|
'''Location: UK'''
<noinclude><div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 1px 0 0; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; font-size:10px">
{| width = "100%"
{|style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; width: 242px; border: #99B3FF solid 1px"
|<center>'''[[Wikipedia:Babel]]'''</center>
|-
|{{User en-5}}
! width="50%" align="left" | <font color="gray"><</font> [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006 November 12|November 12]]
|-
! width="50%" align="right" | [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006 November 14|November 14]] <font color="gray">></font>
|{{User de}}
|-
|{{User fr-2}}
|-
|{{User es-2}}
|-
|{{User pt-1}}
|-
|{{User nl-1}}
|-
|{{User it-1}}
|-
|{{User la-1}}
|-
|style="text-align: center"|[[:Category:Wikipedians by language|Search user languages]]
|}
</div>
:''Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)]]''
</noinclude>
===13 November 2006===
<!--
New entry right below here. Add a new entry by typing: {{subst:newdelrev|pg=Name of deleted page|reason=Reason to undelete}}
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page.
-->
====[[Welcome to the Hellmouth (Buffy episode)]]====
:[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welcome to the Hellmouth (Buffy episode)]]
:{{la|Welcome to the Hellmouth (Buffy episode)}}
Some of the text on this page violated the copyright of the Buffyguide website, from which it was taken without permission. Rather than simply remove the offending text, the entire page has been deleted, along with fourteen or so other Buffy episode pages.--[[User:Nalvage|Nalvage]] 03:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*You can freely create this or any other of the pages in your own words whenever you want. If they were copyvios, there's nothing we can really undelete, except the infoboxes and categories and whatever else was added. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 03:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
:Only the short episode "summary" (approximately one paragraph) was a copyvio. The vast bulk of the text and info on the page was not.--[[User:Nalvage|Nalvage]] 03:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
::Reverting to the version before the edits in March would make more sense. I don't yet know if just removing the summary section would be better than reverting everything. If [[User:BuffyGuide]] had only added to those summary sections, it's possible the rest of the article is fine since other sections are unlikely to be derivatives works of the summary. See also [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buffy#Episode Guide Copyright]]. It's possible [[User:AnGeL X|AnGeL X]]'s edits need to be removed as well. [[User:Angela|Angela]][[user talk:Angela|.]] 07:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
====[[Wall-E (film)]]====
:[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wall-E (film)]]
:{{la|Wall-E (film)}}
This film, less than 2 years in the future, appears to have gotten its article deleted so quickly as if it were indeed just a rumor. Study various Disney/Pixar web sites and how many will mention this film?? [[User:Georgia guy|Georgia guy]] 23:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' for the time being. Feel free to write a new article when more is known about the film. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aecis|<font color="blue">A</font>]][[User:Aecis|<font color="green">ecis</font>]] <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Aecis|Dancing]] to electro-pop [[User talk:Aecis|like a robot]] from 1984.</sup> 23:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' Nothing was out of proccess in that AfD, the consensus found it was not verifiable yet. Blogs are not reliable sources. [[User:HighInBC|HighInBC]]<small> <sup>(Need help? [[User_talk:HighInBC|Ask me]])</sup></small> 23:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
**Please explain. Do people who write info in blogs often lie?? [[User:Georgia guy|Georgia guy]] 00:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
***This is explained in the wikipedia policy [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]. [[User:HighInBC|HighInBC]]<small> <sup>(Need help? [[User_talk:HighInBC|Ask me]])</sup></small> 00:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
***Quite honestly, it's impossible to verify if they lie or not (more likely, they repeat stuff they hear from "around" which isn't a reliable source of information either). So they're not reliable enough. [[User:ColourBurst|ColourBurst]] 03:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''': People who write in blogs ''do'' often lie, but they even more often repeat rumors found in other blogs. There is no thing to discuss until someone else, with accountability, writes about it. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 02:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
====[[List of Mario series items]]====
:[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario series items]]
:{{la|List of Mario series items}}
I recently got this page restored, but it seems to have been deleted again. Again I must explain the reason we need to keep this article. Wikipedia is an encylopedia. An encyclopedia cannot think, so it is immune from bias and prejudice. Deleting this article is a bias, who says that we can't keep things about video games. One person said, "Wikipedia is not an instructions manual." Who are you to judge? Wikipedia is a free encylopedia. You are being bias about not letting an article in, because it informs you about the items in a video game series. Mario is now a pop icon, you can see 1-Up mushrooms on, shirts, cars, tattoos. It is recognizable and should be restored.
* '''Endorse deletion'''. Yup, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. [[WP:NOT]] is where you find the bit about not being an instruction manual (or indeed an indiscriminate collection of information). Accusations of bias are offensive and unnecessary, try taking the comments at face value rather than imputing motives. We have an enormous number of articles on video game topics, it is fatuous to suggest that this was deleted because it's about Mario, rather than because it's a random list. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 22:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' Procedurally sound and only one Keep. Accusations of bias are also used mainly when an article clearly does not meet the criteria for inclusion, as this one doesn't. [[User:JChap2007|JChap2007]] 23:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, this is not negotiable. [[WP:NOT]] explains the fundamental policy. [[User:ColourBurst|ColourBurst]] 03:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
====[[Yehuda Zisapel]]====
*{{la|Yehuda Zisapel}}
*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yehuda Zisapel]]
How can you have an article about [[Paul McCartney]] without having an article about [[John Lennon]]? I was in the process of massively revisioning the Yehuda Zisapel article, but it was deleted before I could say a beep! This kind of behaviour is like a thug behaviour. If [[Zohar Zisapel]] was accepted, there is no reason for not having one for [[Yehuda Zisapel]]. Indeed, the initial article was badly written, but as I CLEARLY stated, I deleted the bad text and started to create an encyclopedic entry!!! [[User:Ixfd64]] behaved like a bully in my view, having no real knowledge on the subject and without paying attention to my notes on the article's discussion page. I recommend revoking that user's Admin ("Ixfd64") status. <small>—comment [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|added]] by </small>[[User:John Hyams|John Hyams]]<sup>([[User_talk:John Hyams|'''t''']]/[[Special:Contributions/John Hyams|'''c''']])</sup> {{time}}
:I've added a link to the article and to the AfD. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aecis|<font color="blue">A</font>]][[User:Aecis|<font color="green">ecis</font>]] <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Aecis|Dancing]] to electro-pop [[User talk:Aecis|like a robot]] from 1984.</sup> 21:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*Having one thing is no reason for having another. And neither are McCartney or Lennon... '''Endorse deletion'''. If you can write a well sourced article which states the notability then please do so - AFD isn't [[salt the earth]]. Thanks/[[User:Wangi|wangi]] 22:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
** Oh really?? You would have a [[Bill Gates]] article but not a [[Steve Balmer]] article? Anyway, your answer is not to the point, because, as I said, and I will say it again, the article was indeed bad, and today I started to totally revise it, but they didn't give me time to breath, and it was deleted before I could even make the required changes and additions. Again, if someone says he/she is working to amend a bad article, you do not delete the article before he/she posts the revision. And this was done on the same day. '''Undelete''' - I need to post that corrcted article!!
