dingle there, I guess. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, the later votes considered the news, and they were still all in favour of deletion. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Abstract People

Why, why, why is the Abstract People article being deleted? Abstract People were one of the biggest metal acts in Ireland in the 90's!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AbstractPeople (talk • contribs) .

  • Because they don't exist, thats why. Quite simple really - fictional bands don't get entries on the Misplaced Pages. --Kiand 22:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and speedied the article as a G4 and the bogus AfD page as useless. -GTBacchus 22:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion Bad faith DRV. OhNoitsJamie 22:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion Totally agree with redeleting as G4, bad-faith nom. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The page is now protected against recreation, and I've blocked the author after he created it a fourth time. Chick Bowen 22:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The original speedy-deletion was as a "hoax". As we have discussed often before, being a hoax is explicitly not a speedy-deletion criterion. As individuals, we are notoriously poor at sorting the hoaxes from the real though poorly written articles on obscure topics. The subsequent re-deletions were based on the incorrect assumption that the first speedy-deletion was appropriate.
    Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now. Like the participants above, I can find no evidence that this band really exists. I can not endorse the speedy-deletion but neither will I argue to overturn it without some evidence of existence. Rossami (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    Rossami, I think you're right. It would have been better if I'd taken it to AfD instead of re-speedying it. There's no point restoring it now (unless evidence comes along), but I'll keep in mind to be more careful with G4s. Thanks for the reminder. -GTBacchus 01:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse status quo - Metamagician3000 00:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC).
  • Endorse deletion(s) unless evidence of verifiable existence appears. -GTBacchus 01:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - obvious hoax, personal abuse from the author shows lack of good faith. Demiurge 08:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion We can't take chances on hoaxes or unverifiable material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Some remarks. As has been pointed out, this is an incorrect application of G4: that criterion was rewritten last year with just this sort of thing in mind, and it was hoped that it made clear that this kind of action is inappropriate. Just a gentle reminder.:-) As to the comment on the nominator, his crude remarks indicate rudeness and incivility; they do not mean that he is acting in bad faith. Do be careful when questioning the intentions of editors. —Encephalon 11:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion As an Irish rock fan, living in Ireland, I think I'd have heard of 'one of the biggest metal bands in Ireland' - and I haven't. Bastun 16:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Christian views of Hanukkah

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Christian views of Hanukkah

Congratulations! After a brief discussion (that I just noticed today), with a result 12d:4k:2m, they deleted the {{see also}} for the section Hanukkah#Interaction with other traditions. Was the article unsalvageable? Or the deletors simply ignorant? Now, I'm not sure of the state of the current article (could somebody please undelete for review), as I haven't looked at it since last Hannukah. But this isn't usually considered "Original Research" to document religious practices (editors aren't making up their own), and it affects a lot of folks in my neck of the woods where mixed-faith families are common. Yet, I doubt we really want to make the already long Hannukkah article even longer.... A nice short separate article would be best.

  • Undelete and fix any problems, as many (5) of the AfD commentors requested. --William Allen Simpson 15:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Concerns of those voting delete seem well-thought-out and valid. The article does a poor job of covering this notable issue, and has no sources. I'd say a sourced rewrite from scratch would be best. (I have history-undeleted for review.) -- SCZenz 16:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. As I am the admin who deleted the article, I will not "vote" here, but I will explain my decision. Firstly, and probably most importantly, there was a clear consensus to delete this article as it stood. Secondly, I felt that the delete votes were better informed by our policies than the keep votes were. I myself am Jewish, and am fully aware of the issues involved in this subject; however, I too felt that the article as it stood controvened WP:OR, therefore I saw no reason to go against the majority of votes. My deletion of the article does not mean that the subject is either non-encyclopaedic or unwelcome, but that the article as it stood was in contravention of our policies (a matter which numerous editors agreed upon). An article on this subject must be sourced in detail as the Christian view of Hanukkah is far from universal. Rje 17:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- thank you for making it available for review, the article is only a paragraph longer than it was last time I looked at it. IZAK (Jewish) wrote most of it, so I'll prod him. I've no idea what needs "sourcing" as most of it seems to be actual quotes from religious texts. Most of it I've heard in sermons from time to time on the Christian upbringing side, so there might be seminary material somewhere, but I'm long since lapsed and have nobody to ask. Believe me, there's nothing original to somebody raised 5 days a week North American Baptist (with Jewish relatives by marriage). --William Allen Simpson 17:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    I, along with those who voted to delete the article, am not suggesting that IZAK made up the conent of this article. The problem is that the views expressed in the article are not universal, they are those of certain individuals (I am unaware of any Christian denomination having a specific policy towards the religious festivals of other faiths). This being the case, the article absolutely must be sourced (this is made clear at WP:OR). Like I said earlier, I don't think anybody is disputing that some Christians observe Hanukkah; the problem is that it is such a minority, combined with the fact that there is no standard way in which they perform their observations, that it is necessary for this article to contain sources for it to conform with Misplaced Pages's established policies. Rje 18:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry that you're not familiar with a significant number of denominations here in the American Heartland. Merely millions of people is a "minority" when compared to Roman Catholicism.... Anyway, the only contribution I made at the time was to merge 2 similar articles, and that's how it ended up on my watchlist. While I had an important legal brief due last Thursday, I rarely check the watchlist more than once a week anyway. Now, I've done a simple Google, and among the 847,000 results, there are several that outrank even Misplaced Pages! They are eternalperspectives.com, biblestudy.org, and thetribulationforce.com, all "evangelical" or "messianic", just as the article says! Like I mentioned earlier, some seminarian probably has it printed in a book somewhere, but I'm not the person to ask. Looks like User:Bill Thayer is correct about the future viability of wikipedia.... --William Allen Simpson 19:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • IZAK's response: Hi everyone: Right off the bat let me make it very clear that I did not write this article (it's actually a stub). This material was mostly first added in 2004 by User:Chad A. Woodburn -- please contact him, his user page says he is a Christian pastor and he seems to still be active. I have not tracked it, but you guys have now forced me to look up its history, so here goes: After User:Chad A. Woodburn put it into the Hanukkah article it developed as something of a composite from a few subsequent editors, (examples:)  ;  ; (there are more). When I was editing the main article about the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah, rather than deleting this information which was causing constant friction between the Jewish and non-Jewish contributors I opted to move it into a more appropriate article in existence at that time called Evangelical Christian views of Hanukkah (interestingly, User:Chad A. Woodburn, the author seems to fit into that stream judging by what he writes about himself) which was then renamed in another move by User:William Allen Simpson where it got its new name of Christian views of Hanukkah. So that is why there is some confusion, also see the article's history page. Note that this issue of sources was also raised by User:TheRingess. Thus I hope I have clarified the questions you have here. Take care. IZAK 19:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: A cautionary tale -- in the AfD, somebody thought this was a copyvio. As the history revealed by IZAK shows, the cited page is actually a copy of wikipedia from several months later than the original section! --William Allen Simpson 19:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Look guys, I know this is an emotive subject, I really do, but the purpose of this process is not to challenge the outcome of the AfD debate. That debate has been concluded, the purpose of this page, as is clearly stated in the introduction, is to challenge my interpretation of that outcome. Without wishing to appear rude, it is not relevent to this discussion what your oppinion of the article was, or whether you missed the debate or not. What is relevent is whether you think a) I misjudged the consensus to delete, or b) that, if there was such a consensus, that the votes were not valid. I am sorry if I appear a little hot-headed about this, but the existence of this debate suggests quite a serious error on my part. Rje 19:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The votes were not valid. 3 cite a copyvio that did not exist. The nominator and several others call it original research. 4 call it "funny" and a "fork". And the most offensive:
      The "Christian" view of Hanukkah is like the "Dutch" view of Mount Kilimanjaro: not something to have an article about.
      --William Allen Simpson 20:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Even discounting the copyvio votes, there was a consensus to delete. As I have already stated the article failed our criteria for original research. While I agree that term may not be strictly accurate here, and this may be causing some confusion, if you read to policy page you will realise that the article wa in violation - hence the votes for deletion. Rje 20:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion Legitimate Afd with a clear consensus. OhNoitsJamie 20:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Original consensus was clear. Chick Bowen 21:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Cut-and-dry AfD. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Although my vote was the first that mentioned a copyvio, it is important to also note that my main reason was that the article contained original research. Kevin 23:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, consensus was obvious. Dr Zak 12:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. The WP:NOR argument, raised by the nominator and most of the other people in favour of deletion, was never rebutted by anyone arguing that it should be kept. The person who tried to say it wasn't OR failed to point to any sources, which is odd given that he claims to be studying the subject area. --bainer (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - consensus was clear and there were no special circumstances. Metamagician3000 05:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Claught of a bird Dairy Products

I made an article on this famous store on Manitoulin Island. Claught of a bird is indeed an actual person, and he does indeed own that store. I demand that it is un-deleted, for it has good information on one of Manitoulins most popular stores. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AppleJuicefromConcentrate (talk • contribs) .

LIP6

LIP6 is one of the two largest computer science laboratories in France, with researchers participating at the highest levels (program committees of international conferences, editorial boards of scholarly journals) across a wide variety of computer science disciplines. It is the computer science research arm of Pierre and Marie Curie University (UPMC), the largest science, technology, and medicine university in France, and the highest ranked French university in the University of Shanghai international research ranking. As the researchers also make up the teaching faculty in Computer Science at UPMC, it is, with over 100 faculty, one of the largest Computer Science departments in the world. It is hard to understand how such an institution could not be notable. The copyvio concerns are mitigated by the fact that the contribution came from the copyright holder (the lab) itself. The lab administrators were not contacted, as they should have been following Misplaced Pages's deletion policy, to see if this would be a problem. The answer would have been that the copyright problem is not a problem, and the needed permissions for use of the text and images can be granted. Furthermore, it is not a commercial promotion. It is true, clearly that the style and content must be modified so that it conforms to Misplaced Pages's style considerations and NPOV. However, the material provided should serve as a good basis for this, and the original authors are happy to work as part of the Misplaced Pages community in making the necessary edits. A rewrite is called for, but we do not understand the speedy deletion decision. -- 17:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Rewrite The topic seems to be notable, but Misplaced Pages does not want articles which are merely copy-and-paste jobs from official websites, even if they aren't technically copyvios. We also prefer that articles not be written by their subjects or anyone closely connected with the subject. If anyone cares to write a real article, it would probably stay. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Based on the evidence available at the time, I would also have deleted this as a probable copyright violation. We have had such severe problems with unsourced and illegal content, especially violations about images, that we have unfortunately been forced to take aggressive actions. A rewrite seems appropriate but please be very careful to document the copyright provenance of any text or images copied over. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Request undeletion of rewritten article I did precisely as suggested here, writing a short article with no copyvio, following the structure and style of an established article on another computer science laboratory, and, not even eight hours later, the new article has vanished. It seems whoever did this does not care to partake in the deletion review process, as no justification for deleting the rewritten article has appeared in this thread. Nor, does it seem, has this new deletion respected the general criteria for speedy deletion, which specifically says: "Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical", which it clearly is not. MyPOV 6:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: The deleting admin has already self-reverted the action and apologized in the edit summary. Rossami (talk)

Oz categories

CfD

There used to be several categories sorting the inamates in the Oz TV series:

Which were deleted recently by a few people who were against it. (Unfortunately, this deletion vote was not mentioned in any page, so no one could speak for these categories.

