|
These are places that I have explored as a tourist (or citizen) to some degree:
[[Category:Wikipedia deletion]]
[[ja:Wikipedia:削除の復帰依頼]]
[[simple:Wikipedia:Request_for_undeletion]]
[[zh:Wikipedia:恢复条目投票]]
[[Category:Wikipedia maintenance]]
<!-- I know they're often at the bottom, but putting the cat and interlang at the top keeps me from deleting them off the bottom when I clear the old stuff. -->{{Shortcut|[[WP:VFU]]}}{{Deletiontools}}
[[image:flag of Israel.svg|60px|Israel]]
Articles and multimedia are sometimes deleted by [[Wikipedia:Administrators|administrators]] if they are thought to have a valid reason for deletion. Sometimes these decisions are completely correct, and undisputed. Sometimes, they are more controversial. Before using this page, please read the [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy]] and [[Wikipedia:Undeletion policy|undeletion policy]].
[[image:flag of the United States.svg|60px|USA]]
[[image:flag of Serbia.svg|60px|Serbia]]
[[image:flag of Slovenia.svg|60px|Slovenia]]
[[image:flag of Croatia.svg|60px|Croatia]]
[[image:flag of Montenegro.svg|60px|Montenegro]]
[[image:flag of Canada.svg|60px|Canada]]
[[image:flag of France.svg|60px|France]]
[[image:flag of the United Kingdom.svg|60px|UK]]
[[image:flag of Italy.svg|60px|Italy]]
[[image:flag of Switzerland.svg|60px|Switzerland]]
[[image:flag of Slovakia.svg|60px|Slovakia]]
[[image:flag of the Czech Republic.svg|60px|Czech Republic]]
[[image:flag of Austria.svg|60px|Austria]]
[[image:flag of Uzbekistan.svg|60px|Uzbekistan]]
[[image:flag of Japan.svg|60px|Japan]]
[[image:Flag of the United Nations.svg|60px|United Nations]]
Places I will visit as soon as I can:
The archive of deleted page revisions may be periodically cleared. Pages deleted prior to the database crash on [[8 June]] [[2004]] are not present in the current archive because the archive tables were not backed up. This means pages cannot be restored by a sysop. If there is great desire for them it may be possible to retrieve them from the old database files. Prior to this, the archive was cleared out on [[3 December]] [[2003]].
[[image:flag of Morocco.svg|60px|Morocco]]
'''If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can [[WP:BOLD|be bold]] and do so.''' You don't have to get the stub undeleted, and as long as your new version has more information than the previous version it should not be redeleted.
[[image:flag of Belgium.svg|60px|Belgium]]
[[image:flag of Jordan.svg|60px|Jordan]]
== Purpose of this page ==
[[image:flag of Hong Kong.svg|60px|Hong Kong]]
It is hoped that this page will be generally unused, as the vast majority of deletions do not need to be challenged. This page exists for basically two types of people:
[[image:flag of Lebanon.svg|60px|Lebanon]]
# People who feel that an article was wrongly deleted, and that Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored. This may happen because it was deleted without being listed on VfD. Please don't list articles for undeletion just because your position was not endorsed on Votes for Deletion.
# Non-sysops who wish to see the content of a deleted article. 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 [[m:MediaWiki_roadmap|import]] feature is completed.
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.
== History only undeletion ==
History only undeletions can be performed without needing a vote on this page. For example, suppose someone writes a biased article on [[Fred Flintstone]], it is deleted, and subsequently someone else writes a decent article on ''Fred Flintstone''. The original, biased article can be undeleted, in which case it will merely sit in the page history of the ''Fred Flintstone'' article, causing no harm. Please do not do this in the case of copyright violations.
<!-- New entry right below here. Please start a === section === for today's date if one does not exist, and put the entry in ==== a subsection ==== -->
== Temporary undeletion ==
<!-- New entry right below here. Please start a === section === for today's date if one does not exist, and put the entry in ==== a subsection ==== -->
===16 August===
===7 August===
====[[CastleCops]]====
[[Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/CastleCops]] established that the article be deleted. Several voters felt the article to be a spam, advertizement, or vanity article. Kindly temporarily delete it into my userspace so that I might review the material and perhaps propose revisions so as to satisfy any objections to it's inclusion as a valid article. CastleCops does perform a valuable service and deserves attention as a premier site to assist people with computer problems, in particular malware problems. --[[User:Ikester|Ikester]] 06:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' - The article was well written. That wasn't the objection. Merely that the inclusion at all was only an advertisement. I can create a great article about my Mother's cookies or Uncle Jim's part-time carpentry company but that won't make it encyclopedic. - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]][[User:Texture|<font color=red>urε</font><!-- TANSTAAFL -->]] 13:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
:'''Comment:''' All I'm asking is that I am able to get a copy so that I might review it myself. Since I haven't seen the article I can't say that I could address the concerns raised but would like to understand how the article was seen as advertizement and/or vanity and of no encyclopedic value. For example I'd like to understand how the CastleCops article differed from the [[Tech_Support_Forum]] article. I might possibly submit as an article but only after VfD objections have been addressed. --[[User:Ikester|Ikester]] 20:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
::I might add that my request fits in category 2 of [[Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion#Purpose_of_this_page]]. --[[User:Ikester|Ikester]] 01:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Weak undelete''' It certinly googles well, so maybe a real article could be written about it. No harm in trying, I suppose. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan - <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT>]] 14:00, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
*'''''Resurgere''''', --[[User:Merovingian|{{User:Merovingian/Sig}}]] [[User talk:Merovingian|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/Merovingian|(c)]] 05:52, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
:'''Comment:''' Good point. Here's some google results just as a comparison to other sites battling malware:
:*http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=castlecops
::Results 1 - 10 of about 1,120,000 for castlecops
:*http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=broadbandreports
::Results 1 - 10 of about 1,210,000 for broadbandreports
:*http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=dslreports
::Results 1 - 10 of about 1,480,000 for dslreports
:*http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=techsupportforum
::Results 1 - 10 of about 148,000 for techsupportforum
:: --[[User:Ikester|Ikester]] 03:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
*resurgere, indeed. '''undelete''' this. I'll have to rewrite otherwise--and looking at the deleted article I see no good reason why I should have to. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 00:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
*<s>'''Keep deleted'''</s>'''(see my new vote below)''' entirely valid, very recent VfD and that's what VfU is about. '''However''', there is nothing stopping anyone from writing a non-substantially-identical article any time they like. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 00:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
**See [[Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion#Purpose_of_this_page]]. [[User:Factitious|Factitious]] 01:21, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
***This does not fall within the scope of purpose #2. That provides for "use elsewhere", which is not proposed here apart from a userfication, or on "suspicion of inappropriate deletion", which there is not. During the VfD process the article was worked on by its original author in response to feedback, but was still ultimately deleted and that decision remains valid. However, this is a request for '''''temporary''''' undeletion to userspace. So I can see little harm in '''undelete, userfy and immediately redelete — the article should be undeleted only for as long as it takes to userfy it'''. [[User:Ikester|Ikester]] should be aware however, that reposting the article in a "substantially identical" form is grounds for immediate redeletion per [[WP:CSD]], whether or not you agree with the reasoning of the VfD discussion. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 21:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
****Thank you for your reconsideration and further explanation Splash. Please be assured that in fact I'd like to see the article so that there's no danger of reposting in a "substantially identical" form.
