Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Vfu header This page is about articles, not about people. If you feel that a sysop is routinely deleting articles prematurely, or otherwise abusing their powers, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at Wikipedia talk:Administrators. Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.

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

November 27, 2005

Judeofascism and Judeofascism (term)

I would like to see the content of deleted articles Judeofascism and Judeofascism (term) in order to assess the merits of (1) undeleting the latter, more recent article and (2) assessing to what extent the AfD arguments in favor of deleting the former article are applicable to the latter. TIA, --FRS 01:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 25, 2005

Beer Boxing

I would like to request a copy of the content of the beer_boxing article. I would like to use the content to create articles on the subject elsewhere in hopes that the article will eventually be verifiable and thus qualified to be placed on Wikipedia. Mike corsillo 01:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I personally am not going to grant this. The material was deleted, and kept deleted. The statement means either that the material is going to be reinserted to Wikipedia elsewhere which is inappropriate, or that the material will be used elsewhere entirely which is inappropriate because of license restrictions: and fundamentally misunderstands that posting content deleted here elsewhere on the 'net and then pointing to it for verifiability is not the way to go about it. So this time, no, this admin at least will not provide the content. -Splash^talk 01:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What the fuck? Did you look at the history? He apparently wrote it. --SPUI (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Please observe WP:CIV. El_C 04:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

indeed, i did write it. also, i was told that if i want the article to be published on wikipedia it first has to be published on other peer reviewed sites and journals, etc. also, since i wrote it, i would like a copy of what i wrote so that i could at least use the article to explain to people what the game is, since they wont be able to find an explanation on this site. its not going to be reinserted anywhere on wikipedia until i feel its appropriate to do so, meaning the article is able to be verified according to wikipedia standards. give me a god damn break. Mike corsillo 20:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When that time comes, this is the place you'd go to, right? El_C 04:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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.
• Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.

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.

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

November 26, 2005

Interchanges on Ontario provincial highway 401

→ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interchanges on Ontario provincial highway 401

I have tentatively undeleted this and was then notified on my talk page that I should mention this here. I believe there were enough keep votes in the deletion "debate" to warrant keeping this article on the grounds of lack of consensus to delete. I put "debate" in quotation marks because the keep votes were the only ones giving arguments, while the delete votes almost universally said nothing other than "roadcruft". Furthermore, there have been two speedy keep votes and at least two early attempts to speedy-keep the article; I would have been the third to vote speedy keep if I had participated in the "discussion". I didn't because I saw enough keep votes that I didn't think it would be deleted. — Timwi 12:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I re-deleted this. I've no opinion on the article or the legitimacy of the AfD closing, but this is 'Deletion review' not 'undeletion homologation'. Let it be decided here as to whether the stay deleted or not. --Doc ^ask? 17:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn undeletion (Endorse original AfD). Valid AfD (30 deletes/11 keep/9 merge/1 anon) with a note in the discussion that the information had been merged into Ontario provincial highway 401 during the course of the discussion. As a result of the incorporation of the material into the parent article the only potential difference between deletion and a merge is the creation of a redirect. As the article's name is fairly cumbersome, a decision to delete instead of creating a redirect was within reasonable bounds of administrator discretion. Examination of the merged article does not show any obvious need for splitting things out based on article size. It should also be noted that there were at least as many references to WP:NOT by persons supporting deletion as use of the term roadcruft, so a reason for deletion based on core Wikipedia policies was available for anyone wishing to find it. --Allen3 ^talk 14:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse / KD. Timwi, please read up on our deletion policy. There have been some proposals along the lines of "anything with 5 or more keep votes is automatically kept" but all of these have been rejected. And despite your claim I notice several 'delete' votes with lengthy explanations. Radiant_>|< 19:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted without prejudice. Nandesuka 21:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep merged. It's not deleted, so we shouldn't be discussing an undeletion. To comply with GFDL requirements we need to undelete the history and place a redirect here, so people can see where the material came from and who contributed it. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is "deletion review" and can discuss all results of the various deletion processes, not just results to "delete". Radiant_>|< 00:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Gamaliel 00:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. The consensus at AfD was quite clear. And when you're the 30th vote, there's no need to write a series of long reasoning again. -- SCZenz 00:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This has already been merged into the highway article. The information is still available in Wikipedia, and in the form that's more consistent with existing policy (i.e. in the highway article rather than split out). There's no particularly overwhelming reason to revisit this. Keep deleted. Bearcat 01:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Judeofascism

I would like to request that we undelete redirect Judeofascism and point it to the relevant article/section. It was deleted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judeofascism, however due to the fact that Islamofascism is an article in its own right then I feel that we should at least point people to the List of political epiteths page (f they type it in, then it will take them there). I don't actually feel that the term should have it's own article. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been bold and created a redirect. Anyone wishing it deleted should list it on WP:RFD. --SPUI (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted it. It went through an AfD, so no one has the right to restore it unless it goes through a deletion review. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was on the article, not the redirect. I am restoring nothing that was "voted" on. --SPUI (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how AfD works. AfD doesn't control content. It controls only which titles exist. If the vote is to keep the title, then it's up to the editors on the page to decide whether it should be a redirect or have a text of its own. This is what happened to Islamofascism: it went through an AfD, the result was keep, for a time it was a redirect, and then someone turned it into an article again. But the consensus for Judeofascism was delete. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SPUI has recreated the redirect (again). I have deleted it, and protected, until this process is complete. --Doc ^ask? 21:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. There are no credible mainstream sources for it, unlike Islamofascism (term), for which there are many. Unless we're going to argue that every single epithet have its own title and a redirect, there's no reason to single out Judeofascism. In fact, the editor who has been arguing to have Judeofascism restored, User:BrandonYusufToropov, himself wrote of it during its AfD that it's a "[d]eeply bogus, pseudo-poli-sci rhetorical arrow," and I see his attempt to restore it as WP:POINT. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Judeofascism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slim -- I understand your arguments above, and feel strongly that both terms are deeply bogus, pseudo-poli-sci rhetorical arrows. That point of view is apparently not acceptable for discussion. If there is an edit of mine that you feel violates WP:Point, let me see it, and I'll let you know if I agree that I screwed up, which is quite possible. In the meantime, I have posed some reasonable (I think) questions on your talk page, questions I think are worthy of reasonable responses. BrandonYusufToropov 17:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn speedy deletion of the redirect. Redirects are cheap, they aren't obvious, they prevent redirection. Redirects are just plain good. SPUI is right (much as it pains me to say that ;D ); WP:CSD A4 doesn't apply to this redirect, as it isn't substantially identical to the redirect. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  The AfD result was to delete the title, whether the page had text on it, or whether it had the word "redirect" on it. When something is deleted after an AfD, you can't simply recreate it as a redirect. You have to go through deletion review, which is why Ta bu nominated it. Please allow this process to take place. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  The AFD result was to delete the content, not the title. This is why we have such "rulecruft" on WP:CSD; otherwise people will make up their own reasons to delete articles. --SPUI (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  The AFD result was to delete the article; AFD doesn't deal with anything else. WP:CSD A4 (go read it) doesn't allow for deletion of something that isn't substantially identical to the deleted content, and that redirect is not substantially identical to the deleted content. If you want this redirect deleted, go to RFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  You're just wrong about that. AfD is always a vote on whether the page should exist i.e. whether the subject is notable, whether there are reputable sources available, whether it's possible for it to be encyclopedic. It is not a vote on the current contents. If the current contents are poor, but otherwise the subject is good, the article should be rewritten, not deleted. AfD does not control content or suspend normal editing practices. It controls which page titles exist. Also, can I ask you please either to have this conversation here, or on our talk pages, because you're currently posting to both, so I'm having to repeat everything. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you're getting speedy delete rules mixed up with AfD. This has nothing to with speedy delete. The article went through an AfD, where people voted overwhelmingly to delete the title. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you point out in the deletion policy where deletion of an article prevents recreation of anything under that title, or where this redirect was debated and the decision was delete? I don't much appreciate being threatened for creating a redirect to the coverage of the term "Judeofascism" (reprehensible as it is) Wikipedia does have, at List of political epithets. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• In case it's not clear, I "vote" to keep the redirect. --SPUI (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete the redirect, clearly no CSD applied. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  There was no speedy delete in this case, so the CSD policy does not apply. What applies is the deletion policy, which says this page must go through deletion review before it can be restored. The article went through AfD and the result was delete. Because of a technical problem, it could not be deleted at the time. People forgot about it for awhile, then another editor deleted it (by which time someone else had blanked the contents and made it a redirect, but only pending deletion script). Then Ta bu put it up for deletion review. Someone re-created it and I deleted it, and this happened several times. That is where we stand. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you click a button that says delete? If so, and you hadn't just closed a deletion discussion, it was a speedy delete. --SPUI (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you click a button that says Save page? If so, it was an out of process speedy undeletion. El_C 04:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I deleted it only because you created it without going through deletion review; in other words, you created it against the deletion policy. As an admin, I was responding to a policy violation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It's my opinion that Slim had a correct interpretation. At the AfD people could have voted 'delete and redirect'. Thus, it should go to DRV before anything happens. Redirects are cheap, yes. So don't fret over her for deleting a redirect which probably won't be used. And I'm neutral as to the final product of this DRV, but I'm endorsing Slim's actions. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 04:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted still a neologism. Unless you can provide evidence that the term is used widely by anyone outside of the fringe I see no reason to undelete.Homey 04:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. My point above was that if it's right to undelete it, that's what the deletion review is here for, and when several people think it should be kept deleted, then we obviously should run the DRV. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 04:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete as redirect with new AfD.

The AfD on this was hard to count, I think. And in terms of the actual word, it indeed seems like a cheap attempt at WP:POINT (for better or worse, "Islamofascism" has been successfully pushed into public consciousness as a term, mostly by Chris Hitchens; while "Judeofascism" remains a rare neologism. Still, this is a deletion review, not the AfD itself, so it's not really germane what opinion I have of the term itself. For that matter, however, it is conceivable that a term that was rare in April has since come into sufficiently widespread use to warrant an article (even if a redirect one).

Just looking at administration, it appears that the AfD vote was something like 26 delete, 9 redirect (counting one ambiguous vote both ways). If you take those 9 redirect votes as implicit "keep" votes on a redirect page, it narrowly misses delete consensus. I think the most reasonable way to resolve this is to create a page that is a "soft redirect", i.e. says "For explanation see List of political epithets", but then immediately AfD the new page. If that is done, I, for one, will (probably) vote a delete on the new page. But whether there is actual consensus on a page that simply redirects is unclear, IMO. A new AfD on a slightly different issue can establish consensus.

Of course, I want to be clear that I think SlimVirgin took a very reasonable approach to the ambiguous AfD. There's no fault in her action, but it would just be nicer to have an unambiguous consensus to point to. Still, just becasue something was non-notable at one point should not mean that it can never become notable; when I often see two AfD's on the same article within a month, it doesn't seem outrageous to see a new article with the same name 7 months after AfD. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete redirect and send to RfD, technically. A redirect by definition is not "substantially identical" to a regular article. A better idea would be to send the rather idiotic, unmaintainable, necessarily POV List of political epithets to AfD and solve two problems at once. Marskell 06:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse delete -- The deletion was correctly handled for a neologism. Deletion policy holds that "by long tradition and consensus, Deletion Review only addresses procedural problems that may have hampered an AFD." This proposal offers no reasoning as to the invalidity of the deletion, hence the inappropriately created redirect was properly speed-deleted. If one has a problem with "Islamofascism" as an article/title, propose it for AfD. However, there is no parity in creating new "parallel" terms to those one disagrees with just to make a Point. —LeFlyman 06:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted for now, revisit later. I personally don't object to the existence of a redirect at Judeofascism, considering it is used by fringe sources and is mentioned in the List of political epithets. If it's significant enough to be mentioned in the list, then we might as well redirect to the list. But the problem is that it will not remain a redirect. This issue has arisen now because several editors want to write a Judeofascism article as a rhetorical expression of their anger over the existence of Islamofascism. So it seems to me that this is the wrong time to undelete the redirect. Revisit the issue later when tempers have cooled and when there will be less pressure to create an article for a topic that has already been AfD'd. Babajobu 06:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There seems to be a lot of confusion over the purpose of AfD. SlimVirgin's explanation makes perfect sense: we vote on the existence of a topic, rather than content, because if a poor article exists on a legit topic then the appropriate remedy is to improve it, not delete it. But a lot of people seem to be under the impression that we are voting on the content: people justify delete votes by citing "POV" or "OR", and "redirect" votes are legion. I think the above disagreement between Slim and AMIB is a product of that confusion. Whatever the actual policy is, it would be a good idea to indicate it at the top of AfDs. Babajobu 06:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If curious, I started a thread on WP:CSD talk over the redirect business. Marskell 06:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• How about redirect (using # to the right (anchor) point in the list even!) and protect the redirect. That way the article can't be recreated either. Would that be a good compromise? Kim Bruning 07:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep deleted the original AfD considered substituting a redirect for the article, but it was soundly rejected. Neo-logisms don't deserve redirects. I'm open to reconsidering that decision, but new evidence to the usage of this terms must be supplied and accepted. As far as I see it, none is even being offered. Rightly or wrongly the debated on afd earlier this year concluded that Islamofascism had usage and Judeofascism did not, unless that conclusion can be successfully challanged, the decisions should stand. This is about usage of terms, not political correctness.--Doc ^ask? 11:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where would hypothetical evidence of the word's new usage go if it can't go on the page with the same name though? I believe—as I state above—that the only way to decide whether such new usage exists (it has been seven months) is among AfD voters, not here on Deletion review. After all, if the usage is widepread enough to be mentioned in List of political epithets, that seems to endorse the idea that it exists enough for notability and verifiability (or it shouldn't be on that list).

I don't think the poarticular word is really notable either; but administratively, it feels wrong to decide "once deleted" an article title can never be notable. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted per above arguments. -- JJay 16:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted per Slimvirgin and others. Briangotts 17:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Valid AfD with extremely clear consensus, not only on deletion, but on the reason for deletion. It was deleted because, unlike "Islamofascism," "Judeofascism" is not a real word in any real use. Nothing about this has changed since the AfD. The valid community decision was that there should not be an article entitled "Judeofascism." Nothing about the re-creation as a redirect changes this. IMHO this is clearly POV. For an analogy: suppose someone created an article entitled Fred Rogers was a heinous criminal," and it were deleted on the basis that Fred Rogers was not a criminal at all, and then someone re-created it as a redirect to Fred Rogers and claimed that this was acceptable because the content, being a redirect, was different from that voted for deletion. In both cases, the the title itself expresses a POV that was rejected by the AfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. There was nothing wrong with the AfD process used in this case. Redirect is a valid option for people to use in AfD voting: in this case, the deletes won. Please remember that this is a discussion about the AfD process, not the page itself, unless some new information has emerged, which I am not seeing. Turnstep 18:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted This discussion appears to be nothing more than a back-handed way of reversing a decision made by the community.Slrubenstein | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 20:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted per SlimVirgin and Dpbsmith. Nandesuka 21:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted - nothing wrong with AfD process or conclusions, no evidence of wider usage of neologism in half-year since then. Rd232 ^talk 00:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete

Because

1. The article that was most recently Speedy Deleted was titled Judeofascism (term), which is not identical to the title of the article previously deleted some months ago under AfD, that is, Judeofascism. The difference, while subtle, was thought to have some importance in the context of the Islamofascism page, and should be understood to mean that although the existence of the actual alleged political phenomenon is disputed, the existence of notable political discussions employing the label is not.

2. As a result of the deletion, we are not able to see the content of any of the history Judeofascism (term), but if memory serves, one recent variant of the page at least had links to a half dozen or more sites where the term Judeofascism was supposedly used. For the sake of argument, lets suppose (as would not surprise me) that some of those links go to prominent sites, for example Al Jazeera, or are attributable to well known people (e.g, Osama Bin Laden). What's the inherent objection to an article containing such content, if (as we have tried to make happen on Islamofascism (term)) the page does not endorse the use of the term, and provides examples of criticisms of its use.

Accordingly, I strongly believe a speedy delete is inappropriate, and that an AfD debate should be held, which would at least give the proponents of the page an opportunity to bring it up to something approaching encyclopedic content. --FRS 01:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Judeofascism (term) had no contents for most of its existence, but was a redirect to Judeofascism. A couple of people, yourself included, tried to insert or revert to a very short text that was a very badly written, highly POV, personal essay with no sources that violated every content policy we have. I'm surprised you don't remember it, as you were one of his defenders. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Space Station 13

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Station 13

I would like to request that your decision to delete the article space_Station_13 be re-thought and considered in a different perspective. First of all a simple page that didn't even use up more than 10kb of space shouldn't have been given so much attention in the first place. The article was put up as an aid for new players; because the game is; as it was made so clear; so small, and didn't have a very useful main website, as the current website was run by a biased host at the time; although that subject is irrelivant. There was no justifiable reason for the deletion of this article other than the 'assumption' that it was put up for advertising purposes and because of snob-nosed encyclopediacs going crazy over such a small-based community. It is a clear sign of the sort of biased administration that is in effect on Wikipedia. There is no REAL space station named 'Thirteen' and therefore the space is not required by anything more important. When a space station named 'Thirteen' is launched, the community will gladly give up the space for it.

Furthermore, I'd like at least a valid reason for the article being deleted, or its official re-addition. I'm not going make a threat, but the subject will be re-added constantly by the fan base of over 500 unique members; and is something that the development/administration departments of SS13 cannot control.

Please also note that the recent statement on the discussion for deletiong for SS13 is incorrect. The game is not run by a one-man development team, it is in fact run by a 5-person development team, a 4-person website team, and a 12 person moderation team; and is actually the subject of a 3D game which is in development for the next 2 years.

