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 editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:59, 8 June 2006 view sourceTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →[]: Has been discussed to death← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:29, 10 January 2025 view source Extraordinary Writ (talk | contribs)Administrators75,370 edits apparently my previous approach broke the DRV bot. Let's try this instead. 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>{{Floating link|Administrator instructions|Administrator instructions}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Header}}
{{hatnote|This page deals with the ] and ] processes. For articles deleted via the "]" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at ]}}
{{redirect|WP:DELREV|Revision Delete|WP:REVDEL}}
{{no admin backlog}}
{{Ombox
|type = notice
|image = ]
|text = <div style="text-align:center;">'''Skip to:''' {{hlist |class=inline | ] | ] | ] | {{Purge|(purge cache)}}}}<br /><inputbox>
type=fulltext
prefix=Misplaced Pages:Deletion review
break=no
width=50
searchbuttonlabel=Search logs
</inputbox></div>
| imageright = {{shortcut|WP:DRV}}
}}
{{Deletion debates}}
{{Review forum}}
'''Deletion review''' ('''DRV''') is for reviewing ] and outcomes of ]. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.


If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "]" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the ] below.
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 ]. If you nominate an article here, be sure to make a note on the sysop's user talk page regarding your nomination. A template, <code>{{tls|DRVNote}}</code> is available to make this easier.


== Purpose ==
Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.
<div style="border:2px solid grey; padding: 2ex;">
]
<noinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{shortcut|yes}}}|no||{{shortcut|WP:DRVPURPOSE}}}}</noinclude>
Deletion review may be used:


#if someone believes the closer of a ] interpreted the ] incorrectly;
]
#if a ] was done outside of the ] or is otherwise disputed;
]
#if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
]
#if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
]
#if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
]
]


{{Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Content review}} Deletion review should '''not''' be used:


#because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be ]);
== Proposed deletions ==
#(This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per ] an editor is '''not''' required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
Articles deleted under the ] procedure (using the {{tl|PROD}} tag) may be undeleted, without a vote, on reasonable request. Any admin can be asked to do this, alternatively a request may be made here. However, such undeleted articles are open to be speedy deleted or nominated for ] under the usual rules.
#to point out ] that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
#to challenge an article's deletion via the ] process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a ''history-only undeletion'' (please go to ] for these);
#to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
#to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
#to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to ] for these requests);
#to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
#for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use ] instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
#to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been ]. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.
'''Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise ] will not be restored.'''
</div>


==Instructions==
*
<noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:DELREVD}}</noinclude>
<section begin=Instructions />Before listing a review request, please:
# Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
# Check that it is not on the list of ]. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.


===Steps to list a new deletion review===
{{Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/History only undeletion}}
{{Warning|If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a ], restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use ] instead.}}

{| style="border:solid 1px black; padding: 0.5em; width:100%;" cellspacing="0"
== Decisions to be reviewed ==
{{Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/Vfu mechanics}}
<!--
New entry right below here. Please start a === section === for today's date if one does not exist, and put the entry in ==== a subsection ====
-->
===08 June 2006===


====]====

(See ] and ].) --] 15:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


The Church of Reality is a religion, based on what is tangible and real. Somehow, for some reason, its article (and even its talk page) was deleted, with little to no apparent reason. This is really no different from deleting an article on any other religion, which is unfair censorship. I'm asking whoever deleted it to either give a truly good reason as to why it should stay deleted, or undelete it. {{Unsigned|72.129.178.151| 06:59 8 June 2006}}

* '''Endorse deletion, close discussion, protect from recreation.''' This cruft was deleted twice via AfD, and recreated/speedy deleted lots of times thereafter. Process was followed at all times. ] 08:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse deletion and protect''' per Sandstein. ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 10:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
* Misplaced Pages is not a forum for self-promotion in the name of free speech. 72, please see ] and ]. '''Endorse deletion''', yea, now and forever, amen. --]<sup>]</sup> 11:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', no version of any of the incarnations of this article is anything other than self-promotion for a group with, as far as I can tell, no claim of notability being present in any case. ] 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' valid AfD with a massively overwhelming consensus to delete, no evidence that circumstances have changed since then. Alexa rank of offical site linked to above is . ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 13:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion and protect from recreation''' per every reason expressed above. ] 16:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure, protect from recreation''' and bury with a stake through its heart. This has wasted enough time. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

====]====
*'''Strong Overturn, Undelete'''. A top 100 Ohio business; clearly passes ]; was already cited on ], therefore clearly notable (and meant to be given a wikipedia page); not to mention has MORE stores in its chain, has a HIGHER sales volume, occupies a LARGER region, and has MORE information supplied than many businesses that have ALREADY been given Misplaced Pages pages: ], ], ], ], ], ], and many more. AS CREATOR OF THE ARTICLE, I would also like to comment on my extremely upsetting experience in posting this article. I have already given all of these reasons NUMEROUS times in defense of my article, and I have proven in my previous posts that my article should be granted a Misplaced Pages page. It was speedily deleted without hardly any consideration or supplied reason except that more people had posted DELETE than had posted KEEP - a 1 vote majority in fact (yes 1 vote). NO OTHER REASONING was provided to account for its deletion! I spent a great deal of time describing the business and how it is definately influential and notable. My arguments it seems were not considered at all and were simply left out of the matter. My article was not biased, and it was not created as advertising. PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS ARTICLE as it clearly deserves a Misplaced Pages page. . If the article is undeleted, I WILL add to it. ] 06:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*In terms of pure numbers (standard disclaimer AfD is not a vote etc), the close was borderline, with 66% or 60% for deletion, depending on whether Bluebul1989's opinion is counted (as a new user who has so far only edited in relation to this article and is the sole editor to do so, the admin can choose to do so or not). That would often be closed as 'no consensus', defaulting to keep, but it is very much within the admin's discretion. However, in this case, I don't think the reasons to delete are that pressing. I don't believe that the article was created as self-promotion - if I had I would certainly endorse deletion. Bluebul claims to be a 16-year-old Ohian on ] and this is supported by a Google search for his username. Although I find the ] claim to notability dubious (the top 100 companies in every state of the USA being automatically notable sounds rather Americentric), DRV is not the place to debate that, and the other arguments for it being notable sound reasonable. Therefore, I suggest '''overturn as a no consensus and undelete''' without prejudice against a further AfD to gain a clearer consensus in a fortnight or so after Bluebul has improved it further. P.S. Bluebul, you don't need to shout. --]<sup>]</sup> 13:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn'''. A 66% delete vote is insufficient to delete, better to have no consensus'ed it and see what happens from there. ] 18:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

====]====
For clarity here is the article log.

This article was originally just a thin article that was nothing and was speedily deleted. Later the article was recreated, and I assisted in the overall betterment of the article. Again, the article was proposed for deletion, but on the grounds of a repost. However, ] restored the article stating, "Sufficiently different content from deleted material to warrant a new discussion/vote." The article remained standing and again was nominated for speedy in which I placed a hangon tag, another admin (I don't whom exactly, and I don't want to place names) agreed with the previous decision and stated that it was an entirely new article and deserved to stay up. Today, the article was deleted by ] for being a "repost." I am challenging this decision and request for undelete. The article is vastly stronger and signifies notability. Also, the repost decision was overturned before. It doesn't seem logical just to eliminate it for just that. Respectfully, ] 05:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
:I have already restored, as I was the speedying admin. I didn't notice that Mike Rosoft had already rejected the "repost" argument. (])<sup>(])</sup> 05:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

====]====
This article was deleted by ] without any discussion. As far as I understand the deletion process, this is not wikipedia policy.

I am happy to resolve any copyvio problems. ] 11:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
* '''Restore''', tentatively pending an explanation for this from Royboycrashfan&mdash;no explanation is obvious at the moment. I do not see what grounds there were for speedy deletion. There may be copyright issues, although I am not certain because the poem dates from 1915, but an article that old should not have been speedied without discussion. -- ] 13:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
** Royboycrashfan does not object to restoration if Tomandlu investigates the copyright issues, so I have restored this. -- ] 18:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

===07 June 2006===




====]====
This longstanding, tongue-in-cheek, satirical userbox was in line with other tongue-in-cheek, satirical user boxes. Administrator ] deleted this page citing its apparently inflammatory content. (See his ].) This userbox is clearly humorous and should not have been arbitrarily deleted like this. An example of this userbox is on ].
] 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
:Considering that you are the only person who has that userbox included on the userpage, does it ''really'' matter? I don't really think it's a T1 candidate, but the content was not really very useful either. I think the thing is OK to leave subst:ed on your userpage. '''Neutral.''' ] ] 06:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
::Endorse deletion, it may be satirical but it's also divisive and inflammatory to a much higher degree than User Satanism or any of the other endorsed userboxes have been. I actually agree with its view to a certain extent, but delete as valid T1. (Just like User Intercal) --] 06:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse deletion''' per above. — ''']''' <sup>|''' ]</sup> | 12:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' as a valid T1 deletion (am I really saying that about a userbox?) as I would consider it as having inflammatory content. In either case, it has been userfied and someone could transclude/subst it from there. On a side note, mine would probably be something along the lines of "This user thinks in terms of inches, metres, stones & pounds (what's an ounce?), pints, litres, british imperial gallons and ]s (not to be confused with ]s) and celcius (unless it's hot today)"... blame the ]. Hmmm, is the actual name of the template ] or ]? ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 12:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. Divisive. -- ] 12:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' - if you really want it, keep it on your userpage. Not good enough for template: space. -- ]]<sup>]</sup> 13:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. It's in your userspace - find something better to do, for the love of God. ]<font color="#555555"><b>||</b></font><small>]</small> 13:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''', it actually is T1. ''']''' (]) <em><strong>]</strong></em> 16:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' at ]. I didn't agree with the speedy delete. I have seen userboxes that were much worse. Let the community at-large decide at TfD. ] 16:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*(I guess I need to cast my vote!) '''Relist''' at ]. I agree with MJCdetroit. ] 17:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*Is it dead? ] (well, almost). So '''keep it that way'''. ]] <sup><u>'''] ]'''</u></sup> 17:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. Forget T1; this is a template in use on one single page. Longstanding convention is to subst and delete such templates. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 17:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

====]====
This article on a band was properly deleted as non-notable at ]. However, I'm listing for reconsideration here in the light of subsequent developments that may alter that judgment, namely the release of an album under (what appears to be) a major label. The article's original author also claims the following additional facts (which I have not verified myself):
*Released a sampler, an EP and an album
*Album is sold in Sunrise Records and HMV
*Video recieves rotation on MuchLoud (a show on MuchMusic)
*Had an interview and played a live show on MTV Canada Live
*Appeared on The Edge 102.1 (]) and the single was played at least once.
*Played with bands such as ], ], will play with ] and ] summer of '06
*Signed to same indie label as The Bled and ]
*Has toured across Canada and is already on tour again with destinations from Moncton NB to Vancouver BC
I am not voting at this time, just facilitating. ] 23:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
:'''Overturn, undelete'''. Has anything new been presented? Not...really. The band has recently been featured in Canada's magazine, not small potatoes, as well as a feature on Canadian FM. It's important to note that the band met ] guidelines BEFORE the AfD, and that was ignored. The prior meeting of the necessary guideline in the first AfD and further media mentions since then more than mean the deletion should be overturned. --] <small>]</small> 23:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
:'''Undelete''' -- the evidence above seems to show sufficient notability. -- ] 12:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

:'''Strong Overturn, Undelete'''. The album is out, theyve made more public appearances and the tour scedule has been updated to include a cross country tour with some major bands. I was ignored during the first vote, please dont ignore me now. All claims can be verified on these websites: , , , and . They have met more than 1 of the notability claims. ] 23:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Weak undelete''' playing on ] has to have ''some'' notability along with some magazine mentions. THe amazon link is not impressive, but ASIN B000FKOZLA is funny. What kind of viewship does MuchLoud/Music get? Our ] is not helpful. ] 01:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

====]====

Very popular porn site I really dont know why was it deleted. ] 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong undelete''' - ] 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong undelete''' - per Luka. --] 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*The article was speedied as an A7 (person or organization with no claim of notability). It's actually more of a website than an organization, and although I doubt it meets ], that doesn't make it speediable. I don't think we're going to find any good independent reliable sources. Still, why not give it its day on AfD? '''Undelete and list at AfD'''. -]<sup>(])</sup> 21:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''List on AfD'''</s> if we must, but I really see no need for this article. It's just another porn site, of which there is surely no dearth, and I really can't imagine anybody actually coming to Misplaced Pages for information on it. ] 22:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
:*Change to '''endorse''', per Sam. I had not spotted that it was unsourced as well as the other issues. ] 06:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*<strike>'''Undelete and list on AfD''' per GTBacchus.</strike> '''Endorse Deletion''' per Sam Blanning (below) ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', no assertion of notability, proper A7. "Recognized worldwide" is, like "good chess player", not an assertion of notability. An assertion of notability is claiming to have won a significant chess tournament or "Best Cumshot Website of 2006" at the World Porn Awards. And don't bother relisting until someone turns up a reliable source to base an article on. --]<sup>]</sup> 22:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Weak endorse''' per ] and ] a web directory. Did not actually say anything about the site that wouldn't be pretty obvious from the name. Permit recreation (subject to ]) ''if'' something encyclopedic can be written about the subject. —] <small>(])</small> 22:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' until someone can evidence notability. per Sam Blanning. ]<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">&#09660;</span>'''<sup>]</sup>''' <sub>''']'''</sub> 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong endorse''' per Sam Blanning clearly violates ] ] 00:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' per Ilmari; the article didn't inform beyond describing the practice that is the website's obvious subject matter. Though there's no reason why this shouldn't just be blandly listed, without elaboration, in a list article of porn sites somewhere. Something can be notable yet insubstantial, and so like the good information scientists we are we should ensure it gets incorporated into the proper place rather than trying to write a separate treatise on it. ] 00:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
:*No list either please, Misplaced Pages is not a web directory. --]<sup>]</sup> 11:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' -- <small> ]</small> 00:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' per Sam Blanning--] 02:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' no evidence provided in favor of notability. `'] ] 04:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' per Sam ] 04:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' as per Sam above. -- ] 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' on its face. Why is it that every page with the word 'cum' in the title is usually created by a troll and then dragged through DRV? ]<font color="#555555"><b>||</b></font><small>]</small> 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

====]====
An extension from ]
The administrator ] deleted this page on account of advertising, however I'm not affiliated
with AlternC nor do I advise/condone its use, I am simply noting the control panel along
with a list of many other noteworthy control panels. I am not advertising in any way, I believe
it is a misunderstanding.

