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 16:16, 18 June 2006 view sourceDtm142 (talk | contribs)876 edits →[] and []: closing← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:29, 10 January 2025 view source Extraordinary Writ (talk | contribs)Administrators75,375 edits apparently my previous approach broke the DRV bot. Let's try this instead. 
(1,000 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
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==
* ''none currently listed''
<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"
|-
| style="background:#F5B158;text-align:center;" colspan="2" |&nbsp;
|-
| 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=
}} ~~~~
</pre>
|-
| 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.
|-
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width: 5%; text-align: center; vertical-align: top;" | <big>'''4.'''</big>
| 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===
== Decisions to be reviewed ==
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:
{{Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/Vfu mechanics}}
*'''Endorse''' the original closing decision; or
<!--
*'''Relist''' on the relevant deletion forum (usually ]); or
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 ====
*'''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
-->
*'''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
*'''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:
===18 June 2006===
* <nowiki>*'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~</nowiki>
* <nowiki>*'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~</nowiki>
* <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>
* <nowiki>*'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~</nowiki>
* <nowiki>*'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~</nowiki>
* <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.
=== ] ===


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===
*'''Undelete and comment''' The consensus on the discussion was for transwikification. I did this task, moving the recipe section of the article to the wikibooks cookbook. I don't feel as though there was any consensus for delete on the page, and I think a valid case was made for the noteworthiness of the dessert. Misplaced Pages obviously has plenty of articles on unusual deserts (e.g. ]).
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.


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.
*'''Delte and comment'''. I'm unsure what to do here. I've started AfD discussions before, but this seems to be a '''review''' for an article which just reappeared again after having been deleted in April 2006. I'm not sure what I should do after this step. The reasons for deletion seem to be non-notablity (except for winning Graduate of the Year), vanity, autobiography. ] <sup> ]</sup> 23:45, 17 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.
*'''Endorse deletion''' (again) of self-evident ]. It is almost impossible not to conclude that the creator, {{User|Dezhnev}}, is Makharinsky himself, and it's very likely that the editor who repeatedly adds Makharinsky and his website to other articles, ], is also Makharinsky. ] 11:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. I'm confused. What exactly are we discussing here? The article is already protected against recreation after being deleted yesterday as a repost. ] 14:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


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 ====
In ], the quoted result was '''keep''', but the reviewing admin apparently failed to notice that the page was protected and blanked. The result probably should have been '''keep, revert to the last version before it was blanked or vandalized, and consider separately the question of whether it should be protected.
* 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}}
So '''Overturn action, Endorse result, and revert to last unblanked version'''. &mdash; ] | ] 08:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
]

]
*'''Overturn action, Endorse result, and revert to last unblanked version''' per Arthur Rubin. The protection should have been lifted prior to closing of the AfD debate since the privacy claims were no longer maintainable. ~ ] 08:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
]
*'''Relist''' or have an admin that can find the content of the article reclose the AfD ]. In this case I think the closing comment:'' "The result of the debate was there's no consensus either way, but there's no content I can actually find, so I'm deleting"'' seems misinformed. Reading the discussion makes clear that the content was available in the history throughout the AfD, and it was that content that was being discussed, not the blanked page on top. If the closing admin knew this, he should have made that clear and made a decision based on the content. It appears that the decision was made on the basis of there being no content, which was not the case. ] 09:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' - unless I'm missing something, this one does seem to have gone wrong. ] 09:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I could restore it now. There seems to be a consensus to overturn the decision. (my fault in the first place) ''']''' (]) 10:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

==== ] ====

'''Overturn And Keep''':As I stated in the dicussion for propsed deletion against the NN statement a(fter I figured out how to get there)I showed an excerpt of a NYT article that stated the band.It said:
I have changed the page because look I just joined and still finding out what happens.For the non notable band issue I have an excerpt for the New York Times which states the band.(NYT Article):

Like MTV, it is starting to create stars that glow brightly within its own universe. The band Hollywood Undead, which did not exist three months ago, has achieved celebrity thanks to MySpace. "We were just a bunch of loser kids who sat around our friend's house all day, and we started making music and recording it on computer," one of its vocalists, Jeff Phillips, said.

About two months ago the group posted a page on MySpace decorated with pictures of all seven members disguised in hockey masks and other forms of concealment. They also included a few original songs, a fusion of heavy metal and hip-hop. "In a matter of weeks it got huge, and it kept on getting bigger and bigger," said Mr. Phillips, whose left earlobe was splayed open enough to accommodate a hollow ring the size of a wedding band.

"It's been maybe nine weeks, and we've had over a million plays. We have 60,000 people who listen to it every day. It's crazy. If you look at our page, it's like we're a huge band that's toured a hundred times."

Hollywood Undead, Mr. Phillips said, is negotiating with major labels for a recording contract."

This can be found on their myspace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DogPHman (talk • contribs) ."

I didn't know half of the things people were stating as I am a new user.I KNOW THAT DOESN"T GIVE ME THE RIGHT TO IGNORENCE BUT PLEASE ONE MISTAKE FORGIVE ME.Please recreate the article as I didn't mean to vandalize or create any problems.Thank you for your time.

* '''Relist''':Had proven wrong the NN charge against the band ] 05:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

* The correct link for the blog entry above is . This is an article in the New York Times about Myspace generally which briefly mentions the band, not an article about the band itself. This is the fifth time an article has been created for this band, and it's been through AfD, with the consensus of "delete". There was considerable discussion of whether the band was notable because of its presence on Myspace, and the conclusion was that it wasn't. That conclusion might be worth re-examining, but we went through a full AfD back in April. And the band still hasn't actually issued an album, although they keep talking about doing so. I suggest leaving them deleted until they meet some ] criteria. Maybe someday they'll be on the cover of Rolling Stone without ever having issued their music on a physical record medium. But they're not there yet. --] 05:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep deleted'''. in my opinion goes much further in adressing concerns of notability, verifiability, neutrality, and overall article quality, and it was deemed unfit for Misplaced Pages by an AfD consensus; I have no reason to suspect anything went wrong during the AfD, nor do I feel that this NYT article presents any claim of notability not formerly addressed in the AfD. In essence, Misplaced Pages exists to document bands and individuals that have ''already'' acheived fame, not to help bands acheive fame (as is MySpace's purpose). Unless some new evidence can be presented, I see no reason to restore. ] (]) 06:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

===16 June 2006===

==== ] ====
]

The AfD on this biography received very few votes. In total, exactly two "delete" votes from registered editors (and one from an anonymous IP). I came across the AfD and article five days later than the other voters, and realized that although the article was badly written, it addressed a distinctly notable person who very easily passes both the "author test" and the "professor test". I voted "strong keep", and also cleaned up the article at least enough to more clearly indicate the notability of Mr. Khan. A version that I have further touched up (slightly) is temporarily at: ]

In my comment, I specifically requested that the closing admin at least extend the vote, if not simply close it as "no consensus". Given that the registered editors at most split 2 del/1 keep, "no consensus" would be the right action even without the request. But given that there's is no evidence that the original 2 delete voters looked at the cleaned up article, a deletion just seems premature. <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 00:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

* '''Overturn''' or '''relist'''. <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 00:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

:*'''Overturn''' Shane should have an article because he is a noteable and respectable australian journalist] 00:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
:*'''strong overturn''' Shane Cubis should be allowed to have an article because he is a highly noteable and very well respected Australian journalist.{{unsigned|60.225.117.215}}
::''Note: Even though I believe this should be overturned, it appears this anon editor made an error and is discussing a different article.'' <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font>

*'''Relist''', given how few editors commented and how much work was done on the article during the AFD. -- ] | ] 02:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' - closure was within discretion, and I'm not critical of it, but with so few votes and now a cogent challenge to the outcome, I think a further AfD with opportunity for a better debate is the safe way to go. ] 04:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' per LotLE and MM3K '''<font color="green">]</font>]''']: ]/] 04:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' Reasonable notability has been established; articles deserves another chance. <b>]<font color="#D47C14">]</font>]</b> 05:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

====]====
This image has suddenly stopped appearing in its article, and seems to have been deleted. I was never notified of a pending deletion, and I cant't find a record of the process to find out why it was deleted. There shouldn't be copyright issues, because Indiana University allows the photo to be used for informational purposes as long as it bears the accompanying legend "''Courtesy of Indiana University''." The image description page contained a link to the original photo source and there was a note on the copyright status. What was the problem? Does the photo have to be free of all restrictions, including "Courtesy of..." tags? Did I format the image tags incorrectly? Was the problem the photo's generic name?
I would like to upload a new copy of the photo, but I will refrain from doing so until I know why the image was deleted and whether the photo can be re-uploaded in a manner that complies with Misplaced Pages policy. --] 20:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
:This image was deleted from , and en.wikipedia.org deletion review does not have jursidiction there, see their deletion policy at ]. — ] <sup>]</sup> 20:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
::Nor can images be restored once deleted. You may want to dig through Google's cache and see if you can find it again, then save it on your computer and discuss restoring the image on Commons. ] (]) 22:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
:::They actually can now ''']''' (]) 22:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
:::(edit conflict) Didn't Brion make it possible? --<font size="1">]&nbsp;<sup>]&middot;]</sup></font> 22:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Image '''un'''deletion is supposedly working now, but I don't know how stable it is at the moment. If it's wiki-wide then a commons admin could restore that image, if requested on commons. — ] <sup>]</sup> 23:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Woa! Well, would you look at ]! I'm impressed, my kudos to Brion. ] (]) 06:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
*Comment* As far as I can see it was deleted due to unknown license status. I'd reccommend to either take your plea over to the Misplaced Pages Commons (if image undeletion really works) or just look for it again on the net, reupload it and make sure it has the correct license tags. ]]/] 23:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

====]====
* ''']'''
* '''Overturn and Keep''' As another editor recently said, AfD isn't a vote — it's supposedly the arguments made that carry the most weight, and in this case, I feel the arguments were ignored. This article is a textbook case of meeting ], as it only needs to meet ''one'' of these terms - for condition #1, SciFi.com picked it as their site of the week , it was featured on G4TechTV , and even William Shatner on his website. Condition #2 hasn't been met, as far as I can tell, but #3 has been as well, since the series is hosted at as well as , who apparently commercially sponsored the series as well. Any of these links easily satisfies the conditions laid out at ].
:And finally, using the ever-popular Google test (just for those who want to judge notability), we get over '''16,000''' returns on the term, practially ALL of them referring to this series. The page should be restored. ] 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse delete''' Fails to meet WP:WEB, contrary to MikeWazowski's claims. The G4 mention can hardly be described as anything but trivial and passing, and the same is true for Shatner's site. Further, newgrounds distribution is a terrible standard for notability - it allows anyone to put up whatever they want. Do you propose that every single flash movie on there should have a page here? The only claim to notability is the SciFi.com mention, but then again SciFi.com isn't very notable itself. I don't think it meets the requirements. ] 17:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
**Are you really asserting that the website for the ] isn't notable? --] <small>]</small> 20:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
***Are you really asserting it is the subject of multiple non-trivial works that are indepedent of the work itself? Even if you assert that a small bit on scifi.com is non-trivial (and you would be wrong), that's it... the sum total of "note". The G4 mention is one line and a link mixed in with other trek fandom links. As I said further down, hosting on things like newgrounds is meaningless, since they are almost totally indiscriminate. This really does not pass WP:WEB. The AFD was correctly run, and there is no reason to justify overturning it, and no justification for you trying to re-fight it here. - ] (] 22:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
****Yes, I am saying they do. Multiple is multiple, even if you want to spin it as one line as part of a subject is not enough, we disagree. --] <small>]</small> 15:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse delete''', the decision was correct. The arguments made for keep were not substantial and, for the most part, inaccurate. WP:WEB discounts the kind of off-hand trivial linking that Stone Trek claims to enjoy. Newgrounds is, for the most part, indiscriminate, and its hosting there means little. Also, notablity is generally measured from ''outside'' the area of the item under discussion (outside ST/SF fandom in this case). Lots of "keep" arguments revolved around people liking it... fair enough, but not a reason for a "keep". - ] (] 17:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and keep''', it meets WP:WEB, and should ahve been kept on that. --] <small>]</small> 18:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and keep''' - clearly meets ]. ] 22:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist in a new AFD''' (preferably) or '''Overturn and keep''' (per ]'s comments above). There were two aspects of this AFD that were highly questionable - (1) it was one of a mass series of nominations of Star Trek fan productions and there was a lot of emotion involved in the discussion rather than actual consideration of the positions and (2) there was some obvious sock puppetry. Further, MikeWazowski has provided additional media mentions, providing further evidence of meeting ] that was not presented for consideration in the AFD. For those reasons, I believe it really ought to have its own AFD where it can be considered outside of the context of that emotionally charged night of Star Trek AFDs. ] 23:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Closer's comment''' (wasn't notified of this discussion, by the way) - I saw your basic rough consensus for deletion, and no particularly overwhelming arguments on the keep side. It started off with the nominator of this discussion above accusing the AfD's nominator of bad faith because, er, he started a lot of other AfDs on similar subjects (I call that consistency, myself, but, much like solvents, ] accusations are only fun when you abuse them), and didn't get much better from there.
*The external links provided that supposedly meet ] did not appear to sway the editors that commented after they were provided, and as I've already made the close and don't need to be neutral any more, I strongly agree that they didn't confer notability. I agree that is "about as notable as a newgrounds or youtube award" (]) - otherwise, 52 websites a year presumably suddenly merit Misplaced Pages articles on the basis of an obscure satellite channel's website feature. , Stone Trek is only mentioned in a space-filling list, and it's second from the bottom. Passing mentions are not a good basis for an encyclopaedia article. Ditto the so-called , which in reality is another list of weblinks, although this time it's an impressive ''third'' from the bottom.
*As for the 'independent distribution' bit, there's no way all Newgrounds cartoons should get an article. Note that the footnote of ] says ''"Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial.'' I doubt Starland.com is much more discerning, I very much doubt it qualifies as "well known" (that's "well known" to ordinary people, not "well known among Star Trek and Flash cartoon fans"). Oh, and I did look at the contribution histories and don't believe the consensus depended on 'votes' from very new users. I stand by my closing, obviously. --]<sup>]</sup> 03:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' - within discretion. ] 04:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'', appears valid per policy and per process. Keep arguments appear to be mostly arm-waving. ] 11:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' - Valid close. Please see Angus McLellan's comments on the AFD to see why. - ]]] 11:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