As you may see, there are too many articles regarding oz's prisoners, and this categorizing must take place. It should be also mentioned that these categories had some text in them portraying these gangs, and describing the main event that had happened to them during the course of the series.

I will put a link in here in the series' article talk page. Thanks! OzOz 11:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • endorse closure and keep deleted. I suggested to the review nominator that he perhaps write an article like Gangs of Oz (TV series) and include the information that he wants to have in the categories there, but it looks like he has rejected that idea. Categories should not have significant text in them, just guidelines for what should be included in that category. He could then have little headers for Fooians of Oz, describe the gang, and link to whatever related articles were needed either in a text or list form. Original multiple category discussion was here and previous Irish prisoners deletion discussion was here, and I was the closing admin in both cases. Syrthiss 12:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete. Was a very usefull categorizing IMO. I don't care about the text, though. As far as I'm concerned, it can be sent to a different article. Jimbryho 09:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete. Randy MacFarFarAway 12:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure and keep deleted. Proper notice was given on the categories themselves, and the vote was unanimous to merge. No valid reason has been given for overturning the CFD. The text that OzOz mentions above is irrelevant, because anything beyond a brief description of a category's contents should be put in articles, not in categories. Postdlf 15:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, CfD got it right. This was an unnecessary categorization. --Cyde↔Weys 16:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is kind of irrelevant, but why were there redirects to those categories in articlespace? --Rory096 16:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure the admin arrived at the only conclusion available from the discussion, the categories were correctly tagged: process was followed correctly. Moreover the Category:Oz (TV series) characters does not seem to require subcategories at this time. Tim! 16:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. I voted to keep them (with some renaming), but nearly everybody else felt otherwise, so I think the admin came to the right conclusion. They can all go in the main Oz characters category.--Mike Selinker 23:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete. There are about 60 articles there not including the CO's (Which some of you suggested to be sent to the main category along with the inmates. It needs to be sorted better. Plus, I believe that many readers might be interested only in the inmates of a certain gang (Instead of the entire category where all of the inmates shown throughout the series' run are put together. Yuval madar 06:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hulk 2

  • Overturn. The article on Hulk 2 was previously voted for deletion because it was pretty much unverifiable. Web research on the topic at that time (June 2005) only produced actors confirming they _would not_ be involved in a Hulk sequel. On 28 April 2006, Marvel confirmed that a sequel to the 2003 film was under development.

Currently the article Hulk 2 is protected and redirects to Hulk (film). I therefore propose that the page be edited to redirect to The Incredible Hulk (film) (the apparent working title of the film) which in turn redirects to the Sequel section of the 2003 film article. When sufficient information about the new film becomes available, the sequel information can then be spun out into its own article. Journeyman 06:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


22 May 2006

Xombie

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Xombie

It was deleted due to not meeting WP:WEB. Xombie has been in two magazines so far Fangoria and Rue Morque]. This isn't advertising for the site, its about the flash cartoon that's being turned into a movie, how can Misplaced Pages not have this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonkoldyk (talk • contribs)

  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). I find no process problems with the AFD discussion. Had I seen this deletion discussion, I would also have argued to delete. I can not convince myself that it is appropriate for Misplaced Pages to include entries for every flash cartoon that comes along. Rossami (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, valid AfD. Af first glance, this seems to be a classic "No consensus" AfD, but only one of the delete votes was valid: one was from an anon, and the other was from a very new user. That puts it right on the border for admin's discretion, and in this case, the closing admin applied it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete. So here's a situation where the article clearly did not show it met WP:WEB upon its deletion, and we now have evidence that it, in fact, does meet WP:WEB. Without seeing what was there before, I don't know what the article looked like, but given that it seems that process is being followed by coming to DRV instead of just recreating, and WP:WEB (the justification for deletion) is now met, we should undelete. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure Valid AfD, per Deathphoenix's reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete, not every flash cartoon that comes along gets made into a feature-length film released on DVD. Furthermore, this series clearly meets criteria 1 of WP:WEB. AfroDwarf 15:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete no consensus on AfD and some claims to notability were presented.  Grue  12:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Gary Howell

In the heat of the moment of deletion, many failed to look at the facts. A notable West Virginian.

Nationally Known Automotive Person in TV and Print

International Credit Card Fraud Expert

--71Demon 16:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • This has been deleted twice; the first time following an AfD (Admins can see the final version before this deletion at ), with the consensus being that the article failed WP:BIO, WP:CORP and/or WP:VAIN. Having seen the content of the deleted version I would also have voted to delete for these reasons. The second time (earlier today) it was speedy deleted as an nn-bio (CSD:A7) but it could also have been deleted under CSD:G4 (recreation of previoulsy deleted material), that version contained even less information than the previously deleted version and no substantiated notability claims so this was a perfectly valid deletion. Endorse deletions but allow recreation iff notability can be established. I suggest that you start composing an article in your userspace and only move it to the main namespace when it substantially improves on the first version to avoid a further speedy deletion under G4 or A7. If notability is still not established then there should be no prejudice against a second AfD. Thryduulf 16:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore Never should have been deleted. Meets all criteria for a good Misplaced Pages article. --70.17.192.78 17:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn/Restore this never should have been deleted --63.243.30.51 17:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As far as I see it the facts weren't actually presented in such clarity during the afd debate, and so I don't see that the decision to delete was wrong. I'm with Thryduulf: if notability can be established then restore. -- Francs2000 17:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that I must disagree with the assertion that the facts above were not considered. In fact, they were clearly documented in the deleted version of the article. I find little evidence convincing me that they were ignored or overlooked by the discussion participants. I must also disagree with 71Demon's specific assertion above that Howell is an "international credit fraud expert". Three of the four articles he/she cites as evidence demonstrate no such thing. (The fourth is in Japanese so I could not evaluate it.) Howell was interviewed as a small business owner who has been affected by international credit card fraud. He is no more "expert" than any other small business owner so afflicted.
    I endorse closure (keep deleted) but, as Thryduulf said, there is no prejudice against a new article more thoroughly documenting his achievements. If such an article is written and upheld, we can do a history-restore at that time. Rossami (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, valid AfD. Allow re-creation if the article addresses the concerns mentioned above and in the AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • (Caveat: I was the nom on the AfD in question). Endorse closure as a valid, good-faith AfD. I have no prejudice to recreation as long as it illustrates notability. To do so, the article should focus on Howell's work in the world of hot rods and automobiles (where he may possibly be notable in a relative sense) and it should prove said notability in that field. His status as a guy that has been interviewed because his business was ripped off (at least until his book is published) and his goal of seeking a seat on a local county commission should only be mentioned as side-notes and do not contribute either way to his notability or lack there of. youngamerican (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

New Sincerity

This article needed expanding, not deleting. It is a verifiable media theory, although the article itself needed work. The opinion when discussed was mixed, but this is a real and serious theory that should have a place on Misplaced Pages. If the article is not reinstated, can I at least have the original content to be worked into a fuller, referenced article that can be? --Hippo Shaped 17:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion but allow userfication. This was a valid closure of the AfD, but based on the comments by some participants it seems as though there is potential for a valid, verifiable article and indeed some work was done to improve the article during the debate, but this was not enough to influence a turnaround in voting. I recommoned that Hippo Shaped be allowed the content to work on it. I feel that it do the article good not to be associated with some of its mid-life incarnations as these were detrimental to people's opinions of it at AfD. Thryduulf 17:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. I voted keep on the AfD discussion, but it was closed properly, if you can come up with a valid, verifiable article, then please recreate it in your User space and bring it back here for review. User:Zoe| 22:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, valid AfD. It was relisted twice, so it was a bit of a difficult one (though when I relisted it the second time, I didn't realise it was already relisted), but I think it was closed appropriately. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Successful Praying