] 17:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*The article made absolutely no assertion of encyclopaedic notability. Feel free to try again, giving ] from ] to back its significance per the ] guidelines. ] 19:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

*It was written as an ad, whatever your motivation. If you want to discuss what it is, when it was created, who uses it, and can document it, that's fine, I have no problem with a re-creation, but as it stood, all it did was to extoll its features. ]|] 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for the clarification!
] 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

====]====
Short and Good article speedy deleted by ] and ], edit summaries were "csd nnbio" and "". '''There was no vote'''. Many many results on Google, has an IMDb and AFDb profiles and also pass ] for having a recored of around 100 films --] 14:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

*Somehow, this ended up at page bottom today (June 7); not sure why it's dated earlier, but I have moved it for consideration. ] 15:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*Comment: Judging by the answers.com link, I think the fact the stub is short, and contains a poorly sourced negative claim, means it should not be restored. Instead, anybody who wishes, can create, a new original article, which clearly explains her notability, and which is well sourced. --] 16:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
**So this negative claim will be removed, that's not the reason it was deleted. --] 18:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''; I do not see any claim of notability in the article. Removal of potential libel of a possibly non-notable person is a bonus. No prejudice about recreation at this point. - ](]) 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. As above, no claim of notability (one bit part in a real film, balance is the usual no-budget porn churned out at the rate of several a day by some "studios"). No reliable sources for any of the bio data (IAFD is not, unlike IMDB, a reliable source per ]). Redux: dime-a-dozen porn "star". Take it to Wikiporn. ] 19:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
** - 147,000 result on Google, many results on Google Images. --] 20:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
***All active porn performers generate thousands of Google hits, due to the almost infinite crosslinkspamming of the online porn business. Not really meaningful. ] 20:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. Comment on process, not about content, this should be restored immediately as an improper speedy deletion. Holiday appears to be a more than notable enough actress for inclusion, we do not delete articles outright because they contain an unverified or unverifiable claim. ] 20:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' - per nomination. ] 21:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion.''' Not notable. ] is only a proposed guideline. <i><b>]</b>]</i> 23:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. If it doesn't qualify for an A7 speedy, it does qualify as an A6, an attack page. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 01:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. `'] ] 04:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse speedy deletion''', which was entirely in process - Silensor is misinformed. ]<font color="#555555"><b>||</b></font><small>]</small> 13:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' - '''per Silensor and nomination''' --] 15:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

==== ] ====
This page has been continually deleted, because the initial article was created by the feature of the article himself, ]. While the initial article may have been ] or ], he enlisted a group of his followers to create a '''real article''' in Misplaced Pages. His page has since been listed as a protected deleted pages, and his talk page is routinely deleted preventing a fair discussion of the deletion.

Shane Cubis does not fail ] and thus never really qualified for ]. Just because the article started as vandalism or vanity, it does not take away from the fact an actual compliant article could be at this entry, Shane Cubis. At the very least there should have been a discussion on the talk page, and not a speedy deletion into Protected deleted pages. ] 11:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

*'''Overturn''' Shane Cubis is a notable Australian journalist, being a major contributor to an important Australian media group, ]. The Chaser has made itself an important part of Australia's culture, being read by politicians, mainstream journalists and ordinary Australians. Shane's weekly columns attract large amounts of reads and discussion. His work for People magazine, while not being as well known, has attracted large amounts of attention from mainstream Australia. JoshT ] 12:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse speedy-deletion''' under case A7. The entire contents of the longest version of the article read "'''Shane Cubis''' (born 1980) is a writer, originally from Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. Shane's first article was a Teri Weigel porn review in the Tertangala, Wollongong University's student newspaper. Since then he's contributed to a variety of gaming magazines including ''Pyramid'', Knights of the Dinner Table and the ''Silven Trumpeter''. He currently has a weekly column in The Chaser and works for Australia's ''People Magazine''." and . Writers are part of a respected profession but are no more automatically notable than engineers or doctors of equivalent experience or standing. No assertion has been made that this writer is particularly significant ''or'' that he does qualify under our recommended ]. By the way, the deleted history shows that the only significant contributor to this page was ], supporting the assumption that this was an inappropriate autobiography. The user's subsequent edits to other pages do not insprire me to ]. ] <small>]</small> 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' per Rossami's excellent reasoning. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' indeed. ] 17:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', it's clear from Cubis's own website that he was the original author, and he's encouraging people to come here to recreate it and complain. ]|] 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Endorse''' - per ]. --](<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 18:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', and recommend that keen editors take the usual steps to moderate the inclusion of the subject's name and its variants in Misplaced Pages. There's is much outrage, followed by subterfuge, at the deletions. -] - ] 18:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' with thanks to Rossami for presenting a solid case. ] 19:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''': while the original article may be questionable as vanity, there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance and fame in the Australian political journalism / satire sphere that one of his fans should be allowed to create a page with information about him. The defacement of other pages with his name is consistent with the style of humour The_Chaser is famous for in Australia, not an indication that there is any lack of merit in the need for a "Shane Cubis" page on Misplaced Pages. "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is". ] 03:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC) <small>User's first edit</small>
**''there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance...'' Guy, since that's the very issue in question, you're ].
*'''Endorse deletion'''. No new information, and the old information was unconvincing to begin with. --] | ] 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' While no-one is denying that the original source of the article was Shane himself, that does not necessarily invalidate the merit of the article itself, and was more a function of the humour that has made him popular. Regardless of the American or British-centric knowledge of the original two administrators who deleted the article, their ignorance of the Australian media and in particular the satirical politcal area which is the expertise of the article subject in question does not mean it lacks significance. As an Australian, I guess I might equally wonder why something so incredibly minor and unimportant as a 3 year old racehorse such as ] without even a particularly impressive record demands its own Misplaced Pages page, where a published journalist does not. ] 09:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''strong overturn''' Shane Cubis is notable within the fan base of The Chaser. He is a major columnist for the site and well respected author in a variety of other media. His other edits on Wiki have surely not affected his notability or his work as a writer/comedian. ] 10:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong overturn''' If for no other reason than his fellow journalists ], ] and ] all have their own pages that provide just as much (or little, depending on how one is to view it) information about them. Is there any proof that these other journalists didn't write the articles themselves? Perhaps Shane Cubis is being punished for making a simple mistake - he wrote the article about himself in first person instead of third. Any of his fans would be happy to write the article to prevent it from remaining vanity if that is the main complaint, but he is certainly famous and/or popular enough to warrant an entry. Purpleorb (for clarity sake, {{unsigned|203.26.177.2}} )
*'''Endorse deletion''' per ]. — ''']''' <sup>|''' ]</sup> | 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse deletion''' CSD A7 -- ] 13:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
* '''Overturn''' Yes, Mr. Cubis may have originally written the article as a vanity piece for his article. That does not mean a compliant article could not be written. It is clear many people here are willing to write an article in the confines of Misplaced Pages policy. Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth, as he is drawing support from and his . As it stands now the page is protected deleted. Why not unprotect it and give someone a chance to write a compliant article? ] 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

==== ] ====
:]
'''Proponents ]:'''
* The certainty principle is a mathematical theorem. The is available for everybody.
* It was officially published in the established peer-reviewed journal. It will not be published second time. The journal was registered in Russia, and this is Russian government who has to know about the journal, not Google.
* Nobody has objections against scientific content of the papers. (Really '''no''' objections.)
* If the theorem is true, its notability cannot be questioned, because it generalizes (not contradicts!) the ].
* The certainty principle is too young (1 year) to be known as widely as ].
* The certainty principle is old enough to take it seriously. Links to it were put in WP almost year ago and a great amount of people have checked it, including highly qualified editors of the ].
* The questoin of "reputability" of the journal is anyway subjective and should be discussed only if some specialists in the subject have objections against the certainty principle.
'''Opponents ]:'''

* We are not specialists in the subject, and cannot judge the principle from purely scientific point of view. But we want to protect WP from pseudo-science.
* Google says that the certainty principle is not widely cited.
* The journal, where the papers were published, is not "reputable", and can be considered as a self-publication.

'''What should we do in this situation?''' The conflict is going to become a war. ] 15:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment'''. Article exists under both ] and ] in various forms. See ], which deleted this content as original research. I re-deleted this article because although this content was not identical, the original reason for deletion was unchanged. ] has claimed that the article is published in a Russian journal, but several physicist Wikipedians have looked for signs of this publication (or indeed the ''existence'' of the named journal) and found nothing; Hryun refuses to provide further details. You can see discussion of these issues, as well as more threats by ], at ]. -- ] 15:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Taking off my admin hat, and putting on my WikiProject Physics hat, I would like to note that this issue has all the hallmarks of original research. A very pushy series of editors, most of them with very similar editing styles, have been pushing to have this subject mentioned in about 8-10 different physics articles. A discovery of the claimed magnitude would have many, many citations in places that would be very easy to find, and this does not. The only document that can be located by ''any'' of the usual methods&mdash;which are essentially universal for all physics publications worldwide, is the paper itself on the ] and related servers&mdash;which are ''not'' peer-reviewed in any way. No publication information is given there. -- ] 15:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
** SCZenz, for what reason do you '''lie''' here? (1) The ] article was created by ]. I am not ] neither in WP nor in the real life. Ask for user-checking, if you do not believe. I just re-created the article under proper name, ]. There was no cheating in it. (2) You did not ask for "further details" of the journal, you asked for information that can be seen in the Internet. ] 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*** Please be civil. I don't think you are Slicky, but I do strongly suspect you're editing under a couple of other usernames. I do not believe that there are ''any'' reputable physics journals with no information available on the internet, however&mdash;Russian journals are tracked in the same places as all the others. -- ]
*Keep deleted until the concept gets taken up by someone other than the original auther. We'll watch CiteBase. --] 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. The AfD clearly labeled this material as ] and despite the requester's allusions no evidence to contradict this determination has been provided. The AfD should stand until ] to ] are provided. --'']''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse, keep deleted''' - Based on the information on hand, this is OR. If this is indeed a valid scientific theory, material will be peer reviewed and can be verified.. There should be no rush to have a wiki article on a subject (re "the material is too new to have been properly circulated" above); its not like we are going anywhere. ] 16:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse closure''' per ]. As Syrthiss says, we can afford to wait until this ''is'' independently sourced. ] <small>]</small> 16:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse deletion''', for reasons above. This does not presently return anything on or . It's important to be sure that authors are not inserting their own, non-peer-reviewed work to Misplaced Pages, or it would quickly become a repository for anything unpublished and unpublishable. There is further the fact that, if this were really what it is claimed to be, that it would probably already have been picked up by some very well known, reputable and reliable publications. At that point, inclusion would be a no-brainer. -] - ] 17:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse, keep deleted'''. As far as I can tell, both the term "Certainty principle" and the concept are ], as we define it. When the article is published &mdash; or even referenced &mdash; in a peer-reviewed journal, we can reconsider. &mdash; ] | ] 18:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' - per above. Wait for it to be peer-reviewed by someone who knows. --](<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''. When the work becomes well-known and the author is hailed as the great theorist he claims to be then I'll happily enjoy contributing on a million articles about him and his great work. Until then it goes into the "makes very large claims that nobody in-the-know seems to take seriously" bin. I also don't appreciate "Hyun"'s threats about waging a "war" against Misplaced Pages if he doesn't get his article included. --] 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. Two well-informed editors reviewed this and found it to be ], no evidence is provided to contradict this conclusion. No citations to reputable peer-reviewed journals, for example. ] 20:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' as per Jacobi. --] 21:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Mathematical deletion endorsement''' -- <small> ]</small> 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' agreeing with everything said above. Hyun, it will only become a war if you make it so and do not accept WP process. You have stated that there is no consensus. I think the above is a very clear consensus. Nobody agrees with you. Please accept this until and if this principle is widely accepted and discussed in many reputable places. If this is as important as the claims made for it, it would have been discussed by now in "Nature", Scientific American", "New Scientist" and so on, along with references in "Reviews of Modern Physics" and similar journals. This is not yet WP material and may never be. --] 02:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. Are all of us who endorse this deletion going to receive the ] as those of us who supported the original deletion, or indeed were in any way involved with it, did? --] 04:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
**If I receive an uncertain elephant, the user who places it will likely receive a certain block. ] 13:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