====]====
* ''']'''
*'''Overturn and delete'''. AfD isn't a vote &mdash; it's supposedly the arguments made that carry the most weight. This article is a textbook example of ] &mdash; really, no argument (at least in my opinion) can be made that it ''isn't'' a huge, entire, massive batch of original research. And a sampling of the "persuasive" keep arguments:
** "the article contains a lot of detailed information which should not simply be deleted. It is of great interest to people such as myself, and is the sort of thing wikipedia is made for."
** "it is a large article made by star wars fans (obviously), it appears to be quite good and shouldn't be deleted without a good reason,"
** "I think this is probably of enough interest not to be deleted as 'fancruft'."
** "since this was nom'd w/o discussion and is more than a year old, with many different editors having contributed to it"
** "the various forms are used extensively to characterize SW characters"
** "so what if some people here don't like Star Wars minutae?"
** "It's interesting!"
** "Very important part of a very important fictional universe. More important to actual characterization than, say, most Middle-earth places."
** "This is an excellent Article and contains comprehensive information that is used by many people. That data compiled into this article contains much information that is generally not available in a single article elsewhere."
** "If you guys don't like it don't read it pretty simple eh"
** "This page is extremely useful to my Star Wars: Jedi Academy clan" &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&bull; 15:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and delete''' Agree with Mike. Perfect for some star wars wiki, but not here. ] 15:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and Delete''' per nom. --] 15:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and delete'''. Puke-enducing. The only references seem to be external links that, as far as I can tell, are written by fans and posted on free web services, making it original research. Not original to Misplaced Pages, perhaps, but OR nevertheless. -] 15:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*:Yes, some of those refs suck--but there is a ] ref and actual books ''Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith The Visual Dictionary'' by David Reynolds (ISBN 0789485885), which is part of a series. There are also references to various games, which probably have manuals and strategy guides--if not the games themselves--that could be used to cite this along with novels (that are also referenced already). Uncited? mostly. Original research? lots of it. Unverifiable? Some, but not totally. I think the topic could be handled better by Wookieepedia, but neither side has a convincing argument. As there are reputable sources and people willing to work on the article, why not give them say 2 weeks and re-evaluate it then? ] 16:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
**:Agreed. Also, a quick glance showed that the article cites the RotS novelisation and KOTOR II in at least one place. Also, ] seems to misunderstand what OR means. All research is original to somewhere. If the information was just made up on some site, that's called a hoax, not OR. ] (]|]) 17:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse keep''' - there was an obvious consensus to keep. ] 16:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and delete''' unless the article is revised so that the various descriptions are given specific inline references to the specific published sources&mdash;the "novelizations as well as Expanded Universe sources such as the novels, magazines, comic books, the Star Wars Role-playing Game and 'Visual Dictionaries.'"&mdash;on which they are said to be based. I don't have a problem with people having different interests than mine, but I have a big problem with articles that don't even try to meet the minimum standards of scholarship expressed in ], which is said to be "non-negotiable" and "official policy." ] ] 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and close as no consensus'''. I don't see a reason to delete, but I don't see a clear reason to keep, either. --] <small>]</small> 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Keep''' - while the subject is much more information than even I'm interested in, according to the admin who closed the debate, the "keep" votes clearly outnumbered the "delete"s... As to RFiend's claim above that all the links were to fansites, he needs to either look again or actually read them - in particular (listed #2 on the page) is from an article in Lucasfilm's own ''Star Wars Insider'' magazine, with material such as this endorsed and authorized by Lucasfilm. Most of the other material in the Misplaced Pages article is taken (although not referenced properly) from various ''Star Wars'' novels and games, and thus, not original research. It may not be referenced properly in the Misplaced Pages article, but they didn't come up with the majority of this on their own. ] 16:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
**Yes, but it's not a pure headcount kind of a situation at AfD. It's the '''quality''' of the arguments &mdash; and no clear argument was made with regards to why that thing isn't a huge batch of fan OR. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&bull; 16:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Keep''' Deletion does not substitute for cleanup. I was the first keep, and I did not base it on any kind of "fancruft." I based it simply upon the google test results which were good. It seems a little upsurd that the format of an article is enough to ganer deletion. Mike is also ignoring some of the legit editors who voted keep, comments inculded, "This article could be pared down considerably, but there is no basis for deletion", "Sure it could be formatted a bit better; that just means we should work on improving it, rather than deleting it altogether.", "More editing and cleanup can help.", "There's a treasure trove of information here, and from the descriptions of lightsaber combat I know from games and several books, a lot of it is accurate. It just needs citations. The page reminds me of how the Force Powers page used to look, but the Force Powers page is pretty clean now ever since we started enforcing citation. We just need to work at it. There is no need to throw out the entire article". Also it should be noted that ] was going on a crusade of "fancruft," and had strange rationale, "nn-not-real-sport-cruft.".<br />Also, all of the reasons for "keeping" that Mike listed were from anon and new users, whom usually get their opinions disregarded. The closing nom noted that there were good arguments on both sides, prehaps it could have been closed as a no-conseus, but that is no reason to file for a deletion. Respectfully, ] <sup>]</sup> 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Keep''' Poorly referenced articles aren't the same as pure OR articles. Is there some way to give a deadline for the article to be properly sourced before it comes up for deletion again? For such a large article, it could take some time to properly cite every fact. ] 17:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Keep''' This is a textbook case of "no consensus", and in such cases, the article is kept by default. At least some of it is cited, as well--if the uncited parts need to be removed and the article needs to be cleaned up, so be it, but that doesn't justify deleting the entire article. ] (]|]) 17:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and delete''', textbook case of headcounting and ignoring guidelines and policies with regard to original research. I think they should turn it into a wikibook and link it from the Lightsabre article... but an article on a fictional combat technique that was started from a ficitional point of view (what's next "X-Wing flight dynamics"?) and continues to be written that way. On top of that the keep votes, as noted above, were pretty awful. - ] (] 18:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*:Wikibooks doesn't want this, unless people actually have classes that need textbooks for lightsabre combat. ] 18:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse keep'''. Probably should have closed as "no consensus", but in that case it's kept by default. I fully agree that it needs cleaning up and better citing, but it's not just complete OR, and it's not unsalvageable. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse Close'''. Properly closed based on the discussion. --] 22:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse Close''' per BryanG. —''']]]''' 22:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' for the same reasons I gave in the above Star Trek AFD. Take it out of the context of the emotionally charged situation surrounding its nomination. ] 23:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Close''' followed policy.] 00:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Keep''' as per MikeW. <font color="#000080" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>N</strong></font><font color="#FF0000" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><strong>scheffey</strong></font><sup>(]/])</Sup> 01:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse keep''' - clear consensus. That wouldn't have mattered if the article had been hopeless, but I've had a close look at it, and it isn't. The concept is a concept in the franchise itself, not something we've made up. There may be some original research in the article but it looks like a lot of it is not original research in our sense. The presence of some original research in an article that is not fundamentally hopeless may be a reason for pruning and editing, but not for deletion. ] 02:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

====]====
:]
] was a page about a popular internet animator, he currently has over ten million unique hits on his website, www.knoxskorner.com. His next full feature movie, Villain, is being helped by David Rand, who worked on The Matrix, and Marc Spess, professional clay modeler. There are Misplaced Pages pages about other flash animator far less popular and professional thank Knox. Why was his page deleted? Now, it is impossible to recreate the page as it has been completely locked, and there are over ten million people who would like the page restored. There are other flash animators who have pages on Misplaced Pages, and it seems hypocritical that Misplaced Pages are not allowing Knox to have a page.
*'''Comment''' Salting admin's edit summary is "deletedpage template, as per AFD". Someone should link in that AFD. ] 22:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
** done. See also the page that used to be at ] which was speedy-deleted as a recreation of ] and ]. ] <small>]</small> 22:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' Deletion was in process, thoroughly discussed. How many times do we have to go over the Knox thing? It just keeps coming back, like a bad lunch. By the way, I think the claim that ten million people want the page restored is, shall we say, exaggerated. <b><span style="color: #f33">&middot;]&middot;</span></b> 22:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', valid afd (at ]), notability still not establshed. Trying to claim that an article should exist because others do is never a valid argument. See also ]. ]|] 22:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Question''': Was the AfD listed at the (animator) article? --] <small>]</small> 22:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
**Yes, see the link above. It's also a repost of the VfD I also listed above (after you posted this). ]|] 22:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
***Thanks. '''Endorse deletion''', unfortunately. --] <small>]</small> 02:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oh no, not again'''. Keep deleted, as usual. ] 22:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''JzG stole my comment'''. ''"There are over ten million people who would like the page restored"'' - wow, I used to get depressed that 1.2 billion people were living on less than $1 a day, but thanks to Intuhnets Cartoonist #21579 and his fans I now have some perspective. --]<sup>]</sup> 03:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''As per JzG exactly''' - ]]] 12:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' - the "10 million people" thing is ludicrous, and the numbers don't add up. His movie's IMDB has had only 239 people vote on it - surprisingly, 205 voted it a "10", which smacks of some severe ballotstuffing in my book. His website has "barely" cracked the top 100,000 sites listed by , but has dropped off in the last 3 months. If anything, that "10 million" number is total visitors, counting all the duplicates from people going to his site every day. The telling statistic on that page is that for every one million people using the web, only five of those visit his site, and that number has been dropping as well. ] 18:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

====]====
This page was recently on the AfD page and ] closed the ] as '''no consensus''' even though the tally was 10 delete to 7 keep. If anything this page is going to be the current article length for at least a year or more until more information is released on it. As is there is only one actor on the IMDB page and only one line of description. {{unsigned2|20:17, June 16, 2006|Whispering}}
* '''See ]'''. 10-7 is not a consensus by ''any'' definition of the word. -- ] 20:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse close''', 10-7 on a straight vote count is the definition of "no consensus." I'm half inclined to say overturn and change to straight keep since it was clear that this easily reached the standard for future movies/events, but I won't be that catty. --] <small>]</small> 20:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*10-7 is clearly "no consensus", not keep. ]|] 21:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse closure''' (no consensus). Personally, I would have argued to delete the page if I'd seen the AFD in time. I didn't and Joyous was perfectly correct in her closure. Note that a "no consensus" decision does not stop you from renominating it for deletion if new evidence presents itself or if the article remains unimproved for a reasonable period of time. ] <small>]</small> 22:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse close'''. No rules were broken here. ]]] ] 03:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' - well within legitimate admin discretion. ] 06:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

====]====
] was deleted out of process and page protected by two admins, ] and ]. The former admits to ignoring all rules in deleting the page while the latter provokes a ] by undoing the actions of another administrator, ], that had the project restored because the original deletion was out of process. ]'s justification of his actions is that the project is "crap". However, many editors and administrators pointed out that the project did not meet any of the CSD criteria. See the long discussion at ]. A MfD was opened for the project, ], but it was closed only 4 ''hours'' after it started when the normal procedure is 8 '''days'''. The result was declared a "speedy delete" by admin ] who voted for Deletion in the less than 4 hour debate. Objections were raised in the MfD to having the project deleted. As the founder of the ], I would have liked to comment in the debate as well but I was away during that short period of time. Regardless of the MfD, admin ] deleted the project while the debate was still active at 16:57, June 15, 2006 (UTC) , surprising admin ], who closed the debate at 17:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC).

Proposal: '''Restore''' the project page because of its out of process deletion. --] 19:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

''Additional note'': The ] was modelled after the ].
Project description: ''This is the LGBT/conservative notice board, for Wikipedians interested in articles related to LGBT/conservative topics. It should be noted that this is intended to be a noticeboard for all Wikipedians interested in these issues, not a noticeboard solely for the use of LGBT/conservative Wikipedians.'' --] 20:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

