Wikipedia:Deletion review and Dennis Stratton: Difference between pages

Revision as of 16:35, 19 October 2005

Revision as of 17:26, 1 November 2005

Line 1:

[[Image:Praying_mantis_band.jpg|frame|Dennis Stratton (left, in blue jacket) as a member of Praying Mantis in an undated photo]]

[[Category:Wikipedia deletion]]

'''Dennis Stratton''' (b. [[November 9]], [[1954]] in [[London]], [[England]]) is a guitar player who was a member of the [[Heavy metal music|heavy metal]] band [[Iron Maiden (band)|Iron Maiden]] from [[January]] [[1980]] to [[October]] [[1980]].

[[ja:Wikipedia:削除の復帰依頼]]

[[simple:Wikipedia:Request_for_undeletion]]

[[vi:Wikipedia:Biểu quyết phục hồi bài]]

[[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. -->

{{Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Vfu header}}

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

During this time, he participated in the recording of the group's first album, [[Iron Maiden (album)|Iron Maiden]], the ''Women in Uniform'' EP, some subsequent singles and the ''Live!! + 1'' live album.

== Content review ==

Editors who wish to see the content of a deleted article may place a request here. They may wish to use that content elsewhere, for example. Alternatively, they may suspect that an article has been wrongly deleted, but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted.

As a subset of this, sometimes an article which is appropriate for a sister site is deleted without being properly transwikied. If the page is undeleted temporarily, it can be exported complete with history using [[Special:Export]], and then redeleted. This will be especially useful once the [[m:MediaWiki_roadmap|import]] feature is completed.

<!-- 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 ==== -->

Since his departure from Iron Maiden, Stratton has played with bands such as Lionheart and, more recently, Praying Mantis.

==External links==

*[http://www.getreadytorock.com/10questions/dennis_stratton.htm Interview With Dennis Stratton (2003)], Accessed July 10, 2005.

*[http://leatherwarriors.web.infoseek.co.jp/Lionheart/dg1_j.html Dennis Stratton Discography], Accessed July 10, 2005.

*[http://www.praying-mantis.com/ Praying Mantis fan site]

== 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 ==== -->

{{IronMaiden}}

[[Category:Iron Maiden|Stratton, Dennis]]

== Decisions to be reviewed ==

[[Category:1954 births|Stratton, Dennis]]

<!--

[[Category:British guitarists|Stratton, Dennis]]

{{Template:Vfu mechanics}}

[[Category:Londoners|Stratton, Dennis]]

-->

[[es:Dennis Stratton]]

<table style="border-style:solid;border-width:2px;border-color:black" align=center><tr><td>

[[fr:Dennis Stratton]]

'''Please join the discussion to work out the mechanics of a Deletion Review process, covering both deleted and not-deleted articles, at [[Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal]].'''

[[no:Dennis Stratton]]

</td></tr></table>

=== October 19 ===

====[[Margaret Turnbull]]====

First, this was created by anon, deleted, re-created by me and speedied. Sorry should have brought it here first; I'd never used this page and wanted to get rid of a red link on a page I edit.

Suggest undeleting for a few reasons.

* This was initially [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Turnbull|closed as delete]] with a 2-1 vote, which is hardly overwhelming. At the very least another go around on AfD to see if it elicits more comments. Note when the vote after the nom was placed, the article did not actually refer to the [[HabCat]], which is the main claim to inclusion.

* It is red-linked in at least four places. I added two, one before the vote and one after, and another editor added two others which I noticed later.

* I realize there is some debate over how much ancillary credit we grant people who've created notable things but I think in this case we should consider it. One of two people who produced the [[HabCat]], which will almost certainly be the base for future [[TPF]] searches and has been a landmark in any case; she and Jill Tarter seem to be the last word on "HabStars" in my reading around. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 15:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted''' Valid VfD, though not one with many votes. May I suggest adding her information to [[HabCat]] and then redirecting her name there? There's certainly room. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan - <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT>]] 16:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