===06 June 2006===
==== ] ====
:]
This page had more people wanting to keep it then people wanting to delete it. It has been wronlgy deleted by someone who was against the page from its existence. As soon as it was created, this user marked it for deletion. It was wrongly deleted and I campaign for it to be restored... ] 16:06 UTC 6 June 06
*'''Overturn''': At least have the page there until the series is over and the page can be condensed. --<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment''': Why was the page deleted? Celestianpower says at the top of the page that the result of the debate was deleted. The results were: 6 for "delete"; 11 for "keep"; 1 for "weak keep" and 1 for "strong delete"!!! I think it's pretty obvious that more people want to keep the page than delete it!! ] 16:36 UTC 6 June 06
***AfD is not a ]. -- ]]<sup>]</sup> 16:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
****That may be true, but good reasons for having the page stay were still brought up. Even if only until the end of the series, the page is worth having in peoples' opinions. --<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion.''' People who wanted the article deleted seem to have more grounds than those who wanted the article kept. — ''''']]''''' • 16:44, 06 June '06
*'''Endorse deletion''' per FireFox. -- ]]<sup>]</sup> 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure, keep deleted'''. Reasons given for deletion were in line with WP policies and guidelines; reasons given for keep were mostly "But I want to keep it" variety. Process was followed, deletion is valid. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' for violation of process. I would have voted "delete", as this does look like non-notable TV cruft, but the result of the debate was ''no consensus''. The keep voters may have been uninformed, but ] allows only disregarding '''bad faith votes''' when establishing consensus, and few such are apparent here. I know of no policy that allows the closing administrator to determine consensus on the basis of which side they agree with. ] 17:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
**The guidelines say that ''for example'' comments made in bad faith may be ignored. In general, the guidelines say admins should use their common sense to determine if a rough consensus exists and should try to remain as objective as possible — they don't provide strict rules for doing this, since no such rule can exists. (Anyway, it's ''not'' a "vote".) —] <small>(])</small> 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and close as no consensus'''. Neither side had arguments that were all that compelling, and closer was not at all clear as to his/her rationale for the decision. --] <small>]</small> 18:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''- this was a reasonable decision. Possibly the DRV could have been avoided tho, if the closer had given more reasoning about why they closed the way they did. ] ] 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', a level of detail far in excess of anything which could possibly be justified by any encyclopaedic purpose. BB7 is more than adequately covered in the main article. This is a fan blog and belongs on a fan site: it is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information.. ] 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
**It's not meant to be a blog; it's meant to keep the main article small. --<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 19:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
**Is there some objective measure you're using to make this statement? At what point is it not excessive anymore? Why is detail bad? etc etc. --] <small>]</small> 20:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
***Yes, I'm measuring it by the articles for other comparable series. We're a couple of weeks in and already it's longer than many articles on entire series. And this is BB7, not BB1, so it is less notable in the first place. What we have here is a blog, a day-by-day log of events. That's one of the things ]. I have nothing against logging this info at a user subpage for later distillation into an actual article, but speaking as a Brit and part of the target audience this is considerably beyond the defensible encyclopaedic content. ] 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
****So instead of editing it down, deletion is the answer? --] <small>]</small> 11:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*****Yes, because ] a blog. We already have an article on BB7. ] 22:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': am I correcting in thinking that people think this article is necessary so that at the end of the show it can be reduced into something encyclopedic? That seems to be what was being said at the AfD, but I just want to verify that before making a decision. ] 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
**That was the plan. --<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 19:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
***Then you should store it somewhere else and repost it when it's encyclopidic. WP isn't a dumping ground for random information. --](<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
***Well, then in that case, '''restore and move to user space'''. Put it someone's user space so it can be worked on as a future article rather than having it in the mainspace as an actual article. ] 19:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Endorse''' and '''keep deleted''' - Misplaced Pages is ''not'' a democracy. The closer based his decision of the strengh of the arguments, not the amount. I agree with ] that the closer should have stated this more clearly. --](<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
**Per above, restoring to the userspace would also be quite acceptable. --](<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' the result of the discussion was keep and not by a small margin. I completely agree with ] that the article was wrongly deleted.
-- ]<sup>]]</sup><sub>]]</sub> 20:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and Undelete''' for being out-of-process. --] 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Weak endorse''', closure seems to have been within acceptable bounds of discretion. Most of the arguments provided by either side in the debate were rather weak, but some of the arguments for deletion were slightly less weak that the arguments against it. I'm quite willing, however, to '''userfy''' the deleted content upon request (a possibility some of the participants in the original debate appear to have been unaware of). —] <small>(])</small> 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
**It just makes more sense to have the page in the main Misplaced Pages area while it exists, because it still has the information that many people may find useful. If that ends up being the only other option, then it may end up happening. But I'm sure you can see what I'm trying to say. --<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 23:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
***The problem is, if it were in the main namespace it would have to satisfy the Misplaced Pages policies regarding article content. As it is, it seems to have trouble meeting several, including ], ] and several parts of ]. In short, it is unencyclopedic. —] <small>(])</small> 02:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Userfy somewhere by all means but keep deleted''' per above. ] 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and relist'''. I would rather delete this article but the discussion was at most a "no consensus", not a "delete". --] 02:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. AfD is not a vote, Misplaced Pages is not a free web host for TV blogs, no-one even attempted to argue that this information belonged in an encyclopaedia, process was correctly followed. If it doesn't belong on the main BB7 page then it doesn't belong anywhere. --]<sup>]</sup> 09:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
**The things is, that's exactly the point - people do think it belongs on the main article page. But the people that think it belongs there don't want it to be anywhere else. They don't care about how big the main article could become with that information on it. --<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 11:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''--] | ] 09:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure/deletion''', administrator has the right&mdash;nay, the obligation&mdash;to evaluate the merit of the arguments in terms of the goal of the project. When such a decision is not obvious, however, it should be explained in detail. -- ] 12:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' per KillerChihuahua. What's the point in having an article just for it to be deleted in a few weeks time (i.e. 'keep until the end of the series'). This does not belong on Misplaced Pages. It is fancruft of the worst sort. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and relist''' Closing admin pretty much ignored the entire AfD process, sending the message to everyone that he valued only his own input on the subject. That's not how AfD is supposed to work. --] 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. A severely inadequate closure method, but the right decision nevertheless. This was plainly not encyclopedia material, being essentially a diary of some people traipsing around a building for a few weeks. -] - ] 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse closure''' as within reasonable admin discretion. However, close decisions like this deserve more than just "The decision was delete" in the closure of the discussion. This argument could largely have been avoided if the closing admin had taken the time to fully lay out his/her reasoning. ] <small>]</small> 16:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' - As the closing admin on this AfD, I apologise for any extra trouble this has caused. Clearly I should have put forward my reasoning in the summary/the decision field: "When closing this AfD, despite there being more "keep" votes than "delete", the strength of arguments from the delete camp seems much stronger. ] is policy and this seems a clear case of 'Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information', as many voters pointed out. Also, ]: vote counts aren't everything". Once again, I apologise and will learn for next time. Regards, &mdash; ]<font color="green">]</font>] <sup>]</sup> 18:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Deletion''' - Strength of arguments needs to be balanced with number of arguers, and it seems reasonable to disregard input that lacks any reasoning. --] 04:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Remain Deleted''' The AfD itself was filled with people who were rabid fans on the show, with all their arguements being all the minute details(read: minor, incidental things) be left off of the television show's main page. Pages were being used to hold any info about show and daily summaries like it were a fan page. That's not what wikipedia is about. ] 04:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' - Celestianpower made a completely correct decision. ]<font color="#555555"><b>||</b></font><small>]</small> 13:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

====]====
] was deleted in February on the basis it was an orphan. Well, of course it was an orphan - it was February and the image was an Easter Misplaced Pages logo, so it'll only be unorphaned when it's Easter. I see no valid reason to delete this. Users may still want it on their user page at Easter. It's also causing red links in older revisions. See ] for the listing on IfD. There's a copy if the deletion is overturned and someone wants to reupload it. ]] 08:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Re-upload''' to Commons, so any project can use it, and Commons is outside of enwiki's jurisdiction. --] 08:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

====National Hockey League player lists====
{|style="border-collapse: collapse;"
|- |-
| style="background:#F5B158;text-align:center;" colspan="2" |&nbsp;
|valign="top"|
|-
*]
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width: 5%; text-align: center; vertical-align: top;" | <big>'''1.'''</big>
*]
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width:95%;" |
*]
{{Clickable button 2|Click here|url={{fullurl:Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/{{#time:Y F j}}|action=edit&section=1&preload=Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/New_day}}|class=mw-ui-progressive}} and paste the template skeleton '''at the top''' of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in <code>page</code> with the name of the page, <code>xfd_page</code> with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and <code>reason</code> with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, <code>article</code> is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:
*]
<pre>
*]
{{subst:drv2
*]
|page=File:Foo.png
*]
|xfd_page=Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
*]
|article=Foo
*]
|reason=
*]
}} ~~~~
|width="35"|
</pre>
|valign="top"|
|-
*]
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width: 5%; text-align: center; vertical-align: top;" | <big>'''2.'''</big>
*]
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width:95%;" |
*]
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
*]
:'''<code>{{subst:]|PAGE_NAME}} <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>'''
*]
|-
*]
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width: 5%; text-align: center; vertical-align: top;" | <big>'''3.'''</big>
*]
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width:95%;" |
*]
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach '''<code><nowiki><noinclude>{{Delrev|date=</nowiki>{{CURRENTYEAR}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}<nowiki>}}</noinclude></nowiki></code>''' to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
*]
|-
|width="35"|
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width: 5%; text-align: center; vertical-align: top;" | <big>'''4.'''</big>
|valign="top"|
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width:95%;padding-bottom:1em;" |
*]
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
*]
* If the deletion discussion's subpage name is ''the same as'' the deletion review's section header, use '''<code><nowiki><noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=</nowiki>{{CURRENTYEAR}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}<nowiki>}}</noinclude></nowiki></code>'''
*]
* If the deletion discussion's subpage name is ''different from'' the deletion review's section header, then use '''<code><nowiki><noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=</nowiki>{{CURRENTYEAR}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}<nowiki>|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude></nowiki></code>'''
*]
|-
*]
| style="background:#F5B158;text-align:center;" colspan="2" | &nbsp;
*]
*]
*]
|} |}


===Commenting in a deletion review===
'''Relist'''. They were improperly speedy deleted '''out of process''' for "already have lists of hockey players. don't need two" . Although they were posted on ], I was not given an opportunity to state some reasons as to why they should be kept, such as (briefly):
Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (<nowiki>'''</nowiki>) on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
*They follow ]
*'''Endorse''' the original closing decision; or
*They can be cleaned up. We can remove the external spam links, but add some dates and stats to each entry.
*'''Relist''' on the relevant deletion forum (usually ]); or
*There are other similar list pages thay list sports players in alphabetical order such as ], ], ], ], ], etc.
*'''List''', if the page was speedy deleted outside of the ] and you believe it needs a full discussion at the ] to decide if it should be deleted; or
*In fact, there are many, many other ] on Misplaced Pages that are just lists of names in alphabetical order.
*'''Overturn''' the original decision '''and''' optionally an '''(action)''' per the ]. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and ''vice versa''. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
Because of these reasons, there is really no basis for speedy deletion -- '''they were out of process''' ] ] 06:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Allow recreation''' of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.


Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:
*Yes, bring the lists back. They were the best way of keeping tabs on hockey player articles so that duplicate articles weren't created and so that disambigs are easier. ] 07:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
* <nowiki>*'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~</nowiki>
*Bring them back! This is not link-farming or spamming. Although it's not always 100% accurate, as far as being a simple and comprehensive directory of statistics Hockeydb is the best site I've seen. Criticizing them for having advertisements is absurd -- apart from Misplaced Pages, almost every other site on the web does too! And like Masterhatch said, the list itself was invaluable for keeping track of NHL player articles. — '']'' 09:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
* <nowiki>*'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~</nowiki>
::I suggest you read ]. Internal links are fine, and an external link to Hockeydb on each individual article is fine, too, but the point of WP lists is ''not'' to link to external articles on each of a number of related subjects, and the removal of external links from list articles is very common practice supported by policy and guidelines. As far as the lists themselves are concerned, they would be worth having if there are many redlinks, otherwise I can't see what this adds to a (self-maintaining) category. ] 10:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
* <nowiki>*'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~</nowiki>
:::My recollection is that the majority of players who played before last decade do not have articles. That's why these pages were so useful -- you could browse them and see if a player you recognized didn't yet have an article. The nice thing about having the Hockeydb links right there was that you could instantly see the "story" behind each red-linked player as represented by his career statistics (which often tells you as much as you care to know about him). As far as not obeying ], I disagree as the point of the page was to be a list of players, and the external links served a secondary purpose. — '']'' 16:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
* <nowiki>*'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~</nowiki>
::::Also, having the external link right beside each player helped keep people from adding their own name as a vanity article. hockeydb.com is, as far as i know, the most complete list of hockey players and their stats on the net and it because really easy to see if an added name is a vanity article or a real player. ] 17:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
* <nowiki>*'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~</nowiki>
:::::So why not make an infobox template with a parameter for the hockeydb entry? A Misplaced Pages list with external links (''first''!) and predominantly redlinks for the internal links is practically begging for deletion. External links are for references in articles. ] 19:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
* <nowiki>*'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~</nowiki>
* <nowiki>*'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~</nowiki>


Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct ''interpretation of the debate''. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of ]; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.
What's taking so long to get A through G back? ] 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
:I put everything back. Another admin deleted them again. Go talk to him. ] | ] 17:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
::Tagged as A3: article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections); deleted as such (i.e. in-process, as this is a valid speedy criterion). I didn't see any evidence that the deleting admin was aware of this debate.
*I have reopened the AfD and restored the deleted ones, as valid but contested speedy deletions. These ''are'' bare lists of links. The list of mainly redlinks may serve a purpose; perhaps it would be better to have these in Project space as part of a wikiproject's work list? Bare lists with no other data are an abomination unto Nuggan and should be shunned into oblivion; if dates and other encyclopaedic information are added then these are defensible (without, obviously, the external links). I have removed the external links to make this less like a mirror of HockeyDB with one or two Misplaced Pages articles added ] 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by '''Relist''', rather than '''Overturn and (action)'''. This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. '''Allow recreation''' is an alternative in such cases.
===05 June 2006===


===Temporary undeletion===
{{Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/The Adventures of Dr. McNinja 2}}
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{Tlx|TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the ] should not be restored.