*I don't care if it stays or goes, I was solicited to join up with it, but it wasn't a speedy candidate, so '''overturn and list at MfD'''. --] <small>]</small> 19:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' - This page is a perfect example of a page that is used as a tool for ballot stuffing and political organising. It is not the only page that should go for these reasons, but it should be gone, and is presently gone for good reason. Pages like this that are destructive enough to the community need to be buried, and VfD is not the place to discuss it. --] 19:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''; no good reason for keeping it, would be deleted by MfD anyway. Also a blatant POV noticeboard; there's no such thing as a exclusively conservative issue. A politics noticeboard would be better, as proposed on ]. ] | ] 19:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete and seal with concrete'''. Such boards compromise NPOV fundamental principle of wikipedia and carry a big potential risk for misuse. -- <small> ]</small> 19:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' - vote-stuffing "noticeboards" harm the project and should be removed, with or without discussion. It is clear that the board was nothing more than an organized attempt at meatpuppetry. (])<sup>(])</sup> 19:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' - This sort of thing has no place on wikipedia. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 19:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. ] isn't necessary; this is enforcement of ], very clearly. -- ] 20:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore''' and let the community have a debate about it. NPOV doesn't apply outside article space. ] 20:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. We have no need for a "WikiProject POV Pushing". --] 20:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
* Almost all my points were first raised at the administrative noticeboard, I'm summarizing what seems to me the most important parts of that discussion in order to explain my conclusion. This page had the same structure as ]. (This comparison board is now under MfD.) That would be reason to let the MFD run. However, the page creator appears to have violated WP:SPAM. To my eyes this is enough to '''endorse speedy deletion solely because of WP:SPAM violation''' despite parallel structure. The salting violates ]. (There is a counter argument citing WP:SALT that is easily overcome by reading the entire sentence cited.) By the time deletion review finishes, we'll have had an effective temporary protection. I agree that this protection does not meet permanent protection standards, so '''overturn only protection'''. Other boards were mentioned in the the ANI discussion, if the MFD for LBGT results in deletion they should receive MFDs also. If the LBGT MFD results in a keep, then the title could be well used, and should be unprotected for that purpose. ] 20:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*:I'll admit I've only been here for six months, but could you explain why telling people about a group that highlights articles of a particular interest meets the WP:SPAM policy? The only part of that article I can find that some might think applies is "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view." Which Facto most certainly did not do. ] 21:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*::Telling people in general wouldn't have been a problem. A notice at the "New pages seeking contributors" section of ] would have been fine. So would have been putting notice up on a couple of highly watched talk pages (say, the abortion/pro-life article talk pages). The problem is the mass invitations to editors that "identify as a conservative Wikipedian" (quote from the invitations). These are people already known to have a certain point of view. Immediately, they are targetted to participate on the discussion of this community portal, ultimately to participate in the various action items. It would have been poor form and risk of a spam block for Facto, but probably not a problem for the notice board, had he gone through the 20 most recent contributors of major edits to a couple of relevant articles. ] 21:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
* Should have gone through MfD normally. I don't know why people think it's better to speedy delete, annoy a bunch of people, and have it out on DRV/ANI etc. for 2 weeks when it could just go to MfD for a week. --] 20:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore'''. I find it very odd that it's okay to have interest groupings about geography or sexual orientation, but not about political views. Considering that anyone can be part of any of them and monitor its activities, assuming that an interest group about political issues is automatically going to be abused seems not well thought out. And if Misplaced Pages policy is what is driving some admins to determine that it should be removed, at least the policies should be followed when deleting it, don't you think? ] 20:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore''' and send to MfD. The speedy looks to me like it was a spur-of-the-moment thing sparked by the potential political aspect of the situation, which is understandable yet probably not the best response to the situation. Having said that, I'm concerned about having boards like this for *any* type of advocacy or organizing - the LGBT board looks like it could (not saying it HAS, or that its role is intended this way) be a flashpoint for vote-stacking and other problems. If we were to have general notice boards for broad topics - such as the Politics notice board someone suggested - it might work out. ] <small>]</small> 21:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Speedy restore''' and reopen the MfD. DRV is not for discussing whether something belongs on WP or not, it's for discussing whether the deletion was within the bounds of policy. I'd like for someone to cite a speedy deletion criteria that justifies the early closure of the MfD. ] (]) 21:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*:I think it is normally reasonable to close the ''x''FD for a speedy deleted ''x''. That happens all the time for AFDs. I'm not looking closely enough into the timing to know when the closure occured in the sequence of delete-restore-delete&salt. If prior to the first restore, the closure is reasonable. If after the restore, the closure may not be appropriate. ] 21:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' or rename it and recreate it with less of a polarizing philosophy behind it. ]|] 21:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' Recreated (not by me) as ]. Let's see what happens. ] 22:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*:That was me. I suggested it at ] and there seemed to be a generally favorable reaction so I went ahead. Still can use some polishing, but there shouldn't be any 'NPOV' issues if it covers all sides of the spectrum. --] 23:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*::I am cautiously optimistic that the politics notice board will not serve a harmful role to the encyclopedia. --] 23:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*:::I, however, am more doubtful. Take a look at the "Articles with disputes" section: Ann Coulter, Pro-life, Homosexual agenda, Special rights, Nuclear family, Gay rights opposition. ] 00:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' for obvious reasons. ] 22:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
**Which obvious reasons? The out-of-process speedy? The incomplete MfD? --] <small>]</small> 22:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. The creator of this project, despite his claims, revealed his purpose for forming the noticeboard when he spammed over 50 editors with the following message (emphasis mine):
*:: ''Hello, I noticed that '''you identify as a conservative Wikipedian'''. So I would like to invite you to post any conservative issues you might have over at the new project page, ].''
*: I only regret that I exercised leniency and did not give Facto a block for disruption. --] 00:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' per ]. I ignored all rules and deleted it because I honestly thought the deletion would be absolutely uncontroversial given the clear and patent POV-pushing nature of the project. I hold no rancor towards those who want to run it through the whole process, but it's clear that even most of those who wanted to see this go through MfD planned to vote "delete." So let's just skip to the part where we agree that while POV pushing happens, we shouldn't provide a home for it on the Misplaced Pages namespace. ] 00:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
**WP:SNOW should never be cited, certainly not in a situation like this. --] <small>]</small> 02:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Was obviously not a good-faith creation, but rather was spurred by the VFD page on Opposition to homosexuality. ] 00:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Deletion''' partisan vote-stacking effort. Deletion was quite appropriate. -''']</font>'''<sup>]</font></sup> ] 01:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Deletion''' - there shouldn't be a noticeboard for a specific POV. --] <sup>(])</sup> 01:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
* NOTE: this has been recreated by the same person as ] and deleted under G4. --] 02:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*:Wrong, Tony, I did not recreate the project. Another admin moved the page and restored it. I suggest you apologize immediately for wheel warring and undo your harmful and disruptive actions to Misplaced Pages. --] 03:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*:: I'll make no apology for redeleting that trash, though had I known that it had been undeleted rather than recreated I would not have done so. Since that is a technicality and the page must remain deleted, I will not restore it. --] 03:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*:: Tony? Apologize for harmful and disruptive actions? BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! Thanks for the best laugh I've had all week. ] 11:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
**Fine, but G4 doesn't apply to speedies directly, or we'd never be able to resurrect anything speedied since it'd be a recreation. Thus the appearance of the "met a criterion for speedy deletion in the first place" bit (which got rather masticated in the refactoring of CSD a while back) - a re-speedy under pseudo-G4 is, in fact, a speedy under some other criterion. I'm not just ruleslawerying; the usual intent of G4 is to keep e.g. AfD'd material deleted, rather than arbitrarily speedied material. -] - ] 02:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
**: G4 applies to all valid deletions. --] 03:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
***Tony, I think you may be over-reacting. You could have just as easily removed any of the postings in the politics notice board that you thought were not appropriate, made suggestions and otherwise help it evolve into something reasonable. People were acting on good faith, based on discussion. People network all the time in many ways. As long as they engage in discussion with others, networking is not a bad thing. -- ] 10:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*:'''For the record (again), >I< undeleted and rewrote the page following discussion at AN/I and here which seemed to be in favor of the idea. I then indicated that I had done so here, on ANI, and on the talk page of the notice board itself. As to the whole 'G4' argument... are we seriously process-lawyering over how the process applies to situations where the process is being ignored? We tossed process out the window when this was deleted... and again when most of the deletion reviewers did not respond on the basis of whether normal process was followed. We could debate whether or not 'Conservatism' and 'Politics' are "substantially identical" (e.g. 'G4'), but I'd really rather just fix this before the disruption gets any worse. Is a 'Politics notice board' really 'more biased' than a 'LGBT notice board'? So much so that it must be nuked on sight rather than improved to a more neutral presentation?''' --] 10:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore''' as per DavidBailey --] 02:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore''' and send to MfD per Tony Fox. Why, exactly, was this a candidate for speedy deletion the first time? ] 02:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore''' All these <s>cabals</s> um, groups joined together by common interests ought be deleted, but deleting some but not others, seemingly based upon the sociopolitical perspectives of the deleting admins rather than according to a consistent application of policy, would be the ''very worst'' outcome. I'll change my stance if and when equally partisan - and, frankly, more controversial and less mainstream - projects appear to be on their way to deletion.] 03:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*:Oh n03s! Teh C4BALZ! --]] 03:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*::Hope that works for you.] 04:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore''' and discuss. Because this has been moved to a more neutral setting, it is no less worthy of respect than Misplaced Pages:Schoolwatch. While I disagree with ballot stuffing, I have no issue with a place where people of common interests can gather. ]]] ] 04:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore''' and send to MfD - where I would be inclined to vote "delete", but not until I've had a chance to have a good look at it and think about the debate. ] 04:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore''' - invalid speedy delete candidate, needs community input. ] 05:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted BUT''' -- Hipocrite made a very good suggestion during the MfD that got utterly lost in the noise. I suggested burning the thing and starting anew; He said, ''] seems like a good place to do so. Allow me to suggest that articles like ], ] and ] would be GOOD articles to focus on''. This makes sense to me -- and is far more in keeping with Misplaced Pages's purpose. --]] 06:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*: Perhaps this ''would'' be a good idea, but for the circumstances after the spamming, where we have a posse of political conservatives gathered by the spammer, all looking for a suitable page to use for networking. This has to be stamped out first, then in a few months, if there is a group of historians or politican scientists on Misplaced Pages who want to form such a wikiproject, let them go ahead. --] 06:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
**Please do not encourage elitism on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages's slogan is "the 💕 that anyone can edit". Editors should not have to be historians or "politican scientists" to form a WikiProject about conservatism. I would also like to know how such a group could exist without the use of invitations. And why would we need to wait months to start a WikiProject? I created the project in one day and it was deleted out of process in less than half a day. --] 00:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore''' for out-of-process deletions. Without ever having seen it, it seems to me more likely than not that it has no place on Misplaced Pages, but it certainly merits a full *fD debate. ] 06:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' And repeat my suggestion that if people are interested in conservative topics, they link to Edmund Burke, not to Ann Coulter. ] - ] 08:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*I strongly object to these out of process speedy deletions. They cause far more harm to Misplaced Pages than having a 'bad' page hang around for a few days. It should have been left to go through the MFD process, so '''restore and send to MFD'''. ] 09:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*Per Metamagician, Petros471, W.Marsh, et al, '''restore and send to MfD''' as these speedy deletions are divisive. Technically a case could be made that it qualifies under some CSD or another but that case hasn't been made here yet to my satisfaction. '''<font color="green">]</font>]''']: ]/] 12:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore''' per ]. Also, performing an out-of-process speedy deletion should be grounds for immediate desysopping--it's one of the most gratuitious abuses of admin powers possible. ] (]|]) 12:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted.''' This page has no connection, however remote, with building an encyclopedia. ] Sysop actions were reasonable. ] ] 13:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Do not endorse the deletion''', however, as it was clearly intended as a vote-stacking device, '''keep deleted''' ] 13:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion.''' This is a foothold for POV-pushing and factionalism that we don't need, and Nandesuka was right to delete it. ]]] ] 17:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' - And I'm kind of sad to see so many people valuing process over fundamental policies like "Misplaced Pages is a neutral encyclopedia". Process changes over time, the goal does not. This page was a transparent POV-pushing and vote-stacking mechanism and deserved its fate. --] 22:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
**The problem I'm having with this, Cyde, is that other noticeboards, including the one upon which this was based, are also "transparent POV-pushing and vote-stacking mechanism". As Tom harrison said on the noticeboard, we tend to see this more clearly when we disagree with the message presented. Others may take issue with process, about which I've no opinion. My questions are about purpose. It's hard to imagine a more efficient way to manipulate Misplaced Pages content across a very large number of pages than by allowing some partisan factions to thrive while others are, by whatever process, deleted. I hate to say it, but this is how this looks to me. Applying clear and consistent standards would remove the appearance of partiality.] 22:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*Hello, can we just close this now? It's embarrassing to see this bad faith appeal against the deletion of a blatantly bad faith attemot to enlist Misplaced Pages for a partisan cause drag on, and more and more editors being hauled into it honestly believing, in that face of incontrovertible evidence of malice, that the proponent intended something other than what he actually did: to gather together a bunch of people he personally had identified as politically biased with the intent of influencing Misplaced Pages. Let's just delete this and salt the earth. Too many of us have bee misled and lied to. Failing that, let's go to Jimbo and ask for guidance. --] 23:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
**I'm not sure whose appeal you considered bad faith, but mine is certainly not. I wholly concur with the your sentiment regarding this particular noticeboard, but I'd suggest we compile a list of all allegedly similar noticeboards, Guilds and Alliances to be considered as a group.] 23:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*** Sure, go to policy and try to establish a policy outlawing them all. But here we have a palpable, incontrovertible example, not some wild handwaving accusations, of one page created and populated out of bad faith. Let's deal with ''this'' and move on, knowing that the principle is a good one, to wipe out the others. --] 23:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
***Indeed. There has been at least one admin who claimed to justify a userbox deletion on the ground of consistency; if that's his goal, then I would expect those other noticeboards to receive the same treatment as this one at his hands. ] 23:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
**** If you know the admin. ask him (if he didn't vote to delete this one) why he didn't vote to delete this one. Misplaced Pages is not consistent--that's a given. We don't refrain from doing the right thing just because somebody else didn't do the right thing. There lies the road to partisanship. --] 23:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
***** I'm not naming him because the specific admin is not relevant; I'll let him step forward if he wishes (preferably with a speedy delete of the other pages, whatever they may be). ] 23:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
****** Well you make an accusation against one admin and choose to generalise that to all admins by implication. You refuse to name that admin, but did you, at the time, bring the problem to his attention? If none of these is true I would happily suggest that your accusation is worthless and that, lacking the good faith to identify the case, you yourself are engaged in a bad faith action, smearing all administrators by the reported action, which you refuse to substantiate, of a single administrator. I suggest that you withdraw your accusation, having refused outright to support it. --] 00:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
*******Okkay, fine. ], care to comment, since you're the one who cited consistency as a desirable thing? (If you look, you'll see that he agreed with my proposed resolution of this DRV.) Now, Tony, would '''YOU''' care to retract '''YOUR''' accusation of bad faith? I tried to avoid dragging that other admin into this, but since you insisted... ] 00:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
********I do think that pages such as this belong at MfD, and that's how I voted above, and how I would probably vote in similar cases. But I also realise this one was deleted in good faith by a respected admin after due consideration, and on grounds that I have some sympathy for. End of story, really. ] 02:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
**The irony, of couse, being that this would likely be close to gone at this point had the MfD been allowed to run its course. --] <small>]</small> 00:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse deletion''' The spam message of its creator pretty much let the cat out of the bag as to the reason for its creation. ]]\<sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 00:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore''' and permit the full discussion at MfD. It's impossible to rationally discuss this w/o seeing it.--] ] 03:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

====]====
Was speedily deleted, but after reviewing the history I cannot find the reason why. ] seems to be inactive, so I'm bringing it here. ] 17:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*Odd. ] dumped a whole bunch of incorrect tags on it (<nowiki>{{copyright}}{{spam}}{{advertisement}}{{copyright}}{{delete}}</nowiki>!) without an edit summary in sight. Tone then deleted, probably in one of the occasional lapses of checking histories etc. I can find no evidence of copyright violation, and the circumstances are dubious to say the least, so I've restored and reverted. -] - ] 17:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
**In fact, upon review, some large segments of ] should not be trusted. -] - ] 17:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Close discussion''', now undeleted by ]. ] 06:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

====]====
* ''']'''
*'''Relist''' Only four editors commented on the article (3/1 for deletion) and there was no discussion of the arguments presented for notability. If the consensus is to endorse deletion I would appreciate a copy for my userspace, but idealy I think further discussion on AfD is appropriate. ] 14:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*That is plenty to delete an article such as this, and there is no quorum for AfD. It was about some random "spiritual renewal program" that, at most, needed some mention in the article of the organisation that runs it for its 3 days , not the event of Biblical importance. '''Endorse deletion'''. -] - ] 14:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
:: '''The organiization that runs it for it its three days''' Which one did you mean and that's just the communities in Texas that have their own web domains. What I would really like is for someone to explain to me more than just "nn delete". 10,000's of people have been on these reteats I think that makes them notable. Why do others think they are not? ] 14:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' it's enough - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 14:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*"There was no discussion of the arguments presented for notability"? There were no arguments presented for notability to discuss. None in the article, none in the AfD (Google searches and resulting hits are not a claim to notability, though Google can turn up ]s, which can be), and none here so far. '''Endorse deletion''' at this point. --]<sup>]</sup> 15:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' 3 deletes, one redirect/cleanup. No serious arguments made either way. Deletion is acceptable, relisting for more input would have been acceptable, and anyone, including the nominator here, can do the redirect if they believe it appropriate. ] 15:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*Endorse deletion - although this could usefully be recreated as a redirect to ]--] 15:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*Actually no, it should be redirected to ] if anything, as it is the Methodist version of the program created because they didn't want to pay licensing fees to use the Cursillo name, among other things. It actually isn't a random religious thing, but as an offshoot of the Cursillo movement, it belongs in that article, or not at all. It is really not notable otherwise. It has nothing to do with actually "walking" or the town of Emmaus, so the above suggestion is illogical.] | ] 15:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
::Actually, it isn't illogical. I've no knowledge of the religious movement (it doesn't seem that notable - and others use the same name), however the phrase the 'walk to Emmaus' ''is'' notable as a common title for the pericope in Luke's narrative of the Resurrection. That's far more notable. Someone typing in 'walk to Emmaus' is much more likely to be looking for the material currently in the article ] (or ]) than this obscure group - so it should redirect there.--] 16:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks to Samuel Blanning and GRBerry for trying to explain. I'll try to track down some sources and create a better article. Any hints about what factors should go to notability: total participants, news coverage, web presence? ] 16:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
::The standard explanation for notability is ]. There are also eight specific topic guidelines and a number of essays or proposed guidelines linked in the navigation box on the right. The most relevant is ], but that is only a proposal in the process of forming consensus. I personally use a two part test - is there an explanation of why the topic is significant (a claim to notability) and is that claim ] in independent ]? For independence, simple reprinting of press releases doesn't count, and neither do local program site websites. The first part of the test is enough to avoid speedy deletion, the second part is enough reason for me to keep in an AFD. ] 17:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' per GRBerry - the closing admin closed the AfD fairly. ] 17:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', handled justly. ] 17:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
* Thanks again to GRBerry for pointing me to ] which I had missed. Can this be closed per ]? We don't need to hold a discussion of where it should redirect of DRV. ] 18:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', consensus to delete, with 75% in favour. Seems like a fairly-dealt AFD. ]] 18:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure, keep deleted.''' Properly deleted in process. No obvious reason to question sysop's judgement call. Nothing has changed significantly since the article was deleted that suggests that relisting would now give a different result. ] ] 18:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Per request, I've userfied the deleted content of this article to ]. If it should be decided, now or later, that the article should be restored, then the history of this page should be moved back into its original place. ] (]) 22:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' - well within discretion. ] 06:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

===14 June 2006===

====]====
* ''']'''
*'''Overturn and delete'''. The final tally was six deletes, one transwiki, one merge/delete, and one keep. However, closing admin {{admin|Lar}} decided to act on his own initiative to countermand the consensus, stating instead there was no consensus because ''he'' felt that the one "keep" vote's reasoning was strong enough. I frankly don't follow his logic or understand what he found so notable about the one keep vote, but I think he's enforcing his own opinion over the decided-upon community consensus with this article, and thus appeal his decision here (as he invited people to do when closing the decision). &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&bull; 02:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
** A review of ] does not appear to yield any means by which seven out of nine votes &mdash; votes that were very clearly not made in bad faith &mdash; can be entirely discarded by the closing admin. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&bull; 03:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
*I welcome review of this one, because it was dicey for me when I made the call. I acknowledge that numerically, the margin was wide. I don't think any of the comments (NOT votes) were made in bad faith at all, and didn't diacount the sentiments, but I was quite convinced by the argument made by ] and after all, this is a judgement call, not a ''nose count''. Naturally I think I got to the right outcome and would say '''Keep kept'''. But I welcome input from my peers, and thank you in advance for it. (BTW I'm excited, because this is my first DRV!) '''<font color="green">]</font>]''']: ]/] 03:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
**I mean this respectfully, but when reviewing the ] document, I did not see anything within the document, barring bad faith situations, that allows an administrator to ignore the principle of rough consensus when making a decision closing a document. There is the paragraph that begins, "Some opinions can override all others," but the examples cited (copyvio, userfy, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV) do not seem to apply to the <s>votes</s> comments cast. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&bull; 03:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
**Comment. I have some learnings from this I'll be posting later as well as more responses but I'll let some of those sit. I do have one thing I want to point out which you'll just have to take my word for. Several commenters here are saying I let my personal feeling convince me how to close. Well, in part, that's where judgement does need to come in, on a close call, add in your own feeling... that's sometimes right and proper in my view (if the alternative is to relist for consensus the third time or do nothing, for example). But in this case, my PERSONAL view, had I chose to commment (on a 5 day overdue for close nom) instead of close... would have been DELETE. Clips are a bit more notable than regular episodes but I do not think any show, even this one, needs an article for every episode. I overlooked that view, because thought at the time that the fact that MedCab/Com was working on this was a reason not to rush this, leave it around, and let them resolve it later. (others below point out that's not necessarily a really good reason...). Also, the medcab argument was made late in the discussion. Arguments made late, if not commented on by people that commented before they were aware of the facts, tend to carry more weight with me when judging consensus. And make no mistake, I was judging consensus without taking my personal desire to delete into account. If this goes back on AfD I'll leave it to someone else to close, so I can comment DELETE. I just don't think that was the right thing to do in view of the mediation thing. If it gets overturned, I'll delete it myself and happily, unless someone beats me to it. One BIG learning I have from this already is the need to explain in more detail when necessary (check out Splash's Phil Sandifer close explanation, it's a model. I hope to be that good someday)... '''<font color="green">]</font>]''']: ]/] 16:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''<s>Overturn and delete</s>''', I fail to see what was so strong about the one keep comment that ruled out ''six'' delete comments. (Disclaimer: I voted delete in the AfD in question.) ]<sup>]</sup> 03:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
*Now that the article has been largely rewritten, I feel my original concerns no longer apply. '''Keep''' rewritten article; however I want it clear that I still '''do not endorse the original closure'''. Feel free to relist if you want, although I would now vote to keep. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
** '''comment''' Seven, actually. There was a '''merge/delete''' in there. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&bull; 03:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
::That's not really a valid vote. You can't merge *and* delete, the edit history needs to be preserved. Closers typically count those as keep votes, since they wanted to keep the content, just didn't understand the finer points of the GFDL. Transwiki votes go as keeps too, while we're at it, since the person also wanted to keep the content. --] 03:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
:::And that's why I didn't count the merge/delete vote, although looking at it again I would interpret it as "merge if considered useful ''or'' delete". But then, I'm not an admin. It wasn't a straight delete comment anyway, so I'm not counting it as such. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Thanks W.marsh. SO if we ARE insisting on counting votes here, it's 6:3. That's 66% which is a Keep No Consensus. I have a couple of other bones to pick here... first, Mike you keep talking about good faith, and I wish you would stop, because I saw ''no'' comments I judged to be in bad faith. Second, you keep citing the Deletion Guideline like it's a process that cannot be deviated from. It's not the law, it's a guide... and we admins are asked to use our judgement. I hope you have internalised that before you become an admin yourself. Third, you suggest I'm "enforcing my own opinion"... "countermanding consensus"... that's not at all fair, those terms are quite loaded, in my view anyway. What I did was look at the arguments made, look at the article and its contents, and made a considered judgement that there wasn't a consensus to delete. That's what the closing admin is supposed to do. This article was 4 days overdue for a decision and I've been thinking about it for some time (I looked at a lot of these on my lunch hour). I also asked some of my admin colleauges on IRC for their thoughts and they agreed with me that K-NC was the right outcome. I'm hopeful that some of them will pop in here. Maybe I'm wrong though and this really was a Delete. I'd like to learn from it if that's the case... but telling me to read something that's a guide, and that I've already read, isn't going to help me learn. '''<font color="green">]</font>]''']: ]/] 03:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

::::First, I am citing good faith solely in the context of the deletion guidelines citing bad faith as a valid reason to delete. I am not applying the concept of good or bad faith to your actions. I am bringing it up solely in the context of citing the relevant policy and guidelines that address the actions you take when closing a vote.