*** Please stop making wild assertions and address the issues raised at the articles for deletion debate and by Wangi above. If you genuinely believe the two are indivisible, why not expand the existing article to include both? <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 22:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*** I didn't quite get it Guy, since I addressed a very important issue: I was disturbed while I was in the process of revising a to-be-deleted article, which is basically an essential one. Your comment above appears to be patronizing. Please talk to the point <small>—comment [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|added]] by </small>[[User:John Hyams|John Hyams]]<sup>([[User_talk:John Hyams|'''t''']]/[[Special:Contributions/John Hyams|'''c''']])</sup> {{time}}
****I suggest you write the article in your userspace, for instance at [[User:John Hyams/Yehuda Zisapel]]. That way you can rewrite the article in peace and quiet, and when you're done we will have something substantial to judge. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aecis|<font color="blue">A</font>]][[User:Aecis|<font color="green">ecis</font>]] <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Aecis|Dancing]] to electro-pop [[User talk:Aecis|like a robot]] from 1984.</sup> 23:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' until reliable sources are found. If X has an article, so should Y is not a valid keep reason. We're all humans - does that mean every single human should have an article even if the vast majority of them don't have enough sourced information to fill a thimble? John Hyams, the problem was not with the tone of the article (which could be fixed), but lack of reliable sources, and the fact that when it was challenged, it still could not come up with them. [[User:ColourBurst|ColourBurst]] 03:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
====[[Actuarial Outpost]]====
:[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actuarial Outpost]]
:[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actuarial Outpost (2nd nomination)]]
:{{la|Actuarial Outpost}}
The fact that three people who voted keep are members of the forum is irrelevant. No sockpuppetry occurred, and as mentioned at length, the niche that actuaries as a whole occupy makes the standard Alexa/Google ranking inapplicable. Further, there were 7 votes for Keep and 4 for delete. Even if you completely discount the three of us who are members of the AO (which I maintain is both inappropriate and insulting), it is still 4v4 which is no consensus. I would have closd this as keep (7-4) but felt although a sysop, it would be inappropriate for me to do so. I am afraid that W.marsh went too far the other way, and am requesting review for undeletion as keep, and at the very least, no consensus. Thank you [[User:Avraham|Avi]] 21:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*I've added a link to the second AfD, as that AfD led to the deletion of the article. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aecis|<font color="blue">A</font>]][[User:Aecis|<font color="green">ecis</font>]] <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Aecis|Dancing]] to electro-pop [[User talk:Aecis|like a robot]] from 1984.</sup> 21:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::Thank you -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] 21:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', for one thing a conflict of interest is a valid consideration. However it appears their opinions were not regarded with as much weight due to their lack of understanding of wikipedia policy. I see nothing out of line with the closing of this nomination. I see you used the word vote, we don't vote we discuss. [[User:HighInBC|HighInBC]]<small> <sup>(Need help? [[User_talk:HighInBC|Ask me]])</sup></small> 21:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:There are pages and pages in the RfA talk archive about that [[image:smile.png]] But the term "vote" was used by the closing admin; perhaps you should let him know that too ;) Ya think there was an abuse of process, for someone to use the term vote and close an AfD?!?! ('''JUST KIDDING''') -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] 21:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::The closing admin said ''Most people voting to keep seem to be members of the forums'', in fairness some people were voting, instead of discussing(Not pointing to anyone specific). [[User:HighInBC|HighInBC]]<small> <sup>(Need help? [[User_talk:HighInBC|Ask me]])</sup></small> 22:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::Just for the record, I said "vote" in somewhat an ironic sense, since I was rather sure it would be coming to DRV because I wasn't closing it like a vote. I may use the word vote because it's grammatically convenient, but it would be pure semantics to argue that I actually think we "don't vote we discuss" just because I said the word vote. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 23:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*As HighInBC said, there was a clear conflict of interest. At any rate, as I've said before, if [[WP:WEB]] (and to some degree, WP:V) are to mean anything, we have to actually enforce them, even if it's a site we've heard of that's being considered. Actually, especially then. The nomination above contains nothing about reliable sources, and everything about letting us vote to include stuff sourced to forum postings. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 22:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse deletion''', AfD ''is not a vote'', it doesn't matter how many people come along and assert how great the subject is, without non-trivial treatment in reliable secondary sources we can't have an article without violating fundamental policies. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 23:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': I am extremely displeased that my "vote" was completely disregarded without comment. I am sure anything I say here will be disregarded as well. I have seen debates with much stronger consensus to delete closed as "no consensus", but a WP celebrity closed the debate and WP celebrities are endorsing it, so this DRV amounts to pointless wheel spinning. At this point my disillusionment with AfD could not be greater. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— [[User talk:Kaustuv|Kaustuv Chaudhuri]]</span> 00:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
**It is regretable you feal that way, but if you think of AfD as a democracy where every vote counts then you will be dissapointed. Each point a person makes is weighed based on it's merits. Even a strong consensus cannot go against wikipedia policy, and those who argue with policy in mind will do better than those who argue in a fashion incompatable with policy. Sorry if you are disillusioned. [[User:HighInBC|HighInBC]]<small> <sup>(Need help? [[User_talk:HighInBC|Ask me]])</sup></small> 00:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I endorsed deletion in the Afd debate (I believe I originally brought up the WP:WEB concern in a prod). I did not look anymore at the article after that, but if the references from multiple third-party authorities in the actuarial industry were indeed added, I would lean towards undeleting it. --- [[User:RockMFR|RockMFR]] 00:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
:They each ammounted to a casual mention of the site, just using information from those sources, the article would be lucky to be a paragraph long. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 00:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' The references from the two main United States actuarial professional organisations were sufficient for the article to be kept in my opinion. I have concerns with the attention to detail of the closing admin, his responses here and in his closure of the AfD appear to be hurried and contain typos. [[User:Catchpole|Catchpole]] 07:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