We're not worried about the space it takes. We're worried about its encyclopedic value. If you think the person who runs the current website is biased, go run your own, but Wikipedia is not a webhost. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• 500 members? Whoa! Hold on there LivingWithStyle, Somethingawful and Gaiaonline! You got some pretty damned popular competition! SS13 is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. This is coming from a person who helped the article quite a bit. -Mrdie
• Endorse deletion. I see no problems with the afd, and threats are unlikely to convince anyone. —Cryptic (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - I beg to differ with Cryptic. Unconvincing non-threats are definitely going to convince Wikipedians... convince them that the article in question is utter crap that must stay deleted at all costs. FCYTravis 03:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The AfD was valid, and if another valid deletion reason is needed, I'd like to point out that Wikipedia is not a web hosting service. I'm sure a "non-biased" web hosting service can be found. Web hosting is a very competitive business. One dollar from each of those 500 members should buy you a site for many, many years. If you want the AfD to be overturned, you must provide new information, which you do not seem to have done, with the exception of the size of the development team, which is unlikely to change anyones vote on the original AfD. Turnstep 18:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 25

Blogging Tories

Based on the discussion, I don't see how this deletion can be adequately justified.

1) The editor who nominated the article for deletion and the main advocate for keeping it both agreed that the VfD results should be the same for this article and Progressive Bloggers, the Blogging Tories' "rival" group with roughtly equal membership. Progressive Bloggers survived its (second) VfD the day before this article was deleted.

2) The admin who closed the VfD and deleted the article had personally voted for deletion. While I can't find anything in Wikipedia's policies to specifically ban this practice, it does seem rather unbecoming, especially in light of the third point...

3) Most importantly, by my count the vote was 20 delete, 19 keep, and 2 merge. A plurality of one vote can't be considered "consensus" by any stretch of the imagination. (The consensus article suggest a two-thirds majority for VfDs.) There was also no "emerging consensus" by means of pro-keep editors switching to the pro-delete side. This, combined with the "when it doubt, don't delete" rule, definitely means that the article shouldn't have been deleted.

I move for an overturn and undelete. The Invisible Hand 10:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per above point 2 seems quite convincing AND there was no consensus for deletion (even though I voted delete).  Grue  11:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and keep deleted. Point 1 is unfortunate but irrelevant; Wikipedia is often inconsistent. To point 2, this is one of those things to be avoided because they look improper, not because they are improper - we should not assume that CAF was biased. And point 3 is plainly and entirely wrong, because of the invasion of sockpuppets. After discounting invalid votes, I do get a two-thirds majority for deletion, which means that deletion is a valid call. I propose a redirect to the Canadian Blogscape. Radiant_>|< 14:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC) Strike vote, convinced by the below. Radiant_>|< 19:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were a lot of "delete" sockpuppets too, including some "war on blogs" GNAA trolls.  Grue  14:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I also discounted those. However, most GNAA members appear to be legit users as well, and the so-called "war on blogs" is not indiscriminate trolling, but an effort to clean out unremarkable blogs (per WP:NOT a web guide). This was discussed at WP:ANI and there was found no reason to do anything about it. If you believe there are problems, please ask Kelly for a sockcheck. Radiant_>|< 14:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I count 9 valid keep votes and 12 delete votes (including GNAA, myself and Cleared as filed). This is nowhere near consensus to delete.  Grue  15:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn: Useful article inappropriately deleted. Ombudsman 19:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I hate the article. Hate hate hate hate it, just like I hate all articles on non-notable things (like Progressive Bloggers). But in this case, I think that, for reasons of consistency and dubious consensus alone, it's got to come back. Lord Bob 19:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. The sockpuppetry and GNAA activity on this vote prevented any clear result. - SimonP 19:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and undelete based on what looks to me to be a valid claim of vote-gaming. FCYTravis 04:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Blogging Tories for a breakdown of the votes. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In progress. - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and undelete. This closure clearly was improper. From the perspective of vote counting, there isn't a consensus, nor did either side present a compelling enough argument to tip the scales in its favor. I am disturbed by the fact that the Progressive Bloggers article (which pertains to a rival organization of comparable notability) has remained, while the Blogging Tories article has been deleted. This creates the appearance of political bias on the part of the Wikimedia Foundation, which is entirely unacceptable. (For the record, my political philosophies are closer to that of the Progressive Bloggers.) The fact that the closing admin actually voted to delete this article is yet another reason to overturn the decision. (I personally believe that a voting admin should close a discussion only when the consensus is overwhelming and/or opposite to his/her vote). —Lifeisunfair 05:19/17:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. While I would have preferred that the closing admin "show their work", after having looked at the arguments presented (see talk page as noted above) there was a clear consensus to delete, and no compelling counter-argument presented. - brenneman^(t)(c) 12:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I still don't see any consensus. I believe that consistency is a very good reason for keeping this article and if I had known that Progressive Bloggers would be kept, I'd voted keep instead of delete.  Grue  12:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I've read through all of the comments (taking sock/meat puppetry from both sides into account), and I don't see anything remotely resembling a consensus. —Lifeisunfair 17:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and undelete. No consensus to delete. Rhobite 16:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and undelete per Lifeisunfair and others. Turnstep 18:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I really don't see clear consensus, whether you discount potential meatpuppets or not. In a dubious and complex vote like that one, a voter in the debate should never have done the closing himself. -- SCZenz 19:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The fact that there may "no consensus" based upon pure numbers is mitigated by the fact that this is not a vote. In the absence of back-ups to the "it's notable" arguments, the closing admin has the resposibility to do more than simply count heads. We reject scripts like the "afd helper" because we want nuanced interpretations of the results. That is what we got here. - brenneman^(t)(c) 20:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Actually, an AfD debate is a vote (but not a simple majority vote).

2. You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm not seeing this supposed consensus. In my assessment, neither side's argument was persuasive enough to prevail. If I had to pick one, however, I'd say that the combined "keep" votes were move eloquent than the combined "delete" votes; most of the "delete" voters merely indicated that the group is non-notable, while many of the "keep" voters provided specific reasons why they believe that the group is notable. —Lifeisunfair 21:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong. An AFD debate is not a vote. That is precisely why VFD was renamed to AFD. Radiant_>|< 23:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're misusing the word "vote" to mean "majority vote." The commonness of this misconception was a major (and legitimate) factor in the decision to rename VfD, as was the desire to specify the type of page being discussed.

FYI, American Heritage defines a "vote" as "a formal expression of preference for a candidate for office or for a proposed resolution of an issue." In a slightly different context, a vote is "the act or process of voting," which refers back to the aforementioned definition. (This is the connotation that applies.) —Lifeisunfair 23:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion and undelete. Grue and The Invisible Hand don't agree on the numbers, but they do agree that the amount of valid keep and delete votes are close together. I can't see how this shows an emerging concensus. And based on point two, I don't see how it would be fair to delete this either. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• My original preference in both debates was to keep, but what I'm more concerned about is that it inherently constitutes a bias-by-inclusion to treat this and Progressive Bloggers differently from each other. Although my personal preference would be to undelete this, I'd be comfortable at this point with either undeleting Blogging Tories or deleting ProgBlog -- but whichever happens, they both have to be treated equivalently; there's simply no valid argument to be made that they fall on opposite sides of the keep-delete line from each other. And I do have to agree that a debate as heavily puppet-infested as this one turned out to be should really not have been closed by an admin who had directly participated in the discussion. Bearcat 01:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 24

Nixon: Ruin and Recovery 1973-1990

Doesn't appear to meet any speedy criteria. Visible content was: "Nixon;Ruin and recovery is a book by stephen ambrose about richard nixions fall from grace in 1973 and rise back to honor in 1993 and the events in hi..." Kappa 20:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete and list on AfD. Looks like spam, but the speedy rules don't include that. -- SCZenz 21:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Cut the bureaucracy, keep deleted without prejudice. What Kappa just quoted was the entire content (plus the letters "s life between."). Nothing there is worth discussing, but it seems a worthy topic so I hope someone will write about it. Radiant_>|< 14:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• As above agree with Radiant. A real article could problably be written about this topic, but it would be better starting from scratch than building on an abysmally-written subsubstub ("richard nixions"?!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete, deleted out of process. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. Doesn't look at all like spam to me. Give it fifteen seconds of wikification, spellchecking, and proper punctuation, and it's no better nor worse than many of our other book stubs. If Lucky thinks it needs deleting so badly, let him put it on afd like anyone else. —Cryptic (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Who cares? It would be a lot quicker to re-write a decent stub than to have this debate. --Doc ^ask? 12:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted with no prejudice to the creation of something substantial in its place. Concur with Doc. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 23

Gallery of Socialist Realism

The AfD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Socialist Realism, has been incorrectly closed on two counts:

1. Only two of the 16 votes were simple delete votes, most of the delete votes were Transwiki and delete, but the closing admin did not make any effort to keep the content available for transwikying;
2. In the course of the AfD discussion, it became clear that the WP:NOT policy was excluding pictorial content of encyclopediac value. A lengthy discussion there concluded with a change of the policy with respect to collections of images; after the change in the policy, which has met with uniform approval, all the votes were keep votes. Hence, the grounds cited for almost all delete votes ceased to exist at the time the AfD was closed, which the closing admin appears to have been oblivious to.

The page should certainly be undeleted. I think it is clear that the page would win a new AfD, hence, in the interests of avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy, I recommend we do not relist on AfD. --- Charles Stewart 19:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: see also [1] --- Charles Stewart 19:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The 'lengthy' discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Proposed rewording totalled 3 votes. Which is insufficient to change a long-standing policy, imo. The discussion preceding the vote (for such it was) included 8 messages in total, between 3 users. -Splash^talk 19:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • m:Polls are evil: actually there were 4 votes, but the purpose of the request I posted was to check that no-one had any substantive objectives to my phrasing of the agreement that had already been reached on the page. The failure to find substantive objections to a slight change in policy that remedied an apparent failure to capture encyclopediac content was what justified the change. The change was well-advertised, including at the Village Pump. --- Charles Stewart 19:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If one reads the entire section, starting at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Proposal to modify WP:NOT an image gallery, there are 8 commentors, 6 in favor and 2 opposed. And Charles Stewart gave three days warning before he made the rewording change. The rewording has been there for at three days without any complaint or comment. Dsmdgold 21:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Another note:I presume some or all of the images hinge on fair use claims. It's been considered for some time that mere collections of images, outside of the article to which they would refer, do not constitute fair use. -Splash^talk 19:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not looked. If your concerns are well-founded, they would justify pruning the gallery, but they would not vindicate the contested AfD, nor denying WP this encyclopediac content. --- Charles Stewart 19:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two images were fair use. One was GFDL. The rest were public domain because they were pre-1973 Soviet images. Dsmdgold 21:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Let be noted that I didn't delete the images and we're not arguing about the image merits, but what I deleted was the gathering and listing. As I suggested, adding a category Category:Socialist Realism would be a better way to gather this entries. Anyway, the content was already merged today into Socialist realism. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 21:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, until I merged the content, you orphaned a large number of images, which made them eligible for deletion. If I had not taken the precaution of savivng a copy of the page, it could not have been reconstructed in order to merge. If there was a consensus it was to transwiki and delete, which you did not do. Dsmdgold 21:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The status of the images is safe, and a transwiki for those that are acceptable in commons would be in ok; that said, although we cannot ensure that they will be accepted there. It does seem more appropriate that this page were a category page in commons, though. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do look at the argument against WPcommons and category pages, both of which were discussed at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Proposal to modify WP:NOT an image gallery. --- Charles Stewart 21:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Observe Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of illuminated manuscript images whose outcome was keep. --- Charles Stewart 21:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. The attempt to change a long-standing policy during the debate by collecting 3 or 4 'votes' and having 3 users discussing it and then to try here to retroactively apply that policy 'change' to users opinions effected before the change is far too much legalese. I do not consider the policy changed, and will probably reverse it pending a proper discussion: WP:ISNOT a repository of images. A collection of image is not an article. Those who cited WP:NOT in their comments were correct, those who called the policy 'misguided' and opted to keep based on a reverse interpretation of non-existent polic-change were wrong. It is reasonable to dismiss such comments: particularly those like CalJW's. Anyone can copy the PD images to Commons, it does not need a transwiki of the would-be article. In fact, Commons is interested in media not articles as I approx understand it, so the transwiki part of the comments are not important from this perspective: the images are still here. The closing admin got this right, those who forced a policy semi-change during the debate to retroactively apply it afterwards were wrong. -Splash^talk 21:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closing admin made no effort to indicate that he recognised the issue. I would not have made the criticisms I had of an admin who cited the issue and said the later remarks in the discussion had no bearing on the earlier delete votes. As it was, I regard the closing of the AfD as poorly executed. You have also not indicated what you think of the several AfD's that I pointed to in my previous comment that provided a precedent for the change I made to WP:NOT. --- Charles Stewart 22:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not dispute that the images are all still "here". They are for the moment. (However, if I had not merged the gallery, most of them would have been orphans and eventually deleted.). There is value to organization and annoatation of images. By merely deleting the article, without re-creating it elsewhere, the closing admin decreased the amount of knowleddge available to Wikipedia. I also find it a bit odd to suggest that a closing admin can ignore comments of editors merely because he or she disagrees with the reasoning of the comment. I also find it distressing that to think that a vote to transwiki has no meaning other than delete. It should be noted that one of those voting transwiki specified that "In any case, make sure we don't just lose this, it's excellent." Dsmdgold 23:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the closing admin had said the comments were irrelevant to the vote, I would still have taken the matter to DRV and said the AfD , but my criticisms would have been less sharp. I regard admins who ignore unanswered arguments to keep made in AfDs when closing to delete as a menace to WP. The ones who at least observe the existence of these arguments are much less malign, even when they make the same assessment. --- Charles Stewart 00:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've put up another link to the WP:NOT discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposed change to WP:NOT, following Brennemann's reversal of the change to WP:NOT I applied. --- Charles Stewart 00:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Upon further inspection, the article isn't encyclopedic, here is the entire content:

This is a gallery of paintings and images of architecture from the Socialist Realism school.

Click on each image for more details. An asterisk indicates that more information is available.

A whole bunch of images

See also:

• Social Realism
• List of statues of Lenin
• The First Tractor

This is exactly what Commons is here for. Reading the comments on the WP:NOT talk page does not leave me very convinced. That said, I don't object to a transwiki to Commons. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the structure of the page was bit more complex than that. It was

This is a gallery of paintings and images of architecture from the Socialist Realism school.

Click on each image for more details. An asterisk indicates that more information is available.

Lenin

10 images with captions

Stalin

7 images with captions

Ordinary life

10 images with captions

Scenes of Revolution and War

4 images with captions

Technology

3 images with captions

Propaganda

2 images with captions

Architecture

5 images with captions

Sculpture

8 images with captions

See also:

• Social Realism
• List of statues of Lenin
• The First Tractor

The gallery had more stucture than you are giving it credit for. Please leave your reasons for being unconvinced at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Proposal to modify WP:NOT an image gallery, I for one would appreciate a fuller discusion. Also can you point me to the portion of Commons that says part of their mission is to host image galleries for the Wikipedias? I can't find it. Dsmdgold 02:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted, valid closure. The images are still available. Recreate the gallery on Commons, as was indicated. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment could this be temporarily restored to User:Aaron Brenneman/Scratch/Gallery of Socialist Realism, please? I'd like to play with it a little bit, I'll slap a happy {{d}} on it when I'm finished. - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Temporary undelete as per nom. --IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 07:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. The so-called structure is pretty much a complete fit with how they do it at Commons, so put 'em there. If there's a fair-use question...well, we don't need 'em that badly. --Calton | Talk 11:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and relist on AfD in light of "new information": the changed WP:NOT policy. Turnstep 18:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The policy hasn't been changed yet. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted and transwiki images (undelete if you want to make transwikification easier for non-admins) I don't consider a change only discussed by a handful of people valid. If I knew about it I certainly would've voiced my opinion about it. Listing a number of images won't help people to understand the art any better then when its on the Commons, so I don't see how keeping the images in a gallery here is encyclopedic. If anyone wants to write an article to include them in (another thing for which the commons are great), I wouldn't stop them. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MYOB

The page was speedy deleted after a request was put in which stated This page was in error. MYOB is an accounts package, not internet slang as the redirect suggested.. While MYOB is an accounting package ([2]), it is also an abbreviation that is used as an internet slang term. See for example FOLDOC, the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary or any other reference found by OneLook. S.K. 00:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and created a disambiguation page at MYOB. I don't think this deletion review is necessary because there was no real content deleted. Rhobite 01:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. MYOB is an initialism that certainly predates the WWW, if not the Internet itself. Turnstep 18:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• MYOB is both a package and an initialism common to the net. The person who made the request to delete it was apparently in error, so I don't have a problem with this disamb. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 22

Global Resource Bank

• I vote for undeletion. The Global Resource Bank is the life-work of scientist John Pozzi. It is a non-profit scientific initiative of developing an ecological world economy. Monika Hoy, Germany (monipeperoni@netscape.net)
• I would like an undeletion of the article on the Global Resource Bank

VOTE: UNDELETE Global Resource Bank. /Lennart

• Vote for Undeletion/Swedenborg--Swedenborg 01:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this account has only been used until now to edit the DRV page. --- Charles Stewart 19:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). There is a valid AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Resource Bank. Primary issue noted by the discussion was a lack of reliable sources to provide verification of the article's claims. This nomination provides no new information or indication of procedural errors. --Allen3 ^talk 13:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Three votes isn't much for a non-speediable AfD. It's worth double-checking. Can we have a summary of the content here? --- Charles Stewart 16:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's still mirrored, more or less in its state when it was deleted the first time, here (and a gazillion other places). —Cryptic (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I should really rememember to look for caches. --- Charles Stewart 19:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure and subsequent speedy per Allen3. —Cryptic (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and userfy to my user space: the article as its stands fails to provide adequate evidence of notability, and has some personal-essayish qualities. It does speak to themes in green economics that I am familiar with, and according to this mail to the PKT list (Post-Keynesian Thought) [3], there were plans in 1996 to incorporate the bank, which would justify notability in my view. I know some people active in green economics, and can check out the claims, but I don't have time to do this now. I'd be willing to take this page under my wing and bring it up to WP standards or verify that the content cannot be made notable. --- Charles Stewart 19:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good enough for me. Undeleted and posted to User:Chalst/Global Resource Bank. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! --- Charles Stewart 22:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 21

Argentina v England (2005)