=== October 17 ===

==== [[Woodroffe Avenue]] ====

This article was deleted according to a [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodroffe Avenue|17 (d) to 8 (k) to 1 (merge) VfD count]] with the strongest keep arguments being it is "extremely important Ottawa road" and it is "perfectly verifiable". It was deleted, re-recreated, speedy deleted (G4: Re-creation of deleted material) and finally re-created again. The re-creator argues that the article has been "signifigantly upgraded". While this is true he also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woodroffe_Avenue&diff=25706929&oldid=23558851 re-created the deleted material.] So I bring it here: is this a legitamite, properly-written article or an over-riding of a VfD outcome? --[[User:Maclean25|maclean25]] 07:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Woodroffe_Avenue Woodroffe Edit Summary]

*'''Delete''' until proper sources (Ministry of Transportation?) can be used to integrate relevant information. This is a notoriously difficult subject to write about. Because this road is not significant (historically, culturally, etc.) it must default to a description of the road (origin, history, uses, characteristics, etc). "Sights on Woodroffe" describes a commuter's experience while traveling along the road (ie. details of someone's commute to work). While the "Features" section more clearly grasps the concept of a road as a piece of an infrastructure system, it is just [[Wikipedia:Cruft|cruft]]. But the map and image really help the understading of the article. Finally, let me say this: a road is not a place; it is a line on a map, a strip of asphalt on the ground, a piece of the transportation network, and a piece of city infrastructure. It is the means to achieve an end, but not an end itself. --[[User:Maclean25|maclean25]] 07:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Undelete'''. 9 to 17 isn't even the standard 2/3rds level needed to deleted a page. Moreover I greatly expanded it during the debate, bringing it from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woodroffe_Avenue&oldid=23662929 this] to its present state. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 13:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted''' 17-to-8 (or 9 if you count "merge" as meaning "keep") isn't the world's most overwhelming consensus, but it's well within acceptable limits for a closer to make a judgement call. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan - <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT>]] 14:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted''' valid afd. It was close but that's a judgement call of the closer. I feel sorry for Simon though, but that's the way it goes sometimes. Its an interesting debate though with the spinboy crew (including earl et al.) actually voting to keep it - most likely because they are from around that area themselves. Its literally just the school debates - people want to keep what's familiar to them, and it can be difficult for them to tell whether it is really encyclopedic or not. However, from the high turnout (and '''''17''''' delete opinions) it seems the community seems to think its not worth keeping - whether that's because they've become jaded with all the roadcruft, because they don't know much about that particular road, or just don't know anything about roads in general is not for us to question. I wish people in these debates would try to communicate those kind of things better then worthless opinions like "'''Keep''' roadcruft" or "'''Delete''' nn road" <small>[[User:RN|Ryan Norton]] ^{<font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font>}</small> 16:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted''' and '''Delete''', valid AfD. --[[User:fvw|fvw]][[User talk:Fvw|<SMALL><FONT COLOR="green">*</FONT></SMALL>]] 17:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

*Strictly speaking this doesn't belong on VfU. This content isn't deleted, and as I understand the history (correct me if I am wrong) It wasn't undeleted, it was re-created, speedied as a recreation, and has now been recreated again with the claim that it has been expanded enough that the prior deletion decision dosn't apply, plus a secondary claim that that decision was incorrect anyway. Have I got the siutuatioon correct? Now if an article is recreated in a form different enough that CSD G4 (recreation of deleted content) does not apply, there is normally no reason for VfU to be involved -- anyone can always renominate for AfD. But if it is speedy deleted under G4 and that is contested, VfU could be involved. I will take this as a sort of advance request to void a G4 Speedy. I just compared the current version with the version that existed during the VfD debate. They seem pretty close to word-for-word identical, except that a single short paragrpah has been added to the end of the current version, as have three refernces. I think that makes this "substantially similar" to the deleted version, adn makes a G4 speedy plausible. However, G4 only applies to "validly deleted" content. If we were to overturn the VfD result, it would not apply. The numbers are marginal for a consensus to delete, but the argumets of thoe favoring delete seem rather stronger to me than those favoring keep. I think this is within the zone of closer judgement, although just barely. Thus I think the deletion was valid. Therefore I reccomend that the current article be re-speedied under G4. Now if the editors of this article stil want such an article to exist, i would advise that they rewrite it so that 1) it truly is not even clse to 'substantially similar" to the deleted version, and 2) that they at least try to address the arguments made in the deletion debate in the new version. An articel recreated in that way will not be subject to G4, and could only be delted after a new AfD debate, in which those favoring it could make all the points they can find. if the previous issues are addressed, it might well not be deleted in a new afd debate. So ''re-delete'' under G4. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|^(talk)]] 17:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

**I have now tagged this for speedy delete under G4. That will not void this discussion, it can continue as a true undeltion debate. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|^(talk)]] 17:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Re-delete and keep deleted afterwards''', valid AFD. I agree with Ryan that closer admins might sometimes be annoyed at votes that do not give any opinion at all. No prejudice against a different new version, though. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]</font>^{([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]])} 17:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

*The '''only''' criteria under which a city street should '''ever''' have its own Wikipedia article are:

#the road is famous enough, for whatever reason, that a person who's never been to the city in their lives and has never seen a map of the city in their lives can still be reasonably expected to have heard of it,

#the road is so intimately connected to a major historical event that even if the road itself isn't famous, it's necessary as part of the event's full historical context.

:Woodroffe does not meet either criterion. Just because an article is prettied up with a photo and a map doesn't make it a valid article; it '''still''' has to meet one of those criteria. I've ''lived'' in Ottawa, for gawd's sake, and I still just don't see why I should consider how many lanes Woodroffe has or its weird intersection with Carling to be information that belongs in an encyclopedia. I'm a '''mapgeek''', for God's sake, and I still don't see why 99.99 per cent of local city streets should have articles. And I'm not Ottawa-bashing -- there are ''plenty'' of Ottawa streets I'd vote to ''keep'' under the criteria I listed; Woodroffe just isn't one of them. '''Delete''' unless somebody can actually come up with a far more convincing argument in favour of city streets than "anything that exists deserves an article". [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 18:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted'''. [[user:mikkalai|mikka]] [[user talk:mikkalai|(t)]] 19:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

*Please see [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Woodroffe_Avenue]]. Additionally, in my interpretation the original AfD was 15d and 7k, giving 68 percent for deletion, which I do not feel is enough consensus for deletion. However, I have re-deleted the article and protected the page, pending the outcome of this VfU. [[User:Evilphoenix|&Euml;vilphoenix]] ^{<small><b>[[User_talk:Evilphoenix|Burn!]]</b>}</small> 19:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

**If the standard is 2/3, 68 per cent meets that. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 19:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

**Thank you. While hardly a strong consensus, anything at 66% or over is IMO within the zone of judgement of the closer. Particualrly with fairly high participation, IMO, the required percentage can decrease to a degree (at 4D/2K I am rather less comfortable than at 20D/10K). And the quality of the arguments made can be taken into account, AfD is supposed to be a debate as well as a pure vote, isn't it? You might not close as a delete at 68%, but I don't think that is enough to over-ride a good-faith closing by another admin. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|^(talk)]] 19:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted'''. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] 19:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Comment'''. This article generated quite a bit of participation, which is good. It also appears to have generated a lot of discussion, which is also good. But when I closed this AFD it seemed to me that most of the arguing done on the keep side was overwhelmingly represented by Earl Andrew. Some others weighed in also, but a primary driver of much of the discussion on the keep side was coming from him (and Spinboy to a lesser extent). Less so, I felt, with folks who voted delete -- while Bearcat engaged Earl Andrew a fair bit toward the end, in general, a larger variety of those who voted to delete engaged in the threaded discussion. Therefore, I did not feel that those who voted to keep had a strong enough position to ignore a well-turned-out vote that met the 2/3rds threshold for rough consensus. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]^{[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]} 19:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted'''; there was no irregularity about the original deletion, as 17 d to 8 k is a legitimate (better than 2/3rds) delete closure, and should have been left to the closing admins discretion.--[[User:Scimitar|Scimitar]] [[User talk:Scimitar|^parley]] 19:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Undelete'''. Looking at the latest version I see that it's a much-enhanced article. Keeping this deleted goes against the spirit of allowing new articles to be created in place of deleted ones. At the very least put the current version back on AfD and see how it fares. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small>^Talk</small>]] 19:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Undelete'''. I'll have to take on faith the assertion of the creator (and the acceptance of the nominator) that the article was signficantly expanded, and thus not a valid speedy. [[User:Christopherparham|Christopher Parham]] [[User_talk:Christopherparham|(talk)]] 20:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' "Much enhanced" compared to which version? The version of "08:34, 24 September 2005" (which is 5 days prior to the AfD close, and 2 days before the last AfD comment) is practically word for word identical with the most current version available, except for the addition of one short (2-3 sentance) paragrpah at the very end, plus three cited references. I have done a detailed comparison of these two versions. Why should something that went through a perfectly valid AfD which got well above average participation and a reasonable (if not huge) consensus to delete be relisted? If it is, why shouldn't every AfD Debate with 68% to delete and under 25 voters be relisted automatically? [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|^(talk)]] 20:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