****BTW, Purpose #2 states: "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." I took those as examples only and that other valid reasons were possible. Perhaps the VfU purposes need to nailed down a bit better? --[[User:Ikester|Ikester]] 21:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
*****Perhaps, but it is important to avoid the interpretation that a temporary undeletion can be used to allow one user to view an article to consider for themselves whether they agree with the (valid) VfD voters' rationales. This is why I pointed out the indenticality CSD since, even if you were to conclude that the VfD voters were being unreasonable it still isn't ok to simply repost the article. You've said you won't do that, so there should be no problem, but without for a moment wanting to discourage, do bear in mind that the bar to inclusion for websites is often set quite high. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 22:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. [[User:Ikester|Ikester]] is a non-sysop who wishes to see the content of a deleted article. [[User:Factitious|Factitious]] 01:21, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
**That alone is not grounds for temporary undeletion, per my comment above. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 21:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
===1 August===
====[[DiLingo]] and [[Aingeljã]]====
*These pages have been temporarily undeleted to allow transwikefaction. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 14:24, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
== Votes for undeletion ==
===August 16===
====[[Digg]]====
Article was originally deleted and locked before site gained notability. Later on, when the site for which the article was made became more popular and started appearing in the mainstream media, an admin opened the article, and a new article started to form. Just today, the article is gone, without any sort of notice or reason given. [[User:Psykus|Psykus]] 03:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
*Yup, I deleted it. It went through a valid VfD and has been speedy deleted twice now. '''Keep deleted'''. [[User:Zoe|Zoe]] 04:01, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
**The article's current content was never VfD'd. Please learn [[WP:CSD]] before performing speedy deletions. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 06:39, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
*In addition, IIRC, this article has failed ''VfU'' at least twice. <s>'''Keep Deleted'''</s>. <font color="green">[[User:Android79|android]]</font><font color="purple">[[User talk:Android79|79]]</font>
**Three times, actually. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion&action=history&offset=20050721104649&limit=500]. [[User:Zoe|Zoe]] 04:04, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
***Zero times, actually. —[[User:Lifeisunfair|Lifeisunfair]] 13:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
***Why exactly was it unlocked by [[User:Thue|Thue]] then? "I just unprotected, as the website does seem to be getting notable." The fact is, that the site has become notable since the last VfD/VfUs took place, and the article that was deleted was not a recreation of existing content, but was a new article made after the page was unlocked by [[User:Thue|Thue]]. I see no reason to keep this article deleted. [[User:Psykus|Psykus]] 04:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
**Change vote to '''Undelete'''. Apparently not a recreation of previously-deleted content, so the previous VfDs and VfUs do not apply. Though I question the idea that a website could go from non-notable to notable in a few months, that's for a new VfD to decide, if it's warranted. <font color="green">[[User:Android79|android]]</font><font color="purple">[[User talk:Android79|79]]</font> 15:48, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
*<s>'''Keep deleted''' yet again. Note that the article at present still has its history; it needs deleting and recreating protected. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 04:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)</s>
*'''Undelete''', new article. But recommend it go to VfD shortly. And point out to the authors that the article as it stands needs deeply serious work. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 16:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
*Wow. Three deletes and three failed VfUs. I suppose it is theoretically possible for this to go on ad infinitum. Sigh. '''KD'''.—[[User:Encephalon|<font color=#000>Encephalon</font>]] | [[User talk:Encephalon|<sup><font color=#000>ζ</font></sup>]] 04:18:54, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. By way of fairness, Alexa gives [http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=digg.com], which does suggest a rise in popularity at least. The 3 month average traffic rank is about 6200, but this week's average is 3855. Now, VfU still deals with process not content and the process was fine, ''but'' there is the question of protection aside from the speedy deletion. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 04:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
*An AOL anon has taken it upon himself to vandalize [[Slashdot]] in retaliation for Digg being blocked. Certainly speaks well of its supporters. I've protected [[Slashdot]], I'm sure the vandal will move on to other topics now. [[User:Zoe|Zoe]] 05:23, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
::A single person vandalizes an article, and you condemn an entire group of people? —[[User:Lifeisunfair|Lifeisunfair]] 10:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' Looks like we have a case of the hiccups here. The article just fails it. --[[User:Crumb|crumb]] 06:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. Article is in perfect accordance with proposed standards on [[Wikipedia:Websites]]. --[[User:Randy Johnston|Randy Johnston]] 06:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. Notable web site, and [[User:Zoe]] is repeatedly deleting the article out of process. This is not a substantially identical re-creation, it's an entirely new article. Nominate it for VfD if you want. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 06:38, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Strong undelete''' shouldn't have been deleted in the first place (there was no consensus on VfD), shouldn't have been deleted the second time as well. As this site becomes more and more notable we're harming Wikipedia's credibility by deleting this article over and over again. [[User:Grue|<font style="background: black" face="Courier" color=#FFFFFF>''' Grue '''</font>]] 06:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
**Thank you. I undeleted the article again. This petty war is harming Wikipedia's reputation. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 06:47, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. Website far more notable now than when it was validly deleted. THis version is substantially ''different'' from the last. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 06:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Strong undelete / keep undeleted'''. (For historical/informational purposes, this applies to all revisions of [[Digg]].) [[User:Zoe|Zoe]]'s speedy deletions were out of process and utterly outrageous, and I've restored this entry for the purpose of affirming the legitimacy of [[User:Thue|Thue]]'s and [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]]'s undeletions. A VfD, no matter how valid, does '''''NOT''''' permanently bar the creation of an article on the pertinent topic. The [[Digg]] website has become undeniably notable since the original VfD, and the article in question is '''''NOT''''' a "substantially identical re-creation" of any previous version. All of this was explained on the article's talk page, but [[User:Zoe|Zoe]] simply ignored it and speedily deleted without discussion. For the record, I had planned to re-nominate the article for undeletion next month (as was [[User:Lifeisunfair#Digg_2|recommended to me by SimonP — the original VfD's closing admin — who promised to vote "undelete"]]), but it was unprotected and rewritten long before I had the opportunity. And do you know what? This situation (in which an overzealous sysop saw "Digg" and rushed to delete without any consideration of the current circumstances or article content) is precisely what [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] warned was likely to occur. It's downright embarrassing for Wikipedia to have a stub for the immensely popular ''[[Diggnation]]'' podcast, but no page of any kind for '''the website that produces it''', purely because a handful of people felt that a subject was unnotable '''between four and five months ago'''. (This isn't directly relevant now, but I'll point out that the [[Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Digg| original VfD]] was overrun by sock puppets, thereby obscuring the fact that the correct final vote tally was 5d–4k. Also, one "delete" vote was based in part upon a misunderstanding of Google's hit count system, and another indicated that Digg would be worthy of an article "maybe later on, when their user base is bigger and there's some verifiable cultural impact somewhere.") —[[User:Lifeisunfair|Lifeisunfair]] 10:33/12:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. Original vfd was not proper; and even if it was, circumstances have changed enough that the objections raised in it are no longer valid. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] [[User talk:Cryptic|(talk)]] 11:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
*<s>'''Keep deleted''', Digg has been on VFU ''three times'' already in the past couple months, and consensus was each time to keep deleted. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 12:08, August 16, 2005 (UTC)</s> I stand corrected. '''Undelete'''. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 14:10, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
::Please explain why the cited VfU decisions should be applied to an '''entirely different article''' with the same title. —[[User:Lifeisunfair|Lifeisunfair]] 13:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
*The article which was deleted after the VFD debate had this content which is ''very different'' from the content which is there now.:
*:'''Digg''' is a technology news website, started by Jeremiah Udy, and made famous by his friend - G4TV star, Kevin Rose. Digg expands on an idea started by Del.icio.us, where users submit urls parsed into various categories for others to see and click. If a user feels a link contains interesting content, that user will 'digg' - or vote for that link. Upon receiving sufficient 'diggs', the url will appear on the category front page and upon receiving enough diggs after that will be placed on the digg front page.