The AfD debate here shows 8 keeps and 11 deletes, and as such, no consensus for deletion. Since similar articles on cricket matches are routinely kept, I think this one should be undeleted as well.  Grue  13:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, undelete and redirect to Argentina and England football rivalry since the article is already merged. One thing to note here is that this should not have been merged before the AFD had completely run its course. Nonetheless, from reading the AFD debate I cannot see a consensus to delete the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close/ I make this 13 Delete / 5 Keep / 3 Merge. One of the merge votes explicitly indicated "delete" as a second choice, and so IMO can not be read as a keep vote. The other two comments advocating merge seems not to support the separate existance of this article, one said "Professional sports events happen every day...". Therefore I don't think they can be read as simple keep votes either. I think this is within the closer's judgement to close as a delete. However if soemoen wanted to create a new redirect at this title, that would NOT be "substantially similer" and so not subject to a speedy. The merge should not, IMO, have been done while the debate was in progress, however. DES ^(talk) 16:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose the notion that merges cannot be done while an article has been proposed for deletion. Wikipedia's normal editing processes should not be over-ridden in that way. Often, the best way to show how things should be done is to do it. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Matthew. Merging is a a sequence of normal edits, and if these are not good edits, anyone can revert them. There is no need for a rule against merging whilst an AfD is in process. --- Charles Stewart 15:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, things are a little more subtle than that, as pointed out below. If content is merged, then the GFDL requires we keep track of the history. This is most usually done by retaining a redirect where once there was an article. This means that, even in the face of an otherwise overwhelming delete (hypothetically, not in this case), those editors would have been overridden by another. Whether that is reasonable is an open question. There are other ways of (probably) meeting the GFDL in cases like this, such as copying the history to the target's talk page prior to deletion of the source. But I personally consider it good form to recommend a merge during the AfD but wait to see if the consensus is that Wikipedia would not retain the content at all. -Splash^talk 17:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • See the link to view deleted revisions? --SPUI (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed Splash is right, and I retract my comment. It is normally inappropriate to merge content from articles during an AfD. --- Charles Stewart 18:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure/keep deleted - Per DES - Tεxτurε 19:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete, improperly closed. No consensus for deletion. Feel free to merge and redirect. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close/Keep deleted Reasonable judgment call, per DES. --Calton | Talk 03:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close/Keep deleted Per DES. Merges should not be counted as keeps. Carbonite | Talk 15:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's blatantly not true, and contradicts the Deletion policy. Also, as this article was merged, GFDL requires that it's history is undeleted.  Grue  16:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In practice, it just doesn't make sense to count "merges" as "keeps". When I vote to "merge", I don't want an article to exist at that location. If I think the information could be useful in some article, a "merge" vote makes sense. If I wanted my vote counted as a "keep", I would have voted that way. Since your GFDL concerns are legitimate (from what I know about the license) I'd support having it as a redirect. Carbonite | Talk 17:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and make into redirect, per Grue's last point. Sam Vimes 16:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - as per Grue, deletion appears to consitute violation of GFDL, since it appears the content was merged. Also, since merges count as keeps, there was no consensus to delete. Guettarda 16:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn -as per Grue. --- Charles Stewart 16:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What, we can't merge the histories? Even if that is not possible, to avoid violating GFDL all that is required is to copy-paste the history into the talk of the target article. Even more if the information that was merged is widely and commonly available, then the pseron who merged it simply has to go and confirm the facts themselves and do a re-write, and again GFDL is preserved. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per above. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 00:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. Wikipedia:Deletion policy says merges are neither deletes nor keeps. However, since it is merged (a situation I don't think anyone minds terribly), something has to be done to satisfy GFDL. As a practical matter, I wouldn't oppose undeleting and redirecting. -- SCZenz 00:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the Deletion policy says nothing special about how to interpret "merge" comments when closing the discussion. The Guide to deletion, on the other hand, explicitly says that "Merge is a recommendation to keep the article's content but to move it ..." As a practical matter and largely guided by the requirement to maintain GFDL, "merge" opinions are routinely interpreted as a recommendation to "keep" the article history (that is to say, "not delete") even though they are not a recommendation to "keep the article as is". "Merge" is often a very nuanced opinion and can not be easily forced into a binary "keep" vs. "delete" framework. This is a good example of why mere vote-counting is bad. Rossami (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made my statement based on the sectionWikipedia:Deletion_policy#Commenting_on_a_listing_for_deletion, which categorizes merge as "other" than delete or keep. I admit it doesn't specifically say how to "interpret" them, and yes, I know the situation is nuanced. -- SCZenz 05:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment When I created the Argentina and England football rivalry article, I wrote the "2005 friendly" section from the ground-up, without any material from the existing article, and it has since been worked on and added to independently by other editors. I don't believe there *is* actually any material from that article in it, so I'm not sure how that counts as having been merged. Angmering 12:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and undelete. Not sure where the nom got that vote count, but I tally it as 5 keep, 11 delete, 1 delete/merge, 2 merge, and one merge/delete. Even without counting the merges as keeps, that's 12d to 5k, which is not a clear enough consensus. If we count the plain merges, it becomes 12d to 7k. I think the burden is on the merge voters to specify what their fallback position is (as only Reyk seems to have done here) so that their votes are clearly not a keep. Turnstep 18:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bronx underground

I would like an undeletion of the article on the Bronx Underground. The reasons for deletion were listed as "blatant self-promotional ad spam/link spam." This is simply untrue. The article was not self-promotional, merely a factual account of a local-interest in the Bronx, detailing one of the Bronx's most popular local music venues, and one of the most successful independent promoters in New York City. There were no opinions or values in the article, just facts. I don't think the reasoning behind this article's deletion is fair. - Mike corsillo 10:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted: The deleted page was Bronx underground. Looking at the deleted version I noted two links to the group's homepage, one link to their web forum, one link to a page containing samples from a soon to be released compilation CD, and zero independent sources to help show that this article might not have been written by a public relations department. While I am not sure that this article actually qualified as a proper speedy delete, I saw nothing in the article to suggest it would stand any chance of surviving an AfD. --Allen3 ^talk 14:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • While we do have links to our homepage and samples from our CD, what more would you ask from a small, independent promotions company. We don't even operate for profit, and do not have a public relations department. As independent sources show up, the article could be edited, but there are currently no publications other than the group's site that offer information on it. That is not to say the group is not well-known, just that it has not been written about. Anyway, if it didn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you shouldn't have deleted it.- Mike corsillo 21:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is the very definition of an article that should be soundly deleted by AfD. Wikipedia is not a substitute for your public relations department, and if you yourselves are the only source, then, per WP:V, you need to come back again when you are not. Anyone opting to keep this article in a hypothetical future AfD would need to have extraordinarily good reasons for violating two core policies. -Splash^talk 21:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Special:Undelete/Bronx Underground shows no deleted edit history. What article is this DRV about? --- Charles Stewart 20:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try Special:Undelete/Bronx underground. --Allen3 ^talk 22:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, thanks. --- Charles Stewart 15:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete/Overturn. The article may be an ad but that is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion. Rhobite 20:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. Inappropriate speedy deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The article will just be immediately listed on AfD and deleted anyway, especially since the author has made it perfectly clear that they are trying to use Wikipedia as their own private PR firm. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was not my intention by any means. I was in no way trying to use Wikipedia as a PR firm. We don't need a PR firm. I was just trying to contribute an unbiased article about what the Bronx Underground is. We have absolutely no desire to use this site as a PR firm. Maybe when I said we dont have PR department, I should have said we don't need one. All of our advertising is done by word of mouth. The entry does not give any information about show times or prices or list any of the merch we offer. The only reason it links to the website is because that makes sense. If the article does not survive the AfD, that is fine. But I don't appreciate being shafted based on speculation of its future.
  • I'm not into bureaucracy, but there's something to be said for following existing processes. Are you saying that because the AfD outcome appears to be obvious, we shouldn't even go through the motions? It has happened before that a subject which appeared to be headed for deletion turned out to be notable and turned into a good article. I'm not saying that's the case here, I'm just saying we shouldn't deviate from the AfD process on a whim. Rhobite 03:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and list on AfD: invalid speedy, deleted within 3 minutes of creation, article appears non-speediable. Non-speediable articles deserve their hearing on AfD, and the topic looks capable of attracting worthwhile content. Endorsing out of process speedies is not what Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy is about. --- Charles Stewart 15:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and Afd I suppose. Altho I fear the Afd may turn into a fiasco which nicely illustrates everything that's wrong with Afd. Friday (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and AfD, unless someone can point to a proper speedy criterion. If people think there are holes in the speedy process, they should be closed, not created as we go along on this page. -- SCZenz 00:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and afd. It is exactly this kind of invalid speedy that keeps the community from trusting administrators with an "obvious spam" or similar speedy criterion. —Cryptic (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beer boxing

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer boxing

I would like an undeletion of the most recent article on beer boxing. According to the Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy#To_request_that_a_page_.28or_image.29_be_restored " The speedy deletion criterion for "reposted content that was deleted according to deletion policy " only applies if the content is "substantially identical" (under any article title) — not if you added a lot of new information." Not only was the latest version of the article completely different from previous versions, but the original reasons for deletion are voided by the very fact that there is even a debate over its deletion. If the game of Beer Boxing is a notable enough drinking game to cause a debate, why is it not notable enough to warrant its own article? Furthermore, it is obvious to all who care to review the vote for deletion that half of the votes are for personal objection to the drinking game itself, rather than the content of the article or noteworthiness of the game. Lastly, should the notableness of the game remain under question, I would like to point out the arbitrariness of that judgement. Beer boxing is definitely as or more notable than many other drinking games listed. Mike corsillo 08:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, unless nominator can provide sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • what sources would you have me provide? all versions of the article have been deleted, but having never read previous versions of the article, the most recent version could not have possibly been identical in content or substance. furthermore, i have no way of proving the notableness of this game, nor any other. similarly, nobody can disprove it, thus qualifying the standards for what is notable as completely arbitrary. My argument speaks for itself. Mike corsillo 10:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for information on the types of sources that are typically looked for to support an article. I did a quick Google search to see if there was anything obvious to help support the article and found nothing but this. Unfortunately the only hit was on a site that accepts anonymous submissions, and is thus disqualified from being used as a source for a Wikipedia article. --Allen3 ^talk 14:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    If there are no other sites where people can look this up, isn't that even more reason for this site to allow information to be provided? I dont understand why an encyclopedia would only offer information that is already offered by other websites. Way to "be bold," everybody. -Mike corsillo 21:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    That is a crucial point. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source. It doens't create information (a primary source), and it doesn't report on the creation (a secondary source). It reports that others have found the information to be accurate and reliable (and encyclopedic). An encyclopedia that reported unsubstantiated material wouldn't be very encyclopedic, would it? It is very clear that you didn't read WP:V. As soon as you do, you will see exactly what is being said here. -Splash^talk 22:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion as per MacGyverMagic. --Allen3 ^talk 14:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trollaxor

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trollaxor

I would like a review of the AFD procedure for this article -- the verdict was no consensus and much of the voting appears suspicious. Not only has the article been deleted before, but it remains non-notable and unsuitable for Wikipedia and only remains because of the efforts of a group gaming the AFD system. My solution was to redirect it rather than delete it and try to force someone to take notice... which it least would spare the efforts of future AFDs after it was recreated, and avoid yet more running around in circles cleaning up junk. - Motor (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close of no consensus. AfD was conducted correctly. You're not wrong to try redirecting—anyone can do that—but it's clear from the article history that it's not gonna fly with the people who disagree with you. At 8-5 to delete (discounting user with 8 edits), you could AfD it again, but I'd personally recommend working out some sort of merge/redirect compromise on the talk page. -- SCZenz 01:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And Relist. If organized trolls are really the problem, then out-vote them. But I can't see a justification for discounting them—perhaps someone can explain? -- SCZenz 21:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete almost a speedy. Those voting keep seem to be a part of some organised group of trolls (except Trollderella, who is just an extreme inclusionist).  Grue  13:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's an indication of the sorry state that we're in that advocating following policy is 'extremism'. Trollderella 23:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And what policy would that be? --Calton | Talk 23:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete, concur with Grue. android79 15:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, seriously consider merging this at the talkpage or be bold and do it (several said delete or merge, so merging is also reasonable). Closure seems to be within reasonable discretion, and not liking some of the people who voted "keep" is not a valid reason to discount them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete also meets at least one speedy criteria. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete per Andrew Lenahan and  Grue . Dpbsmith (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete as above - Tεxτurε 19:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. Clearly, by virtue of the AFD, not a speedy candidate. Feel free to renominate. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. All the keeps except Trollderella's are from gnaa members. —Cryptic (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete, as those above. violet/riga (t) 20:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. I am not sure if I am allowed to vote here, and only found this accidentally. I think it is inappropriate to try to overturn the accepted process in this way. This is supposed to be about articles, not people, the votes by GNAA members do not appear to be invalid, claiming so is an ad hominem attack. Trollderella 21:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete, but not because the Afd was done wrong. The closure as a "no consensus" was reasonable, although not what I would have done. Of course, the article could also be speedied right now as a perfectly valid A7. Friday (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  So you don't think that the afd was wrong? It's clearly not a valid CSD, so you're really just saying you disagree with the result. Trollderella 22:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose that CSD A7 doesn't explicitly say that when it talks about articles making a claim of notability, it pertains to a notion of notability that stems from the community as a whole, rather than the ideas of the particular deleting admin. That seems rather obviously true, however. If the community has just now come to no consensus about whether a subject is notable, it would seem obvious that A7 does not apply. Friday's application of the unilateral admin action model here is probably unwise. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  What application of the "unilateral admin action model"? I didn't delete it, did I? I merely stated an opinion that an A7 could be applied here. But, I'll be clear: the reason I say "overturn and delete" is that Afd produced the wrong answer in this case. I'm not against doing a deletion "in process" either, altho at this point I'm not sure how that's possible. If we start another Afd tomorrow and it's closed as a delete, we'll still have people complaining that the second Afd was invalid because of the previous "no consensus" closure. But, if we want to look at the Afd process, I could say that it was tainted by troll involvement. Of course, this is a judgement call and it's a bit rude to those we're calling trolls, right? Friday (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  By "application of the unilateral admin action model" I meant your statement that the article would be a valid A7 -- to say this implies your belief that an admin can determine that an article doesn't make a claim of notability, even when the sense of the community has been determined (to whatever degree), and the community of users does not agree that there is no such claim. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  What I meant was, someone looking at it could reasonably say "Gosh, writing on websites isn't an assertion of notability". Thus, it's an A7. I'm not going to delete it as an A7 because I know it's being discussed, and deleting it right now would be rude to other editors. Also, I fully realize that other reasonable editors could look at this article and decide it's not an A7 speedy. Friday (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am disturbed that most of the votes here are based on opinion, rather than process, which is contrary to what Deletion Review is for. I have a few questions that I'd like to see addressed:
  1. Is this really a legitimate speedy delete? It seems that at least a few people think the article contains assertions of notability, at which point WP:CSD A7 says it should go to AfD.
  2. Can editors be discounted merely because of their afilliation with whatever organized trolling group? I see no reason for this.
• I'm the first person to say this article should be deleted, but I say do it within process. Anyone care to explain why we shouldn't, as is apparently going to happen? -- SCZenz 23:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The point here is not whether this article should stay or go, that's what AFD is for. It is the attempt to hijack process by a small group who can't accept a community decision. Trollderella 23:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's irony for you. --Calton | Talk 23:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm dissapointed by any claims that editor's recommendations should be discounted simply because of who they are. I don't care if someone is a GNAA sleeper admin who is secretly impregnating our life parters to breed an army of child-eating Liberal voters, if they present a coherent assertion we should listen to it. In this instance that was not done, with some simply saying "keep". Thus Overturn and delete because AfD is not a vote, and compelling arguments were not presented. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is sound, up until you make the case that because you don't like the reasons given then the community can be ignored. If you think it should be deleted, list it again and get a concensus. Trollderella 00:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I wasn't aware of the alleged GNAA "trolling" until I was informed about it after I closed the debate, so if the decision is overturned, there won't be any opposition from me. No vote. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 00:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be using the word 'troll' in the sense of 'voting in a way I don't like'. That's disturbing. If you don't like the outcome of AFD, relist, don't try a backdoor to try to work around a community decision. Trollderella 00:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion either way. I was merely stating that, before closure, I wasn't aware of what is now being argued by those in favor of overturning. Hence, I didn't vote. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 00:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. Motor is right: some of the "Keep" votes on the AfD are highly-suspect, being low-usage accounts set up primarily for voting on AfDs, as careful examination of their contribution history shows. However, this depth of scrutiny cannot be expected from an admin closing an AfD, and even with this additional information it is not obvious whether these dubious "Keep" votes can be legitimately discarded. Robert was right to close this as a no-consensus. If you do decide to re-nominate the article, I hope we'll get enough participation as to make the few sock- or meat-puppets' votes irrelevant. Owen× ☎ 16:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not correct, I'm afraid. The notion that cursorily closing complex AfDs is ok is profoundly wrong. If an admin hasn't the time required to do the job properly, they should steer very well clear of the job. -Splash^talk 21:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close of no consensus. AfD was conducted correctly. Please respect community decisions and stop accusing everyone who voted keep to be a sock/meat puppet. Give proofs or shut up. -- Femmina 16:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "few sockpuppets" =/= "accusing everyone who voted keep to be a sock/meat puppet", no matter how you bend the English language. --Calton | Talk 23:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that my objections stem from the fact that simply saying "keep" should be discounted by any closing admin, regardless of whom it originates from. It's not a vote. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. Looks like for the GNAA and their War on Blogs, some websites are more equal than others. --Calton | Talk 23:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. Looking at the VfD, I see what looks like bloc voting by GNAA members, and no reasoning by the "keep" voters. --Carnildo 00:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think this should be used as an opportunity to vent frustration at editors you don't like. If you disagree with the outcome, re-list it. Trollderella 01:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the purported trolls lift their game and put "Keep - per nominator, this author is notable per [some evidentiary link]" than we wouldn't be having this discussion. The quality of the anti-blog nominations they were making went up when prompted, there is no reason that almost anyone can't be molded into a good contributor. brenneman^(t)(c) 01:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If deletion policy mentioned 'notability' even once your point might be relevant. If you don't like the result of a community process, re-run it. Trollderella 16:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Forget notability, I don't see how Trollaxor is verifiable, and that IS a policy. There's discussion on the talk page about it. My position is that his own postings do not make him verifiable. Friday (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, if your position is that it was misnominated, then we should re-nominate it for a reason that is relevant to deletion policy, not overturn the result. Trollderella 17:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I would overturn and delete, since it is a valid A7, but since there have been complaints about it, the only course of action that I consider appropriate is a relist with a minimum participation treshhold, like done for GNAA. Titoxd^(?!?) 17:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete, discounting obvious role accounts is good practice. Contrary to what OwenX says, such scrutiny is appropriate, and if an AFD closer neglects it, then deletion review is appropriate. Radiant_>|< 18:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete in accordance with the reasoning advanced by Radiant! and Aaron Brenneman, particularly Aaron Brenneman's. Plus, as I see it, even if there was no consensus to delete, there was a consensus (Motor, Starblind, and Friday in explicit agreement with several others in implied agreement, and only Skrewler in explicit disagreement) that it constituted vanity, which overrides the consensus. Plus, I see a more clearly articulated consensus that the subject matter is unnoteworthy, and interpretations of de jure policy notwithstanding (I, for instance, believe WP:NOT and the deletion policy both explicitly establish non-notability as grounds for deletion), it's de facto part of the deletion policy. In all, I believe a consensus was reached, and that consensus was for deletion. The Literate Engineer 01:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as the AfD was valid, and no new information has been presented. Although some of the accounts were young, none were created after the AfD as far as I can tell. This is a very close call however, and while we should respect the closing admin's decision, I would strongly recommend an immediate relisting. Turnstep 19:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 20

United Bimmer

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Bimmer

Would it be possible to undelete this article? It was created by a member to explain the history and foundation of our community. It's a very tight-knit group of members, and this article has been referenced many times explaining people who we are and where we came from. There's no advertising in here, as it's simply informative about the history of an organization, which I feel is appropriate in an Encyclopedia.