====]==== ===Closing reviews===
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a ] exists. If that consensus is to '''undelete''', the admin should follow the instructions at ]. If the consensus was to '''relist''', the page should be relisted at the ]. If the consensus was that the deletion was '''endorsed''', the discussion should be ] with the consensus documented.
My article on ] was deleted via speedy deletion. I think this was a wrong move. Cory Kennedy is a becoming a huge internet phenenomenon. She has found a cult following on myspace, livejournal, and the cobra snake - as well as a place in current pop culture. This is the digital age. People are going to be looking her up. There is no reason for this article to have been deleted. This site should provide the most information possible - even about "internet celebrities." In fact, internet phenenomenons are particularly relevent on wikipedia because this IS the internet! I am requesting that this article be placed back up. I put in quite a bit of useful, accurate information about a person who is becoming very well known on the internet. Cory was also recently featured in Nylon magazine. Please review this.
~]
* '''Endorse speedy''' - As the deleting admin, it looked to be a nn-bio. The references were not reliable sources (blogs and livejournal). I deleted it first on a csd placed by another editor, then as a recreation (sleepyasthesouth recreated it including the notability and csd tags) and salted the earth. ] 12:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' as per Syrthiss. From the speedy tag: "it is an article about a person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)" There is no evidence that The Cobra Snake is itself a notable website, or that the parties she attends are notable, so all the more there cannot be evidence that she is notable for being on The Cobra Snake or for attending parties. ] | ] 12:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
* ADD-ON : I now understand why is was deleted. However, Isn't ] notable for suddenly having so many "fans" and finding herself all over the internet so quickly? What would qualify as a notable source? Would her feature in Nylon magazine qualify? Even if the information in the wikipedia article did not contain more than what is provided in the Nylon article? ~]
* '''Undelete and list on AfD''' As a contested speedy and the presence in Nylon constitutes a minimal claim to notability. ] 16:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse / keep deleted''' As far as "internet phenomenon" qualifications go, I get '''''' and the vast majority of those seem to be about other people by that name, among them a male bodybuilder, a soccer player, a congressional staff member, and a volleyball player. If she's an internet phenomenon, the internet doesn't really seem to be aware of that. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 17:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
** Cory has only recently exploded on the internet over the past few weeks and it has been almost entirely on myspace, blogs and livejournal - places that will not really end up in google. A community was made for her on livejournal and in just over a week there are already over 200 members. <br>However, if that's the final word - fine. I imagine soon she'll be on the site because her popularity seems to be only increasing.{{unsigned|68.109.205.176}}
***'''Comment''' Above comment is misinformed. Those sites are very heavily indexed by google. ] 18:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
****'''comment''' A lot of absolute bullshit is heavily indexed by google, too. Being indexed by google doesn't make something a reliable source. -]<sup>(])</sup> 19:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*****'''Comment''' I'm aware of that. However, the anon was trying to argue there was more attention being paid to this person in myspace and such sites that google wouldn't pick up. Google picks up pretty much everything there, so there's no hidden trove of notability. ] 20:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
******I'm sorry, I typed that early this morning, apparently before things started to make sense. Reading it now, yes, you're right. I agree that if google can't see you; you aren't much of an internet phenomenon.
*'''Endorse deletion''', quite blatantly there are no ] for this. And 'contested speedy' is not a reason to restore (unlike contested ]). --]<sup>]</sup> 18:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
* Well, I think the article definitely should have been deleted, however, I do not believe that it met the deliberately narrow ]. I believe quite strongly that Sam is incorrect. A speedy-deletion that is contested in good faith is to be immediately restored and listed to AFD. That was a requirement set up when the speedy-deletion process was first established. Much as I hate to be a process wonk, we have to keep our own process creep under control. '''Overturn speedy and list to AFD'''. Being unsourced may be a deletion criteria but it is not a speedy-deletion criterion. ] <small>]</small> 19:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
**Would you mind telling me where it says that contested speedy deletions get automatically sent to AfD, Rossami? Because I've never heard that, there's nothing in any of the obvious places saying that (e.g. next to the section on contested ]s on this very page), and if it ever was true, the widespread acceptance of ] appears to contradict it. --]<sup>]</sup> 22:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
***]:A7 says "''If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead.''". Also WP:SNOW has the text "''If an issue raises no controversy, and ...''", and therefor can't be used in disputed or controversial cases. --] 23:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
****Thanks. Though I think that practically, the bar for 'disputed' there is significantly higher than for ]s. --]<sup>]</sup> 09:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
***Widespread acceptance? --] <small>]</small> 11:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*** Paragraph 3 of the current header of ] reads "When there is reasonable doubt whether a page does , discussion is recommended using one of the other methods under ]." That wording applies to ''all'' speedy-deletion criteria, not merely case A7. The wording has been tweaked over time but in my experience has always been interpreted as a requirement to undelete and use xFD when there is any good-faith objection to speedy-deletion. ] <small>]</small> 16:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. There's no sourced claim of notability. Hence, CSD A7. The recourse for contested speedy deletions is this page. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 20:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. Valid speedy A7, and stands ] at AfD ] 21:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
**You can see the future here? WP:SNOW is never appropriate, specifically in a discussion about a speedy. --] <small>]</small> 11:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
***Yup, I can see the future fairly accurately here. Articles on vapid pseudo-celebrities with no objective claim to notability get daleted almost without exception. Most likely it would be tagged and speedied as A7 almost immediately it was listed. Somewhere I have a postcard with a picture of ] and the caption"I Predict The Future: Weatherman's Amazing Claim"... ] 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' sort of reluctantly. Rossami and Thieverr are quite right that this wasn't a good choice for speedy deletion, and for a dozen reasons it's better to err on the side of AfD - worst thing that happens is someone speedies it from there anyway. But... I dunno. These darn internet meme and internet meme wannabe articles are such pains, because there tends to be a crowd willing to stonewall against policy on them every time, and then we end up back at DRV. It would never be kept by a proper AfD, but it probably won't ever see one either, so it's best to keep it dead once it's dead. If the girl actually sticks around, there'll be media, and you can rewrite the article about her then. Does it really hurt that much if the interweb's flavor of the month doesn't automatically get a Misplaced Pages article? There's something to be said for standards. -]<sup>(])</sup> 23:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' per others and per ].
*'''Endorse deletion''': Websites generate huge numbers for anything and everything, but it would be very wrong to call these numbers "fans." Further, it's all about the effect on the ''recorded'' world, the verifiable world. Anything that vanishes when the power goes out is less reliable than anything that needs a flood to destroy it. ] 13:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
**Wow! ]! :) ]|] 20:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


If the administrator closes the deletion review as '''no consensus''', the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
====]====
*If the decision under appeal was a ], the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the ], if they so choose.
] requested me to file this request ]. The article has been speedied, because ] allegedly edited it after he was indefinitely banned. Even if ] is correct, ] G5 only allows pages to be speedied, if they were '''created''' by banned users while they were banned. Irregular edits can easily be reverted instead. ] 12:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.


Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Pointless rulelawyering is the only reason given to undelete, and does not address the original reason this page was tagged with the speedy tag: "rejected 'policy'. This page has become a permanently banned user magnet, please review history." (Oh, and did anyone mention that essentially the same page already exists at ]?) ] | ] 12:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
**I don't know of any policy, which prohibits to copy a rejected policy to user space. Any why do you care so much, whether permanently banned users edit on a user space page? Would you rather want them to edit ]? ] 13:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
***Because ]. ] | ] 13:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
****That's a ]. I've never stated, that ] or myself ] that page. ] 13:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', a permanently banned user coming back to edit on a page in the previous user space accorded him is '''bad'''. This is '''not''' an allegation but '''indeed''' was what occurred as ] again used an IP address or two that started with 216. which was previously reported on ] and left editorial commentary corresponding to his use of IP addresses as he returned to edit. Better that the page be kept deleted to discourage the return of the banned editor. ] 13:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Question''' - what's the actual argument for this page's existence? Does it help bulid the encyclopedia? -]<sup>(])</sup> 13:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
**This page has been created to work on the prematurely polled proposal (5 days after the first draft has been created). Its location in user space has been suggested by ] to avoid controversy with opposing parties. ] 13:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
***Well now that ] is banned, the logic necessitating his usage of a subpage is no longer applicable. Regardless, '''he did''' come back via an anon IP address to edit on it and that's reason enough alone to delete it and '''keep it deleted'''. ] 14:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
****As you know, I'd like to take over Rgulerdems work. What's your problem with that? ] 16:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*****My problem is that you are setting yourself up to act as a '''proxy''' to edit for a '''banned editor'''. This is '''bad'''. ] 17:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
******Netscott, at this point, how do you distinguish Raphael1's own ideas from ideas that are a banned editor's by proxy? Can nobody ever propose a similar policy, now that whatsisname is banned? -]<sup>(])</sup> 19:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*******GTBacchus, thank you for expressing your concerns. I have one question. Have you been following the discussion occurring on the Misplaced Pages mailing-list WikiEn-I? If you had you would instantly know that ] is acting as a proxy for ] (particularly when Raphael1 started Resid Gulerdem's now G5 speedy deleted ] proposal). That is why I have proxy concerns. Banned editors should not have proxies working on their behalf, or am I wrong in making that statement? ] 20:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
********I haven't been following WikiEn-I. I've never actually figured out how to subscribe to that. Nevertheless, I was pretty much aware that Raphael was trying to run with Rgulerdem's ideas. I guess what you're telling me is that there's no question that Raphael isn't acting based on his own initiative at all, but just acting for Rgulerdem, end of story. I don't know how you know that, but I'm willing to take your word for it. I also confess to not really getting what they're driving at with this proposed policy, but I guess it's neither here nor there. -]<sup>(])</sup> 22:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 13:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
:I am Sam, Sam I am.
:I do not like this censor sham.
:Keep deleted in user space.
:Keep deleted in any place.
:Keep deleted from the socks.
:Keep deleted says userbox.
:Keep deleted here or there,
:Keep deleted anywhere. --] 16:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
::Hilarious. ] 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Unsure''' why do we need a copy of this in User: and Misplaced Pages:? why is this so harmful or worthless that it must be deleted? ] 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
**May I congratulate you on your instincts? You've definitely asked the right question: ''"Why is this so harmful or worthless that it must be deleted?"'' Nobody here will be able to answer that question, because it's neither harmful nor is it worthless (at least not any more worthless, than most other stuff lying around in user space). ] 02:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' per Sam I Am. --] 20:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. How many copies of a comprehensively rejected proposal do we need? ] 21:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' What exactly did the proposal contain in the first place? Even if it's already been voted down, couldn't it be kept and tagged as a rejected proposal or some such? --] 02:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
**Isn't that at ] already? --] 06:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' and stop flogging a dead horse. ] 06:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Nuke from orbit'''. Raphael has been openly communicating with a banned user on wikipedia-en-l to continue said banned editors interests. Shell <sup>]</sup> 14:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', we don't need a banned user's disruptive attempt at policy-making resurrected in anybody's userspace. &mdash;] 21:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Rgulerdem forfeited his user space when he got himself blocked. Many people warned him to stop wasting other people's time pushing this proposal. ] 21:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Banned user. Unwelcome. ] 01:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. If he wants it to survive, keep on his computer drive. --] | ] 04:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


===04 June 2006=== ==== Speedy closes ====
* Objections to a ] can be processed immediately as though they were a request at ]
* Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as '''overturn'''. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
* Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to '''withdraw''' their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than '''endorse''', the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
* Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at ]). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".<section end=Instructions />
{{Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Active}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recent}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Archive}}


{{Misplaced Pages community|state=collapsed}}

]

]
====]====
]
This article was tagged for speedy deletion as "patent nonsense," which I felt was unjustified. I placed a "hangon" tag on the article, and stated my reasoning on the article's talk page. I was going to list it on AfD and propose that it be merged with the main Midnight Movies article. I never got the opportunity to do so, however, since the article was, and I think rather precipitously, deleted. I propose, therefore, that the speedy deletion be reversed, the article be listed on AfD and suggest it's merger as stated above. ---] 03:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
* The article was ''tagged'' for speedy deletion with that reason. I agree that it was not ] in the very specific and narrow way that we use the term here on Misplaced Pages. It the actual reason given for the ''deletion'', however, was "] an indiscriminate collection of information". Unfortunately, that is not an accepted ]. I see little redeeming value to this list but as a procedural matter, it should have been AFD'd, not speedy-deleted. ] <small>]</small> 13:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn, undelete and send to AfD'''. No legitimate speedy reason given. --] <small>]</small> 18:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undeleted''' without prejudice, if someone wants to send this to AFD they can (obviously). --] 13:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*I have carried out a rough merger and redirect, which seems the best fate for the list's content. ] 23:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

====]====
I would appreciate opinions/education on the deletion of ]. I understand the Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. However, it would seem that certain concepts, which may be expressed in a single word, have some merit to their explanation. For a very similar use-case, see ]. Thanks. --]
* '''Endorse deletion'''. Certainly, there is merit to there explanation of a word. That's what a dictionary is for. There was nothing in any version of this page that even attempted to be more than a definition. Please try creating it at Wiktionary. <br>I'll note, however, that this particular word doesn't actually appear in any dictionary I could quickly put my hands on. (Merriam Webster had an entry as a variant spelling of "yare" but the definition given has nothing to do with any of the definitions on the deleted page.) Be prepared to offer some verifiable sources for the alleged definitions when you do so. ] <small>]</small> 02:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
:* Thanks much for the clarification. I was uncertain of where the line might exist between the definition of a "word" and the definition of a "concept" (ie, definition of the word "cottage" versus a ]) Additionally, the original article was based on my own experience, which is probably a better reason for deletion per the standards of articles (which I do support). Formal definitions are virtually nonexistent, only cropping up occasionally in film or TV as a truncated reference to boating. I'll give up and leave it be, thanks again for the appraisal. ] 03:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', if you take it to Wiktionary be sure to give some evidence of attestation. One mention in The Simpsons does not make a valid yachting term. Maybe it's US-specific and that's why I have never heard it (I have many yachting friends including one who recently returned from sailing run d the world and another who teaches yachtmasters but they are all British). ] 08:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', with no prejudice against recreation ''if'' it can be made into something more than a dicdef. Apparently there ''is'' a real nautical term to be found under all the noise (see and ) — however, that in itself makes it eligible for Wiktionary, not for Misplaced Pages. —] <small>(])</small> 11:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Deletion'''. Dicdef. It's a real nautical word (may be spelled yar or yare), figures heavily in a section of dialog from ] (), but there's not much else to say about it. ] 15:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*I've been bold and recreated this as a redirect to ], Denise Crosby's infamous Star Trek: The Next Generation character. ] 18:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
**The ] would be proud! ] 19:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