====[[Uniquehomestore.com]]====
This page was deleted today by Cholmes75 for reason g11. The page was deleted in the past for reason g11. We followed the same guidelines that all other businesses have used to create our Wikipedia page. We would be willing to make changes and discuss but the page was just deleted. We are a valid U.S. corporation, with multiple retail stores. Last night we created the page and listed it under Massachusetts businesses. We would like to start the process of having our page restored. Finally, any business page could be deleted for reason g11 why is ours being singled out? {{unsigned|WaveRunr}}
*The article was probably deleted because of some advertising lingo in the article. The nomination otoh seems to have been based on the [http://www.alexa.com Alexa] ranking (594,883). This doesn't meet the notability guidelines [[Wikipedia:Notability (web)]] and [[Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations)]]. '''Endorse deletion'''. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aecis|<font color="blue">A</font>]][[User:Aecis|<font color="green">ecis</font>]] <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Aecis|Dancing]] to electro-pop [[User talk:Aecis|like a robot]] from 1984.</sup> 21:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''': per AECIS. [[User:Ccwaters|ccwaters]] 21:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse deletion'''. The use of first person pronouns is, I'm afraid, all we need to know here. WaveRunr, there is strong resistance to [[WP:AUTO|autobiography]], including corporate autobiography. It's very difficult to be [[WP:NPOV|adequately dispassionate]] about your own company, even if you do pass our [[WP:CORP|guidelines for companies]]. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 23:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' Not every business could be deleted under G11, as volunteer, third-party editors write neutral articles about businesses in which they are not involved. See the fine article on [[Starbucks]], for example. [[User:JChap2007|JChap2007]] 23:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
**Or the featured article [[Bank of China (Hong Kong)]]. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aecis|<font color="blue">A</font>]][[User:Aecis|<font color="green">ecis</font>]] <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Aecis|Dancing]] to electro-pop [[User talk:Aecis|like a robot]] from 1984.</sup> 23:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
====[[Beautiful languages]]====
This page was [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beautiful languages|nominated for deletion]] by [[User:Crzrussian|Crzrussian]], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Beautiful+languages speedily deleted] on the same day by [[User:Chairboy|Chairboy]].
I am not sure that the article ever qualified as a speedy candidate. The grounds suggested in the nomination, that it was "inherently POV", are not grounds for speedy deletion last time I checked.
I am also not convinced that the subject is entirely valueless - Jacques Barzun opined that the most beautiful English word was ''cellardoor'' - or that the last contents were so worthless as to be unusable. It mentioned a poll taken that claimed that Norwegian was the most beautiful European language, which suggests a sourceable statement. Some notice could also be taken of the cultivation of some languages, notably Italian, for music outside of the areas where they are spoken as native tongues. - [[User:Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön]] 19:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' per [[WP:SNOW]]. Bad-process deletion, but in its current form, totally useless and no chance of surviving an AfD. Let whoever really wants to have an article there just write a better one. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 20:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I'm not certain what part of the process was "bad" per [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|{{{2|Future Perfect at Sunrise}}}]] ([[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|talk]]{{·}} [[Special:Contributions/Future Perfect at Sunrise|contribs]])'s comment above (please elaborate), I speedied it under [[WP:CSD]] A1 with an uncited modifier, which is reflected by the deletion log. Ihoyc's comment that I speedied it because it was inherently POV is simply not true, but I happen to agree that there's absolutely no way to make an article on 'beautiful sounding languages' recoverable. That wasn't the criteria I applied, though. - [[User:Chairboy|C<small>HAIRBOY]]</small> ([[User_talk:Chairboy|☎]]) 20:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
**Sorry about that - wasn't sure I understood the very brief comment left when you deleted it. (The letters CSD might have helped :-). At any rate, the last version of the article had three paragraphs, and was reasonably clear what it was trying to be about, ao I'm not sure that it qualifies under [[WP:CSD]] A1 either. I will have to sit down with Mario Pei's ''One Language For the World'' one of these evenings; Pei did a great deal of editorialising about the aesthetics of both natural and artificial languages as they existed in the late 1950s. - [[User:Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön]] 21:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse deletion''' unless we have a valid objective definition of beautiful. Which of course we don't because it's inherently subjective. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 23:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*I'm on the fence with this: "Inherently POV" in this instance means "essay" or "original research." Essays that are direct confessions of an author's point of view can be awfully like tests. However, it was an improper deletion. That said, the article pretty much has to fail the deletion policy, and I'd rather see the linguistics interest expressed in a more mediated, cited, and cooperative, and far less idiosyncratic form and don't know that going to AfD will accomplish that. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 02:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
====[[Family tree of Umar]]====
This article was nominated by user:Jersey Devil, together with 30+ other articles a few month ago. In [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of Umar|the afd]] User:Lambiam characterized it as [[User:Lambiam/Jersey Devil's crusade against Striver]]. So much for context. Now, for my arguments for undeleting:
#I, the creator, was not informed of the afd, in violation of policy and guidlines. If i had been, i could have argued for keeping the article. Also, note the without me, it is one arguing to keep the article, and three arguing to delete it. Consensus to delete would not have been reached if i had been informed.
#Considering that other higher profile afd at the same time was kept, [[Family tree of Ali]] and [[Family tree of Uthman ibn Affan]] and [[Family tree of Abu Bakr]], you have 3 of the four [[Rashidun]] having their family tree kept, while this one had it deleted.
#Umar is considered royalty, thus, the arguments for deleting does not apply.
I would request for the article to be undeleted, or at the very least renominated. Thanks.--[[User:Striver|Striver]] 16:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''undelete''' --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 16:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''undelete & relist''' -- couldn't hurt. This time, perhaps at least a link to who Umar is would help clarify things. As written, I had thought this was just some nn geneology. [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<font color="orange">'''juice'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 18:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and relist'''. Agree that Umar is an important dynastic figure. - [[User:Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön]] 19:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse deletion''', allow userfication to fix up. Entries included:
::Paternal grandmother: ''(insert name)
::Paternal grandfather in law: [[Umar ibn Nufayl]] ''(not a mistake)
::Uncle: [[Umar ibn Nufayl]] ''(not a mistake, married his mother)
...
::Sister [[Fatimah bint al-Khattab]] (Not sure if they have the same mother)
: and so on. This article was in dire shape, badly formatted and covered with editorial markings like the above. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 23:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Userfy''' per Guy. [[User:JChap2007|JChap2007]] 00:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''': It wasn't discursive at all. It was literally what the title says: a family tree. It had no context whatever, no ''discussion'' whatever. It had this little paragraph pointing us to an Islamic website to tell us how to manage marrying a non-Muslim. Other than that, it was ''undigested'' data. Wikipedia is not a host for random data, and this was presented exactly as random data. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 02:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
====[[Special moments of Hungary's 1956 uprising]]====
:[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special moments of Hungary's 1956 uprising]]
:{{la|Special moments of Hungary's 1956 uprising}}
I'd like this article to be undeleted because I think the main reason for which it was deleted (that it was unsourced) no longer applies. Please see the [[:hu:Az 1956-os forradalom különleges pillanatai|Hungarian version]] of the article (from which the English one was translated), the author listed all the sources. Also, the article was originally planned to be a trivia section of the revolution's article, but that article was long enough in itself and in HuWiki it already has several sub-articles, so we thought why not have a separate article for this too? They are interesting, they are true (and now referenced) and tidbits like this help bringing history closer to the average reader. (I know the title was unencyclopedic but it can be changed.) – [[User:Alensha|<span style="color: #008ea1">Alensha</span>]] [[User talk:Alensha|<span style="color: #008ea1"><sup>talk</sup></span>]] 16:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' per my nom. – [[User:Alensha|<span style="color: #008ea1">Alensha</span>]] [[User talk:Alensha|<span style="color: #008ea1"><sup>talk</sup></span>]] 16:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' - I agree with [[User:Alensha]]. --[[User:Hkoala HU|Hkoala HU]] 16:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' I believe the article, in its deleted form was a WIP, and would have evolved into a useful subarticle of the main 1956 article - a section of stories and anecdotes (of which there are many) which may not be quite as sourced or NPOV enough to fit in a FA article, but is certainly part of the story, this may also serve as a staging article for materials which may become better sourced, referenced and put into an objective (historical) form to be shuttled into the FA article. The article should also be renamed "Anecdotes of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956". [[User:Istvan|István]] 16:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' - This really doesn't sound like an encyclopedia article. Anecdotes, tidbits, and "special moments" are not really encyclopedic material. I would support userfication for extraction of encyclopedic content of course. Cute stories/anecdotes don't need their own article. There are, of course, verifiability concerns too, which is why it probably shouldn't be directly restored to the main space anyway. [[User:Wickethewok|Wickethewok]] 16:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and rename''', pretty much for the same reasons already stated. We're working on a whole bunch of articles eventually to become a comprehensive survey of everything about the 56 revolution and the anecdotes will be nice to have. :) [[User:K. Lastochka|K. Lastochka]] 16:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' - I agree with [[User:Alensha]]. [[User:Nyikita|Nyikita]] 16:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' - I agree with [[User:Alensha]]. --[[User:nagytibi|nagytibi ]] <sup>[[User talk:nagytibi|''!'']] [[Special:Contributions/nagytibi|''?'']]</sup> 16:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' - Trivia are generally not expelled from wikipedia. I would regard it as a problem if they would be, while I would not think it a problem if an article is readable, though that often triggers suspicion as I have experienced. The article is a sidebar to the main article about Hungary's revolution and in my view its content is more than just anecdotes. These are facts and events which are worth knowing if you want to get a clear picture about Hungary's 1956 revolution. Don't we want to present information worth knowing in the encyclopedia? As for sourcing, anybody who wants full sourcing in English must wait for another 50 years or more (I myself will lose interest by the end of that period). Regards, --Korovioff 16:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:*Actually, trivia ''should'' be "expelled" from Wikipedia per [[Wikipedia:Avoid_trivia_sections_in_articles]], as it is, by definition, trivial. And, no, this does not mean trivia should instead be in separate articles. [[User:Wickethewok|Wickethewok]] 17:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:*Apologies what you are saying is just the opposite of what is in your link. As for trivia sections developed further, please search on "Lists of trivia" and you will see that there is no such principle in the English wikipedia which you referred to. Only one of the many examples: [[List of Events and Trivia on Get This]] Regards, --Korovioff 17:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
* '''Undelete and rename''' I think this is important summary of that revolution. We can find another suitable name.