• Endorse clsoe (keep deleted). The AfD looks valid, and being a "tight-knit group" if anything suggests lack of intest to thsoe outsiede the group. wikipedia is not a free hosting service, an article describing the group for the benefit of those interested in jopining properly belongs on your own web site. I see no independent sources cited in the article, and no indication that it is in any way notable to anyoen outside the group. If you have such info, create a new article which cites it and expalins how the gorup is significant to those who are not members. DES ^(talk) 17:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted valid (and unanimous) AfD! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

contingent work

Can we undelete this article? There doesn't appear to be any valid reason for its deletion. Sure, the name of the article is something of a neologism, but one which is frequently used when discussing social issues, comparing contingent work with proper jobs.

We do have an article about McJobs, which is also a neologism, and admittedly the two subjects have a fair bit of common ground. However, a serious commentator on employment policy wouldn't use the term McJobs. I think there is enough ground for them to be two separate articles.

To be honest, I don't understand why Wikipedia doesn't want people to know what contingent work is, and the history behind it. Squashy 10:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To put this into context: Contingent work was the subject of a VfD in July 2005, and the result was its deletion. Squashy created a new article, which I deleted, explaining to him the reasons. He then recreated it, as well as asking for it to be undeleted here. Let's assume that that that was a mistake of some kind; still, the proper thing for him to do now is to follow the prescribed course. I did advise him to take it to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete and relist. The majority of the comments in the original AfD debate labeled the initially deleted version of the article as an essay or original research, with the minority opinion claiming the article was savable but needed to go through cleanup. Squashy's new version appears to be a complete rewrite that does not suffer from the original's problem of being a personal essay. As such, I do not believe that a speedy deletion as recreation of previously deleted material is justified. --Allen3 ^talk 12:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete -- invalid speedy deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and relist". Don't recreate without good reason, a re-write is good reason.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 14:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for the comments so far. I appreciate that the article I've written is far from perfect - and I haven't cited any sources yet - however, the majority of the votes in favour of its deletion were concerned with its content - that it was a personal essay - and not due to any inherent flaw in having an article on the subject in the first place. I appreciate that it's a neologism - but then again, so are many of the articles at Category:Neologisms - that's not a good enough reason to keep it deleted, in my opinion. I have created this article from scratch, without having access to the original article which was deleted before it - however, I have lost some of my most recent edits to it. Thanks. Squashy 15:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the speedy deletion. The first deletion was in order as deletion of a personal essay (and, in my opinion, probably copyvio). The versions created beginning on 15 Nov 2005 were not substantially similar content. The speedy delete criterion should not have applied. As for the most recent version, I see no reason to immediately list it for AFD. It's a new article that still needs cleanup but that's normal. The topic is certainly relevant and encyclopedic since a number of reputable articles have links to it. Rossami (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The consensus seems clear, so I've undeleted the article, But I'm not sure if a relist is appropriate, so I'll leave that still under consideration. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hellogoodbye

Can we please get this undeleted? The page is now redirected to a Beatles song, which is just incorrect. The original page was deleted. At the RFD debate, it was claimed it didn't meet WP:MUSIC. This is untrue, however, the band has "gone on ... a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country", that country being the US (see hellogoodbye's site [4]), and has been "prominently featured in any major music media" (receiving plenty of press coverage including [Alternative Press [5] and their video on MTV). Whatsmore, there are over 300,000 hits on Google and they are signed to a major label (Drivethru Records). Additionally, they've only released an EP and a DVD: not quite the 2 albums suggested, but not far off. Halo 12:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist. New information, plus very little attention/research in AfD debate. -- SCZenz 15:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, relist per new information. Turnstep 17:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist, as the information above was not mentioend in the AfD debate. DES ^(talk) 19:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 19

CrystalCherry

Needs to be returned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherryrain (talk • contribs) 06:06, 2005 November 19 (UTC)

Why? --Nlu 06:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Update. Relevant pages:
  • Special:Undelete/Crystalcherry
  • Special:Undelete/CrystalCherry
  • Special:Undelete/Brooke Anne Burns
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CrystalCherry
  • Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/CrystalCherry
• As far as I can see, the AFD was properly closed in accordance with WP policies. As no new information has been put forward that may persuade us of the need for another consideration of the article, I am unable to see why a restoration is merited. The original suffered from serious problems with WP:V, a central articlespace policy. Pages that do not conform to the verifiability requirements of the encyclopedia should be removed. I note that GregAsche, who re-deleted the article, claimed that it was also contravened copyright. Endorse delete decision with no prejudice to a recreation that complies with article policy; submission of pertinent new information may lead me to revise this opinion. Kind regards encephalon 06:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Reasons provided on Talk:Crystalcherry. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete IMMEDIATELY This was voted to be deleted just two weeks ago. Nothing has changed since. This person can not be confirmed to exist. Delete immediately.Vulturell 07:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Deletion was done properly, nothing has changed the subject is still Non notable --pgk^(talk) 08:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral This page is in the middle of conflict not because of any real policy violation or legitimate concern, but because the main contributor is not a good wikipedian, and others are reacting far too strongly to her (Cherryrain). I am convinced that if the contributors and editors were actually willing to work together, instead of fighting, a real, informative and good wikipedia article could be created. That would lead me to suggest this article should exist. However, as the reality is that a good article cannot be created in the environment we have today (massive conflicts and fighting about every aspect of the article) it should probably remain deleted. It is sad to see an article deleted because of infighting, though. (This is all my own views, of course, from observing the clashes between editors) — Fudoreaper 10:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strongly endorse original deletion - for reasons put forward in original AfD. User:Cherryrain has been asked on numerous occasions to provide proof for her claims WRT CrystalCherry and as yet has been unable to provide a single reliable reference. --Kurt Shaped Box 11:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and keep deleted. The main issue about the article isn't the contents as such, but the fact that CrystalCherry didn't pass WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Keep deleted until proper sources can be provided to warrant undeletion. Bjelleklang - talk 11:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted as valid AfD (very recently too) and Unlist since nominator did not give any reason for undeletion whatsoever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and protection from re-creation unless a shred of evidence from a reliable source is provided that this person meets WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. See also Special:Undelete/CherryRain, Special:Undelete/Cherryrain, and User:CrystalCherry, and User:Cherryrain, where this has also been re-created; and Special:Contributions/CrystalCherry, Special:Contributions/Crystalcherry, and Special:Contributions/Cherryrain - while some of these usernames have edits that aren't directly promotional of this person, they're few and far between. —Cryptic (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and keep deleted - per failure to meet basic verifiability standards - let alone any question of notability. FCYTravis 17:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close, keep deleted. Valid AfD, article fails verifiability, no new information since the AfD has been produced that would show that the article meets WP:V, and WP:BIO (or WP:MUSIC). Dpbsmith (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, why are we even bothering to debate this?--Kat fletchers smug face 17:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete again and keep that way until some event can be shown to change notability status (and even then, we should have a discussion before we put the page back). I also hope that after this some of the users here will help keep tabs on this user, as it's pretty obvious now that she's pushing a personal agenda. --InShaneee 20:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted proper AFD, no valid reason has been presented to why this should be undeleted. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 06:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Brooke Anne Burns is another place this article has been posted. I linked it above. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Peppers

The page is protected, and, judging from the talk page, it looks like there is significant support for unprotection. zellin t / c 03:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFD discussion - note: this link also covers several subsequent discussions. Apparently, the discussion was twice improperly restarted on the same page rather than creating new discussion pages.

• Strong oppose. The same reasons why it doesn't belong still exist, however. The fact that we have "significant support for unprotection" (almost all of it from anonymous IPs) doesn't mean that it should be undeleted. It will be a magnet for vandalism, and there is no way to do it tastefully. Wikipedia does not have to go with the flow of the Internet on this. --Nlu 03:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the original deletion and the subsequent speedy-deletion as re-created content. This "article" has no place in Wikipedia. Looking at the pervasive history of vandalism through the page history, I also endorse the protection of the page to prevent re-creation. Rossami (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deleted valid VfD. Also, some topics just plain aren't encyclopedic. Peppers did something naughty. Nobody seems to know the exact nature of his crime, but it couldn't possibly have been anything earth-shattering, since he only got 30 days for it. He also happens to have some sort of condition or physical deformity. That's it. Fails WP:BIO by a wide margin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Valid AfD. BDAbramson T 16:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• See Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Vandalism is specifically listed as a Problem that does not require deletion. WP:BIO is not an official policy. If it was, we would have a lot less articles now. There certainly is a way to do it tastefully! The reason why many feel he deserves an article is not because he is a minor sex offender and not even because he has a minor deformity but because he is an internet phenomenon. He is certainly notable enough for Wikipedia on those grounds. zellin t / c 17:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted - This alleged "Internet phenomenon" fails to live up to the standards of "It's a trap!" or "All your base" or whatever. "Brian Peppers" gets just 26,900 Google hits. Compare "All your base" scoring nearly 1 million. Wikipedia is not a repository for anything anyone ever laughed at on a forum. I expect alleged Internet phenomena to display an above-average level of interest to be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. FCYTravis 17:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted, per FCYTravis.--Sean|Black 21:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Not every "internet phenomenon" is worth documenting in an encyclopedia, as I've already argued on the talk page. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-19 21:53:10Z
• Endorse, keep deleted. Process-wise, it is a valid deletion/protection against recreation, and content-wise, please, it is an attack page/non-notable bio. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Making fun of someone for looking bizarre is NOT encyclopaedic. The 30-day jail sentence is just a red herring; are you listing all the other non-notable sex offenders who received a minor 30-day sentence? Also, by the wording, simply touching a person on the thigh could constitute a "sex offense." I'm not endorsing this person, just saying that the only reason this became a minor internet phenomenon is because of what this person looks likeRyoung122 23:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The deleted content is being effectively re-created in the article's Talk page. It is unusual to re-delete an article's Talk page especially since the "protected" template explicitly says "talk about it there" but it may be appropriate in this case to clean out and protect the Talk page as well. Rossami (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It is obvious that this is a lost cause but I just want to point out:

To the people who said he served a 30-day sentence and is thus not notable, no one would argue he is notable on those grounds. He is notable because he is an internet phenomenon.

And, sure, it is not up to All your base but is Sealand up to China? Of course not but the fact that we have such a comprehensive article on Sealand is part of the reason why Wikipedia is so great. zellin t / c 17:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fúsíjama Basketball Club International

This was a infopage about my basketball team in Iceland. Not quite sure why it was deleted but if someone thinks this was just a ego boost or something, this basketball team played in the 2nd league in the Icelandic division. Please undelete :) Einzi

No article by that exact title was ever created or deleted. Could you perhaps have mistyped the title? Rossami (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could be .. chanced the name to a right title ( I hope ) Einzi 11:24, 19 November 2005 (GMT)

Thank you. [article] and AFD discussion

• Undelete and list on AfD - I vote for this page to be undelated. The info found on the page was historicly accurate and not meant to be an ego boost in any way. --- Sturlast 11:48, 19 November 2005
• Endorse Hm. Valid AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fúsíjama_Basketball_Club_International, and though the team claims to be playing in the 2nd division (third level) of Icelandic basketball [6], I can find no evidence of that at the neutral source here: [7] (or maybe it's me not understanding Icelandic properly). Overturn and relist. New information brought to light. Sam Vimes 13:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allthough the name Fúsíjama can't be found we played under the flags of Reynir Hnífsdal to avoid troubleling paperwork and expenses. [8] Einzi 15:09, 19 November 2005 (GMT)
• Endorse, keep deleted. Have to agree with Sam Vimes. In general, amateur sports clubs are not considered to be valid topics, you almost need to either be, or been, in the top league to be considered unless the sport is really major in that country. The premier league basketball clubs in Iceland are OK topics, amateur clubs are just to numerous. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete The team played in the Icelandic 2nd division from 1999-2005 [9]. The team is registered under the name Reynir Hnífsdal, as the Icelandic Sport Federation does not allow teams to compete under foreign names in domestic leagues. It was however widly recognised under the name Fúsíjama as can been seen here on KKÍ´s homepage [10] (KKÍ is the Icelandic Basketball Federation). The reason for the deletion is said to be that it could not be confirmed that Fúsíjama actually played in official divsion, I belive that should be comfirmed now. Also I disgree with that only major clubs should be allowed on Wikipedia. The goal of Wikipedia is to create, among others, the largest encyclopedia in history in both breadth and depth. Discriminating official sport teams because they haven´t reached the top level of their country´s competition, and even if they are a fairly well known team in their country, is by my opinion at least, not in the spirit of that goal. Sturlast 18:57, 19 November 2005 (GMT).
  • Fair point. At least that's new, verifiable information, and the judgment of whether that is notable enough for WP should be done at AfD, not here. I would suggest you rewrote it, though, because from what I could gather from the AfD nomination the content was violating NPOV Sam Vimes 19:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 18

Megan racing

Not sure why this would be deleted. Visible content was: 'http://www.meganracing.com/Megan Racing produces a number of aftermarket automotive parts, mostly for the import "tuner" demographic. Their workman...' Kappa 00:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Off the top of my head, I'd say it was deleted for being blatant advertizing. Are you really suggesting it should be undeleted? Friday (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the advertising? Kappa 07:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It qualifies to have an {{empty}} speedy delete tag thrown on it, I think. -- SCZenz 01:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What context is it lacking? Kappa 07:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Location of the thing, maybe? Exact nature of business? It "produces" -- as a factory, refurbisher, customizer? Just a suggestion. Xoloz 08:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Entire content was

Megan Racing produces a number of aftermarket automotive parts, mostly for the import "tuner" demographic. Their workmanship is good, despite their reputation as a "generic" brand, and their prices are considerably lower than similar products made by better known companies, like Spoon, Greddy, and AEM.

Their product line includes full stainless-steel catback exhaust systems, strut braces, and other automotive parts--both cosmetic and performance-oriented.