I request the return of the article on the book Successful Praying because it was deleted without due respect for the deletion process. I would ask that this request be based on whether or not due process was followed (which I think is strong) and not on whether the article may or may not survive a more considered delete process (which I admit is less strong). See also the discussion with the admin about this deletion. Thanks, Brusselsshrek 08:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Technical undelete as it clearly wasn't a speedy candidate, however I recommend Brussels writes an article on the author Frederick Julius Huegel instead of or at least before writing an article on his book. Articles on authors can frequently contain most of the useful information about their writing. --Sam Blanning 10:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. While I have little doubt this was done in good faith, a table of contents of a book is copyrighted. After stripping the TOC and the copyrighted cover images (they can only be used in articles that discuss the book -- not ones that say Title is a book by so and so), all you have left is "Successful Praying, subtitled an explanation of ten rules which guarantee answered prayer is the title of a book by Frederick Julius Huegel." with an ISBN and a link. I don't think that result was an article. I would agree that an article about the author is probably more feasible, but if Brussel can mention something about the book other than the basic details (especially what makes the book special enough for an entry), I have little problems with a recreation. But I don't think the original should be reinstated. Userfy if he wants to expand. - Mgm| 10:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I had fully intended to write more information about the contents of the book, but the stub was deleted within DAYS of it being created. The TOC was there to form a skeleton for what I was about to write. To argue that the content was not sufficient to justify recreation misses many important points:
      1. the article had only been created a few days earlier (thus deleted contrary to wikipedia guidelines of allowing a stub a reasonable time to develop).
      2. the author of the article was not informed of the deletion, except as a "speedy-delete" (while he was asleep) and so had no chance to add the real value which is suggested was missing
      3. the proper procedure was not followed, and I as the person to have most suffered from this lack of procedure, am simply asking for the right to create the article which I wanted to create.
      I will add that I have now spent a huge amount of time simply fighting against this speedy-delete, and it is a real tragedy that I waste almost all of the time I spend on Misplaced Pages editing recently because what I see as this admins blunder, rather than contributing useful stuff.Brusselsshrek 12:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy-deletion as a copyright violation. Unfortunately, Brusselsshrek's statement of his/her intention to expand the stub past copy-vio status does nothing to protect the project. Every page must stand alone as is at the time you hit the "save page" button. The courts have not yet sanctioned us for tolerating copyvios for short periods but that is a theory that we should not test. Take the time to write a solid, non-copyvio stub. Then post it.
    As to Brusselsshrek's claims that he/she was not informed, no notice is required nor is any such notice appropriate (though it can, in some cases, be courteous). Please read (or re-read) WP:OWN. None of us has any claim to ownership of any page here. Rossami (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy, per Mgm & Rossami. Sorry, Brusselsshrek, dealing with copyvios takes precedence over everything. Even if you plan to expand the article, any content that is a copyright violation is simply not acceptable (for legal reaasons) and must be removed from the article history. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Deathphoenix. Although I would have taken a different route (tagging the copyvio and asking the editor to userfy it until it was further along) the destination is the same. Thatcher131 15:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, I get the point about copyvio. Question though, I have done the identical thing for the article The Cross and the Switchblade, that is, I have scanned the front/back cover of the book. Is that not copyvio? What is the guideline? I know there's a lot of general stuff written here about copyvio, but what is the story on book covers? Can I or can't I copy them? The book covers for the Successful Praying article were scanned at exactly the same resolution or size as the book cover for The Cross and the Switchblade for which nobody seems to be saying anything. Thanks for clarifying. Brusselsshrek 08:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
If you read the guideline at WP:FAIR it seems that a scan of a book cover to accompany an article about the book is ok. However, copying the text from the jacket so as to constitute the body of the article is definitely not. I would say that at least half of The Cross and the Switchblade is an unacceptable copyright violation. You should find some other way to describe the contents of the book in your own words. Thatcher131 14:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Videohypertransference

Wow... I really hope I am doing this right. Sincere apologies if I am getting this protocol wrong - I am quite a newbie. I have 2 points to make about the deletion of this article, or maybe 3. 1) May I have the text copied to my userspace? If all else fails here, I would at least be interested in getting the latest version of the text for my own personal use. 2) I didn't get any warning about the deletion notice (prolly because I didn't login for a couple of weeks), so I never got a chance to say anything about the deletion vote. I think the article is a valid attempt, and I would be happy to try and source the article a bit more thoroughly. However, as I pointed out on the discussion page, there isn't much information directly available on this topic via Google. It is a very recent phenomenon, and I did my best to scientifically describe the empirical facts. This is just my opinion, but I often find people have a very strange view of what science is! 3ish) I think the article can be improved if it is fully undeleted. The phenomenon of videohypertransference is a real one, and deserves documenting. It has grown out of the rise of video (and video nasties) in the west, and the popularity of video game culture in Japan. Thanks for your consideration, --Dan| 08:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I've moved the text to User:Dmb000006/Videohypertransference. Please stick a {{delete|unwanted user subpage}} notice on it when this deletion review is closed and you're otherwise done with the text, as Misplaced Pages is not a free webhost. Anyway, I think the main issue is: does anyone actually refer to this as "videohypertransference"? Otherwise the article is fundamentally original thought. In the absence of specific new evidence that would theoretically have caused the very clear consensus in the AfD to be otherwise, endorse closure. --Sam Blanning 10:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks... Would it be possible to get the discussion page restored too? I made some useful comments for the would-be deleter on that page, as well as some notes regarding the stories in the media. Thank you! --Dan| 06:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

21 May 2006

Church of Reality

I want to hear countering viewpoints of the Church of Reality, after seeing bumper stickers in San Francisco. It looks like the page is permanently deleted, but no explanation has been given as to why. It is an athiestic organization: is the page being suppressed by political opponents? Please reinstate to allow open information exchange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.103.182 (talk • contribs)


17 May 2006

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)

  • 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)
  • 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 <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)
What a confusingly named organization. — May. 15, '06 <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)
  • This got no attention and I have no idea what to do with it, so I've moved it to the top of the heap. And subst the subpage, because I hate them like poison. - brenneman 12:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to match local usage, no good reason to ignore the consensus that CFD came up with. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse status quo - I would prefer "motor vehicle manufacturers" (which sometimes gets abbreviated to "motor manufacturers"), but surely this isn't worth much of a fuss over. The outcome reached was sensible enough to stand. Metamagician3000 11:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Structures of the GLA (second nomination) 17:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  13. Prhizzm, undeleted and relisting at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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
  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


26 May 2006

Left-wing terrorism

Stella Maris College Scout Group

  • UnDelete - this article was still a stub. However, it was deleted. Misplaced Pages does not have information about scout groups in Malta. The page The_Scout_Association_of_Malta is the only Maltese scouting page. Misplaced Pages needs to have a page about the scout groups in Malta, their activities, programme, etc. The Stella Maris College Scout Group is an active group, which deserves to be listed. It has carried out a number of joint activities with different scout groups around the globe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.188.46.254 (talk • contribs)
  • The entire content of the article was
    "Stella Maris College Scout Group is part of The Scout Association of Malta"
    and an externel link. - I'd just recreate it with something more substantail. RN 15:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, discourage recreation. Individual Scout groups are not notable. "Misplaced Pages needs to have a page about the scout groups in Malta, their activities, programme, etc" - no, the organisation's website needs that, this is an encyclopaedia and not a vehicle for promoting Scout groups. --Sam Blanning 15:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

25 May 2006

List of Michael Savage neologisms

The AfD discussion can be found at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Michael Savage neologisms (second nomination).

  • UnDelete - list :offers insight into controversial cultural icon, unique extensive jargon reference
Its never been deleted... RN 23:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
It has, he just linked to the wrong article in the heading. I've fixed it. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep deleted. AfD was closed quite properly, and a look at the article shows nothing that would be missed from Misplaced Pages. If you'd like to take the content and host it on your own website, I'd be happy to provide it to you. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • endorse closure - keep deleted. This was a valid afd with a 100% consensus that there shouldn't be an article on Misplaced Pages (there were votes to transwiki to Wikiquote, 10 votes to delete and one unsigned comment by an anon that didn't express an opinion about the article). Thryduulf 23:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure but not the actual AfD result. Valid AfD here, but I wouldn't have put "no consensus, leaning towards delete" as the result in the AfD. After discounting the invalid votes, this was definitely a consensus towards delete. A "no consensus" means that the article is kept, not deleted. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC), valid AfD (changed my comments now that RasputinAXP provided a link to the most recent AfD). --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, as an AfD closer, I'm aware of that. As I've noted somewhere else, while AfD isn't a vote, and each entry in an AfD is a comment, I choose to name any comment which calls for an action (such as comments that start with Keep, Merge, Redirect, or Delete) a "Vote" for convenience and to differentiate it from an actual comment which doesn't call for an action (such as comments that have no heading, or start with Comment). If you would prefer that I use a different noun, I can call it an iVote, nVote, !Vote, notVote, or something like that. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep deleted: List of neologisms from a single person? That's a tribute page, a fan page, or an attack page, and it's not an encyclopedia article. Geogre 02:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: as the closer of the most recent AfD on this article, it was a pretty clear Delete.  RasputinAXP  c 03:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted The closure and deletion was proper, and valid reasons for deletion were expressed in the first and second AfDs and here above, while no reasons expressed for keeping it had any weight to them. (Even if the article were deemed to be proper for WP, it had many problems I had identified in the 1st AfD the maintainers of the page were apparently unwilling to address.) Шизомби 04:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • transwiki to Wikiquote list qualifies as a unique citation of quotes

Philip Sandifer

full deletion log (OMG WHEELWAR)
Adam Bishop deleted "Philip Sandifer" (give me a fucking break)

This was a sourced article expanded by editors such as Brenneman and SlimVirgin. The deletion was done for what appear to be emotional rather than legitimate reasons. --SPUI (T - C) 22:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Violation of WP:AUTO, he has had 1 news story, albeit a big one, but not enough to warrant an article. The story itself is more relevant to Misplaced Pages Review than to Snowspinner, because that is where the article started. No point choosing to favour Misplaced Pages admins just because this is Misplaced Pages. The more notable web site should be listed. This needs to stay deleted. 203.122.203.145 22:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it's a violation of WP:AUTO ("I do not consider myself notable, to be clear" doesn't strike me as someone to write an article about himself). --Rory096 22:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think I'm pretty solidly borderline notable, between academic work and the Pulp Decameron story. I trust y'all to keep the article from being libelous, and since I already have a talk page and a user page, it's not like deleting it removes targets for vandals. So please, don't delete the article for reasons having to do with protecting me. On the other hand, if you don't think I'm notable enough, whack it.