====]====
] was deleted suddenly and for know told reason. I believe that AK Productions should be allowed to stay on Misplaced Pages, sure it is a young company but still exists. I would like the article to be restored or for a reason to be given for it's overnight deletion. ] 2:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Mere existence is insufficient reason to justify a Misplaced Pages article. There appear to be a number of companies out there by that name. Which one is yours? ] 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', valid A7. --] 20:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
* The opening sentence of this page read "AK Productions, is a recently created Production Company operating out of Waterville High School in New York State. Founded by Kale Carter, Brendan Carter, Olin Carlsen and Andrew Desimone in late May of 2006". It probably did not fit the deliberately narrow speedy-deletion criteria but if it had gone to AFD, it would have been measured against the standards of ]. From the information available, I don't see any chance that it would have succeeded in that discussion. I can not endorse the speedy-deletion but neither can I support it's undeletion without at least a little bit of evidence that this is appropriate to the encyclopedia. ] <small>]</small> 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:*In other words, when I asked which of the many googleable "AK Productions" this was, the answer is "None of them". '''Endorse Deletion'''. ] 22:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''': We get a ''ton'' of buddy articles from youngsters. Simply put, they need to be real before they can even go to AfD, IMO. If something is just three kids announcing that they are now a corporation (or rock band, or rap group, or game faction, or gang), then it's true A7. The kick is the "formed in 2006" and "recently." We need to have things generate effects on the world before anyone will need them explained. ] 13:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. '''''AK Productions''', is a recently created ] ] operating out of ] in ].'' And the article was created and edited solely by the people named in the article. A textbook case of ]. ] 15:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

====]====
] was deleted as not notable. I think it is notable, given the press coverage listed under "References" and the people behind it, and I would like the article to be restored. ] 11:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''; seems to be notable (albeit with less than 1000 google hits). &#0151;&nbsp;] 15:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I don't find an AfD on this one. The AfD article that exists (]) was just created by ] as a mistaken attempt to launch the DRV. How was it originally deleted? ] 16:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and AFD''' as a contested A7 speedy deletion. --'']''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 17:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and relist''' if it was a contested speedy, though I'm inclined to suspect there will still be a consensus to delete. (Google cache of article is ). ] 17:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. Speedy deletion is not prod, you can't just contest it and force it to AfD. This has Google hits. Most of those "articles" are on the group's site! --] 20:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' I get about by looking for variations, which IMO gets over speediable territory, but probably still fails AFD consensus. ] 21:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
***Doubtful that's more than A7, I get that many hits (and I was speedied, and quite justifiably so). --] 21:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
** Actually, speedy-deletion is ''exactly'' like prod in that regard. By policy and long tradition, any speedy-deletion which is contested in good faith is immediately undeleted and listed on AFD. That was one of the requirements set up when the speedy-deletion process was first approved. ] <small>]</small> 21:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
***Hmm, so why do we even have things like {{]}}? --] 06:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
****Hangon isn't always available. Sometimes an article gets tagged and deleted too quickly for an editor to notice it and put the hangon tag. ] 15:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''AfD it''' due to possible WP:V violation as well as a name that doesn't follow naming converntions. Likely an article by an inexperienced or new user due to the use of an abrreviation in the title, which gives an idea of the quality. I can't say without reading it, so relaunch it for afd.-- <font color=blue>]</font> <font color=green size=1>]</font> <font color=gray size=1> ]</font> 01:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' Notable cause which deserves as much support as possible. ] 18:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
**So is it notable, or does it deserve support? If just the latter, that's not a valid reason to undelete. If the former, how is it notable? --] 06:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

====]====
I ] on 17 April. The consensus was to either keep, or move to Wikibooks. The article was transwikied on 29 May by ], and subsequently deleted by ]. However, it was proclaimed unsuitable for Wikibooks and deleted from there by ]. As the alternative to transwiki was keep, and transwikiing failed, <strike>we should restore it</strike>. ] 11:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
**Since it's on Wikiquote now, '''keep deleted''' (I hope they'll accept it). ] 18:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Reinstate and relist'''</s>. I will vote delete on AfD. ] 12:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*:'''Keep deleted''' since it's at Wikiquote now, which seems like a much better place. ] 22:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*<strike>'''Reinstate and relist''' - makes sense in the circs.</strike> '''keep deleted''' given the new information available ] 12:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Suggestion''' why not move it to the ]? ] 12:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)</s>
::*'''Keep deleted''' no point in duplicating as it's at Wikiquote now. ] 05:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Undelete''', the ] was pretty clear that this should be kept ''somewhere''. After undeletion transwiki discussions should continue. — ] <sup>]</sup> 12:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)</s> Changed to endorse.
***'''Endorse deletion''' as this has been transwiki'd in line with the AFD. — ] <sup>]</sup> 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
**It has been. Please check the ] log more carefully. Also, just because one wiki doesn't want it doesn't mean we must keep it. -] - ] 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
***Posting the result of the transwiki log was helpful here, implying that I was required to search that backloged page is not helpful, I ] in the nominator. Just because one wiki doesn't want it certainly doesn't mean we should give it safe haven, but the afd was clear that it should be transwikid '''or''' kept, not transwiki'd or deleted. — ] <sup>]</sup> 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' don't know why it was deleted in the first place, because it was one of the better lists on Misplaced Pages. Promote to featured after undeletion. ] 12:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''<s>Undelete and relist''': </s>I'd prefer that conjunctive votes get clear on the matter. Yes, it will probably be kept, but I should like AfD to speak clearly. ] 13:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
**'''Keep deleted''' in light of information that the thing ''was'' transwiki'd. If there has been a transwiki, then this is a no-brainer (and pretty much an invalid review), as duplicate material is forbidden. If the authors ''don't'' want it on Wikiquote, then that's sort of too bad, as authors are no more priviledged than readers at Misplaced Pages. ] 22:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
**It did. It was transwikied, rejected at it's target, and now transwiki'd elsewhere. -] - ] 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' per Splash. I took the deletion summary and his comment on WT:DRV too literally and did not realize it was already moved to Wikiquote. ] 21:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC) <s>'''Undelete/Transwiki''' to wikiquote, this is just silly. ] 19:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)</s>
*'''No, no, no'''. People should do there research first. It's been transwiki'd to Wikiquote. See ]. Misplaced Pages didn't want it, and neither did Wikibooks. That is no reason to restore it here. You don't get some kind of free pass into Misplaced Pages just because ''noone else'' wants it! Anyway, it's been transwiki'd elsewhere. That's all that's needed. -] - ] 20:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Extreme keep deleted'''. Just because wikibooks doesn't want something doesn't mean we have to keep it. And I totally agree with Splash. ]|] 20:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' per Splash. The AfD debate did show a strong consensus that the content be kept ''somewhere'', but now that it's on Wikiquote, there's no reason to keep it here. (I've notified all the people who voted before Splash's comment and asked them to revise or confirm their vote in light of it. Sorry for the spam.) —] <small>(])</small> 21:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
**It seems my spamming was actually redundant. Doubly sorry. <small>*''embarrassed''*</small> —] <small>(])</small> 21:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
***Helped me, actually, as I was crossing this one off my internal list. ] 03:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', as the desired outcome (keeping the content elsewhere) has been reached. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 21:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' the VfD in question has a consensus to '''keep'''. Most users voted for keep as a primary solution and transwiki as a secondary. The VfD was closed inproperly. '''There were no delete votes'''. The decision should be overturned. ] 09:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
**Yes, my closure did use a modicum of discretion, but isn't it a leap to improper? ] 20:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
***Your closure was valid, in my book: more than one person pointed out that the list is inherently unverifiable (i.e. unsuitable for Misplaced Pages) and most offered Transwiki as a valid outcome, which it seems to me to be. Status quo appears to be reasonable. ] 15:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''undelete''', but remove the non-English tongue twisters and have interwiki links to the other languages for their tongue twisters. ] 18:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. Closing this discussion as "transwiki" was within reasonable discretion for the closing admin. The fact that the target project later decided that the content did not fit ''their'' inclusion criteria does not mean that Misplaced Pages must change its own criteria. ] <small>]</small> 16:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. `'] ] 04:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

====]====

This page got deleted for the following reason:
''"can't have copy & paste moves of deleted pages - GFDL requires the history"''

I've copied the page from ] ('''before''' it was removed) and
pasted it to ]. I didn't know how I could have copied
the history of this article as well and certainly didn't want to violate GFDL.
Please restore that page together with the history of ]
to make it compliant with GFDL. ] 00:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse'''. Anyway, Rgulerdem is banned, and it was a fair deletion that time. ''']''' (]) <em><strong>]</strong></em> 01:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
**It was removed, because it has been in the userspace of an indef-banned user. I am not banned, therefore ] can't be removed for the same reason. ] 01:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
***It's CSD G4 '''and''' possibly G5 ''']''' (]) <em><strong>]</strong></em> 01:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
****It's neither G4, because it hasn't been recreated, instead it has been copied before deletion (besides G4 doesn't apply for user space pages), nor is it G5 (because I'm not banned). ] 01:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*****It's a recreation. The G4 exception for user space is supposed to be for articles undeleted at a user's request, not for recreation of deleted content that was originally in the user namespace. ''']''' (]) <em><strong>]</strong></em> 01:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
******It's not a recreation. ] has been removed on the 2006-05-31 and I've copied the page before that date. BTW please restore ] as well since G5 only applies for pages created by banned users while they were banned. ] 01:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''. This "policy" has been the source of highly contentious and disruptive editing and ]'s user page is just an unecessary copy of the '''rejected''' ] that is likely to do the same as ] which is to encourage banned editors to use sockpuppets or anonymous IPs to circumvent their block to edit on Misplaced Pages. ] 09:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
**Whether you deem my copy to be "unnecessary" is certainly no part of ]. Furthermore did ] with no syllable encourage banned editors to circumvent their block. I wonder, where you got that from? ] 14:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
***Well ] for ] is what relates to my mentioning banned and sockpuppet users. I'm curious Raphael1, why did you actually save a copy of permanently banned user ]'s page? I understand that as Misplaced Pages editors we are to assume good faith in the editing of our fellow contributors but was the reason you saved a copy because you noticed that as a banned editor Resid Gulerdem was editing on it and figured that it'd be deleted and to disrupt that process you decided to save a copy? It seems so odd to me that you should have just happened to save a copy of his user page version just prior to its deletion. ] 19:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''': the article itself isn't banned, just one of the originating editors. Netscott, why is it a problem for Raphael1 to have a userspace copy (I assume a developmental version, like ] or ]) of an article? &#0151;&nbsp;] 15:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
**'''Note''' - this vote was gained through advertisement.] 17:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
***Jeremy, it's all a question of good faith. I didn't request deletion or even mention the existence of Raphael1's user page copy of permanently banned ]'s user page to anyone (despite misgivings about seeing him copy it just prior to its deletion) but someone else from the WikiEn-I mailing list appears to have seen mention of it by Raphael1 there and decided independently to delete it. Now that the act is done I support it for the reasons I expressed above. I would recommend the both of you to disassociate yourselves from ] for anyone editing in support of him is likely to have his or her own reputation tarnished as he was not only disruptive here but in a completely independent fashion was on the Turkish Misplaced Pages. Resid Gulerdem is just '''bad''' for Misplaced Pages. ] 19:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
****I don't understand your "good faith" argument. It's obvious that most material which is about to be deleted will continue to exist elsewhere &mdash; in google's cache for example. Raphael1 could have taken a copy of the article offsite and done to it whatever he chose, in the privacy of his own home. Instead, he chose to keep it on wikipedia (which looks like ''good faith'' to me), and he has suffered for it. Next time, do you think he will be ''more'' or ''less'' inclined to act in secrecy? &#0151;&nbsp;] 10:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*****The preceding user's comments were solicited through ].] 10:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
******No need to persist with your well-poisoning, Timothy. Most people understood your accusation the first time. &#0151;&nbsp;] 10:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*******I did understand ]'s statement of '''fact''' the first time and also saw it as an attempt by ] to "game the system", but do agree that it's a bit silly to repeat such a statement. ;-) ] 11:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
******''Suffered?'' Where's the suffering? The only ones suffereing are those having to spend time dealing with this nonsense. Let's face it Jeremy, Raphael1's actions were to thwart in a disruptive fashion the virtually assured deletion of Resid Gulerdem's user page. Is that not so difficult to understand? Regardless as bainer's comment below illustrates, Raphael1 shouldn't be trying to resurrect his own copy of Resid Gulerdem's final version of "Wikiethics" but in fact should be trying to resurrect Resid Gulerdem's (rightly imho) deleted user page. ] 10:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*******''Raphael1's actions were to thwart in a disruptive fashion'' And you foresaw this via which divinatory or telepathic methodology, exactly? It would seem far more likely that Raphael1 took a copy to preserve relevant material for a future proposal. Your refusal to assume good faith (or at least ''not'' to assume the first bad faith interpretation that springs to mind) is troubling. This is yet another example of flawed rules-lawyering supported by the tyranny of the majority. Raphael1's editing may frustrate some people, but the way he has been treated is disgraceful. &#0151;&nbsp;] 11:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
********The plea to "rules lawyering" is rather lame, can't you do better than use that argumentation device? Honestly, Raphael1 like myself and ] saw that the permanently banned editor ] was editing via IP addresses on his failed Wikiethics proposal and realized (again rightly so) that it was likely to be deleted because of that and to thwart such a deletion he saved a copy. Raphael1 wasn't involved in editing on that policy since it was last worked on over at ]. Does it not strike either of you as foolish to be here wasting our time discussing the saving of a ''policy'' that was founded by a demonstrably disruptive editor? It's as if you're here trying to defend a banned user's right to continue to make policy on Misplaced Pages ''even when he's blocked''. The only reason I can see for this is because "''it's a cause!''". You know if Resid Gulerdem had only been blocked on the English Misplaced Pages I might understand better those wanting to defend him and his ridiculous ''policy'' but the fact that he's been independently repetitively blocked on the Turkish Misplaced Pages makes me sooner see such individuals as foolish. ] 11:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*********Firstly I have not seen ] editing on ] via IP addresses, and secondly I have been editing ] before it was removed. ] 12:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
**********Raphael1, why did you think his user page was going to be deleted then? If the user page had just sat there no one's attention would have been brought to it, but this is not what occurred. ] 12:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
***********Don't you first want to apologize for your wrong claims before you ask any further questions? ] 13:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
************No, due to my witnessing your previous demonstrations of a lack of good faith I'm inclined to view this as another example of the same. ] 14:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''~. Per Netscott's above comments -- ] 17:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' per Netscott.] 17:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse ''' ] still exists if you want to go edit that. What you did by copy and pasting it into your own user space was done only to get around the fact that it was about to be deleted it. That is, in an ironic way, unethical. I also frown up the nominating user for the advertising of this discussion , , , etc. 6 advertisements in total. ] 17:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
**I'm sorry, but I've got no supernatural skill to see the future. How could I have acted upon a "fact", which still lied ahead? ] 17:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
***Why did you copy and paste it to yours then? If you didn't think it was going to be deleted, why did you need a copy of your own instead of just editing the one that existed at Rgulerdem's user page? Why did you think that two needed to exist? ] 17:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
****Indeed I did ''suspect'', that it ''might'' get deleted in the future, but I certainly didn't know about that. I still don't see, how it is in any way unethical to take over the work of an indef-banned user. Besides ] shouldn't have been removed as well since G5 only applies for pages created by banned users ''while they were banned''. ] 19:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', copy of a previously rejected attempt at censorship. ]|] 20:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' since this was proposed at ] and solidly rejected I see no particular merit in keeping it hanging around in user space in a form which (at first glance) looks to be even less acceptable. ] 22:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': I'm not going to endorse or overturn my own deletion, though I will say to Raphael1 that if he wants the content, he needs to hold a DRV on the original page (]) because copy & pasted pages cannot possibly exist when the original page is deleted. --] (]) 03:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I've read through this deletion review, and what I'm missing is any argument for why this page should exist. ''Why'' maintain a copy of a rejected policy written by a banned user? How does it help write the encyclopedia? -]<sup>(])</sup> 13:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
**I wonder, why you even ask that question. Shouldn't you rather ask, why should that page be removed? Nevertheless I will answer your question: Rgulerdem and some other editors worked on this former prematurely rejected policy in userspace to avoid controversy with opposing parties. I'd like to continue Rgulerdems work, which is why I've created a copy. ] 16:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
***Well, I think it's pretty clear from reading this discussion that it's being removed because it's the work of a banned editor, and seems to be a sore spot for a lot of people. At that point, the ball's back in your court - if so many Wiki regulars are against it, what's so great about it to make it worth the static you incur by recreating it? I've asked a more pertinent question at your talk page. If your goal is to improve Misplaced Pages, a bad way to start is by pissing a bunch of people off by acting as proxy for a banned user, practically speaking. -]<sup>(])</sup> 22:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
****I can't believe, that you are repeating Netscotts accusation ("proxy editing"). I consider this a personal attack, since it completely disregards my individuality. What's so bad about the work of this banned editor, that it needs to be removed? Will you remove ] as well, because it's mostly his work? IMHO this whole agitation to delete ]s work and keep it deleted, is a clear sign, that Rgulerdem hasn't been blocked for his behaviour, but for the position he has taken on various topics. ] 02:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
****:I don't enter the conversation just assuming that Netscott is lying; why not trust that I'm taking his word in, whadyecallit... good faith? So you say you're not being his proxy. I don't have any evidence to say which of you is right. I know basically nothing about Rgulerdem. I still think you're running into a lot of static, and would probably try a different approach, if I were in your position, and if I were more interested in results than in drama. You choose your battles - is it more important to you to influence Misplaced Pages in a positive direction, or to do it using this particular guy's words? There's reasons to stand on principle, and there's reasons not to. You can probably cause a big scene, if you set your mind to it, but that'll poison the policy you're talking about in the community's eyes even more. Have you noticed some pretty stiff opposition to this policy? If I were you, I'd be sitting back from this DRV and trying to start some conversations about what's so incompatible between this proposal of yours and the current state of Misplaced Pages - you haven't replied to my post on your talk page where I'd love to have that conversation with you, if you're down to have it. Come on, don't knock your head against this wall, it won't move. -]<sup>(])</sup> 05:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' - I have done a little work on this proposal and having a record of it is helpful in case anyone decides to work on it in the future. Also, as a comment to the closing admin, despite insinuations to the contrary, advertising a deletion reveiw is not a violation of any policy. ]\<sup>]</sup> 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
**It violates the ]: "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view."] 23:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' once and for all. ] 06:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', we don't need a banned user's disruptive attempt at policy-making resurrected in anybody's userspace. &mdash;] 21:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. {{RPA}} of a banned user. Unwelcome. ] 02:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