Doesn't stand much chance of surviving an AFD if undeleted really, and "their prices are considerably lower than similar products made by better known companies" does sound promotional. Whether it meets any speedy criteria is doubtful, but I cannot see that it has much chance of surviving an AFD. Abstain. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the full text. Looks pretty fixable to me. Kappa 17:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete and list on AfD - Invalid speedy (reason not stated, deleted 8 minutes after creation, not speediable in any case), and non-speediable articles deserve a proper hearing. --- Charles Stewart 14:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and list on AfD. Spam, but not technically speediable. -- SCZenz 17:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted, but allow recreation. The page as it seems sounds too promotional, and it lacks sufficient context (it fails to answer "Where is it from?" to be begin with), so it is speediable under CSD A1. That said, if a better article can be written, it should not be speedied as a G4. Titoxd^(?!?) 17:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  The page specifies the domain www.meganracing.com, which is of a company that the article is clearly about. Given this, CSD A1 is clearly inapplicable. --- Charles Stewart 21:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete; out of process speedy deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted Article fails to specify any place of business -- even the country of business -- and is a borderline speedy in my view (as in, "I wouldn't speedy it, but I won't overturn another's speedy of it.") Xoloz 22:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted obvious spam. WP != yellow pages. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: is obvious spam speediable? I looked around and didn't see anything that said that, but maybe I missed it. -- SCZenz 16:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted per Wile Heresiarch. *drew 03:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse/Keep deleted - spam per above - Tεxτurε 19:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. I've had it with anons like this wandering onto this site and breaking the rules by posting this kind of nonsense and then we all sit around debating it. Is this useful information? Potentially, maybe. As it is, no. - Lucky 6.9 02:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Valid A1 speedy; an external link does not by itself constitute context. —Cryptic (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. While the speedy deletion was probably not within the letter of the criteria, we seem to have just had a substantial discussion about the merits of the article (see ↑ above) and it seems quite likely what the outcome of an AfD would be. The article has received more attention and comments here than it would on AfD. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 17

November 14

Category:Soviet spies

Was not deleted and split due to lack of consensus on CfD. This fact is immaterial, as the category is hopelessly POV, and the community is not empowered to vote away NPOV rules. Phil Sandifer 06:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Edit: I'm saying that the category should be deleted or split regardless of supposed consensus or lack thereof, because it is in flat violation of existing policy, and a CfD vote cannot overrule NPOV. Phil Sandifer 07:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm confused: what's being asked here? --Calton | Talk 07:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that Snowspinner is requesting a review of the closing of the CfD vote based on a supposed lack of consensus, because the category is inherently based on a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. The category includes individuals who have not been convicted of or even charged with spying, such as Harry Magdoff. As it was pointed out in the CfD discussion, the existence of this category puts Wikipeida at risk for a defamation suit. 172 07:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought this page was for review of stuff that's been deleted already, not a second shot at AfD or CfD.
    • In any case, I suggest being bold:
      • Create new, more appropriately labelled categories (Say, Category:Accused Soviet spies or whatever)
      • Nuke Category:Soviet spies from pages where it doesn't belong, like Harry Magdoff, since it isn't accurate. If someone complains, tell them, Hey, you wanted the category but you have to apply it properly.
    • There's more than one way to skin an NPOV cat, as it were. --Calton | Talk 07:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, however when clear evidence that something is not NPOV has been provided, it has to go, and no amount of foot-stamping can make a difference. I would have simply been bold, but I'm tired of the backbiting that ensues when one is bold in ways that people disagree with. Phil Sandifer 07:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • • Shrug. Like the Nike slogan goes, Just Do It. Like I said, if the supporters want the category, they have to use it properly (make bed, lie in it, etc) instead of using it as a kind of McCarthyite club to beat their opponents with. BTW, I went ahead and created Category:Accused Soviet spies: I'd populate it immediately, but I gotta go now. --Calton | Talk 08:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This page isn't just for review of what's deleted; it is for reviewing any decision related to deletion. So yes, a close-as-no-consensus is reviewable, especially if the object to be deleted is in violation of one of our core policies. But here the problem doesn't seem to be the existence of the cat, but the fact that it's used wrongly. I'd say a viable solution would be to rename the cat to Category:Alleged Soviet spies and put in a cat redir, then add a cat Category:Convicted Soviet spies. Radiant_>|< 10:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the problem is that just such a proposal was made, but the decision was "no consensus" at CfD. Hence, Snowspinner's request here. --Calton | Talk 23:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• As usual, Radiant is correct. Great idea! Xoloz 19:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close do not delete or rename out of process. While snowspinner is correct that a consensus on CfD cannot over-ride the NPOV policy, the question of whether this category is inherently PoV, or is simply being used in a PoV way, or indeeed is neither, is a factual question, properly to be determind by the specific consensus in a CfD discussion. This should remain until theere is a consensus to rename or delete it. I woudl advise submitting a new ans separate CfD nomination aimed specifically at a rename as a first step towards User:Radiant's solution. Remember that unlike articels, categorys are only suppsoed to be renamed by consensus, and that CfD handles renames as well as deletions. If anyone incorrectly applies "Be Bold" to this non-editing action, and renames or deletes this category unilaterally, the action should be summeraily reversed and the actor admonished at a minimum. DES ^(talk) 20:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the case of a contentious topic and what it would be understatement to call "serious questions" about the fairness of the trials and judicial system on, I think the POV questions are pretty clear cut. Phil Sandifer 00:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, moving of categories is handled at CfD, but that's largely only a convenience as far as I know. Moving articles to a different category is an editing action, and can be done at any time by anyone who thinks it improves the Wiki. All the stuff in this category needs to be fixed regardless of the AfD result, and be bold clearly applies. -- SCZenz 02:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I've gone ahead and been bold in recategorizing several people for whom there is no evidence of an admission of espionage or a conviction for an espionage-related crime. FCYTravis 01:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mazel tov. Each of the articles is watched by a contingent of editors with a quite a strong ideological bent. If bets were being taken on Wikipedia, I'd place a pretty large sum on your efforts at recategorizing some of the individuals getting reverted in no less than 12 hours. 172 01:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What, to me, is really ugly, are all the people pages named "John Doe (spy)" - that's just a flat-out accusation in the very page title. FCYTravis 02:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've done some recategorizing myself, and Lord, it's a mess: I can see why Snowspinner was bothered by this. Many of the ones I've come across are so blatantly POV, like the one that began, Samuel Dickstein (5 February 1885 - 22 April 1954) was a Democratic Congressional Representative from New York, a New York State Supreme Court Justice, and spy for the Soviet Union, whose only proof or backing was "The VENONA Project says so."
      • Click around on articles from Category:Soviet spies and you'll find far worse examples, substubs beginning with the form "NAME graduated from UNIVERSITY. In 19XX, he worked for AGENCY, and was a Soviet spy"; they usually contain little actual biographical detail (missing things such as, you know, YEAR of birth or death, actual life accomplishments or jobs, legal entanglements or verdicts, etc.); nothing except "SPY SPY SPY says the Venona Project".
      • And if the cats get reverted; well, the reverters with strong ideological bent wouldn't have a policy leg to stand on, since NPOV trumps their ideology every time. --Calton | Talk 02:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close of no consensus: As DES said, there is no POV violation in the existence of the category, only in the part of the pages that includes them in the category. Good for FCYTRavis in fixing. The CfD discussion (which had no delete votes besides the proposer, only keep and rename votes) has a suggestion by User:TJive to start the category Category:Americans named in VENONA, which seems appropriate here. --- Charles Stewart 19:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Afterthought: there already is List of Americans in the Venona papers. Would WP benefit from a category duplicating this list? It's easier to police a list from mischief. --- Charles Stewart 19:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We already have categories for people listed in the VENONA files, under more neutral names than something like "Soviet spies".--Fastfission 16:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • My question is rather, should we have any such categories? It looks to me that the list is all that WP should have, given the suspect nature of the claims made. If no, then we should CfD the categories. --- Charles Stewart 15:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Mimi Yu: kept deleted, no prejudice against recreation if sources are given
2. Body parts slang: kept deleted
3. Bananas come from Pluto: kept deleted
4. Rules of Make Believe: kept deleted
5. Innovism: kept deleted
6. Leeroy Jenkins: kept redirected, since after a lengthy discussion there was no majority, let alone a consensus, to overturn.
7. Yoism: kept deleted
8. Fuckfrance: kept deleted.
9. GnuFU: undeleted, pending transwiki to Wikibooks.
10. Niki Ashton: speedy undeleted and posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niki Ashton.
11. Nayla bint Farasa: kept deleted
12. Regret: speedy undeleted, not posted AFD; G4 speedy was invalid, as article was entirely different from the originally deleted one
13. William Renner: kept deleted
14. Diary-X: undeleted, posted at AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diary-X 2
15. Linen closet: invalid, article was never deleted, remains a redirect
16. Songs in triple meter: Kept deleted, although a similar page was creaed and now at AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs in triple meter (1990-1999)
17. Golden Sun Password: kept deleted; option remains open for transwiki, though consensus seems to be that no wiki will likely want it

This page is about articles, not about people. If you feel that a sysop is routinely deleting articles prematurely, or otherwise abusing their powers, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at Wikipedia talk:Administrators. Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.

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

November 27, 2005

Judeofascism and Judeofascism (term)

I would like to see the content of deleted articles Judeofascism and Judeofascism (term) in order to assess the merits of (1) undeleting the latter, more recent article and (2) assessing to what extent the AfD arguments in favor of deleting the former article are applicable to the latter. TIA, --FRS 01:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 25, 2005

Beer Boxing

I would like to request a copy of the content of the beer_boxing article. I would like to use the content to create articles on the subject elsewhere in hopes that the article will eventually be verifiable and thus qualified to be placed on Wikipedia. Mike corsillo 01:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I personally am not going to grant this. The material was deleted, and kept deleted. The statement means either that the material is going to be reinserted to Wikipedia elsewhere which is inappropriate, or that the material will be used elsewhere entirely which is inappropriate because of license restrictions: and fundamentally misunderstands that posting content deleted here elsewhere on the 'net and then pointing to it for verifiability is not the way to go about it. So this time, no, this admin at least will not provide the content. -Splash^talk 01:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What the fuck? Did you look at the history? He apparently wrote it. --SPUI (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Please observe WP:CIV. El_C 04:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

indeed, i did write it. also, i was told that if i want the article to be published on wikipedia it first has to be published on other peer reviewed sites and journals, etc. also, since i wrote it, i would like a copy of what i wrote so that i could at least use the article to explain to people what the game is, since they wont be able to find an explanation on this site. its not going to be reinserted anywhere on wikipedia until i feel its appropriate to do so, meaning the article is able to be verified according to wikipedia standards. give me a god damn break. Mike corsillo 20:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When that time comes, this is the place you'd go to, right? El_C 04:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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.
• Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.

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.

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

November 26, 2005

Interchanges on Ontario provincial highway 401

→ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interchanges on Ontario provincial highway 401

I have tentatively undeleted this and was then notified on my talk page that I should mention this here. I believe there were enough keep votes in the deletion "debate" to warrant keeping this article on the grounds of lack of consensus to delete. I put "debate" in quotation marks because the keep votes were the only ones giving arguments, while the delete votes almost universally said nothing other than "roadcruft". Furthermore, there have been two speedy keep votes and at least two early attempts to speedy-keep the article; I would have been the third to vote speedy keep if I had participated in the "discussion". I didn't because I saw enough keep votes that I didn't think it would be deleted. — Timwi 12:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I re-deleted this. I've no opinion on the article or the legitimacy of the AfD closing, but this is 'Deletion review' not 'undeletion homologation'. Let it be decided here as to whether the stay deleted or not. --Doc ^ask? 17:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn undeletion (Endorse original AfD). Valid AfD (30 deletes/11 keep/9 merge/1 anon) with a note in the discussion that the information had been merged into Ontario provincial highway 401 during the course of the discussion. As a result of the incorporation of the material into the parent article the only potential difference between deletion and a merge is the creation of a redirect. As the article's name is fairly cumbersome, a decision to delete instead of creating a redirect was within reasonable bounds of administrator discretion. Examination of the merged article does not show any obvious need for splitting things out based on article size. It should also be noted that there were at least as many references to WP:NOT by persons supporting deletion as use of the term roadcruft, so a reason for deletion based on core Wikipedia policies was available for anyone wishing to find it. --Allen3 ^talk 14:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse / KD. Timwi, please read up on our deletion policy. There have been some proposals along the lines of "anything with 5 or more keep votes is automatically kept" but all of these have been rejected. And despite your claim I notice several 'delete' votes with lengthy explanations. Radiant_>|< 19:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted without prejudice. Nandesuka 21:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep merged. It's not deleted, so we shouldn't be discussing an undeletion. To comply with GFDL requirements we need to undelete the history and place a redirect here, so people can see where the material came from and who contributed it. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is "deletion review" and can discuss all results of the various deletion processes, not just results to "delete". Radiant_>|< 00:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Gamaliel 00:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. The consensus at AfD was quite clear. And when you're the 30th vote, there's no need to write a series of long reasoning again. -- SCZenz 00:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This has already been merged into the highway article. The information is still available in Wikipedia, and in the form that's more consistent with existing policy (i.e. in the highway article rather than split out). There's no particularly overwhelming reason to revisit this. Keep deleted. Bearcat 01:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Judeofascism

I would like to request that we undelete redirect Judeofascism and point it to the relevant article/section. It was deleted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judeofascism, however due to the fact that Islamofascism is an article in its own right then I feel that we should at least point people to the List of political epiteths page (f they type it in, then it will take them there). I don't actually feel that the term should have it's own article. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been bold and created a redirect. Anyone wishing it deleted should list it on WP:RFD. --SPUI (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted it. It went through an AfD, so no one has the right to restore it unless it goes through a deletion review. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was on the article, not the redirect. I am restoring nothing that was "voted" on. --SPUI (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how AfD works. AfD doesn't control content. It controls only which titles exist. If the vote is to keep the title, then it's up to the editors on the page to decide whether it should be a redirect or have a text of its own. This is what happened to Islamofascism: it went through an AfD, the result was keep, for a time it was a redirect, and then someone turned it into an article again. But the consensus for Judeofascism was delete. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SPUI has recreated the redirect (again). I have deleted it, and protected, until this process is complete. --Doc ^ask? 21:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. There are no credible mainstream sources for it, unlike Islamofascism (term), for which there are many. Unless we're going to argue that every single epithet have its own title and a redirect, there's no reason to single out Judeofascism. In fact, the editor who has been arguing to have Judeofascism restored, User:BrandonYusufToropov, himself wrote of it during its AfD that it's a "[d]eeply bogus, pseudo-poli-sci rhetorical arrow," and I see his attempt to restore it as WP:POINT. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Judeofascism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slim -- I understand your arguments above, and feel strongly that both terms are deeply bogus, pseudo-poli-sci rhetorical arrows. That point of view is apparently not acceptable for discussion. If there is an edit of mine that you feel violates WP:Point, let me see it, and I'll let you know if I agree that I screwed up, which is quite possible. In the meantime, I have posed some reasonable (I think) questions on your talk page, questions I think are worthy of reasonable responses. BrandonYusufToropov 17:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn speedy deletion of the redirect. Redirects are cheap, they aren't obvious, they prevent redirection. Redirects are just plain good. SPUI is right (much as it pains me to say that ;D ); WP:CSD A4 doesn't apply to this redirect, as it isn't substantially identical to the redirect. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  The AfD result was to delete the title, whether the page had text on it, or whether it had the word "redirect" on it. When something is deleted after an AfD, you can't simply recreate it as a redirect. You have to go through deletion review, which is why Ta bu nominated it. Please allow this process to take place. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  The AFD result was to delete the content, not the title. This is why we have such "rulecruft" on WP:CSD; otherwise people will make up their own reasons to delete articles. --SPUI (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  The AFD result was to delete the article; AFD doesn't deal with anything else. WP:CSD A4 (go read it) doesn't allow for deletion of something that isn't substantially identical to the deleted content, and that redirect is not substantially identical to the deleted content. If you want this redirect deleted, go to RFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  You're just wrong about that. AfD is always a vote on whether the page should exist i.e. whether the subject is notable, whether there are reputable sources available, whether it's possible for it to be encyclopedic. It is not a vote on the current contents. If the current contents are poor, but otherwise the subject is good, the article should be rewritten, not deleted. AfD does not control content or suspend normal editing practices. It controls which page titles exist. Also, can I ask you please either to have this conversation here, or on our talk pages, because you're currently posting to both, so I'm having to repeat everything. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you're getting speedy delete rules mixed up with AfD. This has nothing to with speedy delete. The article went through an AfD, where people voted overwhelmingly to delete the title. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you point out in the deletion policy where deletion of an article prevents recreation of anything under that title, or where this redirect was debated and the decision was delete? I don't much appreciate being threatened for creating a redirect to the coverage of the term "Judeofascism" (reprehensible as it is) Wikipedia does have, at List of political epithets. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• In case it's not clear, I "vote" to keep the redirect. --SPUI (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete the redirect, clearly no CSD applied. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  There was no speedy delete in this case, so the CSD policy does not apply. What applies is the deletion policy, which says this page must go through deletion review before it can be restored. The article went through AfD and the result was delete. Because of a technical problem, it could not be deleted at the time. People forgot about it for awhile, then another editor deleted it (by which time someone else had blanked the contents and made it a redirect, but only pending deletion script). Then Ta bu put it up for deletion review. Someone re-created it and I deleted it, and this happened several times. That is where we stand. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you click a button that says delete? If so, and you hadn't just closed a deletion discussion, it was a speedy delete. --SPUI (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you click a button that says Save page? If so, it was an out of process speedy undeletion. El_C 04:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I deleted it only because you created it without going through deletion review; in other words, you created it against the deletion policy. As an admin, I was responding to a policy violation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It's my opinion that Slim had a correct interpretation. At the AfD people could have voted 'delete and redirect'. Thus, it should go to DRV before anything happens. Redirects are cheap, yes. So don't fret over her for deleting a redirect which probably won't be used. And I'm neutral as to the final product of this DRV, but I'm endorsing Slim's actions. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 04:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted still a neologism. Unless you can provide evidence that the term is used widely by anyone outside of the fringe I see no reason to undelete.Homey 04:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. My point above was that if it's right to undelete it, that's what the deletion review is here for, and when several people think it should be kept deleted, then we obviously should run the DRV. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 04:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete as redirect with new AfD.

The AfD on this was hard to count, I think. And in terms of the actual word, it indeed seems like a cheap attempt at WP:POINT (for better or worse, "Islamofascism" has been successfully pushed into public consciousness as a term, mostly by Chris Hitchens; while "Judeofascism" remains a rare neologism. Still, this is a deletion review, not the AfD itself, so it's not really germane what opinion I have of the term itself. For that matter, however, it is conceivable that a term that was rare in April has since come into sufficiently widespread use to warrant an article (even if a redirect one).

Just looking at administration, it appears that the AfD vote was something like 26 delete, 9 redirect (counting one ambiguous vote both ways). If you take those 9 redirect votes as implicit "keep" votes on a redirect page, it narrowly misses delete consensus. I think the most reasonable way to resolve this is to create a page that is a "soft redirect", i.e. says "For explanation see List of political epithets", but then immediately AfD the new page. If that is done, I, for one, will (probably) vote a delete on the new page. But whether there is actual consensus on a page that simply redirects is unclear, IMO. A new AfD on a slightly different issue can establish consensus.