*:'''RSS feeds'''
*:The site deals with a lot of RSS feeds, each member has 4 feeds to themself. One feed is for all the stories they have 'dugg', another for the stories that have been submitted, another for the stories that have been submitted but have made it to the front page, and one with the stories they have commented on. Also there is a main RSS feed for the frontpage news, a feed for each category, and one for each category in the 'digg' section.
*:'''Changes'''
*:Digg.com is always being updated with new features that the users want. Since the site's launch in December 2004, comments have been added, an 'undigg' feature has been added, 'one-click digging' has been also added.
The last VFU debates all argued that there was a valid VFD debate, but we "undeleters" are not disputing the validity of the VFD debate. We are disputing the validity of the speedy deletions as recreations. ''This article is NOT a recreation of what was deleted after the VFD debate!''. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 12:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' - while the sockpuppetry and repeated nominations are aggravating, the balance of evidence has convinced me that Digg is deserving of a Wikipedia article. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 12:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''', a deletion of the current content should be considered in the VfD process, not here at VfU. This did not meet Speedy criteria. [[User:NoSeptember|<font color = green>'''NoSeptember'''</font>]] 12:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. It's true that the site was small and not very important back when it was first deleted, but that is obviously no longer the case. If Wikipedia gets stuck in a loop where something that was once deleted will always be deleted, just because it was deleted once in the past, it can never hope to keep up with something as fluid and ever-changing as the Internet. - [[User:Korivak|Korivak]] 13:15, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and do not re-speedy''' The current article is not at all similer to the old one, thus it is not subject to speedy deletion as re-created deleted content. If anyone thinks that the current article is not appropriate, or the site still is not notable (matters on which i have no firm opnion), put it on VfD. Feel free to note the history there. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 15:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. When a previously un-noteworthy topic becomes noteworthy, or a previously bad article is replaced by a legitimate article, the question of deletion has to be re-examined with a fresh eye. There's no reason to delete the current very different incarnation. -- [[User:Curps|Curps]] 15:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
===August 14===
====[[Keyboard dust bag]]====
Content was: 'You might have seen this little dillio at the automatic repair garage or any other place where typist have dirty or greazy hands. This is the thin ty...' [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 08:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''No vote'''. The term Googles OK, but for musical instrument keyboards...and it's pretty obvious what the heck a "keyboard dust bag" is from the title. - [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] 17:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. This is one of the few cases where I'll take some latitude with the procedural nature of VfU. That deletion log summary strongly suggests it would be infinitely easier to just write a new article, which does not need a VfU. Lucky6.9 should be aware however, that I can't really see the reason for speedying that article; the [[WP:CSD|CSDs]] are not for interpretation. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 18:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
**How would it be easy to write a new article? I have no idea it is, the explanation is cut off in mid-sentence. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 23:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
***The full content has been provided a couple of comments down. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 16:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. I see no applicble CSD, nor was one cited by the deleting admin above, nor in the deletion log. I doubt this would pass VfD unless expanded or revised, unless the part I can't see is different, but that is not a reason to speedy. Please don't streach the speedy deletion criteria. It would also be helpful if any deleting admin indicated which of the CSD s/he is acting under in the deletion log. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 19:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' - no real content - See content below - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]][[User:Texture|<font color=red>urε</font><!-- TANSTAAFL -->]] 01:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
**Complete content at deletion:
**:''You might have seen this little dillio at the automatic repair garage or any other place where typist have dirty or greazy hands. This is the thin type plastic doo hickey that sit on the keys, so no dirt dust or other stuff can gunk up the keyboard, like falling between the keys and what not.''
*'''Keep deleted'''. Retarded ramblings. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 02:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''KD''', redirect to [[Keyboard]]. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 12:36, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''', not a speedy. [[User:Christopherparham|Christopher Parham]] [[User_talk:Christopherparham|(talk)]] 05:14, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', text of original article (as given above) wasn't encyclopedic and is not needed to create a new article on the topic. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 10:52, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
===August 13===
====[[Arthur Gary Bishop]]====
Another valid stub about a notable serial killer. Easily verifiable with Google. [[User:Factitious|Factitious]] 23:10, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', entire content was ''"serial killer and pedophile"'' (e.g. CSD#A1). Likely a valid subject, so please create a new article here, but the old one is not really going to help there. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 23:33, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete.''' Stub is better than nothing. [[User:NoPuzzleStranger|NoPuzzleStranger]] 16:50, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
**Please re-read [[Wikipedia:The perfect stub article]]. You're not supposed to create '''sub'''stubs at all, and stubs are supposed to involve some research and be proper foundations for expansion. Not every stub is better than nothing. There are good stubs and bad stubs. Bad stubs are worse than nothing. If you a) think Wikipedia needs an article on Arthur Gary Bishop, but b) do not plan to put in the time to research a high-quality, expandable stub yourself, the straightforward, non-contentious thing to do is to put in an [[Wikipedia:Requested_articles|article request]]. This is far better than creating a low-quality substub. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 23:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', this stub is not better than nothing. Write a decent article or leave it deleted. (Please not that my vote was deleted by NoPuzzleStranger, I will assume accidentally, but since his edit occurred seven minutes after mine, I found it hard to believe it was an edit conflict.) [[User:Zoe|Zoe]] 20:20, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
*:(Sorry about that, but I neither deleted it nor got an edit conflict screen. That happened to me before; it's a software fault.) Why is it not better than nothing if I look that name up and get the information he's a serial killer and pedophile? [[User:NoPuzzleStranger|NoPuzzleStranger]] 20:30, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
**'''Keep deleted'''. But note that if someone wants to create a real article about Bishop they can do so without prejudice. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 23:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' without prejudice regarding the title. Subject may be notable, but someone actually has to write at least a half-assed stub first. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 00:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' valid deletion by CSD - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]][[User:Texture|<font color=red>urε</font><!-- TANSTAAFL -->]] 01:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' with no prejudice against full article on subject. Wikipedia articles need to be written in full sentences and good stubs contain more than just three words. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 10:55, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
====[[Francesca Easthope]]====
The deletion log says: ''08:32, 13 August 2005 Dan100 deleted "Francesca Easthope" (fictional nn)''. It appearsa that this was either a real person of disputed notability (claims made in the article, but not verified) or a hoax. In neither case is there an applicable rule in [[WP:CSD]]. See also [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Hoaxes and Fiction]]. '''Undelete''' and place on VfD. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 16:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
*<s>'''Undelete and VfD'''</s> - Vanity listing/resume but doesn't fall under any CSD. - awaiting more comments before deciding. - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]][[User:Texture|<font color=red>urε</font><!-- TANSTAAFL -->]] 17:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Zero Google hits, no IMDB entry, this is a hoax, which will get deleted anyway if it goes through VfD, why waste the time? [[WP:ISNOT]] a bureaucracy. [[User:Zoe|Zoe]] 18:54, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
*Speedy deletion happens with a minimum number of eyse on the article involved. Therefore the criteria should be strictly enforced. Things have in the past been put up for deletion as hoaxes (and even more as vanity) that proved to be real and notable. Therefore a probable hoax is not a good reason for a speedy delete, see the link above. VfU is supposed to be about process, not article merit, so whether the articel would pass VfD is not relevant. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 19:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', while I agree that "fictional nn" is not a speedy deletion criterion, the fact that this girl gets no googles (other than ''this very page!'') means we don't have to pull her article through the bureaucracy of VFD now as the end result will be the same. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 23:33, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. As mentioned, fictional nn is not a speedy. However, as [[User:DESiegel|DES]] points out, ''"Speedy deletion happens with a minimum number of eyse on the article involved"''. I am satisfied that this VfU procedure, along with the original speedy tag has provided enough pairs of eyes. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 18:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