::::Second, I would again repeat my request for any Misplaced Pages policy or document that provides administrators with the freedom to use their judgment to make a decision that goes against rough consensus when making deletion closures. The relevant cites I can find indicate that in the deletion '''policy''', it states, "At the end of the discussion, if a rough consensus for deletion has been reached, the page will be removed per Misplaced Pages:Deletion process; otherwise the page remains." Rough consensus is defined as outlined in ], with a link to ] Misplaced Pages article.

::::Third, were we to make the case that a vote, through some improper terminology, should not be included, it should not be included in the total when considering what proportion of the votes are delete votes. In other words, it is not that six out of nine votes were cast to delete, it is that six out of seven votes (85%) were cast to delete. But I really don't agree with those figures, either. That leads me into ...

::::Fourth, I disagree that the merge/delete vote should not be counted. The text of that vote states, "Merge anything useful into the main Lost article ... otherwise Delete if there is nothing that editors of that article consider to be useful." I believe the text of that vote quite effectively counts as a '''delete''' vote. That would make this seven out of eight votes (87.5%).
::::&mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&bull; 04:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Of course, since ''we don't count votes'', it still doesn't matter. ] (]) 11:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::We don't vote. Nose counting misses the points I made above. '''<font color="green">]</font>]''']: ]/] 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::Just to be clear, it was never ''my'' intention to count votes, I just did not find the one keep comment persuasive enough to close as "no consensus", given no one else shared this opinion. Of course, the rewritten article makes the whole thing moot for me. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' well within his discretion, especially considering you can argue that the votes were 3/9 in favor of keeping, and that's a marginal consensus to delete at best. Lar probably should have just said "no consensus" though - since that is different than closing as a pure keep (now more than ever, see the recent changes to ]). --] 03:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
::Point of information, it was a '''Keep No Consensus''' not a pure keep. Both the close in AfD and the notice on the article talk say Keep No Consensus... '''<font color="green">]</font>]''']: ]/] 03:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' I don't see anything particularly wrong with it. The article is bare, but this aired on ABC and Lost has lots of viewers. That lends enough notability that it can be mentioned ''somewhere'' imo, and AFD is not the best place to decide merging. ] 04:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
** '''comment''' You're commenting on content, not on process &mdash; see above: "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." &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&bull; 04:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
*::I did both and there is plenty of commenting on content to go around on DRV. ] 04:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
*:::Then I'd ask whatever admin who will review these items and make a decision to ignore your response, given that you're explicitly and self-admittedly not going by ] policy. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&bull; 04:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
*::::Policy wonking this way is probably not really appropriate here. '''<font color="green">]</font>]''']: ]/] 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' This has also been listed on today's AfD page (see ]). As far as I see, there has been no consensus to relist, so I've asked for it to be speedily closed pending the results of this DRV. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
<s>*'''Overturn and delete''' - with all due respect to the closing admin, I reread ArgentiumOutlaw's point on AFD and I do not see what is convincing about it. He points out that the writer did a good job and that mediators are debating what to do with individual episode articles. Well, as to the first point, a "good job" is not a bar to deletion and as to the second point, unless I'm missing something, this is not an episode. For the benefit of those above debating my "merge and delete" vote (opinion, whatever), I didn't say "merge and delete". Please reread my comment. I said "Merge anything useful ... otherwise delete". In other words, "merge OR delete", not "merge AND delete". ] 04:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)</s>
*'''Overturn and delete'''. I, too, fail to see what is so overwhelming about the sole keep vote, and part of the admin's comment -- ''I'd keep a clip show before a random episode, if I were commenting'' -- means that a peculiar personal preference was used as part of the reasoning. --] | ] 05:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
:*'''Addendum''': I've read the original and the rewrite (which I hadn't before), and I'm astonished the the closing admin thought the original had the slightest shred of merit to it. The rewrite is better, but that's not saying much: a description of it as an hour-long "Previously on..." recap, with some OR analysis in the article to justify it as something meaningful. '''Confirm original vote.''' --] | ] 23:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''', solid explanation from closing admin plus the fact that articles of this nature (major television episodes) are generally kept or merged. ] ] 05:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and relist''' or '''delete'''. Only one keep vote, and its reasoning is extremely weak ("this is a well-written article" does not make the topic noteworthy, and "we're still discussing it" does not make it noteworthy either!); yes, admins are expected to use their judgment, not a raw votecount, to determine consensus, but this was a dubious closure.
**Not sure who this was... We don't vote. Nose counting misses the points I made above. '''<font color="green">]</font>]''']: ]/] 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*I'd have preferred if Lar had ''voted'', rather than closing the discussion, since he clearly had a distinct opinion in his own right which, even if valid, didn't correspond to that of any of the users involved. Too often admins will close Deletion discussions in accordance with however they would have voted, rather than in accordance with the discussion itself. If your interpretation of what should be done with the article is unusual enough that people will be surprised by how you close the discussion, you'd probably be better off ''joining'' the discussion, so people can read and respond to your reasoning first, rather than just cutting it off with your opinion as the "last word". -] 05:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
**We don't vote. Nose counting misses the points I made above. Also, if I had been commenting I would have commented delete. '''<font color="green">]</font>]''']: ]/] 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' There were two points I was making when I voted to '''Keep'''. The second point I made was that the article shouldnt have been up for deletion, if you see ], you'll see that there is a mediation committee voting to determine whether or not "Lost episodes each deserve an individual article". If they decide on keeping all episodes in one big article, then the committee will override any AFD decisions made on that one article. Same with the opposite case (ie if they decide every episode deserves a seperate article). Their decision may actually make any decision we reach here useless. Ignoring that, the first reason I gave for keeping, was that I thought the information there was thorough, accurate, and useful. As for the final outcome of '''keep''' on the AFD, I personally think we should put aside our "common sense" and go with the majority vote, ''''but'''' through all of my experiences with AFDs and the like, I've realized that in wikipedia votes don't really matter, discussion and consensus determines the victor. I wouldn't dare say that my argument is more sensible than the opposing side because they made an equally legitimate point. So it's really a judgment call on which side brought up the more solid argument. ] 06:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
**In the absence of a mediation ruling, you can still preserve the solo article in your user space. In either outcome, you would need to have the information at hand. However, no one part of the deliberative process can overturn another, as they should have different targets. The mediation is about whether ''in the future/final form, there should be a single or breakout presentation'' and shouldn't be concerned with "should this particular article be deleted." AfD shouldn't be saying anything much about whether the future should look like X or Y, but rather judging a single article in terms of the deletion policy. I.e. during a mediation, pretty much ''everything'' should have gone into a sort of escrow space. ] 12:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

* '''Overturn and Delete'''. Closing comments an absolutely travesty. "We don't nose count" so I'm siding with a minority of one". Ridiculous. -- ]
:*The closing comments were, theoretically, in line with: a) policy, b) AfD closure best practices, c) using one's brain. If you think that sort of comment is inappropriate, you should not be participating in AfD, because the sort of mindset you're displaying here is detrimental to the process and, as a result, Misplaced Pages as a whole. I would not have closed the way Lar did, but of all the reasons to overturn his close (some of them good), "the admin said what he was supposed to, but I didn't like it" appears not one, not twice, not even three times ... in fact, it doesn't appear at all. That's because it's a very stupid reason indeed. ] (]) 11:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

:* "Absolute travesty"? "Ridiculous"? Tell us how you really feel... '''<font color="green">]</font>]''']: ]/] 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

*'''Overturn and Delete''' - Should have taken part in the discussion rather than just closed with his own saintly admin view. - ]]] 09:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
**Saintly? Thanks! But no. '''<font color="green">]</font>]''']: ]/] 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
* '''Overturn''' <s>and delete</s>. Everyone knows I don't nose-count either, but there was a clear consensus for deletion. It is not the case that the 'merge and delete' and 'transwiki' opinions could count as 'keep'. "Transwiki" means "This shouldn't be on Misplaced Pages" and "Merge and delete" means "Some of this might belong in the main article but not here", and both amount to "This Misplaced Pages article should not exist". The sole keep argument wasn't remotely close to being powerful enough to overturn the near-unanimous consensus. --]<sup>]</sup> 09:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
**The recreated article shouldn't be deleted, at least not as a G4 recreation, but my criticism of the closing stands. --]<sup>]</sup> 08:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and delete''' as supported by all credible arguments to policy & guidelines in the AfD; transwiki to Lostpedia if GFDL compatibility allows and if they want it. ] 12:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and Delete''' Reliance on single keep argument unconvincing ] 12:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and Delete''' I voted to transwiki in the original AfD thinking that it was possible to transwiki to Lostpedia. Apparantly it is not, so you can count my vote as a '''delete''' in the original AfD. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">]]] (])</span> 12:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
**We don't vote. Nose counting misses the points I made above. '''<font color="green">]</font>]''']: ]/] 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''': Lar was acting within his scope, but my feeling is that the article was weak enough or damaged enough that, at the very least, the article could not exist in that form and at that location and pass peer review in terms of the deletion policy. Sometimes we have to say, "Wikipedians are wrong, but we'll do the delete and work on getting the information presented in a better or more logical way." This would be one of those cases: people voting on AfD could be entirely wrong, but, in the absence of something really crazy, their wrong position should probably prevail. ] 12:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
**Clarification: my vote was the overturn and delete ''after the article is copied into user space pending the outcome of the mediation.'' I.e. delete, because AfD was clear, but I recommend that the authors and involved parties hold the material. We had a not dissimilar situation with articles on every cricket match in a year. ] 16:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
***We don't vote. But I agree that the mediation issue may not have been correctly interpreted by me at the time. '''<font color="green">]</font>]''']: ]/] 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Overturn and delete'''</s>. The closure statement makes clear that, rather than acting within discretion on the merits of the debate, the admin was effectively imposing his own views on it instead. Should have participated in it, in that case. Furthermore, the arguments to delete are easily as compelling as the argument given to keep, and though we don't nose count, we do pay attention to the reasons why a number of people may have reached the same conclusion. I should also say that I don't think a wriggle of "no consensus" applies here. There's an obvious enough consensus among the participants, it's just that the admin didn't like it too much. If Lar wanted to spin the debate his way, he should probably simply have declared a straight "keep". I just discovered from ] that Lar discussed this with others in IRC. That's fine, but one should remember that being trendy and brutal and treating AfD as a stupid bunch of idiots is extremely fashionable there, and that decisions made based on who goes "yay" to earn a laugh on IRC are generally decisions made poorly and in haste. -] - ] 12:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
**The AfD can't really withstand such a completely different article. It would need a new debate. It's hardly for DRV to mandate an AfD of an article it was never asked to review; that's for an editor to do on their own initiative. So I think now there should be '''no action'''. -] - ] 01:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
***I'm hoping you'll revise and extend your remarks to clarify some of the possibly misleading statements above in view of what we discussed on your talk page, Splash... '''<font color="green">]</font>]''']: ]/] 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and delete''', as per Mike and others above. It seems that a consensus in favor of deletion was ingnored. ] 13:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
**Or, that when I evaluated it, I (possibly incorrectly) did not find consensus. Please assume good faith. '''<font color="green">]</font>]''']: ]/] 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
:::No stones thrown from this glass house - I do assume GF. Just commenting based on my perspective. ] 17:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist on AfD''', AfD isn't a straw count and no good reason was advanced for deletion. IMO, closing admin probably did the right thing. Still, retention/deletion could be argued either way... recommend a fresh AfD.--] 15:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and delete'''; I agree with Lar that 1 suggestion can override seven other ones. However, I do not find this particular one convincing at all. - ](]) 15:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Notice''': The article has now substantially been re-written to address the issues it previously had, excising the Original Research, and adding verifiable, sourced content. It is no longer the same article that was AfDed.--<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"><strong>]<sup>]</sup></strong></font> 17:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
**Wow. That article is RADICALLY different/better than the one here: which was the article as it appeared just after the first AfD notice was placed. But remember that DRV is fundamentally not about article content, it's more about process. This new article (and specifically the fact that the editors have done a lot to show why it's notable) should not be used to evaluate whether the close was right or not, or whether how I closed it could stand improvement. IMHO anyway. I closed based in part on the article as it was then, which was not very good compared to how it is now, and commenters should keep that in mind when commenting. If the old article had been deleted I think it would be hard to argue that the new one is "substantially identical" and subject to a speedy under CSD criteria, so that it's now a lot better is fundamentally not relevant to whether the close was good or not. It DOES however have bearning on how a new AfD might do. I stand behind my assertion that I would have personally advocated Delete on it as it was then, if I had been commenting and if it were not for the mediation issue (as I contemplated it at the time) '''<font color="green">]</font>]''']: ]/] 18:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
::*Actually, it does have a bearing on those suggesting "Overturn and delete" as such a "vote" is based on the discussion of the merits of the original article that was in place during the AfD, which in effect, '''has''' been deleted. This new article has almost entirely different content-- and thus the deletion of it would now be improper. It may be appropriate to re-open discussion as a fresh AfD based on this new version. --<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"><strong>]<sup>]</sup></strong></font> 22:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
:::*Yes I agree with respect to the article itself, the overturns now may be partly moot, or alternatively no one would justifiably complain about the new content being re-added if the article WERE deleted. I'm still interested in seeing this discussion run its course so that those folk wanting to offer good, constructive feedback to me can do so and I can improve. That means taking some less useful ("ridiculous", "saintly" (can I be both at once?!!)) feedback as well, but that's a small price to pay. '''<font color="green">]</font>]''']: ]/] 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and delete''': 6 votes of 9 for deletion and one vote for merge is conditional with deletion in mind. And only one vote to keep. IMO it's a clean consensus and article must be deleted. ] 19:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
**We don't vote. Nose counting misses the points I made above. '''<font color="green">]</font>]''']: ]/] 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse keep''': wait to see result of mediation on the episodes. Lost is a high profile series, and if result is to keep details there, keeping this would be consistent. Also, it's good to see "Not a vote" being carried through once in a while. ] 20:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' In terms of discussion, which is ultimately what AFD is, we have nobody who specifically referenced policy or guidelines and showed meeting or failure, so the strongest possible arguments were not made. The keep reference to a mediation is stronger than any of the other arguments made, most importantly stronger than the two subsequent arguments. (It is acceptable for the closing admin to assume that prior commentators were not aware of that mediation request.) Strength of reasoning is more important than strength of numbers, and no consensus equals keep. If the mediation fails, there is nothing to prevent sending this for another AFD, where the failure of the mediation would remove that argument. ] 21:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. There is no law against re-listing this article for deletion if you disagree with the outcome. ] 23:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' - it's moot now as the article has been completely rewritten and I seriously doubt anyone would want to delete the new article, but the ] was closed by the same admin who closed the first one ... which would tend to impeach the notion that liberty would have been granted to represent the AFD. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 00:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small><!-- -->
***Could you rephrase that last part? What does "impeach the notion that liberty would have been granted to represent the AFD" mean? It just doesn't make any sense to me although I read it a few times. As for the second AfD though, it's really quite meaningless to have a Deletion Review going (which can result in an action taken against the article) AND an AfD (which also can result in an action taken against the article) at the same time, so starting it was flawed and it needed to be speedy closed till this process concludes, as others have pointed out. I'm starting to suspect that WCityMike (who opened the second AfD, out of process) just really did not want this article here and is willing to do ] to see it ] . That's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as it doesn't interfere with objectivity or lead one to do rash or out of process things, or lose civility. '''<font color="green">]</font>]''']: ]/] 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse closure,''' nothing wrong with an admin using his discretion.-]]] 00:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. ] ] 01:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', but '''do not endorse the closure of the AFD''' - now that the article has been totally rewritten, my reasons for advocating its deletion no longer exist. Now that the article is something wholly different than the original one that should have been deleted, we may as well close this DRV as the deletion (or lack thereof) being reviewed is moot. If someone thinks the new one should be deleted, they can relist it. (I would vote/opine/whatever to keep.) ] 04:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist at AfD'''. I see no real problem with Lar's clsoe, but I understand why people do. The new article is different, though, so it's worth another hearing. --] <small>]</small> 11:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist on AfD'''. Geogre and Badlydrawnjeff both make good points here. ] (]) 11:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and delete''' per mike, Liberatore, and others above. Note: I voted delete in the original AfD, but find the article still merits deletion. ] 12:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' - relist on Afd if the deleters wan't. this is an awfully long discussion for a simple issue - ] ] 12:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and delete''' - if we are 'vote'-counting, it's 6 deletes, one transwiki (not a keep or a delete, and Lostpedia can't be transwikied to, so let's ignore the vote), and the one keep vote was ''nowhere near'' being any good (keep, as it took some effort?) I'm sorry, but it looks very much like Lars made a mistake here. Would be happy with a relist, providing it's not immediately pulled as 'not being in process'. ]<I><B>/</B>/<B>/</B></I><small>]</small> 15:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and relist'''. I think that consensus was incorrectly, even arbitrarily, established, but delete per the AfD would be inappropriate as the article has now been completely rewritten. ] 06:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse status quo without prejudice to any further AfD'''- since the article is now so different, this discussion is largely moot. However, if someone thinks the article in its current form should be deleted, they can take it AfD where it should not be met with the argument that it recently survived AfD. As it was a no consensus closure, that argument should not be used. ] 04:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
**Comment, I think it's perfectly fine to argue against an immediate AfD on a normal no consensus closure, but this would be an AfD on a DIFFERENT article... '''<font color="green">]</font>]''']: ]/] 04:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