**Your analysis doesn't really address the problem; okay, not much was added, but I could add a few words to an article and change it from a speedy delete to a clear keep. Did the new information address the primary problem of non-notability? I don't know. The nominator acknowledges that the article was "significantly upgraded." It sounds like it should go through AFD again. Also, I endorse Encephalon's comments below. [[User:Christopherparham|Christopher Parham]] [[User_talk:Christopherparham|(talk)]] 20:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

***I, the nominator, agreed with the "significantly upgraded" comment because of an inclusion of a map (well, figure representing the road and its cross-streets). This one simple figure summarized most of the info trying to be explained in text. My deletionist attitude towards road articles stems from that feature. Roads are best explained/described on maps. Unless a historical/social commentary can be made, they make for terrible for prose. --[[User:Maclean25|maclean25]] 20:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Comments'''. '''First''', an appeal to editors who happen to have a few extra buttons: please do not undelete, redelete, unilaterally open closed AFDs and re-edit them, and wheel war. This is unhelpful. Use the standard processes of wikipedia to conduct your business. The buttons are provided to you to protect the encyclopedia from vandals and to execute the consensus of the community, with their permission. Nothing else, please. '''Second''', I do not understand the original AFD close. It was '''17D 8K 1M'''. This means the % support for D is 17/26 which is <67%. If you have limits like two-thirds or four-fifths of opinions, they only make sense if you ''stick to them''. If you think that there is a good reason to [[WP:IAR]], you need to explain clearly why you're doing so, and what other policy or reason you're invoking that you feel is important enough for you to perform the action. I hope all editors who close boderline AFDs especially will consider saying a few words about their decision (see some of Splash's closes for example). However, Katefan (who, I must say, rocks unbelievably :)) provides an explanation here: one voter on the keep side was especially vociferous in making his points. I can see how this can be somewhat significant; however, I cannot see that this is a reason to ''discount any other keep vote'', and as nothing suggests that that was done, I do not understand the close. It is well to remember that in close decisions it is especially important to be very clear and careful. I have no problem at all with close decisions—but their bases must be solid. '''Thirdly''', with respect to the recreation, it attempts to address the most important weakness of the original. It is referenced to three documents, which apparently provide a basis for '''verifiability'''; as they are all offline I cannot verify this for myself for now, but it is not unreasonable to expect that the stated documents provide some verification of the claims. The way the article is written strongly suggests some unencyclopedic writing ± original research, but these can probably be rectified via simple editing. Whether the article needs to demonstrate a greater claim than verifiability is a decision for the community to make via AFD. Here, the most important issue is that ''G4 does not apply'': a recreation that addresses an important article-policy weakness in the original is ''not'' substantially identical to the original. We need to be extremely careful with applying G4, because intemperate application of that (very important) rule is anti-wiki and can unfairly stop genuine improvements from being judged or accepted by the community. '''Undelete'''. [[User:Encephalon|<font color=000077>enceph</font>]][[User talk:Encephalon|<font color=666699>alon</font>]]<i> 20:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)</i>

**No, because apart from three bullet points or so, and two sentences the article is verbatim to that deleted. These minor changes were made to a ''restored'' article, not a rewritten one. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small>^{[[User talk:Splash|talk]]}</small> 20:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

**I belive part of the reason the afd fell towards 'delete' was because the 'delete' side presented more and more solid arguments. That is, it just wasn't number of votes. --[[User:Maclean25|maclean25]] 20:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

***Sure, that might be so. But what I'm saying is that in such cases these things should be spelled out a little clearly—most especially here, because the delete decision was reached with a ''less'' than two thirds delete consensus (based on the raw vote). If a closer finds reasons to delete/keep particularly compelling, we should be told what they were and why. I've said before that admin decisions should not consist of simply totting up raw votes, but ought to consider the strength of the comments and arguments. Where this results in a deviation from rough consensus, an explanation is always in order. Splash: you may be right. I'm judging this based on memory of the recreation and history, prior to the page protect, and IIRC there were two new paras and 3 government reports for sources. Now, if one reason an article was judged inappropriate was that it did not satisfy WP:V, an action taken to mend that is significant. It's important to remember that post-(valid)AFD, the only way to introduce material on the subject to WP is to address the concerns of the AFD in a rewrite; I'm hesistant to use G4 where a clear attempt has been made and the article improved for it. On the other hand, a major rephrasing of an article that nevertheless didn't do a shred to address the articlespace policies that the original violated will not impress me. [[User:Encephalon|<font color=000077>enceph</font>]][[User talk:Encephalon|<font color=666699>alon</font>]]<i> 23:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)</i>

*'''Keep deleted'''. The closure was entirely within admin discretion, we all know that, and no-one appears to be attempting to challenge the point. To the G4 point, the only two relevant revisions are those prior to the first deletion and, effectively, the last one before the latest addition of the speedy tag. The others are by definition identical since they were mindlessly restored rather than rewritten. I count a few references and a couple of sentences difference and otherwise identicality verbatim. All the deletions were valid, and there are no grounds for undeletion, save whimsy, perhaps. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small>^{[[User talk:Splash|talk]]}</small> 20:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

**I'll challenge that point. 66% is generally considered the minimum needed to delete a page, this article did not have this. Remember that merge is explicitly a form of keep vote, as noted on [[Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Shorthands|Guide_to_deletion]]. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 22:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

***Even if you reduce it to counting alone, it is still within discretion as much as ''not'' deleting until you get to some arbitrarily high percentage. The discretion thing cuts both ways. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small>^{[[User talk:Splash|talk]]}</small> 22:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

:::I didn't feel the argument behind the merge vote was terribly strong and as such I didn't count it toward either extreme. The editor didn't speak to the merits or demerits of this article itself, rather his comments were about wanting to create an article within which to merge different sorts of roads. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]^{[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]} 22:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Undelete''' per Tony Sidaway. [[User:JYolkowski|JYolkowski]] // [[User talk:JYolkowski|talk]] 22:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted''', this falls well within limits of admin discretion. Besides, the information in this article is far more easily represented as a map, and we all know that Wikipedia can contain pictures of maps. Let's add such a map to [[Nepean, Ottawa]], and redirecting this article there. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 22:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted'''. My findings substantially match Splash's, et al. The expanded version ''was'' visible during the original discussion period. The changes were not sufficient to cause the "deletes" to change their minds. While this was a close call, it was within acceptable bounds of admin discretion. Please remember that we are not voting and that closers are not only allowed but required to use the discussion comments to guide and weight their decision. <br>I'll add that had I been the one to close this discussion I would likely have discounted one of the "keep" votes as a bad-faith edit by a suspected troll. [[User:Katefan0|Katefan0]] appears to have used reasonable discretion in making this call. <br>However, the debate could have been closed more clearly. I know that it can be very time-consuming but if [[User:Katefan0|Katefan0]] had explained his/her reasoning in detail, we might have avoided this dispute. As a lesson for the future, closers should always take the time to show their work, especially on a close call. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 22:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''undelete'''' this please simonpc did a lot of work to make this article better so we should keep it [[User:Yuckfoo|Yuckfoo]] 22:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted'''. Valid AfD with the decision within traditional norms for admin discretion. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]''&nbsp;^{[[User talk:Allen3|talk]]} 22:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Undelete'''. Locally important and verifiable ''is'' sufficient. &mdash; [[Image:Ontario trillium sig.png|15px]][[User:mendel|mendel]] [[User_talk:Mendel|&#9742;]] 00:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Undelete''' per Christopher Parnham, and go ahead and relist on AfD. I am unable to view deleted articles, but I'm perfectly willing to assume good faith on the part of those who claim to have expanded this. [[User:Unfocused|<FONT COLOR="#66CCFF">Un</FONT>]][[User talk:Unfocused|<FONT COLOR="#0000CC">focused</FONT>]] 01:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Undelete''', subject of article was verifiable and after discounting the usual "nn, d." votes the AfD comes out as a no consensus keep. I believe Tony Sidaway and others when they say that the article improved significantly. [[User:Alphax|Alphax]]&nbsp;<sup >[[User talk:Alphax|&tau;]][[Special:Emailuser/Alphax|&epsilon;]][[Special:Contributions/Alphax|&chi;]]</sup > 01:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep Deleted''' Valid AFD --[[User:Aranda56|JAranda]]'' | [[User talk:Aranda56|watz sup]] 03:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted'''. Valid AfD, with more than enough discussion and votes to make it so. And based on the AfD discussion, I can't imagine what "vast improvements" could possibly have been made to a new version of the article that would have been overlooked in the original AfD: no one came up with any argument stronger than "it's a busy street in a certain neighborhood in Ottawa", so what magical bit transformed [[Woodroffe_Avenue|Woodroffe Avenue 2.0]] into a suddenly worthy addition? --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 04:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Undelete and relist'''. The AFD was about a shorter article, while this one was significantly expanded. Expanding something even when keeping part of the previously deleted material is perfectly valid. Just relist it on AFD, but you can't keep this deleted based on a outdated AFD. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|^(talk)]] 11:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Undelete'''. With the wafer thin numerical consensus to delete and the improvement of the article after many of the delete votes (recall that voters rarely come back to change their vote) it seems highly appropriate here to act on the safe side and restore the article. Often it is true that an afd is "valid" but nevertheless short of ideal. Seems to be the case here. (Note I have undeleted one revision - visible only from the history tab - to allow non-admins to see what the fuss is about). [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 16:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

=== October 15 ===

====[[Real Dayton BDSM Support Group]]====

I nominate Real Dayton BDSM Support Group for undeletion because there are several other BDSM groups listed that have kept their links. This article is the same size as those others and has content of similar nature and interest. There is no reason for it to be deleted and no reason was listed either.{{unsigned|69.81.79.97|00:08, October 16, 2005 (UTC)}}

*'''Undelete and AfD'''. Invalid speedy. The first deletion just says "nn", which I presume is a reference to CSD A7 that only applies to real people, not groups of people. The second was a redeletion per prior deletion, but G4 is clear that the orignial reason (or some other reason) must have been valid. In neither case were the CSDs applicable. Oh, and it wasn't spam, either. But I would advise the nominator that "support groups" are going to get a rough ride in [[WP:AFD|AfD]] since they usually have little or no influence outside their local area and no media coverage, which makes [[WP:V|verifying]] the facts in the article, and establishing the [[Wikipedia:Importance|importance]] of the topic difficult. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small>^{[[User talk:Splash|talk]]}</small> 00:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted''' -- [[User:Bblackmoor|BBlackmoor]] ^{<small>[[User_talk:Bblackmoor|(talk)]]</small>} 03:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Undelete and AfD'''. Everything that Splash said. [[User:Encephalon|<font color=000077>enceph</font>]][[User talk:Encephalon|<font color=666699>alon</font>]]<i> 05:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)</i>

*'''Undelete and AfD''' This does not appear to be a valid speedy. However, i doubt this will survive AfD unless it is expanded to include more encyclopedic content and a greater indication of notability. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|^(talk)]] 06:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

* '''Comment''': The article has been recently recreated. The recreated version is substantially similar to the deleted versions. The recreated version has been nominated for regular deletion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Dayton BDSM Support Group]]. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 06:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

* '''Undelete and AfD''' invalid speedy. <small>[[User:RN|Ryan Norton]] ^{<font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font>}</small> 19:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

====[[Antievolutionist]]====

I am nominating Antievolutionist for undeletion. I veiw that in the creation-evolution debate their are more than just creationists who oppose it. Not including the whole spectrum of antievolutionists makes Wikipedia less in depth. Wikipedia would be better if this article was undeleted.