**Quite possiblely true in this case. But I hope that this admin in particular, and admins in general, will '''not''' speedy in similer cases in future, but rather let such things go to VfD. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 19:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
**I concur. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 21:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
===August 12===
====[[Nikolai Dzhurmongaliev]]====
Lucky 6.9 valid-stub deletion again. Maybe his friends want to write a longer article here too, as for [[Gestir]], lest they have to admit what a mistake it was to make him an admin. [[User:NoPuzzleStranger|NoPuzzleStranger]] 22:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. Deletion log says ''"content was: 'Russian cannibal serial killer acclaimed to have killed 100 persons.' (and the only contributor was '81.191.180.41')"''. If that's not a claim to notability, then few are the things that are. Whether it is notable enough to keep is for VfD, not speedy. Plus, it's easily verifiable from Google. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 23:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. Seems notable, so it should be undeleted. Having said that, VfU is not the place for [[vendetta|personal vendettas]]. --[[User:Titoxd|Tito]]<font color="#008000">[[User_talk:Titoxd|xd]]</font> 23:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''', clearly not a valid speedy. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] [[User talk:Cryptic|(talk)]] 00:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' - "X is Y" fails "Very short articles providing little or no context". -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|✎]] 00:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
**It provides context. He was a Russian serial killer. [[User:Factitious|Factitious]] 01:25, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''', provides context and establishes notability. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 00:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Doesn't matter.''' If we undelete it, it will be expanded. If we leave it deleted, it will eventually be recreated. Either way, it's pointless voting and arguing over 10 words. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan - <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT>]] 01:00, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. This was not a candidate for speedy deletion. [[User:Factitious|Factitious]] 01:25, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
*Sigh. OK, it's back. Sorry 'bout the mistake. - [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] 02:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Weak keep deleted''' - A single claim of notability would keep it alive. Deletion was valid but recreation with good content will solve everything - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]][[User:Texture|<font color=red>urε</font><!-- TANSTAAFL -->]] 17:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
**Huh? Is asserting that he cannibalistically killed 100 people not a single claim of notability?! -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 19:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. The short articles criterion doesn't excuse administrators from performing basic research. The context and notability criteria were satisfied and it's easy enough to find articles about this chap all over the net. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 17:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
** On the criticism of Luck 6.9, I think it's misplaced. Many administrators make bad speedies on occasion. They are easy enough to spot and remedy. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 17:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
***While this isn't the most appropriate forum in which to discuss a sysop's actions in great detail, I believe that the criticisms of [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] are entirely warranted; he/she has speedily deleted numerous articles that weren't even borderline candidates. New admin or not, there's no excuse for this reckless behavior. —[[User:Lifeisunfair|Lifeisunfair]] 18:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
****I have tried to make it my personal rule that whenever I realize I am beginning to start a sentence with the words "I really shouldn't say this," it means I really shouldn't say this, and, therefore, I don't say it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 21:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Shrug''' per Starblind. How much time by how many editors has been soaked up by bringing this to VFU? It was a ten-word substub, which could have been recreated–and improved–with one Google search and thirty seconds. The discussion here is now more than ''fifty times'' the length of the speedied article. If NoPuzzleStranger has a problem with Lucky 6.9, he should open an RFC and stop wasting our time here. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 00:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
====[[PC Check]]====
Who keeps deleting the artile about "PC Check"? It was accurate and precise yesterday (11 August 2005) and now it's disappeared! No reasons given. Just vanished. It would be nice if the administrators explained CLEARLY why an article was deleted or being considered for deletion. (<small>Nomination by [[User:62.253.64.14]] [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 13:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)</small>)
*<s>'''Keep deleted'''</s>. It was speedy deleted as a recreation of content previously deleted at [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/PC Check]]. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 14:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
**'''Neutral'''. After reviewing the two versions, I see that they are a bit different, the second version is considerably longer, so if this was truly a valid speedy is uncertain to me. However I don't think the second version would stand a better chance at VFD than the first version. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 14:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
**Note also that even though the nominator is anonymous, s/he was the main author of the article, therefore s/he should have a right to vote on this debate. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 14:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
**So that also non-admins can compare the versions and base their vote on it, I have temporarily undeleted the article and protected it with the <nowiki>{{tempUndelete}}</nowiki>-template. Compare [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PC_Check&oldid=19864867 first version] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PC_Check&oldid=20778648 second version]. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 14:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' The speedy deleteion criterion involved says that pages "substantially similar" to validly deleted content may be speedy deleted. Was this page "substantially similar" to the version that was VfD'd (I haven't seen either, and so have no opnion). if not, this deletion was out of process, and the page should be undeleted and sent to VfD. (to User:62.253.64.14, the deleteion log clearly showed the reason for the deletion.) [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 14:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''': The article is still advertisement for a NN product. Most of the people in the [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/PC Check|vfd]] agreed to that. This is simply a case of self-promotion. --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] 14:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''KD''', I find this to be substantially similar, given the argumentation of the VFD (which was about the product being NN, not the article being crappy). [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 14:23, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted'''. Good call on the undeletion so we can all see, but I also feel this article is substantially similar to the VFD'd version, and the speedy deletion of the new version was valid. <font color="green">[[User:Android79|android]]</font><font color="purple">[[User talk:Android79|79]]</font> 14:25, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' I compared the versions posted here by [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]]. while the second one is reworded, there seems to be no significant information in it that was not in the first version, nor any very different tone or style of writing. I think I'd call those "substantially similar". If the creator wants to re-post an article on this again I would advise significant exapansion, with sourcable facts that indicate the notability of this product. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 14:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Weak keep deleted''' I personally believe that all boxed, sold-at-stores software should get articles: after all, all video games get articles, so why not extend that to software too? I probably would have voted keep/cleanup on the the original VfD if I'd seen it. However, I also believe in due WP process, and don't believe that the two versions are different enough for the deletion to be out of order. I also feel that since most voters on the VfD had notability concerns, a rewrite MUST address that issue to be kept. I wouldn't be against a completely re-written version of the article that actually demonstrates notability though. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan - <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT>]] 14:37, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted.''' Recreation of content previously voted for deletion, hence valid speedy, hence keep deleted. VfD process was valid, and vote was 6 deletes, 1 keep. (We are '''not''' rearguing the merits here, but as far as that goes I believe the judgement of the VfD voters was sound, too). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 22:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
* Keep deleted. [[User:Wile E. Heresiarch|Wile E. Heresiarch]] 15:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
===August 9===
====[[Anti-Scenester]]====
This page was deleted for the following reason: (No assertion of notability for this likely hoax neologism)
While this is partially true, this term is a neologism, the term reflects back on the root "[[scenester]]" which is also a neologism. Both are (I would argue) stable Neologisms, and a simple web search will show that Anti-scenester is a non-hoax term with similar meanings in each instance. While this term isn't as frequently used as "scenester" by the mainstream the term is very common in the vernacular of musicians.
