|
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>{{Floating link|Administrator instructions|Administrator instructions}}
{{Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Vfu header}}
{{hatnote|This page deals with the [[Wikipedia:Deletion discussions|deletion discussion]] and [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion]] processes. For articles deleted via the "[[Wikipedia:PROD|Proposed Deletion]]" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion]]}}
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.
{{redirect|WP:DELREV|Revision Delete|WP:REVDEL}}
[[Category:Wikipedia deletion|{{PAGENAME}}]]
{{no admin backlog}}
{{Ombox
|type = notice
|image = [[File:Gnome-go-down.svg|40px|Skip to current nominations|link=#Active discussions]]
|text = <div style="text-align:center;">'''Skip to:''' {{hlist |class=inline | [[#Active discussions|Active discussions]] | [[#Recent discussions|Recent discussions]] | [[#Archive|Archive]] | {{Purge|(purge cache)}}}}<br /><inputbox>
type=fulltext
prefix=Wikipedia:Deletion review
break=no
width=50
searchbuttonlabel=Search logs
</inputbox></div>
| imageright = {{shortcut|WP:DRV}}
}}
{{Deletion debates}}
{{Review forum}}
'''Deletion review''' ('''DRV''') is for reviewing [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletions]] and outcomes of [[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Deletion discussions|deletion discussions]]. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "[[#Purpose|Purpose]]" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the [[#Instructions|instructions]] below.
[[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]]
== Content reviewPurpose ==
<div style="border:2px solid grey; padding: 2ex;">
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.
<noinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{shortcut|yes}}}|no||{{shortcut|WP:DRVPURPOSE}}}}</noinclude>
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:Help:Import|import]] feature is completed.
Deletion review may be used:
#if someone believes the closer of a [[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Deletion discussions (Nominations for deletion)|deletion discussion]] interpreted the [[WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS|consensus]] incorrectly;
Many admins will honour requests to provide the content of a deleted article if asked politely. See [[:Category:User undeletion]].
#if a [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] was done outside of the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Criteria|criteria]] or is otherwise disputed;
#if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
#if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
#if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
Deletion review should '''not''' be used:
=== [[Gallery of Socialist Realism]] ===
This article has been deleted following an AfD, and the outcome of that AfD was disputed here and the closure endorsed. During the DRV, [[User:Aaron Brenneman]] requested that, if the deletion was endorsed, the page be userfied to his space, so that he could work on it. This was not done: since the topic arose in a discussion, can the article be userfied now? --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 10:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*Your userspace or Aaron Brennemans? -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small><sup>[[User talk:Splash|talk]]</sup></small> 15:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
**Aaron's. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 03:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*** Done. The page is available at [[User:Aaron Brenneman/Gallery of Socialist Realism]]. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 07:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
****Thanks. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 15:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
****Thanks from me, too. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f">brenneman</font>]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(t)</sup></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(c)</sup></font>]] 00:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
#because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be [[Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion|renominated after a reasonable timeframe]]);
== History only undeletion ==
#(This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2020/September#Consulting deleting admin|this discussion]] an editor is '''not''' required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
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.
#to point out [[Wikipedia:Other stuff exists|other pages]] that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
#to challenge an article's deletion via the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion]] process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a ''history-only undeletion'' (please go to [[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion]] for these);
#to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
#to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
#to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to [[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion]] for these requests);
#to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
#for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use [[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion]] instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
#to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been [[WP:SALT|protected against creation]]. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.
'''Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise [[Wikipedia:List of policies#Legal|prohibited content]] will not be restored.'''
</div>
==Instructions==
== Decisions to be reviewed ==
<noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:DELREVD}}</noinclude>
{{Template:Vfu mechanics}}
<section begin=Instructions />Before listing a review request, please:
<!--
# Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
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 ====
# Check that it is not on the list of [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Perennial requests|perennial requests]]. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
-->
===[[2006-01-19]] ===
==== [[:Category:Causes célèbres]] ====
===Steps to list a new deletion review===
Back on [[June 11]], [[2005]], [[:Category:Causes célèbres]] was [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_June_11#Category:Causes_c.C3.A9l.C3.A8bres|nominated for deletion]] and after a debate, it was consensus that the category was vague, but there was a suggestion that it might be acceptable if the vagueness was removed. I liked the category but accepted the consensus. A few months later I had an idea about how a similarly named categorisation might be created in a way which removed the vagueness, and eventually created in good faith three specifically-named categories which I have been trying to maintain and keep restricted to genuine issues which are regarded as [[Cause célèbre]]s. I understand some people do not like the term, but it is a well-known French phrase used in English.
{{Warning|If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a [[WP:PROD|PROD]], restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use [[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion]] instead.}}
{| style="border:solid 1px black; padding: 0.5em; width:100%;" cellspacing="0"
|-
| style="background:#F5B158;text-align:center;" colspan="2" |
|-
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width: 5%; text-align: center; vertical-align: top;" | <big>'''1.'''</big>
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width:95%;" |
{{Clickable button 2|Click here|url={{fullurl:Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/{{#time:Y F j}}|action=edit§ion=1&preload=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/New_day}}|class=mw-ui-progressive}} and paste the template skeleton '''at the top''' of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in <code>page</code> with the name of the page, <code>xfd_page</code> with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and <code>reason</code> with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, <code>article</code> is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:
<pre>
{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
</pre>
|-
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width: 5%; text-align: center; vertical-align: top;" | <big>'''2.'''</big>
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width:95%;" |
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
:'''<code>{{subst:[[Template:DRV notice|DRV notice]]|PAGE_NAME}} <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>'''
|-
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width: 5%; text-align: center; vertical-align: top;" | <big>'''3.'''</big>
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width:95%;" |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach '''<code><nowiki><noinclude>{{Delrev|date=</nowiki>{{CURRENTYEAR}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}<nowiki>}}</noinclude></nowiki></code>''' to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
|-
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width: 5%; text-align: center; vertical-align: top;" | <big>'''4.'''</big>
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width:95%;padding-bottom:1em;" |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
* If the deletion discussion's subpage name is ''the same as'' the deletion review's section header, use '''<code><nowiki><noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=</nowiki>{{CURRENTYEAR}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}<nowiki>}}</noinclude></nowiki></code>'''
* If the deletion discussion's subpage name is ''different from'' the deletion review's section header, then use '''<code><nowiki><noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=</nowiki>{{CURRENTYEAR}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}<nowiki>|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude></nowiki></code>'''
|-
| style="background:#F5B158;text-align:center;" colspan="2" |
|}
===Commenting in a deletion review===
Today, without any discussion with me (or anyone else), [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] and [[User:Kbdank71|Kbdank71]] speedily deleted all three subcategories and the new parent category under the criteria of recreation of previous deleted material. I am seeking the views of admins as to whether this actually does meet the criteria of being "substantially identical" to that which was deleted, given that I was specifically trying to overcome the criticism of vagueness. My position is that a new CfD debate should be held in order to gain community consensus and that the deletions were out of process. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 23:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (<nowiki>'''</nowiki>) on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
*Note I've just moved this here from WP:ANI. No opinion on it. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f">brenneman</font>]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(t)</sup></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(c)</sup></font>]] 23:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' the original closing decision; or
*'''Relist''' on the relevant deletion forum (usually [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|Articles for deletion]]); or
*'''List''', if the page was speedy deleted outside of the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|established criteria]] and you believe it needs a full discussion at the [[Wikipedia:Deletion debates|appropriate forum]] to decide if it should be deleted; or
*'''Overturn''' the original decision '''and''' optionally an '''(action)''' per the [[Wikipedia:Guide to deletion|Guide to deletion]]. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and ''vice versa''. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
*'''Allow recreation''' of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:
*I took this up on the Administrator's Noticeboard because it seemed to me to be a clear case of a misuse of admin powers. I note the speedy deleting admin [[User:Postdlf]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Postdlf&diff=next&oldid=35876482 here] makes clear his view on the content - admin powers should not be used for content disputes. However since it has been moved here, I will follow through this process. My vote is therefore for '''overturn''' and list on WP:CFD to enable the issues to be debated afresh. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 00:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
* <nowiki>*'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~</nowiki>
* <nowiki>*'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~</nowiki>
* <nowiki>*'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~</nowiki>
* <nowiki>*'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~</nowiki>
* <nowiki>*'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~</nowiki>
* <nowiki>*'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~</nowiki>
* <nowiki>*'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~</nowiki>
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct ''interpretation of the debate''. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines]]; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.
==== [[OpenGCL]] ====
:''See [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenGCL]]''
This GIS Software tool is quite unique in that it is entirely written in Java and for Java, and is the first GIS software that has the full functionality of much more expensive, more famous software.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by '''Relist''', rather than '''Overturn and (action)'''. This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. '''Allow recreation''' is an alternative in such cases.
It is listed and reviewed in various magazines, and is being used by the Government of Canada.
===Temporary undeletion===
This was deleted even though it was simply in need of more expansion. I move that it be undeleted.
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{Tlx|TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the [[WP:BLP|policy on biographies of living persons]] should not be restored.
===Closing reviews===
Drini, an overzealous admin, noticed that my username was blocked, and decided that it was the end of my articles.
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] exists. If that consensus is to '''undelete''', the admin should follow the instructions at [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions]]. If the consensus was to '''relist''', the page should be relisted at the [[Wikipedia:Deletion debates|appropriate forum]]. If the consensus was that the deletion was '''endorsed''', the discussion should be [[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Wikipedia:Deletion review discussions|closed]] with the consensus documented.
If the administrator closes the deletion review as '''no consensus''', the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
My username has subsequently been unblocked, and I move that OpenGCL be allowed to prove its notability, as well as be able to expand on the article.
*If the decision under appeal was a [[Wikipedia:Speedy deletion|speedy deletion]], the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the [[Wikipedia:Deletion venues|appropriate deletion discussion forum]], if they so choose.
*If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.
Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)
[[User:OpenInfo|OpenInfo]] 22:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. If it ''does'' become notable, the article can be re-created. And we live happily ever after :).'''[[User:Voice of All|<font color="blue">Voice</font><font color="darkblue"> of </font><font color="black">All</font>]]'''<sup>[[user_talk:Voice_of_All|<font color="blue">T</font>]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Voice of All|@]]|[[WP:EA|<font color="darkgreen">ESP]]</font></sup> 23:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
==== [[ProjectplaceSpeedy (software)]]closes ====
* Objections to a [[WP:PROD|proposed deletion]] can be processed immediately as though they were a request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion]]
:''See [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Projectplace (software)]]''
* Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as '''overturn'''. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
Projectplace is the biggest online project management tool in Europe. The page was deleted for the reasons:
* Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to '''withdraw''' their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than '''endorse''', the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
* gets lots of Google hits (?)
* Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at [[WP:DEEPER]]). These will usually be marked as "procedural close".<section end=Instructions />
* Seems commercial
{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active}}
* no difference from other PM software
{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recent}}
I think all of these reasons are invalid for this page. Getting a lot of Google hits doesn't mean it shouldn't be in Wikipedia? There are fundamental differences between the product in this page and other PM packages (ASP, integrated with different modules, did you even bother to LOOK at the page?). The page was not commercial (I wrote the first version and I'm not a sales guy for this company), it was barely describing what was possible with the service. Just like the page about MS Project and other PM software pages in Wikipedia. In later versions the page could have user reviews and screenshots.
{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Archive}}
{{Wikipedia community|state=collapsed}}
--[[User:Zpeed|Zpeed]] 10:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
[[Category:Wikipedia deletion|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:Wikipedia maintenance|{{PAGENAME}}]]
*'''undelete and relist on afd'''. Only three contributors to original debate, claims of notability do seem genuine. I think it deserves a wider hearing. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 12:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
[[Category:Wikipedia processes]]
* '''Comment''': Just to clarify, [[user:Kappa|Kappa]] made the comment about "lots of Google hits" as justification for his removal of the ''speedy''-delete tag and his decision to move the discussion over to the full AFD process. He did not make that comment as a justification for deletion. In fact, as far as I can tell, he deliberately abstained from the decision. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 14:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Comment''': I read over that Google hits comment in the "discussion", it seems that it was a contra argument, instead of an argument for removal. It's a valid and pretty big online service that shouldn't be removed from listing I think.
--[[User:Zpeed|Zpeed]] 17:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' We do assume people looked at the page. As for "Projectplace is the biggest online project management tool in Europe" could you please provide a [[WP:CITE]] for that? Otherwise there seems to be no reason to run through this again as the arguments do not seem new. <small>[[User:RN|WhiteNight]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 18:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' unless someone has a better cited assertion of notability. Also, one should generally not write articles about things you're personally involved with. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 18:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
==== [[Teagames]] ====
:''See [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teagames]]''
Some of the voting was mixed up with [[Teacon]], which is just a convention for Teagames. Two of the delete votes were especially for Teacon. Teacon should stay deleted. However Teagames gets a high Alexa rank of 2,736 [http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&compare_sites=&y=t&q=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teagames.com%2F] and seems popular on google -- [[User:Astrokey44|Astrokey44]]<small>|[[User talk:Astrokey44|talk]]</small> 04:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
::Agreed, Alexa rank is quite high, I support undeletion. [[User:Alkivar|<font color="#FA8605">'''ALKIVAR'''</font>]][[User_talk:Alkivar|™]][[Image:Radioactive.png|18px|]] 17:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
*Looking at the article content (or rather, shortage thereof), I can understand why people wanted to delete it. However, if you can do better than that, by all means do it (and undelete if you need that info). Also, please redirect Teacon to Teagames, and add a section on the con. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 17:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
**I'm going to buzz Stifle as to why he wanted to delete even after the alexa mention as he's a regular there and is usually on target... <small>[[User:RN|WhiteNight]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 18:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
====[[NATARS]]====
The article was speedied for being nonsense (and, I suspect, for being only one sentence long). I am not the author of this article, but I inserted a <nowiki>{{hangon}}</nowiki> template while I checked to see whether the article was a stub written in a foreign language. In spite of the template insertion, the page was deleted. It appears to have been written in Persian. I can't say exactly what the page contained, but it does not appear to be patent nonsense, and should at least have been reviewed or waited on to see whether the author was going to add more, or to translate. Request to undelete and list on AfD. -- [[User:MatthewDBA|MatthewDBA]] 19:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oh, come on'''. The entire article consisted of four words, one of which was the title word. Is it really worth the futile ceremony of an AfD for a four-word article? For what it's worth, I think "natars" means something like romance or love. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 19:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
**Fair enough, actually. I was probably just annoyed that someone had deleted it while I was checking to see if it could have been the start of something legitimate. It's not that big a deal for me. -- [[User:MatthewDBA|MatthewDBA]] 19:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
===[[2006-01-18]]===
====[[Ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny]]====
I believe that this flash validates a page. That is exactly why I use Wikipedia. It has articles on virtually everything. Yes the flash is kind of stupid, but I saw it and wanted to know more about it. Again, the whole purpose of an encylopedia. The flash can be seen [http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/285267 here]. Please consider undeleting it. [[User:Schyler|schyler]] 01:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The flash is becoming to widely popular, and there a lot of things to be said about it... ah hell... it'd just be cool if it had an article. It has Chuck Norris. You must comply.