Though I don't think I'm a speedy candidate. :) Phil Sandifer 23:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Another note: I do hope, if this article survives, that someone will actually add mention of my publications and academic career, which, while minor, is a hell of a lot more notable and enduring than Boing Boing. Phil Sandifer 00:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted, tactical and legal reasons, good lord! Suggest we close this DRV asap. Kim Bruning 22:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
What "tactical and legal reasons" are those? --SPUI (T - C) 22:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Two of your "Misplaced Pages Review trolls" have posted on this page and think it should be kept deleted. Of course, Zordrac and myself don't speak for everyone and their diverse opinions, but it should be noted that not all of us would like to "sit and gloat over" an article on Phil. --72.160.71.156 23:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed? I'm pleased to hear that. Could Misplaced Pages Review's collective consciousness be developing a collective conscience? Or are you just muddying the waters, and not really ashamed of yourselves at all? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted – Not sufficiently notable, if he wasn't a Wikipedian he would never have had an article in the first place – Gurch 22:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed to Strong undelete – following discussion with Kim Bruning – Gurch 23:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep deleted. I'd vote to delete at an AfD no question -- the news item isn't very notable -- but the arguments for speedying this are a bit fuzzy to me. I've seen two one: a IAR appeal that the AfD would be massively disruptive. , and Kim Bruning's cryptic legal, ethical, and moral claims. I weakly agree with IAR here to avoid disruption and troll feeding. I have to admit I join those who don't currently understand Kim's point at all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Undelete, after talking with slimvirgin. :-) Kim Bruning 23:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Undelete and deal with this quietly is my only choice. Taking it to AfD is not an option in this case, because that would cause controversy and be assisting the trolls. Kim Bruning 11:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. I don't think this was speediable. I also think this doesn't have to be disruptive if we don't make it disruptive. If it goes to AfD, I hope everyone will be conscious of the potential for insult inherent in arguing a person's notability—but then, as Phil and others have pointed out, we should always be conscious of that. Finally, I note that if this contains information which is of concern to the subject of the article as being libelous or otherwise harmful, he can (as always) contact the foundation and they can intervene; I don't think we should be trying to do our own version of WP:OFFICE because we guess there could be such a problem. In short, we should handle this like any other article, and crack down firmly on those who don't. -- SCZenz 23:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. From what I hear, it was well-sourced, and even if it's a minor one-time news story, that's good enough for me. Of course, my standards of notability are very low, but well-sourced articles about nonnotable things certainly aren't going to hurt Misplaced Pages. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. The page was not an attack page, and this seems like it can become a major news story, especially after the latest developments. There's an assertion of notability too... not entirely sure it should go through AFD, but it shouldn't have been speedied. Titoxd 23:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    Don't let it go to AfD, that'd be a disaster. Kim Bruning 00:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Request: for the benefit of the non-admins (who can't read deleted pages) and the not-sufficiently-clued (who aren't reading the Misplaced Pages equivalent of Page 6), could someone point to some page that will give the slightest clue what the frak is going on, or would someone at least cough up an executive summary? --Calton | Talk 23:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay. (I stand ready to be corrected on details at any time, mark you). Phil Sandifer is a minor (very minor; about as minor as you can be without carrying a pickaxe and canary) academic who has been known to write gory stories about what it's like to be a stalker and/or murderer. Misplaced Pages Review, who hate Phil in his guise as Snowspinner, Admin of Death, discovered his works of fiction and decided that a 'phone call to the cops might be in order, just to see if they could be duped into harrassing him. It worked. The 'blog Boing Boing wrote a story about how dumb it all was. Then someone mused "hey, maybe this makes Fat Phil notable enough for an article" and, lo! There was an article! And we wonder why Adam speedied it ... fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • (This is probably only 50% accurate :)) Basically a article about the guy was started by a non-involved user, Aaron was going to prod it but then decided not to, then SlimVirgin came in and made a boatload of edits bringing it up to semi-decent quality (but still on the very edge of notability - I think http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=wikien-l&m=114838411432481&w=2 sums up a good part of it). Then it was deleted and restored by like six seperate admins, and brought here somewhere in the middle of that. I have no idea what discussion Kim Bruning is referring to with SlimVirgin though - I'm assuming it is on IRC or E-Mail. That's about all I can think of without undeleting it. RN 00:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted is my first choice, Undelete and list on AfD is my second choice, I'd probably vote delete in the AfD, but I don't think the page as it stood was a CSD A6 (attack page), and I don't think it's so obviously a CSD A7 (non-notable person) because the page was sourced. It takes an AfD to determine whether the sources are good enough, not a speedy delete. --Deathphoenix ʕ 23:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete (and keep undeleted) -- the unilateral deletions are becoming tiresome; if you contest the notability of any subject, you can propose it for deletion and wait a week, or bring it straight to AFD. Silensor 00:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    Not afd. If the choice is between keep deleted or take to AFD, then keep deleted please. A ForestFire would be bad. Kim Bruning 00:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted Being an English grad student who has a minor run-in with some confused, over-active cops does not make one notable -- nor do I really think its an assertion of notability sufficient to overcome A7. If "I'm a grad student" isn't an assertion of notability (and it isn't, per the policy's text), then I don't think "I'm a grad student mentioned in a local paper" does either. Xoloz 00:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted obviously. I'm not sure which of my "tiresome" unilateral deletions Silensor's referring to, nor why he or she would describe the actions of three admins and the assent of more as "unilateral", but the subject is a lightning rod for abuse from more than one quarter; any AFD is likely to be cursed by contention, and a "keep" isn't a reasonable result. There's no way a reader cares about this--the average professor is more notable, and the "average professor test" has long been in use for biographical notability--and the only reason we seem to care is that he's well known among us as an admin, and among the Misplaced Pages Review crowd as a totalitarian of some kind. In conversation with Kim Bruning, who has related to me SlimVirgin's "secret reasons" for keeping the article, I can assure you that they are in the vein of using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox, "getting the word out" about something which otherwise fewer people would read, and this is not Misplaced Pages's purpose. I'm a fan of doing things the proper, procedural way--you will never hear me shout "Process?! Oh no!" as if it's some kind of inherent evil--but we don't read our policies or procedures as a legal code, and it is occasionally incumbent upon us to do the right thing for the encyclopedia in exceptional circumstances, whatever the letter of the process is. Demi /C 00:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    No, the reasons to keep from SV were that the article was notable and referenced, as per wikipedia content policies. "Secret reasons" for better words (ick) were used to convince me that it may not harm Snowspinner to have this article around. Kim Bruning 01:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    I mean the reasons that hadn't already been stated. Demi /C 01:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    Fair enough :-) Kim Bruning 02:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages Review navel gazing is not notable. User:Zoe| 02:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted: I see nothing but A7 here. The web emphasizing the importance of a web performer is vanity of vanities, and vanity about something that disappears when the power goes out, to boot. I know that Snowspinner didn't write the article and wants it deleted, but it's still taking the form of a vanity piece to overcome the 'claim of notability' bar. It can only make the claim by arguing that what happens on the web has some actuality to it, some importance to it, or by making the similarly huge assumption that being alledged of a crime or offense is, in fact, a major event. Tens of thousands are accused every day. If he's convicted or kicked out, then we'll be somewhere. Until then, he's just someone studying the faddish "comics" field (Jane Tomkins would be pleased). Geogre 02:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It sort of helps that Corey Doctorow wrote about it though. Kim Bruning 02:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Not terribly, IMO. If it becomes a major cause for people who are well established, then it becomes part of their article. There are tons of people, and I'm afraid there are going to be more tons more shortly, getting harassed by anonymous complaints to bosses and presidents (the Musical Linguist stalker comes to mind). U. cops should know better, but sometimes they're like the cops in Alice's Restaurant and have all that cop equipment they need to use, and sometimes they figure that U.'s are the places where terrarists are. When there is an issue to the charges, when there is an arrest or conviction or punitive action, then something will have happened. Until then, it empowers the stalkers to celebrate their actions. Geogre 13:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment FYI, it appears that WikiTruth is picking this up, so forest fires may be unavoidable. --Maxamegalon2000 03:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted Xoloz, amongst others, properly appreciates that, even if we are sure that Phil (or this incident in particular) is non-notable, we ought to undelete and list at AfD if we can perceive an assertion of notability in the initial article. A7, of course, still permits us some discretion, and I'm inclined to believe that the article (or any possible apropos of Phil or the incident) failed to make even an assertion of notability; were I new page patrolling, I'd likely not have tagged the page for speedy, and were I an admin, I'd likely not have speedied, but I certainly think a contention that the article did not assert the notability of the subject can be understood to be reasonable. In cases where a question entails as to whether an article even has asserted notability, we can likely see controversy, for which the full debate of an AfD is appropriate; here, though, WP:SNOWBALL (through WP:IAR) should be dispositive. It is certain that the result of an AfD would be delete (even as one might oppose that result, he/she must concede that such result is inevitable), and so it is altogether fine that we should keep the article deleted (we needn't to worry about precedent, I think, in view of WP:NBD). I'd really like to redirect to Overzealous local law enforcement officials who fail to understand such concepts as free speech and fiction and ought to be sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, but apparently we don't have such an article. Joe 04:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and AFD Seem like a borderline for notability but it is hard to say without seeing the actual article. --God Ω War 07:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted Phil, Aaron, and SlimVirgin didn't start the article (that is, unless User:The bellman is one of their sockpuppets). Since I'm following up Joe here I'll go along the same line. I was new pages patrolling and I saw an article about a living person with little to no notability completely sourced from blogs and message boards (well, it wasn't sourced at all but it had external links) so I tagged it A7, but Aaron wasn't in an IAR mood apparently so he changed the speedy tag to prod. I also left a message for Phil on his talk page, who later produced the second gainsville sun article (the first being the one that mentions him in passing about some comics conference that I sourced the stub from). The deletion does not specifically meet A7 imo, as the assertion of notability is sourced now, but this is a perfectly valid IAR/SNOW deletion (but the wheelwar was funny!). One mention in a local newspaper and some blogs does not make notability and he certainly isn't a notable academic. Wikinews would certainly be a better place for an article on the story involving his story, but I do not think he is going to have 15 minutes of fame--and even if he does we can wait till after he actually has it to write about it. On the subject of Boing Boing as a souce: rubbish, don't do it. I don't care if you write for the New York Times, citing your blog is not a good idea for an encyclopedia. We are interested in the process (fact checkers and editors) and the publication (I'm sure I can find a copy of a NYT article 20 years from now). Yes, they fuck up sometimes, but verifiability not truth to use the catch phrase. Kotepho 08:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and deny recognition to neo-Nazis and trolls. Ignoring the WikiDrama, clearly doesn't meet encyclopaedic notability standards. --Sam Blanning 08:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted The JPS 12:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and take it to vfd. Vfd is the proper place to decide this. We should not let fear of what trolls may do at the vfd prevent us from having a proper deletion debate. The day I am afraid of trolls is the day i leave wikipedia. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per WP:SNOW. If this survives, relist on VfD.  Grue  12:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, SNOW doesn't apply here - that's for completely uncontroversial cases, and this clearly isn't uncontroversial - David Gerard 12:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Hello, Mr. Gerard. You may not have visited DRV recently. WP:SNOW is often cited, and a reasonable minority of editors (not including me, btw) consider every use controversial. If it were meant to be uncontroversial, then it should be deleted. As a friend of the departed Radiant, who wrote it, I believe it was meant to be an essay employed by parties in cases where they felt it appropriate, whether controversial or not. What we can say of WP:SNOW is that is does not apply where there are reasonable issues to be argued at an AfD. Personally, as my opinion above makes clear, I do not believe a reasonable argument can be made that this subject is encyclopedically notable at this time; hence, valid speedy. I didn't cite WP:SNOW, but I do believe it applies. Xoloz 16:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete This wasn't a controversy until we made it one. There wasn't a good reason for speedy deleting, so it should be undeleted. --W.marsh 12:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete or Take to AFD - borderline notability, but the speedy invoked the SNOW clause, which doesn't apply when it turns out it is controversial. I'm sure the article will be kept of quality, whether started by a troll or not - David Gerard 12:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted wikinews or the signpost may want it, but I can't see how this isn't the correct applciation of CSD A7.--Peta 12:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted Mr. Sandifer's story might meet the notability requirements of a local or campus newspaper, but not a freakin' encyclopedia. Also, if regular users (non-admins) are allowed any say at WP:DRV then the article text should be accessible, at least for the duration of such peer review. It would be helpful not to have to go to WikiTruth every time... ˉˉ╞┬╡ 12:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Amending to keep deleted or list on afd. ˉˉ╞┬╡ 13:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and list at AfD per Phil. Clearly doesn't meet any speedy deletion criterion. Haukur 12:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Simply too minor a figure. Not notable as a scholar with respects to works published and recognition in the field, nor do these law enforcement and otherwise institutional encounters appear particularly noteworthy for a country of 300 million, with a semifascistic regime in power; i.e. this happens all over, in many diverse froms for people equally bellow the range of notability, albeit with the the odd newspaper mention. When he's mentioned in Time, I will revise my opinion. Finally, no need to bring this to AfD if proceduralism is the main motivation. I doubt the discussion will swing much differently there (although it would involve recreating the article for review, at the event, it is available on wikitruth), so this is just to save time and energy that that process would entail. El_C 14:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Xoloz. Henry 14:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Really a pretty minor case, and not something which has attracted significant attention, even in the local media. I don't think we would have been discussing this if the subject were not a Wikipedian. Valid A7 deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Uh, A7 applies to articles which: not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. It should be abundantly clear that deletion under A7 doesn't apply here. --W.marsh 14:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
No, WP:SNOW simply does not "apply" here, as it reads, and the spirit of it supports, that it should only be used, and I quote, if an issue raises no controversy. Clearly this is not an issue that raises no controversy. --W.marsh 15:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion without prejudice: Though not stated in the deleted summary, which was not a good idea ("give me a fucking break" is not a valid reason to delete), CSD A7 applies in this case because the text of the article did not assert notability. Having something on LiveJournal reported to UF isn't good enough for that, I'm afraid. If, however, the article at least asserted notability, then it should have been AfDed. —BorgHunter (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted until there's evidence that this is a big story, but under A7 notability, not as an attack page. While I respect Kim Bruning's differing opinion, it reads like borderline WP:PANIC. An earlier poster had it right in saying we shouldn't try to do our own version of WP:OFFICE. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Superhorse