Of course, I want to be clear that I think SlimVirgin took a very reasonable approach to the ambiguous AfD. There's no fault in her action, but it would just be nicer to have an unambiguous consensus to point to. Still, just becasue something was non-notable at one point should not mean that it can never become notable; when I often see two AfD's on the same article within a month, it doesn't seem outrageous to see a new article with the same name 7 months after AfD. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete redirect and send to RfD, technically. A redirect by definition is not "substantially identical" to a regular article. A better idea would be to send the rather idiotic, unmaintainable, necessarily POV List of political epithets to AfD and solve two problems at once. Marskell 06:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse delete -- The deletion was correctly handled for a neologism. Deletion policy holds that "by long tradition and consensus, Deletion Review only addresses procedural problems that may have hampered an AFD." This proposal offers no reasoning as to the invalidity of the deletion, hence the inappropriately created redirect was properly speed-deleted. If one has a problem with "Islamofascism" as an article/title, propose it for AfD. However, there is no parity in creating new "parallel" terms to those one disagrees with just to make a Point. —LeFlyman 06:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted for now, revisit later. I personally don't object to the existence of a redirect at Judeofascism, considering it is used by fringe sources and is mentioned in the List of political epithets. If it's significant enough to be mentioned in the list, then we might as well redirect to the list. But the problem is that it will not remain a redirect. This issue has arisen now because several editors want to write a Judeofascism article as a rhetorical expression of their anger over the existence of Islamofascism. So it seems to me that this is the wrong time to undelete the redirect. Revisit the issue later when tempers have cooled and when there will be less pressure to create an article for a topic that has already been AfD'd. Babajobu 06:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There seems to be a lot of confusion over the purpose of AfD. SlimVirgin's explanation makes perfect sense: we vote on the existence of a topic, rather than content, because if a poor article exists on a legit topic then the appropriate remedy is to improve it, not delete it. But a lot of people seem to be under the impression that we are voting on the content: people justify delete votes by citing "POV" or "OR", and "redirect" votes are legion. I think the above disagreement between Slim and AMIB is a product of that confusion. Whatever the actual policy is, it would be a good idea to indicate it at the top of AfDs. Babajobu 06:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If curious, I started a thread on WP:CSD talk over the redirect business. Marskell 06:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• How about redirect (using # to the right (anchor) point in the list even!) and protect the redirect. That way the article can't be recreated either. Would that be a good compromise? Kim Bruning 07:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep deleted the original AfD considered substituting a redirect for the article, but it was soundly rejected. Neo-logisms don't deserve redirects. I'm open to reconsidering that decision, but new evidence to the usage of this terms must be supplied and accepted. As far as I see it, none is even being offered. Rightly or wrongly the debated on afd earlier this year concluded that Islamofascism had usage and Judeofascism did not, unless that conclusion can be successfully challanged, the decisions should stand. This is about usage of terms, not political correctness.--Doc ^ask? 11:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where would hypothetical evidence of the word's new usage go if it can't go on the page with the same name though? I believe—as I state above—that the only way to decide whether such new usage exists (it has been seven months) is among AfD voters, not here on Deletion review. After all, if the usage is widepread enough to be mentioned in List of political epithets, that seems to endorse the idea that it exists enough for notability and verifiability (or it shouldn't be on that list).

I don't think the poarticular word is really notable either; but administratively, it feels wrong to decide "once deleted" an article title can never be notable. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted per above arguments. -- JJay 16:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted per Slimvirgin and others. Briangotts 17:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Valid AfD with extremely clear consensus, not only on deletion, but on the reason for deletion. It was deleted because, unlike "Islamofascism," "Judeofascism" is not a real word in any real use. Nothing about this has changed since the AfD. The valid community decision was that there should not be an article entitled "Judeofascism." Nothing about the re-creation as a redirect changes this. IMHO this is clearly POV. For an analogy: suppose someone created an article entitled Fred Rogers was a heinous criminal," and it were deleted on the basis that Fred Rogers was not a criminal at all, and then someone re-created it as a redirect to Fred Rogers and claimed that this was acceptable because the content, being a redirect, was different from that voted for deletion. In both cases, the the title itself expresses a POV that was rejected by the AfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. There was nothing wrong with the AfD process used in this case. Redirect is a valid option for people to use in AfD voting: in this case, the deletes won. Please remember that this is a discussion about the AfD process, not the page itself, unless some new information has emerged, which I am not seeing. Turnstep 18:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted This discussion appears to be nothing more than a back-handed way of reversing a decision made by the community.Slrubenstein | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 20:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted per SlimVirgin and Dpbsmith. Nandesuka 21:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted - nothing wrong with AfD process or conclusions, no evidence of wider usage of neologism in half-year since then. Rd232 ^talk 00:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete

Because

1. The article that was most recently Speedy Deleted was titled Judeofascism (term), which is not identical to the title of the article previously deleted some months ago under AfD, that is, Judeofascism. The difference, while subtle, was thought to have some importance in the context of the Islamofascism page, and should be understood to mean that although the existence of the actual alleged political phenomenon is disputed, the existence of notable political discussions employing the label is not.

2. As a result of the deletion, we are not able to see the content of any of the history Judeofascism (term), but if memory serves, one recent variant of the page at least had links to a half dozen or more sites where the term Judeofascism was supposedly used. For the sake of argument, lets suppose (as would not surprise me) that some of those links go to prominent sites, for example Al Jazeera, or are attributable to well known people (e.g, Osama Bin Laden). What's the inherent objection to an article containing such content, if (as we have tried to make happen on Islamofascism (term)) the page does not endorse the use of the term, and provides examples of criticisms of its use.

Accordingly, I strongly believe a speedy delete is inappropriate, and that an AfD debate should be held, which would at least give the proponents of the page an opportunity to bring it up to something approaching encyclopedic content. --FRS 01:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Judeofascism (term) had no contents for most of its existence, but was a redirect to Judeofascism. A couple of people, yourself included, tried to insert or revert to a very short text that was a very badly written, highly POV, personal essay with no sources that violated every content policy we have. I'm surprised you don't remember it, as you were one of his defenders. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Space Station 13

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Station 13

I would like to request that your decision to delete the article space_Station_13 be re-thought and considered in a different perspective. First of all a simple page that didn't even use up more than 10kb of space shouldn't have been given so much attention in the first place. The article was put up as an aid for new players; because the game is; as it was made so clear; so small, and didn't have a very useful main website, as the current website was run by a biased host at the time; although that subject is irrelivant. There was no justifiable reason for the deletion of this article other than the 'assumption' that it was put up for advertising purposes and because of snob-nosed encyclopediacs going crazy over such a small-based community. It is a clear sign of the sort of biased administration that is in effect on Wikipedia. There is no REAL space station named 'Thirteen' and therefore the space is not required by anything more important. When a space station named 'Thirteen' is launched, the community will gladly give up the space for it.

Furthermore, I'd like at least a valid reason for the article being deleted, or its official re-addition. I'm not going make a threat, but the subject will be re-added constantly by the fan base of over 500 unique members; and is something that the development/administration departments of SS13 cannot control.

Please also note that the recent statement on the discussion for deletiong for SS13 is incorrect. The game is not run by a one-man development team, it is in fact run by a 5-person development team, a 4-person website team, and a 12 person moderation team; and is actually the subject of a 3D game which is in development for the next 2 years.

We're not worried about the space it takes. We're worried about its encyclopedic value. If you think the person who runs the current website is biased, go run your own, but Wikipedia is not a webhost. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• 500 members? Whoa! Hold on there LivingWithStyle, Somethingawful and Gaiaonline! You got some pretty damned popular competition! SS13 is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. This is coming from a person who helped the article quite a bit. -Mrdie
• Endorse deletion. I see no problems with the afd, and threats are unlikely to convince anyone. —Cryptic (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - I beg to differ with Cryptic. Unconvincing non-threats are definitely going to convince Wikipedians... convince them that the article in question is utter crap that must stay deleted at all costs. FCYTravis 03:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The AfD was valid, and if another valid deletion reason is needed, I'd like to point out that Wikipedia is not a web hosting service. I'm sure a "non-biased" web hosting service can be found. Web hosting is a very competitive business. One dollar from each of those 500 members should buy you a site for many, many years. If you want the AfD to be overturned, you must provide new information, which you do not seem to have done, with the exception of the size of the development team, which is unlikely to change anyones vote on the original AfD. Turnstep 18:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 25

Blogging Tories

Based on the discussion, I don't see how this deletion can be adequately justified.

1) The editor who nominated the article for deletion and the main advocate for keeping it both agreed that the VfD results should be the same for this article and Progressive Bloggers, the Blogging Tories' "rival" group with roughtly equal membership. Progressive Bloggers survived its (second) VfD the day before this article was deleted.

2) The admin who closed the VfD and deleted the article had personally voted for deletion. While I can't find anything in Wikipedia's policies to specifically ban this practice, it does seem rather unbecoming, especially in light of the third point...

3) Most importantly, by my count the vote was 20 delete, 19 keep, and 2 merge. A plurality of one vote can't be considered "consensus" by any stretch of the imagination. (The consensus article suggest a two-thirds majority for VfDs.) There was also no "emerging consensus" by means of pro-keep editors switching to the pro-delete side. This, combined with the "when it doubt, don't delete" rule, definitely means that the article shouldn't have been deleted.

I move for an overturn and undelete. The Invisible Hand 10:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per above point 2 seems quite convincing AND there was no consensus for deletion (even though I voted delete).  Grue  11:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and keep deleted. Point 1 is unfortunate but irrelevant; Wikipedia is often inconsistent. To point 2, this is one of those things to be avoided because they look improper, not because they are improper - we should not assume that CAF was biased. And point 3 is plainly and entirely wrong, because of the invasion of sockpuppets. After discounting invalid votes, I do get a two-thirds majority for deletion, which means that deletion is a valid call. I propose a redirect to the Canadian Blogscape. Radiant_>|< 14:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC) Strike vote, convinced by the below. Radiant_>|< 19:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were a lot of "delete" sockpuppets too, including some "war on blogs" GNAA trolls.  Grue  14:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I also discounted those. However, most GNAA members appear to be legit users as well, and the so-called "war on blogs" is not indiscriminate trolling, but an effort to clean out unremarkable blogs (per WP:NOT a web guide). This was discussed at WP:ANI and there was found no reason to do anything about it. If you believe there are problems, please ask Kelly for a sockcheck. Radiant_>|< 14:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I count 9 valid keep votes and 12 delete votes (including GNAA, myself and Cleared as filed). This is nowhere near consensus to delete.  Grue  15:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn: Useful article inappropriately deleted. Ombudsman 19:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I hate the article. Hate hate hate hate it, just like I hate all articles on non-notable things (like Progressive Bloggers). But in this case, I think that, for reasons of consistency and dubious consensus alone, it's got to come back. Lord Bob 19:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. The sockpuppetry and GNAA activity on this vote prevented any clear result. - SimonP 19:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and undelete based on what looks to me to be a valid claim of vote-gaming. FCYTravis 04:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Blogging Tories for a breakdown of the votes. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In progress. - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and undelete. This closure clearly was improper. From the perspective of vote counting, there isn't a consensus, nor did either side present a compelling enough argument to tip the scales in its favor. I am disturbed by the fact that the Progressive Bloggers article (which pertains to a rival organization of comparable notability) has remained, while the Blogging Tories article has been deleted. This creates the appearance of political bias on the part of the Wikimedia Foundation, which is entirely unacceptable. (For the record, my political philosophies are closer to that of the Progressive Bloggers.) The fact that the closing admin actually voted to delete this article is yet another reason to overturn the decision. (I personally believe that a voting admin should close a discussion only when the consensus is overwhelming and/or opposite to his/her vote). —Lifeisunfair 05:19/17:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. While I would have preferred that the closing admin "show their work", after having looked at the arguments presented (see talk page as noted above) there was a clear consensus to delete, and no compelling counter-argument presented. - brenneman^(t)(c) 12:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I still don't see any consensus. I believe that consistency is a very good reason for keeping this article and if I had known that Progressive Bloggers would be kept, I'd voted keep instead of delete.  Grue  12:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I've read through all of the comments (taking sock/meat puppetry from both sides into account), and I don't see anything remotely resembling a consensus. —Lifeisunfair 17:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and undelete. No consensus to delete. Rhobite 16:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and undelete per Lifeisunfair and others. Turnstep 18:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I really don't see clear consensus, whether you discount potential meatpuppets or not. In a dubious and complex vote like that one, a voter in the debate should never have done the closing himself. -- SCZenz 19:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The fact that there may "no consensus" based upon pure numbers is mitigated by the fact that this is not a vote. In the absence of back-ups to the "it's notable" arguments, the closing admin has the resposibility to do more than simply count heads. We reject scripts like the "afd helper" because we want nuanced interpretations of the results. That is what we got here. - brenneman^(t)(c) 20:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Actually, an AfD debate is a vote (but not a simple majority vote).

2. You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm not seeing this supposed consensus. In my assessment, neither side's argument was persuasive enough to prevail. If I had to pick one, however, I'd say that the combined "keep" votes were move eloquent than the combined "delete" votes; most of the "delete" voters merely indicated that the group is non-notable, while many of the "keep" voters provided specific reasons why they believe that the group is notable. —Lifeisunfair 21:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong. An AFD debate is not a vote. That is precisely why VFD was renamed to AFD. Radiant_>|< 23:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're misusing the word "vote" to mean "majority vote." The commonness of this misconception was a major (and legitimate) factor in the decision to rename VfD, as was the desire to specify the type of page being discussed.

FYI, American Heritage defines a "vote" as "a formal expression of preference for a candidate for office or for a proposed resolution of an issue." In a slightly different context, a vote is "the act or process of voting," which refers back to the aforementioned definition. (This is the connotation that applies.) —Lifeisunfair 23:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion and undelete. Grue and The Invisible Hand don't agree on the numbers, but they do agree that the amount of valid keep and delete votes are close together. I can't see how this shows an emerging concensus. And based on point two, I don't see how it would be fair to delete this either. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• My original preference in both debates was to keep, but what I'm more concerned about is that it inherently constitutes a bias-by-inclusion to treat this and Progressive Bloggers differently from each other. Although my personal preference would be to undelete this, I'd be comfortable at this point with either undeleting Blogging Tories or deleting ProgBlog -- but whichever happens, they both have to be treated equivalently; there's simply no valid argument to be made that they fall on opposite sides of the keep-delete line from each other. And I do have to agree that a debate as heavily puppet-infested as this one turned out to be should really not have been closed by an admin who had directly participated in the discussion. Bearcat 01:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 24

Nixon: Ruin and Recovery 1973-1990

Doesn't appear to meet any speedy criteria. Visible content was: "Nixon;Ruin and recovery is a book by stephen ambrose about richard nixions fall from grace in 1973 and rise back to honor in 1993 and the events in hi..." Kappa 20:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete and list on AfD. Looks like spam, but the speedy rules don't include that. -- SCZenz 21:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Cut the bureaucracy, keep deleted without prejudice. What Kappa just quoted was the entire content (plus the letters "s life between."). Nothing there is worth discussing, but it seems a worthy topic so I hope someone will write about it. Radiant_>|< 14:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• As above agree with Radiant. A real article could problably be written about this topic, but it would be better starting from scratch than building on an abysmally-written subsubstub ("richard nixions"?!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete, deleted out of process. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. Doesn't look at all like spam to me. Give it fifteen seconds of wikification, spellchecking, and proper punctuation, and it's no better nor worse than many of our other book stubs. If Lucky thinks it needs deleting so badly, let him put it on afd like anyone else. —Cryptic (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Who cares? It would be a lot quicker to re-write a decent stub than to have this debate. --Doc ^ask? 12:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted with no prejudice to the creation of something substantial in its place. Concur with Doc. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 23

Gallery of Socialist Realism

The AfD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Socialist Realism, has been incorrectly closed on two counts:

1. Only two of the 16 votes were simple delete votes, most of the delete votes were Transwiki and delete, but the closing admin did not make any effort to keep the content available for transwikying;
2. In the course of the AfD discussion, it became clear that the WP:NOT policy was excluding pictorial content of encyclopediac value. A lengthy discussion there concluded with a change of the policy with respect to collections of images; after the change in the policy, which has met with uniform approval, all the votes were keep votes. Hence, the grounds cited for almost all delete votes ceased to exist at the time the AfD was closed, which the closing admin appears to have been oblivious to.

The page should certainly be undeleted. I think it is clear that the page would win a new AfD, hence, in the interests of avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy, I recommend we do not relist on AfD. --- Charles Stewart 19:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: see also [11] --- Charles Stewart 19:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The 'lengthy' discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Proposed rewording totalled 3 votes. Which is insufficient to change a long-standing policy, imo. The discussion preceding the vote (for such it was) included 8 messages in total, between 3 users. -Splash^talk 19:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • m:Polls are evil: actually there were 4 votes, but the purpose of the request I posted was to check that no-one had any substantive objectives to my phrasing of the agreement that had already been reached on the page. The failure to find substantive objections to a slight change in policy that remedied an apparent failure to capture encyclopediac content was what justified the change. The change was well-advertised, including at the Village Pump. --- Charles Stewart 19:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If one reads the entire section, starting at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Proposal to modify WP:NOT an image gallery, there are 8 commentors, 6 in favor and 2 opposed. And Charles Stewart gave three days warning before he made the rewording change. The rewording has been there for at three days without any complaint or comment. Dsmdgold 21:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Another note:I presume some or all of the images hinge on fair use claims. It's been considered for some time that mere collections of images, outside of the article to which they would refer, do not constitute fair use. -Splash^talk 19:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not looked. If your concerns are well-founded, they would justify pruning the gallery, but they would not vindicate the contested AfD, nor denying WP this encyclopediac content. --- Charles Stewart 19:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two images were fair use. One was GFDL. The rest were public domain because they were pre-1973 Soviet images. Dsmdgold 21:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Let be noted that I didn't delete the images and we're not arguing about the image merits, but what I deleted was the gathering and listing. As I suggested, adding a category Category:Socialist Realism would be a better way to gather this entries. Anyway, the content was already merged today into Socialist realism. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 21:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, until I merged the content, you orphaned a large number of images, which made them eligible for deletion. If I had not taken the precaution of savivng a copy of the page, it could not have been reconstructed in order to merge. If there was a consensus it was to transwiki and delete, which you did not do. Dsmdgold 21:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The status of the images is safe, and a transwiki for those that are acceptable in commons would be in ok; that said, although we cannot ensure that they will be accepted there. It does seem more appropriate that this page were a category page in commons, though. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do look at the argument against WPcommons and category pages, both of which were discussed at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Proposal to modify WP:NOT an image gallery. --- Charles Stewart 21:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Observe Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of illuminated manuscript images whose outcome was keep. --- Charles Stewart 21:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. The attempt to change a long-standing policy during the debate by collecting 3 or 4 'votes' and having 3 users discussing it and then to try here to retroactively apply that policy 'change' to users opinions effected before the change is far too much legalese. I do not consider the policy changed, and will probably reverse it pending a proper discussion: WP:ISNOT a repository of images. A collection of image is not an article. Those who cited WP:NOT in their comments were correct, those who called the policy 'misguided' and opted to keep based on a reverse interpretation of non-existent polic-change were wrong. It is reasonable to dismiss such comments: particularly those like CalJW's. Anyone can copy the PD images to Commons, it does not need a transwiki of the would-be article. In fact, Commons is interested in media not articles as I approx understand it, so the transwiki part of the comments are not important from this perspective: the images are still here. The closing admin got this right, those who forced a policy semi-change during the debate to retroactively apply it afterwards were wrong. -Splash^talk 21:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closing admin made no effort to indicate that he recognised the issue. I would not have made the criticisms I had of an admin who cited the issue and said the later remarks in the discussion had no bearing on the earlier delete votes. As it was, I regard the closing of the AfD as poorly executed. You have also not indicated what you think of the several AfD's that I pointed to in my previous comment that provided a precedent for the change I made to WP:NOT. --- Charles Stewart 22:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not dispute that the images are all still "here". They are for the moment. (However, if I had not merged the gallery, most of them would have been orphans and eventually deleted.). There is value to organization and annoatation of images. By merely deleting the article, without re-creating it elsewhere, the closing admin decreased the amount of knowleddge available to Wikipedia. I also find it a bit odd to suggest that a closing admin can ignore comments of editors merely because he or she disagrees with the reasoning of the comment. I also find it distressing that to think that a vote to transwiki has no meaning other than delete. It should be noted that one of those voting transwiki specified that "In any case, make sure we don't just lose this, it's excellent." Dsmdgold 23:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the closing admin had said the comments were irrelevant to the vote, I would still have taken the matter to DRV and said the AfD , but my criticisms would have been less sharp. I regard admins who ignore unanswered arguments to keep made in AfDs when closing to delete as a menace to WP. The ones who at least observe the existence of these arguments are much less malign, even when they make the same assessment. --- Charles Stewart 00:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've put up another link to the WP:NOT discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposed change to WP:NOT, following Brennemann's reversal of the change to WP:NOT I applied. --- Charles Stewart 00:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Upon further inspection, the article isn't encyclopedic, here is the entire content:

This is a gallery of paintings and images of architecture from the Socialist Realism school.