====]====
* ''']'''
] deleted article ] on the grounds of not going against consensus. I read the arguments and the most prominent one was that the imformation can be found on other characters' biographic articles. While that is true, a through article on the history of the First and Second War of the Potter series is appropriate, if not essential, since the overlying plot of the series deals with Voldemort against the rest of the Wizarding world. In books five and six in particular, where the Second War begins and continues, two battles occur that will have continued ramifications to the last book to be released next year. A record of this entire episode I think would be appropriate to cite all further development to come and expand once the series is complete. ]
:*Having read all the Potter books multiple times, I recall no reference to a "second war". Perhaps you could cite the page numbers where it is referred to as such? ] 12:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
::*Last chapter of OOTP is titled "The Second War Begins". Regards, ] 12:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
:::*Oh, wow, so we have a whole article based essentially on a throwaway line? None of the characters refer to the "war", "first war" or "second war" do they? ] 12:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. Nothing out of process here. It was deleted through AfD on the 9th, then reposted and deleted on the 13th. To see what the 1st War and 2nd War articles look like, see ]. ] 12:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse deletion'''. (after edit conflict) Looks like a valid AfD with reasonable arguments and very strong consensus. CambridgeBayWeather deleted it as recreation of a deleted article. -- ] 12:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' valid afd, hence valid g4 Regards, ] 12:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', per above. ]
*'''Endorse deletion''', absolutely lawful deletion. ] 15:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' Valid afd. <b>]<font color="#D47C14">]</font>]</b> 18:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' per all. Disclosure: I am the AfD nominator. Note to Throw: this stuff will all be moved to Wikibooks by ]. Work on it there instead. - <b>]</b><small> ]/]/]</small> 20:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. ] copied and pasted everything on ] and pasted it to his/her own user page. Is that okay or not under the GFDL? It doesn't preserve the history and contributions since he did it in one fell swoop. The same goes for Fbv65edel's subpage which seems to be just copied and pasted too. ] 03:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
::That violates GFDL. I've left a note on ] that if they want the content for private use in preparing other content I or another admin will fish it out for them; meanwhile I'm afraid I call that a copyvio. ] 15:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
:::*And ]'s talk page? ] 23:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
::::* That too. ] 10:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Enderdose deletion''' Clearly nn. --]]] 17:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

===13 June 2006===



====]====
This article was deleted due to notability claims that were false. IRCDig is just as notable, if not more notable than most torrent search engine articles wikipedia decides to keep. The deletion discussion was split amongst keep and delete votes. The article followed all criteria for a valid article and then some. This article was incorrectly afd'd and should be re-instated. The supporters of deletion argued that the author was the only one that had contributed to the article but what they failed to realize was that the article was only like a week old. LOL... I discovered it when it was in it's afd discussion and contributed a keep vote and would have contributed to the article if I would have had time to see it. ] 17:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*]. Whether the website is truly notable or not, this is a textbook proper close. '''Endorse closure''' unless notability can be accurately verified. --] <small>]</small> 17:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
**And what is the official wikipedia process for verifying notability? You say it was a text book closure whether the site is notable or not then you say you endorse the closure until the notability can be accurately verified? Which one is it? If wikipedia is going to allow it's admins to delete articles due to notability then there needs to be a clear and concise process for verifying notability. Until this happens, it is completely open to personal interpretation, which is ALWAYS going to be a mistake due to personal biases. ] 19:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
***Not "until," "unless." I'll gladly petition to overturn the closure if you can provide some sort of evidence that this is a notable thing. The "admins" didn't delete this, as much as a consensus by a not-insignificant number of fellow editors felt deletion was the correct path, and no claim was made by you or the other editor stating keep to make any sort of notability evident. I'm one of the most inclusive editors on here, and I'm not even convinced that this program is worth an article at this stage. Seriously, prove me wrong and I change my view. --] <small>]</small> 19:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. Show us how it meets the standards of ] "the official wikipedia process for verifying notability" as you requested. This means independent news coverage and/or awards for the site. Lots of Google hits does not make something notable. My username gets 13,300 hits...am I notable? ] 19:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
**In the same respect, using Alexa as a source of showing something as being not notable is not an accurate method either, which is what the afd argument was based on. There are numerous articles about ircdig and numerous other discussions on independant news groups, message boards, etc. You can use the very same google search you condemned to find these artcles. I agree that the amount of information that google has indexed on a particular thing does not make it notable, but I would say that over 3000 uniques a day from over 115 different countries does. Was this article really clutterinh up wikipedia so much, or offending other editors so much that it just had to be removed? wikipedia has become a joke. Now I know why so many people talk trash about it. It is full of a bunch of immature kids who like to try and use their so called "power" to dictate what articles say and what articles even exist. Keep it deleted if it makes you that happy. It is not even worth the argument anymore. The owner of ircdig told me that he only received like 2 or 3 hits a day from the article anyway. Maybe wikipedia is not that notable in the end. Maybe you should delete your entire site according to your own regulations. The only press I see about wikipedia is negative press (]). Does that make it notable? ] 19:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
***Lately all the press that ] gets is negative, is he still notable? :) And to think, I'm a Republican and yet I make that kinda statement. None of the Google hits I see are news articles. This is the closest . There's also one that's a press release from IRCDig. The first one is not a reliable source and press releases don't count for notability.
::::''The owner of ircdig told me that he only received like 2 or 3 hits a day from the article anyway. Maybe wikipedia is not that notable in the end.''
::Or could it be that no one's looking for the article because it's not notable? The amount of hits he gets on his site from our article matters so little to our consideration of whether or not to keep an article since we're not a source of advertisement for websites. ] 19:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure.''' Relisting to generate more discussion would have been a viable alternative, but the two keep commentators both are new enough contributors and had weak enough points that ignoring their presence is a reasonable decision on the part of the closing admin. Nothing in the AfD or the discussion above asserts that the article met ], the topic specific notability guideline. The bit about "only received like 2 or 3 hits a day from the article" indicates that the article was viewed as an advertisement. Advertisements are a direct violation of ], a section of one of the basic policies. As to the other torrent sites, if they are truly not worthy of being kept, their articles will go to eventually. No hurry, but consistency is not required, and taking our time has benefits. ] 20:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Closure''' Properly closed, did not assert notability. -''']</font>'''<sup>]</font></sup> ] 20:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. No evidence of notability, and the fact of an article not being advertising is not sufficient grounds to keep it when there is clearly not enough reliable external coverage to ensure neutrality. ] 20:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. Nothing was previously said that made it convincing that the site has any notabilility at all, and nothing has yet been added. The AfD's closure was within normal procedure. -- ] | ] | 00:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse close''', as there is no significant new information to overturn previous consensus at the AFD. ]]<sup>(])</sup> 00:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

====]====
This discussion was finished rather buptly mid-debate. The problem is that many are misunderstanding the copyright law, confused by a badly worded WP policy. There is a differnece between the copyright on an imprint and the copyright on he content. This poem (which is substantially quoted from) remains within copyright until 70 years after teh death of teh author - it is only a particular imprint of it that can go out of copyright before that. The poem's inculsion on Wikisource and the large quote on WP break copyright. If the WP policy is wrong/badly worded it needs to be changed. WP and WS are currently breaking copyright - and I suspect on several other copyright pieces too. ] 16:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

:I did close the debate a few hours early on three grounds: 1.) There was a consensus to keep, unlikely to change; 2.) the poem is extraordinarily well-known in the US, and is regularly taught in high-school English classes across the country (how do I know? Why, I come from a loooong line of English teachers from all across the country, really) 3.) As I explained to Mr. Steadman at his talk, his understanding of copyright law is incorrect (for which, see his talk page.)

:If I wanted to, I could simply say that I ignored opinions known to be in error, and found the debate unanimous. Really, though, even taking Steadman's criticisms at their face-value, there was a consensus to keep -- the discussion to remove the poem's text is editorial, as it is already transwikied. ] 16:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

::I am afraid that your assertion about copyright is incorrect. Copyright on artistic works, in Europe and the US, last for 70 years after teh death oif the authjor and the date of publication is irrelvant. To have such a substantial quote from the poem, at best, stretchs the law and, in my opinion, is a breach of copyright. Certainly the wikisource full use is illegal. I'd love to see a citation for the "extremely well known"-nbess of the poem. One phrase may be well known - in which case the article should be about the phrase not the poem. The only reason the debate wasn't going to change is becaiuse (a) it wasn't given the chance to and (b) false informnation about the notability of the poem and the copyright situaton swayed people. A very sad state of affairs when WP admins are allowing WP to break the law. ] 17:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Mr Steadman, you correctly state US law '''as it applies today''' to '''items published today'''. Historically, prior to a series of treaties throughout the 1980's, the US law did not give a whit for the author's lifetime. All of this is recounted in full detail at the US Copyright Law article. The newer laws now in force do not apply to Mending Wall, because by the time of their active date, its '''copyright had already lapsed''' under the old law. It is unfortunate that you refuse to relent in falsing suggesting Misplaced Pages is a violating the law. Discerning the copyright of works published in the US between 1923 and 1978 is a confusing process, by reason of the changing law, and occupies an entire course in modern American law school curriculum. Prior to 1923, '''all''' published works in the US, by necessity of the operation of law in effect at the time, had their copyrights lapse prior to the enactment of current law. Since my word, and the sources at the WP article, do not convince you, I suggest you take this matter up with Foundation lawyer ]. He will tell you what I have, in much better detail than I can (since intellectual property is not my area of daily practice): you are incorrect, and WP is within the law. I respect your right to disagree, however wrong you are; but please refrain from suggesting that Misplaced Pages is breaking the law, for its counsel is very bright, and it is well within the law. ] 18:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

:::As for notability, the mere fact it is a Robert Frost poem justifies a stub's existence, but I can have references for you shortly.

*'''Endorse closure'''. Take to copyright problems if you really think it's a problem, I accept the evidence above that it is not. I am compelled to wonder once again if ] and ] are related. ] 20:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse closure.''' If it was in fact published in 1914, there is no problem. See, among other sources, UPenn's guide . By the way, was I the only one who thought of this poem when senator Jeff Sessions said, with regard to plans to build five hundred or so miles of Berlin-Wall-like fencing,"Good fences make good neighbors, fences don't make bad neighbors?" Ignoring, of course, the point that there's a difference between a co-operative fence maintained jointly by two neighbors and a unilateral fence... Unless I'm missing something, Mexico isn't offering to pay for half of this border fence. But I digress. ] ] 22:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. Even if ] were correct in saying that the poem was still subject to copyright, we could just revert the article to a non-infringing version. And if the poem is in the public domain, we don't have a problem at all. --] 01:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' The ever-amazing BD2412, who does IP for a living, quickly cited , a current US government circular, which plainly lays that issue to rest. Praise BD! ] 06:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''': AfD and DRV are not the proper venues for changing Misplaced Pages's general understanding of copyright. The poem is, of course, very well known and is, in fact, one of those poems that people who don't know poetry will have read (because they were forced to). Now, don't ask me how I loathe Robert Frost, but don't ask me to want the article deleted because one person thinks the whole project's vision of copyright should yield to his own. ] 12:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. If we're all wrong about the copyright status of this poem, and ] is too, I think the only recourse Mr. Steadman has is to Foundation legal counsel, as Xoloz suggests. Alleged non-notability is not a good reason to bring this article here; there were arguments made on both sides at the AfD, and there was no consensus to delete. I am very much hoping this is the last I see of this issue. -- ] 12:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' - how on earth did anyone even ''consider'' deleting an article about what is by common knowledge one of the most famous modern poems in the English language? ] 04:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
**You ''did'' read the copyright discussion, right? ]|] 17:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
***Yes... did you? The copyright issue was a non-starter, unless you were willing to believe that ] was incorrect (which one user was). Aside from that, we don't delete pages containing copyvio if we can just remove the copy vio. -- ] 20:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
****I am not discussing the ''merits'' of the copyright issue, merely that there were concerns, and it was perfectly valid for anyone who has concerns to raise them, the attacks on them by Metamagician3000 and possibly yourself notwithstanding. ]|] 21:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*****I did indeed read about the alleged copyright issue. That was not the point of my comment. I was addressing claims that the poem is not notable, or not known to be. I see no copyright issue that was relevant to AfD, since (1) it seems pretty clear that the material is in the public domain and (2) in any event that is a reason to edit the article, not to delete it. It's not like anyone was saying the whole article was a copyvio. However, people can raise whatever possible issues they want. I'm not attacking anyone or anything; I'm saying that this is obviously a notable poem which is at least as deserving of an article as the latest Marvel Comics supervillain or whatever. ] 03:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