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Superhorse

I would respectfully request that another look be taken at this article. I have added more supporting evidence since the AFD started and I am not sure whether or not it was taken into consideration. This is my first article and I think that a little construtive criticism wouldn't hurt and would help me right write articles in the future.

Quite frankly my first experience was a bit nerve wrecking and I feel that I have learned little and am unsure if I am capable of at least starting an article that would be acceptable to Misplaced Pages' standards. Thanks for all your help and I look forward to a fair and ubiased discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meanax (talk • contribs)

  • Comment FWIW, the deleted article can be viewed at a Google cache. Fan1967 21:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: As the closing admin, I'd like to say that I would have liked to be informed about this DRV (please take a look at {{DRVNote}}). Now, to the AfD itself. First of all, it wasn't easy, sifting through the extremely long comments by all the new users (likely sockpuppets or meatpuppets). Next, after discounting those invalid votes, on a strict vote count, I counted four deletes and one keep, with the one keep being by the original author. The delete votes took into account the evidence you were presenting, and they still decided that the subject wasn't notable enough to be included. If this article is kept deleted, it's okay, it's not easy sometimes figuring out what's notable and what's not. It might be easiest for you to find a small music-related articles and expand those instead. Misplaced Pages could use some expansion of articles. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Once the band has more coverage will they be reconsidered for inclusion on Misplaced Pages or is this a life time delete? user = meanax
  • Comment: Dear Deathphoenix, I just want to clarify that all the long comment on that AFD were mine. Two of the keep voters I new. I third one I had no idea who or she was. I want to make clear that I was not trying to circumvent the system. I promise. user = meanax
    • No problem. I closed the AfD without malice and in as fair a way as possible. Oh, and note my additions to the response above.
  • No opinion to the deleted article, but there could be a good article under this name, I think. Isn't superhorse a breeding/racing term applied to specific horses like Secretariat which perform a standard deviation or two above literally any of their peers? I will look into it more and write a draft when I have time and am on my normal computer. --W.marsh 14:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I've removed the {{deletedpage}} now that the user is involved in DrV. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Exicornt

Exicornt is a slang term (or neologism) train buffs use to describe a train track junction that resembles the formation of the letter X. Six months ago, I created an article on this term. However, it ended up getting deleted and renamed to crossover (rail). Several attempts have been made by other editors (not me) to include this word on the article.

I understand that some editors object to having to word mentioned on Misplaced Pages. However, I would like to dispel one user's statement that mentioning exicornt on the article is considered vandalism. Therefore, I am writing to request that Exicornt (which is now a Junk Page) ) be deleted and redirected to crossover (rail)

I am requesting this because I noticed a recent edit war on the crossover (rail) page itself. I fear some editors might accusing me of being a so-called "sockpuppet" as a result.

Though I am prepared to take any criticism, I feel posting the word here for review is a proper course of action to take in light of the recent controversy. Edit warring isn't the answer to solving this problem. -- Eddie, Thursday May 25 2006 at 14:01 14:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted. The AFD was completely legit, apart from Eddie's attempts to make it go away. Edit warring doesn't change the reasons why "exicornt" was deleted. No need to create a redirect that would legitimate this word that is used only by a small (perhaps very small) local group. FreplySpang 14:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep deleted. I don't see that anything has changed since the AfD result, which was exactly correct. Google still shows no uses of this that aren't Misplaced Pages or Wiktionary-related. · rodii · 14:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
keep deleted I am a railfan, I've been a model railroader since the early 1980s, I helped build the Wisconsin Central project layout for Model Railroader Magazine (article series published in 1997), I'm the lead editor on Portal:Trains and I'm model contest co-chairman and a Director-At-Large for the Midwest Region of the National Model Railroad Association. I hadn't heard of this term before it popped up last November; I've only heard that track configuration referred to as a crossover. Slambo (Speak) 14:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted/NO redirect. Eddie, "exicornt" isn't "a slang term (or neologism) train buffs use", it's a term you made up yourself. This explains the recent edit warring over blanking its AFD -- it's either a crude attempt to hide the background (with its rampant sockpuppetry and vigorously unverified claims) and/or do some SEO cleansing. (I recommend reading the AfD discussion. It is...enlightening.
And by the way, the only reason I stumbled over the recent AfD edit warring was following the shenanigans of some sockpuppetry over the AFD of a made-up New Jersey baseball team, and those sockpuppets seemed interested in the old AFD. You wouldn't know about that, would you, Eddie? --Calton | Talk 14:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Obviously. But let me note that unless if anyone has good evidence the the contrary, it may be reasonable to imagine that the recent rash of vandalism is by an impersonator, not Eddie himself. I certainly don't have a way to tell. However, the fact that Eddie still doesn't "get it" about "Exicornt" and has used this opportunity to open this silly DRV doesn't seem very reassuring. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't find it reasonable, given his history of rampant sockpuppetry and unceasing attempts to get attention for his made-up word.
And speaking of possible sockpuppetry, I notice that a week ago that someone named Dnd293 (talk · contribs) created redirects to Crossover (rail) at Exicornts and Exicornt. -- which were the user's only edits. You wouldn't know about that, would you, Eddie? --Calton | Talk 15:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for finding those. And of course there's a good chance you're right. But Eddie edited in seeming good faith for a good number of months after he ceased the suckpuppetry and exicornting, so maybe I'm AGFing a little hard here in a spirit of optimism. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lock-icon.jpg

Speedy deletion in violation of the quoted WP:CSD "I1" (redundant): A JPEG is clearly not in the same format as an SVG, not only my browser knows this (unfortunately). The icon was in use for several weeks on almost all template talk pages using {{Protection templates}} after somebody proposed it on one of these pages as general "protected" icon. I tested it because visible is better than broken from my POV on Protection templates for about a month - there were no objections. Therefore I added it to the (few) unprotected protection templates (excl. the semi-protection templates, where a lock icon makes no much sense) today. The edit history clearly stated "working with more browsers". -- Omniplex 05:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Images cannot be restored. Please re-upload it and continue to discuss the issue of what image should be used.--Sean Black 05:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you have a copy of the image? It's not possible to undelete images, so unless you have a copy somewhere that you can upload if the DRV passes, it won't really help to list it here... Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I only saw it on Template talk:Vprotected - most Misplaced Pages icons don't work with my browser, it's too old for inline PNG. Therefore I won'tb miss the few exceptions like wikipedia_minilogo.gif or this JPG. I can transform PNG to say GIF and upload that. If the result is smaller (in bytes) without untolerable losses, otherwise that would be a stupid strategy. -- Omniplex 07:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete Reupload This truely puzzles me. I assume no bad faith on Borg Hunter's part, but I really don't have a clue how this happened =) Someone enlighten me =P --mboverload@ 07:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Google's cache is here. Hurry, it'll be gone soon. --Rory096 08:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I re-uploaded a new copy. Thankfully, I had it saved! --Sunfazer |Talk 09:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Re-delete What is the big deal? Citing CSD#1 was technicaly wrong, but {{redundant}} and {{BadJPEG}} images are deleted all the time when they are no longer used and replaced by a better version. Misplaced Pages policy is to replace lineart like this with SVG or PNG versions whenever possible. To quote the Format section of Misplaced Pages:Image use policy "Drawings, icons, political maps, flags and other such images are preferably uploaded in SVG format as vector images. Images with large, simple, and continuous blocks of color which are not available as SVG should be in PNG format.". Getting rid of this is entierly within policy. I urge everyone with old browsers that doesn't handle PNG's at all to upgrade or switch browser ASAP. --Sherool (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Just a minor addition, I do agree that this one should have been sent to IFD since it's "replacement" was not the same image in a different format and all that, that would have avoided some confution. However it would most scertainly have ended up getting deleted anyway wich is why I don't think it's a huge deal. By the way unless someone gets around to actualy adding some source info to this image it will get deleted again in 7 days regardles of the outcome of this debate. --Sherool (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, and re-delete per above. Ral315 (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Re-delete per Sherool. Dr Zak 14:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

24 May 2006

Why you deleted the 16 May article about Major Power undeletion?