While admittedly anti-scenester may have many synonyms that apply and may have some way to go (via community editing) to encompass the full scope of the word, I think that both scenester and anti-scenester are valid additions to Wikipedia nonetheless.
Thank you for your time,..
[[User:Banquo|Banquo]] 17:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We have a whole article of official policy outlining this, please see... [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary]] for details. If you want to try this term out in Wikitionay, [http://en.wiktionary.org/ go ahead], though they tend to reject neologisms as well. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan - <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT>]] 18:15, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]][[User:Texture|<font color=red>urε</font><!-- TANSTAAFL -->]] 18:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' but weakly. The version with that deletion-summary should not have been speedied (unless it was [[Wikipedia:Patent nonsense]]) since neologisms just don't fit the criteria. This 2nd version was, however, arguably deletable on the presumption it was a simple recreation of already deleted content and, although possibly not deleted in accordance with policy, it should still have come here rather than just being remade. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 20:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
**Good point, it's true that neologisms are not a speedy criteria. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan - <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT>]] 21:53, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' [[WP:CSD]] G4 says ''A substantially identical copy, by any title, of an article that was deleted '''according to the deletion policy'''. '' (empahsis added) If the first deleteion was not according to policy (and there is no speedy criterion for neologisms, nor for dictdefs, nor a requirement that either assert notability to avoid speedy) then the recration is valid, and not subject to speedy deletion under G4. This may well fail VfD, but that isn't the point here. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 14:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' per DES [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 21:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
===August 8===
====[[RIFE]]====
This page was deleted for supposed copyvio. The [[User:Gbevin|original author]] was not around informed of the copyvio and it was deleted. He has since noted it is his own work and permission is granted to keep it on Wikipedia.
See:
*[[User_talk:Pengo#RIFE]]
*[[User_talk:Duk#Concerning_http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FUser_talk:Pengo.23RIFE]]
[[User:Pengo|Pengo]] 01:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
* '''Undelete''' Pengo, when it's undeleted, please copy the full text of the notice from the original author to the talk page and mention in it the edit history as well. Regards, [[User:Wile E. Heresiarch|Wile E. Heresiarch]] 03:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' and leave a text of the notice per Wile E. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Death]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 13:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' and agree with Wile E.'s suggestion. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan - <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT>]] 23:13, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
====[[Historical_persecution_by_Jews]]====
I closed the debate for this one. It is at [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews]]. I closed it as a "no consensus" keep. It was controversial. I got a lot of criticism for closing it as such, but I have recieved support for my position as well from [[User:SimonP]], [[User:Rossami]], [[User:Mindspillage]] among others. [[User:Neutrality]] has as far as I know, absolutely ''no authority'' to "overrule" me and delete this. If he wants this deleted, he should start a new VFD debate. I have no opinion as to whether or not this article merits inclusion, but the deletion was completely out of process as far as I know. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 09:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
* This isn't a VFU matter. An administrator who made a good faith VfD close has been arbitrarily overridden by another administrator. That was a shameful act. I have restored it. If someone still wants to delete they should list for deletion again. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 10:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
:* ''Shameful act''? It isn't clear to me that goodfaith was ''questioned''. Let's aim for as moderate language as the situation warrants. [[User:El C|El_C]] 10:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
*While I agree that this one has no consensus, it does appear to me that far too many religious issues come up on VFD these days, and all turn into lengthy Violent Factionalizing Debates. Does anyone have a reasonable idea of what to do about that? [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 10:21, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
**Not much to do really except to admonish people to be civil, and follow rules tightly. When things are really hot and contentious, it is an excellent time to ignore [[WP:IAR]]. It is much better to upset people by following the rules than to upset people by bending or breaking them. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 10:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
*If [[User:Neutrality]] counted the tally differently it should be recorded on the VfD vote explaining why the original count was inaccurate. Since it was not, he should not have deleted it. However, I don't see any "shameful act". That is an overdramatization. The vote was close enough that I could see why another admin would delete. Doing so without any notice is improper. - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]][[User:Texture|<font color=red>urε</font><!-- TANSTAAFL -->]] 14:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' [[User:Neutrality]]'s obviously unintentional mistake, and [[WP:FAITH|assume good faith]]. [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] 15:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. There was a valid, 2:1 [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] on VfD to delete. Sjakkalle made in error in keeping the article. This certainly constitutes a consensus to delete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 15:03, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
** The problem is that you violated process in deleting it after he closed it, and by doing so without notice. I don't think that's OK, even if you are right that Sjakkalle erred. Admins should at least try to follow the [[Pompeia Sulla|Caesar's wife]] dictum. IMHO. [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]]
*I guess since it is deleted again I have to vote on this. I am torn between valid votes. The deletion was outside of process. But, imo, only because the VfD was not updated to reflect the admin's review of the closing. (I don't believe that anyone can close a VfD and have it be beyond review.) Neutrality should state in the VfD that it was closed upon later review. Then, this vote would determine if the deletion was valid. So, if he did so I would consider it a valid deletion. My indecision is due to the fact that I would have voted to keep this. I should vote according to process and if Neutrality documents his review of the VfD I will vote '''keep deleted'''<s> - No vote for now.</s> - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]][[User:Texture|<font color=red>urε</font><!-- TANSTAAFL -->]] 15:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
* '''Undelete now'''. Neutrality has abandoned all pretence of following process with the second deletion. [[User:Susvolans|Susvolans]] [[User talk:Susvolans|(pigs can fly)]] 15:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
* '''Keep deleted''' or '''re-delete''' as the case may be. When the tally is disputed by two admins who both want to close it, a review by others is sensible. Neutrality himself could have brought the vfd here (or taken it elsewhere) for review; but now that it's here, let's go ahead and review it. [[User:Wile E. Heresiarch|Wile E. Heresiarch]] 03:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
* '''Keep deleted''' or '''re-delete''' as per [[User:Wile E. Heresiarch|Wile E. Heresiarch]] --[[User:Eliezer|Eliezer]] | [[User_talk:Eliezer|<small>£€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€</small>]] 06:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
*I think Wile's solution is sensible. So, '''KD'''. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 07:48, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
*'''comment''': There is absolutely no basis to override a validly closed VFD debate, and deciding that a result should be ignored is a clear subversion of process. Neutrality was a participant in the said debate (he voted "delete"), and has therefore no business in trying to close it anyway. The article has been properly undeleted. If someone wants this deleted, ''renominate'' it for deletion in a regualr VFD debate. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 08:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
** There is certainly no sacred principle involved in being the first admin on the scene. It might just as well have been someone else instead of you. What matters is that there is disagreement among the admins who are more or less standing around, so a review by others is appropriate. [[User:Wile E. Heresiarch|Wile E. Heresiarch]] 13:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
***After I got complaints of my closure here I asked two other regular VFD closers, [[User:SimonP]] and [[User:Rossami]] if they agreed with my decision. Both of them agreed with my decision. [[User:Neutrality]] was a participant in this VFD debate and therefore had a [[conflict of interest]] when he tried overruling my result. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 08:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted for now'''. Since this is a question of admin activity (who was right, etc.), I think this discussion should be shifted on [[WP:AN]] to get more admin feedback on how to interpret the VfD. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Death]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 14:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
**It has been. See <s>[[WP:AN/I#User:Sjakkalle.2C_User:IZAK_and_the_VFD_debate_on_Religious_persecution_by_Jews]]</s> [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive38#User:Sjakkalle.2C_User:IZAK_and_the_VFD_debate_on_Religious_persecution_by_Jews]]. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 07:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' For these reasons:
*#A second administrator is allowed to change a result. Nothing wrong with that.