**''Hints:'' List of the... Timeline of the... Caracteristic events in..., Main moments in..., etc.
--[[User:Aranymalinko|hu:Rodrigo]] 17:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' I agree with [[User:Alensha]]. This is an article in huwiki [[:hu:Az 1956-os forradalom különleges pillanatai]]. --[[User:VinceB|VinceB]] 17:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''undelete''' per above. --[[user:mathewguiver|mathewguiver]] 18:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
* '''Undelete and rename''' per Rodrigo. [[User:NCurse|NCurs]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]] <sub> [[User talk:NCurse|work]]</sub> 19:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' - not the kind of stuff for wikipedia. We're not a memorial. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 02:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''': "Special moments?" That's so riven with a particularly undocumented point of view as to make it intractably off the mark from the start. These are valuations that are not part of an encyclopedia's business. Historians can talk about the high points and turning points, but they are writing history. Our aim is less controversialist. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 02:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
:::'''comment''': I'm pretty sure no one would complain if we changed the title to something a bit more encyclopedic! :) I think "special moments" was probably a clumsy translation, and I agree it sounds pretty silly. [[User:K. Lastochka|K. Lastochka]] 04:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
====[[Crash_My_Model_Car]]====
:[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crash_My_Model_Car]]
:{{la|Crash_My_Model_Car}}
article had AFD discussion months ago, which decided to keep the article, and has been deleted with no notice by administrator. [[User:Stephenmcleod|Stephenmcleod]] 09:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
<s>* '''Undelete'''; admins who don't know how to behave properly are a bad problem, as in the case of [[Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia]]. [[User:Waiting4|Waiting4]] 11:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)</s> <small>Vote struck. {{user|Waiting4}} (probably a sockpuppet) has been indefinitely blocked from editing wikipedia. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aecis|<font color="blue">A</font>]][[User:Aecis|<font color="green">ecis</font>]] <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Aecis|Dancing]] to electro-pop [[User talk:Aecis|like a robot]] from 1984.</sup> 13:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)</small>
*'''Endorse as A1''': It's a predicate nominative. If the band is at all worth knowing about, then the authors should say something other than, "This is a band." It's a real problem when people will write more in the DRV entry than the article itself. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 12:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete or relist'''. The final version was the result of a massive blanking by {{user|88.107.53.175}} in the last ten minutes of the article's existence. The original version was a lot better, and would definitely not have qualified for A1. Perhaps for A7, but more likely for prod or AfD. BTW, the AfD resulted in no consensus, not in keep. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aecis|<font color="blue">A</font>]][[User:Aecis|<font color="green">ecis</font>]] <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Aecis|Dancing]] to electro-pop [[User talk:Aecis|like a robot]] from 1984.</sup> 13:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''', possibly '''speedy''' if [[User:Daniel Olsen|Daniel Olsen]] agrees as this seems to be purely a mistake over the blanking. The version before blanking did have a claim to notability - being signed to first one then another notable record label. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 13:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', but allow recreation, '''''IFF''''' [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] are cited. Every one of the sources in the article were to myspace, the group's own page, their record company, and fan pages. There were '''''no''''' neutral third-party sources. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 03:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
====[[Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia]]====
:[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia]]
:{{la|Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia}}
This was deleted for being "not notable". Wikipedia apparently insists that it keeps nonsensical articles on every elementary school, and then deletes a prestigious university founded in the [[18th century]] by [[Henry Melchior Muhlenberg]]. The hypocrisy of the deleting admin was well illustrated when he closed several [[votes for deletion]] debates on similar articles that I was forced put up to illustrate a [[WP:POINT]]. Then, as if to further illustrate my point about incompetent censoring admins, my first attempt bring this to wider attention was vandalised from this page. Here, my hard work to bring this article to the attention of the world needs to be undeleted. {{unsigned|6ofthebest}}
::'''Close''' this and recreate the f*ing article already. As has been repeatedly pointed out to the original author (and to his sockpuppets), it would have been far less stressful to all parties involved if they simply re-created the article with only that tiny bit more substance that distinguishes a solid stub from an A7-deletable substub. There's no need to undelete anything, the article only consisted of the following tautology: "The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia (LTSP) is a Lutheran Theological Seminary in in Philadelphia, PA". [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 09:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
^^^ See what I mean? There are important considerations here, such as admin accountability and whether they should act in accordance with established rules, and community consensus, not bite the newbies, and not get overly emotionally involved. I have seen no reason why [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise]] deleted the article, nor why he should be trusted with any sort of admin responsibility. [[User:6ofthebest|6ofthebest]] 09:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion as A1''': Here is the whole of the article: "The '''Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia''' (LTSP) is a [[Lutheran]] [[Theological Seminary]] in in [[Philadelphia, PA]]." X is X? That's what you consider an article? That's actually ''less'' than a Yellow Pages entry, since it merely defines its subject in terms of itself. "The big oak tree is a big oak tree" is not an addition to the sum of human knowledge. If you don't actually know anything about the seminary, then don't fight for your simple sentence. If you do, add it. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 12:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
<s>*'''Endorse''' deletion per A1, as outlined by Geogre.</s> See below. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aecis|<font color="blue">A</font>]][[User:Aecis|<font color="green">ecis</font>]] <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Aecis|Dancing]] to electro-pop [[User talk:Aecis|like a robot]] from 1984.</sup> 13:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', no content. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 13:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', Fut. Perf. is bang on the money. What ''is'' the point of expending more effort on arguing than on the article? Valid speedy under A1, A4 and A7 - an empty article which in as much as it contains anything has only a restatement of the title with no assertion of notability. [[WP:CSD]] being an established rule, the claimed accountability issue is baseless. I suggest we close this since the deleted content is worthless and a new article will require a separate debate (and that only if it is also deleted). <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 14:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' Future imprefect is an rogue admin. The idea that is has no content is a barefaced lie. The content is more than that; it contains one external link. If you want to expand it, expand it. BUT DO NOT DELETE OTHERS WORK. IT IS RUDE. [[User:26something|26something]] 18:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC) {{spa|26something}}