You people at wikipedia seem to have a probelm with all the things I write. You keep delting them. I think I was opening a big and fair debate about the Major Power article undeletion, but then you deleted what I wrote as you have deleted the article Major Power. I would like to know if I will do changes in the articles(for better, of course) or undeleting some articles I think were fine, what you will do.You people don't want valuable contributes, you want the articles to say only whatyou and some users think it's true. That is not the way, because sooner or latter, you will lost credibility.

ACamposPinho 24 May 2006

  • The earlier debate was not "deleted", just closed. The decision was to endorse the redirect/status quo. Your nomination for reconsideration failed. See the Recently Closed section at the bottom of this page. Xoloz 22:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

23 May 2006

College Confidential

VfD, delete log

Its VfD was in August of 2005 and is no longer really relevant, as its 4500 Alexa ranking shows. Also, it clearly falls under the exception to G4 "ensure that the material is substantially identical, and not merely a new article on the same subject," which this was. I suggest listing on AfD. --Rory096 07:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Overturn and list on AfD. A 9-month-old VfD with only five participants ought to be reinforced, especially if new evidence for notability is claimed. Also note Rory's cite of the G4 exception, which is often ignored (or missed). Also note that repeated recreations can be considered evidence of notability (can't find the cite for that in WP's guidelines, though). Powers 13:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse continued deletion unless new evidence of notability is presented. Per WP:WEB, Alexa rank is not evidence of notability. --Sam Blanning 17:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak endorse but open to new AfD listing. I know of this site; I've used it before and found it very helpful. However, the content does not inspire much confidence in the article's potential, and as the others say, Alexa rank isn't a strong notability indicator. (Although IMO it still ought to count for something.) Still, I'm open to an AfD listing because I think we'd benefit either way. Still, there's no real hurt to the encyclopaedia if this remains deleted; it's a one-sentence stub. Johnleemk | Talk 18:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Ghits aren't too bad either. --Rory096 22:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist on AfD, but I do endorse the original deletion. The person bringing this up on AfD has presented some new evidence that could merit this article's inclusion in Misplaced Pages. An AfD is a good way to deletermin if it's more notable now than it was last August. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Naismith Family

This article was deleted through WP:PROD, but substantial objections were raised at Talk:Naismith Family. This is not an aspersion on the deleting admin, who probably didn't notice the talk page (the prod tag was never removed), but the prod was contested and I think it should be reviewed. My own vote would be to list it at AfD, or possibly just to merge it into James Naismith. Chick Bowen 04:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Tim Dingle

AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tim Dingle

The deletion vote for this article appears to have been initially judged based on the belief that is was a smear campaign. Later in the vote the story was confirmed to have appeared in the news, but the delete argument was then based on lack of notability under WP:BIO. However, WP:BIO specifically includes people who have become known through their involvement in a notorious event. As the subject was clearly in the news for notorious acts, it seems that it would fall into this category and thereby satisfy WP:BIO. Reconsider. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 23:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted. I'm unclear on why this is being brought up again now. Some people at the time set up a website TimDingle.com, which has been kept updated, if you want a summary of the story. At the time, the story was: headmaster accused in drug case. Now the story is: headmaster accused in drug case, charges later dropped. From what I can tell from googling (could be incomplete) it seems this was a local scandal, which certainly was not a big national news story, and I don't see that it's a big enough story to meet notability standards. Fan1967 00:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Note Interesting that TimDingle.com seems to feel the need to include Misplaced Pages in their coverage. There is a page that seems to have the story as it was before deletion (based on my vague recollection of it), as well as a link to the school's article, Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe, which has a lengthy section on the incident. Fan1967 01:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I can remember the news story, but after the initial five minutes of infamy it only received mention in a local context (I live in Buckinghamshire). This guy is still just a headteacher who got the chop, and there are plenty of those around. -- Francs2000 01:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted There's a pretty clear precedent that school headmasters/principals aren't notable enough for articles themselves, and a bit of scandal in the local press isn't enough to change that. There's already a full paragraph about it in Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe. I wouldn't object to redirecting Tim Dingle there, I guess. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, the later votes considered the news, and they were still all in favour of deletion. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Abstract People

Why, why, why is the Abstract People article being deleted? Abstract People were one of the biggest metal acts in Ireland in the 90's!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AbstractPeople (talk • contribs) .

  • Because they don't exist, thats why. Quite simple really - fictional bands don't get entries on the Misplaced Pages. --Kiand 22:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and speedied the article as a G4 and the bogus AfD page as useless. -GTBacchus 22:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion Bad faith DRV. OhNoitsJamie 22:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion Totally agree with redeleting as G4, bad-faith nom. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The page is now protected against recreation, and I've blocked the author after he created it a fourth time. Chick Bowen 22:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The original speedy-deletion was as a "hoax". As we have discussed often before, being a hoax is explicitly not a speedy-deletion criterion. As individuals, we are notoriously poor at sorting the hoaxes from the real though poorly written articles on obscure topics. The subsequent re-deletions were based on the incorrect assumption that the first speedy-deletion was appropriate.
    Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now. Like the participants above, I can find no evidence that this band really exists. I can not endorse the speedy-deletion but neither will I argue to overturn it without some evidence of existence. Rossami (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    Rossami, I think you're right. It would have been better if I'd taken it to AfD instead of re-speedying it. There's no point restoring it now (unless evidence comes along), but I'll keep in mind to be more careful with G4s. Thanks for the reminder. -GTBacchus 01:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse status quo - Metamagician3000 00:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC).
  • Endorse deletion(s) unless evidence of verifiable existence appears. -GTBacchus 01:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - obvious hoax, personal abuse from the author shows lack of good faith. Demiurge 08:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion We can't take chances on hoaxes or unverifiable material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Some remarks. As has been pointed out, this is an incorrect application of G4: that criterion was rewritten last year with just this sort of thing in mind, and it was hoped that it made clear that this kind of action is inappropriate. Just a gentle reminder.:-) As to the comment on the nominator, his crude remarks indicate rudeness and incivility; they do not mean that he is acting in bad faith. Do be careful when questioning the intentions of editors. —Encephalon 11:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion As an Irish rock fan, living in Ireland, I think I'd have heard of 'one of the biggest metal bands in Ireland' - and I haven't. Bastun 16:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Christian views of Hanukkah

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Christian views of Hanukkah

Congratulations! After a brief discussion (that I just noticed today), with a result 12d:4k:2m, they deleted the {{see also}} for the section Hanukkah#Interaction with other traditions. Was the article unsalvageable? Or the deletors simply ignorant? Now, I'm not sure of the state of the current article (could somebody please undelete for review), as I haven't looked at it since last Hannukah. But this isn't usually considered "Original Research" to document religious practices (editors aren't making up their own), and it affects a lot of folks in my neck of the woods where mixed-faith families are common. Yet, I doubt we really want to make the already long Hannukkah article even longer.... A nice short separate article would be best.