Click on each image for more details. An asterisk indicates that more information is available.

A whole bunch of images

See also:

• Social Realism
• List of statues of Lenin
• The First Tractor

This is exactly what Commons is here for. Reading the comments on the WP:NOT talk page does not leave me very convinced. That said, I don't object to a transwiki to Commons. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the structure of the page was bit more complex than that. It was

This is a gallery of paintings and images of architecture from the Socialist Realism school.

Click on each image for more details. An asterisk indicates that more information is available.

Lenin

10 images with captions

Stalin

7 images with captions

Ordinary life

10 images with captions

Scenes of Revolution and War

4 images with captions

Technology

3 images with captions

Propaganda

2 images with captions

Architecture

5 images with captions

Sculpture

8 images with captions

See also:

• Social Realism
• List of statues of Lenin
• The First Tractor

The gallery had more stucture than you are giving it credit for. Please leave your reasons for being unconvinced at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Proposal to modify WP:NOT an image gallery, I for one would appreciate a fuller discusion. Also can you point me to the portion of Commons that says part of their mission is to host image galleries for the Wikipedias? I can't find it. Dsmdgold 02:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted, valid closure. The images are still available. Recreate the gallery on Commons, as was indicated. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment could this be temporarily restored to User:Aaron Brenneman/Scratch/Gallery of Socialist Realism, please? I'd like to play with it a little bit, I'll slap a happy {{d}} on it when I'm finished. - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Temporary undelete as per nom. --IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 07:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. The so-called structure is pretty much a complete fit with how they do it at Commons, so put 'em there. If there's a fair-use question...well, we don't need 'em that badly. --Calton | Talk 11:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and relist on AfD in light of "new information": the changed WP:NOT policy. Turnstep 18:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The policy hasn't been changed yet. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted and transwiki images (undelete if you want to make transwikification easier for non-admins) I don't consider a change only discussed by a handful of people valid. If I knew about it I certainly would've voiced my opinion about it. Listing a number of images won't help people to understand the art any better then when its on the Commons, so I don't see how keeping the images in a gallery here is encyclopedic. If anyone wants to write an article to include them in (another thing for which the commons are great), I wouldn't stop them. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MYOB

The page was speedy deleted after a request was put in which stated This page was in error. MYOB is an accounts package, not internet slang as the redirect suggested.. While MYOB is an accounting package ([12]), it is also an abbreviation that is used as an internet slang term. See for example FOLDOC, the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary or any other reference found by OneLook. S.K. 00:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and created a disambiguation page at MYOB. I don't think this deletion review is necessary because there was no real content deleted. Rhobite 01:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. MYOB is an initialism that certainly predates the WWW, if not the Internet itself. Turnstep 18:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• MYOB is both a package and an initialism common to the net. The person who made the request to delete it was apparently in error, so I don't have a problem with this disamb. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 22

Global Resource Bank

• I vote for undeletion. The Global Resource Bank is the life-work of scientist John Pozzi. It is a non-profit scientific initiative of developing an ecological world economy. Monika Hoy, Germany (monipeperoni@netscape.net)
• I would like an undeletion of the article on the Global Resource Bank

VOTE: UNDELETE Global Resource Bank. /Lennart

• Vote for Undeletion/Swedenborg--Swedenborg 01:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this account has only been used until now to edit the DRV page. --- Charles Stewart 19:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). There is a valid AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Resource Bank. Primary issue noted by the discussion was a lack of reliable sources to provide verification of the article's claims. This nomination provides no new information or indication of procedural errors. --Allen3 ^talk 13:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Three votes isn't much for a non-speediable AfD. It's worth double-checking. Can we have a summary of the content here? --- Charles Stewart 16:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's still mirrored, more or less in its state when it was deleted the first time, here (and a gazillion other places). —Cryptic (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I should really rememember to look for caches. --- Charles Stewart 19:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure and subsequent speedy per Allen3. —Cryptic (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and userfy to my user space: the article as its stands fails to provide adequate evidence of notability, and has some personal-essayish qualities. It does speak to themes in green economics that I am familiar with, and according to this mail to the PKT list (Post-Keynesian Thought) [13], there were plans in 1996 to incorporate the bank, which would justify notability in my view. I know some people active in green economics, and can check out the claims, but I don't have time to do this now. I'd be willing to take this page under my wing and bring it up to WP standards or verify that the content cannot be made notable. --- Charles Stewart 19:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good enough for me. Undeleted and posted to User:Chalst/Global Resource Bank. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! --- Charles Stewart 22:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 21

Argentina v England (2005)

The AfD debate here shows 8 keeps and 11 deletes, and as such, no consensus for deletion. Since similar articles on cricket matches are routinely kept, I think this one should be undeleted as well.  Grue  13:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, undelete and redirect to Argentina and England football rivalry since the article is already merged. One thing to note here is that this should not have been merged before the AFD had completely run its course. Nonetheless, from reading the AFD debate I cannot see a consensus to delete the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close/ I make this 13 Delete / 5 Keep / 3 Merge. One of the merge votes explicitly indicated "delete" as a second choice, and so IMO can not be read as a keep vote. The other two comments advocating merge seems not to support the separate existance of this article, one said "Professional sports events happen every day...". Therefore I don't think they can be read as simple keep votes either. I think this is within the closer's judgement to close as a delete. However if soemoen wanted to create a new redirect at this title, that would NOT be "substantially similer" and so not subject to a speedy. The merge should not, IMO, have been done while the debate was in progress, however. DES ^(talk) 16:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose the notion that merges cannot be done while an article has been proposed for deletion. Wikipedia's normal editing processes should not be over-ridden in that way. Often, the best way to show how things should be done is to do it. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Matthew. Merging is a a sequence of normal edits, and if these are not good edits, anyone can revert them. There is no need for a rule against merging whilst an AfD is in process. --- Charles Stewart 15:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, things are a little more subtle than that, as pointed out below. If content is merged, then the GFDL requires we keep track of the history. This is most usually done by retaining a redirect where once there was an article. This means that, even in the face of an otherwise overwhelming delete (hypothetically, not in this case), those editors would have been overridden by another. Whether that is reasonable is an open question. There are other ways of (probably) meeting the GFDL in cases like this, such as copying the history to the target's talk page prior to deletion of the source. But I personally consider it good form to recommend a merge during the AfD but wait to see if the consensus is that Wikipedia would not retain the content at all. -Splash^talk 17:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • See the link to view deleted revisions? --SPUI (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed Splash is right, and I retract my comment. It is normally inappropriate to merge content from articles during an AfD. --- Charles Stewart 18:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure/keep deleted - Per DES - Tεxτurε 19:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete, improperly closed. No consensus for deletion. Feel free to merge and redirect. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close/Keep deleted Reasonable judgment call, per DES. --Calton | Talk 03:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close/Keep deleted Per DES. Merges should not be counted as keeps. Carbonite | Talk 15:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's blatantly not true, and contradicts the Deletion policy. Also, as this article was merged, GFDL requires that it's history is undeleted.  Grue  16:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In practice, it just doesn't make sense to count "merges" as "keeps". When I vote to "merge", I don't want an article to exist at that location. If I think the information could be useful in some article, a "merge" vote makes sense. If I wanted my vote counted as a "keep", I would have voted that way. Since your GFDL concerns are legitimate (from what I know about the license) I'd support having it as a redirect. Carbonite | Talk 17:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and make into redirect, per Grue's last point. Sam Vimes 16:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - as per Grue, deletion appears to consitute violation of GFDL, since it appears the content was merged. Also, since merges count as keeps, there was no consensus to delete. Guettarda 16:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn -as per Grue. --- Charles Stewart 16:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What, we can't merge the histories? Even if that is not possible, to avoid violating GFDL all that is required is to copy-paste the history into the talk of the target article. Even more if the information that was merged is widely and commonly available, then the pseron who merged it simply has to go and confirm the facts themselves and do a re-write, and again GFDL is preserved. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per above. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 00:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. Wikipedia:Deletion policy says merges are neither deletes nor keeps. However, since it is merged (a situation I don't think anyone minds terribly), something has to be done to satisfy GFDL. As a practical matter, I wouldn't oppose undeleting and redirecting. -- SCZenz 00:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the Deletion policy says nothing special about how to interpret "merge" comments when closing the discussion. The Guide to deletion, on the other hand, explicitly says that "Merge is a recommendation to keep the article's content but to move it ..." As a practical matter and largely guided by the requirement to maintain GFDL, "merge" opinions are routinely interpreted as a recommendation to "keep" the article history (that is to say, "not delete") even though they are not a recommendation to "keep the article as is". "Merge" is often a very nuanced opinion and can not be easily forced into a binary "keep" vs. "delete" framework. This is a good example of why mere vote-counting is bad. Rossami (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made my statement based on the sectionWikipedia:Deletion_policy#Commenting_on_a_listing_for_deletion, which categorizes merge as "other" than delete or keep. I admit it doesn't specifically say how to "interpret" them, and yes, I know the situation is nuanced. -- SCZenz 05:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment When I created the Argentina and England football rivalry article, I wrote the "2005 friendly" section from the ground-up, without any material from the existing article, and it has since been worked on and added to independently by other editors. I don't believe there *is* actually any material from that article in it, so I'm not sure how that counts as having been merged. Angmering 12:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and undelete. Not sure where the nom got that vote count, but I tally it as 5 keep, 11 delete, 1 delete/merge, 2 merge, and one merge/delete. Even without counting the merges as keeps, that's 12d to 5k, which is not a clear enough consensus. If we count the plain merges, it becomes 12d to 7k. I think the burden is on the merge voters to specify what their fallback position is (as only Reyk seems to have done here) so that their votes are clearly not a keep. Turnstep 18:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bronx underground

I would like an undeletion of the article on the Bronx Underground. The reasons for deletion were listed as "blatant self-promotional ad spam/link spam." This is simply untrue. The article was not self-promotional, merely a factual account of a local-interest in the Bronx, detailing one of the Bronx's most popular local music venues, and one of the most successful independent promoters in New York City. There were no opinions or values in the article, just facts. I don't think the reasoning behind this article's deletion is fair. - Mike corsillo 10:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted: The deleted page was Bronx underground. Looking at the deleted version I noted two links to the group's homepage, one link to their web forum, one link to a page containing samples from a soon to be released compilation CD, and zero independent sources to help show that this article might not have been written by a public relations department. While I am not sure that this article actually qualified as a proper speedy delete, I saw nothing in the article to suggest it would stand any chance of surviving an AfD. --Allen3 ^talk 14:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • While we do have links to our homepage and samples from our CD, what more would you ask from a small, independent promotions company. We don't even operate for profit, and do not have a public relations department. As independent sources show up, the article could be edited, but there are currently no publications other than the group's site that offer information on it. That is not to say the group is not well-known, just that it has not been written about. Anyway, if it didn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you shouldn't have deleted it.- Mike corsillo 21:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is the very definition of an article that should be soundly deleted by AfD. Wikipedia is not a substitute for your public relations department, and if you yourselves are the only source, then, per WP:V, you need to come back again when you are not. Anyone opting to keep this article in a hypothetical future AfD would need to have extraordinarily good reasons for violating two core policies. -Splash^talk 21:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Special:Undelete/Bronx Underground shows no deleted edit history. What article is this DRV about? --- Charles Stewart 20:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try Special:Undelete/Bronx underground. --Allen3 ^talk 22:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, thanks. --- Charles Stewart 15:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete/Overturn. The article may be an ad but that is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion. Rhobite 20:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. Inappropriate speedy deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The article will just be immediately listed on AfD and deleted anyway, especially since the author has made it perfectly clear that they are trying to use Wikipedia as their own private PR firm. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was not my intention by any means. I was in no way trying to use Wikipedia as a PR firm. We don't need a PR firm. I was just trying to contribute an unbiased article about what the Bronx Underground is. We have absolutely no desire to use this site as a PR firm. Maybe when I said we dont have PR department, I should have said we don't need one. All of our advertising is done by word of mouth. The entry does not give any information about show times or prices or list any of the merch we offer. The only reason it links to the website is because that makes sense. If the article does not survive the AfD, that is fine. But I don't appreciate being shafted based on speculation of its future.
  • I'm not into bureaucracy, but there's something to be said for following existing processes. Are you saying that because the AfD outcome appears to be obvious, we shouldn't even go through the motions? It has happened before that a subject which appeared to be headed for deletion turned out to be notable and turned into a good article. I'm not saying that's the case here, I'm just saying we shouldn't deviate from the AfD process on a whim. Rhobite 03:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and list on AfD: invalid speedy, deleted within 3 minutes of creation, article appears non-speediable. Non-speediable articles deserve their hearing on AfD, and the topic looks capable of attracting worthwhile content. Endorsing out of process speedies is not what Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy is about. --- Charles Stewart 15:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and Afd I suppose. Altho I fear the Afd may turn into a fiasco which nicely illustrates everything that's wrong with Afd. Friday (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and AfD, unless someone can point to a proper speedy criterion. If people think there are holes in the speedy process, they should be closed, not created as we go along on this page. -- SCZenz 00:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and afd. It is exactly this kind of invalid speedy that keeps the community from trusting administrators with an "obvious spam" or similar speedy criterion. —Cryptic (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beer boxing

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer boxing

I would like an undeletion of the most recent article on beer boxing. According to the Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy#To_request_that_a_page_.28or_image.29_be_restored " The speedy deletion criterion for "reposted content that was deleted according to deletion policy " only applies if the content is "substantially identical" (under any article title) — not if you added a lot of new information." Not only was the latest version of the article completely different from previous versions, but the original reasons for deletion are voided by the very fact that there is even a debate over its deletion. If the game of Beer Boxing is a notable enough drinking game to cause a debate, why is it not notable enough to warrant its own article? Furthermore, it is obvious to all who care to review the vote for deletion that half of the votes are for personal objection to the drinking game itself, rather than the content of the article or noteworthiness of the game. Lastly, should the notableness of the game remain under question, I would like to point out the arbitrariness of that judgement. Beer boxing is definitely as or more notable than many other drinking games listed. Mike corsillo 08:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, unless nominator can provide sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • what sources would you have me provide? all versions of the article have been deleted, but having never read previous versions of the article, the most recent version could not have possibly been identical in content or substance. furthermore, i have no way of proving the notableness of this game, nor any other. similarly, nobody can disprove it, thus qualifying the standards for what is notable as completely arbitrary. My argument speaks for itself. Mike corsillo 10:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for information on the types of sources that are typically looked for to support an article. I did a quick Google search to see if there was anything obvious to help support the article and found nothing but this. Unfortunately the only hit was on a site that accepts anonymous submissions, and is thus disqualified from being used as a source for a Wikipedia article. --Allen3 ^talk 14:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    If there are no other sites where people can look this up, isn't that even more reason for this site to allow information to be provided? I dont understand why an encyclopedia would only offer information that is already offered by other websites. Way to "be bold," everybody. -Mike corsillo 21:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    That is a crucial point. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source. It doens't create information (a primary source), and it doesn't report on the creation (a secondary source). It reports that others have found the information to be accurate and reliable (and encyclopedic). An encyclopedia that reported unsubstantiated material wouldn't be very encyclopedic, would it? It is very clear that you didn't read WP:V. As soon as you do, you will see exactly what is being said here. -Splash^talk 22:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion as per MacGyverMagic. --Allen3 ^talk 14:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trollaxor