The original debate was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Antievolutionist here]. [[User:Canadianism|Canadianism]] 21:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

* '''Keep deleted''', the AFD seems valid, there were no irregularities in the process, and this page is about ''process'', not ''content''. One question: what is the difference between a creationist and an antievolutionist? [[User:Titoxd|Tito]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]</font>^{([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]])} 21:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

**'''Comment''': A number of people will disagree with your definition of the purpose of deletion review, saying that it's just as much about content as process. [[User:Alphax|Alphax]]&nbsp;<sup >[[User talk:Alphax|&tau;]][[Special:Emailuser/Alphax|&epsilon;]][[Special:Contributions/Alphax|&chi;]]</sup > 01:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted''' as per Titoxd. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]''&nbsp;^{[[User talk:Allen3|talk]]} 21:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted''' likewise. if someone is an anti-evolutionist, they are likley supporting creationisim. there is really no other side to this debate --[[User:Chickendude|Chickendude]] 23:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted'''. The valid VfD's main concern was that the word is a [[Wikipedia:Neologism|neologism]]. That fact doesn't appear to have been mitigated since mid-July, and no evidence is offered here that it might have been. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small>^{[[User talk:Splash|talk]]}</small> 00:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted''' with the exception of the IP vote which most likely discounted by the closing admin anyway all the votes were to delete and there did not appear to be any irregularities in the voting process. <small>[[User:Jtkiefer|<font color="FF9900">Jtkiefer</font>]] ^{[[User_talk:Jtkiefer|<font color=#00A86B>T</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Jtkiefer|<font color="FF0033">@</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer|<font color="0000FF">C</font>]]} </small> ----- 01:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted''' -- [[User:Bblackmoor|BBlackmoor]] ^{<small>[[User_talk:Bblackmoor|(talk)]]</small>} 03:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted''' AfD was valid and near-unanimous. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan - <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT>]] 14:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Undelete''' Would make Wikipedia more informative. Their are more than just Christian-Jewish Creationists who oppose evolution, there are also Realians. [[User:Canadianism|Canadianism]] 04:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''keep deleted''' valid AfD. When and if anyone can verifiably demonstrate widespread use of this term, create an articel that describes cites such use, and it will probably survive an AfD, or not even be nominated for one. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|^(talk)]] 06:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted'''. Neologism and no info that can't be included in [[Evolutionary theory]] or [[evolutionist]]. There's no need to fragment that discussion over the wiki with stubs. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|^(talk)]] 10:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted'''. No good reason given to overturn this deletion debate. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 06:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted''', article title was a neologism (violating [[WP:NOT]]) and the information it contained is most likely available in existing articles with far less POV titles. No need to have 20 stubs when we can have a few decent articles. [[User:Alphax|Alphax]]&nbsp;<sup >[[User talk:Alphax|&tau;]][[Special:Emailuser/Alphax|&epsilon;]][[Special:Contributions/Alphax|&chi;]]</sup > 01:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