*#The higher the number of votes, the less inclined I am to call a no consensus.
*#I think the article should have been deleted anyway. [[User:smoddy|<nowiki>[[smoddy]]</nowiki>]] 20:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
*::As a result of comments above and a discussion with Tony Sidway regarding his view that all votes are "'''binary'''" requiring a "keep" or "delete" decision, regardless of whether any votes are to keep, I am restoring my vote to keep deleted. - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]][[User:Texture|<font color=red>urε</font><!-- TANSTAAFL -->]] 21:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' for the above reasons. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 23:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
* '''Restore''' [[User:Lapsed Pacifist|Lapsed Pacifist]] 03:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. There was no clear consensus to delete. If we want to reevaluate the keep decision, it should be resubmitted to VfD, not done here. [[User:NoSeptember|'''<font color = green>NoSeptember</font>''']] 08:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted or redelete'''. (Has anyone bothered to read the article in question? It's junky nonsense that clearly contravenes [[WP:NOR]].) Given the sensitivity of this subject (i.e. Jews as "presecutors" -- what [[historical revisionism]] ''that'' is) and that ''two thirds'' of the original vote was to rightly and logically delete it (out of over 100 valid votes cast), it should have been dumped and banished, and certainly not "protected" by any admin which then resulted in the subsequent justified uproar. The sooner this article goes, the better. [[User:IZAK|IZAK]] 08:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Strong "Make it so That it was Never Deleted in the First Place"'''. I think Smoddy, Wile, and others miss an important issue. This is more than just a disagreement between two admins closing the debate. Neutrality was a ''voter'' in the debate, in fact, one with strong views. Let me quote Neutrality's vote: "'''Delete''' this filth." So then, after the debate was closed, he deleted it anyway. It is highly improper to close in which you are involved, especially overriding another uninvolved admin. VfU is about process, and this aticle was deleted out of process. In fact, why did we get mad at Stevertigo for editing a protected article he was involved in? Why were people mad at Ed Poor for closing Lucky's RFA when he himself had so emphatically voted in it? For the same reason this article was deleted improperly. An involved admin... give me a break. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 08:43, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
**Ah yes, I hadn't quite grasped that. Nevertheless, I think all the above votes serve to validate Neutrality's point, even if he overstepped the mark originally. We're building an encyclopedia. End result above process, right? [[User:smoddy|<nowiki>[[smoddy]]</nowiki>]] 10:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
***No. If violating process upsets people, we should follow process. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 10:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
*** No. Process helps us maintain our objectivity and enables the end result. Arbitrarily ignoring the process creates uncertainty, ambiguity and ill will between participants. It makes us more susceptible to the whims of a few and degrades the total quality of our encyclopedia. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]
****To both the above users: What is the most important part of Wikipedia? Answer: building an encyclopedia. You are right that ignoring policy can have unfortunate effects. But is not upsetting people more important than the content of the encyclopedia? I don't think so. Here, he article was rubbish, so deleting it was a good thing. In addition, a huge majority of people did not want the article to remain, and plenty of people (including myself) are willing to accept Neutrality's judgement. This is quite enough process for me. [[User:smoddy|<nowiki>[[smoddy]]</nowiki>]] 16:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
*****Sticking to process is only a good idea in so much as the process has been validated. And that requires that the product of the process be established as reliably defect-free. Until that point, the process has to be malleable, and I don't think Wikipedia is anywhere near that point yet. [[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] 17:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
******Okay, another thing that you're not really seeing. This is Vf'''U''', not VFD. We are ''not'' voting on the merits of the article and whether it should be deleted, and with good reason. Very few of the VfD voters have voted here and probably few even know about it. Neutrality deleted it improperly and it was restored; and now people here are trying to use Votes for ''Un''deletion to get a properly closed VfD overturned and actually ''delete'' it. That's what ''VfD'' is for. Again '''this is not VfD'''. Take it back there if you want to. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 19:30, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
****** If you analyze the number of VfD decisions which are overturned, I think you will find that our process is remarkably close to defect-free. It may not be up to [[Six Sigma]] standards and it's certainly more time-consuming than any of us want but for such a contentious process, it renders a very high proportion of correct decisions. I see no evidence supporting the need to bypass process in this case. If you think the "keep" decision was in error, simply VfD it again. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 22:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
* '''D'''elete resp '''k'''eep deleted. No merits, presently only contains unnotable incidents. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]] | [[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 09:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted or redelete'''. Clearly the vote was in favour of deleting. [[User:Kuratowski's Ghost|Kuratowski's Ghost]] 10:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' - as much as I object this article, which I find to be racist, original research and poorly substantiated, the act of deleting it by [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]] was wrong because:(a) no concensus was reached; (b) Neutrality had no business overturning [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]]'s decision; (c) Neutrality was involved in the vote. The article should be properly deleted after a vfd, and until then, it will be a disgrace to Wikipedia.--[[User:Doron|Doron]] 11:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
* Leave it '''Undeleted'''. The discussion was properly closed with a "no concensus" decision. If Neutrality or anyone else wants to have this article deleted, they must propose it through a ''new'' VfD discussion. The first discussion did '''not''' meet the necessary standards of concensus. (The arguments that say it should be deleted because of the mere vote-counts are just wrong. Despite the name, "Votes for deletion" has nothing to do with "voting".) [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 12:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
* '''Keep deleted'''. Keeping it in the face of 2/3 delete vote was the improper move here. --[[User:Briangotts|Briangotts]] [[User Talk:Briangotts|(talk)]] 16:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', '''keep deleted''' or '''redelete'''. I agree with Doron above that the article is a disgrace for Wikipedia. See my detailed comments on the article at the talk page. [[User:Gidonb|<font color="green">gidonb</font>]] 18:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. 66 votes in favour of deleting is strong consensus, even if it is "only" 2/3 of those who voted. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></sup> 18:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] <sup><font size=-1 color=129DBC>[[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]]</font></sup> 19:24, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
:'''COMMENTS''': (1) This is '''not''' the place to discuss whether or not Neutrality acted improperly by reinterpreting Sjakkale's decision that there was no consensus. That belongs at [[WP:ANI]]. (2) Sjakkale says this is being discussed [[WP:AN/I#User:Sjakkalle.2C_User:IZAK_and_the_VFD_debate_on_Religious_persecution_by_Jews|there]], but it is not. (3) The discussion here is utterly moot since the article is not presently deleted. (4) Articles on VFU should '''not''' be undeleted until consensus is reached on the VFU page. Doing so discourages comment and makes people wonder why the discussion is going on at all. Clearly, there's no reason to vote for undeletion if the article isn't deleted. (5) If someone deletes the article, and spells out their rationale, then we can discuss whether or not their rationale was valid, and ONLY that discussion is appropriate here. I believe Neutrality's rationale was valid, hence my vote above. </me puts away lecture pointer.> [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] <sup><font size=-1 color=129DBC>[[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]]</font></sup> 19:24, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