**If it contains only one line of text and only one external link, it qualifies under A3. But either way, do not recreate deleted content, but await the outcome of this discussion. I have redeleted the article and the two redirects you created. If you create them again, you will be blocked from editing wikipedia. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aecis|<font color="blue">A</font>]][[User:Aecis|<font color="green">ecis</font>]] <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Aecis|Dancing]] to electro-pop [[User talk:Aecis|like a robot]] from 1984.</sup> 18:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Bollocks. Either something is notable and it deserves an article or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways, as you are trying. [[User:26something|26something]] 19:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC){{spa|26something}}
:Guys, as I said, the easiest solution, spilling the least ink, is this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lutheran_Theological_Seminary_at_Philadelphia&diff=prev&oldid=87592297]. Hope you don't mind me recreating it now by an act of slight IAR, after Aecis had actually deleteprotected it. I just added barely enough encyclopedic content to make it stand as a stub. Can we now close this "review" here? Whoever wants to expand it let them expand it; whoever wants to delete it let them propose it for deletion (''if'' there are genuine notability concerns, that is), and we can all live in peace again... [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Past.Impf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☻]] 19:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::I endorse Future Perfect's article, but suggest slapping {{user|26something}}, {{user|waiting4}} and {{user|6ofthebest}} with a wikitrout for recreating a deleted article verbatim, trolling, WP:POINT-violating votes in other reviews and possibly sockpuppetry. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aecis|<font color="blue">A</font>]][[User:Aecis|<font color="green">ecis</font>]] <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Aecis|Dancing]] to electro-pop [[User talk:Aecis|like a robot]] from 1984.</sup> 20:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Close discussion''' The new article is significantly better than and significantly different than what was there before. No point in wasting more bytes on this discussion. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 23:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*I maintain my endorsing of the original deletion, so no strike-through there, but I endorse the new article. Still, there is some bell going off in my head telling me that this seminary has more interest even than what has been written up so far, that there is some role it has played in history.... Still, our nasty friends are on blockable ice with these tactics. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 02:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
'''Endorse deletion''', '''endorse blocking''' of the offensive User, but the article has been recreated to be something meaningful, so this DRV is moot. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 03:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Close discussion''' per GRBerry. Apparently he or someone else decided to just create a better article. -[[User:Patstuart|Patstuart]]<sup>[[User_talk:Patstuart|(talk)]][[Special:contributions/Patstuart|(contribs)]]</sup> 08:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
====[[GFP Personal Finance Manager]]====
:[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GFP Personal Finance Manager]]
:{{la|GFP Personal Finance Manager}}
Seems like a piece of genuine English-language software to me, check project link [http://gfd.sourceforge.net/]
<s>* '''Undelete''' - I believe it used by the good Christians at [[Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia]]. [[User:Waiting4|Waiting4]] 11:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)</s> <small>Vote struck. Indefblocked, likely sockpuppet. Violation of WP:POINT. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aecis|<font color="blue">A</font>]][[User:Aecis|<font color="green">ecis</font>]] <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Aecis|Dancing]] to electro-pop [[User talk:Aecis|like a robot]] from 1984.</sup> 13:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)</small>
*'''Endorse closure''': Valid AfD closure. It was unanimous among signed and registered accounts. The "two wrongs" argument was irrelevant, as it always is. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 12:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', as noted in AfD therer is no substantive evidence for anything more than mere existence. Just another SourceForge project. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 14:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' No reliable sources and proper AfD procedure followed
====[[Newport University (California)]]====
:[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newport University (California)]]
:{{la|Newport University (California)}}
This is a for-profit[http://apps.irs.gov/app/pub78] unaccredited[http://www.chea.org] "school" fails WP:CORP and lacks WP:V As the closing admin said, "I find it rather disturbing that so many established editors think the number of google hits" when so many of the google hits are unrelated. Closing admin. based decision of "no consnesus" on "numbers" that include "Keep per Silensor" and were thoroughly refuted.
This is for-profit and two newspaper sources[http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SLTB&p_theme=sltb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=100FDE2362673C7C&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM] have a trival mention of this place that questions its academics.
The most serious argument to keep is the California bar lists it as a "Registered" (note to be confused with the institutions its accredits). According to the bar it "'''cannot advise prospective students on''' the advantages or disadvantages of attending unaccredited schools or the '''quality of the legal education programs provided by the schools'''." And the California Bar does not "approve or accredit correspondence schools"-- which is Newport.[http://calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_generic.jsp?cid=10115&id=5128]
Hence, we have an article about what it is not (unaccredited) with what its website claims. With the sole reason for keeping this on wikipedia is the California bar lists it, but won't accredit it and can't comment on its academics. And we have two trival mentions that call it a business and question its academics. Wikipedia is not an ad space for unverifiable businesses. Delete per [[WP:CORP]]. [[User:Arbustoo|Arbusto]] 01:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and delete''' per my nom. [[User:Arbustoo|Arbusto]] 01:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*Sorry that my closures seem to be taking up the majority of DRV lately... but that's what you get for closing the tough AfDs I guess. I dunno, this was a tough call. But it didn't seem to fail [[WP:V]], and [[WP:CORP]] was debatable, JJay said that "the Salt Lake Tribune did an extremely long expose in 1996 when it registered in Utah" which would do a wards meeting WP:CORP. Anyway... just did not feel that there was consensus to delete, or enough of a case to override consensus for WP:V reasons. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 02:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
<s>*'''Delete''', this is not notable like a real university such as [[Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia]]. [[User:Waiting4|Waiting4]] 11:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)</s> <small>Vote struck. Indefblocked, likely sockpuppet. Violation of WP:POINT. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aecis|<font color="blue">A</font>]][[User:Aecis|<font color="green">ecis</font>]] <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Aecis|Dancing]] to electro-pop [[User talk:Aecis|like a robot]] from 1984.</sup> 13:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)</small>