===October 14===

==== [[Yumeni Kobo]] ====

I just wrote an article on the '''Yumeni Kobo''' http://ballz.ababa.net/uninvited/dream.htm and it got deleted, without a [[VfD]] and without anyone saying why. Why was it deleted? A useful article on this recent invention that some Japanese person claims you can use to control your dreams and pick what you dream about should be brought back to this encyclopedia. [[User:64.200.124.189|64.200.124.189]] 00:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Undelete and AfD'''. There's not a CSD that covers dream-making machines, that I'm aware of. The article was intelligible, so not patent nonsense and doesn't read like pure spam. Though it's a mere one sentence with a link (i.e. virtually identical to the nomination statement here), so at a guess that's why it was speedied, presumably per [[WP:CSD#A3]]. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small>^{[[User talk:Splash|talk]]}</small> 01:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Undelete and AfD'''. Such an article could have merit and shouldn't have been speedy deleted. [[User:Paul Cyr|Paul Cyr]] 02:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Undelete and AfD''' Agree with above. -- [[User:Bblackmoor|BBlackmoor]] ^{<small>[[User_talk:Bblackmoor|(talk)]]</small>} 04:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Undelete and AfD'''. However the article should cite sources other than the manufactureer's claims, or it may well not survive AfD. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|^(talk)]] 06:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Comment''': This article has subsequently been recreated by the same anon author. The anon author has also opened a regular deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yumeni Kobo]]. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 06:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

==== [[InuYasha Galaxy]] ====

The reasons for deletion was because it lacked notability, but that is NOT a valid reason for deletion. Here is the [[Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/InuYasha_Galaxy|VfD]]. There are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:MU%2A_games plenty of other MUDs] with their own page. --[[User:136.150.200.99|136.150.200.99]] 16:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted'''. Valid afd. Notability is a perfectly valid reason for deletion. If you think the articles in [[:Category:MU* games]] are non-notable also, feel free to nominate them. I'll probably agree. &mdash;[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] [[User talk:Cryptic|(talk)]] 16:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

* (Edit confict with [[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]]) '''Keep deleted''', valid VfD. Lack of notability ''is'' a valid criterion for deletion, and the fact that there's other MUDs is irrelevant. Articles fall on their own merits, and just by themselves. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]</font>^{([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]])} 16:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted''' - Valid afd - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]][[User:Texture|<font color=red>ur&#949;</font><!-- TANSTAAFL -->]] 16:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep Deleted''' perfectly valid VfD, and notability is a perfectly valid reason for a delte vote, IMO. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|^(talk)]] 17:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted''' valid afd. Lack of notability is a valid de facto reason for deletion. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 17:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

**What are you all talking about? "There is currently no official policy on notability." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability] --[[User:69.204.183.132|69.204.183.132]] 18:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

***Article deletion is subjective, editors do not have to cite an official policy in order for their opinion to count on AFD. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 19:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

****That makes no sense. I could vote to delete a page because I don't like it if that were true. --[[User:69.204.183.132|69.204.183.132]] 19:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

*****That would only be true if one were a person of highly unsound judgment. Most of us can distinguish between whether something is notable, and whether we like it or not. (In my case, for example, I concede the high notability of [[George W. Bush]], notwithstanding my dislike of him.) [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 20:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted''' Valid VfD. No reason for undeletion given. Nominator, please note the following at the top of this page: "''This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — only if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer. This page is about process, not content.''" [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan - <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT>]] 19:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

**It is not valid. "Wikipedia is not paper and (theoretically) has no size limits, and so should include "everything" that fits within its other criteria."

***"Wikipedia is not paper" is a content argument. You are responding to a comment saying that you must make an argument that the debate was improperly closed. What is your argument regarding the process of its closure? (Not the reasons given by voters.) - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]][[User:Texture|<font color=red>ur&#949;</font><!-- TANSTAAFL -->]] 19:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep Deleted'''. Valid AfD. While [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia|Wikipedia is not paper]], the same policy also states that [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine|Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine]] and [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information|not an indiscriminate collection of information]]. No reason has been given to indicate that these other two policy portions do not apply. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]''&nbsp;^{[[User talk:Allen3|talk]]} 21:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''withdraw this undelete request''' That vote is so old you shouldn't be going through this undelete process. Just create the page again. It is has been long enough. All this is doing is drawing attention and possible opposition to page, and the the voting standard is higher, than if you created and someone bothered to put in a VfD.--[[User:Silverback|Silverback]] 03:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep Deleted''' -- [[User:Bblackmoor|BBlackmoor]] ^{<small>[[User_talk:Bblackmoor|(talk)]]</small>} 04:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep Deleted.''' What Cryptic said. [[User:Encephalon|<font color=000077>enceph</font>]][[User talk:Encephalon|<font color=666699>alon</font>]]<i> 05:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)</i>