===03 June 2006===
====Sydney Roosters Season articles====

Three articles I created simultaneously, that being ]; ]; and ] were deleted in the last few days. The Sydneyroosters1909 article held a debate for the deletion while I had only added little content to the page, the article was then up for deletion before I had done any updates. While the debate took place I continued doing the updates, as seen in the discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sydneyroosters1909

I have plead my case to show that there are updates coming and its justification of existence.

I had also created a fourth article, however this was later and I must add that I created the page before the others were deleted. The fourth article; ] was created and included the updates I had promised with the 3 previous articles.

However when this article was put to debate re: deletion, the general consensus so far has been to keep the article based on the argument brought forward by ] who states; '''Misplaced Pages is an almanac. It says so in the first sentence of ]. This is verifiable real world information. It is not indiscrimate, and deleting it would do some harm and absolutely no good. Misplaced Pages is a free reference resource and this is mainstream reference material''.'

Considering the 3 previous articles were exact replicas in structure to the ] only differing in factual content, I propose that if the outcome of the debate be to keep the ] that the 3 previous articles be restored as this argument brought forward by ] was not put forward re: the debate of the other 3 articles.] 07:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

*'''Undelete and relist''' at the ongoing ], where consensus now appears to favor keeping that sort of content. This will ensure a more-or-less coherent decision. ] 22:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and relist''' - perhaps it was closed properly, but this is ''very'' likely good encyclopedic content. The team concerned has long been a major force in the NSW league. Let's see how it goes this time. ] 09:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

====]====
April Fools Day this year included a minor invasion of the GNAA IRC chat by members of wikipedia crapflooding with very informative information about ]. Deleted with the note of Privacy Violation. Note the GNAA has no rules against logging the chats, and infact encourages their members, which granted we are not, to do so. There was no privacy violation. I humbly request it to be undeleted.'''Edit''':Also to note, it was linked to off the BJAODN page for the April fools day section. -''']</font>'''<sup>]</font></sup> ] 09:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:Umm... I think you got the name wrong. There's no deleted content at the pagename you provided. ] (]) 09:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::So I did, fixed now (dang capital letter) -''']</font>'''<sup>]</font></sup> ] 09:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Weak undelete''' If there are no privacy violation issues here; that is, if the GNAA chat does not hold a policy against public logging, then I could care less. I mean, the log's pure nonsense and a waste of server space (I'm quietly for deleting BJAODN altogether), but whatever. Let him have his log. ] (]) 09:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted conditionally''' - only if it can be verified there is no rule against public posting of logs, then '''undelete'''. ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> at 09:47 ] <small>(])</small>
*'''Keep deleted''': Who cares if GNAA has a rule? It's Freenode that forbids reposting. The "authors" can't be verified and don't get to say. ] 12:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
**Last I checked #gnaa was juped on freenode, so I don't think the irc logs are from freenode. ] 17:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
**The channel was not on Freenode. -''']</font>'''<sup>]</font></sup> ] 18:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' and send to MFD if you want it deleted unless someone can show that it ''is'' from a network that prohibits public posting of logs (it certainly isn't the norm). ] 17:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. Someone should have checked with the page owner before speedying. --] 18:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
*: No one owns any article on Misplaced Pages. --]] 19:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Amazingly, I agree with Geogre. This hardly ever happens. Except when there is a Y in the day name. ] 23:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', aside from the privacy concerns, Misplaced Pages is the 💕, not the repository for inane crap. ] ] 03:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' per Christopher Parham. --]<sup>]</sup> 09:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' If want deleted should go to MfD, and is imo, within the bounds of what we allow people to put in their userspace(and I'm under the impression that there is no privacy issue in this case). ] 16:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. How is this not a privacy invasion? ] 12:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Everyone read and reconsider''': http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:About#Wiki_is_a_great_concept_but_._._. In short, Wiki suffers horribly from this phenomenon, and until things change, it'll never be objective. In Wiki's current form, all of you are responsible for refraining from personal bias (currently racking up a deplorable record, to date), and reviewing relevancy based not on your experience (as nearly all of you have done), but on an objective measure (sorry, but Google hits isn't objective, nor accurate) of actual relevancy.
**Can you please explain what the above paragraph means, and its relevancy to this discussion? ]|] 18:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