====]====
Article was ] today, and deleted speedily per A7 after only three votes. Article certainly asserts notability, and frankly, I would have voted Keep.
:Content was, more or less, "Saryn Hooks, of ],], placed third in the ]. She was reinstated after the judges realized they had the incorrect spelling of ]. She is fourteen years old and hopes to become a doctor."
Recommend undeletion and relisting at AfD. - <b>]</b><small> ]/]/]</small> 15:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Abstain''' for the moment. Coming third in a spelling bee is certainly not an impressive claim of notability. The judges got her word wrong? Woop de do, I don't think that'll be up there with the ] in the Top 100 Shocking Sporting Moments on Channel 4. However, I'm not quite prepared to say that this should be ], hence the abstention. It wouldn't have killed anyone to let this run its course. --]<sup>]</sup> 15:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. Couldn't this detail simply be merged into the article for the ] as a bit of interesting trivia? --] 15:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
**Because it's not very interesting? If it had affected the outcome of the game it would be important, but the girl went out anyway. Looking at the article, I don't see anywhere obvious to insert a mention, and it seems like a very inconsequential thing to start a new '==Trvia==' section with. But if you can do better than I, you don't have to wait for the article to be undeleted to edit the ] article. --]<sup>]</sup> 15:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
**Technically, any subject could be merged into another article as a short blurb rather than a real article, but that doesn't really do us justice. --] <small>]</small> 15:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and complete AFD''' The reinstatement is also an assertion of notability. How often does a reinstatement occur? Without knowing this, which only an AFD discussion can address, we can't tell if there is notability. ] 15:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
**Why go to lengths - participation and high placement themselves are assertions of notability! - <b>]</b><small> ]/]/]</small> 15:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn, undelete, reopen AFD''' A claim of notability necessitates an AFD. --] 15:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and relist''', certainly not an A7. --] <small>]</small> 15:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment.''' It's not fair for me to vote since I deleted it, but I just wanted to say that this met speedy deletion criteria in my view. I am not opposed to letting the AFD run its course if that is the outcome of this review.--] <sup>(])</sup> 15:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and relist''' per nom. ] 18:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and relist''' per nominator. ] 19:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Reviewing the articles on some of the winners of this competition, they would be far better combined a single article (and this one with them). Unless and until they achieve some lasting notability, an article which says that X attended ''foo'' school, won a spelling bee one year, and since then has not been mentioned in any reliable sources, would be a clear and unambiguous delete for any adult. I can't believe we're even considering keeping an article on someone whose sole claim to fame is that they came ''third''. Come on, people! The reliable sources contain maybe two facts: the competition and the school. ] 20:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
**So, would you delete athletes who are "only" third-best in the country, as well? Or do you have separate standards for mental competitions versus physical ones? --] 19:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
***If they are only the third best according to the results of a single competition, yes. Think about this logically for a moment: how much verifiable biographical data is there for these people outside of the single fact of their having taken part in a single competition? I have nothing against a brief note in the article on the competition, that makes good sense, but what you appear to be arguing for here is an article whiech will, most likely in perpetuity, say that this person came third ina competition once. You think that's enough to base a biography on? You think that establishes encyclopaedic notability? This is well below the level of attention given to losing candidates in elections, who by common consent do not get articles unless they are independently notable. I'd say the same applies: if these people have some independent and objective claim to notability per ] then by all means give them articles, but otherwise list them in a single article and if you think its likely anyone but their mother will search for them by name then add a redirect. ] 12:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
****I'm glad we agree on using logic and ], which states "''The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person''". So, clearly she either meets that standard, or is at least close enough, to warrant a proper AFD discussion. I'm glad you do apply the same standard to athletes, but since you appear opposed to existing ] rules for athletes, you should really take that up on the talk page of ]. You're applying rules on biographies that aren't mentioned in ]. As for elections: we we include all members of the federal and state legislatures. That's thousands of people for some countries. That includes third-party back-benchers in legislatures/parliaments with a majority government. Look at music: you just have to have a charted hit. It doesn't have to be #1. So, generally we go well, well beyond "top 3" in most areas. --] 16:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
*****It rather depends on what you mean by m ultiple and non-trivial. For me, that clause means that the person (rather than some controversy involving the person) has been the subject of coverage by multiple sources (i.e. not one story syndicated multiple times; I would look for more than one story about the person, basically). The matter of triviality is also relevant, in that the biographical detail in the coverage we have is indeed trivial - the person is incidental to the events. So no, I don't see this as a pass per ]. You have to do something really special to warrant a bio based on one event, and it has to prompt the papers to write up your life story for context. I've not seen any evidence of this at this point. ] 00:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' as per Just zis Guy above. Arguments that a third place contestant in a spelling bee deserves their own article are totally beyond me ] 22:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
**Just want to make sure you two brits realize that the Scripps-Howard Spelling Bee is a nationally-covered event, televised live nationwide by ESPN, the premier sports channel in the United States. It gets front page treatment in the press every year, it's a big deal - not just a bee at a school. - <b>]</b><small> ]/]/]</small> 23:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
::Actually, this Brit has been living in the US since 2001. ] 01:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
***Actually, it even went one step further this year and was broadcast in primetime on ABC. ] 23:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
**** it was also simulcast in hdtv on 2 different networks so erasing this makes no sense at all. ] 01:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
* '''undelete''' this please a mistake was made here so fix it ] 01:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', per JZG & Bwithh. Despite popular opinion, I don't see how finishing 3rd in this event is notable. It didn't even strike me as a proper assertion of notability. ] 02:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*This one is difficult. The result of any AfD debate should be really, really, really obvious: merge the article and create a redirect to the spelling bee. Yes, the young lady was in the news because of the scandal of the judges getting it wrong and a competitor correcting them (and thus reinstating the girl). Further, she was being followed around by cameras and is very photogenic. If this were AfD, I'd say "Merge and redirect": she hasn't been alive long enough to have a biography or done anything, yet. That said, this isn't AfD, so I suppose I have to put my faith in the ''demos'' and say...I hate doing this...'''overturn and finish the AfD.''' ] 12:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' per JzG. ] 15:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist'''. I don't think the subject is notable, and I think the article should be deleted, but it should be deleted through the proper AfD process. There is an assertion of notability, so a speedy is inappropriate. ] (]|]) 15:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' While I would probably vote delete on the afd, technically it should be relisted since there is at least a debatable claim to notability. <b>]<font color="#D47C14">]</font>]</b> 18:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' per JzG. However, I'd support history undeletion if if the content of this article is merged into the article about the competition and then turned into a redirect. - ](]) 15:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
:*So would I. I think that's the best solution. ] 00:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Reopen AfD''' I'm not sure of the actual bio, but I have to question the speedy. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', article fell under CSD A7. I don't see any assertion of notability. (The statement - "she came third in a spelling bee" - is a statement of fact, not an assertion of notability, as coming third in a spelling bee is not a notable achievement). ]<I><B>/</B>/<B>/</B></I><small>]</small> 15:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
:That's exactly how I see it, but apparently many others feel it's a debatable assertion. ] 16:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist'''. Coming in third in a national championship of anything is at least debatably notable, and as such it doesn't fall under A7. ] 16:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted''' per Just Zis Guy. While she may merit a comment in the Scripps Spelling Bee article (and even then only because of the judging screwup), I fail to see any merit to claims of notability. ]]] ] 04:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and relist.''' There is a claim to notability, so a full discussion is merited, even though I would probably have voted "delete" as non-notable. ] 06:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