*'''Endorse closure'''. What consensus? --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 12:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' (My standard is abuse of discretion, not de novo review, because DRV is not AFD round two.) There is no requirement that reliable sources be available online for free. Nor is it even required that they be online. The AFD nomination introduced one reliable source. Jjay showed multiple others. That, in and of itself, is enough to meet [[WP:CORP]]. As there were enough sources referenced to meet [[WP:CORP]], and there is no overwhelming policy argument on the delete side (that is not refuted by the company passing WP:CORP), there is no abuse of discretion. I also note that the school was founded in 1976, so it is safe to assume there is print coverage that is not available online. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 13:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse closure,''' there was nothing wrong with the closure here at all. FWIW, I also think notability is clear here, no good reason for deletion. [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<font color="orange">'''juice'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 18:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and relist'''. There seems to be considerable confusion in that AfD about a number of things that matter enormously. One is the "registration" issue; note that the [http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/diploma_mill.html Oregon accreditation office] (the standard-bearer in the field) says "Idaho, Hawaii, Montana, Alabama, Wyoming, Mississippi and California have either no meaningful standards, excessive loopholes or poor enforcement owing to local policy or insufficient staff." The other is the ".edu" ___domain, which is essentially meaningless; such domains can be bought and sold like any other. Given that most of the votes to keep are based on misunderstandings of these things, I don't think the AfD should be considered to have consensus. [[User:Chick Bowen|Chick Bowen]] 22:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
**Escuse me if I am misinterpreting, but it seems your arguement is that the people who voted keep where confused and got it wrong? Please correct me if I am wrong. [[User:HighInBC|HighInBC]]<small> <sup>(Need help? [[User_talk:HighInBC|Ask me]])</sup></small> 04:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and relist''' leaning to '''overturn and delete''' One source appeared to be about this school and others. The other sources were about the school's graduates. It fails [[WP:CORP]]. The discussion was lengthy but the !voters seemed to misunderstand crucial matters, per Chick Bowen. [[User:JChap2007|JChap2007]] 01:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' I see nothing out of proccess, I see a lack of consensus. [[User:HighInBC|HighInBC]]<small> <sup>(Need help? [[User_talk:HighInBC|Ask me]])</sup></small> 01:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' AfD closed properly by my view. [[User:VegaDark|VegaDark]] 04:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
====[[General Mayhem]]====
:[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Mayhem]]
:{{la|General Mayhem}}
I believe that this article was [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Mayhem|deleted]] without [[Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus|consensus]] (4 keep, 3 delete at the end of voting) and that it is notable enough to justify inclusion in our encyclopedia. This article's subject is an [http://www.genmay.com/ online forum] with almost 20 million posts and [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Gen%5BM%5Day%22&btnG=Google+Search 33 thousand hits] in Google. The article did not violate the core policies of [[WP:V]], [[WP:OR]], or [[WP:NPOV]] and thus I don't think it should have been deleted on the basis of a guideline and without community consensus. —[[User:Lantoka|Lantoka]] <sup><small>( [[User_talk:Lantoka|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Lantoka|contrib]])</small></sup> 02:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' as nominator. See reasoning above. —[[User:Lantoka|Lantoka]] <sup><small>( [[User_talk:Lantoka|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Lantoka|contrib]])</small></sup> 02:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', no mention of notable sources appeared on the AfD and none have appeared here. AfD is not decided by pure weight of numbers. Google hits are not proportional to the number of reliable sources. [[User:Kavadi carrier|Kavadi carrier]] 02:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*Evidence simply wasn't presented that this topic met/meets [[WP:WEB]]. If we are going to keep ignoring WP:WEB every time a site we've heard of is nominated for deletion, we should really not keep it as a guideline. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 02:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''. The only argument I can see for overturning it is that Snaafu might have wanted to add sources (the other three keep votes only talked about how large and active the forum was, which is not a WP:WEB criteria). However, post counting and google hit counting is not research. Find some reliable sources first (I didn't see any in the first skim of the google hits). [[User:ColourBurst|ColourBurst]] 05:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' - Lack of independent published, non-trivial sources was cited as the main reasoning for closing as delete. Until some are presented, this really shouldn't be overturned. [[User:Wickethewok|Wickethewok]] 06:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', number of !voters is to be used only as a rule of thumb, arguments do count. In this particular case, closing sysop's decision to delete article that fails [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] looks perfectly legitimate. [[User:MaxSem|Max<font size="+1">''S''</font>em]] 09:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' So the fact that the total keeps outweight the total deletes doesn't matter at all? Does this not set a dangerous precedent? There was no consensus to delete this article, yet it got deleted anyway, and it's losing its appeal despite this procedural injustice. This concerns me. —[[User:Lantoka|Lantoka]] <sup><small>( [[User_talk:Lantoka|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Lantoka|contrib]])</small></sup> 11:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::Yep, numbers don't matter at all. This case won't be setting precedent either, that precedent is long since established. Weight is about strength of argument, not numbers. I can't see the deleted article, so I don't know if Snafuu did cite reliable sources. If he had, that action alone would have outweighted everything else in the discussion. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 13:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:::He didn't... the only edit at all after the AfD started was 1 instance of vandalism. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 14:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:::*There actually is no user "Snafuu", actually, that comment appears to have been added by [[User:Indolences]]. [[User:Wickethewok|Wickethewok]] 14:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Well, maybe I'm just too much of an [[:meta:Inclusionism|inclusionist]], but it really bothers me that a [http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:I7Fmpnzf7wQJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Mayhem+genmay+e-mail+address&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&client=firefox-a perfectly decent article] that is comprable in notability to [[Something Awful]] and far more notable than obscure things like [[Lotus Birth]] and [[Severe Tire Damage]] was deleted without community consensus and based on a mere '''[[WP:WEB|guideline]]'''. Deleting people's hard work like this is wrong, and bad for the encyclopedia. This was a fairly developed article. I haven't even posted on that forum in years, and it still upsets me. '''Twenty million posts''' people. That's more than ten times the number of Wikipedia articles on EN. Ugh! —[[User:Lantoka|Lantoka]] <sup><small>( [[User_talk:Lantoka|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Lantoka|contrib]])</small></sup> 22:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::::And this forum's sister forum, the one it originally broke off of and has since outgrown, has an article too! [[HardOCP]] —[[User:Lantoka|Lantoka]] <sup><small>( [[User_talk:Lantoka|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Lantoka|contrib]])</small></sup> 22:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