  • Undelete and fix any problems, as many (5) of the AfD commentors requested. --William Allen Simpson 15:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Concerns of those voting delete seem well-thought-out and valid. The article does a poor job of covering this notable issue, and has no sources. I'd say a sourced rewrite from scratch would be best. (I have history-undeleted for review.) -- SCZenz 16:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. As I am the admin who deleted the article, I will not "vote" here, but I will explain my decision. Firstly, and probably most importantly, there was a clear consensus to delete this article as it stood. Secondly, I felt that the delete votes were better informed by our policies than the keep votes were. I myself am Jewish, and am fully aware of the issues involved in this subject; however, I too felt that the article as it stood controvened WP:OR, therefore I saw no reason to go against the majority of votes. My deletion of the article does not mean that the subject is either non-encyclopaedic or unwelcome, but that the article as it stood was in contravention of our policies (a matter which numerous editors agreed upon). An article on this subject must be sourced in detail as the Christian view of Hanukkah is far from universal. Rje 17:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- thank you for making it available for review, the article is only a paragraph longer than it was last time I looked at it. IZAK (Jewish) wrote most of it, so I'll prod him. I've no idea what needs "sourcing" as most of it seems to be actual quotes from religious texts. Most of it I've heard in sermons from time to time on the Christian upbringing side, so there might be seminary material somewhere, but I'm long since lapsed and have nobody to ask. Believe me, there's nothing original to somebody raised 5 days a week North American Baptist (with Jewish relatives by marriage). --William Allen Simpson 17:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    I, along with those who voted to delete the article, am not suggesting that IZAK made up the conent of this article. The problem is that the views expressed in the article are not universal, they are those of certain individuals (I am unaware of any Christian denomination having a specific policy towards the religious festivals of other faiths). This being the case, the article absolutely must be sourced (this is made clear at WP:OR). Like I said earlier, I don't think anybody is disputing that some Christians observe Hanukkah; the problem is that it is such a minority, combined with the fact that there is no standard way in which they perform their observations, that it is necessary for this article to contain sources for it to conform with Misplaced Pages's established policies. Rje 18:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry that you're not familiar with a significant number of denominations here in the American Heartland. Merely millions of people is a "minority" when compared to Roman Catholicism.... Anyway, the only contribution I made at the time was to merge 2 similar articles, and that's how it ended up on my watchlist. While I had an important legal brief due last Thursday, I rarely check the watchlist more than once a week anyway. Now, I've done a simple Google, and among the 847,000 results, there are several that outrank even Misplaced Pages! They are eternalperspectives.com, biblestudy.org, and thetribulationforce.com, all "evangelical" or "messianic", just as the article says! Like I mentioned earlier, some seminarian probably has it printed in a book somewhere, but I'm not the person to ask. Looks like User:Bill Thayer is correct about the future viability of wikipedia.... --William Allen Simpson 19:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • IZAK's response: Hi everyone: Right off the bat let me make it very clear that I did not write this article (it's actually a stub). This material was mostly first added in 2004 by User:Chad A. Woodburn -- please contact him, his user page says he is a Christian pastor and he seems to still be active. I have not tracked it, but you guys have now forced me to look up its history, so here goes: After User:Chad A. Woodburn put it into the Hanukkah article it developed as something of a composite from a few subsequent editors, (examples:)  ;  ; (there are more). When I was editing the main article about the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah, rather than deleting this information which was causing constant friction between the Jewish and non-Jewish contributors I opted to move it into a more appropriate article in existence at that time called Evangelical Christian views of Hanukkah (interestingly, User:Chad A. Woodburn, the author seems to fit into that stream judging by what he writes about himself) which was then renamed in another move by User:William Allen Simpson where it got its new name of Christian views of Hanukkah. So that is why there is some confusion, also see the article's history page. Note that this issue of sources was also raised by User:TheRingess. Thus I hope I have clarified the questions you have here. Take care. IZAK 19:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: A cautionary tale -- in the AfD, somebody thought this was a copyvio. As the history revealed by IZAK shows, the cited page is actually a copy of wikipedia from several months later than the original section! --William Allen Simpson 19:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Look guys, I know this is an emotive subject, I really do, but the purpose of this process is not to challenge the outcome of the AfD debate. That debate has been concluded, the purpose of this page, as is clearly stated in the introduction, is to challenge my interpretation of that outcome. Without wishing to appear rude, it is not relevent to this discussion what your oppinion of the article was, or whether you missed the debate or not. What is relevent is whether you think a) I misjudged the consensus to delete, or b) that, if there was such a consensus, that the votes were not valid. I am sorry if I appear a little hot-headed about this, but the existence of this debate suggests quite a serious error on my part. Rje 19:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The votes were not valid. 3 cite a copyvio that did not exist. The nominator and several others call it original research. 4 call it "funny" and a "fork". And the most offensive:
      The "Christian" view of Hanukkah is like the "Dutch" view of Mount Kilimanjaro: not something to have an article about.
      --William Allen Simpson 20:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Even discounting the copyvio votes, there was a consensus to delete. As I have already stated the article failed our criteria for original research. While I agree that term may not be strictly accurate here, and this may be causing some confusion, if you read to policy page you will realise that the article wa in violation - hence the votes for deletion. Rje 20:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion Legitimate Afd with a clear consensus. OhNoitsJamie 20:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Original consensus was clear. Chick Bowen 21:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Cut-and-dry AfD. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Although my vote was the first that mentioned a copyvio, it is important to also note that my main reason was that the article contained original research. Kevin 23:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, consensus was obvious. Dr Zak 12:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. The WP:NOR argument, raised by the nominator and most of the other people in favour of deletion, was never rebutted by anyone arguing that it should be kept. The person who tried to say it wasn't OR failed to point to any sources, which is odd given that he claims to be studying the subject area. --bainer (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - consensus was clear and there were no special circumstances. Metamagician3000 05:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Claught of a bird Dairy Products

I made an article on this famous store on Manitoulin Island. Claught of a bird is indeed an actual person, and he does indeed own that store. I demand that it is un-deleted, for it has good information on one of Manitoulins most popular stores. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AppleJuicefromConcentrate (talk • contribs) .

LIP6

LIP6 is one of the two largest computer science laboratories in France, with researchers participating at the highest levels (program committees of international conferences, editorial boards of scholarly journals) across a wide variety of computer science disciplines. It is the computer science research arm of Pierre and Marie Curie University (UPMC), the largest science, technology, and medicine university in France, and the highest ranked French university in the University of Shanghai international research ranking. As the researchers also make up the teaching faculty in Computer Science at UPMC, it is, with over 100 faculty, one of the largest Computer Science departments in the world. It is hard to understand how such an institution could not be notable. The copyvio concerns are mitigated by the fact that the contribution came from the copyright holder (the lab) itself. The lab administrators were not contacted, as they should have been following Misplaced Pages's deletion policy, to see if this would be a problem. The answer would have been that the copyright problem is not a problem, and the needed permissions for use of the text and images can be granted. Furthermore, it is not a commercial promotion. It is true, clearly that the style and content must be modified so that it conforms to Misplaced Pages's style considerations and NPOV. However, the material provided should serve as a good basis for this, and the original authors are happy to work as part of the Misplaced Pages community in making the necessary edits. A rewrite is called for, but we do not understand the speedy deletion decision. -- 17:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Rewrite The topic seems to be notable, but Misplaced Pages does not want articles which are merely copy-and-paste jobs from official websites, even if they aren't technically copyvios. We also prefer that articles not be written by their subjects or anyone closely connected with the subject. If anyone cares to write a real article, it would probably stay. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Based on the evidence available at the time, I would also have deleted this as a probable copyright violation. We have had such severe problems with unsourced and illegal content, especially violations about images, that we have unfortunately been forced to take aggressive actions. A rewrite seems appropriate but please be very careful to document the copyright provenance of any text or images copied over. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Request undeletion of rewritten article I did precisely as suggested here, writing a short article with no copyvio, following the structure and style of an established article on another computer science laboratory, and, not even eight hours later, the new article has vanished. It seems whoever did this does not care to partake in the deletion review process, as no justification for deleting the rewritten article has appeared in this thread. Nor, does it seem, has this new deletion respected the general criteria for speedy deletion, which specifically says: "Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical", which it clearly is not. MyPOV 6:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: The deleting admin has already self-reverted the action and apologized in the edit summary. Rossami (talk)

Oz categories

CfD

There used to be several categories sorting the inamates in the Oz TV series:

Which were deleted recently by a few people who were against it. (Unfortunately, this deletion vote was not mentioned in any page, so no one could speak for these categories.

As you may see, there are too many articles regarding oz's prisoners, and this categorizing must take place. It should be also mentioned that these categories had some text in them portraying these gangs, and describing the main event that had happened to them during the course of the series.

I will put a link in here in the series' article talk page. Thanks! OzOz 11:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • endorse closure and keep deleted. I suggested to the review nominator that he perhaps write an article like Gangs of Oz (TV series) and include the information that he wants to have in the categories there, but it looks like he has rejected that idea. Categories should not have significant text in them, just guidelines for what should be included in that category. He could then have little headers for Fooians of Oz, describe the gang, and link to whatever related articles were needed either in a text or list form. Original multiple category discussion was here and previous Irish prisoners deletion discussion was here, and I was the closing admin in both cases. Syrthiss 12:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete. Was a very usefull categorizing IMO. I don't care about the text, though. As far as I'm concerned, it can be sent to a different article. Jimbryho 09:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete. Randy MacFarFarAway 12:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure and keep deleted. Proper notice was given on the categories themselves, and the vote was unanimous to merge. No valid reason has been given for overturning the CFD. The text that OzOz mentions above is irrelevant, because anything beyond a brief description of a category's contents should be put in articles, not in categories. Postdlf 15:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, CfD got it right. This was an unnecessary categorization. --Cyde↔Weys 16:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is kind of irrelevant, but why were there redirects to those categories in articlespace? --Rory096 16:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure the admin arrived at the only conclusion available from the discussion, the categories were correctly tagged: process was followed correctly. Moreover the Category:Oz (TV series) characters does not seem to require subcategories at this time. Tim! 16:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. I voted to keep them (with some renaming), but nearly everybody else felt otherwise, so I think the admin came to the right conclusion. They can all go in the main Oz characters category.--Mike Selinker 23:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete. There are about 60 articles there not including the CO's (Which some of you suggested to be sent to the main category along with the inmates. It needs to be sorted better. Plus, I believe that many readers might be interested only in the inmates of a certain gang (Instead of the entire category where all of the inmates shown throughout the series' run are put together. Yuval madar 06:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hulk 2

  • Overturn. The article on Hulk 2 was previously voted for deletion because it was pretty much unverifiable. Web research on the topic at that time (June 2005) only produced actors confirming they _would not_ be involved in a Hulk sequel. On 28 April 2006, Marvel confirmed that a sequel to the 2003 film was under development.

Currently the article Hulk 2 is protected and redirects to Hulk (film). I therefore propose that the page be edited to redirect to The Incredible Hulk (film) (the apparent working title of the film) which in turn redirects to the Sequel section of the 2003 film article. When sufficient information about the new film becomes available, the sequel information can then be spun out into its own article. Journeyman 06:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


22 May 2006

Xombie

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Xombie

It was deleted due to not meeting WP:WEB. Xombie has been in two magazines so far Fangoria and Rue Morque]. This isn't advertising for the site, its about the flash cartoon that's being turned into a movie, how can Misplaced Pages not have this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonkoldyk (talk • contribs)

  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). I find no process problems with the AFD discussion. Had I seen this deletion discussion, I would also have argued to delete. I can not convince myself that it is appropriate for Misplaced Pages to include entries for every flash cartoon that comes along. Rossami (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, valid AfD. Af first glance, this seems to be a classic "No consensus" AfD, but only one of the delete votes was valid: one was from an anon, and the other was from a very new user. That puts it right on the border for admin's discretion, and in this case, the closing admin applied it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete. So here's a situation where the article clearly did not show it met WP:WEB upon its deletion, and we now have evidence that it, in fact, does meet WP:WEB. Without seeing what was there before, I don't know what the article looked like, but given that it seems that process is being followed by coming to DRV instead of just recreating, and WP:WEB (the justification for deletion) is now met, we should undelete. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure Valid AfD, per Deathphoenix's reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete, not every flash cartoon that comes along gets made into a feature-length film released on DVD. Furthermore, this series clearly meets criteria 1 of WP:WEB. AfroDwarf 15:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete no consensus on AfD and some claims to notability were presented.  Grue  12:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Gary Howell

In the heat of the moment of deletion, many failed to look at the facts. A notable West Virginian.