-supercubedude
I believe the song on itself isn' entitled to an article; put it with [[Neil Cicierega|Neil's]] main artical, okay?
[[User:Kobayen|Kobayen]] 00:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Now that there are several people who have requested it to be undeleted, I believe someone with sysop rights should now restore it, or, like kobayen said, create a section on it on the page of it's author.[[User:Schyler|schyler]] 13:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Article was never deleted'''. Instead the article was changed to a redirect. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Allen3|talk]]</sup> 13:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
* the article was made a redirect but the page it is redirected to has no information on it at all.[[User:Schyler|schyler]] 22:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
** That's an issue to be sorted out on the respective Talk pages (and, if necessary, through the Request for Comment process). The Deletion Review process has no jurisdiction over or special capabilities to sort out that kind of editorial decision. Neither the page nor the content were ever deleted. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 22:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
==== [[Wikipedia:Title Neutrality]] and [[Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles]] ====
After 3 months of work by editors on both sides of the issue this proposal was illegitimately speedy deleted just as voting was beginning, first at [[Wikipedia:Title Neutrality]], then at [[Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles]]. Moving a proposal to userspace is equivalent to a deletion and should be reviewed. The deleters have and likely will falsely claim the proposal failed twice. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 20:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Comment:''' These pages <S>weren't</S> aren't deleted, so there's nothing to review or undelete here. Both pages now exist in Zen-master's userspace. This was explained at great length to Zen-master [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Speedy_deletions&oldid=35462642#Questioned_speedy_deletions here], but he'd rather assume bad faith in the matter. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 20:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
**'''Response Comment:''' That is untrue. The [[Wikipedia:Title Neutrality]] proposal was illegitimately speedy deleted, ''then'' moved to userspace which has the same effect (which Carbonite apparently ignored above). Proposals belong in project namespace, especially ones that had started voting. Since the speedy deletion was a mistake that has to be corrected before a discussion on the appropriateness of moving to userspace can begin. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 20:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
***A deleted page can't be moved unless it was undeleted at some point. [[Wikipedia:Title Neutrality]] was undeleted by [[User:Neutrality]] and moved [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Zen-master/Wikipedia:Title_Neutrality&diff=35409684&oldid=35409634] to [[User:Zen-master/Wikipedia:Title Neutrality]]. The redirect (from Wikipedia namespace to User namespace) was deleted by Radiant. The other page, [[Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles]], was never more than a redirect. There's nothing more to undelete. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 20:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
****If the speedy deletion was a mistake then the proposal should be restored at its original ___location, and then a move discussion should begin. Though it is impossible to justify the deletion or moving to userspace of a proposal that has been worked on for 3 months, by both sides, ESPECIALLY one that had begun voting. Also, Radiant was the one who moved [[Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles]] to my userspace. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 20:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep in ZM's user space'''. We already voted about this. As far as I'm concerned Zen-Master is taking advantage of the community by continuing to issue this proposal after it was rejected by a wide margin. See [[Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory]]. Please focus on something more productive. I am sure that Zen-Master will issue a "3.0" version of this proposal soon, and I'm sure it'll create another shitfest, same as this one. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 20:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
:*'''Response Comment:''' That is untrue for multiple reasons. The voting on version 2.0 of the proposal at [[Wikipedia talk:Title Neutrality]] was speedy deleted along with everything else, so it's inaccurate to say the proposal was voted on. Also, since the proposal was significantly updated resubmittal is allowed, especially since this is 6.5 months after version 1.0 voting closed. The challenge to defend the phrase "conspiracy theory" from a charge of being non-neutral remains unresponded to. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 20:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': I'm confused, since I can find Title Neutrality at [[User:Zen-master/Wikipedia:Title_Neutrality]], but the talk page seems to have gone AWOL... neither [[User_talk:Zen-master/Wikipedia:Title_Neutrality]] (some sort of re-redirect back to project space) nor [[User:Zen-master/Wikipedia_talk:Title_Neutrality]] seem to go anywhere, and [[User_talk:Zen-master/Wikipedia_talk:Title_Neutrality]] seems to be newly created after the deletion/userfication. If there was a talk page for V2.0, shouldn't it still exist somewhere in userspace? -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 20:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
**It was lost in subsequent moves back and forth or recreation in the another ___location, it should be restored along with the [[Wikipedia:Title Neutrality]] proposal. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 20:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
**I just undeleted the talk page and moved it to its correct ___location at [[User:Zen-master/Wikipedia_talk:Title_Neutrality]]. The entire [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Zen-master/Wikipedia_talk:Title_Neutrality&action=history history] now exists there. Thanks for pointing this out, Nae'blis. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 20:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
***Thanks, that talk page shows voting had begun (2 supporting, one against, one voting for voting is evil) so this is further evidence the proposal should not have been speedy deleted or moved to userspace. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 20:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
====[[aladin]]====
: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aladin (2nd nomination)]]
This is an unusual case. The vote was closed "keep, no consensus". But some editors keep turning the article into a redirect to a completely '''different''' topic. This effectively means that the topic in question is being '''deleted''' against the closing decision. The closing admin refuses to recognize the problem. See also my suggestion in [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#"Redirect" option]]. There is a hole in the policy no one wants to discuss. [[User:Mukadderat|Mukadderat]] 18:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
:Please note that the statement "The closing admin refuses to recognize the problem." is complete deception, as the closing admin saw what you were saying but pointed out to you that it was against policy and all common sense. People voting "keep" to preserve the page history and the talk page comments but specifically wanting the page redirected cannot by any sane, honest description be called votes to preserve the article as is. The clear consensus was to get rid of the article itself but keep the talk page and history, which is something that happens on articles ALL THE TIME. It sucks that you can come here and totally misrepresent events and get some people here to discuss the issue without knowing full details or looking into them. I have redirect thr page again. Stop ignoring the clear consensus of the voters and trying to pull in people with no knowledge of the events. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] 00:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''No action''' redirect targeting is not an issue for Deletion Review as it isn't really deletion. In this case, the redirect sounds reasonable to me. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 18:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*:Please explain how a redirect to a '''totally different topic''', with absolutely '''no common content''' may sound reasonable? Did you take a look into [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#"Redirect" option]]? [[User:Mukadderat|Mukadderat]] 19:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*::Simply put, because the vast majority of people who type "aladin" in as a search phrase are actually looking for "Aladdin". Therefore, it is a useful redirect. However, there's nothing at all stopping you from making [[aladin (magician)]] or something similar, and then linking to it from the Aladdin disambiguation page. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 19:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*Concur with Andrew. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 20:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Can we please stop misspelling "Aladdin" here? -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 20:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*Further comment: I'm not sure the article is worth bringing back, partly because of the hijinks on the talk page, but it ''is'' disingenuous to say that redirecting [[aladin]] (magician) to [[Aladdin]] is not the same as a straight keep. Maybe the proponents should start a new article per Andrew and try to establish something encyclopedic there. (probably for GFDL that means we should '''Move''' the current article there, establish history, and then create the spelling-based redirect at the old name). -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 20:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*I would favor a move to [[aladin (magician)]], with the redir going to either [[Aladdin]] (with a proper "otheruses" hatnote), or to [[Aladdin (disambiguation)]]. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 21:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
**Such a move has now been carreid out, adn I added an entry to [[Aladdin (disambiguation)]] (othewise there was no path from [[aladin]] to [[aladin (magician)]], which is not good for anyone actually looking for the perfomer. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 21:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' They're two different things, in the way of Aladdin and Aladin... I'm too tired to bother with a third vote, or to convey that point so I'll leave it to other more determined people to do the job. I must highlight though, that this article is the target of a personal vendetta by a group of friends. Either way, I think it's obvious where my opinion lies in this snafu... --[[User:RBlowes|RBlowes]] 22:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Please not that on the discussion on the talk page and on the vote for deletion, there wsa CLEAR CLEAR copnsensus that the article should be redirected, but that the talk page and edit history should be preserved and therefore not deleted. If it weren;t for the vote for redirecting it would have been deleted outright. Redirecting is just doing what the editors there decided. Moving the article does not in any way go along with what the editors involved decided. The comments above show only a cursory glance at the article and no understanding of the reasons for the vote. One person here deciding to move it in no way validates going against the consensus of those involved. I have restored the redirect, undoing that, as '''DES''' has done is sheer cowboyism without any knowledge of the long history of the article and the decisions that were made. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] 23:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*: And a wheel war is supposed to help clarify this? There was no consensus in the second AfD, therefore your references to some sort of holy decision from on high are unwarranted. The redirect 'decision' sidesteps the fact that there are two different folks being discussed here. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 00:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
*: I note that the article [[aladin (magician)]] article now redirects to [[Aladdin (disambiguation)]], making the link to same on the disambiguation page kinda pointless, yes? Wouldn't it be better to leave the content at [[aladin (magician)]], have "aladin" redirect to either [[Aladdin]] or [[Aladdin (disambiguation)]], and then have a VfD for "aladin (magician)" if the content is still objectionable? [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] 00:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
*::I think that would be sensible, but [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] has now restored the redir after my reversion. i don't want to get into a revert war or a wheel war. I don't think the consensus is as clear as he contends. But perhaps i am wrong [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
*(''after edit conflict'') I have been following this matter for some time, i have read the AfD, and the talk page in full. I shouldn't have used the roll-back button, i apologize for that, but not for reverting. IMO there was '''NOT''' clear consensus for simply convertign this to a redirect,a dn there surely is not now. Please etiehr let the separate page stand, or take it back to AfD for a decission on whether the current content should remain. I object to the comments above about "no understanding of the reasons" show a failure to assume good faith, IMO -- but perhaps my reversion did also, although i did discuss the amtter on the talk page, and here and on DG's talk page at once. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
====[[SuperOffice]] and [[Tally Solutions Ltd]] ====
Old AFD here: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperOffice]]. Unilaterally undeleted by Tony Sidaway; if he can't be bothered to bring it here I guess I'll have to do it for him. If it's as obvious a keep as he seems to think it is, he shouldn't have any trouble getting a majority in favor of undeletion. <s>No vote from me.</s> -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 04:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' (re-delete as re-created content). The article is unchanged from the version which was discussed in the AFD. Merely being a publicly traded company is '''not''' one of our generally accepted inclusion standards. No new evidence has been presented to justify overturning the AFD decision. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 04:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Endorse''' per Rossami.</s> One can always rewrite the article so it doesn't qualify as a substantail recreation with new sources if the subject warrants. <small>[[User:RN|WhiteNight]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 04:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*I have redeleted this article and blocked Tony Sidaway for unilaterally undeleting this article out of process twice. I will '''abstain''' from this DRV debate otherwise. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 08:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*I've added [[Tally (accounting)]]. See [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tally (accounting)]]. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f">brenneman</font>]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(t)</sup></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(c)</sup></font>]] 08:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' Rossami. Proper work from here as ever. Strongly endorse Sjakkalle. About time someone had the balls to show that consensus counts. [[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 08:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore''' [[SuperOffice]]. Sidaway claims that SuperOffice had sales of 30 million Euros and the article states it has 11,000 customers, as does their website. [http://www.superoffice.com/templates/SOPage.aspx?id=181]. <strike>I wasn't able to dig up as much on Tally and all I see is a redirect anyway, so '''Keep Deleted''' on that one.</strike>--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 09:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
**Tally was moved to [[Tally Solutions Ltd]] after being undeleted. You can review it there. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 09:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
***'''Keep''' current version of [[Tally Solutions Ltd]].--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 11:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*reluctantly '''restore''' as bad-faith nom and apparent failure of diligence in AfD, since both assert significant (90% of Indian SME market, if that can be verified; 11,000 customers ditto). Very tempting to endorse, mind, since there was 100% consensus to delete, but with only three votes in both cases and at least some assertion of notability I suspect I would have relisted rather than closing. This should not be interpreted as endorsing Tony Sidaway's unilateral undeletion, which I think sets an extremely bad precedent and is just begging for a whole new round of wheel wars, but this is about the ''articles'' not about Tony. - [[User:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid"> Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[User:JzG/AfD|AfD?]]'' 10:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
**How was it bad faith? <small>[[User:RN|WhiteNight]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 11:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
***See my comments below regarding [[24SevenOffice]]. [[User:Extreme Unction|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>Ξxtreme</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Unction</font>]]|<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0"><sub>[[User talk:Extreme Unction|yakkity yak]]</sub></font> 11:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*I understand they've been rewritten, so '''relist''' on AFD. If there is a consensus to delete them again, they should be protected, though. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 14:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''relist''' per R. fiend, and if possible, could the originals from ''before'' the AFD be posted somewhere for comparison? Note that Tony says he rewrote at least one of the articles between the AFD and the actual deletion, so I'd look for a copy dated on or before the AFD was opened. [[User:InkSplotch|InkSplotch]]<sup>([[User_talk:InkSplotch|talk]])</sup> 15:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
**Alright, I have, with some doubts, restored the histories. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 15:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
** Comment: When I first saw this, I compared the deleted version (dated 05:32, 9 January 2006) against the then-current version (dated 16:40, 17 January 2006). Since the history has now been restored (I hope only temporarily), it can be reviewed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SuperOffice&diff=35583890&oldid=34478147 here]. The "rewrite" consisted of the removal of the AFD template and the addition of the words "as SOU" in the last paragraph. Since then, the text has been rewritten but not, in my opinion, in a way that meaningfully addresses the concerns raised in the AFD discussion. I still don't see any new evidence that this company meets the recommended criteria at [[WP:CORP]]. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 16:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep rewritten articles''', notable. — '''[[User:Philwelch|Phil]]''' ''[[User_talk:Philwelch|Welch]]'' <small>[[User:Katefan0/Poll|Are you a fan of the band Rush?]]</small> 18:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse closure''' (admin was right to delete) and '''keep undeleted''' (Tony was right to undelete). '''Question''' entire DRV (and AFD) process, as no review was necessary. If In Doubt, Don't Delete, [[WP:NOT]] a bureaucracy [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] - [[User talk:Hipocrite|«<small>Talk</small>»]] 19:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Restore''' and if need be '''relist'''. I agree with JZG (and folks, please read about [[24SevenOffice]] for some necessary perspective). --[[User:Kingboyk|kingboyk]] 23:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure and keep deleted'''. I note Tony Sidaway's inconsistency in arguing elsewhere for "absolute harshness" in upholding policies he favors, while showing absolute disdain for the ones he doesn't like. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 02:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' the close was obviously acceptable but the bad faith allegations have some legs, plus they are rewritten, so I'd say just to relist them, possibly even relist with the previous comments. I also agree with R. fiend, as always. <small>[[User:RN|WhiteNight]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 04:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''', keep deleted. [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] 05:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist'''. Sure, let Tony's versions have a chance at AfD despite his heavy-handed methods of getting to this point. It's not obvious to me whether we should have an article on a company with 185 employees but I'm willing to hear arguments either way. - [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 13:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' I don't like the way thsi was handled, adn i am far from convinced of the celar notability of the subjects. But with only three votes on the AfD (even though all three were to delete) and with at least soem evidence of notability presented above that was not discussed on teh AfD, relist for incresed discussion and hopefully broader consensus. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 17:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. Seriously you want to keep every article on a company with 180 employees? If we only considered 500 million people in the workforce in world and averaged it that would mean 3 million articles on companies. I don't think there are quite that many, but keeping based on this is weak anyway. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 18:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''KD''' and whack Tony with a wet trout. Second Slim's remark about his blatant double standards. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 18:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
**And I'll third that. In fact, I'm considering changing my vote; if Tony can't even defend these articles here I see no compelling reason to give these another go. I'm assuming as much good faith as I can (about the merit of these articles, not Tony's undeletions of them). There's a good chance I'll just vote to delete them on the second AFD anyway. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 18:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
***Does that threat read "Either you come here and participate in our broken process or we will damage the encyclopedia?" That's how I read it. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] - [[User talk:Hipocrite|«<small>Talk</small>»]] 19:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
****No, I'm just not convinced a company with less than 200 people is notable, but I'm willing to give it another go on AFD, as of now. I just resent Tony's assertion that everything he does is so fucking beneficial to the encyclopedia that he can ignore the consensus whenever he pleases. Deleting an article on some random company isn't going to damage anything. If he wanted them undeleted, he should have brought them here; he participates in this "broken" process often enough. I did it for him when I could have just redeleted the articles and blocked him (as another user did). I assumd he'd at least try to make a case for why these should be kept, but it doesn't seem as worthwhile to him, so maybe the whole point of his actions was just to be a dick. I don't know. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 20:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' per DES --- '''Charles Stewart'''<sup>[[User_talk:Chalst|(talk)]]</sup> 18:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
===[[2006-01-17]]===
====[[Chiens Sans Frontiers]]====
Afded as part of the [[User:Timecop/The_war_on_blogs]] - however, it was speedily deleted after less than a day on afd as "unverifiable blogcruft", which last time I checked wasn't as CSD criteria. Also, there was a keep and merge (mine being the merge) opinion in the debate as well. <small>[[User:RN|WhiteNight]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 22:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oveturn speedy''' and re-list as per nom. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 22:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
*Though not a good speedy, I'd like to call [[WP:SNOW]] on this one; the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiens Sans Frontiers|AFD]] will only confirm that it's unverifiable since it's ''"not online as of September 2005 for unknown reasons."'' [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 00:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''', speedy deletion contested in good faith. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 03:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. Don't invent CSDs. (Note: this was a brand new admin, but that's no more than a very partial excuse.) -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small><sup>[[User talk:Splash|talk]]</sup></small> 04:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
**I have decided to go ahead and undelete this upon review the admins deletion log. It is very full of questionable speedies, several of which I have just reversed, with an accompanying talk page note. I've reopened the AfD. There was no grounds in the CSD to close it, it has been challenged, and there is no purpose to waiting 5 days to ''resume'' an AfD. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small><sup>[[User talk:Splash|talk]]</sup></small> 04:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
::*I agree - with speedy undeletion based on faulty CSD, relisting on AfD, and deletion as unverifiable blogcruft :-) Should we close this? [[User:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid"> Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[User:JzG/AfD|AfD?]]'' 11:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
::*'''What a waste of time.''' This is obviously not going to survive an afd - recreating it is just nonsense process protection. If the admin has made a mistake, correct him for the future. If he's unrepentent then go to ANI, RfC etc. DON'T recreate rubbish to make your point. Adding something to wikipedia, which you know doesn't belong there is just plain vandalism, whatever the motives. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|<sup>ask?</sup>]] 11:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
:::*I have a couple of problems with that statement. For one, the blog is varafiable to a small extent as [[The Guardian]] (alexa 330) mentioned it specifically as a blog during the tsunami events [http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,1383611,00.html here], and there could very well be useful information from someone in the debate - maybe not enough to keep the article but more on the article itself, perhaps. Second, if I wasn't interested in process I would have just undeleted it myself - but I like to think what I did here was the responsable thing. Anyway, I thank Splash for his due diligence as always. <small>[[User:RN|WhiteNight]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 11:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
:::*At the time I reopened the AfD, there were already 3 non-deletes in the debate, from editors who did not appear to be on either side of the war on blogs and who were making decent points. The article was not a speedy, and its deletion, even before coming here, was not unchallenged. That's why I restored it. I'm afraid I do not agree that my restoration was vandalism. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small><sup>[[User talk:Splash|talk]]</sup></small> 13:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
::::Sorry, over-reacted. Not vandalism, I just don't things should be restored unless the restorer genuinely believes that the item belongs in an encyclopedia. Protect process, but not at the expense of product. If the thing is worthy, someone else will restore it. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|<sup>ask?</sup>]] 18:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
====Linked pages from [[Crooked Timber]]====
User Pboyd04 posted [[Crooked Timber]] (group blog) on AfD and simultaneously sought speedy deletion of linked articles on group members, which has taken place in most but not all cases. I posted a response requesting that both issues be resolved together. The only other response on the talk pages was for [[Kieran Healy]] opposing speedy deletion and this entry has not been deleted. The arguments for and against speedy deletion of other entries are broadly similar, so the outcome has been inconsistent.
So far Pboyd04's AfD proposal for Crooked Timber has received 6 Keep responses and no Delete responses. The suggested grounds for deletion were either subjective and rejected by respondents (nn) or factually erroneous (no media coverage). Several of those deleted have also received significant media coverage in relation to blogging and Internet issues, but the speedy deletion gave no opportunity to discuss the merits.
I feel that the speedy deletions of linked pages were out of process and that, if desired, the whole issue should either be reconsidered once the AfD discussion on [[Crooked Timber]] is resolved or merged with the discussion on Crooked Timber. I therefore request undeletion of
[[Henry Farrell (political scientist)]]
[[Eszter Hargittai]]
[[John Holbo]]
[[Tom Runnacles]]
[[Micah Schwartzman]]
[[Belle Waring]]
[[User:John Quiggin|JQ]] 08:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
PS: These articles were on my watchlist, but I got no notification of their deletion. I haven't had any experience with deletions before, but this seems like a defect in the process to me.
*'''Endorse speedies'''. These were all speedy deleted under [[WP:CSD#Articles|criteria A7]] (Unremarkable people or groups). Being a college professor who happens to contribute to a web log is not usually considered a claim of notability. If any of the individuals meet the guidelines at [[WP:BIO]], there is nothing preventing recreation of these articles. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Allen3|talk]]</sup> 16:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorese speedies''' In the versions just prior to deletion, all look like valid [[WP:CSD]]A7 (nn-bio) deletions. Each stated the person'd profession, in soem cases the person's research intersts, adn that the person contributed to this blog and in some cases to other blogs. Contributign to a blog, even a notable blog, as not in itself a claim of notability, IMO. Neither is being an academing in a particualr field, nor a lawyer, nor a journalist. if any of these people have doen soemthing notable, or are notable for some other reason, recreate the article about that person with that info included -- preferably sourced. If anyone wants to do that an needs the text of one the above deleted stubs (and they all were stubs) I'll be glad to put a copy in anyone's userspace. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 17:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I knew of Henry Farrell before I heard of Crooked Timber: I have a feeling there may be a case for his notability. John Quiggin is a name as a left-leaning Australian economist: I think an articlke on him would have a good chance of surviving an AfD. I'll do a spot more research, and see what I can dig up. --- --- '''Charles Stewart'''<sup>[[User_talk:Chalst|(talk)]]</sup> 18:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' - A couple of observations: The articles in question were all created in response to redlinks on the original CT article. Is there some sort of procedure to warn people against doing this when the result is likely to be deletion? Second, the criteria proposed here seem to be inconsistent with common Wikipedia practice in relation to both group and individual blogs, see for example [[Volokh Conspiracy]], and numerous individual bloggers listed in addition to their blogs. (BTW, I hope this observation doesn't lead to further deletions in the interests of consistency) [[User:John Quiggin|JQ]] 04:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*Hmm, JQ asked me to have a look. I restored [[Henry Farrell (political scientist)]]. Why is this speedy? The article does assert his importance. VFD it if you must, but speedy appears to be very dubious. [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 20:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC).
*: I speedy-deleted [[Henry Farrell (political scientist)]]; in my view, the assertion of notability made in that article ranked with "this person is notable because he writes on a website which is cool." If there's disagreement on that, though, I have no problem with it going through the regular AFD process. —[[User:Cleared as filed|Cleared as filed.]] 23:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*::It is ''still'' a candidate for speedy deletion. There is no claim of notability there. And WMC, when three admins think something is a speedy, it's pretty bold to reverse it while discussion are ongoing. Additionally, don't restore and then say "AfD it if you must", have the courage of your convictions and nominate it youself while abstaining. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f">brenneman</font>]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(t)</sup></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(c)</sup></font>]] 00:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
*::: It was probably over-bold of me; apologies. We'll see how VFD pans out. [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 10:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC).
* Now that [[Henry Farrell (political scientist)]] is up again, I've edited it to include a more detailed claim to notability, based on media coverage. Sorry if this is a breach of Wikipedia etiquette, but, as I said, I'm new to this deletion business. In any case, I'd appreciate it if someone could advise whether this kind of evidence is sufficient for a claim of notability [[User:John Quiggin|JQ]] 02:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
**Now on AfD. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 02:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
====[[Holy Father]]====
I would like to nominate the article [[Holy Father]] for undeletion review or at least I would like a stub to be made for the article for Holy Father. The rcc's pope is only "Holy Father" to at least some rcc members, but not to everyone. Redirecting automatically to a their pope is not NPOV and others would probably agree if more knew about what was going on here. The article was doing fine for some months before TCC/Csernica blindside afd'd and had support from "other" people that didn't have much to do with the article. TCC/Csernica could have discussed about the page instead of afd'ing.
I would like the article to be protected from being redirected exclusively to their pope. I would think some people would like to know the history of the original use and about the rcc title.
My thoughts about making the article NPOV is on [[Talk:Holy Father]] and I invite TCC/Csernica to share his/her thoughts instead of deleting an article that was going well for some time.
The article was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holy_Father&oldid=30149827 going well] until someone [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holy_Father&oldid=30150584 removed a section] which may have caused TCC/Csernica to afd the article.--[[User:Jeolmeun|jeolmeun]] 08:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
:'''Comment:''' since the article exists, I don't think deletion review is the right place. For what it's worth I think it should be a disambiguation page, to God and Pope, since it is used to mean either (depending on which church you belong to). - [[User:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid"> Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[User:JzG/AfD|AfD?]]'' 11:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Father]] decided to redir it, on apparent grounds that it was used in a POV war and only rarely refers to anything other than the pope. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 11:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
* If you want to try producing an article, give it a go, but you'll probably find that there is a strong consensus to maintain it as a redirect. No point int talking about it here as it isn't a deletion case and any problems there may be in this case can be solved without any use of administrator powers. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 18:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
* Thanks, Tony Sidaway. Can I get a clarification of the status of the [[Holy Father]] article? What are the options for the article now after the AfD and this deletion review? I would like to know because TCC/Csernica [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holy_Father&action=history says], "A redirect is not a deletion; that's all he meant." --[[User:Jeolmeun|jeolmeun]] 07:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
* A Disamb page might be better than a redirect, as there is quite a bit of difference between 'holy father' in RCC and 'holy father' in protestantism. --[[User:B.ellis|B.ellis]] 18:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
===[[2006-01-16]]===
====[[2120s]] and [[2140s]]====
All other decade pages for the [[22nd century]] ([[2110s]] ... [[2190s]]) are currently redirects to the main [[22nd century]] article. These two pages were orginally protected because they kept being created with meaningless content. However, it seems silly to have these two protected and not the others. I recommend they be unprotected and made into redirects. [[User:Gurch|Gurch]] 12:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
*If they're vandal targets, the most appropriate thing to do would be to make them redirects and keep them protected as such. I've just done that. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 01:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
*Oh they've been deleted for months, so I unprotected to see if they actually need any kind of protection. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 19:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
====[[24SevenOffice]]====
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24SevenOffice]] - from April 2005 (result was keep rewritten article)<br>
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24SevenOffice (second nomination)]] - from January 2006 (result was delete)
Australia's largest newspaper (Sydney Morning Herald) [http://www.smh.com.au/news/perspectives/asps-climb-quietly-to-the-summit/2005/08/15/1123957995145.html refer to 24SevenOffice as a succesfull ASP] in comparison with industry leaders such as [[Salesforce.com]] and [[NetSuite]]. I think this proves that it is notable enough and the deletion was a mistake. Also the company is listed on the OTC-market in Norway. A similar company, [[Centraview]], was nominated for deletion and kept. A google search for Centraview gives 11,900 results while 24SevenOffice gives 66,800. I do not think the votes for deletion of the 24SevenOffice article were based on facts. --[[User:Sleepyhead81|Sleepyhead]] 10:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' - [[User:Sleepyhead81]] has nominated the following pages for deletion:
:* [[BlinkList]]
:* [[Centraview]]
:* [[Centric CRM]]
:* [[Citadel/UX]]
:* [[ClickTime]]
:* [[Compiere]]
:* [[Connotea]]
:* [[Convea]]
:* [[Cougar Mountain Software]]
:* [[EssentialPIM]]
:* [[Favourite Computer Systems]]
:* [[Happy Tripper Productions To-do List (software)]]
:* [[Hipergate]]
:* [[Hula (software)]]
:* [[PhpOrganisation]]
:* [[Relenta CRM]]
:* [[SIV.AG]]
:* [[SugarCRM]]
:* [[SuperOffice]]
:* [[Tally (accounting)]]
:* [[Tustena2]]
:* [[UFIDA]]
:* [[WebCollab]]
:* [[ZK Framework]]
*Note that all of these pages (many of which you will notice have been deleted) are either software products or software companies, the same as [[24SevenOffice]]. Note that [[User:Sleepyhead81]] added a note to his/her userpage on August 10th in which he/she identified himself/herself as an employee of [[24SevenOffice]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sleepyhead81&diff=next&oldid=20468772]. Note that [[User:Sleepyhead81|User:Sleepyhead81's]] history of nominating articles for deletion was minimal until [[24SevenOffice]] was nominated for AFD a second time, after which all of the above listed nominations were made. Almost as if [[User:Sleepyhead81]] was motivated by something other than pure altruism and a desire to improve Wikipedia. Note that earlier today, [[User:Sleepyhead81]] removed the statement identifying himself/herself as an employee of [[24SevenOffice]] from his/her userpage, shortly after listing [[24SevenOffice]] here on DRV [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sleepyhead81&diff=prev&oldid=35387672]. Perhaps he/she is no longer with the company, but still feels like the company deserves a Wikipedia article. [[User:Extreme Unction|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>Ξxtreme</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Unction</font>]]|<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0"><sub>[[User talk:Extreme Unction|yakkity yak]]</sub></font> 11:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. No new information is being presented. This is a small company with no evidence of significance, was added to various articles pparently asserting parity with [[salesforce.com]] and [[Google Earth]] among others (which is patently absurd). Was stated to meet [[WP:CORP]] as being used to calculate a market index; this claim was false as it is a whole-market index. Was asserted to meet [[WP:CORP]] on the basis of press coverage; this was false as the press coverage was a press release. Is now asserted to meet [[WP:CORP]] on the basis of the Syndey Morning Herald article, but that is simply a namecheck (and notes that there are around 12,000 similar companies). Nominator and article author is associated with the company (always a [[WP:BAI|bad idea]]). I see no evidence of process irregularity. Motives for creating the article have been questioned, whether fairly or not (e.g. ''Personally I don't really care about the article itself, but I'm sick of having to revert the addition of a link to this article into other articles where it doesn't belong. As far as I can see, the authors worked out that a link to their homepage would survive a lot longer if they wrapped an article around it.'', {{user|Rufous}}). Unless an ''independent'' party wishes to challenge this I see no merit in reopening a debate which ended in clear consensus. - [[User:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid"> Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[User:JzG/AfD|AfD?]]'' 11:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
:*The list of articles that i nominated for deletion is a way to show the inconsistance of votes in regards to which articles are kept and which ones are deleted. [[Centraview]] is a perfect example of this. JzG's [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Centraview_(2nd_nomination)|vote was based]] on an article on a website called vnunet.com where CentraView is listed as an example of an open source application. But an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, which is a much more respectable source than vnunet.com, is not a reason for the 24SevenOffice article to be kept according to JzG. I find that the vote here does not reflect the facts presented in this case. Whether the 24SevenOffice article should be kept should be based on the notability of 24SevenOffice in the same as CentraView and others alike. Not based on my relation to 24SevenOffice, my edits or any others subjective votes in regards to the article. Other contributors can edit the article. I really feel that votes in deletion debates are based on whether people like the article or not. Thus open source projects, linux based software and other projects who share characteristics with Wikipedia are always kept while commerical products are always deleted. Advertising applies just as much to open source projects as they do with products. Also in regards to the CentraView debate there was three votes for delete and two for keep. The keep votes was JzG reason as above and the other for 'being open source'. --[[User:Sleepyhead81|Sleepyhead]] 14:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
::*Most users wouldn't have the stones to pony up and admit that they deliberately nominated articles they didn't really think deserved deletion just so they could [[WP:POINT|prove some kind of point]]. I suppose that level of frank honesty should be commended somehow. [[User:Extreme Unction|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>Ξxtreme</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Unction</font>]]|<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0"><sub>[[User talk:Extreme Unction|yakkity yak]]</sub></font> 15:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
::* Your breaching experiment notwithstanding, VNUNet is a source which has a certain reputation on judgment of technical issues. The Sydney Morning Herald has, to my knowledge, no journalists specialising in CRM software. VNU does. Also, employees of [[Centraview]] had not [[WP:SPAM|linkspammed]] it across the 'pedia. If you think Centraview should have been deleted you can nominate it again. - [[User:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid"> Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[User:JzG/AfD|AfD?]]'' 22:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' - I could probably have voted either way on the afd, but the debate was validly closed, and the decision far from unreasonable. That, combined with the complainer's vested interest and violation of [[WP:POINT]], leaves me seeing to reason to reverse this. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|<sup>ask?</sup>]] 19:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' and suggest nominator read [[WP:POINT]]. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 22:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''. There was no abuse of process in the deletion; attempting to have a valid AFD overturned here is futile. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] 00:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. Can't work out why this was listed for deletion in the first place. Perfectly good article about a company and its product which appears to be a significant player in a vertical market. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 19:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
::I suspect it was listed for deletion because as a "Company with revenues of around $1m and 30 employees - well below the levels in [[WP:CORP]]" the nominator (that would be me) thought it might be spam, especially given the creator's linkspamming of the article, combined with their acknowledged employment by the subject company. No evidence was presented of it meeting a single one of the categories in [[WP:CORP]], and although that is not policy, it is a reasonable benchmark of whether a company will gain enough reliable ''independent'' third-party coverage to enable the community to verify both the content and the neutrality of its presentation. - [[User:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid"> Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[User:JzG/AfD|AfD?]]'' 21:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
** I'm taking the liberty of undeleting one of two of the other articles because their deletion was silly. [[Tally (accounting)]] is about a well established Indian company with numerous major clients in its native country and representation as far afield as the UK, and [[SuperOffice]] is a public listed company with a turnover of around Euro 30m . --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 20:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
::* I looked for the referenced policy at [[WP:SILLY]] but couldn't find it :-/ - [[User:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid"> Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[User:JzG/AfD|AfD?]]'' 21:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
:::*Funny, I didn't see it either, so I've re-deleted them. If someone wants an article undeleted isn't there some sort of page for listing such things? I could have sworn there was some sort of deletion review process; I wonder where I could find it? -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 23:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''', I agree with Stifle --[[User:Kingboyk|kingboyk]] 23:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
===[[2006-01-15]]===
====[[Michael E. Berumen]]====
:[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael E. Berumen]]
I was an original supporter of deletion of this article. The consensus was - not by a great deal - to keep it. Yesterday, I received an email from a person claiming to be Michael E. Berumen. I have no reason to doubt its authenticity (though if Mr Berumen is reading I would ask him to verify it) containing the following (which has been edited only to remove references to specific editors):
:"[...] Well over a year ago, I demanded that the head of this enterprise, Mr. James Wales, remove untoward remarks made about me made [...] along with any references in articles made by others. He complied with this [...]. Mr. Wales personally asked me if he could keep the article about me, which he apparently liked and thought harmless enough. Reluctantly, I agreed, notwithstanding its several minor errors. Having thought that the matter was put rest, I discover the whole thing started again in an attempt to promulgate my views and correct some of the previous damages. [...]
:"I certainly concur that I am not especially notable, most particularly in relation to my scholarly pursuits. If anything, I am more notable for my business dealings, only some of which is mentioned in the article. Fact is, [...] I do not wish to be notable in any serious way (other than amongst friends and clients of course), for, among other things, that would eliminate some of my legal protections. I am a private person, which has a strict legal definition in this country. I prefer to control my own public persona, and not to have it controlled by others, including you. The article ought to have been deleted long ago when I suggested as much. Some of the reasons you adduced for doing this are quite correct, though not all of them. But your conclusion nevertheless is. I therefore support the idea of eliminating the article about me. Anything you could do to facilitate this would be greatly appreciated by me.
:[...]
:"Sincerely,
:"Michael E. Berumen"
Given that the subject of the article appears not to want to be included in the Enclyclopaedia, and the two main contributors to the article ([[icut4u]] and [[ockham]]) seem to have ceased activity on Wikipedia, it seems to me that it is wholly appropriate to grant Mr Berumen's wishes and remove this article from the database altogether, therefore '''overturn''' the original decision. [[User:ElectricRay|ElectricRay]] 10:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
*Is there a viable alternative? My suggestion would be, we protect the page in an approximation or the exact current state (which is pretty dull but at least contains no information that could be disputed or regarded as offensive by M. Berumen). I am somewhat inclusionsist, but I respect the wishes of individuals to keep a low public profile. I do realize there could be a "Wrong Version" issue. [[User:Dabljuh|Dabljuh]] 10:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
* Given the length of time since the AFD discussion, I would recommend that we close this DR discussion and simply '''renominate''' the article for a new deletion discussion. As a side note, I have very little sympathy for a subject of an article who either makes legal threats or attempts to "control" our article. On the other hand, I think we should give some deference to the judgment of a subject who requests deletion with the admission that they are "not especially notable". [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 16:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
:Fine with me. I'll renominate for deletion. [[User:ElectricRay|ElectricRay]] 20:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
===[[2006-01-14]]===
====[[Circumcision fetish]]====
Page was [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Circumcision_fetish|first time]] put on VFD for no given reason, and 54% of the votes decided to keep the article. Almost a year later, after several attempts to censor the article, was put on VFD [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Circumcision_fetish_(second_nomination)|a second time]] with the basis that no [[WP:RS]] could be found.
Vote was 71% for deletion 9 keep 22 delete, when ''circumcision fetish'' could be found
described in the ''The Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices'' by Brenda Love, published by Barricade Books, 1994, ISBN 1569800111, verifiable online [http://www.odd-sex.com/ here]. However, without further votes given, or any changes to existing votes, the article was deleted by [[User:Ulayiti]].
I contest this decision: With a [[WP:RS]] found, the basis for the VFD was not met anymore, effectively nullifying all votes for deletion with the reasoning that the article would violate [[WP:RS]] or [[WP:NOR]]. A recount on this basis would yield only two votes for deletion, as only [[User:Tony_Sidaway]], who argued to remove it on for being part of a flame war, and [[User:Humus sapiens]], who did not give any reason at all, did not reason their vote for deletion on the basis of a supposed [[WP:NOR]] or [[WP:RS]] violation. Thus, even by vote recount (and not just invalidating the VFD) the article would have to stay. For further info, read [[meta:polls are evil]]
Further info, [http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/fetish-c.htm]
::''Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices, by Brenda Love (Barricade Books, Inc., 1992). "More than 750 entries and 150 original illustrations on the world's strange sex activities". Under "Circumcision" (page 6): "Men sometimes incorporate their fear of circumcision into sex play as a means for arousal. They fake a circumcision by having their partner blindfold and bind them, placing a reservoir tipped condom and then slicing off the tip with a knife ... Women who are only sexually aroused by circumcised males are referred to as acucullophiles."
I have meanwhile ordered the book, sounds like a good read o_O
'''Update:''' I have changed my opinion. The arguments brought forward on this page have convinced me to wait for the arrival of the book, do some additional research, and then recreate the page, rather than to undelete the current article. I retract my motion. [[User:Dabljuh|Dabljuh]] 09:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse/Keep deleted''' (updated, originally overturn/undelete at [[User:Dabljuh|Dabljuh]] 15:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC) ) [[User:Dabljuh|Dabljuh]] 09:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' A minor correction, the votes were 22/9 (del/keep), not 20/12 as you stated. The ''Encyclopaedia of Unusual Sex Practices'' website only shows that there's an entry for 'circumcision', not what it contains. - [[User:Ulayiti|ulayiti]] [[User talk:Ulayiti|<font color="#226b22"><small>(talk)</small></font>]] 15:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
**I corrected that figure already (Damn where's my coffee) [[User:Dabljuh|Dabljuh]] 16:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
**Oh, and another thing: [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Circumcision_fetish|the original VfD]] had 6 votes for keep, 5 for delete and 1 for merge, not 100% keep. You must have missed them since they weren't in bold. - [[User:Ulayiti|ulayiti]] [[User talk:Ulayiti|<font color="#226b22"><small>(talk)</small></font>]] 16:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
***I definitely need more coffee then. [[User:Dabljuh|Dabljuh]] 16:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I was promised free beer, titties and penis on IRC if I went here. It's a scam :\ --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]] - <small>[[User:SPUI/SFD|don't use sorted stub templates!]]</small>) 16:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
** I think maybe they gave you the wrong URL? You know how those IRC [[WP:TINC|Cabalists]] are... Hope that helps. Oh... '''Keep deleted'''. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 17:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' Page was certainly original research. The text above would be insufficient to write more than the shortest of stubs. I see no evidence that Ulayiti did not follow the correct procedure. [[User:Jakew|Jakew]] 16:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
**This is only an excerpt. As I said, I have ordered the book. To claim it was original research in the light that it is described in 1992 sexual literature, is just bizarre. [[User:Dabljuh|Dabljuh]] 16:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
***Not at all. This does not appear to use the same terminology (different from the article), talks about fake circumcision as a form of sex play (unlike the article), and essentially has nothing in common with the article. The article cannot in any way be said to be based upon this, and was purely original research. The fact that a short stub could potentially written, with a different title, and with different text ''could'' be written based upon Love's book does nothing to change this. Consider this: If I were to write an article about F. moli (which everybody else calls E. coli) bacteria in which I explained that they actually had an enlightened, technological civilisation, that would be original research in spite of the fact that sensible research on E coli existed. [[User:Jakew|Jakew]] 16:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
****So you argue for entering the relevant information into [[circumcision]]. That sounds like an agreeable idea to me. [[User:Dabljuh|Dabljuh]] 16:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' as per AFD. VFDs are not permanently binding decisions. There were no [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] to [[WP:CITE|cite]] for this, making it [[WP:OR|original research]]. --[[User:Phroziac|Phroziac]] <sub>.</sub> <small>o</small> º<sup> O ([[User talk:Phroziac|♥♥♥♥ chocolate!]])</sup> 16:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. Based on the references provided at the time, the result was correct. If you have new sources, feel free to recreate the article, as long as you can avoid both copyright violation and original research. [[User:OwenX|Owen×]] [[User talk:OwenX|<big>☎</big>]] 16:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
**You're a smart guy OwenX. This is actually the reason why I am opposed to the [[WP:NOR]] policy. If the policy is used unreasonably strict, then in combination with [[WP:C]] all information can be blocked/filibustered from entering Wikipedia, making [[WP:NOR]] ultimately a censor's tool that is not in the interest of free flow of information. [[User:Dabljuh|Dabljuh]] 16:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|<sup>ask?</sup>]] 17:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Nothing in the nomination has convinced me there was malpractice in the AfD vote. As circumcision can happen only once, it's a bit of a worthless fetish to have. Of those who are sexually attracted to men, it is routine to have a preference either for or against circumcised penises, but it's not a fetish. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 17:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Yawn. Per above.'''[[User:Voice of All(MTG)|<font color="blue">Voice</font><font color="darkblue"> of </font><font color="black">All</font>]]'''<sup>[[user_talk:Voice_of_All|<font color="blue">T</font>]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Voice of All|@]]|[[WP:EA|<font color="darkgreen">ESP]]</font></sup> 17:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. The [[Circumcision fetish]] article seemed to describe "circumcision fetish" as a [[Sexual fetishism|sexual fetish]]. It seems like the thing to do is include mention of "circumcision fetish" (and references) at the "sexual fetishism" page. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 17:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse closure''' (keep deleted) but without prejudice against the creation of a new article based on verified and reliable sources. (If/when a new article is created, my first inclination is that we should avoid cluttering it's edit history with the old, unverified content - but if there are extenuating circumstances, we can evaluate them then.) [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 22:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' Oh boy, it's s sick world.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 08:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. In the 14 months since this [[WP:NOR|original research]] was created as a [[WP:POINT]], it did not manage to [[WP:CITE|cite]] a single source, much less a [[WP:RS|reliable one]]. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 23:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. No sources. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 23:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
===[[2006-01-13]]===
====[[Template:User allow fairuse]]====
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion&oldid=35038410#Template:User_allow_fairuse TFD discussion]
This template was deleted without a clear consensus, and without substantial justification. As it is to be used in userspace, it ought to be restored, as the deletion of this template is not supported by deletion policy. --[[User:Dschor|Dschor]] 23:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted.''' What the deleting admin did was he subsituted the template in the userspace, so those who wish to use the template still can, but not in the actual template name space. [[User:Zscout370|Zach]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Smack Back)]] [[WP:FU|Fair use policy]] </sup></small> 23:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' - but as this one raised some pseudolegal questions, I'd say if you want to push it for undeletion, get onto Jimbo and ask. [[User:BigStabbyStick|BigStabbyStick]] 23:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. I '''endorse''' the decision of the person who closed it (note that I was the person who deleted the template based on his decision). While the percentage of people voting was somewhat less than what is normally considered a rough consensus, discussions aren't votes, and I feel that the people who voted delete generally made more persuasive arguments than those that voted keep. [[User:JYolkowski|JYolkowski]] // [[User talk:JYolkowski|talk]] 23:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. This template does not help us make an encyclopedia. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 23:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' Alot of users don't help us make an encyclopedia either, that doesn't mean we just delete them. <font color="#4682B4">'''''Karm'''''</font>[[WP:ESP|<font color="#00FF00">'''''a'''''</font>]]<font color="#E32636">'''''fist'''''</font> 02:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
* Let it stay dead and delete anything similar. It advocates something that would expose the Foundation, for reasons that do not help the encyclopedia in any way. If editors want to break the law, they should find a web host and try to persuade the host company to permit them to do so. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep deleted'''. Closing admin has discretion. He had justification, in my opinion, to discount many keep votes that were not well-reasoned—but at the same time, he probably ought to have explained his decision better. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 00:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Strong Undelete''' Final vote was 51-36, 58% for deletion, which I doubt meets anyone's threshold for consensus unless you're in a [[WP:NOT|Democracy]], which we're not. Add to that the resounding amount of [[strawman]] [[WP:NLT]] and [[WP:CIVIL]] vios in terms of those who wished to delete this in the first place makes leaving this deleted into a precedent that bullying people with legal boogiemen is acceptable behavior. karmafist 00:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''overturn close''' This was nowhere near consensus. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Per Tony Sidaway, and others. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 01:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' those who want this are still free to create it on their userpage. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|<sup>ask?</sup>]] 01:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Wikipedia is not a democracy and there was clear consensus to delete, despite raw mechanical vote counting. There's a ''reason'' we don't use bots to close deletion discussions. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] [[User talk:Cryptic|(talk)]] 02:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Question''': It's pretty rare for Jimbo to get involved in a deletion dispute. He was the first person to delete it saying "we do not get to vote here on copyright law". Then 15 min later he restored it. Has anyone asked him for his reasoning? Was this discussed in some other channel? [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 02:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
**[[User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Template:User_allow_fairuse]]. While Jimbo restored it because of the TFD, he said that "I think it should be deleted, and I think it's silly for users to think that they can vote on copyright policy. That's a matter for our legal team. --Jimbo Wales 20:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)" [[User:Zscout370|Zach]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Smack Back)]] [[WP:FU|Fair use policy]] </sup></small> 02:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*Once again I see that people are voting on the userbox and not the process under which it was deleted. There was '''no-consensus''' there - it does not matter how many people don't like the userbox here, that is not what we are supposed to discussing.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 04:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
** Fuck the process. Crap gets deleted because the question we are tasked with answering her by the undeletion policy is ''is Wikipedia a better place with this page?'' The question has been answered and the template has been deleted. Let's continue to make the internet not suck. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 01:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
***Language, please? Thx! [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] 00:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' - Process is here to help us write the encyclopedia. When process does not help us write the encyclopedia, it may be discarded. How many times does that have to be explained? [[WP:NOT]] a bureaucracy. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] 05:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' as per FCYTravis and others. <small>[[User:Jtkiefer|<font color="red">Jtkiefer</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Jtkiefer|<font color="orange">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer|<font color="green">C</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Jtkiefer|<font color="blue">@</font>]]</sup></small> ---- 06:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Per FCYTravis and others. Also, consensus is not based on raw vote counts. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 16:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Still think this is a very strange thing for a userbox template. It's slightly like saying "This user would vote to give Wikipedia the right to sentence users to death" - all very well, but it would still be illegal. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 17:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' - sockpuppeteering aside, the userbox was a non-starter for the reasons Jimbo and others mentioned. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 21:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' Closing admin should have at least given a better explanation for their decision, given the size and activity of the discussion. Saying "rather weak thou" is ambiguous to me -- do they mean it was a close call on a simple vote count? If so, I'd certainly remind people that *fD is more than a simple vote count, and that even when it is a vote count, the rule is not generally a simply majority. Closers have a responsibility to explain their decision: since I do not think this was done here, overturn and relist. [[User:Turnstep|Turnstep]] 00:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' Yes, the viewpoint it expresses is retarded and is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia metapolicy and civil law. No, it doesn't matter what those expressing that viewpoint think. Undelete it anyway. [[User:Kmweber|Kurt Weber]] 06:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', we cannot vote on what the law requires of us. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', or overturn and '''Speedy Delete''' per [[WP:IAR]]. We don't vote on copyright policy. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] - [[User talk:Hipocrite|«<small>Talk</small>»]] 13:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn closure and undelete''' - We shouldn't have this template, the keep case was stacked with lousy "templates are free expression" arguments, but that doesn't mean that we can misrepresent a no consensus as a consensus to delete. [[User:Nrcprm2026]] counted 43 valid delete ballots against 34 to keep: we'd need to discount 12 keep votes to bend this into a delete consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it is important to the smooth functioning of this site that administrative actions are conducted with the broad support of the wider WP community. We should wait a little, argue the case that these sorts of template are illegitimate on the userbox policy and resubmit a new TfD with a better prepared case. We should also look for evidence of poll-stacking. --- --- '''Charles Stewart'''<sup>[[User_talk:Chalst|(talk)]]</sup> 18:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
**[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes/Alerts|Would this suffice?]] —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] [[User talk:Cryptic|(talk)]] 05:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' and note who's eager to expose Wikipedia to financial harm [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt]] 05:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. There appears to be broad enough support here. — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|দ]] 05:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Even if it is not - a vote can't change what is best for wikipedia. [[User:Trödel|Trödel]]•<font color="#F0F">[[User_talk:Trödel|talk]]</font> 02:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
====[[Weishampel exchange]]====
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weishampel_exchange&action=history speedied] by [[User:Linuxbeak]]
The page on "Weishampel Exchange" was unfairly deleted due to an erroneus link to a college humor website and a Google result of a professor in some unknown college. My research has documentation of this term from Germany, the U.K., and both coasts of the United States. This was deleted with haste, and possibly bias towards the gay/homosexual community! {{unsigned|Outer-nationalist}}
*'''Keep deleted''' certainly a neologism, likely also an attack/hoax. '''0 Google hits'''. If nominator's research includes evidence to the contrary, feel free to share it with us. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 23:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' per Starblind. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 00:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
* Certainly a neologism and very likely a hoax but ''nothing'' in the versions I reviewed could be considered at "attack". I would definitely vote to delete this in a regular AFD but I can not endorse its speedy-deletion. '''Restore and immediately list on AFD''' for regular deletion. Yes, I know that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy but we have to stop this inappropriate stretching of the speedy "attack" criterion. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 03:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
**The talk page seemed to indicate that it was an attack on a college professor named Weishampel. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 03:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*** Don't use that as a criterion. That was wild speculation on my part. I mean, it's obvious the article was crap, especially given the number of times the year of creation was changed, but I've zero evidence it was a prank or an attack. [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] 03:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Restore and immediately list on AFD''' as per Rossami. [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] 04:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*Ick. '''KD''' per Andrew, unless somebody is able to cite a source on this. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 02:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
* By the way, [[user:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] also protected the article from recreation. I can find no justification for that protection. Protection is generally reserved for those pages which have been repeatedly recreated and deleted. This article shows no such history. Nor do the participants here or on the Talk page show any such inclination to abuse the process. I am returning this to an unprotected redlink. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 16:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', I would like to add that this was the subject of a letter to the Help Desk mailing list, in which the emailer contended that it was created as a joke. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. If this were a run-of-the-mill hoax neologism I would be with Rossami here because we should try to stay within the confines of [[WP:CSD]]. But this neologism has a sexual tone to it, and it seems to be made entirely with the intention of insulting someone named Weishampel. My suspicion is that it's made by schoolchildren being mean. I endorse deleting this speedily as vandalism. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 14:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn speedy''' and list on AfD. This is '''not''' in any sense an attack page. Speedy competely out-of-process. Whether it will pass AfD is another matter altogether. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 22:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' and '''take to AfD''', as above. Speedy deletion of this article is evidently contentious, also speedy was per db-attack, which as far as I can tell it was not (even if the contents as deleted appears to be [[WP:BALLS|complete bollocks]]) - [[User:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid"> Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[User:JzG/AfD|AfD?]]'' 11:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
====[[Pussy_City_Pimps]]====
:[[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pussy_City_Pimps]]
OK, I just closed this with a delete result (which I think is correct), but it has been challenged by Kappa, with the message
:"That was 2-1 at best, and almost all the delete votes were plain "delete" without any reasoning, and should have been given less weight."
Kappa is threatening to stop contributing, plus I've kind of always wondered what it would be like to be on the receiving end of the stick here, so I guess this is the best place to go (as a side note after doing 100 or so WP:RM it is always good to get a reality check every now and then). '''No vote''' since I am the closing admin, of course :). <small>[[User:RN|WhiteNight]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 09:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' valid AFD. The numbers add up, and whether to discount votes without stated reasons is a decision up to the closing admin (and, IMHO, should only be done in cases of suspected ballot-stuffing/sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry). Threatening to stop contributing because an article about a ''hacked video game ROM'' got deleted? That's one for the "WTF?" file. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 13:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
**I happen to think that wikipedia users should have a chance to read about at least some of these things, not everyone is as lucky as us. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 18:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''', and call Kappa's bluff. We just went through this here. 2-1 is a perfectly valid delete, and I don't see Kappa complaining when people just vote "Keep" with no other comments. Plenty of reasons for deletion were given; users often do not feel like reiterating what's already been said. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 18:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. The consensus is pretty clear, and almost every vote on either side of the debate has IMO a satisfactory explaination attached. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] 18:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and merge'''. Note that there were a few merge votes. Kappa should heed the advice and incorporate the content into [[River City Ransom]] and maybe we can restore [[Pussy City Pimps]] and convert it to a redirect for GFDL purposes. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color: #33C;">howch</span>]][[WP:EA|<span style="color:#0F0">''e''</span>]][[User:Howcheng|<span style="color:#33C">ng</span>]]''' <small>{[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]}</small></span> 19:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. And lets leave this dead horse alone.'''[[User:Voice of All(MTG)|<font color="blue">Voice</font><font color="darkblue"> of </font><font color="black">All</font>]]'''<sup>[[user_talk:Voice_of_All|<font color="blue">T</font>]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Voice of All|@]]|[[WP:EA|<font color="darkgreen">ESP]]</font></sup> 19:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. While a close decision, this meets the generally accepted threshold for a "rough consensus" to delete. The argument to merge was made during the discussion and failed to sway the community. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 19:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' I counted 15 delete, 4 keep and 3 merge. 3 of the delete votes gave no reasoning, not "almost all", other than the simple desire to have the article deleted. [[User:Hamster Sandwich|Hamster Sandwich]] 20:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' although I might have called "merge", hissy-fits do nobody any favours. If Kappa wants to include some of this information in the other article, and asks for this to be undeleted as a redirect, that is a different matter - that I would support. But there was a very clear consensus against this having a separate article, which seems to be what's being requested. - [[User:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid"> Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[User:JzG/AfD|AfD?]]'' 11:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
===[[2006-01-12]]===
====[[Ninjah Pendragon]]====
I recently wrote an article which was somewhat of a biography of an MC/Street perfomer named Ninjah Pendragon and the article was deleted because it was a biography of an non widely known individual. To an extent, this is true, as Ninjah is not widely known outside of Cardiff. He is not known globally. However I feel that, he is widely known to people of Cardiff due to the fact that he is there every day, the BBC have also written a biography about his album, as have several newspapers. I would be able to site references if you would like. Thankyou very much.
* This unsigned comment was left by [[user:Cockers]]. I believe he/she is referring to [[Ninjah pendragon]] which was moved to [[Ninjah Pendragon]] where it was speedy-deleted as a "non-notable bio". [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 01:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Believe it or not, wikipedia still has some standards about who gets an article. Your basic street performer don't cut it. Oh, and I deleted the redirect. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 04:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
** The redirect at [[Ninjah]] has now also been speedy-deleted. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 19:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*Please point to the BBC and newspaper coverage. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 10:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*Hi. I appreciate the standards that Wikipedia like to keep and I understand that it would be reasonable to keep a general street performer off an encyclopedia. However I feel that Ninjah is more than just a street perfomer as he has appeared in a film, a television program and has had an album released. The link to the BBC's minisite of Ninjah is [http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/music/sites/ninjah/]. This website [http://livecardiff.com/?p=18] mentions how Ninjah appeared in [[NME]]'s student guide to Cardiff and in two films. Here is a forum post discussing Ninjah's newpaper appearence [http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-124376.html]. I would also like to point out that my inspiration for writing the article was due to discovering another article about a street performer [[Toy Mic Trevor]] which has been on Wikipedia for 6 months. This is my final appeal for the entertainer and street poet to gain recognition in Wikipedia. I promise not to keep pestering and I will provide better references in future articles. (This was my first one). [[User:Cockers]] 17:49, 13 Janurary 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted.''' Unfortunately, the BBC minisite is akin to a wiki, where anyone can submit his/her own band. See [http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/music/] and look in the "Profiles and Minisites" section: "Want to be featured on this site? Submit your details here." As far as I'm concerned, even though it has the air of authority of the Beeb, it's not a reliable source. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color: #33C;">howch</span>]][[WP:EA|<span style="color:#0F0">''e''</span>]][[User:Howcheng|<span style="color:#33C">ng</span>]]''' <small>{[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]}</small></span> 18:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
* I wrote the Ninjah minisite for the BBC. Although users can submit their band details to be considered for inclusion, nothing is added to the site without it being editorially verified and rewritten. It is false to state the BBC minisite is akin to a wiki. The Ninjah profile was not a user submission, and was written because he is signed to Boobytrap Records [http://www.boobytraprecords.co.uk/] has released an album, is well known in South Wales as a performer, and has appeared on stage with bands including [[Super Furry Animals]]. That said, although he's well known in these parts, he's hardly the saviour of music - hence the light-hearted tone of the profile. (Joe Goodden, producer, bbc.co.uk/wales/music)
*'''Keep deleted''' street performer(!) and thus definitely a nn-bio/speedy candidate. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 23:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Put it back''' Of course he shouldn't have been deleted....you're mad to have done that. I've never lived in Cardiff and I've heard of him, he's gaining respect in the music world and has just released an album. I live in Liverpool but I heard of him through word of mouth in the reggae society in uni - then I come on here to read up on him and find that you've gone and deleted his article! Who cares if he started as a street performer? He now has a record deal, is well known in Wales and deserves to be on Wikipedia. [[User:Trystan Morris-Davies|Trystan Morris-Davies]] 20:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
**New user who somehow managed to find this page after only three edits to Wikipedia. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 22:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
***Yeah, I somehow managed to find this page....what a bumbling old fool I am. I've been using wikipedia for ages and although I've only just started taking part in editing it, have just as much of a right as you to have a say in this - in fact, being Welsh I have a good knowledge of the Welsh music scene, and I'm telling you this guy's not just some tramp who bangs bins in the street. See UK Hip Hop review [http://www.ukhh.com/reviews/lp/2028.html] and look at his prominent position on the Boobytrap Records [http://www.boobytraprecords.co.uk/] page. [[User:Trystan Morris-Davies|Trystan Morris-Davies]] 18:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
====[[Template:User against Saud]] and [[Template:User Nepal Maoists]] speedies====
I have speedy deleted a template with the following words:
: ''This user thinks the House of Saud should be overthrown''
I bring this action here for review. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: The same user had created [[Template:User Nepal Maoists]] containing the words: ''This user thinks the Monarchy of Nepal should be overthrown and supports the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) in their armed and political struggle'' and I have deleted it as an attack template. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 17:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*I'm not interested in the whole userbox theatrics thing, but I am wondering you delete first and ''then'' ask questions, rather than the other way around. It should be safe enough to presume that asking first will produce the same result. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small><sup>[[User talk:Splash|talk]]</sup></small> 16:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
** This is how speedy deletions are done. It is my opinion that attacks of this nature have no place on Wikipedia. You're welcome to object to this as policy, as we don't yet have any policy on this and I'm just taking action that I believe is necessary to safeguard the encyclopedia. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 16:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
***No, if we are sure a speedy is right, we don't have to ask questions afterwards. I've never listed my own speedies after deleting them, because if I knew I was going to do that, I'd have ''x''fD'd them instead. Deletion review is not the forum for establishing a policy - the discussion running elsewhere is. If you believe the action is necessary, you don't need to come here (a forum you consider irrelevant, anyway) to make sure. Someone else need bring it here if (and only if) they would disagree with it. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small><sup>[[User talk:Splash|talk]]</sup></small> 17:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
***Not by a long shot is this "how speedy deletions are done". Normally they're just done and in the vast majority of cases there is no discussion on them here, certainly not inititated by the sysop performing the deletions. As I noted on your talk page, however, I do appreciate that bringing the issue up here gives it another audience than it would have on TfD. - [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 17:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
****I disagree (though as a non-admin, take it for what it's worth): Speedy deletions of 'attacks' are warranted, just as a review of them may be warranted. Tony's bringing his own deletions here for review is unorthodox, but if he didn't bring them here, you can bet there'd be screams of bloody murder from his opponents. Damned if you do, damned if you don't... -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 21:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' and don't speedy any more of these pending a clear policy on user boxes or a new CSD (which is under discusson). [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 16:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' and nominate for deletion where I will happily vote to delete them. And continue work on expanding CSD to include stuff like this, which I also support. And continue work on deletion reform in general :) And try to have a dialogue with the users creating these templates and convince them that they should voluntarily refrain from creating them - stop pulling the rug from under their feet, there are enough bad feelings about this already. There is no emergency here which warrants taking action out of process. Nor is out-of-process action required to draw more attention to this issue - it has enough attention already and then some. - [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 17:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
** Would it be okay if someone created a template advocating the overthrow of the government of your country? It may be that you think that is an appropriate use of Wikipedia resources; I do not. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 17:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
***It is an inappropriate use of Wikipedia resources and I support deleting templates like that. I just don't think this is an emergency which warrants out-of-process action. <small>And I try to overthrow the government of my country every four years. No luck so far.</small> - [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 17:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
**** I guess this means that in two or three years time I'll be doing a lot of speedying of US election-based nonsense from template space. So be it. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 19:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*As others, '''Keep Undeleted''', send to TFD, and quit trying to create new policy by fiat. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 18:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
* I disagree with Dragons flight's suggestion that making policy through action is unacceptable (see Tuesday's discussions for a good counter-example). I have undeleted these templates and edited one to remove the attack on the Nepal government, and sent the User against Saud one to tfd. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 18:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and list on TfD''' - I don't think that this is a good userbox, but it is not an attack directed at other editors, so I do not see the case for urgent action. I think that Tony's approach to userboxes is responsible, and is helping us find a middle ground. Pace Dragon's flight, making policy through action is the wiki spirit. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 19:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' all templates which disparage or criticize their subject. — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|দ]] 19:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' all attack templates. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 23:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and list on TfD''' if it hadn't been done already. This is ''not'' how things are done. Clearly there are reasonable differences of opinion, and thus speedy deletion is not applicable. Speedy deletion is for clear and unambigious deletions only. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f">brenneman</font>]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(t)</sup></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(c)</sup></font>]] 23:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' since the ''User against Saud'' entry has been moved to TfD and the other undeleted, shouldn't this debate be edited/closed? -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 21:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Leave it undeleted'''. Does not meet any speedy criteria. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 14:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' and inform tony of the tfd procedure.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 20:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' per Tony and [[User:Zoe]] [[User:Trödel|Trödel]]•<font color="#F0F">[[User_talk:Trödel|talk]]</font> 02:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
===[[2006-01-11]]===
====[[LUEshi]]====
I believe that the process was not followed correctly in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LUEshi]]. The count was 3 Keep votes, 3 Delete, and 5 Merge. For the first Keep, the rationale was that Miyamoto has signed it; this does not establish notability. The second one is from a GameFAQer who personally felt that LUEshi was important, but did not state its importance in relation to Wikipedia policy. The third had no reason at all. I believe that the article should have been merged or deleted, not kept. - [[User:Hbdragon88|Hbdragon88]] 05:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*Holy cow! '''There are VfD pages all over the place for this one!''' Anyway, I think the chronology is:
#[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LUEshi]] - MAYBE the first one, unanimous delete
#[[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/LUEshi]] - No idea, a mix of a merge, keep and a couple deletes..?
#[[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lueshi]] - Speedy delete, but with some keeps
#[[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lueshi_(2nd_nomination)]] - THIS is the one referenced here.
<s>I'm not making a descision yet but</s> I feel sorry for the people who have to sort through those. <small>[[User:RN|WhiteNight]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 05:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' at any rate, as the closest to consensus is merge at 5m/3k/1d or 5/4 which does not meet the afd minimums. As the arguments go though, while they sort of go to process we can't usually discount "votes" of established editors because they give no opinion etc., although I sometimes wish we could. Whether or not Miyamoto signing it establishes notability is not really our descision, unfortunately. <small>[[User:RN|WhiteNight]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 05:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''', but this should be merged, redirected, and protected to prevent recreation of the article. -[[User:Gtrmp|Sean Curtin]] 07:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' since there was clearly no consensus to delete on the last AFD, just be bold and merge it if you want to. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 08:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
**See also [[LUE spinoffs]] - [[User:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid"> Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[User:JzG/AfD|AfD?]]'' 14:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
====[[Pedelec]]====
As per [[Wikipedia:Undeletion policy#Reasons why an article might be requested for undeletion]]: deletion was "out of process" as discussed within the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedelec]]. Motion of non-suite. POV Fork was never properly defined by nominator or supporters. No substantial proof was given to indicate this is/was a POV FORK. 03:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)~
<i>Unsigned nomination by {{user|72.57.8.215}} (static IP used by {{user|CyclePat}})</a>
*The basis of the nomination resting on out-of-process is very clearly wrong. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small><sup>[[User talk:Splash|talk]]</sup></small> 03:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*A nasty RfD, but it looks like 5D/1k to me, and I see no process violations on the part of thaoe arguing for deletion. '''Endorse close''' (keep deleted). [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 16:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*What does "motion of non-suite" mean? When did this become a courtroom? The closing of the previous discussion was proper. '''Keep deleted'''. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 23:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
**definition of [[Non-suit]]. (see the canadian law section). 02:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Sorry, but "POV fork" was indeed properly defined by the nominator and the article clearly meets the definition of one. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color: #33C;">howch</span>]][[WP:EA|<span style="color:#0F0">''e''</span>]][[User:Howcheng|<span style="color:#33C">ng</span>]]''' <small>{[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]}</small></span> 19:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' and keep deleted, for what it's worth (as nominator but non-voter, as usual for me). Evidence was provided of why this is a POV fork (see also [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric bicycle]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_bicycle&action=history] and the various archives of [[Talk:Motorized bicycle]]), and I believe both [[User:Woohookitty|Woohookitty]] and [[User:Katefan0|Katefan0]] can speak to the history here. This is not a "spinout" as no attempt was made to incorporate this into the existing section at [[motorized bicycle]] (where pedelec was mentioned by name and which article was and still is linked to [[:de:pedelec]]). Even bearding [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] did not gain any support for Pat's assertion of process irregularities. Pat, if you think this is a vendetta I suggest you raise an RfC, as I have said before. - [[User:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid"> Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[User:JzG/AfD|AfD?]]'' 20:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Review''' and send to '''Arbitration''': The example you give for electric bicycles only substantiates that there is a lack of process. Anyone that actually looks into that will realize that, that article failed to be deleted for lack of process. It was put through the redirected for deletions and remains redirected to motorized bicycle. The lack of definition of the issue of POV Fork is not a major issue, the lack of proof is what is being questioned. If the question of lack of proof was raised regarding a POV fork, then an independant review should be done to determine whether there is enough proof to substantiate the POV Fork. If there was not enought proof, there obviously would be no reason for a POV FORK. Hence the reason for the out of process. --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 16:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
:*No need to vote twice, Pat. Your view is already in the nomination. - [[User:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid"> Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[User:JzG/AfD|AfD?]]'' 21:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
:**Those are serious allegations and I don't appreciate them. There is a fine line between voting, requesting undeletion, an leaving a comment, and to my knowledge I haven't voted. This is yet another example of your generalizations leading into what I believe is a ill faithed assumptions. (or putting words into other peoples mouths) Not only is this insulting but this is what has plagued this issue from the start. Seemingly, it's what, according to me, plagues wikipedia. Secondly I don't know who put my IP and name at the top of this nomination but that goes against [[Wikipedia:Undeletion policy#To request that a page (or image) be restored]] (A.K.A.: undeletion policy). It is clearly stated to sign with <nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki>, and this just re-enforces my idea that wikipedia is corrupt. (Even my local news paper the "Ottawa Citizen" has indicated in an article that wikipedia is no longer NPOV). Finally as for RFC's I couldn't agree better then with [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#RFCs do not work because nobody seems to care: edit wars are better|this comment]]. All this supporting my assumption that wikipedia is just as corrupt as our Canadian [[Liberal]] [[government]]/ Thanks even more to these enlightening facts, I think this entire process should be stayed, re-nominated and independently reviewed by an arbitration comity. --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 23:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted.''' Some day, in a perfect world, Pat will learn our policies and procedures. Instead, I'm still seeing bad faith afd nominations and deletion reviews for every deletion of Pat's material and forking and everything else. And now we have "send this to arbitration". You can't. Have you read [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] Pat? Knowing you, you haven't. You can't send this to arbitration. It doesn't work that way. And of course this is a POV fork Pat. [[Gallery of motorized bicycles]] is a fork...Pedelec is a fork...[[Gallery of motorized trikes]] is a fork. They are all forks from [[motorized bicycle]] because *3 months ago* the decision was made to move [[electric bicycle]] to motorized bicycle. Even though you had a chance to speak up, you didn't. Since then, you've made numerous attempts to get it back by doing things like this. Community vote was to delete gallery of motorized bicycles so you created trikes, immediately put it up for deletion and then hoped it would be kept so that you could bring back gallery of motorized bikes. This is the same thing. You hope that Pedelec is restored so then you can restore electric bicycles even though that went through a rfd vote already. And I'm not making this up. You've made your intentions clear. Just stop. Please. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 01:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
**Well actually Woohookitty I have read [[WP:DR]]. I remember seeing a section [[WP:AP]] that would be more specific to the issue. And we can infer from section "Scope", #2, which states: ''Where a dispute has not gone through Mediation, or the earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, the Arbitrators may refer the dispute to the Mediation Committee if it believes Mediation is likely to help.'' that there are issues that are heard without mediation. (I also believe the previous steps have been attempted). Now everyone knows Wikipedia is a learning process. If what you are saying is we can't use past precedences to develop on making wikipedia a better place, then I think that is plain wrong and perhaps you should start looking elsewhere. I really didn't want to go into this discussion here but since you brought it up, here we go: first off, your inherent interest in the article is obvious. You created [[motorized bicycle]]. It's your baby. In Oregon a [[Motorized bicycle]] is like a [[moped]]. In other parts of the US it also a [[moped]] but includes smaller sub-class, similar vehicles such as the [[electric bicycle]] (that of which you merged to motorized bicycle). Here in Canada we have something similar called a [[motor assisted bicycle]] or a [[moped]]. But we also have the [[power-assisted bicycle]] another class of vehicle. All that to say, it is my belief that just like [[truck]] is an [[automobile]] and [[SUV]], [[Car]], etc... they, electric bicycle, pedelec, power assisted bicycle should have their own articles. Not only that, but so closely related is the [[moped]] and it even has it's own article. Previously, you have indicated your disagreement to merge moped with motorized bicycle. JzG, also indicated a vote against the merger of this article with moped. One of his reasons being was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Motorized_bicycle&diff=prev&oldid=29274760 because the two strands of development are entirely separate]. What are the major differences between these two strands of development? And if so, could this not be inferable for the use with the "entirely" different strand of development between electric pedelecs (or electric motor assisted bicycles) vs our most commonly know (fossil fuel guzzlers) IC motor assisted bicycles? (hint the answer is right in the question there!). --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 04:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
::I took your advice and have filled for mediation regarding this case (well, technically speaking, similar cases that we never really resolved): [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation]] --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 06:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
::*Pat, that was not even ''one'' allegation, let alone ''serious allegations'' plural. I was just letting you know that your views are already represented in your nomination. - [[User:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid"> Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[User:JzG/AfD|AfD?]]'' 13:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
:::You still refuse to be oppelegetic and you fail to correct the fact that my name and IP adress are still at the top of this nominations. '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Motorized_bicycle.2C_Pedelec.2C_Electric_Bicycle.2C_Moped.2C_Motorcycle.2C_Timeline_of_motorized_bicycle_history A request for mediation was filed...] and it appears that the discussion is happening on the main mediation page.''' --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 18:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
::::You haven't yet managed to communicate in terms I can understand what it is I am supposed to be apologising ''for''. And how about letting one process finish before starting another? - [[User:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid"> Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:JzG|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JzG|[C]]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] ''[[User:JzG/AfD|AfD?]]'' 11:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
====[[Game Central Network]]====
The article [[Game Central Network]] was deleted due to the mere fact that it did not hold up to [[WP:WEB]]. No one in my community, nor myself were informed that there was even speculation of deletion.
No, game central network is not a "notable" as stated in wp:web, but I cannot agree to it's deletion based on the guidelines placed before us.
Game Central Network's began as a small fan website, hl2central.net, based on the rumor of the second [[Half-Life]] game. It was and is a key resource for many websites including [[IGN]] (http://www.planethalflife.com/news/search.asp?function=search&search=hl2central), FileFront, among other "notable" websites. On top of this, we have interviews with major players in the game development industry, most notably, [[Gabe Newell]] of Valve software (http://www.hl2central.net/?id=1480). Notable enough, in-fact, that it still remains listed upon an IGN website, http://www.planethalflife.com/half-life2/press/.
Our content is even of such value that it has been translated by people we do not even know so that their users can read it. (http://www.hl2.ru/interviews/hl2central/)
You can also find our website listed on many websites just due to the fact that they like our site...
http://www.bloodthirst.org/links.php
http://halflife2.filefront.com/ (right column)
http://www.planethalflife.com/community/links.shtm
http://reinstatement-mod.co.uk/hl2_news.shtml
http://www.ultimate-gamer.com/halflife2/hl2links.htm
http://www.halflife2.net/page.php?p=comm_links
http://www.hlfallout.net/view.php/hl2info/sitelinks.php
WP:WEB is a proposal, for those who dont know already. Our article was to outline the history of the website, it's effects, and it's future. It was written as neutrally as possible and i encouraged my community to edit it to be even more so. So umm i dont know but it's deletion was wrong.
[[User:Thepcnerd|Thepcnerd]] 17:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', valid AfD [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game Central Network|here]]. This page is for discussion of process, not notability (unless things have changed since I was gone). --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 18:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
** That is factually incorrect. Good articles are undeleted on the basis of content. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 19:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse decision''' (keep deleted). I see no process problems with the AFD discussion. The arguments above do not seem to be new evidence enough to reopen the debate. Indeed, the nominator's very comment that he wants to "encourage my community to edit it ..." highlights his/her misunderstanding of the key problems with the article. Contributions must be [[Wikipedia:verifiable|verifiable]] by an average reader/editor. Contributions by community members would in general violate our prohibition against [[Wikipedia:original research|original research]]. I would encourage you to document your website's history, effects and future, but on your own site or blog. That kind of content is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 22:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' valid Afd discussion. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] 11:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', valid AfD discussion. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' no evidence of failure of process, no new evidence in the above. - [[User:JzG|JzG]] 11:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
====[[Ludvig Strigeus]]====
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ludvig Strigeus]]
All the delete votes were made when the article was a one-liner. I expanded on the article and voted keep. I think the subject is notable and request an undelete, please. <font style="background: white"> -- </font>[[User:WP|<font color="white" style="background: black"> W </font><font style="background: white"> P </font>]][[User talk:WP|<font style="background: white" color="gray"><small>Talk</small></font>]] 10:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
* The nomination was made on 6 Jan. The delete votes were made on 6 and 7 Jan. The article was expanded on 8 Jan. The person who did the expansion was the only keep voter. The discussion was closed on 12 Jan. While many people had the opportunity to revisit the article and the discussion, apparently none chose to do so. Looking at the expanded article itself, I don't think that this person yet meets the recommended [[Wikipedia:criteria for inclusion of biographies|criteria for inclusion of biographies]]. I am inclined to '''endorse the closure''' (keep deleted) even though the nominator may be right that the original discussion paricipants may not have re-evaluated their decisions after the expansion. Note: This decision is without prejudice against re-creation if the subject of the article goes on to do more notable work and ''does'' eventually become eligible under our inclusion criteria. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 17:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. This may be a case where the nominator should simply recreate the *expanded* article, per policy, and be ready to defend it better when/if it gets renominated. [[User:Turnstep|Turnstep]] 17:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Undelete'''. The closer did not take into account the fact that the article was substantially improved and that no delete votes followed the expansion. The subject is the original developer of three reasonably famous pieces of software that have their own Wikipedia articles: [[MTorrent]], [[ScummVM]] and [[OpenTTD]]. Thus the close was wrong on process and (most important) made the wrong decision for Wikipedia by deleting good content. I agree with Turnstep's proposal and if [[User:WP]] or anyone else makes a good faith request for a temporary undelete for that purpose I will grant it. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 18:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Is every person who votes delete in the early stages of a discussion to be disenfranchised, or must they keep checking back on every article they've already reviewed on a daily basis to go back to the discussion and say, "Nope, despite the edits made since the last time, my vote stands."? The fact that there were no further delete votes after the expansion may well be due to the fact that everyone who came to the discussion saw sufficient delete votes and didn't feel like adding any more. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and relist'''. It appears the article was judged on its initial stubby content. I believe that being an important contributor to 4 software projects makes one notable. I think there's enough new information added to warrant a reevaluation of the deletion debate. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 09:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and relist'''. Zoe's point is well-taken, but it's an assumption. It could just as easily have been the case where others, seeing the delete votes, did not bother to investigate the article after its expansion. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color: #33C;">howch</span>]][[WP:EA|<span style="color:#0F0">''e''</span>]][[User:Howcheng|<span style="color:#33C">ng</span>]]''' <small>{[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]}</small></span> 19:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*As a comprimise what about just doing a normal relisting with the other comments intact? <small>[[User:RN|WhiteNight]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 01:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' and '''relist'''. AFDs tend to get only sparse attention after one or two days and the rewrite probably adressed some of the major concerns with this. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 10:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
===[[2006-01-11]]===
====Valhalla Legends====
Being a fairly inexperienced Wikipedian, I will defer to experience if appropriate, however:
The article on Valhalla Legends has been deleted following a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Valhalla_legends vote]]. The reasons given by many of the delete voters expose the fact that many/most of them really are not at all familiar with the subject matter at hand.
* Valhalla Legends is not a gaming clan ("Yet another frag-fest clan"/"gamercruft" is deeply inaccurate)
* The clan is most certainly notable for the achievements of its members over the years
* Said achievements are verifiable.
Admittedly, the clan exists within a rather small niche, but I don't see that as being a reason not to have a page on the subject. I accept that the page may have suffered from some vanity in the past, however, the changes I made last week were more than enough to address that. Considering that most of the voters were not familiar with subject, and that most of the keep votes were dismissed as 'sock-puppeting' by the deleting administrator, I'd like this deletion to be reconsidered.
[[User:Harrym|Harrym]] 11:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*It is within the right of a AFD closer to discount votes by new people (reason being that they wouldn't be sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia to know what belongs here and that new accounts can be made simply to try and sway the vote. That said, if this not a gaming clan, then what kind of clan is it and can you provide sources that talk about those verifiable achievements you mention? We can't just take your word for it. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 12:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
* Ok - that seems fair.
The clan is primarily a programming clan, although its membership requirements focus more on proficiency in a technical area:
<blockquote>
... most of Valhalla Legends' members have been highly technical. Over half of the members have some solid programming skills while the rest are knowledgeable and/or experienced in networking, hacking, cracking, or were simply legendary in some way on Battle.net during its history.
</blockquote>
The clan has not, and has never been, a gaming clan. [http://www.valhallalegends.com/aboutvL.asp More here].
[[BNLS]] is a little hard to verify, however, it seems that it has its own wikipedia page. Perhaps that counts in its favour. The only reliable information about the use of the service would come from the operators of the service - ie, clan members - and so might not be considered reliable. The following [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=BNLS+Battle.net&btnG=Google+Search&meta= Google search] has some useful information, most notably the [http://www.valhallalegends.com/yoni/BNLSProtocolSpec.txt protocol spec]. The system is used by many people, as [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=BNLS+bot+%28help+%7C+tutorial+%7C+faq%29&btnG=Search&meta= evidenced] by the number of bots that use it, and the number of people asking for help!
[http://bnetdocs.valhallalegends.com/content.php BnetDocs] is the community's primary source of technical information about [[Battle.net]] and its related protocols. The huge majority of the information on the site has been reverse-engineered by clan members. The site regularly has 40-60 unique visitors per day, and has over a 1000 registered users. It is maintained by a group of volunteers (not all of whom are members). I run the site, and am able to provide usage logs if that's useful. Hundreds of protocol messages for 4 different proprietary protocols are documented. This is a considerable volume of work which mostly originates from the activities of clan members. It is, in other words, a notable accomplishment.
On a historical note, one of the earliest third-party clients (perhaps the first) for Battle.net was written by a clan member, although, this is largely unverifiable considering the lack of reliable documentation.
I do not consider the clan to be of any great historical importance, however, it is most certainly notable within its niche. I feel that [[WP:NOT]] a paper encyclopedia applies. I recognise that things such as these can be hard to verify, and I'm happy to do my best to address any specific questions or concerns.
Primarily, I just object to the article being deleted on the basis of such an uninformed vote.
[[User:Harrym|Harrym]] 14:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I found the AfD flawed: clearly this page and [[BNLS]] are closely related, since BNLS is only used on vH, but the question of how the information then contained in the two articles should best be covered was thought out by few of the participants. I'm leaning towards ''undelete and list together with BNLS''. I'd also say that I think that developer communities are pretty much inherently more noteworthy participant than fancruftish gamer communities, certainly the two sorts of community should not be confused. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 15:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. If this is more than just a gaming clan, then most of the delete votes should be given less weight. Combined with the overlooked "keep" vote of user [[User:Oscarthecat|Oscarthecat]], this is probably a no-consensus. Undelete and give it a chance to get cleaned up, with some information on how it is not merely a gaming clan, before tossing it back to AfD. I'm not convinced it will survive an AfD even then, but I think the new information warrants giving it another shot without the "gamecruft" voters. [[User:Turnstep|Turnstep]] 03:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
**That is the problem, because as far as I can see it is a gaming clan - at least from the linked site -
*:"Valhalla Legends is a Battle.Net clan that wears the tag [vL]. The purpose of the clan is to provide for its members a single place to gather and talk"
*Not only that but the basically same argument given here is the same one that ''replaced the nomination halfway through'' ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Valhalla_legends&diff=prev&oldid=34290456]), so I think the users had more than enough time to look at. I'll give JIP a message though and endorse whatever (s)he says. <small>[[User:RN|WhiteNight]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 04:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - There is a gaming clan aspect to the site, but according to the posting distribution it is principally a developer's forum [http://forum.valhallalegends.com/index.php/]. It appears to be much more than a gaming clan. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 17:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
**I don't know... it still appears to me like a gaming clan that does occasional development, which was highlighted during the debate. I'll admit that I can understand how it could be taken differently, I just don't know if this is a somewhat clever attempt to make it appear as something different then it really is. If we do undelete this I think (re)listing both of them as you say is the best way to go. <small>[[User:RN|WhiteNight]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 00:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
***These kinds of content issues are best sorted out on AfD anyway: all that is needed to go back to AfD is to think that there is a high probablity that it will result in a different outcome to the one that resulted in the appeal here. I think we are likely to keep vL and delete BNLS. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 00:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
**Alright, '''Undelete and (re)list both''' <small>[[User:RN|WhiteNight]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 00:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete, relist and list [[BNLS]] on AfD''' - My, I convinced RN before I convinced myself! --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 01:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''comment''' Thanks. I think this is a good decision. I'll clarify the above poster's concern over tags: Battle.net was, and still is to some extent, the place where most of the clan members congregate and talk. Of course, many members do play games. That, however, is not the primary purpose of the clan. [[User:Harrym|Harrym]] 10:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' --
:I am not opposed to it being re-listed if necessary, and if that is the appropriate forum (I find it odd that we have to go through the hoops to have this undeleted and then re-debate whether it should be deleted, but as with Harry, being somewhat inexperienced, I will defer to others if appropriate), then fine.
:During AfD discussion there was comment that [[BNLS]] should be merged with Valhalla Legends, or that one or both should be merged with [[Battle.net]]. I find both merges to be inappropriate at best. Merging vL with Battle.net would be like merging [[Macromedia]] with [[Microsoft Windows]] simply because Macromedia produces software that works in Windows. Generally, I believe that it's erroneous to include information about a third party in an article about a first-party product, short of being a "See Also" section. Further, BNLS is extremely notable (in its niche) for the number of users it has seen during its lifetime and the accessibility it provided for other users within the community to develop their own clients.
:Note that the article was not originally contributed by members (a non-member informed us that he had posted it), but a couple of us corrected information and [[Wikipedia:Wikification|wikified]] it. It seemed that only after the corrections were made that the article was listed for deletion (or perhaps it was once I listed it for a Request for Renaming -- it was originally called "Valhalla legends," but should have had the second word capitalized). Thanks. [[User:Robert Paveza|Robert Paveza]] 20:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
===[[2006-01-09]]===
===[[2006-01-07]]===
====[[:Category:List of Christian Entertainers]]====
All that is left is subcategories for people of specific faiths.If a person doesn't fit into those categories, there is no longer a place for them.Some people such as Tom Hanks for example don't fit neatly into any sub-category.This list included all Christians both Protestant and Catholic.[[User:California 12|California 12]] 02:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
:I am unable to find any evidence that the category for which you are requesting undeletion ever existed. Are you perhaps looking for [[:Category:Christian actors]], [[:Category:Christian writers]], or some other subcategory of [[:Category:Christian people]]? --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Allen3|talk]]</sup> 23:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the Christian Entertainers did exist.You can find it on google search.I had contributed quite a bit to it and was suprised to find it gone.However I did not realize the lists that you mentioned above existed.In light of this I will add some of the names that were lost on the other list which was much longer.And will withdraw my request for the deletion review as I did not realize there was a list that was similar.Although it is a shame that the info off the other list was not merged with these.Thanks
.[[User:California 12|California 12]] 10:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
*Do you mean [[List of Christian entertainers]] ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian entertainers|afd]])? [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 07:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes that's it.Maybe it could be brought back with a different title.Perhaps it could be called List of Entertainers who are Christians? Would that be allowed?
[[User:California 12|California 12]] 12:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*The closure of that debate was pretty questionable: strictly on the numbers, it was only 60% for deletion, and it appears that some effort ''was'' made to resolve the concerns of those who voted delete as the nomination progressed. You could take it up with the closing admin, [[User:Enochlau]], on his talk page, or ask here for the article to be undeleted, in which case it quite possibly would be. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 08:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I hate to keep going back and forth , but with the information you've just given me I would like to request the page be undeleted.I don't care that much about the name, it's the content that matters.I've never requested an article be undeleted before.If I'm not going about it correctly then I apologize and please don't hesitate to admonish me if I am doing this incorrectly.The thing that bothers me is if there is a list of famous people who just happened to be atheist, so why not a list of famous people who happen to be Christians? Is this not the fair and neutral thing? As a Christian I have no urge to delete the atheist list.[[User:California 12|California 12]]01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:'''comment''': IMHO this list should stay deleted, and be replaced with a Category. Lists such as this are inherently hard to maintain, whereas Cats are self-updating. I would also, as a parenthetical remark, vote Delete if a List of Atheist Entertainers showed on Afd. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 17:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Please pardon my ignorance but could you direct me to a page explaining the list versus category ? Also with regards to the atheist list I do strongly believe it sends a very biased message to allow some lists with regards to a certain situation while omitting the other side of the coin.[[User:California12|California 12]]10:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:User:Zigger has a partially written FAQ: [[User:Zigger/Categorisation_FAQ#What_is_the_difference_between_a_list_and_a_category.3F]], there is a talk page at [[Wikipedia talk:Merge some redundant lists to categories]] which may help explain a bit, and if you have any further questions please bring to my talk page - there are major advantages to having this as a Category, and lists have a lot of inherent problems. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 18:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok after reading this it occurs to me that it might be better to bring back Christian Entertainers as a category, rather than a list? Because the Christian actors category listed above leaves no place for other types of entertainers.So perhaps it could be renamed? If something on this order is allowed, then perhaps it would not be needed to bring back the list.I would like to thank those who took the time to explain the categories vs. list to me as I have used the category link on several pages and not even realized it wasn't the same as a list.I don't want to clutter this page with my ramblings so will bring the discussion to Killer Chihuahua's page or mine at least temporarily.
.[[User:California12|California 12]]01:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Lists and categories, although rather similar in intent and display are implemented differeently, and considered different things on wikipedia. The previous deletion of a list in no way prevents anyoen from simply creating a category, and marking appropriate articles as members of that category. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 21:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Well this is the problem with categories
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Kiel&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Kiel
What good does a category do if the resistance is so great that a name cannot be added, even after offering evidence it belongs?For this reason a list was much better, as it did not require altering the person's page.If it was shut down prematurely as Christopher Parham suggested, I would be interested in learning why.
[[User:California12|California 12]]011:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
====[[:Category:German-American mobsters]]====
As creator of this category I was neither notified of its nomination or of its deletion. However, the main arguments for deletion seem to be over categorization by way of (at least in my opinion) the debatable categorization of "ethnic group of Americans by profession" and underpopulated.
First, I believe there are at least some instances where categorization by ethnicity is appropriate and within organized crime essential for the classification of American organized crime figures as, in the US alone, diffrent organized crime groups are identified specifically by ethnicity (with the exception of syndicate organizations). From a historical perpectictive, it has remained a source of conflict between rival organizations for well over a century.
As for the category's unperpopulation, had this been brought to my attention I would have at least entered it into [[:Category:Underpopulated categories]], particularly for a category which has been around for only a few months, if not compiled a few more articles. This does raise a concern however as I have many categories which are more or less underpopulated (such as [[:Category:Asian-American mobsters]] and [[:Category:Polish-American mobsters]]) which, as set by the recent vote for deletion, despite the fact there are quite a few notible mobsters to be able to fill those appropriate categories.
However, compiling each one myself is quite time consuming (my early work on the Irish mobsters has now around 60+ articles) and thus many categories appear underpopulated. This issue has been brought up several times are far back as the recreation of [[:Category:Italian-American mobsters]] and yet categories continue to be deleted or nominated for deletion fairly quickly. I hope someone can look into this and hopefully settle this issue. [[User:MadMax|MadMax]] 23:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - Two things. Firstly, reading the CfD, it appears the concern with overcatergorisation stands in as concern with underpopulation: I'd say underpopulatioon is the main concern cited in that CfD discussion. Second, why can't [[:Category:American mobsters]] be populated first, and only when enough entries appear create subcategories? --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 01:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
:*As of a year ago it was fully populated before it was cleared out to make the present subcategories by myself, [[User:Stefanomione|Stefanomione]], and a few others. The articles themselves can easily be added back to the [[:Category:American mobsters]] however given the large numbers of article which exist I'd think it might seem a bit redundant to have them listed in that category as well. Unfortunatly, as there are only a few which I'm aware of, organized crime contributions are slow in coming and, as a result, categories are often underpopulated (not to mention the uncategorized article I come across now and again). If this category were empty for at least a year or more I could see the concern, however, deleting the category without even listing it on underpopulated categories, I fail to see the chance for Users to work on it (as I personally can only work on one category at a time). [[User:MadMax|MadMax]] 04:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
:::So how many articles are there that would go in this category? --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 20:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
::::Presently there were only two existing articles, however more then twenty articles could be added in Chicago alone (including the Chicago crime syndicate). I suppose notibility would be a factor, however I would estimate around 100 depending on how far back one would include as organized crime such as Micheal Cassius MacDonalds organization or California's Barabary Coast. [[User:MadMax|MadMax]] 21:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
:'''Endorse decision, keep deleted''' - It's a natural enough category, but until it has more currently existing entries, the articles should go in [[:Category:American mobsters]]. Starting a ''List of German-American mobsters'' might be helpful. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
:'''Undelete'''. I'm going to go with the category creator on this one. Organized crime in the United States has often organized itself on an ethnic basis. This hinders infiltration by law enforcement and enhances the criminals' power over their respective communities. It is misleading to categorize such people generically. [[User:Durova|Durova]] 18:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
===[[2006-01-05]]===
==== [[Zoner, Inc.]] ====
See [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zoner%2C_Inc.]]<br>
I believe that the Zoner, Inc. meets the criteria for a Wikipedia article. Zoner is not a small "garage" company. See google hits: [http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=%22Zoner%2C+Inc.%22&btnG=Search 13,600 hits for "Zoner, Inc."] [http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=%22Zoner+software%22&btnG=Search 559,000 hists for "Zoner software"], [http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=Zoner&btnG=Search 1,670,000 for Zoner] and [[WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine]], part Advertising. I would like to translate article to Czech Wikipedia. Thanks. --[[User:Michal Jurosz|Michal Jurosz]] 10:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' to AfD. The votes in the AfD were too few to properly gauge consensus. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Deathphoenix|ath]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 14:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
* Unless there is better evidence that can be presented that this company meets the recommended criteria at [[WP:CORP]], I have to '''endorse closure''' (keep deleted). The vast majority of the google hits cited above (and during the AFD discussion) are irrelevant. They include the software company's own site (reasonable but not relevant for the purposes of [[WP:V|verification]]), download sites, advertising sites and lots of irrelevant use of "zoner" by a variety of people as a username. The google statistics failed to convince the participants of the previous decision. Note: In circumstances like this, a Google Groups search can be more informative. That returns 10,800 hits just for "zoner" but, again, many are irrelevant. I would agree to a relisting if ''new'' evidence is presented. Mere google hits are not, in my opinion, meeting that threshold. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 15:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
** [[WP:CORP]] is a proposed Wikipedia policy. I used official policy [[WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox|WP:NOT]], part Advertising: ''Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. ...'' --[[User:Michal Jurosz|Michal Jurosz]] 16:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*** That doesn't automatically mean that ''all'' articles about companies or products are appropriate. The "garage" company is a clear example at the extreme end of the spectrum. Companies in the middle are judgment calls. They are generally kept or deleted based on the evidence presented. [[WP:CORP]], while still tagged as a proposal, is a widely respected attempt to provide more specific guidance based on the community's history of decisions. By the way, I'd overlooked your request above to translate the article for the Czech Wikipedia. If you participate on both projects and are familiar with their general inclusion criteria, I have no objection to a temporary undelete either to [[m:transwiki]] or to your userspace for translation and cross-posting. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 05:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*Michal, my counting skills seem to differ from yours. Where you report 13,600, when I click on the link ''you'' provided, I get 998, of which 232 are unique. Where you report 559,000, I get 438,000, of which 326 are unique. However, of 1,670,000 you report, ''I'' get 2,900,000, of which 760 are unique. But that is for every single possible use of the word Zoner, most of which have nothing to do with this software. Not notable, '''keep deleted'''. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 16:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
:: Zoe, the unique hits are per the thousand sample, and not across the entire returned hit count - you have to multiply the unique count by the overall total divided by a thousand. As you say, though, google is irrelevant due to the multiple uses of the word. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] 00:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
::It is bit confusing for me, because when I click on these links, I get the exactly the same count of hits as Michal Juros. --[[User:Petr.adamek|Petr.adamek]] 16:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. I see no fault in the Afd and no content-related reason to overturn it. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 16:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' Zoner is wel known in Czech Republic; it is big software development company and ___domain registrator. I dont agree, that google hits are completely irrelevant. --[[User:Petr.adamek|Petr.adamek]] 16:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Relist''', it is important and well known IT company in Czech Republic, local leader in software development and internet services, the third biggest in webhosting. Examples of third party references: about company: [http://www.zive.cz/h/Info/Ar.asp?ARI=127131&CAI=2133] [http://www.linuxexpres.cz/zoner-vyrabi-vlastni-antivirovy-system-pro-linux], products recensions [http://www.fotografovani.cz/art/forec_soft/recenze-zoner-photo-studio-7-dil-4.html] [http://technet.idnes.cz/software.asp?r=software&c=A021010_5171455_software], interviews [http://www.zive.cz/h/Byznys/AR.asp?ARI=127240&CAI=2035] --[[User:RuM|RuM]] 17:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
* Comment: [http://www.google.com/search?as_q=+benny&num=100&hl=en&c2coff=1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Zoner+software+&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images Czech virus writer joins Zoner software], [http://www.doingbusiness.cz/r/article.asp?id=322], [http://www.topshareware.com/Zoner-Draw-download-957.htm], [http://www.wdvl.com/Reviews/Graphics/Zoner/], [http://printer.konicaminoltaeurope.com/eu/en/software.php?id=1], [http://node1.bvv.cz/i2000/Akce/b-inv.nsf/WWWAllPDocsID/VJEK-6HHAA4?OpenDocument&NAV=1]. Seems like I can use [http://www.answers.com/topic/zoner-inc] for cs.wikipedia article about Zoner. --[[User:Michal Jurosz|Michal Jurosz]] 18:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. Nothing out of process here. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color: #33C;">howch</span>]][[WP:EA|<span style="color:#0F0">''e''</span>]][[User:Howcheng|<span style="color:#33C">ng</span>]]''' <small>{[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]}</small></span> 23:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Closure''' and '''KD''' per Howcheng. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] 00:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist'''. -[[User:Rhymeless|Tim Rhymeless]] [[User talk:Rhymeless| (Er...let's shimmy)]] 01:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse/keep deleted'''. Unanimous AFD. Saying that there are 1.6 million hits for "zoner" and pretending they are all this is silly. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 17:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
** I only said that "Zoner" means "Zoner software" with 30% probability. I am sorry, if you think that I am pretending something else. I think people interested in Czechia would like to find articles about big Czech software companies. Or are you thinking, that it is less important than [[:Category:Czech_porn_stars|Czech_porn_stars]]? I am not. --[[User:Michal Jurosz|Michal Jurosz]] 14:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' [[User:Cinik|Cinik]] 14:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
==Recently concluded==
<!-- Try to limit to the last 15 or so concluded actions (but leave all up for a minimum of a a few days)-->
<!-- Place new listings at top of section -->
#[[Eszter Hargittai]]: Rewritten. 19:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Henry Farrell (political scientist)]]: Rewritten, currently at: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Farrell (political scientist)]]. 19:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Gallery of motorized bicycles]]: Userfied for transwiki. 23:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[The Ditherals]]: speedy overturned; AFD reopened at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ditherals]]. 19:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# [[Badawiya HOTEL]]: Kept deleted as copyvio. 19:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Pms clan]]: Relisted at AFD and kept (moved to [[PMS Clan]]). 18:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Online Gaming League]]: Kept deleted. 17:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[TRANGO real-time embedded hypervisor]]: Undeleted and relisted at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TRANGO real-time embedded hypervisor 2]]. 17:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Template:User noie]] : Redirected to [[Template:User browser:Other]]. 17:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Interflop]]: Renominated and again deleted. 17:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[EUROFUTURES]]: Kept deleted. 16:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#More attack templates: see below. 16:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#Various attack templates: Various. Most are currently undeleted in some form and being discussed at [[Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes]]. 16:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[User talk:Jim Apple/deeceevoice departure]]: Kept deleted (protected). 16:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Template:User against scientology]]: Kept deleted. 16:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Virago]]: Kept deleted (2nd nom was indisputably valid), and recreated as a disambiguation page. 16:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[LUElinks]]: Kept deleted (protected). There was some support for a protected redirect, but no consensus. 16:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[List of anti-heroes]]: Kept deleted. 23:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Saugeen Stripper]]: Undeleted, relisted at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saugeen Stripper 2]]. 17:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler]]: Kept deleted. 17:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Godcasting]]: Relisted, now at <s>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godcasting 2]]</s> (closed, kept). 20:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[Seth Ravin]]: Relisted, now at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Ravin 2]]. 20:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
#[[DND]]: Never deleted, was moved and has been moved back. 01:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
| 