===12 June 2006===
====] and ]====
<div style="float: left; border: solid black 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; height: 45px; background: #CC6666;"
| style="width: 45px; background: black; text-align: center; font-size: 14pt; color: black;" | ''']'''
| style="font-size: 8pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: black;" | This user is opposed to online ''']'''.
|}</div>
<div style="float: left; border:solid red 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: red;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: white; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc|red}}};" | ]
| style="font-size: {{{info-s|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc|black}}};" |This user opposes the ''']'''.
|}</div>
<br clear="all">
Both userboxes are in the userspace according to the ], but an admin deleted both of them, saying "''T1 deletion as per CSD and Tony Sidaway arbcom case.''" in the deletion log. I do not believe speedy deletion would apply on userboxes in userspace in these two uesrboxes, especially when there are consensus on German Userbox Solution. --]<sup>(])</sup> 02:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and list at MfD''' - I think these userboxes must necessarily be deleted at MfD, but I think that, in this case, it's worth it to go back and list them there. Other opponents of userboxes, please consider my reasons. (I'm the same one who's argued passionately against ''not'' digging up the dead to rebury them.) We have a choice right now: we may start another userbox brouhaha, or not. Let's choose not to. Let's be smart about it this time, and do what Jimbo actually suggested. Once the boxes are in userspace, let's use reason and dialogue to explain why they're a bad idea. Let's do that by taking them to MfD for deletion instead of speedying them, and creating the conditions for much more congenial discussion, where explanation and development of reasons can actually go on in more cooperative spirit. Let's not ruffle feathers with speedy deletions, and then try to have that same conversation at DRV, where it's much more difficult on account of people being upset, and the constant drive to ''not'' talk about the content being deleted, but the validity of the deletion instead. This is a crappy place for the conversation to happen. We're ''not required'' to speedy polemical pages in user-space. We are free to apply the "if it walks like a template" criterion, ''or not''. Please consider that we can do this encyclopedia a greater service by being a little more slow and deliberate about dealing with the userbox problem. -]<sup>(])</sup> 03:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and list at MfD''' - I dislike these 2 boxes but am convinced by GTBacchus' points. ] 03:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn, undelete, and send to MfD''' Case 1: EFF box. It is anything but obvious that this is inflammatory. It is anything but obvious that this is divisive. Heck, Misplaced Pages, by policy, is not censored. If there is anyplace that this should not be divisive, it is Misplaced Pages. This one looks like a clearly erroneous speedy deletion, and possibly should just be overturned without sending it to MfD, as I think a keep outcome is the appropriate MfD result. Case 2: Opposes CCP box. Better addressed on MfD than via a speedy deletion, as per ]' argument above. The inflammatory case is debatable, given that the CCP already attempts to ban the citizens of mainland China from seeing Misplaced Pages, and that those who circumvent the firewall are unlikely to be the CCP's strongest supporters. ] 03:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*I do not believe endless TFDs, MFDs, and DRVs are the correct way to resolve this issue. I think it's time to try the final step in dispute resolution. --] 03:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
:*Which is...? If it's "take it to someone who can set binding policy", I agree with you. ] 12:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
::*ArbCom is the final step of dispute resolution. --] 19:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' These fall under T1. T1 applies to userspace templates still. Would it be better to delete these through TFD or MFD? I believe so, but they have shown that they do not produce correct results w.r.t. to policy. Process is only important if it works. ] 03:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*:Misplaced Pages is not democracy. Why are MfDs closed against policy just because the numbers say so? -]<sup>(])</sup> 03:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*::I don't know. Why are ] and ] still around? Their sources are certainly scant.
*::I do want to echo your request that userboxes in User: should be taken to *FD instead of speedied in most cases, but the debates need to be closed on their merits instead of numbers. That is not to say that ''all'' templates in user space should be taken to *FD--as many are fine in user space--but there are still templates that are so odious that they must be deleted from user space also. I believe that "user against $POLITICAL_PARTY" falls under such a condition, even if I happen to agree with that position. The EFF box is a bit different--enough that it probably should be discussed seperately. "This user supports the EFF" is something that I believe is inappropriate, but not so much that it needs to be deleted immediately. In its current form I believe that T1 is applicable. ] 04:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*:::It is in userspace, what do you think about this? ] --] <sup>(])</sup> 04:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*::::''The problem with userboxes is that people really really ought not to be using their user pages to advocate for or against green energy or anyone else.'' - ] I like it a lot. I would add this bit though. ''I am not doing anything about it just yet, but I am willing to concede that my nonviolent social request that people knock it off and think about what it means to be a Wikipedian has not gotten very far.'' On "it is in userspace": I have no idea what you are replying to, as no one disputes that. ] 05:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*:::::I am reasonably certain that Winhunter was referring to this quote: (too long to copy). It is, after all, the one he linked to. —''']]]''' 08:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*:::::This one too, actually. —''']]]''' 08:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*::::::''There would still be restrictions on the range of possible userboxes...'' from the first diff, and I already quoted from the second diff? ''The middle ground is to let people do as they will in the user space, and merely use reason and argument to teach people over time why one ought not use Misplaced Pages userpages for political or other campaigns.... while at the same time saying, no, really, the template namespace is not for that, that we do not endorse this behavior. This is the solution that the Germans have put into effect with great results.'' Personally, I'm not a big fan of people using their user pages (or editing the encyclopedia) to advocate their points of view (and Jimbo agrees). How are these boxes anything other than that? Notice how Jimbo doesn't say "Oh I think that is fine", he says "this might work for now, but try and talk some sense into them". Talking hasn't worked; and most of these comment are from months ago. On the issue of substed versus transcluded in userspace, it is not a distinction without a difference. ] 09:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*:::::::I haven't seen talking given much of a chance to work. I've seen people try to bypass talking, by just deleting a bunch of boxes repeatedly, and creating conditions for people to feel they're being attacked. -]<sup>(])</sup> 16:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and relist at MFD''' agree with GTBacchus. The speedy deletion of userboxes has been ''far'' more divisive than any userbox could ever be. —''']]]''' 05:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and undelete''' Nothing wrong with either these userboxes or ]. ] 07:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' User space is sacred territory! ] 07:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep both deleted'''. First one is merely unnecessary, second is a childish attempt to piss off the editors you're supposed to be writing an encyclopaedia with. --]<sup>]</sup> 08:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*:Question. How is the second one going to piss anyone off? Misplaced Pages is banned where anyone would actually support the Chinese communist party, because of the chinese communist party. ] ] ] <b>VIVA!</b> 17:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. Userspace is not sacred, and must follow policy like anywhere else. --] 08:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' - Userspace is absolutely fine for userboxes. I don't use them, but I had asked Tony Sidaway about them at ]. He seemed to think they were OK in the userspace, and I disagree that a T1 CSD criterion can apply to the userspace. Because if we can apply other CSD criterion to the user space, then we should delete a crapload of nn-bios and nonsense right now. - ]]] 08:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
**If it looks like a duck, and transcludes like a duck, and quacks "Hey you! Your government and your political opinions are evil! By the way, would you like to write an encyclopaedia with me?" like a duck, it's probably a duck and therefore subject to ] T1. --]<sup>]</sup> 08:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
***Why are these boxes being treated differently to anything else on the user page? Are we no longer allowed to write down out beliefs on our userpage? If I write on my userpage "Evolution is fact", it's OK? But if I put it into a box, it's crossing some kind of line? If so, I seriously suggest we start at ] and work on from there. - ]]] 09:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
****I have no problems with people wrting down their beliefs on their userpage within reason, I do have a problem with encouraging others to write down the same beliefs by . --]<sup>]</sup> 11:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*:If you know of any recreated deleted articles being used in userspace as they would be in article space (i.e. inside article categories and/or linked from article space) please remove such links/cats, tag it g4, or bring it to mfd. ] 09:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*::Naturally, categorisation or crosslinking from the mainspace to the userspace should not be allowed. I myself have made this error when working on new articles in my userspace. However, the relevance to this conversation seems very little. Many times I have seen 'Userfy' used in deletion discussions, so recreations in the userspace aren't entirely g4 material. - ]]] 09:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*:::Of course it does not apply to all templates, but ones that are divisive and inflammatory are fair game even in user space. Examples of such happening would be User Anti-UN and User Anti-ACLU. How is No-CCP significantly different? ] 10:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. POV userboxes but in userspace, which is what the German solution calls for. We have generally granted wide latitude in that area, including clear biases. ] ] 09:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. The whole idea of ] is to take forward Jimbo's endorsement of how userboxes are handled on the German Misplaced Pages. He has said that POV should be allowed in user space far beyond what is allowed in template space. Also, I'm strongly against extending T1 to user space. Show me the policy discussion covering that interpretation, please. --] 10:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. If I may quote regarding the failed UPP proposal: <i>"The text of WP:UPP is filled with what one can and cannot say, specifically, All userbox templates that show a POV or are not directly related to wikipedia will be deleted after a period of time. Note that a user subpage that is transcluded without substitution by multiple users is considered a 'template'. This is like saying, "You may have pamphlets, but you may not mechanically print and distribute them. This is not an infringement of free speech". To put it kindly, this is counter-intuitive."</i> ]]/] 11:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' - The stated reason that a user-page comment to the effect of, 'I hate people with mauve skin' inside a rectangle has not been allowed while 'I hate people with mauve skin' outside a rectangle '''has''' been allowed was that the 'rectangle version' has traditionally been coming from 'Template space' and might therefor theoretically be taken to imply that Wikimedia encourages or tolerates the hating of people with mauve skin... while the 'not in a rectangle version' has traditionally been coming from 'User space' wherein it is more clearly the statement of the individual user(s). Ergo, if a disputed viewpoint resides entirely in ''user'' space it does not fall under the stated '''reason''' for removal of such from ''template'' space... whether it is enclosed in a rectangle or not. Does that make the hating of mauve people a good thing which we should encourage? Of course not, but to date we haven't taken the position that we can (or should) police the content of all userpages to remove any disputed viewpoints. If someone writes on their user page, 'I am gay and have been married to my partner for three years now' we do not remove it on the grounds that 'gay marriage is divisive' yet now some are saying that we should. If people '''really''' want to broaden this to a discussion of sanitizing the ''user'' space (not just ''template'' space) of all disputed beliefs then they need to make a case for that... but until then there are no grounds to do so for bits and pieces of user space - whether they are enclosed in rectangles or not. There have been decisions against the use of the '''template namespace''' for disputed viewpoints... not the use of ''rectangles''. --] 11:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*:No one is saying that you cannot use rectangles; they are saying you cannot use templates. The definition of a template is not "stuff in Template:". See also ]. ] 11:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*::See the quote from Jimbo that CharonX included above...he seems to disagree specifically with your argument. ] 12:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*::I disagree. ''You'' are apparently defining 'template' as 'anything which is transcluded'. That is not stated in the arbcom case you cite and is not consistent with Jimbo's statements about why T1 was created and what kinds of transclusion are acceptable: <blockquote>'''"Suppose we omit the bit about user subpages transcluded without substitution? If we do that, then a certain amount of userboxing can go on no problem, but outside the officially sanctioned spaces. This respects our long tradition of allowing wide latitude on userspace stuff, while at the same time keeping these userboxes out of officially sanctioned areas which would suggest to new users that this is an official thing that one ought to be doing. There would still be restrictions on the range of possible userboxes, of course, but this is not different from the restriction on all manner of things people might put on their userpages already."'''</blockquote>The T1 criteria was created to address Jimbo's concerns (and those of others) about templates (by which I mean 'things in the template namespace') possibly giving the impression that a view was supported by Wikimedia. Above Jimbo makes a clear distinction that transcluded pages from the template and other 'official' namespaces need to be kept free of divisive statements, but transcluded user pages should be treated like any ''other'' user page content - where we have long allowed much wider lattitude since they do not reflect on Wikimedia. --] 12:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*:::What is not clear about "...or a userfied copy of a deleted template that is used on pages other than those of its owner..." (Principle 2)? Is this not a userfied copy of a deleted template that is used on pages other than those of its owner? Deleted, check; userfied, check; used on pages other than those of it's owner, check.
*:::Also--amazingly enough--everything Jimbo says on a random talk page is not ''ex cathedra''; there is a difference between Jimbo's ''opinion'' and Jimbo's ''decrees''. ] 12:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*::::Lots of stuff Jimbo has said on random talk pages is being taken ''ex cathedra''. If the statements that he's made that the anti-userbox faction likes count, so do the statements the anti-userbox faction doesn't like. ] 12:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*::::Are you saying that users are responsible for transclusions by others of their subpages? --] (] - ]) 15:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*:::::While I don't think you were being serious, it only took about a minute to make a ]. If the template isn't horrible you could always subst the others or duplicate copies for everyone instead of deleting it. ] 10:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*::::When we reach the point that the T1 CSD is re-written to directly contradict the person who is directly responsible for its existence there is a problem. T1 was implemented spontaneously, without any normal approval process, to fill a need specified by Jimbo. Re-interpreting T1 to directly contradict Jimbo's position on this issue would invalidate it's entire basis for existence. As to the ArbCom principle you cite (I was looking for a definition of 'template' consistent with yours)... it deals with attempts to circumvent deletion of unacceptable content by relocating it. It does ''not'' address the different standards between what is acceptable in the template namespace and what is acceptable in the user namespace. If something was deleted because it is unacceptable ''anywhere'' on Misplaced Pages then moving it to the user space is no improvement, but if something was deleted because it was unacceptable in the template namespace (the meaning of T1 actually espoused by the person responsible for its existence), but ''would'' be acceptable in the user space, then I don't see a problem with its recreation. Just as the 'non notable bio' CSD applies to 'article' space, but ''not'' to 'user' space so to with the T1 CSD in template vs user space. The entire basis of T1's existence, possible implication of Wikimedia support, simply does not apply to the user space. --] 17:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*:::::The arbitration case dealt with such templates as User Anti-UN, how is User No-CCP different? The case held that G4 did extend to such templates (in userspace) and by a little logical extention it is easy to see that T1 still applies to userspace. If someone creates ] can we not speedy it? "But A6 has an A in front of it, it only applies to articles!" Nonsense. Divisive and inflammatory templates (in all namespaces) are fair game. ] 02:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*::::::So... by extension of the interpretation T1 means the opposite of what Jimbo says it means? Heh. :] If these boxes had been created in user space in the first place the 'recreation' ArbCom principle you cite would not apply to them, correct? So they couldn't be 'G4' in that case... and they couldn't be T1 because they aren't in the template namespace and thus don't 'imply Wikimedia endorsement'... and they don't violate general standards for user page content. Yet you argue that since they were created in Template space first, as was the accepted practice at the time, they can no longer exist in user space... even though they ''could have'' if they hadn't been (correctly) placed in template space originally before the change in standards. This makes sense? If someone creates completely new userboxes which express similar sentiments that 'recreation' principle does not apply to them, but we've got to do 'interpretation gymnastics' to come up with some technicality where ''these two'' can't because they got caught up in the transition from 'all userboxes go in 'Template:User <whatever>' to 'disputed views cannot be in template space'? Why? Misplaced Pages is ] a battleground. We're supposed to be building an encyclopedia... not searching for a hyper-technicality to help extend a fight over trivialities. --] 11:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*::::::::I normally don't respond to strawmen, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just restate my argument. T1 comes into being. Jimbo doesn't say "We should have this so we can get rid of these as they are seen as an official endorsement"--he doesn't say anything. Trying to apply whatever Jimbo has said in various places to the meaning of T1 is well, meaningless. There have been cases where user subpages used as templates have been deleted under T1, and these have held up by ArbCom. If something is deleted because it is inappropriate and recreated and then used in the same way as the deleted item, it may be considered G4. That is what the rfar said. By logical extension and "common sense" it is easy to see that "Bananas are bad in template space" and "Bananas recreated in user space are still bad, so we must delete them" leads to "Bananas in user space are deletable, even if it never was deleted in template space". If you have say Template:User Hates France and User:Bob/User Hates Germany, and User Hates France is deleted from template space and then from user space, it is easy to see that User:Bob/User Hates Germany should also be deleted--even though it never existed in template space. You claim that I am looking for technicalities and I guess "wikilawyering", but I would say you are. It is a simple question, that no one has even tried to answer, how is User No-CCP substainially different than User Anti-UN or various other user space templates that have been deleted (and kept deleted) before? The only response thus far has been "well, wikipedia is blocked in china, so the people that would be upset won't know!". That is so vacuous that it does not merit a reply. Oh, I can play the Jimbo sez game too "However, the issue with userboxes is that they are templates, and as such, they are categorized and easy to replicate and easy to use for campaigning and so on, and so they turn individual advocacy behavior, which is bad enough, into group campaigns." is all still true of userfied templates. ] 23:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*:::::::::I think I see the problem. Your third sentence is incorrect. Jimbo '''did''' say that we needed to get these things out of template space / avoid the appearance of Wikimedia support for them. Indeed, he has done so repeatedly... for instance ''immediately'' after the point at which you cut off the quotation above. It continues, "The pages which list userboxes, in the template namespace, make it seem as though putting these things on userpages is a normal and accepted community behavior, when in fact it is not. There is a middle ground, I agree. The middle ground is to let people do as they will in the user space...". I believe you are also incorrect when you say that Jimbo's position is "meaningless" in relation to T1. T1 ''exists'' because of Jimbo. It is there for no other reason. It was created and kept strictly on his say so. Therefor you '''can't''' make it mean something different than he says or there just isn't any basis for its continued existence. It was never discussed and adopted through formal consensus. It was installed at Jimbo's discretion to get 'disputed/divisive statements' out of the template namespace. Using a policy which exists on Jimbo's say so to contradict Jimbo is meritless. Can't be done. You want to cleanse the user space of people saying things like, 'I am gay and have been married to my partner for 3 years now' or, for some inexplicable reason, just cases where they ''transclude'' such statements from a user sub-page, then you need to propose and get consensus on a policy to do so. T1 was created to protect Wikimedia from the appearance of supporting various potentially contentious positions/causes by removing such from the template namespace. Nothing more. We would ''prefer'' that users not put such issues on their user pages (as Jimbo goes on to say), but we do not prevent them from doing so. Even at the height of the explosion with (arguably) ''the'' most contentious issue, the 'pedophile userbox wheel war'... which directly spawned T1, users were allowed to keep statements indicating that they were pedophiles in user space (and continue to do so to this day). Just not in template space. You try to 'extend' an ArbCom principle about re-creations to make T1 apply to user space, but it just inherently doesn't. It is not transclusion (or rectanglization) which makes these divisive views deletable... it is their existence in the 'seemingly official' template namespace rather than as concepts endorsed solely by users in the user space. --] 11:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
*::::::::::Jimbo has said that they should not be in Template:, yes. However, that ''is not'' what I said at all. He did not say "Here is T1. Divisive and inflammatory templates are bad because it looks like an official endorsement.". T1 exists because Jimbo has decreed that divisive and inflammatory things are bad, he did not qualify why. Jimbo has not ''endorsed'' the German solution as everyone seems to say. He has simply stated "here is what de. did". Thus, citing T1 cannot contradict Jimbo's wishes (or if it does, he has not expressly stated them). If Jimbo wants to say that T1 does not apply to userspace or that he supports moving userboxes to userspace in an official capacity I'm sure he can figure out how to tell us. Again I say "there is a difference between Jimbo's opinion and his decrees". It is funny how you keep harping on "T1 in userspace" though, as the debate about these particular templates is obviously in line with the definition of G4 previously used and therefore does not need to apply in this case anyways (at least for the EFF one, I cannot find a Template: version of No-CCP but that doesn't mean it didn't exist). ] 15:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Jimbo reinstated T1 in "divisive and inflammatory" form into the CSD on 6 February. The community accepted this as they viewed it as his decree. However, on 20 February he said "There have been no decrees from me". He did not simply state "here is what de. did" <nowiki></nowiki>, he said "The middle ground is to let people do as they will in the user space, and merely use reason and argument to teach people over time why one ought not use Misplaced Pages userpages for political or other campaigns.... while at the same time saying, no, really, the template namespace is not for that, that we do not endorse this behavior. This is the solution that the Germans have put into effect ''with great results''." <nowiki></nowiki> All of this can be verified by reading ], except the reason for the community accepting it, which must be verified by reading the February history and archived talk page of ].
*:::::::::::''Finally, I suggest that the talk pages ] or ] are the most approriate pages to continue discussion as to what the right general approach is.''] 16:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted'''. I swear, when you think you've found a solution to a problem, another problem crops up. --] <sup>]</sup> 11:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
**Out of curiosity, what solution are you referring to? Most other editors here are citing ]. --] 15:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and do not list at xfD'''. The German userbox solution is a compromise designed to end the userbox wars. Speedy deleting userboxes in userspace shows contempt for that compromise, and spits in the face of those who worked hard to make it reality. If the same criteria apply to userboxes in userspace as apply to userboxes in template space, then there is no compromise at all, and the wars, and the exodus, will go on. ] 11:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
**It is disappointing that we may lose a few good editors, but by and large people who would leave wikipedia over this are people who have the wrong idea about Misplaced Pages and see their userpage as another livejournal. --] 13:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
***Please trim that broad brush. You have no way of knowing that, and the accusation, while not as insulting as saying those who believe userboxes are valuable want to turn Wilipedia into MySpace, is nevertheless quite wide of the mark. The reason people would leave Misplaced Pages over this is not only the inability to say who one is, but also - and perhaps even more so - that speedy deletions in the face of an ongoing attempt to reach a genuine compromise say that those in power simply do not care what those not in power think. '''That''' attitude is far more corrosive than any userbox can be, and, from what I'm seeing, far more pervasive. ] 13:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
****You hit the nail on the head. When legitimate attempts at compromise are responded to with hard-line stonewalling, you know something is fundamentally wrong with Misplaced Pages's culture. ] 13:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*****'''Comment''' The difficulty is that compromise is not possible (or even desirable) in every case. For example, vandals want unlimited vandaism, wikipedia wants none, so it would be pointless to compromise and allow some vandalism. The base issue in this is that some see these boxes as an example of what wikipedia is not, and as such not a valid case for compromise, as what wikipedia is, and is not, is fundamental, not only to its culture, but to wikipedia itself. ] 17:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
******Now you're just implying that userboxes are vandalism which is grossly off base and quite insulting. ] ] ] <b>VIVA!</b> 17:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*******No, I am implying no such thing. I am simply pointing out that "compromise" is not always a magic word. If you have people that believe (rightly or wrongly) that the opposing view has no merit, then the middle ground will seem equally flawed. If one person thinks 2+2=4 and another says that 2+2=6, a suggested compromise to agree that 2+2=5 would also be rejected, but might be seen as stonewalling. And no, I am not saying any opinion is as right as "2+2=4", but am just pointing out possible reasons why what appears to be a compromise to one person, may appear not to be one to someone else. (and I have seen signs of this on all sides of this debate) Regards, ] 18:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*Undelete, as it has always been standard to make and transclude user subpages. --] (] - ]) 14:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' no basis for deletion per the German Solution. Also they are most definitely not T1. ] ] ] <b>VIVA!</b> 17:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Userfy''' them to my userpage UBX directory (UBX), which is open to all (non-personal attack/reality-compatible) userboxes. If anyone deletes it there, I will undelete it. Simple. TGS will be implemented, by community consensus. ] 18:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
**By the way, I got this idea from ], no friend of userboxes, and he is helping me implement it, so I'd say it has some sort of "bipartisan support". ] 19:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
**Umm, Xoloz, look closely. These were already in user space. Also, if you just undelete them you'll end up being accused of ]. --] 19:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
***I know exactly what I said SOI (although I take no offense at your point :) The difference between Winhunter and me is that I can undelete myself, without process hoops. Anyone who wheel-warred with me over ''my own userspace'' would go to ArbCom with me, and not be looked on too brightly. If I must wheel-war and lose adminship... oh well. If it ends the userbox war, it is worth it. I trust, however, that my fellow admins would respect my userspace, even if they delete from other "normal users" (sic). If they don't, we'll get this settled. ] 19:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
****I hate to say this, but regardless of how it gets there I'm starting to think that ArbCom is the right place to go. I had hoped that when ] came around, backed by Jimbo's own words, things would finally settle. It appears that this isn't the case and higher level policy may be needed. --] 19:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': I'd like to see fewer user boxes, and I don't care where they are stored. The German system doesn't answer the fundamental question: What is Misplaced Pages?
: Some user boxes are clearly deleted under T1 when they are not inflammatory. The emotional attachment which people show to a particular userbox when it is deleted can indicate whether it is inflammatory, and some raise no hackles. I wouldn't personally delete marginal userboxes until a new policy gains consensus. And people wheel warring over this issue just demonstrates they are too involved to have a dispassionate opinion. What we need in the short term is a simple and non-time consuming way to determine which boxes should be kept and which deleted while policy is worked out.
: I suggest a panel of five people representing differing shades of opinion, with a process that means some are deleted and some are kept. Then everyone else can get on with more productive things. It's silly to have so many people involved when at the end of the day, they'll either all be deleted or all be recreated. ] 20:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
::Does a userbox having people with emotional attachment automatically make them inflammatory? What about the organ donor one? That had lots of emotional attachment, but it is almost completely inconceivable that it is inflammatory. (I just renewed my driver's license today, and made sure to check the box for organ donation, in part because this issue reminded me of it.)
::It makes no sense to do '''anything''' with userboxes until policy is worked out. All deleting some does is inflame the situation and make it look like those doing the deleting are trying to get their licks in before they're told not to. That's the fundamental argument here: an admin took it upon himself to act while policy is still in flux, and the consensus appears to be that that is objectionable. Your panel would be even more so. ] 20:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
:::A panel might not be a bad idea, but I'd be shocked if anything becomes a policy on userboxes without just being done for a while first. I'd suggest that whomever forms such a panel look for 1) regular participation (no use having someone who drops out for months at a time), 2) demonstrated ability to be educational in discussing the topic, and for at least most of the panel members 3) demonstrated nuanced decisionmaking - no use having a panel of people whose opinions are predictable before they even see the userbox, as that would defeat the reason for forming a panel. I don't think this could become policy, but if a few people formed a panel that would chime in when requested, and that panel met ]'s and my criteria, it could help and could even be a good enhancement to ]. I'm going to boldly take the suggestion, Jay's and my comments over to the talk page for that. So please follow up on this idea at it's talk page. ] 20:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
:'''Comment'''. What boggles my mind is that everyone seems to overlook that deleting userboxes, especially ones like this that are following the german solution, is far and away more disruptive and divisive that any userbox has ever been on wikipedia. Like it or no, this is the case and has been for some time. Even Jimbo has supported the german solution, why can't it just be left at that. Further attempts to delete WP:GUS compliant userboxes is just going to cause disruption and hassle to everyone and won't change a thing. Userboxes are here to stay. ] ] ] <b>VIVA!</b> 21:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
::This comment is very close to inspiring me give up on all compromise and turn into a hard-core userbox deletionist. Do you think about the effect your words will have on others? If you say "Userboxes are here to stay", that's like throwing a gauntlet down. Why would you do that? -]<sup>(])</sup> 22:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I'm not throwing the gauntlet down, just saying that the german solution is a HUGE compromise on the part of people that want userboxes. Why can't it be the meeting point in the middle? ] ] ] <b>VIVA!</b> 23:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I thought the point of ] was to allow userboxes to stay, in user space, unless they violated some tenet of ]. Is this not correct? ] 22:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
::::I thought the point of ] was to end the userbox war. In the short run, this means that userboxes stay. In the long run, they will become less important, probably less visible, and possibly less used in total. My personal view of the long run, as a middle aged individual, is that it will be a year or two. But again, this is better discussed at the talk page for ] instead of here. ] 22:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Jay, have you read anything Jimbo said about userboxes? The point of WP:GUS is to get userboxes the hell out of template space immediately, and allow us to take our time educating people about why they're ''actually bad for Misplaced Pages'' and getting fully rid of them in the long run. If people aren't even going to pretend to be open to the idea that we might have a point about that, then I don't see much sense in doing all the work of trying to make the process smooth. If you're just bound a determined to culturally colonize Misplaced Pages, and say fuck what Jimbo and the experienced Wikipedians think, then I can pretty well understand why we might respond by trying quite intentionally to drive you away. How can you talk about compromise, when you're not even willing to admit that you ''might'' be wrong? Have you done anything in the direction of opening your mind to the valid point that we just ''might'' be making, or is it just riveted shut? I'd really just as soon people with minds riveted shut left the encyclopedia writing to those of us capable of seeing from more than one perspective; we're more qualified. -]<sup>(])</sup> 22:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::I'm perfectly willing to admit that you might have a point about it. I understand that Jimbo feels userboxes should go. What I'm having trouble with are two things: 1) Why, if having editors state their PsOV on their user pages is such a problem, is it perfectly acceptable for them to use plain text to say the exact same things - as advocated by a leading userbox deletionist? If it harms the project, shouldn't it go, in whatever form, as a matter of policy - which Jimbo has explicitly refused to do in the case of userboxes? 2) I do view ] as a compromise, because I do not believe that there is any substantial difference between having userboxes in Template: space and having them in User: space (because I do not believe that any reasonable outsider will believe that Misplaced Pages is endorsing anything on a user page in any way, and those templates are explicitly restricted to user pages). It appears that userboxes in Template: space and comprehensive userbox directories are at an end, and I'm willing to give that up - but only if there's compromise from the other side, as well. The German userbox solution is that workable compromise, as long as admins don't try to torpedo it by unilaterally applying T1 to templates in user space where it doesn't belong. One admin did so, and that's why we're here.
:::::I'm honestly not trying to piss you off. You have been a voice of reason throughout the implementation of ], and even though you may not believe that, I do appreciate it. I'm not out to culturally colonize Misplaced Pages. I am out to recognize human dynamics, not ignore them, however, in this diverse community. ] 23:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Well, why not stop repeating this tired mantra that people are trying to "ignore human dymanics", for starters? If you're going to persistently mischaracterize the anti-userbox position, I'm going to assume you don't know what it actually is. I don't want anyone to be bland, pretend they have no strong opinions, or hide their POV. That's not what it's about.
:::::::Also, "if it harms the project, shouldn't it go, in any form, as a matter of policy?" No. That would be the authoritarian approach. I'll say it again - Misplaced Pages doesn't work the way you're guessing it must. You have to think outside the bun here. Misplaced Pages is a ''new kind of thing'', where new kinds of dynamics occur. We don't accomplish things by making rules, and then carrying them out. We suggest, persuade, evolve, flow. I'm not saying that all the people deleting userboxes are providing good examples of how it's supposed to work, but... have you studied Wikis at all? Presumably, anyone who thinks they're working for the good of Misplaced Pages on this issue has spent a lot of hours at ] and the ] learning about this new technology, and what its social aspects are like, right? If you don't know what Wikiculture is like, how do you know you're not helping to aggressively colonize it, quite by accident, with a destructive view of how it should run?
:::::::Next, iconography has power. A rectangle turns a piece of text into a badge, and places its bearer into a category, defined by the text in the box. It's a clear message: "I'm taking a side!" I had a few political userboxes at first, because there's something alluring about them - if you see them on someone else's page, you want some of your own. They're kind of viral that way. Then, one day I realized that my goal, as a Wikipedian, is to dissolve those boundaries, get outside of myself, and continually improve my ability to see issues from multiple perspectives, which quite explicitly translates into better encyclopedia writing. I'm not ''hiding'' my beliefs, I just don't choose to emphasize them here, because this is where I try to be something bigger than myself. If they're relevant to an article, I'll state them in the proper context, when I'm in a discussion about that article. I refuse, however, to display a bunch of badges and send the message to anyone visiting my userspace: here's a writer with an agenda, someone who might care about the encyclopedia, but definitely cares about issues X, Y, and Z.
:::::::The worst consequence is this: there are peeople in this world who don't care at all about NPOV. They don't care about making a neutral encyclopedia for everyone, that's fair to everyone. They care about advancing their agenda. They are not welcome here. They are enemies to our project. A sheet of colorful useboxes advertising one's pet causes makes Misplaced Pages look custom-made for POV-pushing. We would prefer that POV-pushers look around Misplaced Pages and see "gosh, there's a lot of people here who seem really committed to being super-fair minded about things, I feel kind of out of place all advocating for one side in my pet dispute."
:::::::Now, I think I've just described a position that's different from how you were characterizing the userbox deletionist stance. Please tell me, Jay, if I've managed to make a distinction between what I say you were saying I'm saying, and what I'm actually saying. Please tell me that I've managed to show that I'm not interested in making people ''hide'' their POVs, but I'm actually interested in an ideal where people, fully cognizant and admitting of their POVs, strive to transcend them with every edit to the Misplaced Pages, and would actually just feel funny advertising them with an attractive little box, just like you might feel out of place wearing a sandwich board advertising your business to church.
:::::::I will be quite happy if you continue to disagree, as long as you're accurate about what it is you're disagreeing with. If I haven't managed to clarify it here, please let me know, and I will keep trying. -]<sup>(])</sup> 01:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::This deserves much more reply than I'm comfortable putting in here, as we seem to be getting a bit far afield from the subject (at least, I don't ''think'' DRV is a place to discuss deep concepts of Misplaced Pages philosophy). I'll limit myself here to saying that I'm as fully committed to NPOV in article space as you are, and I fully agree that this is not the place to advance anyone's agenda; I simply disagree that it's fully possible to check one's biases at the door. While your ideal is laudable, it is impossible, and it behooves us to act in understanding of how people are, rather than how we'd like them to be. ] 02:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::I second the feelings above and add, what is so bad about someone explicitly stating their POVs? If anything it makes it easier to identify if they've let POV come into their work in the article space. If I state, as I do, in my infobox that I am for immigrants rights and then edit an article on that topic with a potentially skewed bias it will be easier to identify that I did and for it to be modified to a more NPOV statement. ] ] ] <b>VIVA!</b> 23:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
* '''Undelete''' first (whether or not necessary, as it's reappeared elsewhere in Winhunter's user pages); do not send to MfD, as it's not T1, T2, T3, or otherwise Speedyable. '''keep second deleted''' only if transcluded by other users, otherwise undelete (if necessary) It ''is'' T1, but that doesn't apply unless it's a template. &mdash; ] | ] 00:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''undelete''' these please they are in user space erasure was wrongful ] 01:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' - these are T2 boxes that would have been quite properly deleted ''if they had been in template space''. ] 11:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' and slap speedy deleter with a healthy trout. These are in '''user''' space. Restore them and get back to the encyclopedia. Please remember --] 22:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Kill these dead''' and point those interested to MySpace. --] | ] 05:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
** '''ARGH!!!''' Would those folks who oppose userboxes please, please quit insulting those of us who favor them by saying we're trying to turn Misplaced Pages into MySpace? It's just not true, and it's approaching the level of gratuitous incivility. ] 12:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
***I'd call it pretty much a violation of both ] and ]. --] 12:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
****''All'' "sides" could profit by recalling ] at all times. State your view and your reason for it. Reasons can be put in a blunt way, but do not go over the line. It is not acceptable to attack the good faith, or publicly speculate about the character or motives, of those who disagree with you. ] 05:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Obvious undelete''' - they weren't templates, so speedying them as T1 was inappropriate. I think it's hilarious that the mantra of those pushing the German plan was that it would end the UBX wars because once in template space, administrators would magically stop deleting things out of process. ] 23:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