====]====
Regarding "]", (the article should have been named "Male unbifurcated garments") which was deleted after ], and the subsequent . I closed the AfD as delete (a decision that I believe reflected the AfD consensus), and for which someone started ] against me. I believe the AfD and DRV discussions were unneccesarily perturbed by personal opinions (especially by those supporting the article). While editing ] (which is propaganda for a non-notable movement, and should be deleted), I searched for and found that this is the most common term used to refer collectively to ]s, ]s, ]s, ]s, ]s, ]s etc, for men. I think the reason why consensus was to delete the article is because it was being used by proponents of "Men's fashion freedom" to popularize their cause, and that those who "voted" against intended to deprive them of using wikipedia for propaganda &ndash; meanwhile, useful encyclopedic information went lost. I cannot safely revive this article (even if severely rewritten) without some consensus. I therefore request that the article be taken back to AfD. The previous AfD, after all, did have good arguments to keep, and the DRV was doomed from the beginning because of certain somewhat incivil artitudes. --] 17:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
*Requesting '''speedy close'''. ] has been created. --] 19:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
** Recreating deleted content at a different title merely makes it necessary to speedy-delete the recreated page. By the way, the manual of style says that articles should be created at the singular anyway. ] <small>]</small> 19:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
*This article was deleted after a deletion vote on the criteria that the term was not very popular but the phenomenon is very common. It was sent for a deltion review for undeletion where the deletion was not reverted. I propose renaming and redirecting of the article to a new name ("Man-Skirt") which was found by some participants in the votes to be more common. So vote '''Redirect''' for supporting the motion , that is to rename and redirect to Man-Skirt, and '''Keep Deleted''' for opposing the motion that is to keep the article deleted.
] 08:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I does not matter to me. MUGs, Manskirts, man's skirts, male skirts, whatever. This needs to be mentioned somewhere. Just as I suspected (and the reason why I brought this here), it does not matter in which way one tries to create an article describing this particularity, it will be speedily deleted merely out of principle. --] 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
*DRV is to question deletion process. AFD, community consensus, has agreed it should be deleted. Therefore, '''keep deleted'''. ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> at 08:13 ] <small>(])</small>
*'''Keep Deleted''' Didn't we just close a DRV on this? ] 14:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''': It's a tunic, and it's what everyone wore before pants -- "shirt" <-Anglo-Saxon "skirt" <-Old Norse, same garment. <shrug> No undeletion. ] 14:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' as there is no reason for resurrecting it under a NEW neologism. If there is material in it that is of value to merge elsewhere, ask an admin to give you a userification. There is no need for multiple DRVs that I can see. '''<font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''']: ]/] 14:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' and close this DRV - the last one ended . You can just write a new article under a new name if you want this to be on WP, there's no need to undelete this just to rename and rewrite it... - ] ] 15:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' Only 755 GHits? It's not just a neologism, it's a wikineologism. --]<font color="green">]</font>] <sup>(] | ] | ])</sup> 18:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Keep deleted.''' Validly deleted in process, confirmed by deletion review. Article had no references at all. Sources meeting the ] guidelines have still not been cited, nor convincing evidence that the term is in widespread use. Nothing has changed significantly since the AfD or DRV. ] ] 19:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)</s>
*'''Keep deleted'''. The term has very limited currency outside the "male fashion freedom" community. Actually, virtually ''no'' currency outside of that community as far as I can tell, and I looked into it in some considerable detail. The current situation, where it is discussed in ] seems entirely sensible. I would support a ''protected'' redirect (protected because the proponents of the term are on a mission to promote it, as evidence prior debates). I would also take issue with it being the most widely used term: excluding kiltmen and WP yields something over 8000 ghits for "male unbifurcated garments", but repeating the search with "skirts for men" gets over 13k ghits. Even within the highly restricted locus of those seeking to discuss this topic (which is primarily Western, since they are normal in many countries) I see no compelling evidence that this is the most widely used term. Few if any of the mainstream articles on celebrities who briefly followed the fashion trend for skirts mention the term, it appears to be used solely in the context of the fashion freedom movement. ] 20:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
* '''Overturn''' and Undelete. Numerous print references, websites, and manufacturers confirm usage (as I have pointed out over and over). These references have nothing to do with the fashion freedom movement. --] 20:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
**Indeed you did, in ]. I checked your New York Times reference, Feuer, Alan (2004) "Do Real Men Wear Skirts? Try Disputing A 340-Pounder," and it checks out. Changing vote accordingly. ] ] 20:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
***Except that what the article says, as far as I recall, is that the ''movement'' calls them that, not that they are widely called that. "male unbifurcated garment" (in quotes) still gets under 500 ghits, and there is still, despite the incessant protestations of its proponents, no evidence of its widespread mainstream use, still less that this is the usual term for these garments. ] 21:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
****... and "male unbifurcated garment'''s'''" gets ghits. --] 21:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
***** If you click through the first few pages of these results, Google discards nearly all of them as "very similar", leaving only 42. ] 05:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
***** You also find that a good many trace back to the top hit, the kiltmen community. Which appears to be where it originated, and where the advocates come from. Most of those hits are forum posts anyway. Despite all the arm-waving, thew advocates of this term have yet to provide a single credible reference showing that this is the generally used term to describe these garments, or giving any significant usage outside of the small men's fashion freedom community in which context we have pretty much its sole mention in the mainstream press. One article saying that this group uses the term is not really enough, in my view. ] 13:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
****** Well, yeah... I guess I'm just a softie for anything that cites good, verifiable sources. ] ] 00:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn,''' undelete, and relist on AfD. Or, those interested can create a new article under this title that cites sources, presents a more neutral, less promotional point of view, and does not read like a personal essay. ] ] 20:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Speedy close''', we don't need to keep discussing this ad nauseum. ]|] 20:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', no process violation apparent, the new references are not really convincing of the notability of this term. Incidentally, see now ]. (Just stumbled across it via a cleanup of ], which until recently also featured an exhortation on why men should feel good about wearing shirts...) ] 21:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''This was here last week'''. --] 03:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep deleted'''. ] did some excellent research in the ''last'' Deletion Review discussion documenting the uses of this phrase. I concluded from that research that this neologism is in infrequent use primarily in human interest stories about this small group of activists. No new evidence has been presented convincing me that this decision should be revisited yet. ] <small>]</small> 05:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' per Rossami. Several advocates of deletion from the original AfD (including me) have indicated that they were aware of JJay's sources. In the AfD/DRV discussion of this topic, it's been noted that, for most men who wear unbifurcated garments outside the Western world, they're just normal clothing. Thus, I suggest that anyone who wants to write about this in an NPOV, non-soapboxy way, could find a way to fit it into the article ] or its offshoots. ] 05:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
* '''Overturn and Undelete''' - This term is in widespread use among some circles. Wiki includes detailed articles on information specific to very small circles, yet bans information that's in considerably wider use simply because it offends someone's sensibilities? MUGs isn't a new fad - it's the continuation of what men have been wearing for tens of thousands of years, and what approximately a third of men throughout the world routinely wear today. If you delete this, I will recommend you delete "skirt," "dress," and "pants" for whatever reasons you provide herein. If they apply to MUGs, they apply elsewhere. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 09:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC).</small>
*:This is precisely the kind of ludicrous hyperbole which has infested every previous discussion of this topic. You say that if we delete this term used by a very small group of people and scoring a negligible number of unique Google hits, then we must also delete a word used by millions every day. Assertions like that make it almost impossible to take this subject even slightly seriously: the actions of the proponents of this term have consistently given the impression of zealots with little or no connection to reality, and this is no exception. ] 19:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' per JJay. Clearly notable. ] 12:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*:So a single newspaper article which notes that a small group uses a given neologism is sufficient to make it clearly notable? ] 19:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:* I really need to ask you to stop spreading misinformation as you complain about "ludicrous hyperbole" and "zealots" with "no connection to reality". After stating repeatedly that no sources exist , , , and failing to respond or blatantly ignoring any of the sources offered ,you seem to have now recognized one. Since I know of at least 25 print sources, and a number of manufacturer websites, here are a few links you might find enlightening: , , , , , , , , etc. etc. Of course this does not include many sources I can not easily link to such as Newsday, The Economic Times (India) or some of the Australian print sources. The following manufacturer sites also sell unbifurcated garments as prominently shown on their websites: , . This obviously ignores the widespread usage on blogs and the web. The extent of the "notability" of the trend can certainly be debated...and as shown by the links, the term can vary depending on the source. But please stop the nonsense about google hits, zealots, no reliable sources, arm waving, and the like. --] 22:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*::JJay, do you not think that the statement ''If you delete this, I will recommend you delete "skirt," "dress," and "pants" for whatever reasons you provide herein'' is ludicrous hyperbole? How many references to skirt, dress and pants are there? How many to the term "male unbifurcated garment"? We've been assured that Googling for MUG is a good test for its currency despite the fact that the vast majority of hits are for the ceramic containers. I have seen no credible evidence that this term has ''any'' currency outside the (very small) men's fashion freedom movement, and it was in that context that the few mentions we have were made. Right now it is covered in ], which contextualises it nicely. It has been deleted through valid process and after much discussion, and that deletion has already been confirmed once. No new evidence is being presented here as far as I can tell, it's just a case of them keep asking until they get what they want. Sorry, but that pushes my parental "no means no" button. The clincher for me is that in all the coverage of the prominent men who have been seen wearing skirts (Beckham, Cruise, Gaultier etc.) this term is pretty much absent. The only references I can find linking Beckham to the term, for example, come from the usual source: kiltmen. It is their private conceit which has no real currency. They really ''really'' want it to have some currency (read: protologism) but as yet it has pretty much none outside of themselves, and ] the place to fix that. ] 08:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted.''' A silly, non-notable term. Also the fact that a DRV on this just ended not too long ago. <i><b>]</b>]</i> 23:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted.''' Non-notable ] 16:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Deletion'''. To see my reasoning, see the previous go on deletion review. --] 21:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

=== Archives ===
* ]
* ]

Latest revision as of 07:29, 10 January 2025

This page deals with the deletion discussion and speedy deletion processes. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion "WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.
Skip to current nominationsSkip to:
Shortcut
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
Formal review processes
For RfCs, community discussions,
and to review closes of other reviews:
Administrators' noticeboard
In bot-related matters:
Discussion about closes prior to closing:

Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose

Shortcut

Deletion review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
  4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
  5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
  2. (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
  3. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
  4. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion for these);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
  9. for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
  10. to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

Instructions

Shortcut

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion instead.
 
1.

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

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

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

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

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2025 January 16}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

4.

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

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 January 16}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 January 16|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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



Active discussions

16 January 2025

Chakobsa (Dune)

Chakobsa (Dune) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I do not think the process was fair. Some of the votes were cast when the article was still a stub and before I had had a chance to expand it. Other votes relied on arguments that are in my view questionable. Khiikiat (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Relist (involved) because 1) contested NAC, and 2) the close turns in part on a subtle question: does the article in The New Yorker (and, to a lesser extent, Al Jazeera) constitute RS coverage even though it doesn't mention the word "Chakobsa", and 3) is a NOPAGE argument sufficiently policy based to overcome a topic with adequate reliable sourcing (NYT, New Yorker, Variety, etc.) Jclemens (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The content of the page is irrelevant. What the AfD examined is the notability of its subject, which is the same whether the article is fleshed out or empty. It was closed correctly by an experienced and capable non-admin. Owen× ☎ 19:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

EV Group

EV Group (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The editors seem to have shown undue hurry to close the issue. Please see given link which mentions that the said company alongwith one more (from same country Austria) - they both together hold 82% of world's GLOBAL SHARE of wafer bonding for chipmaking using silicon wafers (https://www.ft.com/content/1c4fe3f0-7d44-4346-833b-e1beca9298c9) - is there anything more needed for NOTABILITY - apart from another internet find earlier given in the deletion discussion already. Another user @Cameremote had tried to burnish the article - but no editor seems to be willing to listen and just reverted. I have nothing to do with this company or their product - and I simply came across this article - because probably what caught my eye was the text "2nd nomination for deletion". Jn.mdel (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  • I'd have just reverted Cameremote's edits too. They took a neutrally-written article and turned it into something I'd have speedied as spam if not for its history (choice sentence: "With a global presence, EVG is recognized for contributing to the semiconductor industry and delivering cutting-edge equipment to fabs worldwide.") —Cryptic 10:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Also, I think you may be confused about the term "notability" - it's Misplaced Pages-specific jargon in this context, and doesn't have its usual meaning of "worthy of note". The short version is that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Nearly every word of that is jargon too: see WP:Notability for the long version, and WP:Notability (organizations and companies) for how we specifically apply it to companies (short version: more strictly than for most subjects). —Cryptic 11:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Thanks for replying - I cannot now see /access what Cameremote may have specifically updated - but if as per you the article was neutrally-worded before those updates (which were later reverted) - then so be it.
      My limited point for this review request is that the company seems "notable". Jn.mdel (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus. The AFD fell into error in failing to consider the historical versions of the article before the rewrite; I think between it all there is sufficient evidence of notability. Accordingly the deletion process has not been properly followed. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Stifle Incorrect; the nomination statement was based on the original version of the article and included an analysis of every source in the original version. My comment below includes my analysis of every added source in the rewrite. I agree with @Cryptic that Cameremote's rewrite did not really improve things but the original did not have any qualifying sources either. It would perhaps be helpful for an admin to undelete the revision history so DRV participants can review it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    (And when I say "original version," I mean the version that existed after it had been recreated on 5 January 2025 in a series of several edits that day; not the version that preceded the 2015 "delete" AfD.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak endorse (involved, as nominator). I confess I am not sure what grounds this is being brought on? If undue hurry is the objection, well, it ran for a full week and attracted several !votes and comments. It seems like there's a nod to DRV#3 by bringing up the FT article, I can't view it because I don't have a subscription. From the limited view I have it seems to call the company "EVG", which is perhaps why it didn't come up in a search.) However, in the discussion, no sources were deemed to contribute to WP:NCORP, so bringing up a single source on appeal would not alone be able to get an article to NCORP even if it were WP:SIGCOV, which I can't tell either way. I also sincerely question the appellant's ability to evaluate whether it is a qualifying source, considering they argued in the AfD that a primary source press release from a competitor counted toward notability, and indeed in the discussion above the appellant is coming back to the company seems "notable", which is not grounds for appeal or for keeping. As for the consensus, during the discussion, there were three in favor of deletion and two in favor of keeping. But Owen correctly weighed the contributions. Cameremote tried to improve the article but did not convince the other editors with the new sources. They did not cast a !vote, and seemed OK with deletion in the end. The appellant cast the only true keep !vote, but did not rebut the source analysis I provided and offered only a single defective source as discussed above; I and another editor discussed why this source was unconvincing. Owen could have relisted to generate a stronger consensus, but I think a sufficient delete consensus existed. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    My grounds for review request were mainly two:
    1. An independent business magazine reference was required - I found : https://www.adhesivesmag.com/articles/87890-3m-and-ev-group-settle-patent-infringement-suit
    But meantime did not get a chance to post it
    2. The FT article is visible and clear about the global share of said company - if some of you cannot read on the link - I can upload a pdf print of that webpage also - but i am sure some of you can read it too - 82% global share between two companies from Austria of wafer bonding for chips which power almost everything in our today's world is not a joke
    But all said and done - from my completely neutral point of view of someone who has nothing to do with that company or that product or that country - my submissions highlight that we need to be more open to giving a chance to a submission Jn.mdel (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Adhesives Magazine is a WP:TRADES publication and thus generally not considered independent. Please do not upload the FT article text as that would be a copyright violation. As for your final point, this article has been created twice and now deleted twice. Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. We have standards, you may disagree, but coming here without a valid reason to overturn the deletion decision is wasting the time of the community. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I believe let the community decide on the validity of the reasons given in my replies Jn.mdel (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    You seem to be treating Deletion Review as a second shot at having an AfD discussion. That's not what it is. It's for if there was an error by the closer or one of the specific grounds identified at WP:DRV. OK, that's my last response here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse, the AfD did run for a full week, and, while low participation could have warranted a relist, closing it was also reasonable. The nominator's original statement did address the version prior to the rewrite. Seconding Cryptic's comment that the rewrite itself was also far from an improvement. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak endorse I finally settled on endorse after considering relisting or overturning to no consensus, which would also be good options here - the keep !voters (yes, HEYing an article, even promotionally, should be treated as a keep in my book if you don't specifically bold your !vote) had their sources dissected enough that I think the close is reasonable, but I have absolutely no objection if this is relisted or overturned. SportingFlyer T·C 19:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment I want to commend the nominator for a very thorough review of extant sources. Whatever the outcome, this is anything but a lazy nomination. Jclemens (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Aria (Indian singer)

Aria (Indian singer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This biography needs an independent page (Article), opposes being merged into another, requests to restore this page to its current state

reason :- The deletion discussion of this page ended quickly, could not participate in the discussion,

another one did not participate in this more editors, the editor who raised the redirect argument did not say the reason. the editor who raised the keep argument brought references but the closing editor did not consider it.

This living biography was born and raised in India, acted in Malayalam cinema in India, and has references.

Another, biography is a notable K-pop (X:IN) singer , dancer and Idol in Korea (WP:SINGER WP:NACTOR) - -

reference:-

~ ~ Spworld2 (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Endorse redirect. Deletion review is a venue to address failures to follow deletion process. It does not consider requests that merely constitute an assertion that the AFD was wrong and seek to re-argue it. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would also endorse what Jclemens said below about spinning back out the redirect as a normal editorial action if sufficient sourcing is added. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    AfD was a mistake, doesn't mean. It was mentioned as a fact, this is not a reason,
    I could not attend it, so I could not argue, the editor who voted to 'redirect' on AFD did not give a reason for it,
    It is a fact.
    I request to restore this, this should remain an independent article, X:IN is a music group (K-pop) in Korea , both are different, this is an Indian singer, dancer and Actress working in a Korean music group, and this biography is also about an Indian film Actress in (Malayalam cinema), the notable being WP:SINGER and WP:NACTOR Pass. Spworld2 (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Again, the fact that you do not agree with the AFD outcome or submissions that others made is irrelevant. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Relist Nom, and one each delete, keep, and redirect makes consensus rather iffy to call. Now, if that were after 2+ relists, I'd see the NC close as more reasonable, but the appellant here is asking for more time on an AfD closed without a relist. Alternatively, anyone can edit the redirected page, expand sourcing significantly--and I would warn against poor quality sources here, which seem to plague Asian pop culture--and undo the redirect without needing DRV consent. Again, this is to improve the encyclopedia, not a shortcut to get one's own way. Jclemens (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Relist. The nom and one delete vote assert there is no WP:SIGCOV. The keep vote provides a few references which I do not believe are adequately refuted. There is also a redirect vote that had no substance to it whatsoever that should be discounted. A relist will allow for better analysis of the sources brought up both at the AFD and here and for consensus to form. I currently do not see any consensus in the AFD. Frank Anchor 14:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Pinging AfD participants: @Paper9oll, Bakhtar40, Darkm777, and CNMall41. Owen× ☎ 14:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse redirect as stated by Stifle. I don't think a relist would changes anything given that the concern of WP:NEWSORGINDIA sourcing (some were included above) wasn't addressed and/or ignored (topic change) completely. Also noting that a Korean sourcing was included above, which, inadvertently strengthens my AfD's rationale on WP:PASSINGMENTION. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
NEWSORGINDIA is not a policy or guideline, but rather an information page. Frank Anchor 15:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I know that however NEWSORGINDIA was added (diff) per an RfC on RSN (permalink) that coincidentally also derived from an AfD on Indian BLP hence I don't believe that doesn't carry certain weight compared to a typical information page. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

14 January 2025

Peter Fiekowsky

Peter Fiekowsky (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article is still in the simple english version, what is the problem? On the search engine Bing, Peter Fiekowsky has more than 2 million views, and it is just about having this valuable scientist and author on wikipedia: the article started as follows: Peter Fiekowsky is an American author, physicist and founder of the field of climate restoration and author of "Climate Restoration: The Only Future That Will Sustain the Human Race" (Rivertown Books, 2022). He has founded the Foundation for Climate Restoration, Methane Action, Stable Planet Alliance, the Climate Restoration Safety & Governance Board, among others.'