::"Um, Teacher? Can you start over? #3 seems to contradict #4 and #5 contradicts ''something'', I'm sure. Oh, and there doesn't seem to be anything [[WP:AN/I#User:Sjakkalle.2C_User:IZAK_and_the_VFD_debate_on_Religious_persecution_by_Jews|there]] where your pointer is. (Making #2 contradict #1 or at least making it look embarrassed.) And I have to use the restroom - can I have a hall-pass while you explain it again?" - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]][[User:Texture|<font color=red>urε</font><!-- TANSTAAFL -->]] 20:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
:::Grrrr. so academic...are you really confused? or just trolling? Of course there's nothing [[WP:AN/I#User:Sjakkalle.2C_User:IZAK_and_the_VFD_debate_on_Religious_persecution_by_Jews|there]], that's my whole point. Sjakkale says there is, and there isn't. The discussion over whether to undelete is irrelevant, since the article isn't deleted. If the article ''was'' deleted, it shouldn't have been ''un''deleted while the VFU is still open. (5) is just a restatement of the rules of VFU. So much here is "out of process" and so much of the rest of it is just plain "out of place"... The only part of #5 that contradicts anything is that I prattle on about how wrong this whole thing is, and then say "I'm going ahead and voting anyways". It's only ''apparently'' contradictory, since I actually understand what's going on. To expect everyone who happens by to understand, however, this entire messed up VFU, is unreasonable and unfair. Hence (4). Do I really need to clarify? My clarification is quickly becoming a Mishnah Comments. [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] <sup><font size=-1 color=129DBC>[[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]]</font></sup> 07:08, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. I saw a consensus to delete. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 19:33, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete and keep deleted!''' Respectfully, [[User:Olve|Olve]] 22:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' Discussion is not now on [[WP:ANI]] and the deletion was improper. Admins should be discouraged from being reckless. If someone wants to put the silly thing (and its present incarnation could be a lot worse) on VfD again, fine. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 22:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' or '''Redelete'''. I intended to vote '''Delete''' in the Original VfD, but was unable to do that in time. The article is not worth keeping for reasons expressed in the Original VfD and here by numerous users. Had I and others like me done so, the result would have been a consensus to delete. -- [[User:Nahum|Nahum]] 04:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
*I see Tomer is making a big deal out of the fact that the link I mentioned on the Administrator's Noticeboard has been archived. It was still on the "active" board when I added the link. The discussion is now [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive38#User:Sjakkalle.2C_User:IZAK_and_the_VFD_debate_on_Religious_persecution_by_Jews|here]]. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 07:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
**Thanks Sjakkale. I wasn't "making a big deal out of [it]", I was just commenting. The big deal came up in the prélude to my Misjna Comments. :-) [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] <sup><font size=-1 color=129DBC>[[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]]</font></sup> 09:31, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. If it is ok for one admin to overrule the actions of a previous admin, then there is no reason why a third admin can't overrule the second admin and restore the article. And then a fourth admin can overrule the third admin and delete the article. This is now the new precedence here. Nevermore will their be a final decision on the closing of a VfD. The last admin to act makes the decision. :-) [[User:NoSeptember|'''<font color = green>NoSeptember</font>''']] 07:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
**I think that's what we're trying to avoid, actually, which is why I said, the parts of this that aren't "out of process" are entirely "out of place". [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] <sup><font size=-1 color=129DBC>[[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]]</font></sup> 09:31, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. [[User:El C|El_C]] 12:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. [[User:Rachel1|Rachel1]] 14:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
*Considering the procedural position this is in, '''undelete'''. Sjakkalle read the results appropriately; if Neutrality disagreed, the way to handle that should have been to start a new vote for deletion. --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 17:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. The original decision was a mistake, as was Neutrality's deletion out of process — but we should be trying to do what's right, not undeleting as a signal to Neutrality. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>)]] 18:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
* '''Question''': If this article is so awful, why has no one re-nominated it for deletion through a regular VfD discussion? Why are so many people trying to insist on a special exception to the process for this one article? [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]
*'''Keep deleted''' [[User:Jtdirl|<font color="#006666">'''Fear'''<font color="#FF6600">'''''ÉIREANN''''']][[Image:Ireland coa.png|15px]]\<sup><font color=blue>[[user_talk:Jtdirl|(caint)</sup><font color=black>]] 01:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''redirect somewhere'''. vfd had no consensus, so this whole discussion is out of line. it would be ''normal practice'' to redirect a title to a related subject if it transpires that this title does not warrant an independent article. To cite a quite unpolitical example, I redirected [[Minusa River]] to [[Minusinsk]] when it became clear that this "river" is just a minor brook. The [[Minusa River]] redirect as far as I care may remain part of Wikipedia until the heat death of the universe, no harm done. Similarly, it has transpired that there is no real basis for a [[Historical_persecution_by_Jews]] article. So, just redirect it to [[Religious persecution]] or something, and have that state that there is no evidence of such in Judaism after 500 BC, and have all direct links to [[Historical_persecution_by_Jews]] removed. No harm done, no vfd necessary. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 15:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', as per User:Texture above. There was a large number of votes, and the results arguably constituted a consensus. It is quite unreasonable for Sjakkalle to claim that he has the final and only say on the interpretation of the results and that his judgment cannot be appealed short of doing over the entire VfD. Nowhere else in Wikipedia does any one admin have the sole and final say on anything: for instance, if one admin blocks a user, another admin can unblock, and so forth. Undoing what another admin has done is usually done with care and courtesy, with an explanation on a talk page, but it is hardly unheard of. -- [[User:Curps|Curps]] 22:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. If it needs to be deleted it should be relisted on VfD. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 17:42, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. This article passed VfD and was then speedied a couple of times by an administrator who disputed the result. This isn't the right way to do it; take it back to VfD if you want it deleted. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 17:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Agree with Tony Sidaway'''. [[User:Shem Daimwood|Shem]]<sup>[[User talk:Shem Daimwood|(talk)]]</sup> 02:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. Improperly deleted. [[User:Christopherparham|Christopher Parham]] [[User_talk:Christopherparham|(talk)]] 05:24, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
====[[Fyksland]]====
This article was deleted three days ago. I object against this deletion for two reasons:
*The result of the vote was: 14D-11K. No consensus, methinks. But four votes were discounted, thus giving the smallest possible majority for deletion. Editcounting, if applied, should be announced before the vote starts; using the method a posteriori makes the result of a vote far too easy to manipulate. Besides, the discarding of at least votes was IMO inappropriate:
**One user made "44 articles, mostly to conlang articles". This user made a lot more contributions to the Spanish wiki. Besides, what's wrong with writing about your own area of interest/expertise, and why should that be a reason for discounting someone's vote?