===10 June 2006===



==== ] ====
I did not see the TfD discussion until after someone acted on it to remove the template from an article I watch. Looking through the discussion, it appears that the discussion had 11 delete votes, and 6 keep votes (FWIW, I would have voted "keep" if I had noticed it). It doesn't seem like deletion on a bare majority is the right closing action (no consensus would be more fitting). As far as I can see, all the votes on both sides were cast in good faith, by established editors, and accompanied by reasonable statements of reasons. So the conduct of the discussion seems eminently reasonable... it just doesn't seem to have been closed correctly. <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 20:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
* Note: Original TFD: ] — ] <sup>]</sup> 00:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse closure'''. I would have closed this TfD the same way IceKarma did. Unless Lulu's opinion would have brought with it a fantastic new argument, I doubt including his "vote" amongst the others would have tipped the balance, either. ] (]) 09:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
*:No,I wouldn't have had any fantastic argument that was much different from other voters. I just think that a supermajority (i.e. 75-80%, or at the least 66%) should be required for deletion, rather than just a majority (absent evidence of sockpuppetry, or clearly more experienced editors on one side of a vote, or other special circumstance... none of which existed here). 11/7 is pretty much the same thing as 11/6 in this regard. <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 17:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
*::Well, *fD's being ] is more than just discounting inexperience or sockpuppetry. It also means that an overwhelming majority is not required for consensus to exist. Now, don't get me wrong; I'm generally in favor of keeping articles over deleting them (as long as they're maintainable and verifiable), but it seems clear from the discussion that maintaining the template was plain infeasible, by consensus. I also note that there was no prejudice against creating a new, more maintainable template. ] 18:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
*::When did I mention the tally? When closing AfDs, MfDs, RfDs, and the occasional (during the long dark teatime of the soul) TfD, I make a point of ''never'' counting the number of "votes". Knowledge of the raw numbers will shed no light on the appropriate course of action, and is thus unnecessary and occasionally even obfuscatory. Bugger the tally. ] (]) 04:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
*Lulu: Tfd is not a vote! Don't count comments like it was one. --] 03:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' there were many weak delete ''comments'' and if I'd noticed that it is up for deletion this I would've ''commented'' to keep it. There was no consensus to delete whether you count votes or not. ] 21:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. I admit I <s>voted</s> commented '''delete''', but I also gave 3-4 sentences of argument why the template was unmaintainable. Those issues weren't resolved either in the TfD or the template talk page. &mdash; ] | ] 21:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and undelete''', not sure why this was deleted in the first place. ] 23:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and undelete''', I missed the vote but would have voted to keep. This is a useful template. ] 00:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and undelete'''. The utility of this template far outweighs the few problems. Nothing here that can't be solved with a little careful editing. I missed this nomination, sadly. Given the weakness of the arguments advanced for deletion, I'm quite surprised at the close. --] 14:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and relist'''. Per my concerns in putting it on deletion review.
::Btw., I'm not clear on the widespread phobia about the word "vote", which ''my'' dictionary defines as: ''vote. (1)(a) A formal expression of preference for a candidate for office or for a proposed resolution of an issue. (b) A means by which such a preference is made known, such as a raised hand or a marked ballot.''

== 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 17}}</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 17}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 January 17|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

17 January 2025

Thajuddin

Thajuddin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This has a place in the history of Kerala, it is a biography of a man who lived in AD 600, known as Chera King Cheraman Perumal (Thajuddin), but he went to Mecca and met Prophet Muhammad in person, converted to Islam and took the name Thajuddin. There are many sources that prove this, books, articles, historical documents, and the mosque (Cheraman Juma Mosque) built under his instructions is recorded in history as one of the first mosques built in India.

The article important role in the entry of Islam into India and Kerala

:Reference

  1. Books:-
  2. News articles :-
  3. JSTOR :-
  4. Other articles:-
  1. External links:-

Notable Acknowledgements of this Biography

The location where he was buried after his death : 17°00′44″N 54°07′38″E / 17.01221°N 54.12721°E / 17.01221; 54.12721 (GPS

This historical biography was deleted for being hoax and Sources cited are poor in quality This page can be brought back to life with good editing based on sources, for which I request you to restore this page.

AFD's Quotes:-

kept in the first AFD, rejected and deleted in the second AFD
The result was no consensus. I don't see a consensus here. If it was up to me, I'd suggest considering a merger or draftification but that is not an AFD closure decision
_ Liz (First AFD Closed admin)
Keep. Kings are automatically notable......
_ Eastmain


Admin who participated in second AFD Relisting comment:
I'd like to see an evaluation of sources brought into the discussion before closing this discuasion. And from what I can see, this is not a "hoax" but falls into the realm of legendary. We have plenty of articles on legendary figures from different cultures so that shouldn't be a pivotal reason to delete.
_ Liz (2nd AfD Relisting admin)
~~Spworld2 (talk) 4:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse the almost-unanimous result. The appellant's claim that the article was "kept" in the first AfD is false. The result of that AfD was no consensus. The appellant already brought up all these arguments at the AfD, and they were soundly rejected. This extra kick at the can is a blatant waste of DRV's time. Owen× ☎ 12:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    In the first AfD, "no consensus" meant "do not eliminate", which was later retained.
    Sock puppet account were shared in the discussion and the discussion was not discussed further Spworld2 (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Relist I'm not 100% sure but feel that we probably need to discuss this a bit more. It feels like there was an overemphasis on the word Thajuddin in the discussion rather than Cheraman Perumal. I'm not any kind of expert but it looks like that's another name for the same person. If that's correct then there are peer reviewed papers and books about them. I've found others in addition to those mentioned above. To me the suggestion that the character is mythical or a hoax is irrelevant if we assess that the sources are sound. I don't think there is sufficient discussion of the sources (for good reasons including problems with socks) in the discussion. JMWt (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse overwhelming consensus to delete. Frank Anchor 15:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. There was only one non-sock account supporting keep. The overwhelming, policy-based consensus was correctly interpreted and the appellant's views were debated extensively and did not convince other participants. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Closer's note: I was suprised there wasn't more disucussion about the sources because it's my experience is that is typical when the type of sources given here are presented. But there wasn't and my job as closer is to just reflect the consensus. I think Liz correctly relisted to give more time but it ultimately didnt convince and I felt it important to act on the consensus present before and after the relist. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I completely understand the frustration and why this is at DRV. Every single delete !vote appears mistaken - either that this is a hoax or that GNG isn't passed. The possibly incorrect name of the person in the title doesn't help. Looking through the sources, it definitely seems at least possible to have an article on this person, even if it's not immediately clear from some of the sources presented, and I haven't looked into reliability of the ones which I have seen. But there was almost no source analysis in the AfD. I'm really not sure what course of action to propose here. I'm not sure anything AfD related will be helpful, so probably draftify to allow sources to be added back into the article and then allow it to be moved into mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 17:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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)
  • Relist The content of the page which was based on secondary sources at the time of the closure had grown just above the level of a stub (taking 250 words as a vague threshold), which in turn demonstrated that the subject had received just enough coverage to fullfill the notability requirements. I feel that the WP:HEY argument has not received enough weight in the closure decision, seeing that all Redirect !votes were made when the content based on secondary sources was just below this stub threshold. Daranios (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Relist - The substantial expansion of the article during the seven days that the AFD was running warrants allowing the previous Redirect !voters to consider whether to change to Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment To be honest, save for the fact that I am the closer of this discussion, as an active participant at articles for deletion, I do not see a WP:GNG pass here at all. I mean, I would nominate an article like this for deletion discussion. I went through every cited source, I do not see any of them that satisfy the three required criteria for GNG, they're mostly satisfying only one or two, it's either a source is not reliable, but is independent, or the source is reliable but does not provide substantial coverage of the subject (mostly citation #1 to #8). Relisting this would be unnecessary, why? Well, because even the reworked version is still evidently not passing GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse - The closer correctly assessed the consensus at the discussion, which is what DRV is here to determine. Three additional redirect !votes were made after the WP:HEY argument was made and after the additional material was added. It is incorrect to suggest the redirect !voters had not considered the additions. They were just not convinced that the sources were significant coverage in secondary sources, independent of the subject. I note that one of the three additional !voters was a new user but two were well established and experienced, and the consensus of that discussion was clear. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. It was not a WP:BADNAC; an experienced AfD participant conducted a NAC with a clear consensus, so this is a bit of a red herring as a ground for appealing. Several !voters supported redirection even after the improvements to the article. GNG is not merely a matter of sourcing; it's a two-part test and participants clearly did not believe this topic met the second test of WP:NOT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Relist The closer's statement above makes me think this was indeed a WP:BADNAC, even if consensus was correct. Closing a discussion is about evaluating what others have said, not inserting your own judgment. SportingFlyer T·C 17:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    @SportingFlyer You entirely misunderstood my comment then. My closure and assessment of the discussion has nothing to do with what I just said, that was why I said save for the fact that I am the closer of this discussion. This is not the first time I’m assessing the consensus in a discussion and it would not be different. I am fully aware that closing a discussion is assessing the consensus from it and not your own opinion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Whether you meant it or not, there is nothing more frustrating than a closer saying "I think this should have been the outcome." SportingFlyer T·C 17:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse clear consensus to redirect. This was not a WP:BADNAC and there is no requirement that the discussion be unanimous for a non-admin to close. The WP:HEY argument was rejected by three subsequent redirect voters as well. Frank Anchor 19:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse - The closer correctly assessed the consensus at the discussion. That said, it is not the role of the closer to evaluate the sources cited in the article or the sources in the discussion. It is the role of the closer to summarize how the participants viewed the sources and the strength of the policy arguments. --Enos733 (talk) 19:27, 17 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)
    I am not sure whether as an earlier participant in afd discussion, I can vote here or not - otherwise it would be "OVERTURN" in my view.
    Anyways, one last bit of addition from my end - this same / similar article has been on German wiki since 2010 (https://de.m.wikipedia.org/EV_Group) - hope this helps alongwith links given earlier in my replies and original afd discussion. Jn.mdel (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Simply having an article on another Misplaced Pages project does not establish notability by itself; the subject of the article will still have to pass our notability guidelines. Lectonar (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks - as you all wish. Jn.mdel (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse as a reasonable conclusion from three Deletes including the nomination and one Keep. A Relist would have been reasonable also, but was not required. It may not be directly relevant that the rewrite of the article that was in progress was introducing marketing buzzspeak, which is not appropriate in an encyclopedia, but no progress was being made to bring the article closer to corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 17 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)
  • Endorse I think a relist would be fine here as well, but redirecting was a reasonable reading of that discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 19:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Relist - I disagree with the closing statement that the redirect is A sensible, unopposed ATD. It was opposed by the editor who said to Keep. With a sloppy closing statement, it seems better to relist both to attract more opinions and to get a different closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Neutral- I don't think extending the discussion would result in a different outcome; however, not opposed to letting the discussion run just to see. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:23, 17 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