<s>* '''delete'''; an online forum is not as notable as a subject like [[Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia]] [[User:Waiting4|Waiting4]] 11:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)</s> <small>Vote struck. Indefblocked, likely sockpuppet. Violation of WP:POINT. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aecis|<font color="blue">A</font>]][[User:Aecis|<font color="green">ecis</font>]] <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Aecis|Dancing]] to electro-pop [[User talk:Aecis|like a robot]] from 1984.</sup> 13:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)</small>
* '''Endorse deletion''', lack of sources not remedied. No prejudice against recreation [[iff]] decent sources are cited. "[[Jam tomorrow]]" promises of sources are not, I'm afraid, of much use. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 14:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', the concerns brought up by the nominator were never addressed. Simply saying that it's one of the largest forums ever doesn't make it [[WP:V|verifiable]] if no sources are given. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]][[User talk:Coredesat|at]]''' 16:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Allow recreation''' per Guy. I'm staying short of endorsing deletion: I think that if this debate had an outcome, this is the right one, but I actually don't think this debate had a clear outcome. Still, I don't think we should undelete a huge fan article with no sources: better is if someone just starts over from verifiable info. [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<font color="orange">'''juice'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 18:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''weak keep deleted''' for now, unless independent sources can be found. But google hits are impressive and there are other examples of websites and communities being included. If the article were to be included it needs to be rewritten.--[[user:mathewguiver|mathewguiver]] 19:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. This is quite similar to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LUElinks]]. LUElinks has a similar activity level, number of ghits, and overall notability as General Mayhem. Internet forums are not kept just because they have xx million posts (though, once there is a certain level of activity, it usually indicates external sources can be found). --- [[User:RockMFR|RockMFR]] 00:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' without prejudice to being recreated with reliable sources. It's strength of arguments that count, not numbers. One of the Keeps actually said that verifiability wasn't important. The other said that the website was big, which isn't a valid criterion. There were no valid reasons to keep presented. [[User:JChap2007|JChap2007]] 01:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' Article did not show anything that would be considered notable. I believe this was a good faith delete and should stand. (An aside, the reposting of the article after the delete shows a complete disregard by the creators for the rules and policies of Wikipedia. While this has little to do with my vote, I feel it must be noted for the record.) --[[User:Kf4bdy|<font color="red"><b><i>Kf4bdy</i></b></font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Kf4bdy|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Kf4bdy|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</sup> 07:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Main areas of interest/expertise: automotive; engineering statistics; Osho movement; sufism
*'''Overturn'''' Re sources, genmay is reponsible for the walken 2008 presidential hoax, perhaps you've heard of it? This satisfies WP:WEB. [[User:Rizla|Rizla]] 07:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
**Don't expect others to do your research for you, present the sources. Links or print material citations are acceptable. — [[User:Saxifrage|Saxifrage]] [[User talk:Saxifrage|✎]] 08:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep it''' Genmay is has recieved press coverage as well as widespread internet coverage as a result of the "Walken 2008" shens. This, in addition to the extremely large database of users and posts probably makes it more noteworthy than half the crappy articles on Wikipedia. It is also referred to in the Christopher Walken article as a (now broken) citation. GG WIKIPEDIA! [[User:Ggnext|Ggnext]] 08:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
**Ditto, present some links or print citations. Just ''saying'' there are sources doesn't carry any weight. — [[User:Saxifrage|Saxifrage]] [[User talk:Saxifrage|✎]] 08:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
== Use of the n-dash ==
:::http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45757
I am prone to occasional sudden attacks of compulsively replacing any space-hyphen-space strings I see with space-n-dash-space.
:::http://news.com.com/2061-11199_3-5833740.html
:::http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/a/194062.htm
:::http://digg.com/celebrity/The_origin_of_Walken_for_President_2008_revealed
'''Public information announcement:''' To type an n-dash in Windows, hold down the Alt key and type 0150 in the numeric keypad. The result is this – which is a much nicer punctuation mark than this - don't you think?
:::etc.. etc... etc... [[User:Rizla|Rizla]] 08:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Thank you. — [[User:Saxifrage|Saxifrage]] [[User talk:Saxifrage|✎]] 08:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Rizla, you're the man. [[User:Ggnext|Ggnext]] 08:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Now that I've taken a look through them, I'm going to advise you to turn those "etc" into sources too. All of these talk about the hoax primarily, with General Mayhem getting only a trivial mention as the source of the hoax. That doesn't meet [[WP:WEB]]. — [[User:Saxifrage|Saxifrage]] [[User talk:Saxifrage|✎]] 08:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Perhaps the original thread would be of use? [http://www.genmay.net/showthread.php?t=562197] —[[User:Lantoka|Lantoka]] <sup><small>( [[User_talk:Lantoka|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Lantoka|contrib]])</small></sup> 08:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Are... are you serious? What about the information presented in these links makes it seem as though the site is unremarkable? The hoax recieved national attention, what if someone reads an article about it and wants information on the perpetrators of the prank? Well, they won't be turning to Wikipedia, apparently. Do we need a New York Times article about how Genmay is going to change the world before we're deemed "notable"? I honestly think you're just looking for reasons to delete this wiki. [[User:Ggnext|Ggnext]] 08:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Mac users, of course, will not need any instruction in this matter.
::::::That is true but is mainly due to the nature of a hoax. There is no denying where the hoax originated, you can see for yourself here: http://genmay.net/showthread.php?t=562197. Nobody wants to give credit for a hoax and bring the people who created it notoriety. But the hoax itself did make many, many newspapers, television shows, etc. I agree it isn't the most compelling thing under WP:WEB but it DOES meet the test. This Combined with its immense size warrants the article. There are many, many other articles which meet a standard that is less than this for notability. [[User:Rizla|Rizla]] 08:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
| 