**One user was not logged in; however, this person made a lot of valuable contributions anynomously (over a thousand, in fact); he often signs his contributions with his real name.
*How many times can an article be VFDed? Obviously some people don't like this article to be part of this wikipedia, but obviously quite a number of people want to keep it. That should be enough reason for keeping it. Issuing one VfD after another until finally a consensus is found is IMO against the spirit of this whole project. For the record, here is the history:
**On April 7, 2004 a VfD was issued against this article. Result: no consensus.
**On April 26, 2004 another VfD was issued against it. Result: again no consensus.
**On July 17, 2005 a VfD against the related article [[Fyksian]] resulted in the decision: merge with [[Fyksland]].
**On July 23, 2005 a third VfD was issued against Fyksland; this led to the deletion I am currently disputing.
Without delving into issues of notability, I request the undeletion of this article. Once objective criteria have been established for conlang notability (see [[Wikipedia:Conlangs]], vote will start end of August), I'm ready to reevaluate this and other conlang articles. --[[User:IJzeren Jan|IJzeren Jan]] 08:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. The discounting of votes needs to be more than cursory. One discounted vote was that of [[User:Assdl|Assdl]], a user with over 100 edits on Spanish wiki in addition to the 44 in English wiki. (This user self-proclaimed his involvement in Spanish wiki on his user page, with a link so I could look at his other-wiki edits. The closing admin should do this check before discounting a vote). Are we going to only count English wiki edits to determine a person's legitimacy? That seems improper to me, we are just trying to avoid vote fraud here, active involvement in other wikis indicates a reduced chance of a fraudulent vote. This discounted vote seems legitimate to me. I am no fan of Conlang articles and would vote to delete this article, but we should try to avoid the appearance of the attempt to discount votes to come to a preferred result. Undelete and resubmit to VfD. [[User:NoSeptember|'''<font color = green>NoSeptember</font>''']] 15:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. The closer is entitled to discard votes from users with very few edits and anonymous users when there is suspicion of sockpuppetry. The VFD debate appears to be valid. Even if Assdl's vote is counted, this would still be a close call where the admin's discretion must be used. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 12:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
**No, that's the point. If Assdl's vote is counted the result is 8/14, i.e. 36.4% for Keep, while a 2/3 majority is the '''absolute minimum''' required for a delete. That's not a close call at all! Besides, is there any reason to suspect sockpuppetry? --[[User:IJzeren Jan|IJzeren Jan]] 12:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
***Well not really, VFD is not only about vote-counting, although I personally am extremely cautious about deleting articles with a less-than-two-thirds majority for deletion. Many administrators take into account the arguments presented, and if a keep vote is given without any reason at all (such as Sonjaa's vote) it is sometimes given less weight. Finally, suspicion of sockpuppetry crops up when there are several votes from entirely new users. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 12:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
****Well, one user with very few edits and one new user on a total of 25 of votes is not that much. If it matters to anybody, I can personally vouch for any of the four discounted votes. And sure, I appreciate your point about arguments. But since you mention it: several arguments were based on the incorrect assumption that F. is a micronation. Should these votes therefore be discounted too? --[[User:IJzeren Jan|IJzeren Jan]] 13:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
*****I don't know if I would have closed this a delete. Probably not. If I had voted, I would most likely have voted "delete". Any debate which ends up with a 60%-70% delete majority is very close. To be fair, I will grant you that a couple of the delete votes were also given without reason, and some of them were based on the assumption that Fyksland is a micronation. But many of the keep votes were not based on the merits of the article but on the results of previous VFDs which had ended with "no consensus". Also, I don't think many of the "delete" voters would change their mind if told that Fyksland is something a bit different from a normal micronation. I don't think that Francs2000 was out of line when he deleted this article. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 13:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
******I'm sure [[User:Sonjaaa|Sonjaaa]] would happily provide arguments for her "keep" vote when asked. But that's not the point. We work with consensus rather than with majorities, and 60% is hardly what I would call consensus. Several people who voted in earlier VFDs (including the creator of F.) didn't vote this time, possibly because they were temporarily unavailable (it's vacation time, mind). I'm not accusing Francs2000 of being out of line, I simply disagree with him. When the call is so close as this time, I would either have closed the vote with a "no consensus" conclusion, or have left it open for another while to enable others to give their opinion. --[[User:IJzeren Jan|IJzeren Jan]] 13:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' Valid VfD, agree with Sjakkalle. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan - <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT>]] 12:35, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' per the nominator. There seems far to much rediness to discount what seem clearly legitimate votes by relatively new editors in this and related VfDs, and then delete based on vary narrow consensus margins. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 16:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. [[User:Grue|<font style="background: black" face="Courier" color=#FFFFFF>''' Grue '''</font>]] 21:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' Valid vfd, votes discounted to forestall an attempt to game the vfd system. [[User:Wile E. Heresiarch|Wile E. Heresiarch]] 03:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
**I wish you would stop making this sort of accusations, Wile. Since you keep repeating this, let me give a short explanation. The first link you offered (to ZBB) dealt ''only'' with Verdurian and can hardly be explained as an attempt to game the VfD for Fyksland or Breathanach or whatever. The second link points to a discussion on the [[CONLANG]] list. Mind: a ''discussion'', not an invitation to come over and vote. When conlangs are being discussed somewhere on the net, it is not uncommon that we follow that discussion and talk about it. I don't think there is anything illegitimate in posting a link to it. The third link BTW is just a mirror of the second one. All in all, Wile, does a link to a VfD outside Wikipedia automatically disqualify those who vote ''keep''? If not, then you better make it clear why you accuse '''these four people'' of Bad Faith. --[[User:IJzeren Jan|IJzeren Jan]] 05:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Doesn't seem to have been the object of any studies or articles in the world at large (at least no such references were given). Appears to be completely unverifiable except for information on the creator's own webpage, Wikipedia mirrors and the like. [[User:Tupsharru|Tupsharru]] 06:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', valid VfD discouting socks and new users. Good call by the vote closer. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Death]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 14:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and the admin made a judgment call, which is his job. [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] 14:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''KD''' as above. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 09:05, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Deleted'''. A conscientious and unusually well documented closing by a sysop in good standing. Should someone want to do a rewrite or to add to a related article, I would strongly support history-only undeletion for the purpose of research. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 13:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
| 