I contacted the administrator who deleted the article, with no answer from him or her. Is it an action of hostility towards the climate policies? Thank you if you can help to restore this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adumoul (talk • contribs)

1960s in history

1960s in history (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

i just want the page to please be added to my user space, so that i can edit it. i thought the deletion would be a redirect, so that i could stil edit the pages. this is also for 1970s in history, 1980s in history, 1990s in history, and 2000s in history. Sm8900 (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

13 January 2025

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Callum Reynolds (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted twice over 6 and 15 years ago when the player didn't meet WP:NFOOTY requirements of the time (since outdated, but would pass now based on that criteria), and there were numerous repeated attempts to recreate the article by various different people which led to an admin protecting the namespace. Since then however, he has arguably met WP:GNG just as much as the articles of his teammates at Bromley as a recently created draft page has shown. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, the AFCH script does not handle this. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Raising this issue at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Accepting when the mainspace title is create-protected (SALTed) SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I am not sure what User:SmokeyJoe is saying is wrong with the script's handling of this case. The script says to request unprotection. It is true that it would be helpful for the script to provide more detailed instructions about unprotecting, but the script does handle it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 January 2025

DJ Hollygrove

DJ Hollygrove (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

DJ Hollygrove grammy winner https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/hollygrove-of-the-chopstars-sir-the-baptist-aaron-dubba-news-photo/1463285516?adppopup=true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F991:9E50:F923:CBAA:724D:8AFE (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/larry-jenkins-jr-sir-the-baptist-aaron-dubba-aa-lockhart-news-photo/1463266133?adppopup=true 2600:1700:F991:9E50:F923:CBAA:724D:8AFE (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this is always the problem when an AfD is curtailed because the article is suitable for speedy deletion (which it was at that time). Whilst the processes were wrong, even the last (and best) version of this was sourced to four unreliable sources (IMDB, last.fm, MySpace and his own website) and wouldn't have survived an AfD. Still, I don't see a problem with Recreate as a redirect to The Chopstars and then see if anyone can create an article which shows notability. Black Kite (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


Recent discussions

8 January 2025

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Fil-Products Group (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

A WP:BADNAC: The page creator closed the discussion as "keep" on the same day it was opened with the only !votes for "delete." Requesting an uninvolved administrator to relist the discussion. (Mea culpa: I originally reverted the non-admin closure erroneously, seeing it as disruptive, before I had reviewed the provision at WP:NAC stating inappropriate early closures of deletion debates may either be reopened by an uninvolved administrator, and I have self-reverted.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 January 2025

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Guite people (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am not convinced that notability was adequately established. The article subject is a WP:CASTE topic, where many print sources are low-quality, partially based on oral tradition, or ethnically biased — so the nom's statement in a reply that the existing information "is all folklore and no authentic sources are available" is credible. See also WP:RAJ for more background.

Not all of the existing references were checked, but we identified several that are clearly unreliable, and two users failed to find substantive online sources. One user claimed to find various print sources, but did not identify any by name. None of the Keep !votes provided new sources that prove notability, or asserted the reliability of existing references; some users made unjustified assertions of the subject being "well-known". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

This was open for three weeks, and I certainly do not see a consensus to delete. I suppose I could have closed it as no consensus, but the end result is the same, so it's unclear to me what we are doing at DRV. Beeblebrox 06:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse Not a single person besides the nom put in a !vote for deletion. There were suggestions, and some indication that a sizeable minority of the references were not RS, but lots of people thought it was OK to keep, even if weakly. While there were a few commentators noting issues, not one, including the appellant, came out and said "This should be deleted". Hard to close it any other way, and I think Beeblebrox is being overly charitable--I don't see no consensus within reach here. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to challenge failures to follow the deletion process. It is not a venue to seek a second bite at the cherry when the deletion discussion did not go your way. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse: Well I see that there was surely no consensus for deletion and this is not the venue for doing these things.Also WP:RAJ is an essay not a policy. Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 11:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse and procedurally close per WP:DRVPURPOSE. The appellant made no claim that consensus wasn't read correctly, nor presented any significant new information to overturn the close. No one is obliged to convince the appellant that notability was adequately established. Owen× ☎ 14:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse there's simply no way to close that discussion as delete, even if you completely down-weight all of the keep !votes. SportingFlyer T·C 20:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Ridiculous DRV nomination. Read advice at WP:RENOM. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse - The only possible closure. Does the appellant have some reason why they think that the AFD was handled erroneously? On its face, it appears that they simply disagree with the community, but that is not what DRV is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The comments toward the end (only after the second relist and the request to review individual sources) look like the start of a WP:BEFORE. They don't look like arguments for deleting the page, more like preparatory work for such arguments. Too little too late.—Alalch E. 03:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse - I didn't !vote for deletion, but I did ask for consideration for renaming (moving) this. The admin did the correct thing. Bearian (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 January 2025

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
STONEX India (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It seems a bit too early to close this discussion, especially when three relatively new editors, who may not be fully familiar with the notability guidelines, have voted to keep the article with very vague rationales - "plenty reliable sources are present", "added two books that provide significant coverage." (which do not actually provide significant coverage), and "I found sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify keeping the page on Misplaced Pages." While I suspect UPE activity, that is a matter for another day. Requesting a re-list of this discussion. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mink (manga) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mink (manga) shows that the article was deleted in 2009 due to lack of sources establishing notability. I have since found some sources for the article, such as reviews from Anime News Network (1, 2) and Da Vinci (1). I have also found an old interview from 2000 from the creator of the series here. I have done a full rewrite as a draft. The admin who deleted the article has not been active since May 2024 and the person who nominated the article for deletion is no longer active on Misplaced Pages since 2010. lullabying (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 January 2025

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Donald President (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Consensus has been reached, but could use review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2025 2601:483:400:1cd0:a1a4:fd62:9508:f4eb (talk • contribs) 02:40, 5 January (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 January 2025

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Raegan Revord (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

While I'm suspecting that the result of closure will not be changed, I'm asking that an admin review the closure, as its the manner is troubling in two ways.

  • This was a non-admin closure on a discussion that was not uncontentious, with, in addition to the original deletion request, my !vote for delete and Gråbergs Gråa Sång, who did not !vote, arguing that the article did not meet WP:GNG
  • The closure explanation begins "I would say that judging by the votes below, she just about passes the notability criteria." which suggests that the closer was treating it as an actual vote and that they feel that the arguments paint the subject as not actually passing the notability criteria, which suggests a misunderstanding of "consensus". Nat Gertler (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Relist - This was a possibly contentious closure by a non-admin. After one week, a relist was reasonable, and the closer's statement is a little too much like a vote or a supervote. I see no need to vacate the close and let an admin close it when we, Deletion Review, can decide that it should be relisted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Fulbright Scholars (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discussion page shows a problem. The reasoning given for deleting this category was that it's nondefining for a scholar--that if they receive this, they're already alumni of the school that awarded it. See https://fulbrightscholars.org/ for Scholar and Distinguished Scholar awards, and https://us.fulbrightonline.org/fulbright-us-student-program for the studentships that the original nominators for this category deletion confused for the Fulbright Scholar Award.

A Fulbright Scholar Award or Distinguished Scholar Award goes to senior academics and practitioners, and is career-defining--the kind of thing that goes in one's obituary. It is not the same thing as a Fulbright studentship which is scholarship money awarded to grad students who would be listed as alumni of a given school. While a scholarship would typically be money granted to a grad student and a fellowship would be for senior academics, it's the opposite here. Typical Fulbright Scholars include James Galbraith, Donald Regan, Robert Rotberg, etc.

There is already a partial of notable Fulbright Scholars but it's serving as a backdoor to this now-missing category. The Fulbright Program page includes it, along with a clear distinction between the two main categories of Scholar grants and Student grants.

Fulbright Study/Research Fellows or Students (those younger grad students the original deleters of this category were speaking of) typically would not have Misplaced Pages pages or be notable yet. Some extremely notable Fulbright Scholars and Distinguished Scholars don't appear on that page, such as Richard Rosecrance, John Lewis Gaddis, Shaun Gabbidon, Alejandro de la Fuente, and so forth. This list should also include the incomplete list found at https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Fulbright_Distinguished_Chairs.

It would be a service to this wiki to include Fulbright Scholars and Fulbright Distinguished Scholars via category rather using the original name of "Category:Fulbright Scholars" than in the scattershot way of hoping someone had listed them under the notables on the original page.

RubyEmpress (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Endorse. The close correctly reflected unanimous agreement at the CfD. The appellant says that some Distinguished Scholar Award recipients are notable. This is true, but does not contradict the claim that most award recipients are not notable, and that the award itself is non-defining. In fact, of the three examples of "Typical Fulbright Scholars" examples she gives, none mention the award. The appellant has not presented significant new information per WP:DRVPURPOSE#3. This is just another kick at the can. Owen× ☎ 08:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to address failures to follow deletion process. It is not a venue for re-arguing the deletion discussion because it did not go your way. Stifle (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Question - Are deletions of categories different from deletions of articles as to when they can be reviewed? Are deletions of categories effective for five years or ten years or forever rather than six months? Is that why need a Deletion Review? Or is there some way that Consensus Can Change? Are we really locked in to a three-year-old decision? Is taking another look at a three-year-old decision really another kick at the can?Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    The lapse of time itself is irrelevant, if no significant new information is presented. This appeal only claims that the CfD participants erred in their assessment, which isn't a valid DRV claim, not to mention that she hasn't even established the veracity of that claim. Based on the argument she presents here, there is no more of a case for keeping that category today than there was when it was deleted three years ago. Owen× ☎ 16:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Question - Is this an appeal to overturn a three-year-old deletion decision, or is this a request to create a new category three years after the category was deleted? This appears to be a request to create a new category three years after the deletion. Do we need Deletion Review for the purpose? Can the appellant just do it? Is DRV unnecessary? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse It's difficult to endorse an old discussion with only three participants, so I'm treating this DRV more like a new CfD because I'm not sure what else to do - but I do agree it's non-defining especially per Owenx and that it would be deleted again if it were re-created for the same reason it was deleted before. SportingFlyer T·C 17:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment This isn't policy but for practical purposes, I've found that CFD decisions are considered valid forever. Unlike article deletions which have a Draft space where editors can work on improving the content of a recreated article, that possibility doesn't exist for categories. I've seen categories CSD G4'd from decisions that occurred years and years ago. I'm not a frequent participant there any longer but my perception is that CFD decisions are rarely reviewed and reassessed. I would like this to change because CFD decisions are usually determined by a very small number of editors and shouldn't last forever but I'm not sure that if this discussion would be setting any precendent for the future. Liz 06:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think it should change. G4 should apply indefinitely, and recreation should be allowed via DRV provided some new fact, and changes of the PAG landscape, of recent practices, examples of other categories kept at CfD in the meantime can also be significant new facts. —Alalch E. 17:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I agree with Liz that there needs to be an appropriate venue to review CfD discussions, but Alalch E.'s comment highlights the problems with using DRV to do so: Everyone's opining "nothing has changed" which may be true, but does not consider "was this even the right decision in the first place?" Three people opined, and the closer and some other number of people looked at it and didn't participate. That doesn't seem to be enough discussion to make a category G4-able forever since, unlike articles, categories cannot be changed to be not substantially similar to what was previously deleted. Jclemens (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Everything the DRV nom states was the same at the time of the 2021 CfD, so there are no new facts based on which to allow recreation consistent with WP:DRVPURPOSE#3.—Alalch E. 17:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse as a correct reading of consensus. I feel the same way I did in the DRV Cryptic linked: "I'm sympathetic to the argument that editors should be able to 'test' an old consensus every once in a while (along the lines of WP:CCC), but in this case it's very clear to me that a new CfD will lead to the same result, so I think !voting to would be an exercise in futility." Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  • No Opinion at this time. The idea that category deletions last forever makes things problematic. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  • relist A) apparently we don't allow recreation even 3 years later so a relist is the only way to restore it B) IMO the two arguments show an utter lack of a clue. This can very much be defining, and per the nom, often shows up in orbits. It's a lot more than just a scholarship. Two !votes 3 years ago shouldn't make it impossible to restore this. A relist is the only way forward apparently. Hobit (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Archive

Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2025 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2023 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Misplaced Pages community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal.
For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community
topics
Contents and grading
WikiProjects
and collaborations
Awards and feedback
Maintenance tasks
Administrators
and noticeboards
Content dispute
resolution
Other noticeboards
and assistance
Deletion
discussions
Elections and voting
Directories, indexes,
and summaries
Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Deletion review: Difference between revisions Add topic