Nationally Known Automotive Person in TV and Print

International Credit Card Fraud Expert

--71Demon 16:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • This has been deleted twice; the first time following an AfD (Admins can see the final version before this deletion at ), with the consensus being that the article failed WP:BIO, WP:CORP and/or WP:VAIN. Having seen the content of the deleted version I would also have voted to delete for these reasons. The second time (earlier today) it was speedy deleted as an nn-bio (CSD:A7) but it could also have been deleted under CSD:G4 (recreation of previoulsy deleted material), that version contained even less information than the previously deleted version and no substantiated notability claims so this was a perfectly valid deletion. Endorse deletions but allow recreation iff notability can be established. I suggest that you start composing an article in your userspace and only move it to the main namespace when it substantially improves on the first version to avoid a further speedy deletion under G4 or A7. If notability is still not established then there should be no prejudice against a second AfD. Thryduulf 16:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore Never should have been deleted. Meets all criteria for a good Misplaced Pages article. --70.17.192.78 17:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn/Restore this never should have been deleted --63.243.30.51 17:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As far as I see it the facts weren't actually presented in such clarity during the afd debate, and so I don't see that the decision to delete was wrong. I'm with Thryduulf: if notability can be established then restore. -- Francs2000 17:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that I must disagree with the assertion that the facts above were not considered. In fact, they were clearly documented in the deleted version of the article. I find little evidence convincing me that they were ignored or overlooked by the discussion participants. I must also disagree with 71Demon's specific assertion above that Howell is an "international credit fraud expert". Three of the four articles he/she cites as evidence demonstrate no such thing. (The fourth is in Japanese so I could not evaluate it.) Howell was interviewed as a small business owner who has been affected by international credit card fraud. He is no more "expert" than any other small business owner so afflicted.
    I endorse closure (keep deleted) but, as Thryduulf said, there is no prejudice against a new article more thoroughly documenting his achievements. If such an article is written and upheld, we can do a history-restore at that time. Rossami (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, valid AfD. Allow re-creation if the article addresses the concerns mentioned above and in the AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • (Caveat: I was the nom on the AfD in question). Endorse closure as a valid, good-faith AfD. I have no prejudice to recreation as long as it illustrates notability. To do so, the article should focus on Howell's work in the world of hot rods and automobiles (where he may possibly be notable in a relative sense) and it should prove said notability in that field. His status as a guy that has been interviewed because his business was ripped off (at least until his book is published) and his goal of seeking a seat on a local county commission should only be mentioned as side-notes and do not contribute either way to his notability or lack there of. youngamerican (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

New Sincerity

This article needed expanding, not deleting. It is a verifiable media theory, although the article itself needed work. The opinion when discussed was mixed, but this is a real and serious theory that should have a place on Misplaced Pages. If the article is not reinstated, can I at least have the original content to be worked into a fuller, referenced article that can be? --Hippo Shaped 17:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion but allow userfication. This was a valid closure of the AfD, but based on the comments by some participants it seems as though there is potential for a valid, verifiable article and indeed some work was done to improve the article during the debate, but this was not enough to influence a turnaround in voting. I recommoned that Hippo Shaped be allowed the content to work on it. I feel that it do the article good not to be associated with some of its mid-life incarnations as these were detrimental to people's opinions of it at AfD. Thryduulf 17:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. I voted keep on the AfD discussion, but it was closed properly, if you can come up with a valid, verifiable article, then please recreate it in your User space and bring it back here for review. User:Zoe| 22:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, valid AfD. It was relisted twice, so it was a bit of a difficult one (though when I relisted it the second time, I didn't realise it was already relisted), but I think it was closed appropriately. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Successful Praying

I request the return of the article on the book Successful Praying because it was deleted without due respect for the deletion process. I would ask that this request be based on whether or not due process was followed (which I think is strong) and not on whether the article may or may not survive a more considered delete process (which I admit is less strong). See also the discussion with the admin about this deletion. Thanks, Brusselsshrek 08:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Technical undelete as it clearly wasn't a speedy candidate, however I recommend Brussels writes an article on the author Frederick Julius Huegel instead of or at least before writing an article on his book. Articles on authors can frequently contain most of the useful information about their writing. --Sam Blanning 10:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. While I have little doubt this was done in good faith, a table of contents of a book is copyrighted. After stripping the TOC and the copyrighted cover images (they can only be used in articles that discuss the book -- not ones that say Title is a book by so and so), all you have left is "Successful Praying, subtitled an explanation of ten rules which guarantee answered prayer is the title of a book by Frederick Julius Huegel." with an ISBN and a link. I don't think that result was an article. I would agree that an article about the author is probably more feasible, but if Brussel can mention something about the book other than the basic details (especially what makes the book special enough for an entry), I have little problems with a recreation. But I don't think the original should be reinstated. Userfy if he wants to expand. - Mgm| 10:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I had fully intended to write more information about the contents of the book, but the stub was deleted within DAYS of it being created. The TOC was there to form a skeleton for what I was about to write. To argue that the content was not sufficient to justify recreation misses many important points:
      1. the article had only been created a few days earlier (thus deleted contrary to wikipedia guidelines of allowing a stub a reasonable time to develop).
      2. the author of the article was not informed of the deletion, except as a "speedy-delete" (while he was asleep) and so had no chance to add the real value which is suggested was missing
      3. the proper procedure was not followed, and I as the person to have most suffered from this lack of procedure, am simply asking for the right to create the article which I wanted to create.
      I will add that I have now spent a huge amount of time simply fighting against this speedy-delete, and it is a real tragedy that I waste almost all of the time I spend on Misplaced Pages editing recently because what I see as this admins blunder, rather than contributing useful stuff.Brusselsshrek 12:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy-deletion as a copyright violation. Unfortunately, Brusselsshrek's statement of his/her intention to expand the stub past copy-vio status does nothing to protect the project. Every page must stand alone as is at the time you hit the "save page" button. The courts have not yet sanctioned us for tolerating copyvios for short periods but that is a theory that we should not test. Take the time to write a solid, non-copyvio stub. Then post it.
    As to Brusselsshrek's claims that he/she was not informed, no notice is required nor is any such notice appropriate (though it can, in some cases, be courteous). Please read (or re-read) WP:OWN. None of us has any claim to ownership of any page here. Rossami (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy, per Mgm & Rossami. Sorry, Brusselsshrek, dealing with copyvios takes precedence over everything. Even if you plan to expand the article, any content that is a copyright violation is simply not acceptable (for legal reaasons) and must be removed from the article history. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Deathphoenix. Although I would have taken a different route (tagging the copyvio and asking the editor to userfy it until it was further along) the destination is the same. Thatcher131 15:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, I get the point about copyvio. Question though, I have done the identical thing for the article The Cross and the Switchblade, that is, I have scanned the front/back cover of the book. Is that not copyvio? What is the guideline? I know there's a lot of general stuff written here about copyvio, but what is the story on book covers? Can I or can't I copy them? The book covers for the Successful Praying article were scanned at exactly the same resolution or size as the book cover for The Cross and the Switchblade for which nobody seems to be saying anything. Thanks for clarifying. Brusselsshrek 08:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
If you read the guideline at WP:FAIR it seems that a scan of a book cover to accompany an article about the book is ok. However, copying the text from the jacket so as to constitute the body of the article is definitely not. I would say that at least half of The Cross and the Switchblade is an unacceptable copyright violation. You should find some other way to describe the contents of the book in your own words. Thatcher131 14:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Videohypertransference

Wow... I really hope I am doing this right. Sincere apologies if I am getting this protocol wrong - I am quite a newbie. I have 2 points to make about the deletion of this article, or maybe 3. 1) May I have the text copied to my userspace? If all else fails here, I would at least be interested in getting the latest version of the text for my own personal use. 2) I didn't get any warning about the deletion notice (prolly because I didn't login for a couple of weeks), so I never got a chance to say anything about the deletion vote. I think the article is a valid attempt, and I would be happy to try and source the article a bit more thoroughly. However, as I pointed out on the discussion page, there isn't much information directly available on this topic via Google. It is a very recent phenomenon, and I did my best to scientifically describe the empirical facts. This is just my opinion, but I often find people have a very strange view of what science is! 3ish) I think the article can be improved if it is fully undeleted. The phenomenon of videohypertransference is a real one, and deserves documenting. It has grown out of the rise of video (and video nasties) in the west, and the popularity of video game culture in Japan. Thanks for your consideration, --Dan| 08:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I've moved the text to User:Dmb000006/Videohypertransference. Please stick a {{delete|unwanted user subpage}} notice on it when this deletion review is closed and you're otherwise done with the text, as Misplaced Pages is not a free webhost. Anyway, I think the main issue is: does anyone actually refer to this as "videohypertransference"? Otherwise the article is fundamentally original thought. In the absence of specific new evidence that would theoretically have caused the very clear consensus in the AfD to be otherwise, endorse closure. --Sam Blanning 10:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks... Would it be possible to get the discussion page restored too? I made some useful comments for the would-be deleter on that page, as well as some notes regarding the stories in the media. Thank you! --Dan| 06:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

21 May 2006

Church of Reality

I want to hear countering viewpoints of the Church of Reality, after seeing bumper stickers in San Francisco. It looks like the page is permanently deleted, but no explanation has been given as to why. It is an athiestic organization: is the page being suppressed by political opponents? Please reinstate to allow open information exchange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.103.182 (talk • contribs)


17 May 2006

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)

  • 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)
  • 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 <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)
What a confusingly named organization. — May. 15, '06 <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)
  • This got no attention and I have no idea what to do with it, so I've moved it to the top of the heap. And subst the subpage, because I hate them like poison. - brenneman 12:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to match local usage, no good reason to ignore the consensus that CFD came up with. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse status quo - I would prefer "motor vehicle manufacturers" (which sometimes gets abbreviated to "motor manufacturers"), but surely this isn't worth much of a fuss over. The outcome reached was sensible enough to stand. Metamagician3000 11:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Structures of the GLA (second nomination) 17:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
  13. Prhizzm, undeleted and relisting at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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
  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

Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Deletion review: Difference between revisions Add topic