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trollaxor

I would like a review of the AFD procedure for this article -- the verdict was no consensus and much of the voting appears suspicious. Not only has the article been deleted before, but it remains non-notable and unsuitable for Wikipedia and only remains because of the efforts of a group gaming the AFD system. My solution was to redirect it rather than delete it and try to force someone to take notice... which it least would spare the efforts of future AFDs after it was recreated, and avoid yet more running around in circles cleaning up junk. - Motor (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close of no consensus. AfD was conducted correctly. You're not wrong to try redirecting—anyone can do that—but it's clear from the article history that it's not gonna fly with the people who disagree with you. At 8-5 to delete (discounting user with 8 edits), you could AfD it again, but I'd personally recommend working out some sort of merge/redirect compromise on the talk page. -- SCZenz 01:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And Relist. If organized trolls are really the problem, then out-vote them. But I can't see a justification for discounting them—perhaps someone can explain? -- SCZenz 21:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete almost a speedy. Those voting keep seem to be a part of some organised group of trolls (except Trollderella, who is just an extreme inclusionist).  Grue  13:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's an indication of the sorry state that we're in that advocating following policy is 'extremism'. Trollderella 23:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And what policy would that be? --Calton | Talk 23:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete, concur with Grue. android79 15:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, seriously consider merging this at the talkpage or be bold and do it (several said delete or merge, so merging is also reasonable). Closure seems to be within reasonable discretion, and not liking some of the people who voted "keep" is not a valid reason to discount them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete also meets at least one speedy criteria. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete per Andrew Lenahan and  Grue . Dpbsmith (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete as above - Tεxτurε 19:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. Clearly, by virtue of the AFD, not a speedy candidate. Feel free to renominate. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. All the keeps except Trollderella's are from gnaa members. —Cryptic (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete, as those above. violet/riga (t) 20:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. I am not sure if I am allowed to vote here, and only found this accidentally. I think it is inappropriate to try to overturn the accepted process in this way. This is supposed to be about articles, not people, the votes by GNAA members do not appear to be invalid, claiming so is an ad hominem attack. Trollderella 21:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete, but not because the Afd was done wrong. The closure as a "no consensus" was reasonable, although not what I would have done. Of course, the article could also be speedied right now as a perfectly valid A7. Friday (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  So you don't think that the afd was wrong? It's clearly not a valid CSD, so you're really just saying you disagree with the result. Trollderella 22:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose that CSD A7 doesn't explicitly say that when it talks about articles making a claim of notability, it pertains to a notion of notability that stems from the community as a whole, rather than the ideas of the particular deleting admin. That seems rather obviously true, however. If the community has just now come to no consensus about whether a subject is notable, it would seem obvious that A7 does not apply. Friday's application of the unilateral admin action model here is probably unwise. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  What application of the "unilateral admin action model"? I didn't delete it, did I? I merely stated an opinion that an A7 could be applied here. But, I'll be clear: the reason I say "overturn and delete" is that Afd produced the wrong answer in this case. I'm not against doing a deletion "in process" either, altho at this point I'm not sure how that's possible. If we start another Afd tomorrow and it's closed as a delete, we'll still have people complaining that the second Afd was invalid because of the previous "no consensus" closure. But, if we want to look at the Afd process, I could say that it was tainted by troll involvement. Of course, this is a judgement call and it's a bit rude to those we're calling trolls, right? Friday (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  By "application of the unilateral admin action model" I meant your statement that the article would be a valid A7 -- to say this implies your belief that an admin can determine that an article doesn't make a claim of notability, even when the sense of the community has been determined (to whatever degree), and the community of users does not agree that there is no such claim. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  What I meant was, someone looking at it could reasonably say "Gosh, writing on websites isn't an assertion of notability". Thus, it's an A7. I'm not going to delete it as an A7 because I know it's being discussed, and deleting it right now would be rude to other editors. Also, I fully realize that other reasonable editors could look at this article and decide it's not an A7 speedy. Friday (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am disturbed that most of the votes here are based on opinion, rather than process, which is contrary to what Deletion Review is for. I have a few questions that I'd like to see addressed:
  1. Is this really a legitimate speedy delete? It seems that at least a few people think the article contains assertions of notability, at which point WP:CSD A7 says it should go to AfD.
  2. Can editors be discounted merely because of their afilliation with whatever organized trolling group? I see no reason for this.
• I'm the first person to say this article should be deleted, but I say do it within process. Anyone care to explain why we shouldn't, as is apparently going to happen? -- SCZenz 23:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The point here is not whether this article should stay or go, that's what AFD is for. It is the attempt to hijack process by a small group who can't accept a community decision. Trollderella 23:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's irony for you. --Calton | Talk 23:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm dissapointed by any claims that editor's recommendations should be discounted simply because of who they are. I don't care if someone is a GNAA sleeper admin who is secretly impregnating our life parters to breed an army of child-eating Liberal voters, if they present a coherent assertion we should listen to it. In this instance that was not done, with some simply saying "keep". Thus Overturn and delete because AfD is not a vote, and compelling arguments were not presented. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is sound, up until you make the case that because you don't like the reasons given then the community can be ignored. If you think it should be deleted, list it again and get a concensus. Trollderella 00:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I wasn't aware of the alleged GNAA "trolling" until I was informed about it after I closed the debate, so if the decision is overturned, there won't be any opposition from me. No vote. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 00:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be using the word 'troll' in the sense of 'voting in a way I don't like'. That's disturbing. If you don't like the outcome of AFD, relist, don't try a backdoor to try to work around a community decision. Trollderella 00:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion either way. I was merely stating that, before closure, I wasn't aware of what is now being argued by those in favor of overturning. Hence, I didn't vote. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 00:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. Motor is right: some of the "Keep" votes on the AfD are highly-suspect, being low-usage accounts set up primarily for voting on AfDs, as careful examination of their contribution history shows. However, this depth of scrutiny cannot be expected from an admin closing an AfD, and even with this additional information it is not obvious whether these dubious "Keep" votes can be legitimately discarded. Robert was right to close this as a no-consensus. If you do decide to re-nominate the article, I hope we'll get enough participation as to make the few sock- or meat-puppets' votes irrelevant. Owen× ☎ 16:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not correct, I'm afraid. The notion that cursorily closing complex AfDs is ok is profoundly wrong. If an admin hasn't the time required to do the job properly, they should steer very well clear of the job. -Splash^talk 21:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close of no consensus. AfD was conducted correctly. Please respect community decisions and stop accusing everyone who voted keep to be a sock/meat puppet. Give proofs or shut up. -- Femmina 16:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "few sockpuppets" =/= "accusing everyone who voted keep to be a sock/meat puppet", no matter how you bend the English language. --Calton | Talk 23:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that my objections stem from the fact that simply saying "keep" should be discounted by any closing admin, regardless of whom it originates from. It's not a vote. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. Looks like for the GNAA and their War on Blogs, some websites are more equal than others. --Calton | Talk 23:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. Looking at the VfD, I see what looks like bloc voting by GNAA members, and no reasoning by the "keep" voters. --Carnildo 00:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think this should be used as an opportunity to vent frustration at editors you don't like. If you disagree with the outcome, re-list it. Trollderella 01:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the purported trolls lift their game and put "Keep - per nominator, this author is notable per [some evidentiary link]" than we wouldn't be having this discussion. The quality of the anti-blog nominations they were making went up when prompted, there is no reason that almost anyone can't be molded into a good contributor. brenneman^(t)(c) 01:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If deletion policy mentioned 'notability' even once your point might be relevant. If you don't like the result of a community process, re-run it. Trollderella 16:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Forget notability, I don't see how Trollaxor is verifiable, and that IS a policy. There's discussion on the talk page about it. My position is that his own postings do not make him verifiable. Friday (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, if your position is that it was misnominated, then we should re-nominate it for a reason that is relevant to deletion policy, not overturn the result. Trollderella 17:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I would overturn and delete, since it is a valid A7, but since there have been complaints about it, the only course of action that I consider appropriate is a relist with a minimum participation treshhold, like done for GNAA. Titoxd^(?!?) 17:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete, discounting obvious role accounts is good practice. Contrary to what OwenX says, such scrutiny is appropriate, and if an AFD closer neglects it, then deletion review is appropriate. Radiant_>|< 18:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete in accordance with the reasoning advanced by Radiant! and Aaron Brenneman, particularly Aaron Brenneman's. Plus, as I see it, even if there was no consensus to delete, there was a consensus (Motor, Starblind, and Friday in explicit agreement with several others in implied agreement, and only Skrewler in explicit disagreement) that it constituted vanity, which overrides the consensus. Plus, I see a more clearly articulated consensus that the subject matter is unnoteworthy, and interpretations of de jure policy notwithstanding (I, for instance, believe WP:NOT and the deletion policy both explicitly establish non-notability as grounds for deletion), it's de facto part of the deletion policy. In all, I believe a consensus was reached, and that consensus was for deletion. The Literate Engineer 01:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as the AfD was valid, and no new information has been presented. Although some of the accounts were young, none were created after the AfD as far as I can tell. This is a very close call however, and while we should respect the closing admin's decision, I would strongly recommend an immediate relisting. Turnstep 19:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 20

United Bimmer

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Bimmer

Would it be possible to undelete this article? It was created by a member to explain the history and foundation of our community. It's a very tight-knit group of members, and this article has been referenced many times explaining people who we are and where we came from. There's no advertising in here, as it's simply informative about the history of an organization, which I feel is appropriate in an Encyclopedia.

• Endorse clsoe (keep deleted). The AfD looks valid, and being a "tight-knit group" if anything suggests lack of intest to thsoe outsiede the group. wikipedia is not a free hosting service, an article describing the group for the benefit of those interested in jopining properly belongs on your own web site. I see no independent sources cited in the article, and no indication that it is in any way notable to anyoen outside the group. If you have such info, create a new article which cites it and expalins how the gorup is significant to those who are not members. DES ^(talk) 17:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted valid (and unanimous) AfD! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

contingent work

Can we undelete this article? There doesn't appear to be any valid reason for its deletion. Sure, the name of the article is something of a neologism, but one which is frequently used when discussing social issues, comparing contingent work with proper jobs.

We do have an article about McJobs, which is also a neologism, and admittedly the two subjects have a fair bit of common ground. However, a serious commentator on employment policy wouldn't use the term McJobs. I think there is enough ground for them to be two separate articles.

To be honest, I don't understand why Wikipedia doesn't want people to know what contingent work is, and the history behind it. Squashy 10:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To put this into context: Contingent work was the subject of a VfD in July 2005, and the result was its deletion. Squashy created a new article, which I deleted, explaining to him the reasons. He then recreated it, as well as asking for it to be undeleted here. Let's assume that that that was a mistake of some kind; still, the proper thing for him to do now is to follow the prescribed course. I did advise him to take it to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete and relist. The majority of the comments in the original AfD debate labeled the initially deleted version of the article as an essay or original research, with the minority opinion claiming the article was savable but needed to go through cleanup. Squashy's new version appears to be a complete rewrite that does not suffer from the original's problem of being a personal essay. As such, I do not believe that a speedy deletion as recreation of previously deleted material is justified. --Allen3 ^talk 12:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete -- invalid speedy deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and relist". Don't recreate without good reason, a re-write is good reason.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 14:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for the comments so far. I appreciate that the article I've written is far from perfect - and I haven't cited any sources yet - however, the majority of the votes in favour of its deletion were concerned with its content - that it was a personal essay - and not due to any inherent flaw in having an article on the subject in the first place. I appreciate that it's a neologism - but then again, so are many of the articles at Category:Neologisms - that's not a good enough reason to keep it deleted, in my opinion. I have created this article from scratch, without having access to the original article which was deleted before it - however, I have lost some of my most recent edits to it. Thanks. Squashy 15:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the speedy deletion. The first deletion was in order as deletion of a personal essay (and, in my opinion, probably copyvio). The versions created beginning on 15 Nov 2005 were not substantially similar content. The speedy delete criterion should not have applied. As for the most recent version, I see no reason to immediately list it for AFD. It's a new article that still needs cleanup but that's normal. The topic is certainly relevant and encyclopedic since a number of reputable articles have links to it. Rossami (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The consensus seems clear, so I've undeleted the article, But I'm not sure if a relist is appropriate, so I'll leave that still under consideration. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hellogoodbye

Can we please get this undeleted? The page is now redirected to a Beatles song, which is just incorrect. The original page was deleted. At the RFD debate, it was claimed it didn't meet WP:MUSIC. This is untrue, however, the band has "gone on ... a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country", that country being the US (see hellogoodbye's site [14]), and has been "prominently featured in any major music media" (receiving plenty of press coverage including [Alternative Press [15] and their video on MTV). Whatsmore, there are over 300,000 hits on Google and they are signed to a major label (Drivethru Records). Additionally, they've only released an EP and a DVD: not quite the 2 albums suggested, but not far off. Halo 12:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist. New information, plus very little attention/research in AfD debate. -- SCZenz 15:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, relist per new information. Turnstep 17:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist, as the information above was not mentioend in the AfD debate. DES ^(talk) 19:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 19

CrystalCherry

Needs to be returned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherryrain (talk • contribs) 06:06, 2005 November 19 (UTC)

Why? --Nlu 06:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Update. Relevant pages:
  • Special:Undelete/Crystalcherry
  • Special:Undelete/CrystalCherry
  • Special:Undelete/Brooke Anne Burns
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CrystalCherry
  • Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/CrystalCherry
• As far as I can see, the AFD was properly closed in accordance with WP policies. As no new information has been put forward that may persuade us of the need for another consideration of the article, I am unable to see why a restoration is merited. The original suffered from serious problems with WP:V, a central articlespace policy. Pages that do not conform to the verifiability requirements of the encyclopedia should be removed. I note that GregAsche, who re-deleted the article, claimed that it was also contravened copyright. Endorse delete decision with no prejudice to a recreation that complies with article policy; submission of pertinent new information may lead me to revise this opinion. Kind regards encephalon 06:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Reasons provided on Talk:Crystalcherry. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete IMMEDIATELY This was voted to be deleted just two weeks ago. Nothing has changed since. This person can not be confirmed to exist. Delete immediately.Vulturell 07:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Deletion was done properly, nothing has changed the subject is still Non notable --pgk^(talk) 08:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral This page is in the middle of conflict not because of any real policy violation or legitimate concern, but because the main contributor is not a good wikipedian, and others are reacting far too strongly to her (Cherryrain). I am convinced that if the contributors and editors were actually willing to work together, instead of fighting, a real, informative and good wikipedia article could be created. That would lead me to suggest this article should exist. However, as the reality is that a good article cannot be created in the environment we have today (massive conflicts and fighting about every aspect of the article) it should probably remain deleted. It is sad to see an article deleted because of infighting, though. (This is all my own views, of course, from observing the clashes between editors) — Fudoreaper 10:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strongly endorse original deletion - for reasons put forward in original AfD. User:Cherryrain has been asked on numerous occasions to provide proof for her claims WRT CrystalCherry and as yet has been unable to provide a single reliable reference. --Kurt Shaped Box 11:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and keep deleted. The main issue about the article isn't the contents as such, but the fact that CrystalCherry didn't pass WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Keep deleted until proper sources can be provided to warrant undeletion. Bjelleklang - talk 11:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted as valid AfD (very recently too) and Unlist since nominator did not give any reason for undeletion whatsoever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and protection from re-creation unless a shred of evidence from a reliable source is provided that this person meets WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. See also Special:Undelete/CherryRain, Special:Undelete/Cherryrain, and User:CrystalCherry, and User:Cherryrain, where this has also been re-created; and Special:Contributions/CrystalCherry, Special:Contributions/Crystalcherry, and Special:Contributions/Cherryrain - while some of these usernames have edits that aren't directly promotional of this person, they're few and far between. —Cryptic (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and keep deleted - per failure to meet basic verifiability standards - let alone any question of notability. FCYTravis 17:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close, keep deleted. Valid AfD, article fails verifiability, no new information since the AfD has been produced that would show that the article meets WP:V, and WP:BIO (or WP:MUSIC). Dpbsmith (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, why are we even bothering to debate this?--Kat fletchers smug face 17:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete again and keep that way until some event can be shown to change notability status (and even then, we should have a discussion before we put the page back). I also hope that after this some of the users here will help keep tabs on this user, as it's pretty obvious now that she's pushing a personal agenda. --InShaneee 20:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted proper AFD, no valid reason has been presented to why this should be undeleted. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 06:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Brooke Anne Burns is another place this article has been posted. I linked it above. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Peppers

The page is protected, and, judging from the talk page, it looks like there is significant support for unprotection. zellin t / c 03:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFD discussion - note: this link also covers several subsequent discussions. Apparently, the discussion was twice improperly restarted on the same page rather than creating new discussion pages.

• Strong oppose. The same reasons why it doesn't belong still exist, however. The fact that we have "significant support for unprotection" (almost all of it from anonymous IPs) doesn't mean that it should be undeleted. It will be a magnet for vandalism, and there is no way to do it tastefully. Wikipedia does not have to go with the flow of the Internet on this. --Nlu 03:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the original deletion and the subsequent speedy-deletion as re-created content. This "article" has no place in Wikipedia. Looking at the pervasive history of vandalism through the page history, I also endorse the protection of the page to prevent re-creation. Rossami (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deleted valid VfD. Also, some topics just plain aren't encyclopedic. Peppers did something naughty. Nobody seems to know the exact nature of his crime, but it couldn't possibly have been anything earth-shattering, since he only got 30 days for it. He also happens to have some sort of condition or physical deformity. That's it. Fails WP:BIO by a wide margin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Valid AfD. BDAbramson T 16:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• See Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Vandalism is specifically listed as a Problem that does not require deletion. WP:BIO is not an official policy. If it was, we would have a lot less articles now. There certainly is a way to do it tastefully! The reason why many feel he deserves an article is not because he is a minor sex offender and not even because he has a minor deformity but because he is an internet phenomenon. He is certainly notable enough for Wikipedia on those grounds. zellin t / c 17:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted - This alleged "Internet phenomenon" fails to live up to the standards of "It's a trap!" or "All your base" or whatever. "Brian Peppers" gets just 26,900 Google hits. Compare "All your base" scoring nearly 1 million. Wikipedia is not a repository for anything anyone ever laughed at on a forum. I expect alleged Internet phenomena to display an above-average level of interest to be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. FCYTravis 17:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted, per FCYTravis.--Sean|Black 21:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Not every "internet phenomenon" is worth documenting in an encyclopedia, as I've already argued on the talk page. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-19 21:53:10Z
• Endorse, keep deleted. Process-wise, it is a valid deletion/protection against recreation, and content-wise, please, it is an attack page/non-notable bio. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Making fun of someone for looking bizarre is NOT encyclopaedic. The 30-day jail sentence is just a red herring; are you listing all the other non-notable sex offenders who received a minor 30-day sentence? Also, by the wording, simply touching a person on the thigh could constitute a "sex offense." I'm not endorsing this person, just saying that the only reason this became a minor internet phenomenon is because of what this person looks likeRyoung122 23:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The deleted content is being effectively re-created in the article's Talk page. It is unusual to re-delete an article's Talk page especially since the "protected" template explicitly says "talk about it there" but it may be appropriate in this case to clean out and protect the Talk page as well. Rossami (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It is obvious that this is a lost cause but I just want to point out: