Wikipedia:Deletion review

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. If you nominate an article here, be sure to make a note on the sysop's user talk page regarding your nomination. A template, {{subst:DRVNote}} is available to make this easier.

Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.

Proposed deletions

Articles deleted under the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion procedure (using the {{PROD}} tag) may be undeleted, without a vote, on reasonable request. Any admin can be asked to do this, alternatively a request may be made here. However, such undeleted articles are open to be speedy deleted or nominated for WP:AFD under the usual rules.

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Steps to list a new deletion review

1.	Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 October 1}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	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 <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 October 1}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 October 1|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

• Endorse the original closing decision; or
• Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
• List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
• Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
• Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

• *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
• *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
• *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
• *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of 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.

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

06 June 2006

Big Brother 7 chronology

Big Brother 7 Chronology (AfD discussion)

This page had more people wanting to keep it then people wanting to delete it. It has been wronlgy deleted by someone who was against the page from its existence. As soon as it was created, this user marked it for deletion. It was wrongly deleted and I campaign for it to be restored... Ellisjm 16:06 UTC 6 June 06

• Overturn: At least have the page there until the series is over and the page can be condensed. --JD^talk_email 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Why was the page deleted? Celestianpower says at the top of the page that the result of the debate was deleted. The results were: 6 for "delete"; 11 for "keep"; 1 for "weak keep" and 1 for "strong delete"!!! I think it's pretty obvious that more people want to keep the page than delete it!! Ellisjm 16:36 UTC 6 June 06

AfD is not a vote. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That may be true, but good reasons for having the page stay were still brought up. Even if only until the end of the series, the page is worth having in peoples' opinions. --JD^talk_email 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. People who wanted the article deleted seem to have more grounds than those who wanted the article kept. — FireFox • 16:44, 06 June '06
• Endorse deletion per FireFox. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Reasons given for deletion were in line with WP policies and guidelines; reasons given for keep were mostly "But I want to keep it" variety. Process was followed, deletion is valid. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn for violation of process. I would have voted "delete", as this does look like non-notable TV cruft, but the result of the debate was no consensus. The keep voters may have been uninformed, but Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators allows only disregarding bad faith votes when establishing consensus, and few such are apparent here. I know of no policy that allows the closing administrator to determine consensus on the basis of which side they agree with. Sandstein 17:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The guidelines say that for example comments made in bad faith may be ignored. In general, the guidelines say admins should use their common sense to determine if a rough consensus exists and should try to remain as objective as possible — they don't provide strict rules for doing this, since no such rule can exists. (Anyway, it's not a "vote".) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and close as no consensus. Neither side had arguments that were all that compelling, and closer was not at all clear as to his/her rationale for the decision. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse- this was a reasonable decision. Possibly the DRV could have been avoided tho, if the closer had given more reasoning about why they closed the way they did. Friday (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, a level of detail far in excess of anything which could possibly be justified by any encyclopaedic purpose. BB7 is more than adequately covered in the main article. This is a fan blog and belongs on a fan site: it is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information.. Just zis Guy you know? 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not meant to be a blog; it's meant to keep the main article small. --JD^talk_email 19:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there some objective measure you're using to make this statement? At what point is it not excessive anymore? Why is detail bad? etc etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm measuring it by the articles for other comparable series. We're a couple of weeks in and already it's longer than many articles on entire series. And this is BB7, not BB1, so it is less notable in the first place. What we have here is a blog, a day-by-day log of events. That's one of the things Wikipedia is not. I have nothing against logging this info at a user subpage for later distillation into an actual article, but speaking as a Brit and part of the target audience this is considerably beyond the defensible encyclopaedic content. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: am I correcting in thinking that people think this article is necessary so that at the end of the show it can be reduced into something encyclopedic? That seems to be what was being said at the AfD, but I just want to verify that before making a decision. Metros232 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That was the plan. --JD^talk_email 19:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Then you should store it somewhere else and repost it when it's encyclopidic. WP isn't a dumping ground for random information. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, then in that case, restore and move to user space. Put it someone's user space so it can be worked on as a future article rather than having it in the mainspace as an actual article. Metros232 19:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Endorse and keep deleted - Wikipedia is not a democracy. The closer based his decision of the strengh of the arguments, not the amount. I agree with User:Friday that the closer should have stated this more clearly. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Per above, restoring to the userspace would also be quite acceptable. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn the result of the discussion was keep and not by a small margin. I completely agree with Ellisjm that the article was wrongly deleted.

-- JAB^[T]_[C] 20:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and Undelete for being out-of-process. --Rob 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak endorse, closure seems to have been within acceptable bounds of discretion. Most of the arguments provided by either side in the debate were rather weak, but some of the arguments for deletion were slightly less weak that the arguments against it. I'm quite willing, however, to userfy the deleted content upon request (a possibility some of the participants in the original debate appear to have been unaware of). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It just makes more sense to have the page in the main Wikipedia area while it exists, because it still has the information that many people may find useful. If that ends up being the only other option, then it may end up happening. But I'm sure you can see what I'm trying to say. --JD^talk_email 23:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem is, if it were in the main namespace it would have to satisfy the Wikipedia policies regarding article content. As it is, it seems to have trouble meeting several, including no original research, reliable sources and several parts of what Wikipedia is not. In short, it is unencyclopedic. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy somewhere by all means but keep deleted per above. Metamagician3000 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. I would rather delete this article but the discussion was at most a "no consensus", not a "delete". --Metropolitan90 02:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:WikiPâques.png

Image:WikiPâques.png was deleted in February on the basis it was an orphan. Well, of course it was an orphan - it was February and the image was an Easter Wikipedia logo, so it'll only be unorphaned when it's Easter. I see no valid reason to delete this. Users may still want it on their user page at Easter. It's also causing red links in older revisions. See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 February 14 for the listing on IfD. There's a copy here if the deletion is overturned and someone wants to reupload it. Angela. 08:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Re-upload to Commons, so any project can use it, and Commons is outside of enwiki's jurisdiction. --Rory096 08:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

National Hockey League player lists

List of every NHL player NHL players A NHL players B NHL players C NHL players D NHL players E NHL players F NHL players G NHL players H NHL players I

NHL players J NHL players K NHL players L NHL players M NHL players N NHL players O NHL players P NHL players Q NHL players R

NHL players S NHL players T NHL players U NHL players V NHL players W NHL players X NHL players Y NHL players Z

Relist. They were improperly speedy deleted out of process for "already have lists of hockey players. don't need two" . Although they were posted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHL players A, I was not given an opportunity to state some reasons as to why they should be kept, such as (briefly):

• They follow Wikipedia:List guideline
• They can be cleaned up. We can remove the external spam links, but add some dates and stats to each entry.
• There are other similar list pages thay list sports players in alphabetical order such as List of retired American football players, List of Major League Baseball players, List of National Basketball Association players, List of English footballers, List of footballers (Rugby Union), etc.
• In fact, there are many, many other lists of people on Wikipedia that are just lists of names in alphabetical order.

Because of these reasons, there is really no basis for speedy deletion -- they were out of process Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, bring the lists back. They were the best way of keeping tabs on hockey player articles so that duplicate articles weren't created and so that disambigs are easier. Masterhatch 07:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Bring them back! This is not link-farming or spamming. Although it's not always 100% accurate, as far as being a simple and comprehensive directory of statistics Hockeydb is the best site I've seen. Criticizing them for having advertisements is absurd -- apart from Wikipedia, almost every other site on the web does too! And like Masterhatch said, the list itself was invaluable for keeping track of NHL player articles. — GT 09:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:EL. Internal links are fine, and an external link to Hockeydb on each individual article is fine, too, but the point of WP lists is not to link to external articles on each of a number of related subjects, and the removal of external links from list articles is very common practice supported by policy and guidelines. As far as the lists themselves are concerned, they would be worth having if there are many redlinks, otherwise I can't see what this adds to a (self-maintaining) category. Just zis Guy you know? 10:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My recollection is that the majority of players who played before last decade do not have articles. That's why these pages were so useful -- you could browse them and see if a player you recognized didn't yet have an article. The nice thing about having the Hockeydb links right there was that you could instantly see the "story" behind each red-linked player as represented by his career statistics (which often tells you as much as you care to know about him). As far as not obeying WP:EL, I disagree as the point of the page was to be a list of players, and the external links served a secondary purpose. — GT 16:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, having the external link right beside each player helped keep people from adding their own name as a vanity article. hockeydb.com is, as far as i know, the most complete list of hockey players and their stats on the net and it because really easy to see if an added name is a vanity article or a real player. Masterhatch 17:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So why not make an infobox template with a parameter for the hockeydb entry? A Wikipedia list with external links (first!) and predominantly redlinks for the internal links is practically begging for deletion. External links are for references in articles. Just zis Guy you know? 19:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What's taking so long to get A through G back? Masterhatch 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I put everything back. Another admin deleted them again. Go talk to him. pschemp | talk 17:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Tagged as A3: article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections); deleted as such (i.e. in-process, as this is a valid speedy criterion). I didn't see any evidence that the deleting admin was aware of this debate.

• I have reopened the AfD and restored the deleted ones, as valid but contested speedy deletions. These are bare lists of links. The list of mainly redlinks may serve a purpose; perhaps it would be better to have these in Project space as part of a wikiproject's work list? Bare lists with no other data are an abomination unto Nuggan and should be shunned into oblivion; if dates and other encyclopaedic information are added then these are defensible (without, obviously, the external links). I have removed the external links to make this less like a mirror of HockeyDB with one or two Wikipedia articles added Just zis Guy you know? 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

05 June 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it or delete it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 19:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja

With respect to the Original Undelete request by me, I have composed the following article in my userspace which meets (as far as I can tell) the requirements of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:Notability, etc.

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja (Userspace draft)

I, do,once again, request request undeletion per original request:

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja, undelete request by PHDrillSergeant. This web comic has grown in poularity since the last time it was deleted through AFD, and although the site's archive has 'only three entries', each of those entries has about 20-40 pages, which adds up to over 100 pages total including the current storyline. This comic is extremely funny and is important, especially one who wishes to know more about this odd character and his adventures. I think this comic should get another chance. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 23:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 21:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Is there any evidence that it has grown significantly in popularity? The Alexa rating is five digits, and a quick scan of Google turns up lots of self- and friend-promotion, but not much analysis or commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question Has there been any stories, interviews, or other coverage in mainstream or semi-mainstream press (not counting simple lists of webcomics)? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• What has changed since deletion? As noted above, the fundamental problem was a lack of evident encyclopaedic notability. Just zis Guy you know? 10:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
    • The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
      • WebComicList (a non-trivial published site that is independent of the site itself) has its own article, stated in the external links section. The web comic has ablso been the subject of debate on multiple community-based forums, such as eBaum's World Forums, SNAFU Comics Forums, and VG Cats Forums. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 17:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
        • That article on WebComicList is one sentence, as part of a list of webcomics. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, then, since this is a single trivial reference rather than multiple non-trivial references. We have no deadline to meet, we can afford to wait until it is genuinely notable and has atracted enough external attention to allow a verifiably neutral article to be written. Just zis Guy you know? 16:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Categorical undelete. This article has had very poor defense in the past. I did not see it mentioned that Dr. McNinja is a member of Dayfree Press, a very well-known collective in the webcomics community and therefore a peer to heavyweights such as Questionable Content and Dinosaur Comics. It has been brought up on the talk page that extreme bias has been built up against this article because of its rocky faring in the past. I would point out that there is no shame in accepting it now -- it does not undermine Wikipedia or any of the users who have criticized it; rather, it is a testament to our sometimes rigorous standards. It is now due time to recognize this professional-level webcomic, as anyone vaguely familiar with this online community must know of its near meteoric rise. Let's not be reactionary or snobbish; much lesser topics have their due recognition already. --BDD 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I was unaware that this comic was under Dayfree Press, yet this information seems to strengthen my resolve even more. Remember: if you can read it, if you can comprehend it, if you can learn from it...it isn't trivial. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 22:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I seem to remember (though I can't find the proper documentation, and it's possible that this was changed) a policy that members of the most prominent webcomic collectives merited articles. It's a sound policy. --BDD 00:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I'm the one who locked McNinja down as a {{deletedpage}}, but I agree with BDD. We may want to table this until the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards come out next month. I think there's a good chance McNinja will win one, and if it does, there won't be any question it will have met WP:WEB. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: I havn't read much of it, but I have seen references to it in other webcomics such as Bunny [1]. Also undelete per Abe. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Definitely notable per talk of deleted page.--Eloquence* 11:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Cory kennedy

My article on Cory kennedy was deleted via speedy deletion. I think this was a wrong move. Cory Kennedy is a becoming a huge internet phenenomenon. She has found a cult following on myspace, livejournal, and the cobra snake - as well as a place in current pop culture. This is the digital age. People are going to be looking her up. There is no reason for this article to have been deleted. This site should provide the most information possible - even about "internet celebrities." In fact, internet phenenomenons are particularly relevent on wikipedia because this IS the internet! I am requesting that this article be placed back up. I put in quite a bit of useful, accurate information about a person who is becoming very well known on the internet. Cory was also recently featured in Nylon magazine. Please review this. ~user:sleepyasthesouth

• Endorse speedy - As the deleting admin, it looked to be a nn-bio. The references were not reliable sources (blogs and livejournal). I deleted it first on a csd placed by another editor, then as a recreation (sleepyasthesouth recreated it including the notability and csd tags) and salted the earth. Syrthiss 12:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per Syrthiss. From the speedy tag: "it is an article about a person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)" There is no evidence that The Cobra Snake is itself a notable website, or that the parties she attends are notable, so all the more there cannot be evidence that she is notable for being on The Cobra Snake or for attending parties. Johnleemk | Talk 12:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• ADD-ON : I now understand why is was deleted. However, Isn't Cory Kennedy notable for suddenly having so many "fans" and finding herself all over the internet so quickly? What would qualify as a notable source? Would her feature in Nylon magazine qualify? Even if the information in the wikipedia article did not contain more than what is provided in the Nylon article? ~user:sleepyasthesouth
• Undelete and list on AfD As a contested speedy and the presence in Nylon constitutes a minimal claim to notability. JoshuaZ 16:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse / keep deleted As far as "internet phenomenon" qualifications go, I get 207 unique Google hits and the vast majority of those seem to be about other people by that name, among them a male bodybuilder, a soccer player, a congressional staff member, and a volleyball player. If she's an internet phenomenon, the internet doesn't really seem to be aware of that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Cory has only recently exploded on the internet over the past few weeks and it has been almost entirely on myspace, blogs and livejournal - places that will not really end up in google. A community was made for her on livejournal and in just over a week there are already over 200 members.
    However, if that's the final word - fine. I imagine soon she'll be on the site because her popularity seems to be only increasing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.205.176 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Above comment is misinformed. Those sites are very heavily indexed by google. Fan1967 18:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • comment A lot of absolute bullshit is heavily indexed by google, too. Being indexed by google doesn't make something a reliable source. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment I'm aware of that. However, the anon was trying to argue there was more attention being paid to this person in myspace and such sites that google wouldn't pick up. Google picks up pretty much everything there, so there's no hidden trove of notability. Fan1967 20:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, I typed that early this morning, apparently before things started to make sense. Reading it now, yes, you're right. I agree that if google can't see you; you aren't much of an internet phenomenon.
• Endorse deletion, quite blatantly there are no reliable sources for this. And 'contested speedy' is not a reason to restore (unlike contested PROD). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Well, I think the article definitely should have been deleted, however, I do not believe that it met the deliberately narrow speedy deletion criteria. I believe quite strongly that Sam is incorrect. A speedy-deletion that is contested in good faith is to be immediately restored and listed to AFD. That was a requirement set up when the speedy-deletion process was first established. Much as I hate to be a process wonk, we have to keep our own process creep under control. Overturn speedy and list to AFD. Being unsourced may be a deletion criteria but it is not a speedy-deletion criterion. Rossami (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you mind telling me where it says that contested speedy deletions get automatically sent to AfD, Rossami? Because I've never heard that, there's nothing in any of the obvious places saying that (e.g. next to the section on contested WP:PRODs on this very page), and if it ever was true, the widespread acceptance of WP:SNOW appears to contradict it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:CSD:A7 says "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead.". Also WP:SNOW has the text "If an issue raises no controversy, and ...", and therefor can't be used in disputed or controversial cases. --Rob 23:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Though I think that practically, the bar for 'disputed' there is significantly higher than for PRODs. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Widespread acceptance? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. There's no sourced claim of notability. Hence, CSD A7. The recourse for contested speedy deletions is this page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Valid speedy A7, and stands no chance whatsoever at AfD Just zis Guy you know? 21:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You can see the future here? WP:SNOW is never appropriate, specifically in a discussion about a speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yup, I can see the future fairly accurately here. Articles on vapid pseudo-celebrities with no objective claim to notability get daleted almost without exception. Most likely it would be tagged and speedied as A7 almost immediately it was listed. Somewhere I have a postcard with a picture of Michael Fish and the caption"I Predict The Future: Weatherman's Amazing Claim"... Just zis Guy you know? 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion sort of reluctantly. Rossami and Thieverr are quite right that this wasn't a good choice for speedy deletion, and for a dozen reasons it's better to err on the side of AfD - worst thing that happens is someone speedies it from there anyway. But... I dunno. These darn internet meme and internet meme wannabe articles are such pains, because there tends to be a crowd willing to stonewall against policy on them every time, and then we end up back at DRV. It would never be kept by a proper AfD, but it probably won't ever see one either, so it's best to keep it dead once it's dead. If the girl actually sticks around, there'll be media, and you can rewrite the article about her then. Does it really hurt that much if the interweb's flavor of the month doesn't automatically get a Wikipedia article? There's something to be said for standards. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per others and per WP:SNOW.
• Endorse deletion: Websites generate huge numbers for anything and everything, but it would be very wrong to call these numbers "fans." Further, it's all about the effect on the recorded world, the verifiable world. Anything that vanishes when the power goes out is less reliable than anything that needs a flood to destroy it. Geogre 13:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics

User:Thebainer requested me to file this request below. The article has been speedied, because User:Rgulerdem allegedly edited it after he was indefinitely banned. Even if that allegation is correct, WP:CSD G5 only allows pages to be speedied, if they were created by banned users while they were banned. Irregular edits can easily be reverted instead. Raphael1 12:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Pointless rulelawyering is the only reason given to undelete, and does not address the original reason this page was tagged with the speedy tag: "rejected 'policy'. This page has become a permanently banned user magnet, please review history." (Oh, and did anyone mention that essentially the same page already exists at Wikipedia:Wikiethics?) Johnleemk | Talk 12:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know of any policy, which prohibits to copy a rejected policy to user space. Any why do you care so much, whether permanently banned users edit on a user space page? Would you rather want them to edit Wikipedia:Wikiethics? Raphael1 13:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Because userpages don't belong to users. Johnleemk | Talk 13:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • That's a non sequitur. I've never stated, that User:Rgulerdem or myself owned that page. Raphael1 13:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, a permanently banned user coming back to edit on a page in the previous user space accorded him is bad. This is not an allegation but indeed was what occurred as User:Rgulerdem again used an IP address or two that started with 216. which was previously reported on the RFCU confirming his sockpuppetry and left editorial commentary corresponding to his use of IP addresses as he returned to edit. Better that the page be kept deleted to discourage the return of the banned editor. Netscott 13:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question - what's the actual argument for this page's existence? Does it help bulid the encyclopedia? -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This page has been created to work on the prematurely polled proposal (5 days after the first draft has been created). Its location in user space has been suggested by User:Johntex to avoid controversy with opposing parties.[2] Raphael1 13:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well now that User:Rgulerdem is banned, the logic necessitating his usage of a subpage is no longer applicable. Regardless, he did come back via an anon IP address to edit on it and that's reason enough alone to delete it and keep it deleted. Netscott 14:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • As you know, I'd like to take over Rgulerdems work. What's your problem with that? Raphael1 16:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • My problem is that you are setting yourself up to act as a proxy to edit for a banned editor. This is bad. Netscott 17:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Netscott, at this point, how do you distinguish Raphael1's own ideas from ideas that are a banned editor's by proxy? Can nobody ever propose a similar policy, now that whatsisname is banned? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
            • GTBacchus, thank you for expressing your concerns. I have one question. Have you been following the discussion occurring on the Wikipedia mailing-list WikiEn-I? If you had you would instantly know that User:Raphael1 is acting as a proxy for User:Rgulerdem (particularly when Raphael1 started Resid Gulerdem's now G5 speedy deleted WP:OURS proposal). That is why I have proxy concerns. Banned editors should not have proxies working on their behalf, or am I wrong in making that statement? Netscott 20:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
              • I haven't been following WikiEn-I. I've never actually figured out how to subscribe to that. Nevertheless, I was pretty much aware that Raphael was trying to run with Rgulerdem's ideas. I guess what you're telling me is that there's no question that Raphael isn't acting based on his own initiative at all, but just acting for Rgulerdem, end of story. I don't know how you know that, but I'm willing to take your word for it. I also confess to not really getting what they're driving at with this proposed policy, but I guess it's neither here nor there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am Sam, Sam I am.

I do not like this censor sham.

Keep deleted in user space.

Keep deleted in any place.

Keep deleted from the socks.

Keep deleted says userbox.

Keep deleted here or there,

Keep deleted anywhere. --Dr. Blanning 16:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious. Kotepho 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Unsure why do we need a copy of this in User: and Wikipedia:? why is this so harmful or worthless that it must be deleted? Kotepho 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • May I congratulate you on your instincts? You've definitely asked the right question: "Why is this so harmful or worthless that it must be deleted?" Nobody here will be able to answer that question, because it's neither harmful nor is it worthless (at least not any more worthless, than most other stuff lying around in user space). Raphael1 02:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Sam I Am. --Cyde↔Weys 20:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. How many copies of a comprehensively rejected proposal do we need? Just zis Guy you know? 21:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment What exactly did the proposal contain in the first place? Even if it's already been voted down, couldn't it be kept and tagged as a rejected proposal or some such? --tjstrf 02:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Isn't that at Wikipedia:Wikiethics already? --Rory096 06:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and stop flogging a dead horse. Metamagician3000 06:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Nuke from orbit. Raphael has been openly communicating with a banned user on wikipedia-en-l to continue said banned editors interests. Shell babelfish 14:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, we don't need a banned user's disruptive attempt at policy-making resurrected in anybody's userspace. —Stormie 21:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Rgulerdem forfeited his user space when he got himself blocked. Many people warned him to stop wasting other people's time pushing this proposal. Rhobite 21:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Banned user. Unwelcome. Big Blue Marble 01:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

04 June 2006

List of midnight movies

This article was tagged for speedy deletion as "patent nonsense," which I felt was unjustified. I placed a "hangon" tag on the article, and stated my reasoning on the article's talk page. I was going to list it on AfD and propose that it be merged with the main Midnight Movies article. I never got the opportunity to do so, however, since the article was, and I think rather precipitously, deleted. I propose, therefore, that the speedy deletion be reversed, the article be listed on AfD and suggest it's merger as stated above. ---Charles 03:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• The article was tagged for speedy deletion with that reason. I agree that it was not patent nonsense in the very specific and narrow way that we use the term here on Wikipedia. It the actual reason given for the deletion, however, was "WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information". Unfortunately, that is not an accepted criteria for speedy-deletion. I see little redeeming value to this list but as a procedural matter, it should have been AFD'd, not speedy-deleted. Rossami (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, undelete and send to AfD. No legitimate speedy reason given. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undeleted without prejudice, if someone wants to send this to AFD they can (obviously). --Cyde↔Weys 13:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• I have carried out a rough merger and redirect, which seems the best fate for the list's content. Xoloz 23:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yar

I would appreciate opinions/education on the deletion of Yar. I understand the Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, it would seem that certain concepts, which may be expressed in a single word, have some merit to their explanation. For a very similar use-case, see Gemütlichkeit. Thanks. --Incarnate

• Endorse deletion. Certainly, there is merit to there explanation of a word. That's what a dictionary is for. There was nothing in any version of this page that even attempted to be more than a definition. Please try creating it at Wiktionary.
  I'll note, however, that this particular word doesn't actually appear in any dictionary I could quickly put my hands on. (Merriam Webster had an entry as a variant spelling of "yare" but the definition given has nothing to do with any of the definitions on the deleted page.) Be prepared to offer some verifiable sources for the alleged definitions when you do so. Rossami (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks much for the clarification. I was uncertain of where the line might exist between the definition of a "word" and the definition of a "concept" (ie, definition of the word "cottage" versus a cottage) Additionally, the original article was based on my own experience, which is probably a better reason for deletion per the standards of articles (which I do support). Formal definitions are virtually nonexistent, only cropping up occasionally in film or TV as a truncated reference to boating. I'll give up and leave it be, thanks again for the appraisal. Incarnate 03:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, if you take it to Wiktionary be sure to give some evidence of attestation. One mention in The Simpsons does not make a valid yachting term. Maybe it's US-specific and that's why I have never heard it (I have many yachting friends including one who recently returned from sailing run d the world and another who teaches yachtmasters but they are all British). Just zis Guy you know? 08:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, with no prejudice against recreation if it can be made into something more than a dicdef. Apparently there is a real nautical term to be found under all the noise (see [3] and [4]) — however, that in itself makes it eligible for Wiktionary, not for Wikipedia. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. Dicdef. It's a real nautical word (may be spelled yar or yare), figures heavily in a section of dialog from The Philadelphia Story ([5]), but there's not much else to say about it. Fan1967 15:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• I've been bold and recreated this as a redirect to Tasha Yar, Denise Crosby's infamous Star Trek: The Next Generation character. Xoloz 18:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The Skin of Evil would be proud! Syrthiss 19:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

AK Productions

AK Productions was deleted suddenly and for know told reason. I believe that AK Productions should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia, sure it is a young company but still exists. I would like the article to be restored or for a reason to be given for it's overnight deletion. Comrade_Kale 2:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Mere existence is insufficient reason to justify a Wikipedia article. There appear to be a number of companies out there by that name. Which one is yours? Fan1967 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid A7. --Rory096 20:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• The opening sentence of this page read "AK Productions, is a recently created Production Company operating out of Waterville High School in New York State. Founded by Kale Carter, Brendan Carter, Olin Carlsen and Andrew Desimone in late May of 2006". It probably did not fit the deliberately narrow speedy-deletion criteria but if it had gone to AFD, it would have been measured against the standards of WP:CORP. From the information available, I don't see any chance that it would have succeeded in that discussion. I can not endorse the speedy-deletion but neither can I support it's undeletion without at least a little bit of evidence that this is appropriate to the encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• In other words, when I asked which of the many googleable "AK Productions" this was, the answer is "None of them". Endorse Deletion. Fan1967 22:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: We get a ton of buddy articles from youngsters. Simply put, they need to be real before they can even go to AfD, IMO. If something is just three kids announcing that they are now a corporation (or rock band, or rap group, or game faction, or gang), then it's true A7. The kick is the "formed in 2006" and "recently." We need to have things generate effects on the world before anyone will need them explained. Geogre 13:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AK Productions, is a recently created Production Company operating out of Waterville High School in New York State. And the article was created and edited solely by the people named in the article. A textbook case of WP:NFT. Just zis Guy you know? 15:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together

FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together was deleted as not notable. I think it is notable, given the press coverage listed under "References" and the people behind it, and I would like the article to be restored. TruthbringerToronto 11:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete; seems to be notable (albeit with less than 1000 google hits). — JEREMY 15:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't find an AfD on this one. The AfD article that exists (here) was just created by TruthbringerToronto as a mistaken attempt to launch the DRV. How was it originally deleted? Fan1967 16:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and AFD as a contested A7 speedy deletion. --Allen3 ^talk 17:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist if it was a contested speedy, though I'm inclined to suspect there will still be a consensus to delete. (Google cache of article is here). Fan1967 17:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Speedy deletion is not prod, you can't just contest it and force it to AfD. This has 11 Google hits. Most of those "articles" are on the group's site! --Rory096 20:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I get about 700 by looking for variations, which IMO gets over speediable territory, but probably still fails AFD consensus. Fan1967 21:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Doubtful that's more than A7, I get that many hits (and I was speedied, and quite justifiably so). --Rory096 21:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, speedy-deletion is exactly like prod in that regard. By policy and long tradition, any speedy-deletion which is contested in good faith is immediately undeleted and listed on AFD. That was one of the requirements set up when the speedy-deletion process was first approved. Rossami (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmm, so why do we even have things like {{hangon}}? --Rory096 06:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• AfD it due to possible WP:V violation as well as a name that doesn't follow naming converntions. Likely an article by an inexperienced or new user due to the use of an abrreviation in the title, which gives an idea of the quality. I can't say without reading it, so relaunch it for afd.-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 01:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Notable cause which deserves as much support as possible. Karnei 18:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So is it notable, or does it deserve support? If just the latter, that's not a valid reason to undelete. If the former, how is it notable? --Rory096 06:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

List of tongue-twisters

I listed the article for deletion on 17 April. The consensus was to either keep, or move to Wikibooks. The article was transwikied on 29 May by User:theProject, and subsequently deleted by User:Tijuana Brass. However, it was proclaimed unsuitable for Wikibooks and deleted from there by b:User:Jguk. As the alternative to transwiki was keep, and transwikiing failed, we should restore it. Rain74 11:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Since it's on Wikiquote now, keep deleted (I hope they'll accept it). Rain74 18:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Reinstate and relist. I will vote delete on AfD. Just zis Guy you know? 12:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  Keep deleted since it's at Wikiquote now, which seems like a much better place. Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Reinstate and relist - makes sense in the circs. keep deleted given the new information available Metamagician3000 12:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Suggestion why not move it to the Department of Fun? Sophia 12:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted no point in duplicating as it's at Wikiquote now. Sophia 05:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, the afd was pretty clear that this should be kept somewhere. After undeletion transwiki discussions should continue. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Changed to endorse.
  • • Endorse deletion as this has been transwiki'd in line with the AFD. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It has been. Please check the Transwiki log more carefully. Also, just because one wiki doesn't want it doesn't mean we must keep it. -Splash - tk 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Posting the result of the transwiki log was helpful here, implying that I was required to search that backloged page is not helpful, I assumed good faith in the nominator. Just because one wiki doesn't want it certainly doesn't mean we should give it safe haven, but the afd was clear that it should be transwikid or kept, not transwiki'd or deleted. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete don't know why it was deleted in the first place, because it was one of the better lists on Wikipedia. Promote to featured after undeletion.  Grue  12:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist: I'd prefer that conjunctive votes get clear on the matter. Yes, it will probably be kept, but I should like AfD to speak clearly. Geogre 13:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted in light of information that the thing was transwiki'd. If there has been a transwiki, then this is a no-brainer (and pretty much an invalid review), as duplicate material is forbidden. If the authors don't want it on Wikiquote, then that's sort of too bad, as authors are no more priviledged than readers at Wikipedia. Geogre 22:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It did. It was transwikied, rejected at it's target, and now transwiki'd elsewhere. -Splash - tk 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Splash. I took the deletion summary and his comment on WT:DRV too literally and did not realize it was already moved to Wikiquote. Kotepho 21:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Undelete/Transwiki to wikiquote, this is just silly. Kotepho 19:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• No, no, no. People should do there research first. It's been transwiki'd to Wikiquote. See q:Transwiki:List of tongue-twisters. Wikipedia didn't want it, and neither did Wikibooks. That is no reason to restore it here. You don't get some kind of free pass into Wikipedia just because noone else wants it! Anyway, it's been transwiki'd elsewhere. That's all that's needed. -Splash - tk 20:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme keep deleted. Just because wikibooks doesn't want something doesn't mean we have to keep it. And I totally agree with Splash. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Splash. The AfD debate did show a strong consensus that the content be kept somewhere, but now that it's on Wikiquote, there's no reason to keep it here. (I've notified all the people who voted before Splash's comment and asked them to revise or confirm their vote in light of it. Sorry for the spam.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems my spamming was actually redundant. Doubly sorry. *embarrassed* —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Helped me, actually, as I was crossing this one off my internal list. Geogre 03:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, as the desired outcome (keeping the content elsewhere) has been reached. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the VfD in question has a consensus to keep. Most users voted for keep as a primary solution and transwiki as a secondary. The VfD was closed inproperly. There were no delete votes. The decision should be overturned.  Grue  09:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, my closure did use a modicum of discretion, but isn't it a leap to improper? Kotepho 20:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Your closure was valid, in my book: more than one person pointed out that the list is inherently unverifiable (i.e. unsuitable for Wikipedia) and most offered Transwiki as a valid outcome, which it seems to me to be. Status quo appears to be reasonable. Just zis Guy you know? 15:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• undelete, but remove the non-English tongue twisters and have interwiki links to the other languages for their tongue twisters. Masterhatch 18:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Raphael1/Wikiethics

This page got deleted for the following reason: "can't have copy & paste moves of deleted pages - GFDL requires the history"

I've copied the page from User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics (before it was removed) and pasted it to User:Raphael1/Wikiethics. I didn't know how I could have copied the history of this article as well and certainly didn't want to violate GFDL. Please restore that page together with the history of User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics to make it compliant with GFDL. Raphael1 00:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse. Anyway, Rgulerdem is banned, and it was a fair deletion that time. Will (^E_@) T 01:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It was removed, because it has been in the userspace of an indef-banned user. I am not banned, therefore User:Raphael1/Wikiethics can't be removed for the same reason. Raphael1 01:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It's CSD G4 and possibly G5 Will (^E_@) T 01:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • It's neither G4, because it hasn't been recreated, instead it has been copied before deletion (besides G4 doesn't apply for user space pages), nor is it G5 (because I'm not banned). Raphael1 01:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
        • It's a recreation. The G4 exception for user space is supposed to be for articles undeleted at a user's request, not for recreation of deleted content that was originally in the user namespace. Will (^E_@) T 01:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
          • It's not a recreation. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics has been removed on the 2006-05-31 and I've copied the page before that date. BTW please restore User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics as well since G5 only applies for pages created by banned users while they were banned. Raphael1 01:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. This "policy" has been the source of highly contentious and disruptive editing and User:Raphael1's user page is just an unecessary copy of the rejected Wikipedia:Wikiethics that is likely to do the same as User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics which is to encourage banned editors to use sockpuppets or anonymous IPs to circumvent their block to edit on Wikipedia. Netscott 09:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Whether you deem my copy to be "unnecessary" is certainly no part of WP:CSD. Furthermore did User:Raphael1/Wikiethics with no syllable encourage banned editors to circumvent their block. I wonder, where you got that from? Raphael1 14:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well this MfD for User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics is what relates to my mentioning banned and sockpuppet users. I'm curious Raphael1, why did you actually save a copy of permanently banned user User:Rgulerdem's page? I understand that as Wikipedia editors we are to assume good faith in the editing of our fellow contributors but was the reason you saved a copy because you noticed that as a banned editor Resid Gulerdem was editing on it and figured that it'd be deleted and to disrupt that process you decided to save a copy? It seems so odd to me that you should have just happened to save a copy of his user page version just prior to its deletion. Netscott 19:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: the article itself isn't banned, just one of the originating editors. Netscott, why is it a problem for Raphael1 to have a userspace copy (I assume a developmental version, like User:Jeremygbyrne/Roger Elwood or User:Jeremygbyrne/Brontosaurus) of an article? — JEREMY 15:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note - this vote was gained through advertisement.[6]Timothy Usher 17:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Jeremy, it's all a question of good faith. I didn't request deletion or even mention the existence of Raphael1's user page copy of permanently banned User:Rgulerdem's user page to anyone (despite misgivings about seeing him copy it just prior to its deletion) but someone else from the WikiEn-I mailing list appears to have seen mention of it by Raphael1 there and decided independently to delete it. Now that the act is done I support it for the reasons I expressed above. I would recommend the both of you to disassociate yourselves from Resid Gulerdem for anyone editing in support of him is likely to have his or her own reputation tarnished as he was not only disruptive here but in a completely independent fashion was repeatedly disruptive and blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia. Resid Gulerdem is just bad for Wikipedia. Netscott 19:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't understand your "good faith" argument. It's obvious that most material which is about to be deleted will continue to exist elsewhere — in google's cache for example. Raphael1 could have taken a copy of the article offsite and done to it whatever he chose, in the privacy of his own home. Instead, he chose to keep it on wikipedia (which looks like good faith to me), and he has suffered for it. Next time, do you think he will be more or less inclined to act in secrecy? — JEREMY 10:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • The preceding user's comments were solicited through targetted advertisement[7].Timothy Usher 10:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • No need to persist with your well-poisoning, Timothy. Most people understood your accusation the first time. — JEREMY 10:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
            • I did understand User:Timothy Usher's statement of fact the first time and also saw it as an attempt by User:Raphael1 to "game the system", but do agree that it's a bit silly to repeat such a statement. ;-) Netscott 11:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Suffered? Where's the suffering? The only ones suffereing are those having to spend time dealing with this nonsense. Let's face it Jeremy, Raphael1's actions were to thwart in a disruptive fashion the virtually assured deletion of Resid Gulerdem's user page. Is that not so difficult to understand? Regardless as bainer's comment below illustrates, Raphael1 shouldn't be trying to resurrect his own copy of Resid Gulerdem's final version of "Wikiethics" but in fact should be trying to resurrect Resid Gulerdem's (rightly imho) deleted user page. Netscott 10:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Raphael1's actions were to thwart in a disruptive fashion And you foresaw this via which divinatory or telepathic methodology, exactly? It would seem far more likely that Raphael1 took a copy to preserve relevant material for a future proposal. Your refusal to assume good faith (or at least not to assume the first bad faith interpretation that springs to mind) is troubling. This is yet another example of flawed rules-lawyering supported by the tyranny of the majority. Raphael1's editing may frustrate some people, but the way he has been treated is disgraceful. — JEREMY 11:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
              • The plea to "rules lawyering" is rather lame, can't you do better than use that argumentation device? Honestly, Raphael1 like myself and User:Metros232 saw that the permanently banned editor User:Rgulerdem was editing via IP addresses on his failed Wikiethics proposal and realized (again rightly so) that it was likely to be deleted because of that and to thwart such a deletion he saved a copy. Raphael1 wasn't involved in editing on that policy since it was last worked on over at Wikipedia:Wikiethics. Does it not strike either of you as foolish to be here wasting our time discussing the saving of a policy that was founded by a demonstrably disruptive editor? It's as if you're here trying to defend a banned user's right to continue to make policy on Wikipedia even when he's blocked. The only reason I can see for this is because "it's a cause!". You know if Resid Gulerdem had only been blocked on the English Wikipedia I might understand better those wanting to defend him and his ridiculous policy but the fact that he's been independently repetitively blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia makes me sooner see such individuals as foolish. Netscott 11:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
                • Firstly I have not seen User:Rgulerdem editing on User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics via IP addresses, and secondly I have been editing User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics before it was removed. Raphael1 12:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
                  • Raphael1, why did you think his user page was going to be deleted then? If the user page had just sat there no one's attention would have been brought to it, but this is not what occurred. Netscott 12:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
                    • Don't you first want to apologize for your wrong claims before you ask any further questions? Raphael1 13:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
                      • No, due to my witnessing your previous demonstrations of a lack of good faith I'm inclined to view this as another example of the same. Netscott 14:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse~. Per Netscott's above comments -- Karl Meier 17:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Netscott.Timothy Usher 17:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Wikipedia:Wikiethics still exists if you want to go edit that. What you did by copy and pasting it into your own user space was done only to get around the fact that it was about to be deleted it. That is, in an ironic way, unethical. I also frown up the nominating user for the advertising of this discussion [8], [9], [10], etc. 6 advertisements in total. Metros232 17:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I've got no supernatural skill to see the future. How could I have acted upon a "fact", which still lied ahead? Raphael1 17:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Why did you copy and paste it to yours then? If you didn't think it was going to be deleted, why did you need a copy of your own instead of just editing the one that existed at Rgulerdem's user page? Why did you think that two needed to exist? Metros232 17:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed I did suspect, that it might get deleted in the future, but I certainly didn't know about that. I still don't see, how it is in any way unethical to take over the work of an indef-banned user. Besides User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics shouldn't have been removed as well since G5 only applies for pages created by banned users while they were banned. Raphael1 19:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, copy of a previously rejected attempt at censorship. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted since this was proposed at Wikipedia:Wikiethics and solidly rejected I see no particular merit in keeping it hanging around in user space in a form which (at first glance) looks to be even less acceptable. Just zis Guy you know? 22:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not going to endorse or overturn my own deletion, though I will say to Raphael1 that if he wants the content, he needs to hold a DRV on the original page (User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics) because copy & pasted pages cannot possibly exist when the original page is deleted. --bainer (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've read through this deletion review, and what I'm missing is any argument for why this page should exist. Why maintain a copy of a rejected policy written by a banned user? How does it help write the encyclopedia? -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I wonder, why you even ask that question. Shouldn't you rather ask, why should that page be removed? Nevertheless I will answer your question: Rgulerdem and some other editors worked on this former prematurely rejected policy in userspace to avoid controversy with opposing parties. I'd like to continue Rgulerdems work, which is why I've created a copy. Raphael1 16:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I think it's pretty clear from reading this discussion that it's being removed because it's the work of a banned editor, and seems to be a sore spot for a lot of people. At that point, the ball's back in your court - if so many Wiki regulars are against it, what's so great about it to make it worth the static you incur by recreating it? I've asked a more pertinent question at your talk page. If your goal is to improve Wikipedia, a bad way to start is by pissing a bunch of people off by acting as proxy for a banned user, practically speaking. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I can't believe, that you are repeating Netscotts accusation ("proxy editing"). I consider this a personal attack, since it completely disregards my individuality. What's so bad about the work of this banned editor, that it needs to be removed? Will you remove Interfaith as well, because it's mostly his work? IMHO this whole agitation to delete User:Rgulerdems work and keep it deleted, is a clear sign, that Rgulerdem hasn't been blocked for his behaviour, but for the position he has taken on various topics. Raphael1 02:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

        I don't enter the conversation just assuming that Netscott is lying; why not trust that I'm taking his word in, whadyecallit... good faith? So you say you're not being his proxy. I don't have any evidence to say which of you is right. I know basically nothing about Rgulerdem. I still think you're running into a lot of static, and would probably try a different approach, if I were in your position, and if I were more interested in results than in drama. You choose your battles - is it more important to you to influence Wikipedia in a positive direction, or to do it using this particular guy's words? There's reasons to stand on principle, and there's reasons not to. You can probably cause a big scene, if you set your mind to it, but that'll poison the policy you're talking about in the community's eyes even more. Have you noticed some pretty stiff opposition to this policy? If I were you, I'd be sitting back from this DRV and trying to start some conversations about what's so incompatible between this proposal of yours and the current state of Wikipedia - you haven't replied to my post on your talk page where I'd love to have that conversation with you, if you're down to have it. Come on, don't knock your head against this wall, it won't move. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - I have done a little work on this proposal and having a record of it is helpful in case anyone decides to work on it in the future. Also, as a comment to the closing admin, despite insinuations to the contrary, advertising a deletion reveiw is not a violation of any policy. Johntex\^talk 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It violates the spam guidelines: "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view."Timothy Usher 23:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted once and for all. Metamagician3000 06:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, we don't need a banned user's disruptive attempt at policy-making resurrected in anybody's userspace. —Stormie 21:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Meatpuppet of a banned user. Unwelcome. Big Blue Marble 02:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

03 June 2006

Sydney Roosters Season articles

Three articles I created simultaneously, that being Roosters1908; SydneyRoosters1909; and SydneyRoosters1910 were deleted in the last few days. The Sydneyroosters1909 article held a debate for the deletion while I had only added little content to the page, the article was then up for deletion before I had done any updates. While the debate took place I continued doing the updates, as seen in the discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sydneyroosters1909

I have plead my case to show that there are updates coming and its justification of existence.

I had also created a fourth article, however this was later and I must add that I created the page before the others were deleted. The fourth article; Sydney Roosters 1911 Season was created and included the updates I had promised with the 3 previous articles.

However when this article was put to debate re: deletion, the general consensus so far has been to keep the article based on the argument brought forward by Athenaeum who states; 'Wikipedia is an almanac. It says so in the first sentence of Wikipedia:What is an article. This is verifiable real world information. It is not indiscrimate, and deleting it would do some harm and absolutely no good. Wikipedia is a free reference resource and this is mainstream reference material.'

Considering the 3 previous articles were exact replicas in structure to the Sydney Roosters 1911 Season only differing in factual content, I propose that if the outcome of the debate be to keep the Sydney Roosters 1911 Season that the 3 previous articles be restored as this argument brought forward by Athenaeum was not put forward re: the debate of the other 3 articles.Sbryce858 07:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and relist at the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Roosters 1911 Season, where consensus now appears to favor keeping that sort of content. This will ensure a more-or-less coherent decision. Sandstein 22:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist - perhaps it was closed properly, but this is very likely good encyclopedic content. The team concerned has long been a major force in the NSW league. Let's see how it goes this time. Metamagician3000 09:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User:AKMask/log

April Fools Day this year included a minor invasion of the GNAA IRC chat by members of wikipedia crapflooding with very informative information about Keynesian economics. Deleted with the note of Privacy Violation. Note the GNAA has no rules against logging the chats, and infact encourages their members, which granted we are not, to do so. There was no privacy violation. I humbly request it to be undeleted.Edit:Also to note, it was linked to off the BJAODN page for the April fools day section. -M^ask 09:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm... I think you got the name wrong. There's no deleted content at the pagename you provided. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So I did, fixed now (dang capital letter) -M^ask 09:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak undelete If there are no privacy violation issues here; that is, if the GNAA chat does not hold a policy against public logging, then I could care less. I mean, the log's pure nonsense and a waste of server space (I'm quietly for deleting BJAODN altogether), but whatever. Let him have his log. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted conditionally - only if it can be verified there is no rule against public posting of logs, then undelete. NSLE _(T+C) at 09:47 UTC (2006-06-03)
• Keep deleted: Who cares if GNAA has a rule? It's Freenode that forbids reposting. The "authors" can't be verified and don't get to say. Geogre 12:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Last I checked #gnaa was juped on freenode, so I don't think the irc logs are from freenode. Kotepho 17:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The channel was not on Freenode. -M^ask 18:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and send to MFD if you want it deleted unless someone can show that it is from a network that prohibits public posting of logs (it certainly isn't the norm). Kotepho 17:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Someone should have checked with the page owner before speedying. --StuffOfInterest 18:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  No one owns any article on Wikipedia. --mboverload@ 19:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Amazingly, I agree with Geogre. This hardly ever happens. Except when there is a Y in the day name. Just zis Guy you know? 23:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, aside from the privacy concerns, Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, not the repository for inane crap. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Christopher Parham. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete If want deleted should go to MfD, and is imo, within the bounds of what we allow people to put in their userspace(and I'm under the impression that there is no privacy issue in this case). JoshuaZ 16:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. How is this not a privacy invasion? Metamagician3000 12:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Male Unbifurcated Garment

Regarding "Male Unbifurcated Garment", (the article should have been named "Male unbifurcated garments") which was deleted after this AFD, and the subsequent deletion review. I closed the AfD as delete (a decision that I believe reflected the AfD consensus), and for which someone started a silly RFC against me. I believe the AfD and DRV discussions were unneccesarily perturbed by personal opinions (especially by those supporting the article). While editing Men's fashion freedom (which is propaganda for a non-notable movement, and should be deleted), I searched for Male unbifurcated garments and found that this is the most common term used to refer collectively to kilts, caftans, lungis, tupenus, dashikis, hakamas etc, for men. I think the reason why consensus was to delete the article is because it was being used by proponents of "Men's fashion freedom" to popularize their cause, and that those who "voted" against intended to deprive them of using wikipedia for propaganda – meanwhile, useful encyclopedic information went lost. I cannot safely revive this article (even if severely rewritten) without some consensus. I therefore request that the article be taken back to AfD. The previous AfD, after all, did have good arguments to keep, and the DRV was doomed from the beginning because of certain somewhat incivil artitudes. --Ezeu 17:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Requesting speedy close. Male unbifurcated garments has been created. --Ezeu 19:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Recreating deleted content at a different title merely makes it necessary to speedy-delete the recreated page. By the way, the manual of style says that articles should be created at the singular anyway. Rossami (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• This article was deleted after a deletion vote on the criteria that the term was not very popular but the phenomenon is very common. It was sent for a deltion review for undeletion where the deletion was not reverted. I propose renaming and redirecting of the article to a new name ("Man-Skirt") which was found by some participants in the votes to be more common. So vote Redirect for supporting the motion , that is to rename and redirect to Man-Skirt, and Keep Deleted for opposing the motion that is to keep the article deleted.

Unitedroad 08:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I does not matter to me. MUGs, Manskirts, man's skirts, male skirts, whatever. This needs to be mentioned somewhere. Just as I suspected (and the reason why I brought this here), it does not matter in which way one tries to create an article describing this particularity, it will be speedily deleted merely out of principle. --Ezeu 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• DRV is to question deletion process. AFD, community consensus, has agreed it should be deleted. Therefore, keep deleted. NSLE _(T+C) at 08:13 UTC (2006-06-03)
• Keep Deleted Didn't we just close a DRV on this? Fan1967 14:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: It's a tunic, and it's what everyone wore before pants -- "shirt" <-Anglo-Saxon "skirt" <-Old Norse, same garment. <shrug> No undeletion. Geogre 14:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted as there is no reason for resurrecting it under a NEW neologism. If there is material in it that is of value to merge elsewhere, ask an admin to give you a userification. There is no need for multiple DRVs that I can see. ++Lar: t/c 14:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and close this DRV - the last one ended less than two weeks ago. You can just write a new article under a new name if you want this to be on WP, there's no need to undelete this just to rename and rewrite it... - ulayiti (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Only 755 GHits? It's not just a neologism, it's a wikineologism. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 18:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Validly deleted in process, confirmed by deletion review. Article had no references at all. Sources meeting the reliable source guidelines have still not been cited, nor convincing evidence that the term is in widespread use. Nothing has changed significantly since the AfD or DRV. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The term has very limited currency outside the "male fashion freedom" community. Actually, virtually no currency outside of that community as far as I can tell, and I looked into it in some considerable detail. The current situation, where it is discussed in men's fashion freedom seems entirely sensible. I would support a protected redirect (protected because the proponents of the term are on a mission to promote it, as evidence prior debates). I would also take issue with it being the most widely used term: excluding kiltmen and WP yields something over 8000 ghits for "male unbifurcated garments", but repeating the search with "skirts for men" gets over 13k ghits. Even within the highly restricted locus of those seeking to discuss this topic (which is primarily Western, since they are normal in many countries) I see no compelling evidence that this is the most widely used term. Few if any of the mainstream articles on celebrities who briefly followed the fashion trend for skirts mention the term, it appears to be used solely in the context of the fashion freedom movement. Just zis Guy you know? 20:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete. Numerous print references, websites, and manufacturers confirm usage (as I have pointed out over and over). These references have nothing to do with the fashion freedom movement. --JJay 20:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed you did, in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Male_Unbifurcated_Garment. I checked your New York Times reference, Feuer, Alan (2004) "Do Real Men Wear Skirts? Try Disputing A 340-Pounder," and it checks out. Changing vote accordingly. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Except that what the article says, as far as I recall, is that the movement calls them that, not that they are widely called that. "male unbifurcated garment" (in quotes) still gets under 500 ghits, and there is still, despite the incessant protestations of its proponents, no evidence of its widespread mainstream use, still less that this is the usual term for these garments. Just zis Guy you know? 21:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      • ... and "male unbifurcated garments" gets 8,540 ghits. --Ezeu 21:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
        • If you click through the first few pages of these results, Google discards nearly all of them as "very similar", leaving only 42. FreplySpang 05:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
        • You also find that a good many trace back to the top hit, the kiltmen community. Which appears to be where it originated, and where the advocates come from. Most of those hits are forum posts anyway. Despite all the arm-waving, thew advocates of this term have yet to provide a single credible reference showing that this is the generally used term to describe these garments, or giving any significant usage outside of the small men's fashion freedom community in which context we have pretty much its sole mention in the mainstream press. One article saying that this group uses the term is not really enough, in my view. Just zis Guy you know? 13:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, yeah... I guess I'm just a softie for anything that cites good, verifiable sources. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, undelete, and relist on AfD. Or, those interested can create a new article under this title that cites sources, presents a more neutral, less promotional point of view, and does not read like a personal essay. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy close, we don't need to keep discussing this ad nauseum. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, no process violation apparent, the new references are not really convincing of the notability of this term. Incidentally, see now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men's fashion freedom. (Just stumbled across it via a cleanup of High-heeled shoe, which until recently also featured an exhortation on why men should feel good about wearing shirts...) Sandstein 21:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• This was here last week. --Rory096 03:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. JJay did some excellent research in the last Deletion Review discussion documenting the uses of this phrase. I concluded from that research that this neologism is in infrequent use primarily in human interest stories about this small group of activists. No new evidence has been presented convincing me that this decision should be revisited yet. Rossami (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Rossami. Several advocates of deletion from the original AfD (including me) have indicated that they were aware of JJay's sources. In the AfD/DRV discussion of this topic, it's been noted that, for most men who wear unbifurcated garments outside the Western world, they're just normal clothing. Thus, I suggest that anyone who wants to write about this in an NPOV, non-soapboxy way, could find a way to fit it into the article Clothing or its offshoots. FreplySpang 05:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete - This term is in widespread use among some circles. Wiki includes detailed articles on information specific to very small circles, yet bans information that's in considerably wider use simply because it offends someone's sensibilities? MUGs isn't a new fad - it's the continuation of what men have been wearing for tens of thousands of years, and what approximately a third of men throughout the world routinely wear today. If you delete this, I will recommend you delete "skirt," "dress," and "pants" for whatever reasons you provide herein. If they apply to MUGs, they apply elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.166.180.34 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

  This is precisely the kind of ludicrous hyperbole which has infested every previous discussion of this topic. You say that if we delete this term used by a very small group of people and scoring a negligible number of unique Google hits, then we must also delete a word used by millions every day. Assertions like that make it almost impossible to take this subject even slightly seriously: the actions of the proponents of this term have consistently given the impression of zealots with little or no connection to reality, and this is no exception. Just zis Guy you know? 19:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn per JJay. Clearly notable.  Grue  12:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  So a single newspaper article which notes that a small group uses a given neologism is sufficient to make it clearly notable? Just zis Guy you know? 19:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• I really need to ask you to stop spreading misinformation as you complain about "ludicrous hyperbole" and "zealots" with "no connection to reality". After stating repeatedly that no sources exist [11], [12], [13], and failing to respond or blatantly ignoring any of the sources offered [14] [15] ,you seem to have now recognized one. Since I know of at least 25 print sources, and a number of manufacturer websites, here are a few links you might find enlightening: The Scotsman, NY Times, Pittsburgh Tribune,Lucire fashion magazine Village Voice- Para 2, New York Magazine, Little India magazine, Out in the Mountains- book review, Reno Gazette, etc. etc. Of course this does not include many sources I can not easily link to such as Newsday, The Economic Times (India) or some of the Australian print sources. The following manufacturer sites also sell unbifurcated garments as prominently shown on their websites: Macabi, Macabi again Utilikilts. This obviously ignores the widespread usage on blogs and the web. The extent of the "notability" of the trend can certainly be debated...and as shown by the links, the term can vary depending on the source. But please stop the nonsense about google hits, zealots, no reliable sources, arm waving, and the like. --JJay 22:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• JJay, do you not think that the statement If you delete this, I will recommend you delete "skirt," "dress," and "pants" for whatever reasons you provide herein is ludicrous hyperbole? How many references to skirt, dress and pants are there? How many to the term "male unbifurcated garment"? We've been assured that Googling for MUG is a good test for its currency despite the fact that the vast majority of hits are for the ceramic containers. I have seen no credible evidence that this term has any currency outside the (very small) men's fashion freedom movement, and it was in that context that the few mentions we have were made. Right now it is covered in men's fashion freedom, which contextualises it nicely. It has been deleted through valid process and after much discussion, and that deletion has already been confirmed once. No new evidence is being presented here as far as I can tell, it's just a case of them keep asking until they get what they want. Sorry, but that pushes my parental "no means no" button. The clincher for me is that in all the coverage of the prominent men who have been seen wearing skirts (Beckham, Cruise, Gaultier etc.) this term is pretty much absent. The only references I can find linking Beckham to the term, for example, come from the usual source: kiltmen. It is their private conceit which has no real currency. They really really want it to have some currency (read: protologism) but as yet it has pretty much none outside of themselves, and WP:NOT the place to fix that. Just zis Guy you know? 08:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. A silly, non-notable term. Also the fact that a DRV on this just ended not too long ago. WarpstarRider 23:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Non-notable Meanax 16:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

02 June 2006

Template:User hate profanity

Speedy deletion. The text of the userbox says "This user does not tolerate profanity." This'd refer to user conduct, since wikipedia is not censored. How is this divisive? Is there a danger of an anti-profanity cabal forming? The userbox is good in highlighting a form of incivility that wikipedia can do without. I'm not a big userbox warrior, so please take this request seriously. Andjam 07:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Recreate under name User no profanity, with the text "This user does not use (or does not enjoy) profanity.", and then Redirect. Simple enough, and not divisive that way. --tjstrf 07:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  If you're just proposing to create a different template, with a different name and different text, why mess around with DRV? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Reply Clarified. Also, I was giving a potential solution. --tjstrf 07:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted without prejudice against creation of some suitably congenial version in user space. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - unencyclopedic, argumentative, divisive etc. As always, I am prepared to help users userfy the box, as long as there are not too many requests for me to handle. But it doesn't belong in template space. Metamagician3000 09:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - for instances of profanity which are already prohibited, the template is redundant. For instances that aren't, well, they aren't, so who are we to "not tolerate" them? Particularly in template space.Timothy Usher 17:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete —David618 ^t e 18:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion users can write is so on their page should they want to. No need to have a template for this. -- Drini 19:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This user does not tolerate divisive userboxen ;) --Improv 18:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Divisive

Penis banding

I have no idea what this page is about, but User:JoeCool722 requested a deletion review. I've asked him to comment on what the page was about. // ^The True _Sora 00:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penis banding. No idea what it is, probably don't want to know. Fan1967 01:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain until I can see the conecpt of the page. If it's gone through an AfD already (per below), then I agree with it and endorse delete. // The True _Sora 00:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Don't even want to know what it is. QuizQuick 02:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - The AFD was properly concluded and this was a valid deletion. As for the article text, I'm assuming that this - http://www.answers.com/topic/penis-banding - from answers.com is the text of the article, by the way. Most of the google hits are related to each other, so it strikes me as a non-notable neologism unless there is evidence otherwise. BigDT 02:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletionTimothy Usher 02:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I'm putting my faith in the AfD determining this one to be a neologism. --StuffOfInterest 02:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist This is the first Wikipedia article I've written. I decided to write the article because there is a noticable lack of information on this topic. This is a not uncommon practice that is performed in BDSM and other contexts. I supposed my confusion over the deletion is that there are numerous other Wikipedia articles related to Body Modification and BDSM. During the initial deletion discussion someone mentioned that there was not a large amount of supporting evidence that this pratice exists. While that was part of my original reasoning to create the article, there are other articles from reputable sources like the following link [16]. I must say I'm very surprised at the apparant lack of open-mindedness. The article was put up a while ago, and even had various edits from other users as well as people linking to it. I don't feel that just because some folks may not understand or agree with a practice is a reason for removal. I do not feel that this article is out of line with numerous other Wikipedia articles, i.e. Transscrotal_piercing, Suspension_(body_modification), Body_nullification, Penis_removal. The Body Nullification article makes an interesting point regarding how many less mainstream practices have become more well known as people are discovering each other as a result of the Internet. That said, as a member of the BDSM community, I can say that this is not an unheard of activity. It's typically more commonly performed on the testicles, but frequnetly done to the penis. It's even discussed in the book "Family Jewels, A Guide to Male Genital Play and Torment." Another consideration is that within the BDSM Community many things are passed on via word of mouth. Many people meet at various BDSM related gatherings and are taught various techniques and practices that are not necessarily well documented. Hence my effort to try to take some time and better document this practice. We run into a frustrating Catch-22 where where Wikipedia prefers to have "verifiable" sources, yet, until someone writes something on the topic, it's not "verifiable." There's a bit of a flaw in logic as just because something is not easily verifiable does not necessarily indicate that it's not a valid practice. However, just because someone writes something in a book really doesn't prove that practice to be valid. As mentioned, the BDSM community is historically been a word of mouth type of community as it has not always been well accepted. While I don't have the resources/time to try to write an actual book on more advanced BDSM related techniques, I felt sharing some knowledge of a not well documented practice would have been well received by Wikipedia. JoeCool722 15:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There's no catch-22 at all. Wikipedia deliberately chooses NOT to be a primary source. In fact, it is considered a tertiary source. In other words, Wikipedia will report on things that have been clearly documented and verified elsewhere. Wikipedia does not serve as the primary, initial source for anything. Fan1967 15:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The BME website is referenced as an ezine in an existing Wikipedia Article - BME_(website), As per the link in my original post, Banding is referenced in the encyclopedia section of BME as well as numerous other areas of the site. I know we're getting into a fuzzy area regarding "verifiability" but I think a lot of the existing articles in this category are not extensively documented and therefore "verifiable."
• The fact that there is no information on this "out there" is the very reason there cannot be an article on WP, as stated above and elsewhere. WP:NOR refers. Just zis Guy you know? 11:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it deleted and disable undelete for this page. This is really sick. An encyclopedia is no place for this. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 19:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Well I must say this is more than a little disappointing. I had hoped that Wikipedia as a group would be more open-minded. I'm not asking anyone to agree with the practice, or take part in it. But I don't think it should be censored because some folks don't understand it. I would ask that the decision on this article be made based on policy as opposed to opinion. I'm working on tracking down some additional verifiable resources. Please let me know the best way to proceed to ensure this article remains listed in compliance with policy. JoeCool722 19:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. No reliable sources cited, and no credible evidence thus far that any such exist. As usual the red herring of censorship is being trailed, and as usual it is absurd (can we say autofellatio, children?). All the author need do is cite reliable sources and evidence of encyclopaedic notability. - Just zis Guy you know? 20:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Relist I've cited a book and the BME website that has been around for more than 10 years and is recognized by Wikipedia. Most people familiar with the Body Modification subject would recognize BME and Shannon who runs BME as an expert resource on the topic. Will the items I've already cited suffice? Or do I need to locate more? I know there were a few more books that had references to banding in them. Please Advise JoeCool722 21:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The AfD arguments were convincing, and there has been no error in procedure. Still not verifiable, as referencing a website in its entirety is not sufficient - we need specific links or quotes regarding the existence and notability of this activity. Sandstein 22:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Actually the first reference is to a specific page in BME regarding banding. I also cited a book. I believe this is getting away from the spirit of Wikipedia and becoming a push to squash something that is not understood. What I really don't understand is there are a dozen other articles in similar subject areas on Wikipedia that are not citing anything and they've been there for a while. I'm really surprised that there is no leniency allowed.

• Endorse deletion. Properly and rightly AfDed. --Audiovideo 22:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• WTF? --mboverload@ 22:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Relist First let me thank the administrators. I’ve had a delightful time going through all my books to find resources for them. It’s always fun to re-read favorite books. Many of these can be bought on Amazon. I’ve also included an article from a well known in the BDSM scene magazine. It has also been brought to my attention that Freud covered some of the penis binding (they didn’t have elastrators in his time) in his works. While he considered fetishism a deviant practice the recent American Psychological Association has declared it not to be so since the 1970’s.

If there is a vote I believe the comments “ Keep it deleted and disable undelete for this page. This is really sick. An encyclopedia is no place for this. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 19:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)” and “Speedy Delete Don't even want to know what it is. QuizQuick 02:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)” should not apply as these are clearly bias and not related to actual policy.

Here are a few books that discuss penile banding and related Cock and Ball Tortures:

• The Family Jewels: A Guide to Male Genital Play and Torment (Paperback) by Hardy Haberman
• Intimate Invasions: the erotic ins & outs of enema playby M.R. Strict
• Female Dominance: Rituals and Practices by Claudia Varrin
• Leatherfolk by Mark Thompson
• Tony DeBlase aka Fledermaus 1993, 'Male Genitorture (Also known as Cock and Ball Torture, CBT)' in Sandmutopia Guardian 14, pp14-22
• Trust, the Hand Book: A Guide to the Sensual and Spiritual Art of Handballing by Bert Herrman
• Sigmund Freud 1938, The Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud, translated and edited by A A Brill, New York: Modern Library
• -- 1953, 'Three Essays on Sexuality' in the Standard Edition of The Complete Psychological Works Vol VII, London: Hogarth
• -- 1953a, 'Fetishism' in the Standard Edition of The Complete Psychological Works Vol XXI (written in 1927), London: Hogarth

• Taboo 22:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Where's the original content? Exploding Boy 22:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, because of all the people saying "I trust the original AfD" (what do you think the Deletion review process is for then?) and because this is clearly a well-documented practice in its own cultural niche. &#0151; JEREMY 15:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This has been my frustration from the beginning. I missed the initial deletion review as I got busy with work. My wife went to send the link to someone and realized it was gone. Most of the comments in the initial deletion discussion and in this deletion review have been blanket agreements citing the fact that an AfD took place. I would rather have people look at this and assess it for themselves. And of course there are those that just say it should be deleted because it's "Sick" I don't think an individuals personal comfort on a subject should be related to it's inclusion in Wikipedia. JoeCool722 18:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Once again, where is the original content? How are people making decisions without reading the original article? Exploding Boy 16:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've been asking for this from the beginning. This was my first article that I've ever written for Wikipedia. I didn't back it up as I didn't realize it could just be deleted without a chance to go change it back. I read somewhere that there is some process in place to restore the article temporarily during a deletion review, but I don't know how else to go about requesting this. Any assistance from some of the more seasoned Wikipedians would be appreciated. JoeCool722 18:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well, until someone can provide a link to or a copy of the original content, I don't see how this can proceed. Exploding Boy 18:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Right. I've uncovered what I think is the most recent version of the article, which can be viewed (temporarily) at User talk:Exploding Boy/Penis banding. I think this vote needs to be restarted after people have read the content, and my vote is to undelete. Exploding Boy 18:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I've temporarily undeleted the history of the article while its deletion is being reviewed. You may see the actual last version here. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion without prejudice against recreation if reliable sources can be provided to show that the topic is more than a fringe paraphilia practiced by a couple of guys on the internet. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Why would you endorse the deletion if there were reliable sources? Exploding Boy 16:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The "if" was supposed to apply to the part about recreating it. In any case, the AfD closure seems valid based on the arguments provided in that debate, and the article itself, if kept, would in any case require heavy editing to comply with Wikipedia policies (specifically "Wikipedia is not a how-to guide"). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no reliable sources and the how-to information is about as inappropriate as it gets. It seems like an attempt to validate bizarre sexual practices, too: "It's not stupid/crazy/bizarre, it's in an encyclopedia." -- Kjkolb 22:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

01 June 2006

Template:User no notability

NN	This user hates notability and how it is used mercilessly on AfD as policy.

Here is the template, why was it deleted? No one posted anything on the TfD page Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:User no notability. It is a valid, useable userbox that shouldnt be deleted, just like ones that state POV can be used in userboxes or ones that state that they are inclusionist... Also, there was a TfD that reflected consensus, but this UB was speedy deleted and no message was left on the TfD page. Sorry for the ditto. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 01:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete as bad-faith deletion. --Disavian 01:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted shows a disrect to an accepted, wide consensus policy, template space is for encyclopedic endeavors, not the advocacy of eliminationg them. Userfy, subst, let people keep it, but get it out of encyclopedic space. -M^ask 01:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Notability is not policy. You people are the reason this UB was created. Because you don't understand: Essays carry so much less weight than policy. There's an essay saying that all TV show summarys should be deleted. It must be put into effect since you consider essays policy. Besides, it was not a CSD. There is a TfD going on about it that reflected a Keep consensus, but the deleter ignored it, deleted it, AND didn't even close the TfD debate! -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 04:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted This one clearly has the potential to divide Wikipedians and to inflame Wikipedians, which makes it a T1 CSD candidate. But I did learn something from my pre-conclusion research. Of course, someone should implement the German solution on it. GRBerry 02:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment after more thought and some more discussion. The most troubling word is "hates". But there clearly could be versions that would not be inflammatory. So the salting of the earth is too strong a response - overturn only the salting and put a warning on the talk page of the template that language like "disagrees with", "rejects", or "would like to out that notability is only an essay, not a guideline or policy" is acceptable, but that vehement language like "hates" and "mercilessly" is inappropriate. GRBerry 16:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted as bad-faith userbox. Obviously divisive in intent, probably speediable. --Calton | Talk 02:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as the subject it addresses is not notable.Timothy Usher 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You're kidding, right??? Seriously? You think that this is less notable than the 5000 fan userboxes? I knew that the people who would want it deleted were people eho support notability... -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 04:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - not notable per Timothy Usher. ;) (Actually, it is argumentative, divisive, etc.) Metamagician3000 02:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The irony is killing me here ;p --Disavian 02:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain - I am almost convinced that this should exist, because unlike the vast majority of userboxen that have no relevance to Wikipedia (or at least should not), like "This User is Christian" or "This user licks Goats", this is actually relevant to wikipedia and is the kind of content that fits well on a userpage. It's not exactly the same kind of bumper-sticker crap that most userboxes are. It is still divisive though.. --Improv 04:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• How about a milder one? Proposal:

NN	This user is against the use of the notability essay as criteria for deletion on AfD

-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 04:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Oh no, that's still far too divisive and inflammatory, don't you know? Consider this:

NN	This user is interested in the critical examination of the notability essay as criteria for deletion on AfD

—Ashley Y 07:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Why? That one is like a censored version thats too positive. Why not this:

NN	This user is against the views of the notability essay.

-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 13:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Chris, I have a slight but suspicious feeling that Ashley was being sarcastic. // The True _Sora 23:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, let the TFD run its course. (It is running at a strong keep consensus now. THen rewrite it slightly to soften it up a bit. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid T1, not to mention its obvious potential for aiding in votestacking. --Rory096 06:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I don't care about most userboxes but this one clearly should go. It encourages users to lock in on a position rather than to continue to explore, discuss and debate. It polarizes an already difficult discussion unnecessarily. Rossami (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Speedy-deletion criteria should not be used to silence ongoing TfDs just because an admin dislikes the results of the discussion; if you thought the template should be deleted, you should have simply argued for that case on the TfD. Also, it looks to me like it's not the basic message of the template ("I'm opposed to treating 'Notability' as policy"), but the tone, which is potentially inflammatory: I support undeleting this and changing the text to a less belligerent wording, like "This user is against the use of the notability essay as criteria for deletion on AfD". -Silence 12:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - patently divisive, no debate neccessary (not even here). We can discuss notability without factionalist bumper-stickers. --Doc ^ask? 12:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought you were leaving. (that might be vandalism) -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 20:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and move to user space based on the German solution. --StuffOfInterest 12:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per MM3k, GRBerry and Rossami. ++Lar: t/c 12:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Is there any possibility that we could Soft redirect Template:User no notability to the not-yet-made page User:Ccool2ax/User no notability ? I know some people might be interested in it, and I personally have never been able to find userboxes in the User namespace. Isn't my revision (1) less inflammatory than the one about admin's out-of-process deletions? (see my userpage for the box) -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 13:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep'em all deleted -- Drini 17:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and modify to Chris's last proposal above. Valid TfD keep; a non-inflammatory version is not T1. Septentrionalis 19:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted --pgk^(talk) 19:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and rewrite to non-emotive form. I don't support the "is interested in" rewrites though, as the term would swiftly come to mean the exact same thing as the original did via the euphemism treadmill. --tjstrf 19:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and rewrite as tjstrf above. After all the notability essay is just that a essay. --Whispering 20:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - it's outrageous that a userbox that is actually useful is being deleted for political reasons. For great justice. 21:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. It's a fair opinion, but the very last thing that Wikipedia needs are templates useful for vote stacking. Divisive indeed. -- SCZenz 21:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn (undelete) Does not fall under speedy criteria. —David618 ^t e 22:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete; since when was this inflamatory? If anything, list on TfD.
• Endorse Deletion I can imagine few uses of the word "hate" on a userbox that would not be divisive. BigDT 01:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • What about the 1st or 2nd revision (not the "interested in" one)-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 04:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy per The German solution. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Obviously divisive. Kelly Martin (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Userboxes that are about Wikipedia process are different in kind than userboxes about off-Wikipedia beliefs and practices. Bringing meatspace political beliefs into the Wikipedia process could be divisive (though not automatically so), but putting one's Wikipedia philosophies and practices on display in that manner is just a shorthand for what is already manifest in our actions. To me, "divisive" means creating division where none was previously apparent. Read AfD or DRV for a while and you will see that we are already divided over notability; userboxes to that effect don't make it more or less so. Vadder 18:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Obviously divisive. About a year ago someone started decorating AfD with little pastel boxes expressing his opinion that the nominator's stated reason for deletion did not meet the deletion policy. It was not helpful. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, divisive. Plus: notability is shorthand for a subject which has garnered enough external attention to allow us to ensure it is verifiable, covered neutrally and does not stray into original research. The fact that some people want to cover subjects which have not been discussed widely enough to ensure neutral coverage is well-known and does not require a userbox. Just zis Guy you know? 20:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, so that means every article you haven't heard of can't ever be discussed neutrally? That's why notability exists? I thought encyclopedias were for learning new things, not confirming what one already knows. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 14:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Undelete All you need to do is look at the first rationale proposed for keep-deletion: "shows a disrect to an accepted, wide consensus policy" Um, tyranny of the majority anyone? Since when was Wikipedia so goddamned establishment? George Kaplan 13:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Syed Ahmed

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ahmed

• relist why can't he have an Article i mean why can Syed not have one but michelle dewberry have one, syed has done lots of things aswell as appearing on The Apprentice he appeared in the Celebrity world cup sixes and he is the head of IT People. Bobo6balde66 20:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• The deletion discussion was virtually unanimous. No new evidence has been presented that would suggest that a new discussion would reach a different decision. Endorse closure (content deleted, protected redirect). Rossami (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Rossami. Nobody cares about The Apprentice. --Disavian 23:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Rossami. Kimchi.sg 02:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure — unanimous original AfD, and good content already included in The Apprentice (UK series 2). No good reasons have been presented for re-creating this article - the subject simply is not sufficiently notable to merit his own article. A redirect already ensures a reader entering his name can find a brief biography on the relevant article. The fact that Michelle Dewberry has an article is not a reason to undelete this — if her notability is in question that article should be listed at WP:AFD. Finally, IT People, his company was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IT People, so the fact that he is the CEO of a company deemed non-notable should be no reason for undeleting this article either. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 08:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse: Reality shows have, by now I hope, settled down: if the contestant becomes notable aside from the appearance, then the person is notable. If the person is merely one face among many squabbling and scratching, then the person should be discussed at the show's article. When the person breaks away from the show in fame, then the article breaks away from the show. This individual has not, at least yet. Geogre 13:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Rossami. Nobody cares about The Apprentice. --mboverload@ 19:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I watched The Apprentice, enjoyed it, and I absolutely agree with Mboverload: I still don't care. If he ever becomes independently notable, then he gets his own article. Just zis Guy you know? 20:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ho Shin Do

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ho_Shin_Do

Undelete Ho Shin Do I worked hard to put up good information on the page and added more info to give backing on the origins of the martial art. I feel that the style itself is worthy of being listed here and train in it with the best of intentions for the founders. The martial art has legitimate roots in Korean martial arts, and I sincerely hope that the deleted can be re-considered. Frankiefuller 08:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)frankiefuller, 03:33 (EST), 6-10-06. I say Overturn and Undelete

• endorse closure. This was a valid AfD with a unanimous "delete" result, I could see no significant and substantial differences between the version as of the deletion nomination and the version as of the afd closure (with the exception of the picture being added, which is not enough), so there was no additional information that was not available to the early voters that may have made them change their minds. Thryduulf 16:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Thryduulf. Kimchi.sg 03:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, so what is necessary to make it stay? I could put in a great amount of detail about the art itself and the structure of the system. Man you guys are so stubborn, there are many more sub-par articles out there than this. What makes you guys particular academic experts here, and how many of you are martial arts scholars? Heck, I could get deep into the philosophical side of this if you like. Let's go, baby, I love debates. Politics, after all, is what I'm studying for my doctoral program.Frankiefuller 09:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• "Man, people commit murder all the time, why do you have to arrest me?" The existence of poor articles does not justify the existence of poor articles; in this case, the lack of notability of the subject makes it a poor candidate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -Objectivist-C 12:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• We are not academic experts. We are reporters of academic experts. If there are experts out there discussing this fellow, and if the art has made sufficient splash to be discussed in multiple contexts, then there should be an article. The presence of an article doesn't make something good, and the absence doesn't make it bad; there is no judgment of worth, only of need. Geogre 13:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep undeleted per FrankiefullerQuizQuick 00:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for now or userfy with leave to present when appropriate - here is the article from google cache - [17] - the fact that there are multiple schools teaching this kind of Tae Kwon Do says to me that it is notable. The only problem I see with the article is that it is entirely original research. For that reason and that reason alone, I believe that the deletion is appropriate, but if Frankiefuller would like to rewrite or modify the article as to include other references, I don't see any reason why the subject is not permissible. BigDT 02:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy with leave to present when appropriate. Let frankiepoo show you that the article is not original research. I can show that the wheel is not being re-invented and can point out how the art has borrowed from several distinctly Korean arts. I am going to go ahead and try modifying the information and then presenting it after I can authenticate the specific data to show non-original research.72.145.93.79 05:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Frankiefuller

Israel News Agency

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel news agency - closed as "keep" on 15 Jan 06

Speedy-deleted as "vanity page by banned user" on 10 May 06

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Israel News Agency - closed as "overturn speedy and list on AFD" on 23 May 06

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel News Agency (2nd nomination) - closed for procedural irregularities on 29 May 06

Speedy-deleted as "more of the same nonsense" on 1 Jun 06

It passed its original deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel news agency, but when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel News Agency (2nd nomination) was created, the closing administrator said that because someone didn't follow process and grouped arguements into those for keeping and deleting, that the individual discussion was broken beyond repair. The administrator stated that he had no prejudice toward reopening the debate for a third time, then the article was again deleted by Danny, so I'm requesting it again be created and relisted. Daniel Bush 22:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment, if Danny is the person who deleted it, why did User:Sean Black salt the earth? GRBerry 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Self-promotion of a non-notable non-agency by a banned user. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as out-of-process deletion. If someone believes that something was missed in the first AFD, then relist. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. It's still a nonnotable blog that anyone who was clever enough to register a name like that could set up. --Improv 23:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• I think this article should be deleted but I think we should do it properly. Overturn the speedy-deletion, relist on AFD and I'll help watch the deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Wasn't this thing deleted via WP:OFFICE? If so, WP:SNOW--Rayc 23:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW isn't policy nor does it possibly apply in this case, WP:OFFICE was never cited. Undelete and relist properly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oh my goodness, the second AfDs closing admin's note of procedural irregularities is certainly true. That is a major refactoring from when I last saw the page. (I was the first to make a non-comment response.) I wish, however, that the closing admin had immediately opened a third AFD... It was in AFD via a community decision. I think Resend to AFD is the appropriate outcome, but it is a borderline call, concluded this way because process is important and because the refactoring appears not to have been done by the articles author or one of the new voices brought in. GRBerry 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, should probably go to AfD again, but definitely undelete it. This abuse of process has got to stop. We have rules here—follow them. Everyking 03:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• This is just taking the piss. Undelete, do not relist anywhere, and censure the admin who deleted it against consensus. There is no point having shitloads of policy documents and votes on this, that and the other if privileged users can just ignore them out of personal animus. Also censure the admin who has protected the page. This is an egregious abuse of his powers that has become too common these days. The consensus was that there should be an article: protecting it so that there cannot be is completely unacceptable. Apologies for not signing in. -- Grace Note.
• SPEEDY Undelete per Grace Note. --Col. Hauler 08:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. nn blog, clear sentiment to delete among non-sock, non-meatpuppets. We should stop wasting our time, and stop allowing the associated harrassment of legitimate editors over this. NoSeptember ^talk 09:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Could you please list all of these sock or meat puppets--or if the list would be shorter everyone who's opinions you find valid? Yes, there are those that I would call foopuppets on the keep side, but there are also several legitimate users. Kotepho 19:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Puppets are listed at: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Israelbeach

• SPEEDY Undelete per Grace Note. Potterseesall 09:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• AfD was closed as borked by Aaron Brenneman, no bleeding-heart inclusionist. I still haven't seen any verifiable 3rd party information about this website and I don't think it qualifies for an article on Wikipedia. But I would vastly prefer to have this deleted the bureaucratic way rather than through a wheel-warring Danny. Haukur 10:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Removed comment from banned user Zordrac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Malber (talk • contribs) 15:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Generally, anonymous editors have less weight in deletion reviews. This was not deleted on the grounds of censorship because they disagree with Wikipedia. You have no understanding of the issue at all. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 20:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete due to violation of the deletion process. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 20:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, Resend to AfD unless there is a clear indication that the speedy deletion was done for legal or other overiding reasons under WP:OFFICE. (I can't see any reason why there would have been litigtion about this article~) The Land 22:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, no need to relist this at AFD again. This unjust wheel-warring by Danny needs to stop. Now. Silensor 23:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - Danny has the right to take necessary actions under WP:OFFICE. Given INA's apparant hostility to Wikipedia (see [18], [19], [20]), I'm willing to assume good faith on Danny's part and endorse the deletion. BigDT 02:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. In WP:OFFICE Danny says that he will exercise Office powers under the name User:Dannyisme. User:Danny is Danny acting as a regular administrator/editor. Since Israel News Agency was deleted under the regular username Danny as opposed to Dannyisme, it shouldn't be considered an Office decision. Furthermore, the deletion did not reference WP:OFFICE in the edit summary, nor is it listed on the WP:OFFICE page. It is true that INA is hostile to Wikipedia, but one of its grievances (albeit not the first or only one) is the previous out-of-process deletion of the Israel News Agency article [21]. There are reasons both for and against having an article about this news agency on Wikipedia, but the proper place to deal with them is an AfD, not a speedy deletion. "More of the same nonsense" is not a valid reason for speedy deletion unless the nonsense is patent, which was not the case for Israel News Agency. --Metropolitan90 03:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per user Metropolitan90 Bonnieisrael 09:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I have read news stories by the Israel News Agency before Wikipedia existed. Saying that the Israel government acredited INA is "nonsense" is nothing less than a travesty. Tzanchan 17:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This is not a "news agency", it's a blog. How many bylines are there on this supposed "news agency"? I could only find one: Joel Leyden. WP:NOT an advertisement hoarding, a tool for promoting your website, a search engine optimisation mechanism, a soapbox etc. This is the personal site of an indef-blocked user. Just zis Guy you know? 20:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• If the Israel News Agency is not a news agency then it would qualify being "notable" as Israel's first "blog" dating back to 1995. But given the various, consistent direct news feeds from the Israel Government Press Office that only an accredited news organization can obtain in Israel, it appears to be a real news agency with real government accredition news agency - for over 11 years. Also, one can see several other bylines besides Leyden. Perform a search on Google News for "Israel" [22] the INA stories appear in the top ten. If one calls this agency a "soapbox" then we should start labeling Google News, all news organizations as "soapboxes" - including non media such as US Homeland Security. Karnei 15:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• You didn't look hard enough: By Debbie Lahav, By Israel News Agency Staff[23][24],By Joe Yudin, By Michael Bernstein, By Herb Brandon[25], By Sara Lavi, By Dr. Batya L. Ludman[26], By Sara Silber M.Sc.Ed[27]... Kotepho 19:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per Chris — ßottesiηi ^(talk) 21:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Metropolitan90, for unexplained out-of-process deletion. No opinion as to the merits, as I haven't ever seen that article, even though a look at the site does point to "non-notable blog". Sandstein 21:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per the reasons provided by Karnei and Silensor in the previous deletion debate. Blog or not this news project does appear to be notable. Yamaguchi先生 15:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete immediately. Out-of process deletion compounded by second out-of-process deletion =total disrespect for the community. Somehow "More of the same nonsense" was entirely fitting. --JJay 00:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

31 May 2006

Template:User Christian

The template received a near unanimous keep on TfD which was closed on May 28, 2006. It was deleted by User:Improv today for no apparent reason, completely ignoring the consensus of a community. I say, Overturn and undelete.  Grue  21:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. Again. We need to get something to agree on such as the German solution to someday get this settled. --StuffOfInterest 21:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleting until all these things (WHATEVER their pov) are history. We endorsed the deletion of the Marxism and Scientology boxes - so why should Christianity and Atheism be any different. --Doc ^ask? 21:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This page is about questioning the process that this template went through, not saying that an endorsement on a particular template makes the deletion of this template, which was completely outside of community consensus, allowable. Ansell Review my progress! 09:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Community consensus is moving towards keeping this an encyclopaedia rather than a faction ridden social club. Stephen B Streater 22:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete as bad faith deletion. I was in the middle of submitting this template for DRV when Grue got there first. This template has been through eleventy billion TFDs and DRVs and multiple administrative edit wars. In every case, the consensus was to keep. See [28] for the most recent DRVU and see [29]. See also the lengthy logs for this template [30]. This is not a referendum on userboxes. Nor, though such a discussion probably needs to be held, is it a referendum on the appropriateness of administrators ignoring consensus and inventing rules. The sole question here is whether it was proper for this template to be deleted according to the currently existing criteria for speedy delete. In other words, is it "divisive and inflammatory" to state, "This user is a Christian." BigDT 21:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of all political and religious userbox templates -- Drini 21:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You did not answer any of the questions in that, it is merely your view. Take it to Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates, not here. Ansell Review my progress! 10:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per Drini. Whether or not a user is a Christian (as am I) can add nothing to wikipedia. Let's keep it on-topic, shall we?Timothy Usher 21:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • See reason for drini as to why it is not appropriate to say that here. Ansell Review my progress! 10:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Grrr! Edit conflict - and I was almost the first one to vote! Waaagh! Two edit conficts! But what should I say, anyway? Lemme think... Undelete, subst: all instances, delete and protect. How 'bout this? Misza13 ^{T C} 21:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

  There aren't that many transclusions left after Immari did a bunch because of Cyde's antics. Paste me the contents and I'll do it or undelete it and have Cydebot do it. Kotepho 22:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete because Keep means Keep. Less than 72 hours after it survived TfD it is inappropriate to speedy delete it without even the courtesy of an explanation on the article's talk page. The closest thing there is to an explanation by the deleter is their comment below in the deletion review for Template:User satanist. I can understand deleting it, although it was clearly wrong. I don't understand salting the earth for a speedy deletion of something that was just kept after a speedy, review, TfD cycle. GRBerry 21:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Haven't we had this already? Keep deleted again. --Tony Sidaway 21:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - yes, we did, and the consensus both on DRVU and on TFD was undelete/keep. BigDT 21:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: This user is against userboxes in general. Wokka-wokka-wokka. --Bobak 21:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. This debate, as that is what it has become, is also about general policy; certainly, you would let users who wish to have userboxes have them, even if you do not wish to have any; and you would allow them the due process of review/AfD, for if you created a template, you would like to be treated fairly as well. Thus, being against userboxes (a position I do not share, but I do respect) does not nessasarily behoove you to vote one way or the other in these two instances. --Disavian 04:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted along with any other religious user boxes. --pgk^(talk) 21:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: do those who are saying it's been discussed countless times not realise the huge disruption and distraction this implies? —Phil | Talk 21:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Many of us feel that the primary, if not sole, cause of the disruption as it pertains to this template, at least, is the deletions. Keeping it deleted would reward the disrupters, which is a very bad outcome. GRBerry 21:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, per above.--Sean Black 21:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete If it survied TfD it shouldn't be deleted under speedy, which I do not see a reason for. —David618 ^t e 21:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn (Undelete), Although I wholeheartedly agree with Drini above, we have a process here that must be followed to maintain order. The process was not followed here. This is not the place to argue for or against the template, only whether the process was carried out correctly (which it apparently wasn't). Try to formulate an oficial policy prohibiting religious/political/nationalist user boxes instead of trying to delete them one-by-one. I'll be the first to support it.--WilliamThweatt 21:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment well, it looks like Template:User Christian and Template:User satanist are on equal footing now, although I'm sorry it had to happen this way -_- --Disavian 21:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, again. Not T1 or T2. If a T3 reaches consensus that religious userboxes should be deleted, delete it then (but first subst all copies in {{userbox}} form. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. This is an example of rogue admins deleting stuff under CSD when they don't get their way under TfD. They rely on the fact that DRv is much less well-known than TfD. —Ashley Y 22:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Graaahhh I really want to vote keep deleted. I wish we didn't have this userbox (or if people didn't care about userboxes), I think it possibly meets T1, and obviously meets T2. That being said if you are just going to delete it anyways why bother putting it through DRVU and TFD? It just pisses people off, more so I think than deleting it in the first place; and I don't want to encourage people to keep deleting things out of process until it magically gets a majority to keep deleted by attrition. On the other hand, it is just a userbox. I think they are silly, but I understand that some people care about them (even deeply) and they too are people. No matter how many times someone calls everyone that likes userboxes a myspacer it doesn't make it true. Screwing with contributors is not a good way to make an encyclopedia. Kotepho 22:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: there is no T2 anymore. —Ashley Y 22:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Katepho. It's not my userbox; but not abiding by a consensus decision is harmful to the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis 23:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete as out-of-process deletion. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete per community consensus. Crazyswordsman 23:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - all such userboxes should be userfied and removed from template space. Metamagician3000 23:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete it seems the "I'm an admin, and enforce my own consensus" mentality is spreading. I wonder... if recreating templates/articles that were deleted by consensus is vandalism, then what is deleting templates/articles that were kept by consensus... CharonX talk Userboxes 00:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete If T2 is toast, there's even less reason to delete this than before. Besides, the consensus was keep, whats the deal here? Homestarmy 00:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, not going to make the same points again. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 01:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, per consistency with Template:User satanist arguments for deletion. Both are religeons, both have the same rights. Who at wikipedia is to decide which religeons are allowed and which are not. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, and get back to things that help the encyclopedia. Ral315 (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. MySpace is thataway. --Calton | Talk 03:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Kim van der Linde. Snottygobble 04:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted/Userfy again. We're moving all the ideological stuff out of template space, better userfy your boxes now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you point me to that policy, please? BigDT 04:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The policy in question is probably Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates. --Disavian 05:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The policy in question is WP:NOT. The interpretation is courtesy of Jimbo, 3 days ago, on his talk page, here: "no, really, the template namespace is not for that, . . . we do not endorse this behavior." -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Keep in mind that WP:NOT says Wikipedia IS an online community. Online communities are made of people, and people have opinions and biases, and they choose to express them in the form of userboxes. I didn't feel the interpretation by Jimbo was very clear, although it was rather recent. In the end, there just needs to be a User template: namespace. I have a feeling that would solve some of these issues, mostly those unrelated to T1. By no means is any of this clear or easy :( --Disavian 05:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Jimbo was clearer here back in March. The German solution is gaining support; I think it's the way to go. Templates will be safe in userspace, stored in user page directories like they have on de:, as long as they don't cause problems. I think this solution will fly, unless it blows up of its own accord. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• What's the point of even having this discussion? Enough administrators have made it clear that they are going to do whatever the heck they feel like regardless of policy. Administrators User:Doc glasgow, User:Tony Sidaway, User:Phil Boswell, User:Sean Black, User:Metamagician3000, User:Jareth, and User:GTBacchus have all demonstrated that community consensus is irrelevant to them by endorsing a patently incorrect deletion. I find it incomprehensible that we are even having this discussion. You guys are just making up rules as we go along. If you are going to refuse to enforce whatever actual policy is decided on and just delete anything you don't like out of process, why are we even pretending to have this discussion? Even if it gets undeleted, another one of you will just delete it next week. BigDT 05:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  We've had the T1 policy for some time now, and dozens of deletion reviews have endorsed a broad interpretation. The arbitration committee explicitly recognised this in the arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway just over two months ago. --Tony Sidaway 05:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't question that T1 exists. I question that T1 has anything to do with this userbox. If it is divisive or inflammatory, it is only so because of your actions and the actions of other administrators. There is nothing INHERENTLY divisive or inflammatory about it. If the userbox said "this user doesn't like atheists" or "this user is anti-Catholic" or something like that, I'd be the first one to vote keep deleted on the DRV. But in order for you to say that this userbox is "divisive and inflammatory", you would also have to say that any expression of faith in any way is divisive and inflammatory. (I'm aware that T1 is only relevant to such expressions in template space, but the words "divisive" and "inflammatory" exist and have meaning outside the context of userboxes.) Is it "divisive" or "inflammatory" that I go to church Sunday mornings? That I say, "I am a Christian"? That I pray before meals? How, then, is a userbox that says no more nor less than "this user is a Christian" divisive and inflammatory? There is nothing INHERENTLY inflammatory about it. What is inflammatory is the edit warring, wheel warring, vandalism, and refusal to enforce a consensus. Repeated out-of-process deletions and trips to DRV are divisive and inflammatory - the template itself is not. No, I don't question the existence of T1. I question your application of it. BigDT 05:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, this template does not deserve to be used to make a point, especially not this many times in a row. --tjstrf 05:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Whether or not this template is 'good' is immaterial to this discussion. The template was unilaterally deleted by an admin ignoring a consensus to keep and therefore this should be a speedy undelete. All your legitimate concerns about the usefulness of POV boxes can be addressed at TfD, not speedy deletion. IMO Delete votes citing the inappropriateness of POV userboxen should be ignored because that's not what this debate is about, let the community decide that. No one admin (or even a group of them) has the power to decide what is in the best interests of the community when the community itself wants to go the opposite way. Let's stop playing the Big Brother. Loom91 05:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Like I've said somewhere else, I have absolutely no idea why the admins don't just do a mass delete. What is the point of allowing these votes anyway? Wikipedia is not a democracy, and it's obvious the admins will interpret a Userbox as "divisive or inflammatory" in whatever way they see fit and delete it. Personally, I'm OK with a mandate and mass delete on Userboxes, but the way the situation is being handled is incredibly inept. Like someone else said, this is essentially a mass delete, carried out in a very annoying manner. Hong Qi Gong 05:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete Why shouldn't we be allowed to state that we are christians in userboxes if we want to? Besides, the speedy deletion of this userbox template was not justified. Ifrit 05:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete since this has been on DRV something like three times already. THis is becoming a pointless attempt at deletion by attrition. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted The only userboxes of any value are time zone, technical, linquistic and project participation. Sophia 06:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. What is it with you people? I like having a flourishing community with all that that entails. User pages were one manifestation of it, userboxes are just another one. Cracking down on them will do not one tiny bit of good and has the potential to drive many people away, or discourage them into reducing the frequency of their contributions (instead of drawing them deeper into the site, which is the kind of thing userboxes do)—either because of frustration at their disappearing userboxes or because of frustration at the ridiculous admin abuse of powers that has gone on in the effort to get rid of them. People want their ability to express themselves maximized, not minimized, and they want to believe that there's some process, some sort of order and rule structure that protects them—I imagine it must be quite vexing to find out how a small minority can rule arbitrarily like this. Everyking 06:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete - This template just restored here couple days ago and just survived TfD, what makes one to think things have changed?? "-Template:User Christian restored by 27-36 majority, will be relisted at TfD in pre-edit war form. 17:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review" & TfD Hunter 08:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I would have voted to undelete six months ago, and I still think that the way this was originally handled showed a complete contempt for the community, but it's quite clear Jimbo doesn't want these boxes, and so at the very least they shouldn't be in template space. I do think, however, that it's ridiculous to say that using a box which says "This user is a Christian" is an attempt to convert others. AnnH ♫ 08:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Stop deleting userbox templates (and indeed creating new ones) until a consensus policy is reached, per Jimbo's request of 'one user at a time.' Deleting them, then having a DRV on everyone is just wasting everyone's time. Having said that - it's now clear to me that no matter what the outcome, we are going to keep having this debate over and over, template by template, as certain admins don't appear to be willing to await the outcome of debate or consensus on the whole userbox/template thing. A template survives a DRV - it get's re-deleted. (Strange how this isn't vandalism, but re-creating something is!) We end up with the ridiculous situation of the {insert religious or political userbox} being deleted while another {insert religious or political userbox} is restored (or, at least, not yet deleted) - obvious examples being Republican / Democrat or Christian / Satanist. So. All religious userbox templates are on one page, yes? As are all political userbox templates? How does one go about nominating them all, simultaneously, for a T1 TfD? Bastun 09:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Why do single admins take it on their high horse to act as they please. Why is this discussion even happening. It is a joke that a successful deletion review, immediately followed by a successful TfD, can be followed by someone going and deleting on a whim. Ansell Review my progress! 09:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Templates of the type user_worldview have created a big load of unproductive and pointless unrest. The most effective way to avoid this from now on is to have them deleted alltogether. The problem with that approach is that many users feel discriminated if "their" worldview-box is deleted, while others are not; So, as it can be assumed that user_christian is among the most popular boxes on en.WP, deleting it is a major step. -- 790 10:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, it's already been through TfD's and DRV's that've supported keeping this userbox. Will (^E_@) T 10:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Knowing peoples' POVs is a very positive thing, and helps us know who is liable to POV-pushing. Someone who has "faith" (which is by definition blind belief/ignorance with no requirement for Verifiability) in any religion cannot be expected to edit any religion-orientated article neutrally. --Col. Hauler 11:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete - I post this as if my opinion matters on Wikipedia... but if the consensus repeatedly is for keeping it, then speedy deleting it yet again shows nothing but complete contempt for the user community. Arguing that Jimbo supports speedy deleting it is nothing more than arguing that Jimbo has nothing but complete contempt for the user community, as well. Is that really what you want to say? Or is it the truth? Jay Maynard 11:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - I don't have this or ever plan to have this as a userbox but I can see no reason why this or any other religions or ideologies should ever be deleted! If they aren't innately offensive I have no problem with them! -- UKPhoenix79 11:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The admins who are repeatedly deleting this out of process find anything but bland, homogenous user pages innately offensive. Jay Maynard 11:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete like that robot mouse Jerry had on that one episode of Tom and Jerry.-Strip Improv of his powers while we are at it! -user:Gangsta-Easter-Bunny --13:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, there has been a consensus to keep on several occasions. There has never been a consensus to delete. "this user/administrator dislikes this" is NOT a valid deltion criteria, let alone a speedy one. Thryduulf 16:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete! Korossyl 17:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid T1, as can be seen by the divided and heated nature of this very discussion. No obvious reason to question Improv's judgement. Let it go. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply The template is not controversial, the deletion is. A controversial deletion is reason for keeping, not the inverse. --tjstrf 21:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Lets follow the process, and abide by consensus. Bo 19:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. T1. It was valid to delete when I first deleted it many months ago, and T1 still applies. --Improv 21:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So you're not too bothered by the strong consensus to keep on its TfD? —Ashley Y 21:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete For same rationale as per Col. Hauler, above. Knowlege of their POV pushing nature is valuable and should mean they should recuse themseleves from editing on articles of a religious nature, except to give info about it on talk pages. I don't think its a means to convert, nor do I think it helps to build their cabal (as they just flock to their articles anyway). But, it should be a way to identify who should be discouraged from editing in various articles, esp. those playing admin roles.Giovanni33 21:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: POV religious boxes are divisive. See Satanist below. Stephen B Streater 22:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral I don't care whether it's undeleted or not, as long as the decision matches Satanist below. Delete both or keep both. Fan1967 23:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, though it is divisive: "Having a quality that divides or separates", T1 as it stands says the templates must both be divisive and inflammatory. Having a POV is not inflammatory. Having POV is however CSD T2. If T2 was policy, then my vote would be to delete. Also, Citing the deletion policy:

  Repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted, and in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rayc (talk • contribs) 23:14, 1 June 2006.

  This is a userbox, not an article. This userbox is obviously unsuitable and will either be altered to be suitable for Wikipedia or else deleted--all we're arguing over are the details. --Tony Sidaway 00:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  Who died and made you Jimbo? Jay Maynard 01:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  It's only "obvious" to you and the others who are distorting the purpose of T1 to fulfil your goal of deleting all non-project userboxes. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that goal, but please, be frank about it, admit your motives, and don't abuse existing rules against their original intent. --tjstrf 00:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  T1 says divisive and inflammatory. You already acknowledge divisive. Anything divisive has the potential to become inflammatory. Look at the number of people expressing opinions here, and you'll see this userbox has become inflammatory. Stephen B Streater 09:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  You're confusing the actions of editors and administrators with the template in a vacuum. The template is neither divisive nor inflammatory when taken alone, divisive only in the context of a strong POV holding user viewing it, and not inflammatory at all. These repeated deletions, on the other hand, are both divisive and inflammatory, and as such should be overturned. The template is not divisive and inflammatory, User:Improv is. (and if he were a template, he would be deleted) --tjstrf 10:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  The template divides Wikipedians by their beliefs. If anyone feels more aligned to another editor because they have this userbox, then it is divisive. Stephen B Streater 11:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  If I get a swollen ankle, it is the ankle that swells, not the sprain that caused it. Often the swelling can take some time to show. So this debate is the swollen ankle - the sympton of the inflammatory userbox (the sprain). If the cells which trigger the swelling are the admins, you are blaming the cells in the ankle for the swelling, not the sprain. It is true that if the cells didn't swell, the ankle wouldn't either (and some pain relief drugs prevent swelling), but the swelling aids recovery. Personally, I wouldn't delete a userbox against consensus because I think it polarises debate and makes consensus harder to reach. If a neutral userbox such as a babel box were to be deleted, the debate would be one sided and the box would be clearly seen to be non-inflammatory. The inflammation here requires the original box to be potentially inflammatory. I would not trigger the inflammation myself, but we're here now. Do we treat the symptoms or the cause? Stephen B Streater 11:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per process. Also urge admins to wait for a solution and stop wasting time deleting boxes. Λυδαcιτγ^{(TheJabberwock)} 23:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment is it worth sorting the votes? —Ashley Y 23:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Obviously divisive. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted in accordance with the deletion of other religious bias userboxes. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 00:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't care whether this one is kept or deleted, but I hope whichever way it goes, it's done consistently for all religions rather than showing preference for "approved" ones. *Dan T.* 01:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: This is no more inflammatory than if you declared yourself to be a dentist; some people hate Christians and some hate dentists. If you see Christianity as inflammatory, it is because you want it to be. That's your POV problem, not the userbox's. WestonWyse 04:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Does not meet any speedy-deletion criterion. T1 is not relevant here, as being Christian is not "divisive and inflammatory" anymore than being Muslim or atheist or Rastafarian is. T2 is not settled policy, and thus clearly cannot be arbitrarily imposed on random templates in an attempt to force it into becoming a de facto policy; and even if T2 was policy (or becomes one in the future), it would be much easier to simply make this into a redirect to {{user christianity}} and subst the original {{user christian}} to the users who were using it, thus preventing endless DRVs like this one. But right now, as T2 is still under discussion, this deletion is premature at the very least, and downright destructive (much more than the template itself, which never caused an ounce of harm before it was used as a tool by certain admins to exacerbate the userbox debate) at worst. -Silence 12:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted or we risk a "tyranny of the majority" situation. Rob 13:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - Exactly how is that worse than the tyranny of the admins we have now? If you object to that term, exactly how is it inapplicable to the situation we have, where it's repeatedly speedy deleted in the face of repeated consensus to keep it? Jay Maynard 14:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  "Tyranny of the minority," I think it should be. It's certainly at least equally applicable. WestonWyse 02:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. It made it through TfD 3 days ago, and then it got deleted again?! // The True _Sora 13:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The mere act of declaring one's religion is only divisive to people who hate and fear religion. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 17:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete. Now again? --H.T. Chien / 眼鏡虎 (Discuss|Contributions) 19:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• undelete please there was no reason for this really Yuckfoo 00:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV QuizQuick 00:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete - This is ridiculous. Religion is not a divisive point of view - it merely expresses what someone believes - what is wrong with that? If it passed a vote for deletion, then leave it as is. There should be no reason why this should be deleted. A violation of human rights and free speech if it is. (JROBBO 04:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

  I think it's pretty insulting to people who are actually having their human rights violated in this world, that you would apply such rhetoric to an issue as trivial as whether, in one particular namespace on one particular website on the wide internet, you can announce your religion. The only issue here is where these things are stored on the server. Pretending it's about human rights and freedom of speech must be very satisfying, from a drama perspective, but it's pretty depressing, in the eyes of someone who's actually seen human rights abuses. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment In America, Freedom of Speech is considered a human right. Wikipedia is not America, of course, but he isn't actually misusing the term. --tjstrf 05:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  No. He's misusing the term. Human rights, including freedom of speech, are things that matter, things worth dying for. Nobody's freedom of speech is being violated when all anyone's saying is, "hey, that template is stored in the wrong namespace, move it," so JROBBO's assertion that this is about freedom of speech is laughable. If you're privileged enough to be accessing Wikipedia from a computer in the first world, and to have the free time to complain about userboxes (from any side of the dispute), then you're in the luckiest 1% of people on Earth. Don't trivialize human rights. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Reply In that case, I think your gripes would be better addressed to the Founding Fathers than myself or JROBBO. My personal opposition to the deletion is based on it being an abuse of the T1 criteria by an admin with ulterior motives. --tjstrf 05:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  My "gripes"? What are you even talking about? I was getting on JROBBO's case for talking like a spoiled brat; the Founding Fathers are... unrelated. As for the deletion, all these templates are moving to user space anyway, see The German solution. Nobody will delete them there. That's how the userbox wars end, it turns out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Your gripes about his use of the phrase human rights. Also, userfying doesn't solve a thing, we'd still have collections of stupid, worthless userboxes sitting around, they just wouldn't be in template space. Also, what deletion criteria, if any, would keep userfied boxes from becoming worse, more offensive, more pointless, and more page-consuming than the template space ones ever were? --tjstrf 06:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Userfying does at least one thing: it removes the appearance of official sanction for POV userboxes that comes from keeping them in Template space. What's more, it might be the only thing that people on both sides of the userbox controversy can agree on - it might end the stupid "userbox wars", and that's a Good Thing. In user space, the boxes will still be subject to WP:UP and to basic rules prohibiting attacks or polemical statements. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Reply Not to be offensive in any way, but that's just sophistry. The "appearance of sanction" is as much present when the box is in the userspace, or even coded in by hand, as it is when it's in templatespace. Those users who follow the userbox debate all understand that userboxes are not an endorsement of the statements they contain by the wikimedia foundation regardless of their location, and those who don't follow it will be ignorant of the entire debate, and may draw either conclusion no matter where we put the boxes. The German Solution may pacify, but it doesn't solve or conclude. If anything it is actually a crippling defeat for the deletionist side, who have essentially traded all their credit in exchange for a superficial compromise that does nothing. I believe the deletionist side would be better to strategically withdraw and come back with a new proposal. (See also my comments at Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates.) --tjstrf 07:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken, but you're wrong. It's not sophistry. If a user sees that user boxes live on various people's user pages, under someone's name, that stands out as different from other templates, which exist in a common Template space. If they ask someone why that is, they find out that it's because userboxes aren't considered official Wikipedia templates the way other templates are. That'll mean something to that user; they'll think about it. User space is phychologically different from the other name spaces because it's not a shared area - all the pages in userspace are in somebody's "personal area". Besides all that, the German solution has Jimbo's support. As far as I'm concerned, you're proposing prolonging the userbox controversy, and all I care about is ending it. Convincing people that userboxes are wrong now has to be done with reason and dialogue. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's only psychologically different to those who understand the situation leading up to it. For everyone else, it will just be another layer of confusion to those who even notice. Also, I'm not trying to prolong the debate, I'm trying to resolve it. From my view, even a prolonged debate with an actual conclusion that did something non-superficial would be better than one that forces a false peace on us. Preferably though, it would not be a prolongation of the current debate, but rather a new debate entirely. However, if Jimbo says, then we should obey, even if I personally disagree. Also, we're stretching out the deletion review with mostly unrelated arguments, so let's end on that note. --tjstrf 09:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment What's wrong with it is, it has nothing to do with building a respectable reliable encyclopedia.

  Somewhere along the line, one policy came to be radically misinterpreted to the detriment of all the others, including the most basic: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If we can't coherently explain what it has to do with furthering the mission - and I don't for one moment buy "disclosure of bias", that is at most an unintended side-effect of the honestly stated goal of self-expression (such that the deletion of a userbox is said to be a "violation of human rights and free speech") - then it shouldn't exist. No, wikipedia is not censored, but it's not a free webhost either. Free speech means you can unashamedly write from a strong point of view. You can cite unreliable sources. You can pursue and disseminate original research. You can be incivil and even make personal attacks. Etc. All those things are a part of our personal freedom and protected self-expression. Wikipedia isn't about freedom or self-expression. Those are burdens that could never be carried by any single enterprise, and really, should they be? At the end of the day, Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia.Timothy Usher 05:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - does anyone else think that maybe it's time this thing just got taken to arbitration? The wheel warring [31] has continued into tonight. This template has been through repeated discussions, arguments, and everything else. Plenty of administrators have made it clear that they have no intention of enforcing the consensus and are going to delete it out of process regardless of what the consensus is. At least if it goes to arbitration, a final decision can be made once and for all and the silly edit warring and wheel warring can stop. BigDT 07:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• No one like wheel warring. It indicates an emotional involvement which can polarise a debate along irrational lines. It also indicates that this userbox has become (possible indirectly) inflammatory. I think this is too early for arbitration, as various viewpoints are still working through the system and almost everyone is still engagng in constructive debate. When the good ideas are all presented, I will support your call for arbitration. Stephen B Streater 09:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete the tfd for keep speaks for itself. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete Either process has some meaning or it doesn't. When userboxes are kept in TfD, and there is no clear policy against them, (T1 is not clearly against relgion userboxes or this one in particular, and T2 is neither consensus nor policy) then admins can not turn around and do as they see fit. When an editor is promoted to admin, they are symbolically given a mop, not a sceptre; this means that they serve us, not rule us. While that means excercising judgement and discretion and not always going along with the crowd, it does not give them license to overrule a clearly-expressed consensus even when that consensus goes against their personal interpretation of Wikipedia's goals. The only way to overrule such a consensus should be to have a clear pronouncement from the office, and I'm sorry, but no such clear pronouncement has come forth. What would such a pronouncement sound like? How about, "Delete all userboxes except _____." Until then, consensus has to come first. Vadder 18:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Count: at this point, 41 (incl. nom.) overturn & undelete; 20 endorse deletion [32] —Ashley Y 16:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• That's on par with the 2/1 split commonly seen with userbox issues. It's not enough to get a concensus, not enough to delete through TfD, and not enough to overturn a speedy. In other words, a mess. --StuffOfInterest 16:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• It seems pretty clear though "If there is neither a majority to endorse the decision nor a three-quarters supermajority to overturn and apply some other result, the article is relisted on the relevant deletion process.", this would indicate sending this to TFD, where a supermajority already endorsed Keep. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm, interesting. Which policy page does that come from as I may like to use it in the future. When you consider that this particular template survived a TfD three days before its deletion the whole situation is just that much more ugly. All in all, in the long term, moving it out to user space probably has a better chance. --StuffOfInterest 16:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Vfu mechanics, though I'm not sure what status that has. —Ashley Y 20:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• And VFU/M is transcluded right at the top of this page. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, Keep deleted, per Sophia et al. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:User organ donor

Speedydeleted by Tony Sidaway on 30 May 2006 stating "T1, blatant campaigning". A borderline case - while this userbox is definity pushing for organ-donation (a good cause in itself) I am not entirely sure if campainging fulfills the T1 criteria. So I'd say Overturn and Relist. Alternativly the text could be changed to "user is a organ donor". CharonX 01:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note: I userified these 3 boxes to CharonX userspace at CharonX's request.... Keep deleted this userbox is advocacy. Organ donation is an admirable thing to advocate (and I have so pledged, and so, dear reader, should you) but it nevertheless is advocacy. For consistency we cannot allow advocacy. Of any sort. ++Lar: t/c 01:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted in accordance with objective of removing all such userboxes from template space. Metamagician3000 02:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per Metamagician.Timothy Usher 02:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Divisive. --Tony Sidaway 03:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Does not fall under T1. —David618 ^t 03:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Can we see the content? (If I don't come back here, undelete if it's just "this user is an organ donor" or "this user is interested in organ donation," but keep deleted if it's more opinionated than that) --Rory096 03:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, keep deleted with no prejudice towards a neutral and solely factual recreation. --Rory096 03:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The content is right above. I restored the last version to userspace as I noted. Did you want to see all the versions??? ++Lar: t/c 03:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Where'd it go? If it got removed it may have been nice to say why, whoever did it. ++Lar: t/c 17:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and send to TfD This is a borderline case, and I feel it merits reconsideration. --Disavian 04:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • After seeing the template, I feel it did not deserve deletion at all. As it is obviously not under T1. --Disavian 05:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per Rory, but unprotect so that a non-divisive version may be created BigDT 04:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Does not fall under any existing speedy-deletion criterion, as it's very clearly not "divisive and inflammatory". Send this to TfD if you think it should be deleted. -Silence 04:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Aw, come on. I rarely get into userbox debates, but can't "This user is an organ donor" satisfy the "no advocacy" requirement? If rewritten, undelete. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• undelete and TFD if you must. not really divisive or inflamitory. Mike McGregor (Can) 05:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: not divisive or inflammatory. —Ashley Y 07:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: A divisive version would state: "This user has arranged for organ donation and is better than you because of it" or "This user has not arranged for organ donation as it would violate their God-given right to remain whole as a corpse". Even if anyone actually considered the addition of "have you?" to the template to be in any way divisive or inflammatory, wouldn't it make more sense to edit those words out rather than outright delete the template? ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 08:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete And remove "have you?" from it. Information only. --mboverload@ 08:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Reword - one should reword the template instead of speedy it. Hunter 09:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: Stop deleting userbox templates (and indeed creating new ones) until a consensus policy is reached, per Jimbo's request of 'one user at a time.' Deleting them, then having a DRV on everyone is just wasting everyone's time. Bastun 10:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per T1: just considering all the screeching and hollering should give people an idea of just how bloody disruptive these damn things can be. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Until or unless a concensus based policy is established. --StuffOfInterest 11:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, valid deletion. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist on ATfD. Not T1 or T2, but non-speedy-deletion criteria are more extensive. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Xanga/Livejournal beckon. --Improv 18:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete now this IS ridiculous.  Grue  20:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: Burn them all, may the internet run binary with the ones and zeros of the fallen boxes! --Bobak 21:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted --pgk^(talk) 21:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and list per nom. Let's see what the community thinks. Septentrionalis 23:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Perfectly valid T1 deletion, say a few words about it on your userpage if you want. Keep your personal preferences out of template space. Rx StrangeLove 02:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Inappropriate use of template space. AnnH ♫ 08:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Recreate in factual format. "This user is an organ donor." --tjstrf 08:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Recreate per Tjstrf Will (^E_@) T 11:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Recreate as a factual box. What's next, Template:User 911?! Jay Maynard 12:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Recreate per Tjstrf, however I do not endorse its speedy deletion - this was borderline and so obviously easy to change to a neutral version that talk page discussion or a TfD debate would have been less devisive than a speedy deletion. Thryduulf 16:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, I can't see what it initially said, but if it was "I am an organ donor", it's stating a fact, not a POV. If a fact is inflammitory, then so would be "This user owns a car" to enviromentalist. Great, I think I just WP:BEANS --Rayc 23:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, you can't prevent offending EVERYBODY. Rob 13:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, you can't prevent offending EVERYBODY.Giovanni33 17:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, you can't prevent offending EVERYBODY. 03:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Userboxes have failed to hold my interest, but I fail to see how this is even remotely divisive. If this template offends you, you probably should turn off your computer right now. Yamaguchi先生 15:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, Keep deleted, how can this possibly help build an Encyclopedia? This is not MySpace. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

2006 June

1. Okashina_Okashi - Decision of the original closer to relist at AfD is endorsed. 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
2. Dismal's Paradox - Relisted at AfD. 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
3. User:SPUI/jajaja - Nomination withdrawn. 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
4. List of political leaders widely regarded as totalitarian - Request for information answered. 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
5. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed. 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
6. Cultural references in Pokémon - Deletion endorsed. 16:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
7. Fluffy (The Lion King) - Deletion endorsed. 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
8. Kelly Roberti - Copyright issue resolved, restored. 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
9. Image:Pierre Janssen.jpg - Commons image, action impossible here. 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Review
10. Neanderthal theory of autism - Deletion endorsed. 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
11. Be bold, Be Bold - Overturn RfD and revert to WP:BOLD. 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
12. Jeff Lindsay - Deletion endorsed. 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
13. "State Debate Associations" - Deletion endorsed. 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
14. How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 - Deletion endorsed. 17:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
15. Kinston Indians - Deletion endorsed. 17:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
16. Wikipedia:SCAG - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
17. Image:Nuvola 64 apps important.png - undeletion impossible; deleted prior to 16 June 2006. 13:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
18. Sick Nick Mondo - Deletion endorsed for now, pending AfD outcome for related Nick Mondo; should that survive, this is a suitable redirect. 18:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review

    Nick Mondo having survived AfD, this is restored as a redirect. 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

19. True Torah Jews - Deletion endorsed. 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
20. UCIP - Deletion endorsed. 18:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
21. Mending Wall - Keep endorsed. 11:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
22. Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) - Deletion endorsed. 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
23. TheSmartMarks.com - Deletion endorsed. 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
24. Dirt pudding - Transwiki and deletion endorsed. 17:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
25. Kirill Makharinsky - Deletion endorsed. 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
26. Armando Lloréns-Sar - History restored, maintained as redirect; merge issues are an editorial concern for article's talk page. 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
27. Hollywood Undead - Deletion endorsed. 17:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
28. Trexy - Closing administrator agreed to relist AFD. 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Review
29. Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak - No consensus closure endorsed. 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
30. Knox (animator) - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
31. Lightsaber combat - Keep closure endorsed. 18:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
32. Stone Trek - Deletion closure endorsed. 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
33. File:944 h.jpg - DRV closed, image in Commons jurisdiction. 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
34. Sadullah Khan - Undeleted, relisted. 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
35. Atromitos - Undeleted. 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
36. Walk To Emmaus - Deletion endorsed. 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
37. Wikipedia:Conservative notice board. Kept deleted. Strong endorsement. 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Review.
38. Lost: The Journey - Relisted. 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
39. User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes and Template:User Gangster - Undeleted. 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
40. The Lost Boys (demogroup) - Relist. 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
41. Second War (Harry Potter) - Deletion endorsed. 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
42. IRCDig - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
43. Saryn Hooks - Undeleted and relisted at AfD. 17:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
44. Template:Major_programming_languages - template content restored 06:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) review
45. Strategic Policy Consulting - Deletion endorsed. 16:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
46. Actuarial Outpost - Kept kept, mistaken nomination. 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
47. Image:WikiPâques.png - Uploaded to Commons, as suggested. 16:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
48. The Esplanade Mall - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 16:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
49. Sydney Ling - AfD result of "no consensus" endorsed. 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
50. Siberian language - Deletion endorsed. 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
51. Burlington Center Mall - Challenge of no consensus afd withdrawn. 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
52. Erik Möller - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
53. theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh - Deletions endorsed. 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
54. Wikipedia:OURS - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
55. 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) - Deletion endorsed. 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
56. Conservative Underground - Deletion endorsed. 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
57. Boring Business Systems - AfD reopened by acclamation. 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
58. Joseph D. Campbell - Previous AfD overturned, to be relisted at AfD. 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
59. Church of Reality - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
60. Heinen's - Result reversed by consensus, AfD now closed as "no consensus". 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
61. BB Sinha - Restored, listed at AfD. 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (deleted at AfD 20:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)) Review
62. Mending Wall - Restored, listed at AfD, closed as keep, brought here again (above). 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
63. Cancer Bats - Restored, to be resubmitted to AfD in light of new evidence. 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
64. Cum On Her Face - Deletion endorsed. 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
65. AlternC - Deletion endorsed. 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
66. Tiffany Holiday - Deletion endorsed. 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
67. Shane Cubis - Deletion endorsed unanimously (excepting discounted anons/newbies.) 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
68. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
69. Big Brother 7 chronology - Deletion endorsed. Will userfy upon request. 15:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
70. Wikimedia Meta-Wiki - action reverted by the closer. AFD reopened. 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
71. The Adventures of Dr. McNinja - Consensus to permit userpage draft as new recreation, will be submitted to AfD. 17:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
72. Cory kennedy - Deletion endorsed. 17:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
73. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics - Kept deleted unanimously. 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
74. Yar - Deletion endorsed without prejudice to unrelated redirect now at title. 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
75. List of midnight movies - Content restored for merge and redirect. 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
76. AK Productions - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
77. FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together - Undeleted and sent to AfD. 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
78. List of tongue-twisters - Deletion endorsed in light of new Wikiquote transwiki. 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
79. User:Raphael1/Wikiethics - Deletion endorsed. 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
80. Roosters1908, Sydneyroosters1909, and Sydneyroosters1910 - Undeleted to be AfD'ed in light of new evidence. 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
81. National Hockey Leaque player lists - Restored speedily and AFD reopened. 08:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
82. User:AKMask/log - Restored (by a narrow margin) to be sent to MfD. 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
83. Male Unbifurcated Garment - Deletion endorsed (again -- Second DRV in two weeks.) 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
84. Penis banding - Deletion endorsed. 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Review
85. Template:User no notability - Deletion narrowly endorsed. (date unavailable, deletion review never archived) Permalink
86. Syed Ahmed - deletion endorsed, redirected to The Apprentice (UK series 2) 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
87. Ho Shin Do - deletion endorsed without prejudice 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
88. Israel News Agency - article content restored 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
89. Delaware County Intermediate Unit - Deletion closure endorsed. 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
90. Steve Bellone - Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
91. Team NoA - Previous version restored, survived AfD as no consensus. 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
92. Springfield M21 - Restored as redirect with history. 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
93. The drips - Speedy deletion contested, overturned; sent to AfD. 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
94. Template:Voting icons - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
95. Ali Zafar - New NPOV recreation permitted. 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
96. Barbara Bauer, The Literary Agency Group and others - Bauer undeleted and kept at AfD; others kept deleted. 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
97. Scienter - deletion overturned. 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
98. Auto repair shop - original speedy deletion endorsed, without prejudice to now-existing distinct redirect at this title. 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
99. Wikipedia v search engines - deletion endorsed unanimously. 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
100. Pat Price - deletion overturned unanimously, no need to relist. 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
101. Talk:Brian Peppers - kept deleted. 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
102. The Juggernaut Bitch - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
103. South Coast League - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
104. Other side of the pillow - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
105. Joel Leyden - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
106. Sharting - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
107. User:Disavian/Userboxes/Green Energy - deletion endorsed, narrowly 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
108. Left-wing terrorism - article history restored 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
109. Stella Maris College Scout Group - deletion endorsed 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
110. List of Michael Savage neologisms - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
111. Superhorse - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
112. Exicornt - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
113. Image:Lock-icon.jpg - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
114. College Confidential - article content restored 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
115. Tim Dingle - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
116. Abstract People - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
117. Christian views of Hanukkah - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
118. Claught of a bird dairy products - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
119. LIP6 - continue from rewritten version 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
120. Hulk 2 - redirected to Hulk (film) for now 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
121. Xombie - article content restored 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
122. Possible wars between liberal democracies speedy-deletion undone by deleting admin. listed to AFD. 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
123. Gary Howell deletion endorsed. 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
124. New Sincerity - deletion endorsed. 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
125. Successful Praying - speedy deletion as copyvio endorsed. 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
126. Videohypertransference - user copy granted. deletion from articlespace endorsed. 20:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
127. Oz Categories 8 endorse, 5 overturn, deletion endorsed. 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Review

Userbox discussions

• Template:User no notability - deletion endorsed, narrowly 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• Template:User organ donor template content restored 17:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian See WP:TGS
• Template:User satanist kept deleted
• Template:User cannabis kept deleted
• Template:User CCP - kept deleted. 00:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User against fox hunting (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW. Massive endorsement.)

Archives

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 May)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 April)

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. If you nominate an article here, be sure to make a note on the sysop's user talk page regarding your nomination. A template, {{subst:DRVNote}} is available to make this easier.

Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.

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. If you nominate an article here, be sure to make a note on the sysop's user talk page regarding your nomination. A template, {{subst:DRVNote}} is available to make this easier.

Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.

Proposed deletions

Articles deleted under the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion procedure (using the {{PROD}} tag) may be undeleted, without a vote, on reasonable request. Any admin can be asked to do this, alternatively a request may be made here. However, such undeleted articles are open to be speedy deleted or nominated for WP:AFD under the usual rules.

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Steps to list a new deletion review

1.	Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 October 1}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	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 <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 October 1}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 October 1|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

• Endorse the original closing decision; or
• Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
• List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
• Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
• Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

• *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
• *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
• *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
• *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of 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.

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

06 June 2006

Big Brother 7 chronology

Big Brother 7 Chronology (AfD discussion)

This page had more people wanting to keep it then people wanting to delete it. It has been wronlgy deleted by someone who was against the page from its existence. As soon as it was created, this user marked it for deletion. It was wrongly deleted and I campaign for it to be restored... Ellisjm 16:06 UTC 6 June 06

• Overturn: At least have the page there until the series is over and the page can be condensed. --JD^talk_email 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Why was the page deleted? Celestianpower says at the top of the page that the result of the debate was deleted. The results were: 6 for "delete"; 11 for "keep"; 1 for "weak keep" and 1 for "strong delete"!!! I think it's pretty obvious that more people want to keep the page than delete it!! Ellisjm 16:36 UTC 6 June 06

AfD is not a vote. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That may be true, but good reasons for having the page stay were still brought up. Even if only until the end of the series, the page is worth having in peoples' opinions. --JD^talk_email 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. People who wanted the article deleted seem to have more grounds than those who wanted the article kept. — FireFox • 16:44, 06 June '06
• Endorse deletion per FireFox. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Reasons given for deletion were in line with WP policies and guidelines; reasons given for keep were mostly "But I want to keep it" variety. Process was followed, deletion is valid. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn for violation of process. I would have voted "delete", as this does look like non-notable TV cruft, but the result of the debate was no consensus. The keep voters may have been uninformed, but Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators allows only disregarding bad faith votes when establishing consensus, and few such are apparent here. I know of no policy that allows the closing administrator to determine consensus on the basis of which side they agree with. Sandstein 17:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The guidelines say that for example comments made in bad faith may be ignored. In general, the guidelines say admins should use their common sense to determine if a rough consensus exists and should try to remain as objective as possible — they don't provide strict rules for doing this, since no such rule can exists. (Anyway, it's not a "vote".) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and close as no consensus. Neither side had arguments that were all that compelling, and closer was not at all clear as to his/her rationale for the decision. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse- this was a reasonable decision. Possibly the DRV could have been avoided tho, if the closer had given more reasoning about why they closed the way they did. Friday (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, a level of detail far in excess of anything which could possibly be justified by any encyclopaedic purpose. BB7 is more than adequately covered in the main article. This is a fan blog and belongs on a fan site: it is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information.. Just zis Guy you know? 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not meant to be a blog; it's meant to keep the main article small. --JD^talk_email 19:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there some objective measure you're using to make this statement? At what point is it not excessive anymore? Why is detail bad? etc etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm measuring it by the articles for other comparable series. We're a couple of weeks in and already it's longer than many articles on entire series. And this is BB7, not BB1, so it is less notable in the first place. What we have here is a blog, a day-by-day log of events. That's one of the things Wikipedia is not. I have nothing against logging this info at a user subpage for later distillation into an actual article, but speaking as a Brit and part of the target audience this is considerably beyond the defensible encyclopaedic content. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: am I correcting in thinking that people think this article is necessary so that at the end of the show it can be reduced into something encyclopedic? That seems to be what was being said at the AfD, but I just want to verify that before making a decision. Metros232 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That was the plan. --JD^talk_email 19:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Then you should store it somewhere else and repost it when it's encyclopidic. WP isn't a dumping ground for random information. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, then in that case, restore and move to user space. Put it someone's user space so it can be worked on as a future article rather than having it in the mainspace as an actual article. Metros232 19:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Endorse and keep deleted - Wikipedia is not a democracy. The closer based his decision of the strengh of the arguments, not the amount. I agree with User:Friday that the closer should have stated this more clearly. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Per above, restoring to the userspace would also be quite acceptable. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn the result of the discussion was keep and not by a small margin. I completely agree with Ellisjm that the article was wrongly deleted.

-- JAB^[T]_[C] 20:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and Undelete for being out-of-process. --Rob 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak endorse, closure seems to have been within acceptable bounds of discretion. Most of the arguments provided by either side in the debate were rather weak, but some of the arguments for deletion were slightly less weak that the arguments against it. I'm quite willing, however, to userfy the deleted content upon request (a possibility some of the participants in the original debate appear to have been unaware of). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It just makes more sense to have the page in the main Wikipedia area while it exists, because it still has the information that many people may find useful. If that ends up being the only other option, then it may end up happening. But I'm sure you can see what I'm trying to say. --JD^talk_email 23:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem is, if it were in the main namespace it would have to satisfy the Wikipedia policies regarding article content. As it is, it seems to have trouble meeting several, including no original research, reliable sources and several parts of what Wikipedia is not. In short, it is unencyclopedic. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy somewhere by all means but keep deleted per above. Metamagician3000 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. I would rather delete this article but the discussion was at most a "no consensus", not a "delete". --Metropolitan90 02:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:WikiPâques.png

Image:WikiPâques.png was deleted in February on the basis it was an orphan. Well, of course it was an orphan - it was February and the image was an Easter Wikipedia logo, so it'll only be unorphaned when it's Easter. I see no valid reason to delete this. Users may still want it on their user page at Easter. It's also causing red links in older revisions. See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 February 14 for the listing on IfD. There's a copy here if the deletion is overturned and someone wants to reupload it. Angela. 08:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Re-upload to Commons, so any project can use it, and Commons is outside of enwiki's jurisdiction. --Rory096 08:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

National Hockey League player lists

List of every NHL player NHL players A NHL players B NHL players C NHL players D NHL players E NHL players F NHL players G NHL players H NHL players I

NHL players J NHL players K NHL players L NHL players M NHL players N NHL players O NHL players P NHL players Q NHL players R

NHL players S NHL players T NHL players U NHL players V NHL players W NHL players X NHL players Y NHL players Z

Relist. They were improperly speedy deleted out of process for "already have lists of hockey players. don't need two" . Although they were posted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHL players A, I was not given an opportunity to state some reasons as to why they should be kept, such as (briefly):

• They follow Wikipedia:List guideline
• They can be cleaned up. We can remove the external spam links, but add some dates and stats to each entry.
• There are other similar list pages thay list sports players in alphabetical order such as List of retired American football players, List of Major League Baseball players, List of National Basketball Association players, List of English footballers, List of footballers (Rugby Union), etc.
• In fact, there are many, many other lists of people on Wikipedia that are just lists of names in alphabetical order.

Because of these reasons, there is really no basis for speedy deletion -- they were out of process Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, bring the lists back. They were the best way of keeping tabs on hockey player articles so that duplicate articles weren't created and so that disambigs are easier. Masterhatch 07:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Bring them back! This is not link-farming or spamming. Although it's not always 100% accurate, as far as being a simple and comprehensive directory of statistics Hockeydb is the best site I've seen. Criticizing them for having advertisements is absurd -- apart from Wikipedia, almost every other site on the web does too! And like Masterhatch said, the list itself was invaluable for keeping track of NHL player articles. — GT 09:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:EL. Internal links are fine, and an external link to Hockeydb on each individual article is fine, too, but the point of WP lists is not to link to external articles on each of a number of related subjects, and the removal of external links from list articles is very common practice supported by policy and guidelines. As far as the lists themselves are concerned, they would be worth having if there are many redlinks, otherwise I can't see what this adds to a (self-maintaining) category. Just zis Guy you know? 10:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My recollection is that the majority of players who played before last decade do not have articles. That's why these pages were so useful -- you could browse them and see if a player you recognized didn't yet have an article. The nice thing about having the Hockeydb links right there was that you could instantly see the "story" behind each red-linked player as represented by his career statistics (which often tells you as much as you care to know about him). As far as not obeying WP:EL, I disagree as the point of the page was to be a list of players, and the external links served a secondary purpose. — GT 16:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, having the external link right beside each player helped keep people from adding their own name as a vanity article. hockeydb.com is, as far as i know, the most complete list of hockey players and their stats on the net and it because really easy to see if an added name is a vanity article or a real player. Masterhatch 17:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So why not make an infobox template with a parameter for the hockeydb entry? A Wikipedia list with external links (first!) and predominantly redlinks for the internal links is practically begging for deletion. External links are for references in articles. Just zis Guy you know? 19:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What's taking so long to get A through G back? Masterhatch 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I put everything back. Another admin deleted them again. Go talk to him. pschemp | talk 17:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Tagged as A3: article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections); deleted as such (i.e. in-process, as this is a valid speedy criterion). I didn't see any evidence that the deleting admin was aware of this debate.

• I have reopened the AfD and restored the deleted ones, as valid but contested speedy deletions. These are bare lists of links. The list of mainly redlinks may serve a purpose; perhaps it would be better to have these in Project space as part of a wikiproject's work list? Bare lists with no other data are an abomination unto Nuggan and should be shunned into oblivion; if dates and other encyclopaedic information are added then these are defensible (without, obviously, the external links). I have removed the external links to make this less like a mirror of HockeyDB with one or two Wikipedia articles added Just zis Guy you know? 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

05 June 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it or delete it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 19:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja

With respect to the Original Undelete request by me, I have composed the following article in my userspace which meets (as far as I can tell) the requirements of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:Notability, etc.

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja (Userspace draft)

I, do,once again, request request undeletion per original request:

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja, undelete request by PHDrillSergeant. This web comic has grown in poularity since the last time it was deleted through AFD, and although the site's archive has 'only three entries', each of those entries has about 20-40 pages, which adds up to over 100 pages total including the current storyline. This comic is extremely funny and is important, especially one who wishes to know more about this odd character and his adventures. I think this comic should get another chance. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 23:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 21:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Is there any evidence that it has grown significantly in popularity? The Alexa rating is five digits, and a quick scan of Google turns up lots of self- and friend-promotion, but not much analysis or commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question Has there been any stories, interviews, or other coverage in mainstream or semi-mainstream press (not counting simple lists of webcomics)? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• What has changed since deletion? As noted above, the fundamental problem was a lack of evident encyclopaedic notability. Just zis Guy you know? 10:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
    • The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
      • WebComicList (a non-trivial published site that is independent of the site itself) has its own article, stated in the external links section. The web comic has ablso been the subject of debate on multiple community-based forums, such as eBaum's World Forums, SNAFU Comics Forums, and VG Cats Forums. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 17:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
        • That article on WebComicList is one sentence, as part of a list of webcomics. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, then, since this is a single trivial reference rather than multiple non-trivial references. We have no deadline to meet, we can afford to wait until it is genuinely notable and has atracted enough external attention to allow a verifiably neutral article to be written. Just zis Guy you know? 16:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Categorical undelete. This article has had very poor defense in the past. I did not see it mentioned that Dr. McNinja is a member of Dayfree Press, a very well-known collective in the webcomics community and therefore a peer to heavyweights such as Questionable Content and Dinosaur Comics. It has been brought up on the talk page that extreme bias has been built up against this article because of its rocky faring in the past. I would point out that there is no shame in accepting it now -- it does not undermine Wikipedia or any of the users who have criticized it; rather, it is a testament to our sometimes rigorous standards. It is now due time to recognize this professional-level webcomic, as anyone vaguely familiar with this online community must know of its near meteoric rise. Let's not be reactionary or snobbish; much lesser topics have their due recognition already. --BDD 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I was unaware that this comic was under Dayfree Press, yet this information seems to strengthen my resolve even more. Remember: if you can read it, if you can comprehend it, if you can learn from it...it isn't trivial. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 22:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I seem to remember (though I can't find the proper documentation, and it's possible that this was changed) a policy that members of the most prominent webcomic collectives merited articles. It's a sound policy. --BDD 00:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I'm the one who locked McNinja down as a {{deletedpage}}, but I agree with BDD. We may want to table this until the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards come out next month. I think there's a good chance McNinja will win one, and if it does, there won't be any question it will have met WP:WEB. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: I havn't read much of it, but I have seen references to it in other webcomics such as Bunny [33]. Also undelete per Abe. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Definitely notable per talk of deleted page.--Eloquence* 11:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Cory kennedy

My article on Cory kennedy was deleted via speedy deletion. I think this was a wrong move. Cory Kennedy is a becoming a huge internet phenenomenon. She has found a cult following on myspace, livejournal, and the cobra snake - as well as a place in current pop culture. This is the digital age. People are going to be looking her up. There is no reason for this article to have been deleted. This site should provide the most information possible - even about "internet celebrities." In fact, internet phenenomenons are particularly relevent on wikipedia because this IS the internet! I am requesting that this article be placed back up. I put in quite a bit of useful, accurate information about a person who is becoming very well known on the internet. Cory was also recently featured in Nylon magazine. Please review this. ~user:sleepyasthesouth

• Endorse speedy - As the deleting admin, it looked to be a nn-bio. The references were not reliable sources (blogs and livejournal). I deleted it first on a csd placed by another editor, then as a recreation (sleepyasthesouth recreated it including the notability and csd tags) and salted the earth. Syrthiss 12:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per Syrthiss. From the speedy tag: "it is an article about a person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)" There is no evidence that The Cobra Snake is itself a notable website, or that the parties she attends are notable, so all the more there cannot be evidence that she is notable for being on The Cobra Snake or for attending parties. Johnleemk | Talk 12:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• ADD-ON : I now understand why is was deleted. However, Isn't Cory Kennedy notable for suddenly having so many "fans" and finding herself all over the internet so quickly? What would qualify as a notable source? Would her feature in Nylon magazine qualify? Even if the information in the wikipedia article did not contain more than what is provided in the Nylon article? ~user:sleepyasthesouth
• Undelete and list on AfD As a contested speedy and the presence in Nylon constitutes a minimal claim to notability. JoshuaZ 16:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse / keep deleted As far as "internet phenomenon" qualifications go, I get 207 unique Google hits and the vast majority of those seem to be about other people by that name, among them a male bodybuilder, a soccer player, a congressional staff member, and a volleyball player. If she's an internet phenomenon, the internet doesn't really seem to be aware of that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Cory has only recently exploded on the internet over the past few weeks and it has been almost entirely on myspace, blogs and livejournal - places that will not really end up in google. A community was made for her on livejournal and in just over a week there are already over 200 members.
    However, if that's the final word - fine. I imagine soon she'll be on the site because her popularity seems to be only increasing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.205.176 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Above comment is misinformed. Those sites are very heavily indexed by google. Fan1967 18:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • comment A lot of absolute bullshit is heavily indexed by google, too. Being indexed by google doesn't make something a reliable source. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment I'm aware of that. However, the anon was trying to argue there was more attention being paid to this person in myspace and such sites that google wouldn't pick up. Google picks up pretty much everything there, so there's no hidden trove of notability. Fan1967 20:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, I typed that early this morning, apparently before things started to make sense. Reading it now, yes, you're right. I agree that if google can't see you; you aren't much of an internet phenomenon.
• Endorse deletion, quite blatantly there are no reliable sources for this. And 'contested speedy' is not a reason to restore (unlike contested PROD). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Well, I think the article definitely should have been deleted, however, I do not believe that it met the deliberately narrow speedy deletion criteria. I believe quite strongly that Sam is incorrect. A speedy-deletion that is contested in good faith is to be immediately restored and listed to AFD. That was a requirement set up when the speedy-deletion process was first established. Much as I hate to be a process wonk, we have to keep our own process creep under control. Overturn speedy and list to AFD. Being unsourced may be a deletion criteria but it is not a speedy-deletion criterion. Rossami (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you mind telling me where it says that contested speedy deletions get automatically sent to AfD, Rossami? Because I've never heard that, there's nothing in any of the obvious places saying that (e.g. next to the section on contested WP:PRODs on this very page), and if it ever was true, the widespread acceptance of WP:SNOW appears to contradict it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:CSD:A7 says "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead.". Also WP:SNOW has the text "If an issue raises no controversy, and ...", and therefor can't be used in disputed or controversial cases. --Rob 23:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Though I think that practically, the bar for 'disputed' there is significantly higher than for PRODs. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Widespread acceptance? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. There's no sourced claim of notability. Hence, CSD A7. The recourse for contested speedy deletions is this page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Valid speedy A7, and stands no chance whatsoever at AfD Just zis Guy you know? 21:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You can see the future here? WP:SNOW is never appropriate, specifically in a discussion about a speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yup, I can see the future fairly accurately here. Articles on vapid pseudo-celebrities with no objective claim to notability get daleted almost without exception. Most likely it would be tagged and speedied as A7 almost immediately it was listed. Somewhere I have a postcard with a picture of Michael Fish and the caption"I Predict The Future: Weatherman's Amazing Claim"... Just zis Guy you know? 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion sort of reluctantly. Rossami and Thieverr are quite right that this wasn't a good choice for speedy deletion, and for a dozen reasons it's better to err on the side of AfD - worst thing that happens is someone speedies it from there anyway. But... I dunno. These darn internet meme and internet meme wannabe articles are such pains, because there tends to be a crowd willing to stonewall against policy on them every time, and then we end up back at DRV. It would never be kept by a proper AfD, but it probably won't ever see one either, so it's best to keep it dead once it's dead. If the girl actually sticks around, there'll be media, and you can rewrite the article about her then. Does it really hurt that much if the interweb's flavor of the month doesn't automatically get a Wikipedia article? There's something to be said for standards. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per others and per WP:SNOW.
• Endorse deletion: Websites generate huge numbers for anything and everything, but it would be very wrong to call these numbers "fans." Further, it's all about the effect on the recorded world, the verifiable world. Anything that vanishes when the power goes out is less reliable than anything that needs a flood to destroy it. Geogre 13:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics

User:Thebainer requested me to file this request below. The article has been speedied, because User:Rgulerdem allegedly edited it after he was indefinitely banned. Even if that allegation is correct, WP:CSD G5 only allows pages to be speedied, if they were created by banned users while they were banned. Irregular edits can easily be reverted instead. Raphael1 12:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Pointless rulelawyering is the only reason given to undelete, and does not address the original reason this page was tagged with the speedy tag: "rejected 'policy'. This page has become a permanently banned user magnet, please review history." (Oh, and did anyone mention that essentially the same page already exists at Wikipedia:Wikiethics?) Johnleemk | Talk 12:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know of any policy, which prohibits to copy a rejected policy to user space. Any why do you care so much, whether permanently banned users edit on a user space page? Would you rather want them to edit Wikipedia:Wikiethics? Raphael1 13:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Because userpages don't belong to users. Johnleemk | Talk 13:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • That's a non sequitur. I've never stated, that User:Rgulerdem or myself owned that page. Raphael1 13:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, a permanently banned user coming back to edit on a page in the previous user space accorded him is bad. This is not an allegation but indeed was what occurred as User:Rgulerdem again used an IP address or two that started with 216. which was previously reported on the RFCU confirming his sockpuppetry and left editorial commentary corresponding to his use of IP addresses as he returned to edit. Better that the page be kept deleted to discourage the return of the banned editor. Netscott 13:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question - what's the actual argument for this page's existence? Does it help bulid the encyclopedia? -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This page has been created to work on the prematurely polled proposal (5 days after the first draft has been created). Its location in user space has been suggested by User:Johntex to avoid controversy with opposing parties.[34] Raphael1 13:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well now that User:Rgulerdem is banned, the logic necessitating his usage of a subpage is no longer applicable. Regardless, he did come back via an anon IP address to edit on it and that's reason enough alone to delete it and keep it deleted. Netscott 14:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • As you know, I'd like to take over Rgulerdems work. What's your problem with that? Raphael1 16:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • My problem is that you are setting yourself up to act as a proxy to edit for a banned editor. This is bad. Netscott 17:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Netscott, at this point, how do you distinguish Raphael1's own ideas from ideas that are a banned editor's by proxy? Can nobody ever propose a similar policy, now that whatsisname is banned? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
            • GTBacchus, thank you for expressing your concerns. I have one question. Have you been following the discussion occurring on the Wikipedia mailing-list WikiEn-I? If you had you would instantly know that User:Raphael1 is acting as a proxy for User:Rgulerdem (particularly when Raphael1 started Resid Gulerdem's now G5 speedy deleted WP:OURS proposal). That is why I have proxy concerns. Banned editors should not have proxies working on their behalf, or am I wrong in making that statement? Netscott 20:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
              • I haven't been following WikiEn-I. I've never actually figured out how to subscribe to that. Nevertheless, I was pretty much aware that Raphael was trying to run with Rgulerdem's ideas. I guess what you're telling me is that there's no question that Raphael isn't acting based on his own initiative at all, but just acting for Rgulerdem, end of story. I don't know how you know that, but I'm willing to take your word for it. I also confess to not really getting what they're driving at with this proposed policy, but I guess it's neither here nor there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am Sam, Sam I am.

I do not like this censor sham.

Keep deleted in user space.

Keep deleted in any place.

Keep deleted from the socks.

Keep deleted says userbox.

Keep deleted here or there,

Keep deleted anywhere. --Dr. Blanning 16:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious. Kotepho 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Unsure why do we need a copy of this in User: and Wikipedia:? why is this so harmful or worthless that it must be deleted? Kotepho 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • May I congratulate you on your instincts? You've definitely asked the right question: "Why is this so harmful or worthless that it must be deleted?" Nobody here will be able to answer that question, because it's neither harmful nor is it worthless (at least not any more worthless, than most other stuff lying around in user space). Raphael1 02:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Sam I Am. --Cyde↔Weys 20:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. How many copies of a comprehensively rejected proposal do we need? Just zis Guy you know? 21:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment What exactly did the proposal contain in the first place? Even if it's already been voted down, couldn't it be kept and tagged as a rejected proposal or some such? --tjstrf 02:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Isn't that at Wikipedia:Wikiethics already? --Rory096 06:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and stop flogging a dead horse. Metamagician3000 06:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Nuke from orbit. Raphael has been openly communicating with a banned user on wikipedia-en-l to continue said banned editors interests. Shell babelfish 14:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, we don't need a banned user's disruptive attempt at policy-making resurrected in anybody's userspace. —Stormie 21:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Rgulerdem forfeited his user space when he got himself blocked. Many people warned him to stop wasting other people's time pushing this proposal. Rhobite 21:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Banned user. Unwelcome. Big Blue Marble 01:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

04 June 2006

List of midnight movies

This article was tagged for speedy deletion as "patent nonsense," which I felt was unjustified. I placed a "hangon" tag on the article, and stated my reasoning on the article's talk page. I was going to list it on AfD and propose that it be merged with the main Midnight Movies article. I never got the opportunity to do so, however, since the article was, and I think rather precipitously, deleted. I propose, therefore, that the speedy deletion be reversed, the article be listed on AfD and suggest it's merger as stated above. ---Charles 03:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• The article was tagged for speedy deletion with that reason. I agree that it was not patent nonsense in the very specific and narrow way that we use the term here on Wikipedia. It the actual reason given for the deletion, however, was "WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information". Unfortunately, that is not an accepted criteria for speedy-deletion. I see little redeeming value to this list but as a procedural matter, it should have been AFD'd, not speedy-deleted. Rossami (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, undelete and send to AfD. No legitimate speedy reason given. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undeleted without prejudice, if someone wants to send this to AFD they can (obviously). --Cyde↔Weys 13:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• I have carried out a rough merger and redirect, which seems the best fate for the list's content. Xoloz 23:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yar

I would appreciate opinions/education on the deletion of Yar. I understand the Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, it would seem that certain concepts, which may be expressed in a single word, have some merit to their explanation. For a very similar use-case, see Gemütlichkeit. Thanks. --Incarnate

• Endorse deletion. Certainly, there is merit to there explanation of a word. That's what a dictionary is for. There was nothing in any version of this page that even attempted to be more than a definition. Please try creating it at Wiktionary.
  I'll note, however, that this particular word doesn't actually appear in any dictionary I could quickly put my hands on. (Merriam Webster had an entry as a variant spelling of "yare" but the definition given has nothing to do with any of the definitions on the deleted page.) Be prepared to offer some verifiable sources for the alleged definitions when you do so. Rossami (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks much for the clarification. I was uncertain of where the line might exist between the definition of a "word" and the definition of a "concept" (ie, definition of the word "cottage" versus a cottage) Additionally, the original article was based on my own experience, which is probably a better reason for deletion per the standards of articles (which I do support). Formal definitions are virtually nonexistent, only cropping up occasionally in film or TV as a truncated reference to boating. I'll give up and leave it be, thanks again for the appraisal. Incarnate 03:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, if you take it to Wiktionary be sure to give some evidence of attestation. One mention in The Simpsons does not make a valid yachting term. Maybe it's US-specific and that's why I have never heard it (I have many yachting friends including one who recently returned from sailing run d the world and another who teaches yachtmasters but they are all British). Just zis Guy you know? 08:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, with no prejudice against recreation if it can be made into something more than a dicdef. Apparently there is a real nautical term to be found under all the noise (see [35] and [36]) — however, that in itself makes it eligible for Wiktionary, not for Wikipedia. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. Dicdef. It's a real nautical word (may be spelled yar or yare), figures heavily in a section of dialog from The Philadelphia Story ([37]), but there's not much else to say about it. Fan1967 15:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• I've been bold and recreated this as a redirect to Tasha Yar, Denise Crosby's infamous Star Trek: The Next Generation character. Xoloz 18:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The Skin of Evil would be proud! Syrthiss 19:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

AK Productions

AK Productions was deleted suddenly and for know told reason. I believe that AK Productions should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia, sure it is a young company but still exists. I would like the article to be restored or for a reason to be given for it's overnight deletion. Comrade_Kale 2:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Mere existence is insufficient reason to justify a Wikipedia article. There appear to be a number of companies out there by that name. Which one is yours? Fan1967 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid A7. --Rory096 20:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• The opening sentence of this page read "AK Productions, is a recently created Production Company operating out of Waterville High School in New York State. Founded by Kale Carter, Brendan Carter, Olin Carlsen and Andrew Desimone in late May of 2006". It probably did not fit the deliberately narrow speedy-deletion criteria but if it had gone to AFD, it would have been measured against the standards of WP:CORP. From the information available, I don't see any chance that it would have succeeded in that discussion. I can not endorse the speedy-deletion but neither can I support it's undeletion without at least a little bit of evidence that this is appropriate to the encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• In other words, when I asked which of the many googleable "AK Productions" this was, the answer is "None of them". Endorse Deletion. Fan1967 22:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: We get a ton of buddy articles from youngsters. Simply put, they need to be real before they can even go to AfD, IMO. If something is just three kids announcing that they are now a corporation (or rock band, or rap group, or game faction, or gang), then it's true A7. The kick is the "formed in 2006" and "recently." We need to have things generate effects on the world before anyone will need them explained. Geogre 13:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AK Productions, is a recently created Production Company operating out of Waterville High School in New York State. And the article was created and edited solely by the people named in the article. A textbook case of WP:NFT. Just zis Guy you know? 15:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together

FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together was deleted as not notable. I think it is notable, given the press coverage listed under "References" and the people behind it, and I would like the article to be restored. TruthbringerToronto 11:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete; seems to be notable (albeit with less than 1000 google hits). &#0151; JEREMY 15:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't find an AfD on this one. The AfD article that exists (here) was just created by TruthbringerToronto as a mistaken attempt to launch the DRV. How was it originally deleted? Fan1967 16:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and AFD as a contested A7 speedy deletion. --Allen3 ^talk 17:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist if it was a contested speedy, though I'm inclined to suspect there will still be a consensus to delete. (Google cache of article is here). Fan1967 17:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Speedy deletion is not prod, you can't just contest it and force it to AfD. This has 11 Google hits. Most of those "articles" are on the group's site! --Rory096 20:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I get about 700 by looking for variations, which IMO gets over speediable territory, but probably still fails AFD consensus. Fan1967 21:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Doubtful that's more than A7, I get that many hits (and I was speedied, and quite justifiably so). --Rory096 21:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, speedy-deletion is exactly like prod in that regard. By policy and long tradition, any speedy-deletion which is contested in good faith is immediately undeleted and listed on AFD. That was one of the requirements set up when the speedy-deletion process was first approved. Rossami (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmm, so why do we even have things like {{hangon}}? --Rory096 06:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• AfD it due to possible WP:V violation as well as a name that doesn't follow naming converntions. Likely an article by an inexperienced or new user due to the use of an abrreviation in the title, which gives an idea of the quality. I can't say without reading it, so relaunch it for afd.-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 01:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Notable cause which deserves as much support as possible. Karnei 18:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So is it notable, or does it deserve support? If just the latter, that's not a valid reason to undelete. If the former, how is it notable? --Rory096 06:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

List of tongue-twisters

I listed the article for deletion on 17 April. The consensus was to either keep, or move to Wikibooks. The article was transwikied on 29 May by User:theProject, and subsequently deleted by User:Tijuana Brass. However, it was proclaimed unsuitable for Wikibooks and deleted from there by b:User:Jguk. As the alternative to transwiki was keep, and transwikiing failed, we should restore it. Rain74 11:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Since it's on Wikiquote now, keep deleted (I hope they'll accept it). Rain74 18:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Reinstate and relist. I will vote delete on AfD. Just zis Guy you know? 12:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  Keep deleted since it's at Wikiquote now, which seems like a much better place. Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Reinstate and relist - makes sense in the circs. keep deleted given the new information available Metamagician3000 12:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Suggestion why not move it to the Department of Fun? Sophia 12:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted no point in duplicating as it's at Wikiquote now. Sophia 05:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, the afd was pretty clear that this should be kept somewhere. After undeletion transwiki discussions should continue. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Changed to endorse.
  • • Endorse deletion as this has been transwiki'd in line with the AFD. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It has been. Please check the Transwiki log more carefully. Also, just because one wiki doesn't want it doesn't mean we must keep it. -Splash - tk 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Posting the result of the transwiki log was helpful here, implying that I was required to search that backloged page is not helpful, I assumed good faith in the nominator. Just because one wiki doesn't want it certainly doesn't mean we should give it safe haven, but the afd was clear that it should be transwikid or kept, not transwiki'd or deleted. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete don't know why it was deleted in the first place, because it was one of the better lists on Wikipedia. Promote to featured after undeletion.  Grue  12:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist: I'd prefer that conjunctive votes get clear on the matter. Yes, it will probably be kept, but I should like AfD to speak clearly. Geogre 13:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted in light of information that the thing was transwiki'd. If there has been a transwiki, then this is a no-brainer (and pretty much an invalid review), as duplicate material is forbidden. If the authors don't want it on Wikiquote, then that's sort of too bad, as authors are no more priviledged than readers at Wikipedia. Geogre 22:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It did. It was transwikied, rejected at it's target, and now transwiki'd elsewhere. -Splash - tk 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Splash. I took the deletion summary and his comment on WT:DRV too literally and did not realize it was already moved to Wikiquote. Kotepho 21:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Undelete/Transwiki to wikiquote, this is just silly. Kotepho 19:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• No, no, no. People should do there research first. It's been transwiki'd to Wikiquote. See q:Transwiki:List of tongue-twisters. Wikipedia didn't want it, and neither did Wikibooks. That is no reason to restore it here. You don't get some kind of free pass into Wikipedia just because noone else wants it! Anyway, it's been transwiki'd elsewhere. That's all that's needed. -Splash - tk 20:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme keep deleted. Just because wikibooks doesn't want something doesn't mean we have to keep it. And I totally agree with Splash. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Splash. The AfD debate did show a strong consensus that the content be kept somewhere, but now that it's on Wikiquote, there's no reason to keep it here. (I've notified all the people who voted before Splash's comment and asked them to revise or confirm their vote in light of it. Sorry for the spam.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems my spamming was actually redundant. Doubly sorry. *embarrassed* —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Helped me, actually, as I was crossing this one off my internal list. Geogre 03:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, as the desired outcome (keeping the content elsewhere) has been reached. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the VfD in question has a consensus to keep. Most users voted for keep as a primary solution and transwiki as a secondary. The VfD was closed inproperly. There were no delete votes. The decision should be overturned.  Grue  09:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, my closure did use a modicum of discretion, but isn't it a leap to improper? Kotepho 20:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Your closure was valid, in my book: more than one person pointed out that the list is inherently unverifiable (i.e. unsuitable for Wikipedia) and most offered Transwiki as a valid outcome, which it seems to me to be. Status quo appears to be reasonable. Just zis Guy you know? 15:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• undelete, but remove the non-English tongue twisters and have interwiki links to the other languages for their tongue twisters. Masterhatch 18:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Raphael1/Wikiethics

This page got deleted for the following reason: "can't have copy & paste moves of deleted pages - GFDL requires the history"

I've copied the page from User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics (before it was removed) and pasted it to User:Raphael1/Wikiethics. I didn't know how I could have copied the history of this article as well and certainly didn't want to violate GFDL. Please restore that page together with the history of User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics to make it compliant with GFDL. Raphael1 00:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse. Anyway, Rgulerdem is banned, and it was a fair deletion that time. Will (^E_@) T 01:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It was removed, because it has been in the userspace of an indef-banned user. I am not banned, therefore User:Raphael1/Wikiethics can't be removed for the same reason. Raphael1 01:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It's CSD G4 and possibly G5 Will (^E_@) T 01:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • It's neither G4, because it hasn't been recreated, instead it has been copied before deletion (besides G4 doesn't apply for user space pages), nor is it G5 (because I'm not banned). Raphael1 01:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
        • It's a recreation. The G4 exception for user space is supposed to be for articles undeleted at a user's request, not for recreation of deleted content that was originally in the user namespace. Will (^E_@) T 01:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
          • It's not a recreation. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics has been removed on the 2006-05-31 and I've copied the page before that date. BTW please restore User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics as well since G5 only applies for pages created by banned users while they were banned. Raphael1 01:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. This "policy" has been the source of highly contentious and disruptive editing and User:Raphael1's user page is just an unecessary copy of the rejected Wikipedia:Wikiethics that is likely to do the same as User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics which is to encourage banned editors to use sockpuppets or anonymous IPs to circumvent their block to edit on Wikipedia. Netscott 09:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Whether you deem my copy to be "unnecessary" is certainly no part of WP:CSD. Furthermore did User:Raphael1/Wikiethics with no syllable encourage banned editors to circumvent their block. I wonder, where you got that from? Raphael1 14:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well this MfD for User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics is what relates to my mentioning banned and sockpuppet users. I'm curious Raphael1, why did you actually save a copy of permanently banned user User:Rgulerdem's page? I understand that as Wikipedia editors we are to assume good faith in the editing of our fellow contributors but was the reason you saved a copy because you noticed that as a banned editor Resid Gulerdem was editing on it and figured that it'd be deleted and to disrupt that process you decided to save a copy? It seems so odd to me that you should have just happened to save a copy of his user page version just prior to its deletion. Netscott 19:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: the article itself isn't banned, just one of the originating editors. Netscott, why is it a problem for Raphael1 to have a userspace copy (I assume a developmental version, like User:Jeremygbyrne/Roger Elwood or User:Jeremygbyrne/Brontosaurus) of an article? &#0151; JEREMY 15:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note - this vote was gained through advertisement.[38]Timothy Usher 17:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Jeremy, it's all a question of good faith. I didn't request deletion or even mention the existence of Raphael1's user page copy of permanently banned User:Rgulerdem's user page to anyone (despite misgivings about seeing him copy it just prior to its deletion) but someone else from the WikiEn-I mailing list appears to have seen mention of it by Raphael1 there and decided independently to delete it. Now that the act is done I support it for the reasons I expressed above. I would recommend the both of you to disassociate yourselves from Resid Gulerdem for anyone editing in support of him is likely to have his or her own reputation tarnished as he was not only disruptive here but in a completely independent fashion was repeatedly disruptive and blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia. Resid Gulerdem is just bad for Wikipedia. Netscott 19:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't understand your "good faith" argument. It's obvious that most material which is about to be deleted will continue to exist elsewhere — in google's cache for example. Raphael1 could have taken a copy of the article offsite and done to it whatever he chose, in the privacy of his own home. Instead, he chose to keep it on wikipedia (which looks like good faith to me), and he has suffered for it. Next time, do you think he will be more or less inclined to act in secrecy? &#0151; JEREMY 10:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • The preceding user's comments were solicited through targetted advertisement[39].Timothy Usher 10:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • No need to persist with your well-poisoning, Timothy. Most people understood your accusation the first time. &#0151; JEREMY 10:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
            • I did understand User:Timothy Usher's statement of fact the first time and also saw it as an attempt by User:Raphael1 to "game the system", but do agree that it's a bit silly to repeat such a statement. ;-) Netscott 11:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Suffered? Where's the suffering? The only ones suffereing are those having to spend time dealing with this nonsense. Let's face it Jeremy, Raphael1's actions were to thwart in a disruptive fashion the virtually assured deletion of Resid Gulerdem's user page. Is that not so difficult to understand? Regardless as bainer's comment below illustrates, Raphael1 shouldn't be trying to resurrect his own copy of Resid Gulerdem's final version of "Wikiethics" but in fact should be trying to resurrect Resid Gulerdem's (rightly imho) deleted user page. Netscott 10:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Raphael1's actions were to thwart in a disruptive fashion And you foresaw this via which divinatory or telepathic methodology, exactly? It would seem far more likely that Raphael1 took a copy to preserve relevant material for a future proposal. Your refusal to assume good faith (or at least not to assume the first bad faith interpretation that springs to mind) is troubling. This is yet another example of flawed rules-lawyering supported by the tyranny of the majority. Raphael1's editing may frustrate some people, but the way he has been treated is disgraceful. &#0151; JEREMY 11:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
              • The plea to "rules lawyering" is rather lame, can't you do better than use that argumentation device? Honestly, Raphael1 like myself and User:Metros232 saw that the permanently banned editor User:Rgulerdem was editing via IP addresses on his failed Wikiethics proposal and realized (again rightly so) that it was likely to be deleted because of that and to thwart such a deletion he saved a copy. Raphael1 wasn't involved in editing on that policy since it was last worked on over at Wikipedia:Wikiethics. Does it not strike either of you as foolish to be here wasting our time discussing the saving of a policy that was founded by a demonstrably disruptive editor? It's as if you're here trying to defend a banned user's right to continue to make policy on Wikipedia even when he's blocked. The only reason I can see for this is because "it's a cause!". You know if Resid Gulerdem had only been blocked on the English Wikipedia I might understand better those wanting to defend him and his ridiculous policy but the fact that he's been independently repetitively blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia makes me sooner see such individuals as foolish. Netscott 11:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
                • Firstly I have not seen User:Rgulerdem editing on User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics via IP addresses, and secondly I have been editing User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics before it was removed. Raphael1 12:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
                  • Raphael1, why did you think his user page was going to be deleted then? If the user page had just sat there no one's attention would have been brought to it, but this is not what occurred. Netscott 12:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
                    • Don't you first want to apologize for your wrong claims before you ask any further questions? Raphael1 13:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
                      • No, due to my witnessing your previous demonstrations of a lack of good faith I'm inclined to view this as another example of the same. Netscott 14:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse~. Per Netscott's above comments -- Karl Meier 17:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Netscott.Timothy Usher 17:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Wikipedia:Wikiethics still exists if you want to go edit that. What you did by copy and pasting it into your own user space was done only to get around the fact that it was about to be deleted it. That is, in an ironic way, unethical. I also frown up the nominating user for the advertising of this discussion [40], [41], [42], etc. 6 advertisements in total. Metros232 17:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I've got no supernatural skill to see the future. How could I have acted upon a "fact", which still lied ahead? Raphael1 17:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Why did you copy and paste it to yours then? If you didn't think it was going to be deleted, why did you need a copy of your own instead of just editing the one that existed at Rgulerdem's user page? Why did you think that two needed to exist? Metros232 17:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed I did suspect, that it might get deleted in the future, but I certainly didn't know about that. I still don't see, how it is in any way unethical to take over the work of an indef-banned user. Besides User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics shouldn't have been removed as well since G5 only applies for pages created by banned users while they were banned. Raphael1 19:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, copy of a previously rejected attempt at censorship. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted since this was proposed at Wikipedia:Wikiethics and solidly rejected I see no particular merit in keeping it hanging around in user space in a form which (at first glance) looks to be even less acceptable. Just zis Guy you know? 22:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not going to endorse or overturn my own deletion, though I will say to Raphael1 that if he wants the content, he needs to hold a DRV on the original page (User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics) because copy & pasted pages cannot possibly exist when the original page is deleted. --bainer (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've read through this deletion review, and what I'm missing is any argument for why this page should exist. Why maintain a copy of a rejected policy written by a banned user? How does it help write the encyclopedia? -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I wonder, why you even ask that question. Shouldn't you rather ask, why should that page be removed? Nevertheless I will answer your question: Rgulerdem and some other editors worked on this former prematurely rejected policy in userspace to avoid controversy with opposing parties. I'd like to continue Rgulerdems work, which is why I've created a copy. Raphael1 16:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I think it's pretty clear from reading this discussion that it's being removed because it's the work of a banned editor, and seems to be a sore spot for a lot of people. At that point, the ball's back in your court - if so many Wiki regulars are against it, what's so great about it to make it worth the static you incur by recreating it? I've asked a more pertinent question at your talk page. If your goal is to improve Wikipedia, a bad way to start is by pissing a bunch of people off by acting as proxy for a banned user, practically speaking. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I can't believe, that you are repeating Netscotts accusation ("proxy editing"). I consider this a personal attack, since it completely disregards my individuality. What's so bad about the work of this banned editor, that it needs to be removed? Will you remove Interfaith as well, because it's mostly his work? IMHO this whole agitation to delete User:Rgulerdems work and keep it deleted, is a clear sign, that Rgulerdem hasn't been blocked for his behaviour, but for the position he has taken on various topics. Raphael1 02:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

        I don't enter the conversation just assuming that Netscott is lying; why not trust that I'm taking his word in, whadyecallit... good faith? So you say you're not being his proxy. I don't have any evidence to say which of you is right. I know basically nothing about Rgulerdem. I still think you're running into a lot of static, and would probably try a different approach, if I were in your position, and if I were more interested in results than in drama. You choose your battles - is it more important to you to influence Wikipedia in a positive direction, or to do it using this particular guy's words? There's reasons to stand on principle, and there's reasons not to. You can probably cause a big scene, if you set your mind to it, but that'll poison the policy you're talking about in the community's eyes even more. Have you noticed some pretty stiff opposition to this policy? If I were you, I'd be sitting back from this DRV and trying to start some conversations about what's so incompatible between this proposal of yours and the current state of Wikipedia - you haven't replied to my post on your talk page where I'd love to have that conversation with you, if you're down to have it. Come on, don't knock your head against this wall, it won't move. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - I have done a little work on this proposal and having a record of it is helpful in case anyone decides to work on it in the future. Also, as a comment to the closing admin, despite insinuations to the contrary, advertising a deletion reveiw is not a violation of any policy. Johntex\^talk 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It violates the spam guidelines: "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view."Timothy Usher 23:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted once and for all. Metamagician3000 06:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, we don't need a banned user's disruptive attempt at policy-making resurrected in anybody's userspace. —Stormie 21:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Meatpuppet of a banned user. Unwelcome. Big Blue Marble 02:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

03 June 2006

Sydney Roosters Season articles

Three articles I created simultaneously, that being Roosters1908; SydneyRoosters1909; and SydneyRoosters1910 were deleted in the last few days. The Sydneyroosters1909 article held a debate for the deletion while I had only added little content to the page, the article was then up for deletion before I had done any updates. While the debate took place I continued doing the updates, as seen in the discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sydneyroosters1909

I have plead my case to show that there are updates coming and its justification of existence.

I had also created a fourth article, however this was later and I must add that I created the page before the others were deleted. The fourth article; Sydney Roosters 1911 Season was created and included the updates I had promised with the 3 previous articles.

However when this article was put to debate re: deletion, the general consensus so far has been to keep the article based on the argument brought forward by Athenaeum who states; 'Wikipedia is an almanac. It says so in the first sentence of Wikipedia:What is an article. This is verifiable real world information. It is not indiscrimate, and deleting it would do some harm and absolutely no good. Wikipedia is a free reference resource and this is mainstream reference material.'

Considering the 3 previous articles were exact replicas in structure to the Sydney Roosters 1911 Season only differing in factual content, I propose that if the outcome of the debate be to keep the Sydney Roosters 1911 Season that the 3 previous articles be restored as this argument brought forward by Athenaeum was not put forward re: the debate of the other 3 articles.Sbryce858 07:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and relist at the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Roosters 1911 Season, where consensus now appears to favor keeping that sort of content. This will ensure a more-or-less coherent decision. Sandstein 22:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist - perhaps it was closed properly, but this is very likely good encyclopedic content. The team concerned has long been a major force in the NSW league. Let's see how it goes this time. Metamagician3000 09:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User:AKMask/log

April Fools Day this year included a minor invasion of the GNAA IRC chat by members of wikipedia crapflooding with very informative information about Keynesian economics. Deleted with the note of Privacy Violation. Note the GNAA has no rules against logging the chats, and infact encourages their members, which granted we are not, to do so. There was no privacy violation. I humbly request it to be undeleted.Edit:Also to note, it was linked to off the BJAODN page for the April fools day section. -M^ask 09:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm... I think you got the name wrong. There's no deleted content at the pagename you provided. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So I did, fixed now (dang capital letter) -M^ask 09:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak undelete If there are no privacy violation issues here; that is, if the GNAA chat does not hold a policy against public logging, then I could care less. I mean, the log's pure nonsense and a waste of server space (I'm quietly for deleting BJAODN altogether), but whatever. Let him have his log. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted conditionally - only if it can be verified there is no rule against public posting of logs, then undelete. NSLE _(T+C) at 09:47 UTC (2006-06-03)
• Keep deleted: Who cares if GNAA has a rule? It's Freenode that forbids reposting. The "authors" can't be verified and don't get to say. Geogre 12:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Last I checked #gnaa was juped on freenode, so I don't think the irc logs are from freenode. Kotepho 17:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The channel was not on Freenode. -M^ask 18:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and send to MFD if you want it deleted unless someone can show that it is from a network that prohibits public posting of logs (it certainly isn't the norm). Kotepho 17:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Someone should have checked with the page owner before speedying. --StuffOfInterest 18:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  No one owns any article on Wikipedia. --mboverload@ 19:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Amazingly, I agree with Geogre. This hardly ever happens. Except when there is a Y in the day name. Just zis Guy you know? 23:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, aside from the privacy concerns, Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, not the repository for inane crap. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Christopher Parham. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete If want deleted should go to MfD, and is imo, within the bounds of what we allow people to put in their userspace(and I'm under the impression that there is no privacy issue in this case). JoshuaZ 16:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. How is this not a privacy invasion? Metamagician3000 12:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Male Unbifurcated Garment

Regarding "Male Unbifurcated Garment", (the article should have been named "Male unbifurcated garments") which was deleted after this AFD, and the subsequent deletion review. I closed the AfD as delete (a decision that I believe reflected the AfD consensus), and for which someone started a silly RFC against me. I believe the AfD and DRV discussions were unneccesarily perturbed by personal opinions (especially by those supporting the article). While editing Men's fashion freedom (which is propaganda for a non-notable movement, and should be deleted), I searched for Male unbifurcated garments and found that this is the most common term used to refer collectively to kilts, caftans, lungis, tupenus, dashikis, hakamas etc, for men. I think the reason why consensus was to delete the article is because it was being used by proponents of "Men's fashion freedom" to popularize their cause, and that those who "voted" against intended to deprive them of using wikipedia for propaganda – meanwhile, useful encyclopedic information went lost. I cannot safely revive this article (even if severely rewritten) without some consensus. I therefore request that the article be taken back to AfD. The previous AfD, after all, did have good arguments to keep, and the DRV was doomed from the beginning because of certain somewhat incivil artitudes. --Ezeu 17:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Requesting speedy close. Male unbifurcated garments has been created. --Ezeu 19:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Recreating deleted content at a different title merely makes it necessary to speedy-delete the recreated page. By the way, the manual of style says that articles should be created at the singular anyway. Rossami (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• This article was deleted after a deletion vote on the criteria that the term was not very popular but the phenomenon is very common. It was sent for a deltion review for undeletion where the deletion was not reverted. I propose renaming and redirecting of the article to a new name ("Man-Skirt") which was found by some participants in the votes to be more common. So vote Redirect for supporting the motion , that is to rename and redirect to Man-Skirt, and Keep Deleted for opposing the motion that is to keep the article deleted.

Unitedroad 08:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I does not matter to me. MUGs, Manskirts, man's skirts, male skirts, whatever. This needs to be mentioned somewhere. Just as I suspected (and the reason why I brought this here), it does not matter in which way one tries to create an article describing this particularity, it will be speedily deleted merely out of principle. --Ezeu 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• DRV is to question deletion process. AFD, community consensus, has agreed it should be deleted. Therefore, keep deleted. NSLE _(T+C) at 08:13 UTC (2006-06-03)
• Keep Deleted Didn't we just close a DRV on this? Fan1967 14:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: It's a tunic, and it's what everyone wore before pants -- "shirt" <-Anglo-Saxon "skirt" <-Old Norse, same garment. <shrug> No undeletion. Geogre 14:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted as there is no reason for resurrecting it under a NEW neologism. If there is material in it that is of value to merge elsewhere, ask an admin to give you a userification. There is no need for multiple DRVs that I can see. ++Lar: t/c 14:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and close this DRV - the last one ended less than two weeks ago. You can just write a new article under a new name if you want this to be on WP, there's no need to undelete this just to rename and rewrite it... - ulayiti (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Only 755 GHits? It's not just a neologism, it's a wikineologism. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 18:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Validly deleted in process, confirmed by deletion review. Article had no references at all. Sources meeting the reliable source guidelines have still not been cited, nor convincing evidence that the term is in widespread use. Nothing has changed significantly since the AfD or DRV. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The term has very limited currency outside the "male fashion freedom" community. Actually, virtually no currency outside of that community as far as I can tell, and I looked into it in some considerable detail. The current situation, where it is discussed in men's fashion freedom seems entirely sensible. I would support a protected redirect (protected because the proponents of the term are on a mission to promote it, as evidence prior debates). I would also take issue with it being the most widely used term: excluding kiltmen and WP yields something over 8000 ghits for "male unbifurcated garments", but repeating the search with "skirts for men" gets over 13k ghits. Even within the highly restricted locus of those seeking to discuss this topic (which is primarily Western, since they are normal in many countries) I see no compelling evidence that this is the most widely used term. Few if any of the mainstream articles on celebrities who briefly followed the fashion trend for skirts mention the term, it appears to be used solely in the context of the fashion freedom movement. Just zis Guy you know? 20:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete. Numerous print references, websites, and manufacturers confirm usage (as I have pointed out over and over). These references have nothing to do with the fashion freedom movement. --JJay 20:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed you did, in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Male_Unbifurcated_Garment. I checked your New York Times reference, Feuer, Alan (2004) "Do Real Men Wear Skirts? Try Disputing A 340-Pounder," and it checks out. Changing vote accordingly. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Except that what the article says, as far as I recall, is that the movement calls them that, not that they are widely called that. "male unbifurcated garment" (in quotes) still gets under 500 ghits, and there is still, despite the incessant protestations of its proponents, no evidence of its widespread mainstream use, still less that this is the usual term for these garments. Just zis Guy you know? 21:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      • ... and "male unbifurcated garments" gets 8,540 ghits. --Ezeu 21:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
        • If you click through the first few pages of these results, Google discards nearly all of them as "very similar", leaving only 42. FreplySpang 05:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
        • You also find that a good many trace back to the top hit, the kiltmen community. Which appears to be where it originated, and where the advocates come from. Most of those hits are forum posts anyway. Despite all the arm-waving, thew advocates of this term have yet to provide a single credible reference showing that this is the generally used term to describe these garments, or giving any significant usage outside of the small men's fashion freedom community in which context we have pretty much its sole mention in the mainstream press. One article saying that this group uses the term is not really enough, in my view. Just zis Guy you know? 13:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, yeah... I guess I'm just a softie for anything that cites good, verifiable sources. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, undelete, and relist on AfD. Or, those interested can create a new article under this title that cites sources, presents a more neutral, less promotional point of view, and does not read like a personal essay. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy close, we don't need to keep discussing this ad nauseum. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, no process violation apparent, the new references are not really convincing of the notability of this term. Incidentally, see now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men's fashion freedom. (Just stumbled across it via a cleanup of High-heeled shoe, which until recently also featured an exhortation on why men should feel good about wearing shirts...) Sandstein 21:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• This was here last week. --Rory096 03:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. JJay did some excellent research in the last Deletion Review discussion documenting the uses of this phrase. I concluded from that research that this neologism is in infrequent use primarily in human interest stories about this small group of activists. No new evidence has been presented convincing me that this decision should be revisited yet. Rossami (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Rossami. Several advocates of deletion from the original AfD (including me) have indicated that they were aware of JJay's sources. In the AfD/DRV discussion of this topic, it's been noted that, for most men who wear unbifurcated garments outside the Western world, they're just normal clothing. Thus, I suggest that anyone who wants to write about this in an NPOV, non-soapboxy way, could find a way to fit it into the article Clothing or its offshoots. FreplySpang 05:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete - This term is in widespread use among some circles. Wiki includes detailed articles on information specific to very small circles, yet bans information that's in considerably wider use simply because it offends someone's sensibilities? MUGs isn't a new fad - it's the continuation of what men have been wearing for tens of thousands of years, and what approximately a third of men throughout the world routinely wear today. If you delete this, I will recommend you delete "skirt," "dress," and "pants" for whatever reasons you provide herein. If they apply to MUGs, they apply elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.166.180.34 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

  This is precisely the kind of ludicrous hyperbole which has infested every previous discussion of this topic. You say that if we delete this term used by a very small group of people and scoring a negligible number of unique Google hits, then we must also delete a word used by millions every day. Assertions like that make it almost impossible to take this subject even slightly seriously: the actions of the proponents of this term have consistently given the impression of zealots with little or no connection to reality, and this is no exception. Just zis Guy you know? 19:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn per JJay. Clearly notable.  Grue  12:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  So a single newspaper article which notes that a small group uses a given neologism is sufficient to make it clearly notable? Just zis Guy you know? 19:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• I really need to ask you to stop spreading misinformation as you complain about "ludicrous hyperbole" and "zealots" with "no connection to reality". After stating repeatedly that no sources exist [43], [44], [45], and failing to respond or blatantly ignoring any of the sources offered [46] [47] ,you seem to have now recognized one. Since I know of at least 25 print sources, and a number of manufacturer websites, here are a few links you might find enlightening: The Scotsman, NY Times, Pittsburgh Tribune,Lucire fashion magazine Village Voice- Para 2, New York Magazine, Little India magazine, Out in the Mountains- book review, Reno Gazette, etc. etc. Of course this does not include many sources I can not easily link to such as Newsday, The Economic Times (India) or some of the Australian print sources. The following manufacturer sites also sell unbifurcated garments as prominently shown on their websites: Macabi, Macabi again Utilikilts. This obviously ignores the widespread usage on blogs and the web. The extent of the "notability" of the trend can certainly be debated...and as shown by the links, the term can vary depending on the source. But please stop the nonsense about google hits, zealots, no reliable sources, arm waving, and the like. --JJay 22:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• JJay, do you not think that the statement If you delete this, I will recommend you delete "skirt," "dress," and "pants" for whatever reasons you provide herein is ludicrous hyperbole? How many references to skirt, dress and pants are there? How many to the term "male unbifurcated garment"? We've been assured that Googling for MUG is a good test for its currency despite the fact that the vast majority of hits are for the ceramic containers. I have seen no credible evidence that this term has any currency outside the (very small) men's fashion freedom movement, and it was in that context that the few mentions we have were made. Right now it is covered in men's fashion freedom, which contextualises it nicely. It has been deleted through valid process and after much discussion, and that deletion has already been confirmed once. No new evidence is being presented here as far as I can tell, it's just a case of them keep asking until they get what they want. Sorry, but that pushes my parental "no means no" button. The clincher for me is that in all the coverage of the prominent men who have been seen wearing skirts (Beckham, Cruise, Gaultier etc.) this term is pretty much absent. The only references I can find linking Beckham to the term, for example, come from the usual source: kiltmen. It is their private conceit which has no real currency. They really really want it to have some currency (read: protologism) but as yet it has pretty much none outside of themselves, and WP:NOT the place to fix that. Just zis Guy you know? 08:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. A silly, non-notable term. Also the fact that a DRV on this just ended not too long ago. WarpstarRider 23:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Non-notable Meanax 16:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

02 June 2006

Template:User hate profanity

Speedy deletion. The text of the userbox says "This user does not tolerate profanity." This'd refer to user conduct, since wikipedia is not censored. How is this divisive? Is there a danger of an anti-profanity cabal forming? The userbox is good in highlighting a form of incivility that wikipedia can do without. I'm not a big userbox warrior, so please take this request seriously. Andjam 07:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Recreate under name User no profanity, with the text "This user does not use (or does not enjoy) profanity.", and then Redirect. Simple enough, and not divisive that way. --tjstrf 07:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  If you're just proposing to create a different template, with a different name and different text, why mess around with DRV? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Reply Clarified. Also, I was giving a potential solution. --tjstrf 07:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted without prejudice against creation of some suitably congenial version in user space. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - unencyclopedic, argumentative, divisive etc. As always, I am prepared to help users userfy the box, as long as there are not too many requests for me to handle. But it doesn't belong in template space. Metamagician3000 09:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - for instances of profanity which are already prohibited, the template is redundant. For instances that aren't, well, they aren't, so who are we to "not tolerate" them? Particularly in template space.Timothy Usher 17:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete —David618 ^t e 18:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion users can write is so on their page should they want to. No need to have a template for this. -- Drini 19:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This user does not tolerate divisive userboxen ;) --Improv 18:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Divisive

Penis banding

I have no idea what this page is about, but User:JoeCool722 requested a deletion review. I've asked him to comment on what the page was about. // ^The True _Sora 00:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penis banding. No idea what it is, probably don't want to know. Fan1967 01:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain until I can see the conecpt of the page. If it's gone through an AfD already (per below), then I agree with it and endorse delete. // The True _Sora 00:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Don't even want to know what it is. QuizQuick 02:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - The AFD was properly concluded and this was a valid deletion. As for the article text, I'm assuming that this - http://www.answers.com/topic/penis-banding - from answers.com is the text of the article, by the way. Most of the google hits are related to each other, so it strikes me as a non-notable neologism unless there is evidence otherwise. BigDT 02:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletionTimothy Usher 02:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I'm putting my faith in the AfD determining this one to be a neologism. --StuffOfInterest 02:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist This is the first Wikipedia article I've written. I decided to write the article because there is a noticable lack of information on this topic. This is a not uncommon practice that is performed in BDSM and other contexts. I supposed my confusion over the deletion is that there are numerous other Wikipedia articles related to Body Modification and BDSM. During the initial deletion discussion someone mentioned that there was not a large amount of supporting evidence that this pratice exists. While that was part of my original reasoning to create the article, there are other articles from reputable sources like the following link [48]. I must say I'm very surprised at the apparant lack of open-mindedness. The article was put up a while ago, and even had various edits from other users as well as people linking to it. I don't feel that just because some folks may not understand or agree with a practice is a reason for removal. I do not feel that this article is out of line with numerous other Wikipedia articles, i.e. Transscrotal_piercing, Suspension_(body_modification), Body_nullification, Penis_removal. The Body Nullification article makes an interesting point regarding how many less mainstream practices have become more well known as people are discovering each other as a result of the Internet. That said, as a member of the BDSM community, I can say that this is not an unheard of activity. It's typically more commonly performed on the testicles, but frequnetly done to the penis. It's even discussed in the book "Family Jewels, A Guide to Male Genital Play and Torment." Another consideration is that within the BDSM Community many things are passed on via word of mouth. Many people meet at various BDSM related gatherings and are taught various techniques and practices that are not necessarily well documented. Hence my effort to try to take some time and better document this practice. We run into a frustrating Catch-22 where where Wikipedia prefers to have "verifiable" sources, yet, until someone writes something on the topic, it's not "verifiable." There's a bit of a flaw in logic as just because something is not easily verifiable does not necessarily indicate that it's not a valid practice. However, just because someone writes something in a book really doesn't prove that practice to be valid. As mentioned, the BDSM community is historically been a word of mouth type of community as it has not always been well accepted. While I don't have the resources/time to try to write an actual book on more advanced BDSM related techniques, I felt sharing some knowledge of a not well documented practice would have been well received by Wikipedia. JoeCool722 15:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There's no catch-22 at all. Wikipedia deliberately chooses NOT to be a primary source. In fact, it is considered a tertiary source. In other words, Wikipedia will report on things that have been clearly documented and verified elsewhere. Wikipedia does not serve as the primary, initial source for anything. Fan1967 15:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The BME website is referenced as an ezine in an existing Wikipedia Article - BME_(website), As per the link in my original post, Banding is referenced in the encyclopedia section of BME as well as numerous other areas of the site. I know we're getting into a fuzzy area regarding "verifiability" but I think a lot of the existing articles in this category are not extensively documented and therefore "verifiable."
• The fact that there is no information on this "out there" is the very reason there cannot be an article on WP, as stated above and elsewhere. WP:NOR refers. Just zis Guy you know? 11:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it deleted and disable undelete for this page. This is really sick. An encyclopedia is no place for this. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 19:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Well I must say this is more than a little disappointing. I had hoped that Wikipedia as a group would be more open-minded. I'm not asking anyone to agree with the practice, or take part in it. But I don't think it should be censored because some folks don't understand it. I would ask that the decision on this article be made based on policy as opposed to opinion. I'm working on tracking down some additional verifiable resources. Please let me know the best way to proceed to ensure this article remains listed in compliance with policy. JoeCool722 19:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. No reliable sources cited, and no credible evidence thus far that any such exist. As usual the red herring of censorship is being trailed, and as usual it is absurd (can we say autofellatio, children?). All the author need do is cite reliable sources and evidence of encyclopaedic notability. - Just zis Guy you know? 20:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Relist I've cited a book and the BME website that has been around for more than 10 years and is recognized by Wikipedia. Most people familiar with the Body Modification subject would recognize BME and Shannon who runs BME as an expert resource on the topic. Will the items I've already cited suffice? Or do I need to locate more? I know there were a few more books that had references to banding in them. Please Advise JoeCool722 21:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The AfD arguments were convincing, and there has been no error in procedure. Still not verifiable, as referencing a website in its entirety is not sufficient - we need specific links or quotes regarding the existence and notability of this activity. Sandstein 22:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Actually the first reference is to a specific page in BME regarding banding. I also cited a book. I believe this is getting away from the spirit of Wikipedia and becoming a push to squash something that is not understood. What I really don't understand is there are a dozen other articles in similar subject areas on Wikipedia that are not citing anything and they've been there for a while. I'm really surprised that there is no leniency allowed.

• Endorse deletion. Properly and rightly AfDed. --Audiovideo 22:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• WTF? --mboverload@ 22:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Relist First let me thank the administrators. I’ve had a delightful time going through all my books to find resources for them. It’s always fun to re-read favorite books. Many of these can be bought on Amazon. I’ve also included an article from a well known in the BDSM scene magazine. It has also been brought to my attention that Freud covered some of the penis binding (they didn’t have elastrators in his time) in his works. While he considered fetishism a deviant practice the recent American Psychological Association has declared it not to be so since the 1970’s.

If there is a vote I believe the comments “ Keep it deleted and disable undelete for this page. This is really sick. An encyclopedia is no place for this. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 19:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)” and “Speedy Delete Don't even want to know what it is. QuizQuick 02:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)” should not apply as these are clearly bias and not related to actual policy.

Here are a few books that discuss penile banding and related Cock and Ball Tortures:

• The Family Jewels: A Guide to Male Genital Play and Torment (Paperback) by Hardy Haberman
• Intimate Invasions: the erotic ins & outs of enema playby M.R. Strict
• Female Dominance: Rituals and Practices by Claudia Varrin
• Leatherfolk by Mark Thompson
• Tony DeBlase aka Fledermaus 1993, 'Male Genitorture (Also known as Cock and Ball Torture, CBT)' in Sandmutopia Guardian 14, pp14-22
• Trust, the Hand Book: A Guide to the Sensual and Spiritual Art of Handballing by Bert Herrman
• Sigmund Freud 1938, The Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud, translated and edited by A A Brill, New York: Modern Library
• -- 1953, 'Three Essays on Sexuality' in the Standard Edition of The Complete Psychological Works Vol VII, London: Hogarth
• -- 1953a, 'Fetishism' in the Standard Edition of The Complete Psychological Works Vol XXI (written in 1927), London: Hogarth

• Taboo 22:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Where's the original content? Exploding Boy 22:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, because of all the people saying "I trust the original AfD" (what do you think the Deletion review process is for then?) and because this is clearly a well-documented practice in its own cultural niche. &#0151; JEREMY 15:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This has been my frustration from the beginning. I missed the initial deletion review as I got busy with work. My wife went to send the link to someone and realized it was gone. Most of the comments in the initial deletion discussion and in this deletion review have been blanket agreements citing the fact that an AfD took place. I would rather have people look at this and assess it for themselves. And of course there are those that just say it should be deleted because it's "Sick" I don't think an individuals personal comfort on a subject should be related to it's inclusion in Wikipedia. JoeCool722 18:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Once again, where is the original content? How are people making decisions without reading the original article? Exploding Boy 16:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've been asking for this from the beginning. This was my first article that I've ever written for Wikipedia. I didn't back it up as I didn't realize it could just be deleted without a chance to go change it back. I read somewhere that there is some process in place to restore the article temporarily during a deletion review, but I don't know how else to go about requesting this. Any assistance from some of the more seasoned Wikipedians would be appreciated. JoeCool722 18:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well, until someone can provide a link to or a copy of the original content, I don't see how this can proceed. Exploding Boy 18:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Right. I've uncovered what I think is the most recent version of the article, which can be viewed (temporarily) at User talk:Exploding Boy/Penis banding. I think this vote needs to be restarted after people have read the content, and my vote is to undelete. Exploding Boy 18:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I've temporarily undeleted the history of the article while its deletion is being reviewed. You may see the actual last version here. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion without prejudice against recreation if reliable sources can be provided to show that the topic is more than a fringe paraphilia practiced by a couple of guys on the internet. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Why would you endorse the deletion if there were reliable sources? Exploding Boy 16:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The "if" was supposed to apply to the part about recreating it. In any case, the AfD closure seems valid based on the arguments provided in that debate, and the article itself, if kept, would in any case require heavy editing to comply with Wikipedia policies (specifically "Wikipedia is not a how-to guide"). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no reliable sources and the how-to information is about as inappropriate as it gets. It seems like an attempt to validate bizarre sexual practices, too: "It's not stupid/crazy/bizarre, it's in an encyclopedia." -- Kjkolb 22:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

01 June 2006

Template:User no notability

NN	This user hates notability and how it is used mercilessly on AfD as policy.

Here is the template, why was it deleted? No one posted anything on the TfD page Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:User no notability. It is a valid, useable userbox that shouldnt be deleted, just like ones that state POV can be used in userboxes or ones that state that they are inclusionist... Also, there was a TfD that reflected consensus, but this UB was speedy deleted and no message was left on the TfD page. Sorry for the ditto. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 01:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete as bad-faith deletion. --Disavian 01:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted shows a disrect to an accepted, wide consensus policy, template space is for encyclopedic endeavors, not the advocacy of eliminationg them. Userfy, subst, let people keep it, but get it out of encyclopedic space. -M^ask 01:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Notability is not policy. You people are the reason this UB was created. Because you don't understand: Essays carry so much less weight than policy. There's an essay saying that all TV show summarys should be deleted. It must be put into effect since you consider essays policy. Besides, it was not a CSD. There is a TfD going on about it that reflected a Keep consensus, but the deleter ignored it, deleted it, AND didn't even close the TfD debate! -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 04:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted This one clearly has the potential to divide Wikipedians and to inflame Wikipedians, which makes it a T1 CSD candidate. But I did learn something from my pre-conclusion research. Of course, someone should implement the German solution on it. GRBerry 02:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment after more thought and some more discussion. The most troubling word is "hates". But there clearly could be versions that would not be inflammatory. So the salting of the earth is too strong a response - overturn only the salting and put a warning on the talk page of the template that language like "disagrees with", "rejects", or "would like to out that notability is only an essay, not a guideline or policy" is acceptable, but that vehement language like "hates" and "mercilessly" is inappropriate. GRBerry 16:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted as bad-faith userbox. Obviously divisive in intent, probably speediable. --Calton | Talk 02:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as the subject it addresses is not notable.Timothy Usher 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You're kidding, right??? Seriously? You think that this is less notable than the 5000 fan userboxes? I knew that the people who would want it deleted were people eho support notability... -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 04:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - not notable per Timothy Usher. ;) (Actually, it is argumentative, divisive, etc.) Metamagician3000 02:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The irony is killing me here ;p --Disavian 02:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain - I am almost convinced that this should exist, because unlike the vast majority of userboxen that have no relevance to Wikipedia (or at least should not), like "This User is Christian" or "This user licks Goats", this is actually relevant to wikipedia and is the kind of content that fits well on a userpage. It's not exactly the same kind of bumper-sticker crap that most userboxes are. It is still divisive though.. --Improv 04:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• How about a milder one? Proposal:

NN	This user is against the use of the notability essay as criteria for deletion on AfD

-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 04:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Oh no, that's still far too divisive and inflammatory, don't you know? Consider this:

NN	This user is interested in the critical examination of the notability essay as criteria for deletion on AfD

—Ashley Y 07:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Why? That one is like a censored version thats too positive. Why not this:

NN	This user is against the views of the notability essay.

-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 13:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Chris, I have a slight but suspicious feeling that Ashley was being sarcastic. // The True _Sora 23:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, let the TFD run its course. (It is running at a strong keep consensus now. THen rewrite it slightly to soften it up a bit. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid T1, not to mention its obvious potential for aiding in votestacking. --Rory096 06:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I don't care about most userboxes but this one clearly should go. It encourages users to lock in on a position rather than to continue to explore, discuss and debate. It polarizes an already difficult discussion unnecessarily. Rossami (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Speedy-deletion criteria should not be used to silence ongoing TfDs just because an admin dislikes the results of the discussion; if you thought the template should be deleted, you should have simply argued for that case on the TfD. Also, it looks to me like it's not the basic message of the template ("I'm opposed to treating 'Notability' as policy"), but the tone, which is potentially inflammatory: I support undeleting this and changing the text to a less belligerent wording, like "This user is against the use of the notability essay as criteria for deletion on AfD". -Silence 12:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - patently divisive, no debate neccessary (not even here). We can discuss notability without factionalist bumper-stickers. --Doc ^ask? 12:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought you were leaving. (that might be vandalism) -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 20:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and move to user space based on the German solution. --StuffOfInterest 12:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per MM3k, GRBerry and Rossami. ++Lar: t/c 12:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Is there any possibility that we could Soft redirect Template:User no notability to the not-yet-made page User:Ccool2ax/User no notability ? I know some people might be interested in it, and I personally have never been able to find userboxes in the User namespace. Isn't my revision (1) less inflammatory than the one about admin's out-of-process deletions? (see my userpage for the box) -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 13:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep'em all deleted -- Drini 17:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and modify to Chris's last proposal above. Valid TfD keep; a non-inflammatory version is not T1. Septentrionalis 19:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted --pgk^(talk) 19:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and rewrite to non-emotive form. I don't support the "is interested in" rewrites though, as the term would swiftly come to mean the exact same thing as the original did via the euphemism treadmill. --tjstrf 19:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and rewrite as tjstrf above. After all the notability essay is just that a essay. --Whispering 20:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - it's outrageous that a userbox that is actually useful is being deleted for political reasons. For great justice. 21:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. It's a fair opinion, but the very last thing that Wikipedia needs are templates useful for vote stacking. Divisive indeed. -- SCZenz 21:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn (undelete) Does not fall under speedy criteria. —David618 ^t e 22:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete; since when was this inflamatory? If anything, list on TfD.
• Endorse Deletion I can imagine few uses of the word "hate" on a userbox that would not be divisive. BigDT 01:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • What about the 1st or 2nd revision (not the "interested in" one)-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 04:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy per The German solution. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Obviously divisive. Kelly Martin (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Userboxes that are about Wikipedia process are different in kind than userboxes about off-Wikipedia beliefs and practices. Bringing meatspace political beliefs into the Wikipedia process could be divisive (though not automatically so), but putting one's Wikipedia philosophies and practices on display in that manner is just a shorthand for what is already manifest in our actions. To me, "divisive" means creating division where none was previously apparent. Read AfD or DRV for a while and you will see that we are already divided over notability; userboxes to that effect don't make it more or less so. Vadder 18:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Obviously divisive. About a year ago someone started decorating AfD with little pastel boxes expressing his opinion that the nominator's stated reason for deletion did not meet the deletion policy. It was not helpful. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, divisive. Plus: notability is shorthand for a subject which has garnered enough external attention to allow us to ensure it is verifiable, covered neutrally and does not stray into original research. The fact that some people want to cover subjects which have not been discussed widely enough to ensure neutral coverage is well-known and does not require a userbox. Just zis Guy you know? 20:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, so that means every article you haven't heard of can't ever be discussed neutrally? That's why notability exists? I thought encyclopedias were for learning new things, not confirming what one already knows. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 14:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Undelete All you need to do is look at the first rationale proposed for keep-deletion: "shows a disrect to an accepted, wide consensus policy" Um, tyranny of the majority anyone? Since when was Wikipedia so goddamned establishment? George Kaplan 13:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Syed Ahmed

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ahmed

• relist why can't he have an Article i mean why can Syed not have one but michelle dewberry have one, syed has done lots of things aswell as appearing on The Apprentice he appeared in the Celebrity world cup sixes and he is the head of IT People. Bobo6balde66 20:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• The deletion discussion was virtually unanimous. No new evidence has been presented that would suggest that a new discussion would reach a different decision. Endorse closure (content deleted, protected redirect). Rossami (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Rossami. Nobody cares about The Apprentice. --Disavian 23:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Rossami. Kimchi.sg 02:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure — unanimous original AfD, and good content already included in The Apprentice (UK series 2). No good reasons have been presented for re-creating this article - the subject simply is not sufficiently notable to merit his own article. A redirect already ensures a reader entering his name can find a brief biography on the relevant article. The fact that Michelle Dewberry has an article is not a reason to undelete this — if her notability is in question that article should be listed at WP:AFD. Finally, IT People, his company was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IT People, so the fact that he is the CEO of a company deemed non-notable should be no reason for undeleting this article either. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 08:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse: Reality shows have, by now I hope, settled down: if the contestant becomes notable aside from the appearance, then the person is notable. If the person is merely one face among many squabbling and scratching, then the person should be discussed at the show's article. When the person breaks away from the show in fame, then the article breaks away from the show. This individual has not, at least yet. Geogre 13:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Rossami. Nobody cares about The Apprentice. --mboverload@ 19:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I watched The Apprentice, enjoyed it, and I absolutely agree with Mboverload: I still don't care. If he ever becomes independently notable, then he gets his own article. Just zis Guy you know? 20:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ho Shin Do

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ho_Shin_Do

Undelete Ho Shin Do I worked hard to put up good information on the page and added more info to give backing on the origins of the martial art. I feel that the style itself is worthy of being listed here and train in it with the best of intentions for the founders. The martial art has legitimate roots in Korean martial arts, and I sincerely hope that the deleted can be re-considered. Frankiefuller 08:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)frankiefuller, 03:33 (EST), 6-10-06. I say Overturn and Undelete

• endorse closure. This was a valid AfD with a unanimous "delete" result, I could see no significant and substantial differences between the version as of the deletion nomination and the version as of the afd closure (with the exception of the picture being added, which is not enough), so there was no additional information that was not available to the early voters that may have made them change their minds. Thryduulf 16:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Thryduulf. Kimchi.sg 03:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, so what is necessary to make it stay? I could put in a great amount of detail about the art itself and the structure of the system. Man you guys are so stubborn, there are many more sub-par articles out there than this. What makes you guys particular academic experts here, and how many of you are martial arts scholars? Heck, I could get deep into the philosophical side of this if you like. Let's go, baby, I love debates. Politics, after all, is what I'm studying for my doctoral program.Frankiefuller 09:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• "Man, people commit murder all the time, why do you have to arrest me?" The existence of poor articles does not justify the existence of poor articles; in this case, the lack of notability of the subject makes it a poor candidate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -Objectivist-C 12:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• We are not academic experts. We are reporters of academic experts. If there are experts out there discussing this fellow, and if the art has made sufficient splash to be discussed in multiple contexts, then there should be an article. The presence of an article doesn't make something good, and the absence doesn't make it bad; there is no judgment of worth, only of need. Geogre 13:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep undeleted per FrankiefullerQuizQuick 00:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for now or userfy with leave to present when appropriate - here is the article from google cache - [49] - the fact that there are multiple schools teaching this kind of Tae Kwon Do says to me that it is notable. The only problem I see with the article is that it is entirely original research. For that reason and that reason alone, I believe that the deletion is appropriate, but if Frankiefuller would like to rewrite or modify the article as to include other references, I don't see any reason why the subject is not permissible. BigDT 02:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy with leave to present when appropriate. Let frankiepoo show you that the article is not original research. I can show that the wheel is not being re-invented and can point out how the art has borrowed from several distinctly Korean arts. I am going to go ahead and try modifying the information and then presenting it after I can authenticate the specific data to show non-original research.72.145.93.79 05:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Frankiefuller

Israel News Agency

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel news agency - closed as "keep" on 15 Jan 06

Speedy-deleted as "vanity page by banned user" on 10 May 06

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Israel News Agency - closed as "overturn speedy and list on AFD" on 23 May 06

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel News Agency (2nd nomination) - closed for procedural irregularities on 29 May 06

Speedy-deleted as "more of the same nonsense" on 1 Jun 06

It passed its original deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel news agency, but when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel News Agency (2nd nomination) was created, the closing administrator said that because someone didn't follow process and grouped arguements into those for keeping and deleting, that the individual discussion was broken beyond repair. The administrator stated that he had no prejudice toward reopening the debate for a third time, then the article was again deleted by Danny, so I'm requesting it again be created and relisted. Daniel Bush 22:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment, if Danny is the person who deleted it, why did User:Sean Black salt the earth? GRBerry 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Self-promotion of a non-notable non-agency by a banned user. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as out-of-process deletion. If someone believes that something was missed in the first AFD, then relist. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. It's still a nonnotable blog that anyone who was clever enough to register a name like that could set up. --Improv 23:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• I think this article should be deleted but I think we should do it properly. Overturn the speedy-deletion, relist on AFD and I'll help watch the deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Wasn't this thing deleted via WP:OFFICE? If so, WP:SNOW--Rayc 23:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW isn't policy nor does it possibly apply in this case, WP:OFFICE was never cited. Undelete and relist properly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oh my goodness, the second AfDs closing admin's note of procedural irregularities is certainly true. That is a major refactoring from when I last saw the page. (I was the first to make a non-comment response.) I wish, however, that the closing admin had immediately opened a third AFD... It was in AFD via a community decision. I think Resend to AFD is the appropriate outcome, but it is a borderline call, concluded this way because process is important and because the refactoring appears not to have been done by the articles author or one of the new voices brought in. GRBerry 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, should probably go to AfD again, but definitely undelete it. This abuse of process has got to stop. We have rules here—follow them. Everyking 03:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• This is just taking the piss. Undelete, do not relist anywhere, and censure the admin who deleted it against consensus. There is no point having shitloads of policy documents and votes on this, that and the other if privileged users can just ignore them out of personal animus. Also censure the admin who has protected the page. This is an egregious abuse of his powers that has become too common these days. The consensus was that there should be an article: protecting it so that there cannot be is completely unacceptable. Apologies for not signing in. -- Grace Note.
• SPEEDY Undelete per Grace Note. --Col. Hauler 08:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. nn blog, clear sentiment to delete among non-sock, non-meatpuppets. We should stop wasting our time, and stop allowing the associated harrassment of legitimate editors over this. NoSeptember ^talk 09:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Could you please list all of these sock or meat puppets--or if the list would be shorter everyone who's opinions you find valid? Yes, there are those that I would call foopuppets on the keep side, but there are also several legitimate users. Kotepho 19:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Puppets are listed at: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Israelbeach

• SPEEDY Undelete per Grace Note. Potterseesall 09:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• AfD was closed as borked by Aaron Brenneman, no bleeding-heart inclusionist. I still haven't seen any verifiable 3rd party information about this website and I don't think it qualifies for an article on Wikipedia. But I would vastly prefer to have this deleted the bureaucratic way rather than through a wheel-warring Danny. Haukur 10:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Removed comment from banned user Zordrac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Malber (talk • contribs) 15:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Generally, anonymous editors have less weight in deletion reviews. This was not deleted on the grounds of censorship because they disagree with Wikipedia. You have no understanding of the issue at all. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 20:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete due to violation of the deletion process. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 20:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, Resend to AfD unless there is a clear indication that the speedy deletion was done for legal or other overiding reasons under WP:OFFICE. (I can't see any reason why there would have been litigtion about this article~) The Land 22:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, no need to relist this at AFD again. This unjust wheel-warring by Danny needs to stop. Now. Silensor 23:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - Danny has the right to take necessary actions under WP:OFFICE. Given INA's apparant hostility to Wikipedia (see [50], [51], [52]), I'm willing to assume good faith on Danny's part and endorse the deletion. BigDT 02:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. In WP:OFFICE Danny says that he will exercise Office powers under the name User:Dannyisme. User:Danny is Danny acting as a regular administrator/editor. Since Israel News Agency was deleted under the regular username Danny as opposed to Dannyisme, it shouldn't be considered an Office decision. Furthermore, the deletion did not reference WP:OFFICE in the edit summary, nor is it listed on the WP:OFFICE page. It is true that INA is hostile to Wikipedia, but one of its grievances (albeit not the first or only one) is the previous out-of-process deletion of the Israel News Agency article [53]. There are reasons both for and against having an article about this news agency on Wikipedia, but the proper place to deal with them is an AfD, not a speedy deletion. "More of the same nonsense" is not a valid reason for speedy deletion unless the nonsense is patent, which was not the case for Israel News Agency. --Metropolitan90 03:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per user Metropolitan90 Bonnieisrael 09:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I have read news stories by the Israel News Agency before Wikipedia existed. Saying that the Israel government acredited INA is "nonsense" is nothing less than a travesty. Tzanchan 17:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This is not a "news agency", it's a blog. How many bylines are there on this supposed "news agency"? I could only find one: Joel Leyden. WP:NOT an advertisement hoarding, a tool for promoting your website, a search engine optimisation mechanism, a soapbox etc. This is the personal site of an indef-blocked user. Just zis Guy you know? 20:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• If the Israel News Agency is not a news agency then it would qualify being "notable" as Israel's first "blog" dating back to 1995. But given the various, consistent direct news feeds from the Israel Government Press Office that only an accredited news organization can obtain in Israel, it appears to be a real news agency with real government accredition news agency - for over 11 years. Also, one can see several other bylines besides Leyden. Perform a search on Google News for "Israel" [54] the INA stories appear in the top ten. If one calls this agency a "soapbox" then we should start labeling Google News, all news organizations as "soapboxes" - including non media such as US Homeland Security. Karnei 15:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• You didn't look hard enough: By Debbie Lahav, By Israel News Agency Staff[55][56],By Joe Yudin, By Michael Bernstein, By Herb Brandon[57], By Sara Lavi, By Dr. Batya L. Ludman[58], By Sara Silber M.Sc.Ed[59]... Kotepho 19:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per Chris — ßottesiηi ^(talk) 21:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Metropolitan90, for unexplained out-of-process deletion. No opinion as to the merits, as I haven't ever seen that article, even though a look at the site does point to "non-notable blog". Sandstein 21:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per the reasons provided by Karnei and Silensor in the previous deletion debate. Blog or not this news project does appear to be notable. Yamaguchi先生 15:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete immediately. Out-of process deletion compounded by second out-of-process deletion =total disrespect for the community. Somehow "More of the same nonsense" was entirely fitting. --JJay 00:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

31 May 2006

Template:User Christian

The template received a near unanimous keep on TfD which was closed on May 28, 2006. It was deleted by User:Improv today for no apparent reason, completely ignoring the consensus of a community. I say, Overturn and undelete.  Grue  21:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. Again. We need to get something to agree on such as the German solution to someday get this settled. --StuffOfInterest 21:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleting until all these things (WHATEVER their pov) are history. We endorsed the deletion of the Marxism and Scientology boxes - so why should Christianity and Atheism be any different. --Doc ^ask? 21:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This page is about questioning the process that this template went through, not saying that an endorsement on a particular template makes the deletion of this template, which was completely outside of community consensus, allowable. Ansell Review my progress! 09:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Community consensus is moving towards keeping this an encyclopaedia rather than a faction ridden social club. Stephen B Streater 22:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete as bad faith deletion. I was in the middle of submitting this template for DRV when Grue got there first. This template has been through eleventy billion TFDs and DRVs and multiple administrative edit wars. In every case, the consensus was to keep. See [60] for the most recent DRVU and see [61]. See also the lengthy logs for this template [62]. This is not a referendum on userboxes. Nor, though such a discussion probably needs to be held, is it a referendum on the appropriateness of administrators ignoring consensus and inventing rules. The sole question here is whether it was proper for this template to be deleted according to the currently existing criteria for speedy delete. In other words, is it "divisive and inflammatory" to state, "This user is a Christian." BigDT 21:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of all political and religious userbox templates -- Drini 21:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You did not answer any of the questions in that, it is merely your view. Take it to Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates, not here. Ansell Review my progress! 10:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per Drini. Whether or not a user is a Christian (as am I) can add nothing to wikipedia. Let's keep it on-topic, shall we?Timothy Usher 21:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • See reason for drini as to why it is not appropriate to say that here. Ansell Review my progress! 10:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Grrr! Edit conflict - and I was almost the first one to vote! Waaagh! Two edit conficts! But what should I say, anyway? Lemme think... Undelete, subst: all instances, delete and protect. How 'bout this? Misza13 ^{T C} 21:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

  There aren't that many transclusions left after Immari did a bunch because of Cyde's antics. Paste me the contents and I'll do it or undelete it and have Cydebot do it. Kotepho 22:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete because Keep means Keep. Less than 72 hours after it survived TfD it is inappropriate to speedy delete it without even the courtesy of an explanation on the article's talk page. The closest thing there is to an explanation by the deleter is their comment below in the deletion review for Template:User satanist. I can understand deleting it, although it was clearly wrong. I don't understand salting the earth for a speedy deletion of something that was just kept after a speedy, review, TfD cycle. GRBerry 21:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Haven't we had this already? Keep deleted again. --Tony Sidaway 21:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - yes, we did, and the consensus both on DRVU and on TFD was undelete/keep. BigDT 21:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: This user is against userboxes in general. Wokka-wokka-wokka. --Bobak 21:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. This debate, as that is what it has become, is also about general policy; certainly, you would let users who wish to have userboxes have them, even if you do not wish to have any; and you would allow them the due process of review/AfD, for if you created a template, you would like to be treated fairly as well. Thus, being against userboxes (a position I do not share, but I do respect) does not nessasarily behoove you to vote one way or the other in these two instances. --Disavian 04:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted along with any other religious user boxes. --pgk^(talk) 21:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: do those who are saying it's been discussed countless times not realise the huge disruption and distraction this implies? —Phil | Talk 21:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Many of us feel that the primary, if not sole, cause of the disruption as it pertains to this template, at least, is the deletions. Keeping it deleted would reward the disrupters, which is a very bad outcome. GRBerry 21:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, per above.--Sean Black 21:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete If it survied TfD it shouldn't be deleted under speedy, which I do not see a reason for. —David618 ^t e 21:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn (Undelete), Although I wholeheartedly agree with Drini above, we have a process here that must be followed to maintain order. The process was not followed here. This is not the place to argue for or against the template, only whether the process was carried out correctly (which it apparently wasn't). Try to formulate an oficial policy prohibiting religious/political/nationalist user boxes instead of trying to delete them one-by-one. I'll be the first to support it.--WilliamThweatt 21:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment well, it looks like Template:User Christian and Template:User satanist are on equal footing now, although I'm sorry it had to happen this way -_- --Disavian 21:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, again. Not T1 or T2. If a T3 reaches consensus that religious userboxes should be deleted, delete it then (but first subst all copies in {{userbox}} form. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. This is an example of rogue admins deleting stuff under CSD when they don't get their way under TfD. They rely on the fact that DRv is much less well-known than TfD. —Ashley Y 22:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Graaahhh I really want to vote keep deleted. I wish we didn't have this userbox (or if people didn't care about userboxes), I think it possibly meets T1, and obviously meets T2. That being said if you are just going to delete it anyways why bother putting it through DRVU and TFD? It just pisses people off, more so I think than deleting it in the first place; and I don't want to encourage people to keep deleting things out of process until it magically gets a majority to keep deleted by attrition. On the other hand, it is just a userbox. I think they are silly, but I understand that some people care about them (even deeply) and they too are people. No matter how many times someone calls everyone that likes userboxes a myspacer it doesn't make it true. Screwing with contributors is not a good way to make an encyclopedia. Kotepho 22:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: there is no T2 anymore. —Ashley Y 22:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Katepho. It's not my userbox; but not abiding by a consensus decision is harmful to the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis 23:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete as out-of-process deletion. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete per community consensus. Crazyswordsman 23:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - all such userboxes should be userfied and removed from template space. Metamagician3000 23:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete it seems the "I'm an admin, and enforce my own consensus" mentality is spreading. I wonder... if recreating templates/articles that were deleted by consensus is vandalism, then what is deleting templates/articles that were kept by consensus... CharonX talk Userboxes 00:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete If T2 is toast, there's even less reason to delete this than before. Besides, the consensus was keep, whats the deal here? Homestarmy 00:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, not going to make the same points again. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 01:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, per consistency with Template:User satanist arguments for deletion. Both are religeons, both have the same rights. Who at wikipedia is to decide which religeons are allowed and which are not. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, and get back to things that help the encyclopedia. Ral315 (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. MySpace is thataway. --Calton | Talk 03:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Kim van der Linde. Snottygobble 04:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted/Userfy again. We're moving all the ideological stuff out of template space, better userfy your boxes now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you point me to that policy, please? BigDT 04:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The policy in question is probably Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates. --Disavian 05:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The policy in question is WP:NOT. The interpretation is courtesy of Jimbo, 3 days ago, on his talk page, here: "no, really, the template namespace is not for that, . . . we do not endorse this behavior." -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Keep in mind that WP:NOT says Wikipedia IS an online community. Online communities are made of people, and people have opinions and biases, and they choose to express them in the form of userboxes. I didn't feel the interpretation by Jimbo was very clear, although it was rather recent. In the end, there just needs to be a User template: namespace. I have a feeling that would solve some of these issues, mostly those unrelated to T1. By no means is any of this clear or easy :( --Disavian 05:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Jimbo was clearer here back in March. The German solution is gaining support; I think it's the way to go. Templates will be safe in userspace, stored in user page directories like they have on de:, as long as they don't cause problems. I think this solution will fly, unless it blows up of its own accord. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• What's the point of even having this discussion? Enough administrators have made it clear that they are going to do whatever the heck they feel like regardless of policy. Administrators User:Doc glasgow, User:Tony Sidaway, User:Phil Boswell, User:Sean Black, User:Metamagician3000, User:Jareth, and User:GTBacchus have all demonstrated that community consensus is irrelevant to them by endorsing a patently incorrect deletion. I find it incomprehensible that we are even having this discussion. You guys are just making up rules as we go along. If you are going to refuse to enforce whatever actual policy is decided on and just delete anything you don't like out of process, why are we even pretending to have this discussion? Even if it gets undeleted, another one of you will just delete it next week. BigDT 05:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  We've had the T1 policy for some time now, and dozens of deletion reviews have endorsed a broad interpretation. The arbitration committee explicitly recognised this in the arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway just over two months ago. --Tony Sidaway 05:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't question that T1 exists. I question that T1 has anything to do with this userbox. If it is divisive or inflammatory, it is only so because of your actions and the actions of other administrators. There is nothing INHERENTLY divisive or inflammatory about it. If the userbox said "this user doesn't like atheists" or "this user is anti-Catholic" or something like that, I'd be the first one to vote keep deleted on the DRV. But in order for you to say that this userbox is "divisive and inflammatory", you would also have to say that any expression of faith in any way is divisive and inflammatory. (I'm aware that T1 is only relevant to such expressions in template space, but the words "divisive" and "inflammatory" exist and have meaning outside the context of userboxes.) Is it "divisive" or "inflammatory" that I go to church Sunday mornings? That I say, "I am a Christian"? That I pray before meals? How, then, is a userbox that says no more nor less than "this user is a Christian" divisive and inflammatory? There is nothing INHERENTLY inflammatory about it. What is inflammatory is the edit warring, wheel warring, vandalism, and refusal to enforce a consensus. Repeated out-of-process deletions and trips to DRV are divisive and inflammatory - the template itself is not. No, I don't question the existence of T1. I question your application of it. BigDT 05:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, this template does not deserve to be used to make a point, especially not this many times in a row. --tjstrf 05:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Whether or not this template is 'good' is immaterial to this discussion. The template was unilaterally deleted by an admin ignoring a consensus to keep and therefore this should be a speedy undelete. All your legitimate concerns about the usefulness of POV boxes can be addressed at TfD, not speedy deletion. IMO Delete votes citing the inappropriateness of POV userboxen should be ignored because that's not what this debate is about, let the community decide that. No one admin (or even a group of them) has the power to decide what is in the best interests of the community when the community itself wants to go the opposite way. Let's stop playing the Big Brother. Loom91 05:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Like I've said somewhere else, I have absolutely no idea why the admins don't just do a mass delete. What is the point of allowing these votes anyway? Wikipedia is not a democracy, and it's obvious the admins will interpret a Userbox as "divisive or inflammatory" in whatever way they see fit and delete it. Personally, I'm OK with a mandate and mass delete on Userboxes, but the way the situation is being handled is incredibly inept. Like someone else said, this is essentially a mass delete, carried out in a very annoying manner. Hong Qi Gong 05:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete Why shouldn't we be allowed to state that we are christians in userboxes if we want to? Besides, the speedy deletion of this userbox template was not justified. Ifrit 05:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete since this has been on DRV something like three times already. THis is becoming a pointless attempt at deletion by attrition. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted The only userboxes of any value are time zone, technical, linquistic and project participation. Sophia 06:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. What is it with you people? I like having a flourishing community with all that that entails. User pages were one manifestation of it, userboxes are just another one. Cracking down on them will do not one tiny bit of good and has the potential to drive many people away, or discourage them into reducing the frequency of their contributions (instead of drawing them deeper into the site, which is the kind of thing userboxes do)—either because of frustration at their disappearing userboxes or because of frustration at the ridiculous admin abuse of powers that has gone on in the effort to get rid of them. People want their ability to express themselves maximized, not minimized, and they want to believe that there's some process, some sort of order and rule structure that protects them—I imagine it must be quite vexing to find out how a small minority can rule arbitrarily like this. Everyking 06:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete - This template just restored here couple days ago and just survived TfD, what makes one to think things have changed?? "-Template:User Christian restored by 27-36 majority, will be relisted at TfD in pre-edit war form. 17:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review" & TfD Hunter 08:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I would have voted to undelete six months ago, and I still think that the way this was originally handled showed a complete contempt for the community, but it's quite clear Jimbo doesn't want these boxes, and so at the very least they shouldn't be in template space. I do think, however, that it's ridiculous to say that using a box which says "This user is a Christian" is an attempt to convert others. AnnH ♫ 08:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Stop deleting userbox templates (and indeed creating new ones) until a consensus policy is reached, per Jimbo's request of 'one user at a time.' Deleting them, then having a DRV on everyone is just wasting everyone's time. Having said that - it's now clear to me that no matter what the outcome, we are going to keep having this debate over and over, template by template, as certain admins don't appear to be willing to await the outcome of debate or consensus on the whole userbox/template thing. A template survives a DRV - it get's re-deleted. (Strange how this isn't vandalism, but re-creating something is!) We end up with the ridiculous situation of the {insert religious or political userbox} being deleted while another {insert religious or political userbox} is restored (or, at least, not yet deleted) - obvious examples being Republican / Democrat or Christian / Satanist. So. All religious userbox templates are on one page, yes? As are all political userbox templates? How does one go about nominating them all, simultaneously, for a T1 TfD? Bastun 09:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Why do single admins take it on their high horse to act as they please. Why is this discussion even happening. It is a joke that a successful deletion review, immediately followed by a successful TfD, can be followed by someone going and deleting on a whim. Ansell Review my progress! 09:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Templates of the type user_worldview have created a big load of unproductive and pointless unrest. The most effective way to avoid this from now on is to have them deleted alltogether. The problem with that approach is that many users feel discriminated if "their" worldview-box is deleted, while others are not; So, as it can be assumed that user_christian is among the most popular boxes on en.WP, deleting it is a major step. -- 790 10:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, it's already been through TfD's and DRV's that've supported keeping this userbox. Will (^E_@) T 10:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Knowing peoples' POVs is a very positive thing, and helps us know who is liable to POV-pushing. Someone who has "faith" (which is by definition blind belief/ignorance with no requirement for Verifiability) in any religion cannot be expected to edit any religion-orientated article neutrally. --Col. Hauler 11:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete - I post this as if my opinion matters on Wikipedia... but if the consensus repeatedly is for keeping it, then speedy deleting it yet again shows nothing but complete contempt for the user community. Arguing that Jimbo supports speedy deleting it is nothing more than arguing that Jimbo has nothing but complete contempt for the user community, as well. Is that really what you want to say? Or is it the truth? Jay Maynard 11:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - I don't have this or ever plan to have this as a userbox but I can see no reason why this or any other religions or ideologies should ever be deleted! If they aren't innately offensive I have no problem with them! -- UKPhoenix79 11:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The admins who are repeatedly deleting this out of process find anything but bland, homogenous user pages innately offensive. Jay Maynard 11:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete like that robot mouse Jerry had on that one episode of Tom and Jerry.-Strip Improv of his powers while we are at it! -user:Gangsta-Easter-Bunny --13:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, there has been a consensus to keep on several occasions. There has never been a consensus to delete. "this user/administrator dislikes this" is NOT a valid deltion criteria, let alone a speedy one. Thryduulf 16:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete! Korossyl 17:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid T1, as can be seen by the divided and heated nature of this very discussion. No obvious reason to question Improv's judgement. Let it go. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply The template is not controversial, the deletion is. A controversial deletion is reason for keeping, not the inverse. --tjstrf 21:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Lets follow the process, and abide by consensus. Bo 19:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. T1. It was valid to delete when I first deleted it many months ago, and T1 still applies. --Improv 21:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So you're not too bothered by the strong consensus to keep on its TfD? —Ashley Y 21:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete For same rationale as per Col. Hauler, above. Knowlege of their POV pushing nature is valuable and should mean they should recuse themseleves from editing on articles of a religious nature, except to give info about it on talk pages. I don't think its a means to convert, nor do I think it helps to build their cabal (as they just flock to their articles anyway). But, it should be a way to identify who should be discouraged from editing in various articles, esp. those playing admin roles.Giovanni33 21:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: POV religious boxes are divisive. See Satanist below. Stephen B Streater 22:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral I don't care whether it's undeleted or not, as long as the decision matches Satanist below. Delete both or keep both. Fan1967 23:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, though it is divisive: "Having a quality that divides or separates", T1 as it stands says the templates must both be divisive and inflammatory. Having a POV is not inflammatory. Having POV is however CSD T2. If T2 was policy, then my vote would be to delete. Also, Citing the deletion policy:

  Repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted, and in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rayc (talk • contribs) 23:14, 1 June 2006.

  This is a userbox, not an article. This userbox is obviously unsuitable and will either be altered to be suitable for Wikipedia or else deleted--all we're arguing over are the details. --Tony Sidaway 00:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  Who died and made you Jimbo? Jay Maynard 01:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  It's only "obvious" to you and the others who are distorting the purpose of T1 to fulfil your goal of deleting all non-project userboxes. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that goal, but please, be frank about it, admit your motives, and don't abuse existing rules against their original intent. --tjstrf 00:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  T1 says divisive and inflammatory. You already acknowledge divisive. Anything divisive has the potential to become inflammatory. Look at the number of people expressing opinions here, and you'll see this userbox has become inflammatory. Stephen B Streater 09:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  You're confusing the actions of editors and administrators with the template in a vacuum. The template is neither divisive nor inflammatory when taken alone, divisive only in the context of a strong POV holding user viewing it, and not inflammatory at all. These repeated deletions, on the other hand, are both divisive and inflammatory, and as such should be overturned. The template is not divisive and inflammatory, User:Improv is. (and if he were a template, he would be deleted) --tjstrf 10:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  The template divides Wikipedians by their beliefs. If anyone feels more aligned to another editor because they have this userbox, then it is divisive. Stephen B Streater 11:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  If I get a swollen ankle, it is the ankle that swells, not the sprain that caused it. Often the swelling can take some time to show. So this debate is the swollen ankle - the sympton of the inflammatory userbox (the sprain). If the cells which trigger the swelling are the admins, you are blaming the cells in the ankle for the swelling, not the sprain. It is true that if the cells didn't swell, the ankle wouldn't either (and some pain relief drugs prevent swelling), but the swelling aids recovery. Personally, I wouldn't delete a userbox against consensus because I think it polarises debate and makes consensus harder to reach. If a neutral userbox such as a babel box were to be deleted, the debate would be one sided and the box would be clearly seen to be non-inflammatory. The inflammation here requires the original box to be potentially inflammatory. I would not trigger the inflammation myself, but we're here now. Do we treat the symptoms or the cause? Stephen B Streater 11:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per process. Also urge admins to wait for a solution and stop wasting time deleting boxes. Λυδαcιτγ^{(TheJabberwock)} 23:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment is it worth sorting the votes? —Ashley Y 23:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Obviously divisive. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted in accordance with the deletion of other religious bias userboxes. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 00:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't care whether this one is kept or deleted, but I hope whichever way it goes, it's done consistently for all religions rather than showing preference for "approved" ones. *Dan T.* 01:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: This is no more inflammatory than if you declared yourself to be a dentist; some people hate Christians and some hate dentists. If you see Christianity as inflammatory, it is because you want it to be. That's your POV problem, not the userbox's. WestonWyse 04:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Does not meet any speedy-deletion criterion. T1 is not relevant here, as being Christian is not "divisive and inflammatory" anymore than being Muslim or atheist or Rastafarian is. T2 is not settled policy, and thus clearly cannot be arbitrarily imposed on random templates in an attempt to force it into becoming a de facto policy; and even if T2 was policy (or becomes one in the future), it would be much easier to simply make this into a redirect to {{user christianity}} and subst the original {{user christian}} to the users who were using it, thus preventing endless DRVs like this one. But right now, as T2 is still under discussion, this deletion is premature at the very least, and downright destructive (much more than the template itself, which never caused an ounce of harm before it was used as a tool by certain admins to exacerbate the userbox debate) at worst. -Silence 12:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted or we risk a "tyranny of the majority" situation. Rob 13:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - Exactly how is that worse than the tyranny of the admins we have now? If you object to that term, exactly how is it inapplicable to the situation we have, where it's repeatedly speedy deleted in the face of repeated consensus to keep it? Jay Maynard 14:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  "Tyranny of the minority," I think it should be. It's certainly at least equally applicable. WestonWyse 02:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. It made it through TfD 3 days ago, and then it got deleted again?! // The True _Sora 13:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The mere act of declaring one's religion is only divisive to people who hate and fear religion. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 17:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete. Now again? --H.T. Chien / 眼鏡虎 (Discuss|Contributions) 19:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• undelete please there was no reason for this really Yuckfoo 00:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV QuizQuick 00:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete - This is ridiculous. Religion is not a divisive point of view - it merely expresses what someone believes - what is wrong with that? If it passed a vote for deletion, then leave it as is. There should be no reason why this should be deleted. A violation of human rights and free speech if it is. (JROBBO 04:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

  I think it's pretty insulting to people who are actually having their human rights violated in this world, that you would apply such rhetoric to an issue as trivial as whether, in one particular namespace on one particular website on the wide internet, you can announce your religion. The only issue here is where these things are stored on the server. Pretending it's about human rights and freedom of speech must be very satisfying, from a drama perspective, but it's pretty depressing, in the eyes of someone who's actually seen human rights abuses. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment In America, Freedom of Speech is considered a human right. Wikipedia is not America, of course, but he isn't actually misusing the term. --tjstrf 05:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  No. He's misusing the term. Human rights, including freedom of speech, are things that matter, things worth dying for. Nobody's freedom of speech is being violated when all anyone's saying is, "hey, that template is stored in the wrong namespace, move it," so JROBBO's assertion that this is about freedom of speech is laughable. If you're privileged enough to be accessing Wikipedia from a computer in the first world, and to have the free time to complain about userboxes (from any side of the dispute), then you're in the luckiest 1% of people on Earth. Don't trivialize human rights. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Reply In that case, I think your gripes would be better addressed to the Founding Fathers than myself or JROBBO. My personal opposition to the deletion is based on it being an abuse of the T1 criteria by an admin with ulterior motives. --tjstrf 05:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  My "gripes"? What are you even talking about? I was getting on JROBBO's case for talking like a spoiled brat; the Founding Fathers are... unrelated. As for the deletion, all these templates are moving to user space anyway, see The German solution. Nobody will delete them there. That's how the userbox wars end, it turns out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Your gripes about his use of the phrase human rights. Also, userfying doesn't solve a thing, we'd still have collections of stupid, worthless userboxes sitting around, they just wouldn't be in template space. Also, what deletion criteria, if any, would keep userfied boxes from becoming worse, more offensive, more pointless, and more page-consuming than the template space ones ever were? --tjstrf 06:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Userfying does at least one thing: it removes the appearance of official sanction for POV userboxes that comes from keeping them in Template space. What's more, it might be the only thing that people on both sides of the userbox controversy can agree on - it might end the stupid "userbox wars", and that's a Good Thing. In user space, the boxes will still be subject to WP:UP and to basic rules prohibiting attacks or polemical statements. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Reply Not to be offensive in any way, but that's just sophistry. The "appearance of sanction" is as much present when the box is in the userspace, or even coded in by hand, as it is when it's in templatespace. Those users who follow the userbox debate all understand that userboxes are not an endorsement of the statements they contain by the wikimedia foundation regardless of their location, and those who don't follow it will be ignorant of the entire debate, and may draw either conclusion no matter where we put the boxes. The German Solution may pacify, but it doesn't solve or conclude. If anything it is actually a crippling defeat for the deletionist side, who have essentially traded all their credit in exchange for a superficial compromise that does nothing. I believe the deletionist side would be better to strategically withdraw and come back with a new proposal. (See also my comments at Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates.) --tjstrf 07:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken, but you're wrong. It's not sophistry. If a user sees that user boxes live on various people's user pages, under someone's name, that stands out as different from other templates, which exist in a common Template space. If they ask someone why that is, they find out that it's because userboxes aren't considered official Wikipedia templates the way other templates are. That'll mean something to that user; they'll think about it. User space is phychologically different from the other name spaces because it's not a shared area - all the pages in userspace are in somebody's "personal area". Besides all that, the German solution has Jimbo's support. As far as I'm concerned, you're proposing prolonging the userbox controversy, and all I care about is ending it. Convincing people that userboxes are wrong now has to be done with reason and dialogue. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's only psychologically different to those who understand the situation leading up to it. For everyone else, it will just be another layer of confusion to those who even notice. Also, I'm not trying to prolong the debate, I'm trying to resolve it. From my view, even a prolonged debate with an actual conclusion that did something non-superficial would be better than one that forces a false peace on us. Preferably though, it would not be a prolongation of the current debate, but rather a new debate entirely. However, if Jimbo says, then we should obey, even if I personally disagree. Also, we're stretching out the deletion review with mostly unrelated arguments, so let's end on that note. --tjstrf 09:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment What's wrong with it is, it has nothing to do with building a respectable reliable encyclopedia.

  Somewhere along the line, one policy came to be radically misinterpreted to the detriment of all the others, including the most basic: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If we can't coherently explain what it has to do with furthering the mission - and I don't for one moment buy "disclosure of bias", that is at most an unintended side-effect of the honestly stated goal of self-expression (such that the deletion of a userbox is said to be a "violation of human rights and free speech") - then it shouldn't exist. No, wikipedia is not censored, but it's not a free webhost either. Free speech means you can unashamedly write from a strong point of view. You can cite unreliable sources. You can pursue and disseminate original research. You can be incivil and even make personal attacks. Etc. All those things are a part of our personal freedom and protected self-expression. Wikipedia isn't about freedom or self-expression. Those are burdens that could never be carried by any single enterprise, and really, should they be? At the end of the day, Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia.Timothy Usher 05:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - does anyone else think that maybe it's time this thing just got taken to arbitration? The wheel warring [63] has continued into tonight. This template has been through repeated discussions, arguments, and everything else. Plenty of administrators have made it clear that they have no intention of enforcing the consensus and are going to delete it out of process regardless of what the consensus is. At least if it goes to arbitration, a final decision can be made once and for all and the silly edit warring and wheel warring can stop. BigDT 07:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• No one like wheel warring. It indicates an emotional involvement which can polarise a debate along irrational lines. It also indicates that this userbox has become (possible indirectly) inflammatory. I think this is too early for arbitration, as various viewpoints are still working through the system and almost everyone is still engagng in constructive debate. When the good ideas are all presented, I will support your call for arbitration. Stephen B Streater 09:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete the tfd for keep speaks for itself. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete Either process has some meaning or it doesn't. When userboxes are kept in TfD, and there is no clear policy against them, (T1 is not clearly against relgion userboxes or this one in particular, and T2 is neither consensus nor policy) then admins can not turn around and do as they see fit. When an editor is promoted to admin, they are symbolically given a mop, not a sceptre; this means that they serve us, not rule us. While that means excercising judgement and discretion and not always going along with the crowd, it does not give them license to overrule a clearly-expressed consensus even when that consensus goes against their personal interpretation of Wikipedia's goals. The only way to overrule such a consensus should be to have a clear pronouncement from the office, and I'm sorry, but no such clear pronouncement has come forth. What would such a pronouncement sound like? How about, "Delete all userboxes except _____." Until then, consensus has to come first. Vadder 18:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Count: at this point, 41 (incl. nom.) overturn & undelete; 20 endorse deletion [64] —Ashley Y 16:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• That's on par with the 2/1 split commonly seen with userbox issues. It's not enough to get a concensus, not enough to delete through TfD, and not enough to overturn a speedy. In other words, a mess. --StuffOfInterest 16:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• It seems pretty clear though "If there is neither a majority to endorse the decision nor a three-quarters supermajority to overturn and apply some other result, the article is relisted on the relevant deletion process.", this would indicate sending this to TFD, where a supermajority already endorsed Keep. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm, interesting. Which policy page does that come from as I may like to use it in the future. When you consider that this particular template survived a TfD three days before its deletion the whole situation is just that much more ugly. All in all, in the long term, moving it out to user space probably has a better chance. --StuffOfInterest 16:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Vfu mechanics, though I'm not sure what status that has. —Ashley Y 20:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• And VFU/M is transcluded right at the top of this page. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, Keep deleted, per Sophia et al. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:User organ donor

Speedydeleted by Tony Sidaway on 30 May 2006 stating "T1, blatant campaigning". A borderline case - while this userbox is definity pushing for organ-donation (a good cause in itself) I am not entirely sure if campainging fulfills the T1 criteria. So I'd say Overturn and Relist. Alternativly the text could be changed to "user is a organ donor". CharonX 01:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note: I userified these 3 boxes to CharonX userspace at CharonX's request.... Keep deleted this userbox is advocacy. Organ donation is an admirable thing to advocate (and I have so pledged, and so, dear reader, should you) but it nevertheless is advocacy. For consistency we cannot allow advocacy. Of any sort. ++Lar: t/c 01:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted in accordance with objective of removing all such userboxes from template space. Metamagician3000 02:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per Metamagician.Timothy Usher 02:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Divisive. --Tony Sidaway 03:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Does not fall under T1. —David618 ^t 03:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Can we see the content? (If I don't come back here, undelete if it's just "this user is an organ donor" or "this user is interested in organ donation," but keep deleted if it's more opinionated than that) --Rory096 03:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, keep deleted with no prejudice towards a neutral and solely factual recreation. --Rory096 03:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The content is right above. I restored the last version to userspace as I noted. Did you want to see all the versions??? ++Lar: t/c 03:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Where'd it go? If it got removed it may have been nice to say why, whoever did it. ++Lar: t/c 17:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and send to TfD This is a borderline case, and I feel it merits reconsideration. --Disavian 04:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • After seeing the template, I feel it did not deserve deletion at all. As it is obviously not under T1. --Disavian 05:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per Rory, but unprotect so that a non-divisive version may be created BigDT 04:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Does not fall under any existing speedy-deletion criterion, as it's very clearly not "divisive and inflammatory". Send this to TfD if you think it should be deleted. -Silence 04:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Aw, come on. I rarely get into userbox debates, but can't "This user is an organ donor" satisfy the "no advocacy" requirement? If rewritten, undelete. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• undelete and TFD if you must. not really divisive or inflamitory. Mike McGregor (Can) 05:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: not divisive or inflammatory. —Ashley Y 07:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: A divisive version would state: "This user has arranged for organ donation and is better than you because of it" or "This user has not arranged for organ donation as it would violate their God-given right to remain whole as a corpse". Even if anyone actually considered the addition of "have you?" to the template to be in any way divisive or inflammatory, wouldn't it make more sense to edit those words out rather than outright delete the template? ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 08:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete And remove "have you?" from it. Information only. --mboverload@ 08:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Reword - one should reword the template instead of speedy it. Hunter 09:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: Stop deleting userbox templates (and indeed creating new ones) until a consensus policy is reached, per Jimbo's request of 'one user at a time.' Deleting them, then having a DRV on everyone is just wasting everyone's time. Bastun 10:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per T1: just considering all the screeching and hollering should give people an idea of just how bloody disruptive these damn things can be. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Until or unless a concensus based policy is established. --StuffOfInterest 11:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, valid deletion. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist on ATfD. Not T1 or T2, but non-speedy-deletion criteria are more extensive. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Xanga/Livejournal beckon. --Improv 18:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete now this IS ridiculous.  Grue  20:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: Burn them all, may the internet run binary with the ones and zeros of the fallen boxes! --Bobak 21:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted --pgk^(talk) 21:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and list per nom. Let's see what the community thinks. Septentrionalis 23:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Perfectly valid T1 deletion, say a few words about it on your userpage if you want. Keep your personal preferences out of template space. Rx StrangeLove 02:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Inappropriate use of template space. AnnH ♫ 08:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Recreate in factual format. "This user is an organ donor." --tjstrf 08:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Recreate per Tjstrf Will (^E_@) T 11:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Recreate as a factual box. What's next, Template:User 911?! Jay Maynard 12:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Recreate per Tjstrf, however I do not endorse its speedy deletion - this was borderline and so obviously easy to change to a neutral version that talk page discussion or a TfD debate would have been less devisive than a speedy deletion. Thryduulf 16:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, I can't see what it initially said, but if it was "I am an organ donor", it's stating a fact, not a POV. If a fact is inflammitory, then so would be "This user owns a car" to enviromentalist. Great, I think I just WP:BEANS --Rayc 23:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, you can't prevent offending EVERYBODY. Rob 13:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, you can't prevent offending EVERYBODY.Giovanni33 17:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, you can't prevent offending EVERYBODY. 03:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Userboxes have failed to hold my interest, but I fail to see how this is even remotely divisive. If this template offends you, you probably should turn off your computer right now. Yamaguchi先生 15:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, Keep deleted, how can this possibly help build an Encyclopedia? This is not MySpace. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

2006 June

1. Okashina_Okashi - Decision of the original closer to relist at AfD is endorsed. 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
2. Dismal's Paradox - Relisted at AfD. 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
3. User:SPUI/jajaja - Nomination withdrawn. 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
4. List of political leaders widely regarded as totalitarian - Request for information answered. 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
5. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed. 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
6. Cultural references in Pokémon - Deletion endorsed. 16:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
7. Fluffy (The Lion King) - Deletion endorsed. 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
8. Kelly Roberti - Copyright issue resolved, restored. 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
9. Image:Pierre Janssen.jpg - Commons image, action impossible here. 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Review
10. Neanderthal theory of autism - Deletion endorsed. 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
11. Be bold, Be Bold - Overturn RfD and revert to WP:BOLD. 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
12. Jeff Lindsay - Deletion endorsed. 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
13. "State Debate Associations" - Deletion endorsed. 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
14. How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 - Deletion endorsed. 17:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
15. Kinston Indians - Deletion endorsed. 17:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
16. Wikipedia:SCAG - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
17. Image:Nuvola 64 apps important.png - undeletion impossible; deleted prior to 16 June 2006. 13:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
18. Sick Nick Mondo - Deletion endorsed for now, pending AfD outcome for related Nick Mondo; should that survive, this is a suitable redirect. 18:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review

    Nick Mondo having survived AfD, this is restored as a redirect. 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

19. True Torah Jews - Deletion endorsed. 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
20. UCIP - Deletion endorsed. 18:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
21. Mending Wall - Keep endorsed. 11:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
22. Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) - Deletion endorsed. 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
23. TheSmartMarks.com - Deletion endorsed. 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
24. Dirt pudding - Transwiki and deletion endorsed. 17:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
25. Kirill Makharinsky - Deletion endorsed. 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
26. Armando Lloréns-Sar - History restored, maintained as redirect; merge issues are an editorial concern for article's talk page. 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
27. Hollywood Undead - Deletion endorsed. 17:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
28. Trexy - Closing administrator agreed to relist AFD. 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Review
29. Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak - No consensus closure endorsed. 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
30. Knox (animator) - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
31. Lightsaber combat - Keep closure endorsed. 18:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
32. Stone Trek - Deletion closure endorsed. 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
33. File:944 h.jpg - DRV closed, image in Commons jurisdiction. 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
34. Sadullah Khan - Undeleted, relisted. 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
35. Atromitos - Undeleted. 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
36. Walk To Emmaus - Deletion endorsed. 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
37. Wikipedia:Conservative notice board. Kept deleted. Strong endorsement. 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Review.
38. Lost: The Journey - Relisted. 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
39. User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes and Template:User Gangster - Undeleted. 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
40. The Lost Boys (demogroup) - Relist. 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
41. Second War (Harry Potter) - Deletion endorsed. 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
42. IRCDig - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
43. Saryn Hooks - Undeleted and relisted at AfD. 17:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
44. Template:Major_programming_languages - template content restored 06:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) review
45. Strategic Policy Consulting - Deletion endorsed. 16:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
46. Actuarial Outpost - Kept kept, mistaken nomination. 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
47. Image:WikiPâques.png - Uploaded to Commons, as suggested. 16:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
48. The Esplanade Mall - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 16:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
49. Sydney Ling - AfD result of "no consensus" endorsed. 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
50. Siberian language - Deletion endorsed. 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
51. Burlington Center Mall - Challenge of no consensus afd withdrawn. 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
52. Erik Möller - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
53. theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh - Deletions endorsed. 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
54. Wikipedia:OURS - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
55. 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) - Deletion endorsed. 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
56. Conservative Underground - Deletion endorsed. 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
57. Boring Business Systems - AfD reopened by acclamation. 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
58. Joseph D. Campbell - Previous AfD overturned, to be relisted at AfD. 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
59. Church of Reality - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
60. Heinen's - Result reversed by consensus, AfD now closed as "no consensus". 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
61. BB Sinha - Restored, listed at AfD. 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (deleted at AfD 20:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)) Review
62. Mending Wall - Restored, listed at AfD, closed as keep, brought here again (above). 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
63. Cancer Bats - Restored, to be resubmitted to AfD in light of new evidence. 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
64. Cum On Her Face - Deletion endorsed. 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
65. AlternC - Deletion endorsed. 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
66. Tiffany Holiday - Deletion endorsed. 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
67. Shane Cubis - Deletion endorsed unanimously (excepting discounted anons/newbies.) 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
68. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
69. Big Brother 7 chronology - Deletion endorsed. Will userfy upon request. 15:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
70. Wikimedia Meta-Wiki - action reverted by the closer. AFD reopened. 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
71. The Adventures of Dr. McNinja - Consensus to permit userpage draft as new recreation, will be submitted to AfD. 17:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
72. Cory kennedy - Deletion endorsed. 17:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
73. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics - Kept deleted unanimously. 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
74. Yar - Deletion endorsed without prejudice to unrelated redirect now at title. 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
75. List of midnight movies - Content restored for merge and redirect. 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
76. AK Productions - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
77. FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together - Undeleted and sent to AfD. 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
78. List of tongue-twisters - Deletion endorsed in light of new Wikiquote transwiki. 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
79. User:Raphael1/Wikiethics - Deletion endorsed. 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
80. Roosters1908, Sydneyroosters1909, and Sydneyroosters1910 - Undeleted to be AfD'ed in light of new evidence. 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
81. National Hockey Leaque player lists - Restored speedily and AFD reopened. 08:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
82. User:AKMask/log - Restored (by a narrow margin) to be sent to MfD. 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
83. Male Unbifurcated Garment - Deletion endorsed (again -- Second DRV in two weeks.) 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
84. Penis banding - Deletion endorsed. 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Review
85. Template:User no notability - Deletion narrowly endorsed. (date unavailable, deletion review never archived) Permalink
86. Syed Ahmed - deletion endorsed, redirected to The Apprentice (UK series 2) 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
87. Ho Shin Do - deletion endorsed without prejudice 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
88. Israel News Agency - article content restored 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
89. Delaware County Intermediate Unit - Deletion closure endorsed. 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
90. Steve Bellone - Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
91. Team NoA - Previous version restored, survived AfD as no consensus. 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
92. Springfield M21 - Restored as redirect with history. 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
93. The drips - Speedy deletion contested, overturned; sent to AfD. 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
94. Template:Voting icons - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
95. Ali Zafar - New NPOV recreation permitted. 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
96. Barbara Bauer, The Literary Agency Group and others - Bauer undeleted and kept at AfD; others kept deleted. 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
97. Scienter - deletion overturned. 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
98. Auto repair shop - original speedy deletion endorsed, without prejudice to now-existing distinct redirect at this title. 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
99. Wikipedia v search engines - deletion endorsed unanimously. 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
100. Pat Price - deletion overturned unanimously, no need to relist. 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
101. Talk:Brian Peppers - kept deleted. 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
102. The Juggernaut Bitch - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
103. South Coast League - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
104. Other side of the pillow - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
105. Joel Leyden - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
106. Sharting - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
107. User:Disavian/Userboxes/Green Energy - deletion endorsed, narrowly 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
108. Left-wing terrorism - article history restored 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
109. Stella Maris College Scout Group - deletion endorsed 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
110. List of Michael Savage neologisms - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
111. Superhorse - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
112. Exicornt - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
113. Image:Lock-icon.jpg - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
114. College Confidential - article content restored 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
115. Tim Dingle - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
116. Abstract People - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
117. Christian views of Hanukkah - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
118. Claught of a bird dairy products - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
119. LIP6 - continue from rewritten version 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
120. Hulk 2 - redirected to Hulk (film) for now 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
121. Xombie - article content restored 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
122. Possible wars between liberal democracies speedy-deletion undone by deleting admin. listed to AFD. 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
123. Gary Howell deletion endorsed. 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
124. New Sincerity - deletion endorsed. 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
125. Successful Praying - speedy deletion as copyvio endorsed. 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
126. Videohypertransference - user copy granted. deletion from articlespace endorsed. 20:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
127. Oz Categories 8 endorse, 5 overturn, deletion endorsed. 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Review

Userbox discussions

• Template:User no notability - deletion endorsed, narrowly 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• Template:User organ donor template content restored 17:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian See WP:TGS
• Template:User satanist kept deleted
• Template:User cannabis kept deleted
• Template:User CCP - kept deleted. 00:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User against fox hunting (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW. Massive endorsement.)

Archives

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 May)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 April)

Proposed deletions

Articles deleted under the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion procedure (using the {{PROD}} tag) may be undeleted, without a vote, on reasonable request. Any admin can be asked to do this, alternatively a request may be made here. However, such undeleted articles are open to be speedy deleted or nominated for WP:AFD under the usual rules.

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. If you nominate an article here, be sure to make a note on the sysop's user talk page regarding your nomination. A template, {{subst:DRVNote}} is available to make this easier.

Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.

Proposed deletions

Articles deleted under the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion procedure (using the {{PROD}} tag) may be undeleted, without a vote, on reasonable request. Any admin can be asked to do this, alternatively a request may be made here. However, such undeleted articles are open to be speedy deleted or nominated for WP:AFD under the usual rules.

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Steps to list a new deletion review

1.	Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 October 1}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	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 <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 October 1}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 October 1|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

• Endorse the original closing decision; or
• Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
• List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
• Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
• Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

• *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
• *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
• *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
• *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of 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.

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

06 June 2006

Big Brother 7 chronology

Big Brother 7 Chronology (AfD discussion)

This page had more people wanting to keep it then people wanting to delete it. It has been wronlgy deleted by someone who was against the page from its existence. As soon as it was created, this user marked it for deletion. It was wrongly deleted and I campaign for it to be restored... Ellisjm 16:06 UTC 6 June 06

• Overturn: At least have the page there until the series is over and the page can be condensed. --JD^talk_email 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Why was the page deleted? Celestianpower says at the top of the page that the result of the debate was deleted. The results were: 6 for "delete"; 11 for "keep"; 1 for "weak keep" and 1 for "strong delete"!!! I think it's pretty obvious that more people want to keep the page than delete it!! Ellisjm 16:36 UTC 6 June 06

AfD is not a vote. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That may be true, but good reasons for having the page stay were still brought up. Even if only until the end of the series, the page is worth having in peoples' opinions. --JD^talk_email 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. People who wanted the article deleted seem to have more grounds than those who wanted the article kept. — FireFox • 16:44, 06 June '06
• Endorse deletion per FireFox. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Reasons given for deletion were in line with WP policies and guidelines; reasons given for keep were mostly "But I want to keep it" variety. Process was followed, deletion is valid. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn for violation of process. I would have voted "delete", as this does look like non-notable TV cruft, but the result of the debate was no consensus. The keep voters may have been uninformed, but Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators allows only disregarding bad faith votes when establishing consensus, and few such are apparent here. I know of no policy that allows the closing administrator to determine consensus on the basis of which side they agree with. Sandstein 17:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The guidelines say that for example comments made in bad faith may be ignored. In general, the guidelines say admins should use their common sense to determine if a rough consensus exists and should try to remain as objective as possible — they don't provide strict rules for doing this, since no such rule can exists. (Anyway, it's not a "vote".) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and close as no consensus. Neither side had arguments that were all that compelling, and closer was not at all clear as to his/her rationale for the decision. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse- this was a reasonable decision. Possibly the DRV could have been avoided tho, if the closer had given more reasoning about why they closed the way they did. Friday (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, a level of detail far in excess of anything which could possibly be justified by any encyclopaedic purpose. BB7 is more than adequately covered in the main article. This is a fan blog and belongs on a fan site: it is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information.. Just zis Guy you know? 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not meant to be a blog; it's meant to keep the main article small. --JD^talk_email 19:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there some objective measure you're using to make this statement? At what point is it not excessive anymore? Why is detail bad? etc etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm measuring it by the articles for other comparable series. We're a couple of weeks in and already it's longer than many articles on entire series. And this is BB7, not BB1, so it is less notable in the first place. What we have here is a blog, a day-by-day log of events. That's one of the things Wikipedia is not. I have nothing against logging this info at a user subpage for later distillation into an actual article, but speaking as a Brit and part of the target audience this is considerably beyond the defensible encyclopaedic content. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: am I correcting in thinking that people think this article is necessary so that at the end of the show it can be reduced into something encyclopedic? That seems to be what was being said at the AfD, but I just want to verify that before making a decision. Metros232 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That was the plan. --JD^talk_email 19:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Then you should store it somewhere else and repost it when it's encyclopidic. WP isn't a dumping ground for random information. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, then in that case, restore and move to user space. Put it someone's user space so it can be worked on as a future article rather than having it in the mainspace as an actual article. Metros232 19:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Endorse and keep deleted - Wikipedia is not a democracy. The closer based his decision of the strengh of the arguments, not the amount. I agree with User:Friday that the closer should have stated this more clearly. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Per above, restoring to the userspace would also be quite acceptable. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn the result of the discussion was keep and not by a small margin. I completely agree with Ellisjm that the article was wrongly deleted.

-- JAB^[T]_[C] 20:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and Undelete for being out-of-process. --Rob 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak endorse, closure seems to have been within acceptable bounds of discretion. Most of the arguments provided by either side in the debate were rather weak, but some of the arguments for deletion were slightly less weak that the arguments against it. I'm quite willing, however, to userfy the deleted content upon request (a possibility some of the participants in the original debate appear to have been unaware of). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It just makes more sense to have the page in the main Wikipedia area while it exists, because it still has the information that many people may find useful. If that ends up being the only other option, then it may end up happening. But I'm sure you can see what I'm trying to say. --JD^talk_email 23:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem is, if it were in the main namespace it would have to satisfy the Wikipedia policies regarding article content. As it is, it seems to have trouble meeting several, including no original research, reliable sources and several parts of what Wikipedia is not. In short, it is unencyclopedic. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy somewhere by all means but keep deleted per above. Metamagician3000 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. I would rather delete this article but the discussion was at most a "no consensus", not a "delete". --Metropolitan90 02:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:WikiPâques.png

Image:WikiPâques.png was deleted in February on the basis it was an orphan. Well, of course it was an orphan - it was February and the image was an Easter Wikipedia logo, so it'll only be unorphaned when it's Easter. I see no valid reason to delete this. Users may still want it on their user page at Easter. It's also causing red links in older revisions. See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 February 14 for the listing on IfD. There's a copy here if the deletion is overturned and someone wants to reupload it. Angela. 08:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Re-upload to Commons, so any project can use it, and Commons is outside of enwiki's jurisdiction. --Rory096 08:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

National Hockey League player lists

List of every NHL player NHL players A NHL players B NHL players C NHL players D NHL players E NHL players F NHL players G NHL players H NHL players I

NHL players J NHL players K NHL players L NHL players M NHL players N NHL players O NHL players P NHL players Q NHL players R

NHL players S NHL players T NHL players U NHL players V NHL players W NHL players X NHL players Y NHL players Z

Relist. They were improperly speedy deleted out of process for "already have lists of hockey players. don't need two" . Although they were posted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHL players A, I was not given an opportunity to state some reasons as to why they should be kept, such as (briefly):

• They follow Wikipedia:List guideline
• They can be cleaned up. We can remove the external spam links, but add some dates and stats to each entry.
• There are other similar list pages thay list sports players in alphabetical order such as List of retired American football players, List of Major League Baseball players, List of National Basketball Association players, List of English footballers, List of footballers (Rugby Union), etc.
• In fact, there are many, many other lists of people on Wikipedia that are just lists of names in alphabetical order.

Because of these reasons, there is really no basis for speedy deletion -- they were out of process Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, bring the lists back. They were the best way of keeping tabs on hockey player articles so that duplicate articles weren't created and so that disambigs are easier. Masterhatch 07:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Bring them back! This is not link-farming or spamming. Although it's not always 100% accurate, as far as being a simple and comprehensive directory of statistics Hockeydb is the best site I've seen. Criticizing them for having advertisements is absurd -- apart from Wikipedia, almost every other site on the web does too! And like Masterhatch said, the list itself was invaluable for keeping track of NHL player articles. — GT 09:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:EL. Internal links are fine, and an external link to Hockeydb on each individual article is fine, too, but the point of WP lists is not to link to external articles on each of a number of related subjects, and the removal of external links from list articles is very common practice supported by policy and guidelines. As far as the lists themselves are concerned, they would be worth having if there are many redlinks, otherwise I can't see what this adds to a (self-maintaining) category. Just zis Guy you know? 10:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My recollection is that the majority of players who played before last decade do not have articles. That's why these pages were so useful -- you could browse them and see if a player you recognized didn't yet have an article. The nice thing about having the Hockeydb links right there was that you could instantly see the "story" behind each red-linked player as represented by his career statistics (which often tells you as much as you care to know about him). As far as not obeying WP:EL, I disagree as the point of the page was to be a list of players, and the external links served a secondary purpose. — GT 16:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, having the external link right beside each player helped keep people from adding their own name as a vanity article. hockeydb.com is, as far as i know, the most complete list of hockey players and their stats on the net and it because really easy to see if an added name is a vanity article or a real player. Masterhatch 17:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So why not make an infobox template with a parameter for the hockeydb entry? A Wikipedia list with external links (first!) and predominantly redlinks for the internal links is practically begging for deletion. External links are for references in articles. Just zis Guy you know? 19:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What's taking so long to get A through G back? Masterhatch 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I put everything back. Another admin deleted them again. Go talk to him. pschemp | talk 17:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Tagged as A3: article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections); deleted as such (i.e. in-process, as this is a valid speedy criterion). I didn't see any evidence that the deleting admin was aware of this debate.

• I have reopened the AfD and restored the deleted ones, as valid but contested speedy deletions. These are bare lists of links. The list of mainly redlinks may serve a purpose; perhaps it would be better to have these in Project space as part of a wikiproject's work list? Bare lists with no other data are an abomination unto Nuggan and should be shunned into oblivion; if dates and other encyclopaedic information are added then these are defensible (without, obviously, the external links). I have removed the external links to make this less like a mirror of HockeyDB with one or two Wikipedia articles added Just zis Guy you know? 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

05 June 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it or delete it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 19:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja

With respect to the Original Undelete request by me, I have composed the following article in my userspace which meets (as far as I can tell) the requirements of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:Notability, etc.

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja (Userspace draft)

I, do,once again, request request undeletion per original request:

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja, undelete request by PHDrillSergeant. This web comic has grown in poularity since the last time it was deleted through AFD, and although the site's archive has 'only three entries', each of those entries has about 20-40 pages, which adds up to over 100 pages total including the current storyline. This comic is extremely funny and is important, especially one who wishes to know more about this odd character and his adventures. I think this comic should get another chance. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 23:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 21:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Is there any evidence that it has grown significantly in popularity? The Alexa rating is five digits, and a quick scan of Google turns up lots of self- and friend-promotion, but not much analysis or commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question Has there been any stories, interviews, or other coverage in mainstream or semi-mainstream press (not counting simple lists of webcomics)? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• What has changed since deletion? As noted above, the fundamental problem was a lack of evident encyclopaedic notability. Just zis Guy you know? 10:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
    • The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
      • WebComicList (a non-trivial published site that is independent of the site itself) has its own article, stated in the external links section. The web comic has ablso been the subject of debate on multiple community-based forums, such as eBaum's World Forums, SNAFU Comics Forums, and VG Cats Forums. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 17:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
        • That article on WebComicList is one sentence, as part of a list of webcomics. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, then, since this is a single trivial reference rather than multiple non-trivial references. We have no deadline to meet, we can afford to wait until it is genuinely notable and has atracted enough external attention to allow a verifiably neutral article to be written. Just zis Guy you know? 16:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Categorical undelete. This article has had very poor defense in the past. I did not see it mentioned that Dr. McNinja is a member of Dayfree Press, a very well-known collective in the webcomics community and therefore a peer to heavyweights such as Questionable Content and Dinosaur Comics. It has been brought up on the talk page that extreme bias has been built up against this article because of its rocky faring in the past. I would point out that there is no shame in accepting it now -- it does not undermine Wikipedia or any of the users who have criticized it; rather, it is a testament to our sometimes rigorous standards. It is now due time to recognize this professional-level webcomic, as anyone vaguely familiar with this online community must know of its near meteoric rise. Let's not be reactionary or snobbish; much lesser topics have their due recognition already. --BDD 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I was unaware that this comic was under Dayfree Press, yet this information seems to strengthen my resolve even more. Remember: if you can read it, if you can comprehend it, if you can learn from it...it isn't trivial. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 22:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I seem to remember (though I can't find the proper documentation, and it's possible that this was changed) a policy that members of the most prominent webcomic collectives merited articles. It's a sound policy. --BDD 00:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I'm the one who locked McNinja down as a {{deletedpage}}, but I agree with BDD. We may want to table this until the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards come out next month. I think there's a good chance McNinja will win one, and if it does, there won't be any question it will have met WP:WEB. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: I havn't read much of it, but I have seen references to it in other webcomics such as Bunny [65]. Also undelete per Abe. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Definitely notable per talk of deleted page.--Eloquence* 11:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Cory kennedy

My article on Cory kennedy was deleted via speedy deletion. I think this was a wrong move. Cory Kennedy is a becoming a huge internet phenenomenon. She has found a cult following on myspace, livejournal, and the cobra snake - as well as a place in current pop culture. This is the digital age. People are going to be looking her up. There is no reason for this article to have been deleted. This site should provide the most information possible - even about "internet celebrities." In fact, internet phenenomenons are particularly relevent on wikipedia because this IS the internet! I am requesting that this article be placed back up. I put in quite a bit of useful, accurate information about a person who is becoming very well known on the internet. Cory was also recently featured in Nylon magazine. Please review this. ~user:sleepyasthesouth

• Endorse speedy - As the deleting admin, it looked to be a nn-bio. The references were not reliable sources (blogs and livejournal). I deleted it first on a csd placed by another editor, then as a recreation (sleepyasthesouth recreated it including the notability and csd tags) and salted the earth. Syrthiss 12:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per Syrthiss. From the speedy tag: "it is an article about a person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)" There is no evidence that The Cobra Snake is itself a notable website, or that the parties she attends are notable, so all the more there cannot be evidence that she is notable for being on The Cobra Snake or for attending parties. Johnleemk | Talk 12:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• ADD-ON : I now understand why is was deleted. However, Isn't Cory Kennedy notable for suddenly having so many "fans" and finding herself all over the internet so quickly? What would qualify as a notable source? Would her feature in Nylon magazine qualify? Even if the information in the wikipedia article did not contain more than what is provided in the Nylon article? ~user:sleepyasthesouth
• Undelete and list on AfD As a contested speedy and the presence in Nylon constitutes a minimal claim to notability. JoshuaZ 16:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse / keep deleted As far as "internet phenomenon" qualifications go, I get 207 unique Google hits and the vast majority of those seem to be about other people by that name, among them a male bodybuilder, a soccer player, a congressional staff member, and a volleyball player. If she's an internet phenomenon, the internet doesn't really seem to be aware of that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Cory has only recently exploded on the internet over the past few weeks and it has been almost entirely on myspace, blogs and livejournal - places that will not really end up in google. A community was made for her on livejournal and in just over a week there are already over 200 members.
    However, if that's the final word - fine. I imagine soon she'll be on the site because her popularity seems to be only increasing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.205.176 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Above comment is misinformed. Those sites are very heavily indexed by google. Fan1967 18:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • comment A lot of absolute bullshit is heavily indexed by google, too. Being indexed by google doesn't make something a reliable source. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment I'm aware of that. However, the anon was trying to argue there was more attention being paid to this person in myspace and such sites that google wouldn't pick up. Google picks up pretty much everything there, so there's no hidden trove of notability. Fan1967 20:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, I typed that early this morning, apparently before things started to make sense. Reading it now, yes, you're right. I agree that if google can't see you; you aren't much of an internet phenomenon.
• Endorse deletion, quite blatantly there are no reliable sources for this. And 'contested speedy' is not a reason to restore (unlike contested PROD). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Well, I think the article definitely should have been deleted, however, I do not believe that it met the deliberately narrow speedy deletion criteria. I believe quite strongly that Sam is incorrect. A speedy-deletion that is contested in good faith is to be immediately restored and listed to AFD. That was a requirement set up when the speedy-deletion process was first established. Much as I hate to be a process wonk, we have to keep our own process creep under control. Overturn speedy and list to AFD. Being unsourced may be a deletion criteria but it is not a speedy-deletion criterion. Rossami (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you mind telling me where it says that contested speedy deletions get automatically sent to AfD, Rossami? Because I've never heard that, there's nothing in any of the obvious places saying that (e.g. next to the section on contested WP:PRODs on this very page), and if it ever was true, the widespread acceptance of WP:SNOW appears to contradict it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:CSD:A7 says "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead.". Also WP:SNOW has the text "If an issue raises no controversy, and ...", and therefor can't be used in disputed or controversial cases. --Rob 23:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Though I think that practically, the bar for 'disputed' there is significantly higher than for PRODs. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Widespread acceptance? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. There's no sourced claim of notability. Hence, CSD A7. The recourse for contested speedy deletions is this page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Valid speedy A7, and stands no chance whatsoever at AfD Just zis Guy you know? 21:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You can see the future here? WP:SNOW is never appropriate, specifically in a discussion about a speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yup, I can see the future fairly accurately here. Articles on vapid pseudo-celebrities with no objective claim to notability get daleted almost without exception. Most likely it would be tagged and speedied as A7 almost immediately it was listed. Somewhere I have a postcard with a picture of Michael Fish and the caption"I Predict The Future: Weatherman's Amazing Claim"... Just zis Guy you know? 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion sort of reluctantly. Rossami and Thieverr are quite right that this wasn't a good choice for speedy deletion, and for a dozen reasons it's better to err on the side of AfD - worst thing that happens is someone speedies it from there anyway. But... I dunno. These darn internet meme and internet meme wannabe articles are such pains, because there tends to be a crowd willing to stonewall against policy on them every time, and then we end up back at DRV. It would never be kept by a proper AfD, but it probably won't ever see one either, so it's best to keep it dead once it's dead. If the girl actually sticks around, there'll be media, and you can rewrite the article about her then. Does it really hurt that much if the interweb's flavor of the month doesn't automatically get a Wikipedia article? There's something to be said for standards. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per others and per WP:SNOW.
• Endorse deletion: Websites generate huge numbers for anything and everything, but it would be very wrong to call these numbers "fans." Further, it's all about the effect on the recorded world, the verifiable world. Anything that vanishes when the power goes out is less reliable than anything that needs a flood to destroy it. Geogre 13:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics

User:Thebainer requested me to file this request below. The article has been speedied, because User:Rgulerdem allegedly edited it after he was indefinitely banned. Even if that allegation is correct, WP:CSD G5 only allows pages to be speedied, if they were created by banned users while they were banned. Irregular edits can easily be reverted instead. Raphael1 12:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Pointless rulelawyering is the only reason given to undelete, and does not address the original reason this page was tagged with the speedy tag: "rejected 'policy'. This page has become a permanently banned user magnet, please review history." (Oh, and did anyone mention that essentially the same page already exists at Wikipedia:Wikiethics?) Johnleemk | Talk 12:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know of any policy, which prohibits to copy a rejected policy to user space. Any why do you care so much, whether permanently banned users edit on a user space page? Would you rather want them to edit Wikipedia:Wikiethics? Raphael1 13:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Because userpages don't belong to users. Johnleemk | Talk 13:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • That's a non sequitur. I've never stated, that User:Rgulerdem or myself owned that page. Raphael1 13:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, a permanently banned user coming back to edit on a page in the previous user space accorded him is bad. This is not an allegation but indeed was what occurred as User:Rgulerdem again used an IP address or two that started with 216. which was previously reported on the RFCU confirming his sockpuppetry and left editorial commentary corresponding to his use of IP addresses as he returned to edit. Better that the page be kept deleted to discourage the return of the banned editor. Netscott 13:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question - what's the actual argument for this page's existence? Does it help bulid the encyclopedia? -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This page has been created to work on the prematurely polled proposal (5 days after the first draft has been created). Its location in user space has been suggested by User:Johntex to avoid controversy with opposing parties.[66] Raphael1 13:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well now that User:Rgulerdem is banned, the logic necessitating his usage of a subpage is no longer applicable. Regardless, he did come back via an anon IP address to edit on it and that's reason enough alone to delete it and keep it deleted. Netscott 14:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • As you know, I'd like to take over Rgulerdems work. What's your problem with that? Raphael1 16:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • My problem is that you are setting yourself up to act as a proxy to edit for a banned editor. This is bad. Netscott 17:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Netscott, at this point, how do you distinguish Raphael1's own ideas from ideas that are a banned editor's by proxy? Can nobody ever propose a similar policy, now that whatsisname is banned? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
            • GTBacchus, thank you for expressing your concerns. I have one question. Have you been following the discussion occurring on the Wikipedia mailing-list WikiEn-I? If you had you would instantly know that User:Raphael1 is acting as a proxy for User:Rgulerdem (particularly when Raphael1 started Resid Gulerdem's now G5 speedy deleted WP:OURS proposal). That is why I have proxy concerns. Banned editors should not have proxies working on their behalf, or am I wrong in making that statement? Netscott 20:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
              • I haven't been following WikiEn-I. I've never actually figured out how to subscribe to that. Nevertheless, I was pretty much aware that Raphael was trying to run with Rgulerdem's ideas. I guess what you're telling me is that there's no question that Raphael isn't acting based on his own initiative at all, but just acting for Rgulerdem, end of story. I don't know how you know that, but I'm willing to take your word for it. I also confess to not really getting what they're driving at with this proposed policy, but I guess it's neither here nor there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am Sam, Sam I am.

I do not like this censor sham.

Keep deleted in user space.

Keep deleted in any place.

Keep deleted from the socks.

Keep deleted says userbox.

Keep deleted here or there,

Keep deleted anywhere. --Dr. Blanning 16:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious. Kotepho 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Unsure why do we need a copy of this in User: and Wikipedia:? why is this so harmful or worthless that it must be deleted? Kotepho 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • May I congratulate you on your instincts? You've definitely asked the right question: "Why is this so harmful or worthless that it must be deleted?" Nobody here will be able to answer that question, because it's neither harmful nor is it worthless (at least not any more worthless, than most other stuff lying around in user space). Raphael1 02:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Sam I Am. --Cyde↔Weys 20:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. How many copies of a comprehensively rejected proposal do we need? Just zis Guy you know? 21:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment What exactly did the proposal contain in the first place? Even if it's already been voted down, couldn't it be kept and tagged as a rejected proposal or some such? --tjstrf 02:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Isn't that at Wikipedia:Wikiethics already? --Rory096 06:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and stop flogging a dead horse. Metamagician3000 06:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Nuke from orbit. Raphael has been openly communicating with a banned user on wikipedia-en-l to continue said banned editors interests. Shell babelfish 14:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, we don't need a banned user's disruptive attempt at policy-making resurrected in anybody's userspace. —Stormie 21:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Rgulerdem forfeited his user space when he got himself blocked. Many people warned him to stop wasting other people's time pushing this proposal. Rhobite 21:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Banned user. Unwelcome. Big Blue Marble 01:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

04 June 2006

List of midnight movies

This article was tagged for speedy deletion as "patent nonsense," which I felt was unjustified. I placed a "hangon" tag on the article, and stated my reasoning on the article's talk page. I was going to list it on AfD and propose that it be merged with the main Midnight Movies article. I never got the opportunity to do so, however, since the article was, and I think rather precipitously, deleted. I propose, therefore, that the speedy deletion be reversed, the article be listed on AfD and suggest it's merger as stated above. ---Charles 03:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• The article was tagged for speedy deletion with that reason. I agree that it was not patent nonsense in the very specific and narrow way that we use the term here on Wikipedia. It the actual reason given for the deletion, however, was "WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information". Unfortunately, that is not an accepted criteria for speedy-deletion. I see little redeeming value to this list but as a procedural matter, it should have been AFD'd, not speedy-deleted. Rossami (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, undelete and send to AfD. No legitimate speedy reason given. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undeleted without prejudice, if someone wants to send this to AFD they can (obviously). --Cyde↔Weys 13:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• I have carried out a rough merger and redirect, which seems the best fate for the list's content. Xoloz 23:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yar

I would appreciate opinions/education on the deletion of Yar. I understand the Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, it would seem that certain concepts, which may be expressed in a single word, have some merit to their explanation. For a very similar use-case, see Gemütlichkeit. Thanks. --Incarnate

• Endorse deletion. Certainly, there is merit to there explanation of a word. That's what a dictionary is for. There was nothing in any version of this page that even attempted to be more than a definition. Please try creating it at Wiktionary.
  I'll note, however, that this particular word doesn't actually appear in any dictionary I could quickly put my hands on. (Merriam Webster had an entry as a variant spelling of "yare" but the definition given has nothing to do with any of the definitions on the deleted page.) Be prepared to offer some verifiable sources for the alleged definitions when you do so. Rossami (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks much for the clarification. I was uncertain of where the line might exist between the definition of a "word" and the definition of a "concept" (ie, definition of the word "cottage" versus a cottage) Additionally, the original article was based on my own experience, which is probably a better reason for deletion per the standards of articles (which I do support). Formal definitions are virtually nonexistent, only cropping up occasionally in film or TV as a truncated reference to boating. I'll give up and leave it be, thanks again for the appraisal. Incarnate 03:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, if you take it to Wiktionary be sure to give some evidence of attestation. One mention in The Simpsons does not make a valid yachting term. Maybe it's US-specific and that's why I have never heard it (I have many yachting friends including one who recently returned from sailing run d the world and another who teaches yachtmasters but they are all British). Just zis Guy you know? 08:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, with no prejudice against recreation if it can be made into something more than a dicdef. Apparently there is a real nautical term to be found under all the noise (see [67] and [68]) — however, that in itself makes it eligible for Wiktionary, not for Wikipedia. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. Dicdef. It's a real nautical word (may be spelled yar or yare), figures heavily in a section of dialog from The Philadelphia Story ([69]), but there's not much else to say about it. Fan1967 15:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• I've been bold and recreated this as a redirect to Tasha Yar, Denise Crosby's infamous Star Trek: The Next Generation character. Xoloz 18:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The Skin of Evil would be proud! Syrthiss 19:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

AK Productions

AK Productions was deleted suddenly and for know told reason. I believe that AK Productions should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia, sure it is a young company but still exists. I would like the article to be restored or for a reason to be given for it's overnight deletion. Comrade_Kale 2:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Mere existence is insufficient reason to justify a Wikipedia article. There appear to be a number of companies out there by that name. Which one is yours? Fan1967 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid A7. --Rory096 20:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• The opening sentence of this page read "AK Productions, is a recently created Production Company operating out of Waterville High School in New York State. Founded by Kale Carter, Brendan Carter, Olin Carlsen and Andrew Desimone in late May of 2006". It probably did not fit the deliberately narrow speedy-deletion criteria but if it had gone to AFD, it would have been measured against the standards of WP:CORP. From the information available, I don't see any chance that it would have succeeded in that discussion. I can not endorse the speedy-deletion but neither can I support it's undeletion without at least a little bit of evidence that this is appropriate to the encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• In other words, when I asked which of the many googleable "AK Productions" this was, the answer is "None of them". Endorse Deletion. Fan1967 22:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: We get a ton of buddy articles from youngsters. Simply put, they need to be real before they can even go to AfD, IMO. If something is just three kids announcing that they are now a corporation (or rock band, or rap group, or game faction, or gang), then it's true A7. The kick is the "formed in 2006" and "recently." We need to have things generate effects on the world before anyone will need them explained. Geogre 13:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AK Productions, is a recently created Production Company operating out of Waterville High School in New York State. And the article was created and edited solely by the people named in the article. A textbook case of WP:NFT. Just zis Guy you know? 15:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together

FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together was deleted as not notable. I think it is notable, given the press coverage listed under "References" and the people behind it, and I would like the article to be restored. TruthbringerToronto 11:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete; seems to be notable (albeit with less than 1000 google hits). &#0151; JEREMY 15:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't find an AfD on this one. The AfD article that exists (here) was just created by TruthbringerToronto as a mistaken attempt to launch the DRV. How was it originally deleted? Fan1967 16:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and AFD as a contested A7 speedy deletion. --Allen3 ^talk 17:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist if it was a contested speedy, though I'm inclined to suspect there will still be a consensus to delete. (Google cache of article is here). Fan1967 17:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Speedy deletion is not prod, you can't just contest it and force it to AfD. This has 11 Google hits. Most of those "articles" are on the group's site! --Rory096 20:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I get about 700 by looking for variations, which IMO gets over speediable territory, but probably still fails AFD consensus. Fan1967 21:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Doubtful that's more than A7, I get that many hits (and I was speedied, and quite justifiably so). --Rory096 21:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, speedy-deletion is exactly like prod in that regard. By policy and long tradition, any speedy-deletion which is contested in good faith is immediately undeleted and listed on AFD. That was one of the requirements set up when the speedy-deletion process was first approved. Rossami (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmm, so why do we even have things like {{hangon}}? --Rory096 06:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• AfD it due to possible WP:V violation as well as a name that doesn't follow naming converntions. Likely an article by an inexperienced or new user due to the use of an abrreviation in the title, which gives an idea of the quality. I can't say without reading it, so relaunch it for afd.-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 01:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Notable cause which deserves as much support as possible. Karnei 18:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So is it notable, or does it deserve support? If just the latter, that's not a valid reason to undelete. If the former, how is it notable? --Rory096 06:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

List of tongue-twisters

I listed the article for deletion on 17 April. The consensus was to either keep, or move to Wikibooks. The article was transwikied on 29 May by User:theProject, and subsequently deleted by User:Tijuana Brass. However, it was proclaimed unsuitable for Wikibooks and deleted from there by b:User:Jguk. As the alternative to transwiki was keep, and transwikiing failed, we should restore it. Rain74 11:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Since it's on Wikiquote now, keep deleted (I hope they'll accept it). Rain74 18:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Reinstate and relist. I will vote delete on AfD. Just zis Guy you know? 12:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  Keep deleted since it's at Wikiquote now, which seems like a much better place. Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Reinstate and relist - makes sense in the circs. keep deleted given the new information available Metamagician3000 12:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Suggestion why not move it to the Department of Fun? Sophia 12:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted no point in duplicating as it's at Wikiquote now. Sophia 05:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, the afd was pretty clear that this should be kept somewhere. After undeletion transwiki discussions should continue. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Changed to endorse.
  • • Endorse deletion as this has been transwiki'd in line with the AFD. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It has been. Please check the Transwiki log more carefully. Also, just because one wiki doesn't want it doesn't mean we must keep it. -Splash - tk 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Posting the result of the transwiki log was helpful here, implying that I was required to search that backloged page is not helpful, I assumed good faith in the nominator. Just because one wiki doesn't want it certainly doesn't mean we should give it safe haven, but the afd was clear that it should be transwikid or kept, not transwiki'd or deleted. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete don't know why it was deleted in the first place, because it was one of the better lists on Wikipedia. Promote to featured after undeletion.  Grue  12:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist: I'd prefer that conjunctive votes get clear on the matter. Yes, it will probably be kept, but I should like AfD to speak clearly. Geogre 13:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted in light of information that the thing was transwiki'd. If there has been a transwiki, then this is a no-brainer (and pretty much an invalid review), as duplicate material is forbidden. If the authors don't want it on Wikiquote, then that's sort of too bad, as authors are no more priviledged than readers at Wikipedia. Geogre 22:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It did. It was transwikied, rejected at it's target, and now transwiki'd elsewhere. -Splash - tk 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Splash. I took the deletion summary and his comment on WT:DRV too literally and did not realize it was already moved to Wikiquote. Kotepho 21:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Undelete/Transwiki to wikiquote, this is just silly. Kotepho 19:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• No, no, no. People should do there research first. It's been transwiki'd to Wikiquote. See q:Transwiki:List of tongue-twisters. Wikipedia didn't want it, and neither did Wikibooks. That is no reason to restore it here. You don't get some kind of free pass into Wikipedia just because noone else wants it! Anyway, it's been transwiki'd elsewhere. That's all that's needed. -Splash - tk 20:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme keep deleted. Just because wikibooks doesn't want something doesn't mean we have to keep it. And I totally agree with Splash. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Splash. The AfD debate did show a strong consensus that the content be kept somewhere, but now that it's on Wikiquote, there's no reason to keep it here. (I've notified all the people who voted before Splash's comment and asked them to revise or confirm their vote in light of it. Sorry for the spam.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems my spamming was actually redundant. Doubly sorry. *embarrassed* —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Helped me, actually, as I was crossing this one off my internal list. Geogre 03:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, as the desired outcome (keeping the content elsewhere) has been reached. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the VfD in question has a consensus to keep. Most users voted for keep as a primary solution and transwiki as a secondary. The VfD was closed inproperly. There were no delete votes. The decision should be overturned.  Grue  09:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, my closure did use a modicum of discretion, but isn't it a leap to improper? Kotepho 20:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Your closure was valid, in my book: more than one person pointed out that the list is inherently unverifiable (i.e. unsuitable for Wikipedia) and most offered Transwiki as a valid outcome, which it seems to me to be. Status quo appears to be reasonable. Just zis Guy you know? 15:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• undelete, but remove the non-English tongue twisters and have interwiki links to the other languages for their tongue twisters. Masterhatch 18:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Raphael1/Wikiethics

This page got deleted for the following reason: "can't have copy & paste moves of deleted pages - GFDL requires the history"

I've copied the page from User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics (before it was removed) and pasted it to User:Raphael1/Wikiethics. I didn't know how I could have copied the history of this article as well and certainly didn't want to violate GFDL. Please restore that page together with the history of User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics to make it compliant with GFDL. Raphael1 00:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse. Anyway, Rgulerdem is banned, and it was a fair deletion that time. Will (^E_@) T 01:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It was removed, because it has been in the userspace of an indef-banned user. I am not banned, therefore User:Raphael1/Wikiethics can't be removed for the same reason. Raphael1 01:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It's CSD G4 and possibly G5 Will (^E_@) T 01:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • It's neither G4, because it hasn't been recreated, instead it has been copied before deletion (besides G4 doesn't apply for user space pages), nor is it G5 (because I'm not banned). Raphael1 01:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
        • It's a recreation. The G4 exception for user space is supposed to be for articles undeleted at a user's request, not for recreation of deleted content that was originally in the user namespace. Will (^E_@) T 01:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
          • It's not a recreation. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics has been removed on the 2006-05-31 and I've copied the page before that date. BTW please restore User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics as well since G5 only applies for pages created by banned users while they were banned. Raphael1 01:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. This "policy" has been the source of highly contentious and disruptive editing and User:Raphael1's user page is just an unecessary copy of the rejected Wikipedia:Wikiethics that is likely to do the same as User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics which is to encourage banned editors to use sockpuppets or anonymous IPs to circumvent their block to edit on Wikipedia. Netscott 09:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Whether you deem my copy to be "unnecessary" is certainly no part of WP:CSD. Furthermore did User:Raphael1/Wikiethics with no syllable encourage banned editors to circumvent their block. I wonder, where you got that from? Raphael1 14:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well this MfD for User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics is what relates to my mentioning banned and sockpuppet users. I'm curious Raphael1, why did you actually save a copy of permanently banned user User:Rgulerdem's page? I understand that as Wikipedia editors we are to assume good faith in the editing of our fellow contributors but was the reason you saved a copy because you noticed that as a banned editor Resid Gulerdem was editing on it and figured that it'd be deleted and to disrupt that process you decided to save a copy? It seems so odd to me that you should have just happened to save a copy of his user page version just prior to its deletion. Netscott 19:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: the article itself isn't banned, just one of the originating editors. Netscott, why is it a problem for Raphael1 to have a userspace copy (I assume a developmental version, like User:Jeremygbyrne/Roger Elwood or User:Jeremygbyrne/Brontosaurus) of an article? &#0151; JEREMY 15:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note - this vote was gained through advertisement.[70]Timothy Usher 17:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Jeremy, it's all a question of good faith. I didn't request deletion or even mention the existence of Raphael1's user page copy of permanently banned User:Rgulerdem's user page to anyone (despite misgivings about seeing him copy it just prior to its deletion) but someone else from the WikiEn-I mailing list appears to have seen mention of it by Raphael1 there and decided independently to delete it. Now that the act is done I support it for the reasons I expressed above. I would recommend the both of you to disassociate yourselves from Resid Gulerdem for anyone editing in support of him is likely to have his or her own reputation tarnished as he was not only disruptive here but in a completely independent fashion was repeatedly disruptive and blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia. Resid Gulerdem is just bad for Wikipedia. Netscott 19:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't understand your "good faith" argument. It's obvious that most material which is about to be deleted will continue to exist elsewhere — in google's cache for example. Raphael1 could have taken a copy of the article offsite and done to it whatever he chose, in the privacy of his own home. Instead, he chose to keep it on wikipedia (which looks like good faith to me), and he has suffered for it. Next time, do you think he will be more or less inclined to act in secrecy? &#0151; JEREMY 10:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • The preceding user's comments were solicited through targetted advertisement[71].Timothy Usher 10:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • No need to persist with your well-poisoning, Timothy. Most people understood your accusation the first time. &#0151; JEREMY 10:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
            • I did understand User:Timothy Usher's statement of fact the first time and also saw it as an attempt by User:Raphael1 to "game the system", but do agree that it's a bit silly to repeat such a statement. ;-) Netscott 11:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Suffered? Where's the suffering? The only ones suffereing are those having to spend time dealing with this nonsense. Let's face it Jeremy, Raphael1's actions were to thwart in a disruptive fashion the virtually assured deletion of Resid Gulerdem's user page. Is that not so difficult to understand? Regardless as bainer's comment below illustrates, Raphael1 shouldn't be trying to resurrect his own copy of Resid Gulerdem's final version of "Wikiethics" but in fact should be trying to resurrect Resid Gulerdem's (rightly imho) deleted user page. Netscott 10:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Raphael1's actions were to thwart in a disruptive fashion And you foresaw this via which divinatory or telepathic methodology, exactly? It would seem far more likely that Raphael1 took a copy to preserve relevant material for a future proposal. Your refusal to assume good faith (or at least not to assume the first bad faith interpretation that springs to mind) is troubling. This is yet another example of flawed rules-lawyering supported by the tyranny of the majority. Raphael1's editing may frustrate some people, but the way he has been treated is disgraceful. &#0151; JEREMY 11:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
              • The plea to "rules lawyering" is rather lame, can't you do better than use that argumentation device? Honestly, Raphael1 like myself and User:Metros232 saw that the permanently banned editor User:Rgulerdem was editing via IP addresses on his failed Wikiethics proposal and realized (again rightly so) that it was likely to be deleted because of that and to thwart such a deletion he saved a copy. Raphael1 wasn't involved in editing on that policy since it was last worked on over at Wikipedia:Wikiethics. Does it not strike either of you as foolish to be here wasting our time discussing the saving of a policy that was founded by a demonstrably disruptive editor? It's as if you're here trying to defend a banned user's right to continue to make policy on Wikipedia even when he's blocked. The only reason I can see for this is because "it's a cause!". You know if Resid Gulerdem had only been blocked on the English Wikipedia I might understand better those wanting to defend him and his ridiculous policy but the fact that he's been independently repetitively blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia makes me sooner see such individuals as foolish. Netscott 11:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
                • Firstly I have not seen User:Rgulerdem editing on User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics via IP addresses, and secondly I have been editing User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics before it was removed. Raphael1 12:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
                  • Raphael1, why did you think his user page was going to be deleted then? If the user page had just sat there no one's attention would have been brought to it, but this is not what occurred. Netscott 12:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
                    • Don't you first want to apologize for your wrong claims before you ask any further questions? Raphael1 13:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
                      • No, due to my witnessing your previous demonstrations of a lack of good faith I'm inclined to view this as another example of the same. Netscott 14:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse~. Per Netscott's above comments -- Karl Meier 17:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Netscott.Timothy Usher 17:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Wikipedia:Wikiethics still exists if you want to go edit that. What you did by copy and pasting it into your own user space was done only to get around the fact that it was about to be deleted it. That is, in an ironic way, unethical. I also frown up the nominating user for the advertising of this discussion [72], [73], [74], etc. 6 advertisements in total. Metros232 17:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I've got no supernatural skill to see the future. How could I have acted upon a "fact", which still lied ahead? Raphael1 17:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Why did you copy and paste it to yours then? If you didn't think it was going to be deleted, why did you need a copy of your own instead of just editing the one that existed at Rgulerdem's user page? Why did you think that two needed to exist? Metros232 17:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed I did suspect, that it might get deleted in the future, but I certainly didn't know about that. I still don't see, how it is in any way unethical to take over the work of an indef-banned user. Besides User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics shouldn't have been removed as well since G5 only applies for pages created by banned users while they were banned. Raphael1 19:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, copy of a previously rejected attempt at censorship. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted since this was proposed at Wikipedia:Wikiethics and solidly rejected I see no particular merit in keeping it hanging around in user space in a form which (at first glance) looks to be even less acceptable. Just zis Guy you know? 22:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not going to endorse or overturn my own deletion, though I will say to Raphael1 that if he wants the content, he needs to hold a DRV on the original page (User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics) because copy & pasted pages cannot possibly exist when the original page is deleted. --bainer (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've read through this deletion review, and what I'm missing is any argument for why this page should exist. Why maintain a copy of a rejected policy written by a banned user? How does it help write the encyclopedia? -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I wonder, why you even ask that question. Shouldn't you rather ask, why should that page be removed? Nevertheless I will answer your question: Rgulerdem and some other editors worked on this former prematurely rejected policy in userspace to avoid controversy with opposing parties. I'd like to continue Rgulerdems work, which is why I've created a copy. Raphael1 16:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I think it's pretty clear from reading this discussion that it's being removed because it's the work of a banned editor, and seems to be a sore spot for a lot of people. At that point, the ball's back in your court - if so many Wiki regulars are against it, what's so great about it to make it worth the static you incur by recreating it? I've asked a more pertinent question at your talk page. If your goal is to improve Wikipedia, a bad way to start is by pissing a bunch of people off by acting as proxy for a banned user, practically speaking. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I can't believe, that you are repeating Netscotts accusation ("proxy editing"). I consider this a personal attack, since it completely disregards my individuality. What's so bad about the work of this banned editor, that it needs to be removed? Will you remove Interfaith as well, because it's mostly his work? IMHO this whole agitation to delete User:Rgulerdems work and keep it deleted, is a clear sign, that Rgulerdem hasn't been blocked for his behaviour, but for the position he has taken on various topics. Raphael1 02:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

        I don't enter the conversation just assuming that Netscott is lying; why not trust that I'm taking his word in, whadyecallit... good faith? So you say you're not being his proxy. I don't have any evidence to say which of you is right. I know basically nothing about Rgulerdem. I still think you're running into a lot of static, and would probably try a different approach, if I were in your position, and if I were more interested in results than in drama. You choose your battles - is it more important to you to influence Wikipedia in a positive direction, or to do it using this particular guy's words? There's reasons to stand on principle, and there's reasons not to. You can probably cause a big scene, if you set your mind to it, but that'll poison the policy you're talking about in the community's eyes even more. Have you noticed some pretty stiff opposition to this policy? If I were you, I'd be sitting back from this DRV and trying to start some conversations about what's so incompatible between this proposal of yours and the current state of Wikipedia - you haven't replied to my post on your talk page where I'd love to have that conversation with you, if you're down to have it. Come on, don't knock your head against this wall, it won't move. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - I have done a little work on this proposal and having a record of it is helpful in case anyone decides to work on it in the future. Also, as a comment to the closing admin, despite insinuations to the contrary, advertising a deletion reveiw is not a violation of any policy. Johntex\^talk 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It violates the spam guidelines: "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view."Timothy Usher 23:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted once and for all. Metamagician3000 06:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, we don't need a banned user's disruptive attempt at policy-making resurrected in anybody's userspace. —Stormie 21:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Meatpuppet of a banned user. Unwelcome. Big Blue Marble 02:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

03 June 2006

Sydney Roosters Season articles

Three articles I created simultaneously, that being Roosters1908; SydneyRoosters1909; and SydneyRoosters1910 were deleted in the last few days. The Sydneyroosters1909 article held a debate for the deletion while I had only added little content to the page, the article was then up for deletion before I had done any updates. While the debate took place I continued doing the updates, as seen in the discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sydneyroosters1909

I have plead my case to show that there are updates coming and its justification of existence.

I had also created a fourth article, however this was later and I must add that I created the page before the others were deleted. The fourth article; Sydney Roosters 1911 Season was created and included the updates I had promised with the 3 previous articles.

However when this article was put to debate re: deletion, the general consensus so far has been to keep the article based on the argument brought forward by Athenaeum who states; 'Wikipedia is an almanac. It says so in the first sentence of Wikipedia:What is an article. This is verifiable real world information. It is not indiscrimate, and deleting it would do some harm and absolutely no good. Wikipedia is a free reference resource and this is mainstream reference material.'

Considering the 3 previous articles were exact replicas in structure to the Sydney Roosters 1911 Season only differing in factual content, I propose that if the outcome of the debate be to keep the Sydney Roosters 1911 Season that the 3 previous articles be restored as this argument brought forward by Athenaeum was not put forward re: the debate of the other 3 articles.Sbryce858 07:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and relist at the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Roosters 1911 Season, where consensus now appears to favor keeping that sort of content. This will ensure a more-or-less coherent decision. Sandstein 22:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist - perhaps it was closed properly, but this is very likely good encyclopedic content. The team concerned has long been a major force in the NSW league. Let's see how it goes this time. Metamagician3000 09:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User:AKMask/log

April Fools Day this year included a minor invasion of the GNAA IRC chat by members of wikipedia crapflooding with very informative information about Keynesian economics. Deleted with the note of Privacy Violation. Note the GNAA has no rules against logging the chats, and infact encourages their members, which granted we are not, to do so. There was no privacy violation. I humbly request it to be undeleted.Edit:Also to note, it was linked to off the BJAODN page for the April fools day section. -M^ask 09:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm... I think you got the name wrong. There's no deleted content at the pagename you provided. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So I did, fixed now (dang capital letter) -M^ask 09:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak undelete If there are no privacy violation issues here; that is, if the GNAA chat does not hold a policy against public logging, then I could care less. I mean, the log's pure nonsense and a waste of server space (I'm quietly for deleting BJAODN altogether), but whatever. Let him have his log. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted conditionally - only if it can be verified there is no rule against public posting of logs, then undelete. NSLE _(T+C) at 09:47 UTC (2006-06-03)
• Keep deleted: Who cares if GNAA has a rule? It's Freenode that forbids reposting. The "authors" can't be verified and don't get to say. Geogre 12:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Last I checked #gnaa was juped on freenode, so I don't think the irc logs are from freenode. Kotepho 17:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The channel was not on Freenode. -M^ask 18:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and send to MFD if you want it deleted unless someone can show that it is from a network that prohibits public posting of logs (it certainly isn't the norm). Kotepho 17:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Someone should have checked with the page owner before speedying. --StuffOfInterest 18:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  No one owns any article on Wikipedia. --mboverload@ 19:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Amazingly, I agree with Geogre. This hardly ever happens. Except when there is a Y in the day name. Just zis Guy you know? 23:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, aside from the privacy concerns, Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, not the repository for inane crap. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Christopher Parham. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete If want deleted should go to MfD, and is imo, within the bounds of what we allow people to put in their userspace(and I'm under the impression that there is no privacy issue in this case). JoshuaZ 16:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. How is this not a privacy invasion? Metamagician3000 12:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Male Unbifurcated Garment

Regarding "Male Unbifurcated Garment", (the article should have been named "Male unbifurcated garments") which was deleted after this AFD, and the subsequent deletion review. I closed the AfD as delete (a decision that I believe reflected the AfD consensus), and for which someone started a silly RFC against me. I believe the AfD and DRV discussions were unneccesarily perturbed by personal opinions (especially by those supporting the article). While editing Men's fashion freedom (which is propaganda for a non-notable movement, and should be deleted), I searched for Male unbifurcated garments and found that this is the most common term used to refer collectively to kilts, caftans, lungis, tupenus, dashikis, hakamas etc, for men. I think the reason why consensus was to delete the article is because it was being used by proponents of "Men's fashion freedom" to popularize their cause, and that those who "voted" against intended to deprive them of using wikipedia for propaganda – meanwhile, useful encyclopedic information went lost. I cannot safely revive this article (even if severely rewritten) without some consensus. I therefore request that the article be taken back to AfD. The previous AfD, after all, did have good arguments to keep, and the DRV was doomed from the beginning because of certain somewhat incivil artitudes. --Ezeu 17:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Requesting speedy close. Male unbifurcated garments has been created. --Ezeu 19:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Recreating deleted content at a different title merely makes it necessary to speedy-delete the recreated page. By the way, the manual of style says that articles should be created at the singular anyway. Rossami (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• This article was deleted after a deletion vote on the criteria that the term was not very popular but the phenomenon is very common. It was sent for a deltion review for undeletion where the deletion was not reverted. I propose renaming and redirecting of the article to a new name ("Man-Skirt") which was found by some participants in the votes to be more common. So vote Redirect for supporting the motion , that is to rename and redirect to Man-Skirt, and Keep Deleted for opposing the motion that is to keep the article deleted.

Unitedroad 08:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I does not matter to me. MUGs, Manskirts, man's skirts, male skirts, whatever. This needs to be mentioned somewhere. Just as I suspected (and the reason why I brought this here), it does not matter in which way one tries to create an article describing this particularity, it will be speedily deleted merely out of principle. --Ezeu 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• DRV is to question deletion process. AFD, community consensus, has agreed it should be deleted. Therefore, keep deleted. NSLE _(T+C) at 08:13 UTC (2006-06-03)
• Keep Deleted Didn't we just close a DRV on this? Fan1967 14:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: It's a tunic, and it's what everyone wore before pants -- "shirt" <-Anglo-Saxon "skirt" <-Old Norse, same garment. <shrug> No undeletion. Geogre 14:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted as there is no reason for resurrecting it under a NEW neologism. If there is material in it that is of value to merge elsewhere, ask an admin to give you a userification. There is no need for multiple DRVs that I can see. ++Lar: t/c 14:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and close this DRV - the last one ended less than two weeks ago. You can just write a new article under a new name if you want this to be on WP, there's no need to undelete this just to rename and rewrite it... - ulayiti (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Only 755 GHits? It's not just a neologism, it's a wikineologism. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 18:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Validly deleted in process, confirmed by deletion review. Article had no references at all. Sources meeting the reliable source guidelines have still not been cited, nor convincing evidence that the term is in widespread use. Nothing has changed significantly since the AfD or DRV. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The term has very limited currency outside the "male fashion freedom" community. Actually, virtually no currency outside of that community as far as I can tell, and I looked into it in some considerable detail. The current situation, where it is discussed in men's fashion freedom seems entirely sensible. I would support a protected redirect (protected because the proponents of the term are on a mission to promote it, as evidence prior debates). I would also take issue with it being the most widely used term: excluding kiltmen and WP yields something over 8000 ghits for "male unbifurcated garments", but repeating the search with "skirts for men" gets over 13k ghits. Even within the highly restricted locus of those seeking to discuss this topic (which is primarily Western, since they are normal in many countries) I see no compelling evidence that this is the most widely used term. Few if any of the mainstream articles on celebrities who briefly followed the fashion trend for skirts mention the term, it appears to be used solely in the context of the fashion freedom movement. Just zis Guy you know? 20:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete. Numerous print references, websites, and manufacturers confirm usage (as I have pointed out over and over). These references have nothing to do with the fashion freedom movement. --JJay 20:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed you did, in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Male_Unbifurcated_Garment. I checked your New York Times reference, Feuer, Alan (2004) "Do Real Men Wear Skirts? Try Disputing A 340-Pounder," and it checks out. Changing vote accordingly. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Except that what the article says, as far as I recall, is that the movement calls them that, not that they are widely called that. "male unbifurcated garment" (in quotes) still gets under 500 ghits, and there is still, despite the incessant protestations of its proponents, no evidence of its widespread mainstream use, still less that this is the usual term for these garments. Just zis Guy you know? 21:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      • ... and "male unbifurcated garments" gets 8,540 ghits. --Ezeu 21:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
        • If you click through the first few pages of these results, Google discards nearly all of them as "very similar", leaving only 42. FreplySpang 05:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
        • You also find that a good many trace back to the top hit, the kiltmen community. Which appears to be where it originated, and where the advocates come from. Most of those hits are forum posts anyway. Despite all the arm-waving, thew advocates of this term have yet to provide a single credible reference showing that this is the generally used term to describe these garments, or giving any significant usage outside of the small men's fashion freedom community in which context we have pretty much its sole mention in the mainstream press. One article saying that this group uses the term is not really enough, in my view. Just zis Guy you know? 13:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, yeah... I guess I'm just a softie for anything that cites good, verifiable sources. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, undelete, and relist on AfD. Or, those interested can create a new article under this title that cites sources, presents a more neutral, less promotional point of view, and does not read like a personal essay. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy close, we don't need to keep discussing this ad nauseum. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, no process violation apparent, the new references are not really convincing of the notability of this term. Incidentally, see now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men's fashion freedom. (Just stumbled across it via a cleanup of High-heeled shoe, which until recently also featured an exhortation on why men should feel good about wearing shirts...) Sandstein 21:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• This was here last week. --Rory096 03:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. JJay did some excellent research in the last Deletion Review discussion documenting the uses of this phrase. I concluded from that research that this neologism is in infrequent use primarily in human interest stories about this small group of activists. No new evidence has been presented convincing me that this decision should be revisited yet. Rossami (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Rossami. Several advocates of deletion from the original AfD (including me) have indicated that they were aware of JJay's sources. In the AfD/DRV discussion of this topic, it's been noted that, for most men who wear unbifurcated garments outside the Western world, they're just normal clothing. Thus, I suggest that anyone who wants to write about this in an NPOV, non-soapboxy way, could find a way to fit it into the article Clothing or its offshoots. FreplySpang 05:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete - This term is in widespread use among some circles. Wiki includes detailed articles on information specific to very small circles, yet bans information that's in considerably wider use simply because it offends someone's sensibilities? MUGs isn't a new fad - it's the continuation of what men have been wearing for tens of thousands of years, and what approximately a third of men throughout the world routinely wear today. If you delete this, I will recommend you delete "skirt," "dress," and "pants" for whatever reasons you provide herein. If they apply to MUGs, they apply elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.166.180.34 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

  This is precisely the kind of ludicrous hyperbole which has infested every previous discussion of this topic. You say that if we delete this term used by a very small group of people and scoring a negligible number of unique Google hits, then we must also delete a word used by millions every day. Assertions like that make it almost impossible to take this subject even slightly seriously: the actions of the proponents of this term have consistently given the impression of zealots with little or no connection to reality, and this is no exception. Just zis Guy you know? 19:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn per JJay. Clearly notable.  Grue  12:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  So a single newspaper article which notes that a small group uses a given neologism is sufficient to make it clearly notable? Just zis Guy you know? 19:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• I really need to ask you to stop spreading misinformation as you complain about "ludicrous hyperbole" and "zealots" with "no connection to reality". After stating repeatedly that no sources exist [75], [76], [77], and failing to respond or blatantly ignoring any of the sources offered [78] [79] ,you seem to have now recognized one. Since I know of at least 25 print sources, and a number of manufacturer websites, here are a few links you might find enlightening: The Scotsman, NY Times, Pittsburgh Tribune,Lucire fashion magazine Village Voice- Para 2, New York Magazine, Little India magazine, Out in the Mountains- book review, Reno Gazette, etc. etc. Of course this does not include many sources I can not easily link to such as Newsday, The Economic Times (India) or some of the Australian print sources. The following manufacturer sites also sell unbifurcated garments as prominently shown on their websites: Macabi, Macabi again Utilikilts. This obviously ignores the widespread usage on blogs and the web. The extent of the "notability" of the trend can certainly be debated...and as shown by the links, the term can vary depending on the source. But please stop the nonsense about google hits, zealots, no reliable sources, arm waving, and the like. --JJay 22:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• JJay, do you not think that the statement If you delete this, I will recommend you delete "skirt," "dress," and "pants" for whatever reasons you provide herein is ludicrous hyperbole? How many references to skirt, dress and pants are there? How many to the term "male unbifurcated garment"? We've been assured that Googling for MUG is a good test for its currency despite the fact that the vast majority of hits are for the ceramic containers. I have seen no credible evidence that this term has any currency outside the (very small) men's fashion freedom movement, and it was in that context that the few mentions we have were made. Right now it is covered in men's fashion freedom, which contextualises it nicely. It has been deleted through valid process and after much discussion, and that deletion has already been confirmed once. No new evidence is being presented here as far as I can tell, it's just a case of them keep asking until they get what they want. Sorry, but that pushes my parental "no means no" button. The clincher for me is that in all the coverage of the prominent men who have been seen wearing skirts (Beckham, Cruise, Gaultier etc.) this term is pretty much absent. The only references I can find linking Beckham to the term, for example, come from the usual source: kiltmen. It is their private conceit which has no real currency. They really really want it to have some currency (read: protologism) but as yet it has pretty much none outside of themselves, and WP:NOT the place to fix that. Just zis Guy you know? 08:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. A silly, non-notable term. Also the fact that a DRV on this just ended not too long ago. WarpstarRider 23:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Non-notable Meanax 16:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

02 June 2006

Template:User hate profanity

Speedy deletion. The text of the userbox says "This user does not tolerate profanity." This'd refer to user conduct, since wikipedia is not censored. How is this divisive? Is there a danger of an anti-profanity cabal forming? The userbox is good in highlighting a form of incivility that wikipedia can do without. I'm not a big userbox warrior, so please take this request seriously. Andjam 07:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Recreate under name User no profanity, with the text "This user does not use (or does not enjoy) profanity.", and then Redirect. Simple enough, and not divisive that way. --tjstrf 07:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  If you're just proposing to create a different template, with a different name and different text, why mess around with DRV? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Reply Clarified. Also, I was giving a potential solution. --tjstrf 07:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted without prejudice against creation of some suitably congenial version in user space. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - unencyclopedic, argumentative, divisive etc. As always, I am prepared to help users userfy the box, as long as there are not too many requests for me to handle. But it doesn't belong in template space. Metamagician3000 09:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - for instances of profanity which are already prohibited, the template is redundant. For instances that aren't, well, they aren't, so who are we to "not tolerate" them? Particularly in template space.Timothy Usher 17:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete —David618 ^t e 18:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion users can write is so on their page should they want to. No need to have a template for this. -- Drini 19:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This user does not tolerate divisive userboxen ;) --Improv 18:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Divisive

Penis banding

I have no idea what this page is about, but User:JoeCool722 requested a deletion review. I've asked him to comment on what the page was about. // ^The True _Sora 00:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penis banding. No idea what it is, probably don't want to know. Fan1967 01:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain until I can see the conecpt of the page. If it's gone through an AfD already (per below), then I agree with it and endorse delete. // The True _Sora 00:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Don't even want to know what it is. QuizQuick 02:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - The AFD was properly concluded and this was a valid deletion. As for the article text, I'm assuming that this - http://www.answers.com/topic/penis-banding - from answers.com is the text of the article, by the way. Most of the google hits are related to each other, so it strikes me as a non-notable neologism unless there is evidence otherwise. BigDT 02:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletionTimothy Usher 02:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I'm putting my faith in the AfD determining this one to be a neologism. --StuffOfInterest 02:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist This is the first Wikipedia article I've written. I decided to write the article because there is a noticable lack of information on this topic. This is a not uncommon practice that is performed in BDSM and other contexts. I supposed my confusion over the deletion is that there are numerous other Wikipedia articles related to Body Modification and BDSM. During the initial deletion discussion someone mentioned that there was not a large amount of supporting evidence that this pratice exists. While that was part of my original reasoning to create the article, there are other articles from reputable sources like the following link [80]. I must say I'm very surprised at the apparant lack of open-mindedness. The article was put up a while ago, and even had various edits from other users as well as people linking to it. I don't feel that just because some folks may not understand or agree with a practice is a reason for removal. I do not feel that this article is out of line with numerous other Wikipedia articles, i.e. Transscrotal_piercing, Suspension_(body_modification), Body_nullification, Penis_removal. The Body Nullification article makes an interesting point regarding how many less mainstream practices have become more well known as people are discovering each other as a result of the Internet. That said, as a member of the BDSM community, I can say that this is not an unheard of activity. It's typically more commonly performed on the testicles, but frequnetly done to the penis. It's even discussed in the book "Family Jewels, A Guide to Male Genital Play and Torment." Another consideration is that within the BDSM Community many things are passed on via word of mouth. Many people meet at various BDSM related gatherings and are taught various techniques and practices that are not necessarily well documented. Hence my effort to try to take some time and better document this practice. We run into a frustrating Catch-22 where where Wikipedia prefers to have "verifiable" sources, yet, until someone writes something on the topic, it's not "verifiable." There's a bit of a flaw in logic as just because something is not easily verifiable does not necessarily indicate that it's not a valid practice. However, just because someone writes something in a book really doesn't prove that practice to be valid. As mentioned, the BDSM community is historically been a word of mouth type of community as it has not always been well accepted. While I don't have the resources/time to try to write an actual book on more advanced BDSM related techniques, I felt sharing some knowledge of a not well documented practice would have been well received by Wikipedia. JoeCool722 15:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There's no catch-22 at all. Wikipedia deliberately chooses NOT to be a primary source. In fact, it is considered a tertiary source. In other words, Wikipedia will report on things that have been clearly documented and verified elsewhere. Wikipedia does not serve as the primary, initial source for anything. Fan1967 15:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The BME website is referenced as an ezine in an existing Wikipedia Article - BME_(website), As per the link in my original post, Banding is referenced in the encyclopedia section of BME as well as numerous other areas of the site. I know we're getting into a fuzzy area regarding "verifiability" but I think a lot of the existing articles in this category are not extensively documented and therefore "verifiable."
• The fact that there is no information on this "out there" is the very reason there cannot be an article on WP, as stated above and elsewhere. WP:NOR refers. Just zis Guy you know? 11:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it deleted and disable undelete for this page. This is really sick. An encyclopedia is no place for this. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 19:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Well I must say this is more than a little disappointing. I had hoped that Wikipedia as a group would be more open-minded. I'm not asking anyone to agree with the practice, or take part in it. But I don't think it should be censored because some folks don't understand it. I would ask that the decision on this article be made based on policy as opposed to opinion. I'm working on tracking down some additional verifiable resources. Please let me know the best way to proceed to ensure this article remains listed in compliance with policy. JoeCool722 19:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. No reliable sources cited, and no credible evidence thus far that any such exist. As usual the red herring of censorship is being trailed, and as usual it is absurd (can we say autofellatio, children?). All the author need do is cite reliable sources and evidence of encyclopaedic notability. - Just zis Guy you know? 20:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Relist I've cited a book and the BME website that has been around for more than 10 years and is recognized by Wikipedia. Most people familiar with the Body Modification subject would recognize BME and Shannon who runs BME as an expert resource on the topic. Will the items I've already cited suffice? Or do I need to locate more? I know there were a few more books that had references to banding in them. Please Advise JoeCool722 21:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The AfD arguments were convincing, and there has been no error in procedure. Still not verifiable, as referencing a website in its entirety is not sufficient - we need specific links or quotes regarding the existence and notability of this activity. Sandstein 22:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Actually the first reference is to a specific page in BME regarding banding. I also cited a book. I believe this is getting away from the spirit of Wikipedia and becoming a push to squash something that is not understood. What I really don't understand is there are a dozen other articles in similar subject areas on Wikipedia that are not citing anything and they've been there for a while. I'm really surprised that there is no leniency allowed.

• Endorse deletion. Properly and rightly AfDed. --Audiovideo 22:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• WTF? --mboverload@ 22:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Relist First let me thank the administrators. I’ve had a delightful time going through all my books to find resources for them. It’s always fun to re-read favorite books. Many of these can be bought on Amazon. I’ve also included an article from a well known in the BDSM scene magazine. It has also been brought to my attention that Freud covered some of the penis binding (they didn’t have elastrators in his time) in his works. While he considered fetishism a deviant practice the recent American Psychological Association has declared it not to be so since the 1970’s.

If there is a vote I believe the comments “ Keep it deleted and disable undelete for this page. This is really sick. An encyclopedia is no place for this. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 19:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)” and “Speedy Delete Don't even want to know what it is. QuizQuick 02:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)” should not apply as these are clearly bias and not related to actual policy.

Here are a few books that discuss penile banding and related Cock and Ball Tortures:

• The Family Jewels: A Guide to Male Genital Play and Torment (Paperback) by Hardy Haberman
• Intimate Invasions: the erotic ins & outs of enema playby M.R. Strict
• Female Dominance: Rituals and Practices by Claudia Varrin
• Leatherfolk by Mark Thompson
• Tony DeBlase aka Fledermaus 1993, 'Male Genitorture (Also known as Cock and Ball Torture, CBT)' in Sandmutopia Guardian 14, pp14-22
• Trust, the Hand Book: A Guide to the Sensual and Spiritual Art of Handballing by Bert Herrman
• Sigmund Freud 1938, The Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud, translated and edited by A A Brill, New York: Modern Library
• -- 1953, 'Three Essays on Sexuality' in the Standard Edition of The Complete Psychological Works Vol VII, London: Hogarth
• -- 1953a, 'Fetishism' in the Standard Edition of The Complete Psychological Works Vol XXI (written in 1927), London: Hogarth

• Taboo 22:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Where's the original content? Exploding Boy 22:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, because of all the people saying "I trust the original AfD" (what do you think the Deletion review process is for then?) and because this is clearly a well-documented practice in its own cultural niche. &#0151; JEREMY 15:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This has been my frustration from the beginning. I missed the initial deletion review as I got busy with work. My wife went to send the link to someone and realized it was gone. Most of the comments in the initial deletion discussion and in this deletion review have been blanket agreements citing the fact that an AfD took place. I would rather have people look at this and assess it for themselves. And of course there are those that just say it should be deleted because it's "Sick" I don't think an individuals personal comfort on a subject should be related to it's inclusion in Wikipedia. JoeCool722 18:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Once again, where is the original content? How are people making decisions without reading the original article? Exploding Boy 16:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've been asking for this from the beginning. This was my first article that I've ever written for Wikipedia. I didn't back it up as I didn't realize it could just be deleted without a chance to go change it back. I read somewhere that there is some process in place to restore the article temporarily during a deletion review, but I don't know how else to go about requesting this. Any assistance from some of the more seasoned Wikipedians would be appreciated. JoeCool722 18:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well, until someone can provide a link to or a copy of the original content, I don't see how this can proceed. Exploding Boy 18:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Right. I've uncovered what I think is the most recent version of the article, which can be viewed (temporarily) at User talk:Exploding Boy/Penis banding. I think this vote needs to be restarted after people have read the content, and my vote is to undelete. Exploding Boy 18:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I've temporarily undeleted the history of the article while its deletion is being reviewed. You may see the actual last version here. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion without prejudice against recreation if reliable sources can be provided to show that the topic is more than a fringe paraphilia practiced by a couple of guys on the internet. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Why would you endorse the deletion if there were reliable sources? Exploding Boy 16:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The "if" was supposed to apply to the part about recreating it. In any case, the AfD closure seems valid based on the arguments provided in that debate, and the article itself, if kept, would in any case require heavy editing to comply with Wikipedia policies (specifically "Wikipedia is not a how-to guide"). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no reliable sources and the how-to information is about as inappropriate as it gets. It seems like an attempt to validate bizarre sexual practices, too: "It's not stupid/crazy/bizarre, it's in an encyclopedia." -- Kjkolb 22:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

01 June 2006

Template:User no notability

NN	This user hates notability and how it is used mercilessly on AfD as policy.

Here is the template, why was it deleted? No one posted anything on the TfD page Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:User no notability. It is a valid, useable userbox that shouldnt be deleted, just like ones that state POV can be used in userboxes or ones that state that they are inclusionist... Also, there was a TfD that reflected consensus, but this UB was speedy deleted and no message was left on the TfD page. Sorry for the ditto. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 01:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete as bad-faith deletion. --Disavian 01:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted shows a disrect to an accepted, wide consensus policy, template space is for encyclopedic endeavors, not the advocacy of eliminationg them. Userfy, subst, let people keep it, but get it out of encyclopedic space. -M^ask 01:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Notability is not policy. You people are the reason this UB was created. Because you don't understand: Essays carry so much less weight than policy. There's an essay saying that all TV show summarys should be deleted. It must be put into effect since you consider essays policy. Besides, it was not a CSD. There is a TfD going on about it that reflected a Keep consensus, but the deleter ignored it, deleted it, AND didn't even close the TfD debate! -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 04:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted This one clearly has the potential to divide Wikipedians and to inflame Wikipedians, which makes it a T1 CSD candidate. But I did learn something from my pre-conclusion research. Of course, someone should implement the German solution on it. GRBerry 02:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment after more thought and some more discussion. The most troubling word is "hates". But there clearly could be versions that would not be inflammatory. So the salting of the earth is too strong a response - overturn only the salting and put a warning on the talk page of the template that language like "disagrees with", "rejects", or "would like to out that notability is only an essay, not a guideline or policy" is acceptable, but that vehement language like "hates" and "mercilessly" is inappropriate. GRBerry 16:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted as bad-faith userbox. Obviously divisive in intent, probably speediable. --Calton | Talk 02:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as the subject it addresses is not notable.Timothy Usher 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You're kidding, right??? Seriously? You think that this is less notable than the 5000 fan userboxes? I knew that the people who would want it deleted were people eho support notability... -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 04:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - not notable per Timothy Usher. ;) (Actually, it is argumentative, divisive, etc.) Metamagician3000 02:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The irony is killing me here ;p --Disavian 02:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain - I am almost convinced that this should exist, because unlike the vast majority of userboxen that have no relevance to Wikipedia (or at least should not), like "This User is Christian" or "This user licks Goats", this is actually relevant to wikipedia and is the kind of content that fits well on a userpage. It's not exactly the same kind of bumper-sticker crap that most userboxes are. It is still divisive though.. --Improv 04:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• How about a milder one? Proposal:

NN	This user is against the use of the notability essay as criteria for deletion on AfD

-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 04:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Oh no, that's still far too divisive and inflammatory, don't you know? Consider this:

NN	This user is interested in the critical examination of the notability essay as criteria for deletion on AfD

—Ashley Y 07:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Why? That one is like a censored version thats too positive. Why not this:

NN	This user is against the views of the notability essay.

-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 13:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Chris, I have a slight but suspicious feeling that Ashley was being sarcastic. // The True _Sora 23:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, let the TFD run its course. (It is running at a strong keep consensus now. THen rewrite it slightly to soften it up a bit. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid T1, not to mention its obvious potential for aiding in votestacking. --Rory096 06:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I don't care about most userboxes but this one clearly should go. It encourages users to lock in on a position rather than to continue to explore, discuss and debate. It polarizes an already difficult discussion unnecessarily. Rossami (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Speedy-deletion criteria should not be used to silence ongoing TfDs just because an admin dislikes the results of the discussion; if you thought the template should be deleted, you should have simply argued for that case on the TfD. Also, it looks to me like it's not the basic message of the template ("I'm opposed to treating 'Notability' as policy"), but the tone, which is potentially inflammatory: I support undeleting this and changing the text to a less belligerent wording, like "This user is against the use of the notability essay as criteria for deletion on AfD". -Silence 12:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - patently divisive, no debate neccessary (not even here). We can discuss notability without factionalist bumper-stickers. --Doc ^ask? 12:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought you were leaving. (that might be vandalism) -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 20:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and move to user space based on the German solution. --StuffOfInterest 12:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per MM3k, GRBerry and Rossami. ++Lar: t/c 12:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Is there any possibility that we could Soft redirect Template:User no notability to the not-yet-made page User:Ccool2ax/User no notability ? I know some people might be interested in it, and I personally have never been able to find userboxes in the User namespace. Isn't my revision (1) less inflammatory than the one about admin's out-of-process deletions? (see my userpage for the box) -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 13:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep'em all deleted -- Drini 17:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and modify to Chris's last proposal above. Valid TfD keep; a non-inflammatory version is not T1. Septentrionalis 19:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted --pgk^(talk) 19:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and rewrite to non-emotive form. I don't support the "is interested in" rewrites though, as the term would swiftly come to mean the exact same thing as the original did via the euphemism treadmill. --tjstrf 19:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and rewrite as tjstrf above. After all the notability essay is just that a essay. --Whispering 20:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - it's outrageous that a userbox that is actually useful is being deleted for political reasons. For great justice. 21:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. It's a fair opinion, but the very last thing that Wikipedia needs are templates useful for vote stacking. Divisive indeed. -- SCZenz 21:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn (undelete) Does not fall under speedy criteria. —David618 ^t e 22:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete; since when was this inflamatory? If anything, list on TfD.
• Endorse Deletion I can imagine few uses of the word "hate" on a userbox that would not be divisive. BigDT 01:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • What about the 1st or 2nd revision (not the "interested in" one)-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 04:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy per The German solution. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Obviously divisive. Kelly Martin (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Userboxes that are about Wikipedia process are different in kind than userboxes about off-Wikipedia beliefs and practices. Bringing meatspace political beliefs into the Wikipedia process could be divisive (though not automatically so), but putting one's Wikipedia philosophies and practices on display in that manner is just a shorthand for what is already manifest in our actions. To me, "divisive" means creating division where none was previously apparent. Read AfD or DRV for a while and you will see that we are already divided over notability; userboxes to that effect don't make it more or less so. Vadder 18:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Obviously divisive. About a year ago someone started decorating AfD with little pastel boxes expressing his opinion that the nominator's stated reason for deletion did not meet the deletion policy. It was not helpful. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, divisive. Plus: notability is shorthand for a subject which has garnered enough external attention to allow us to ensure it is verifiable, covered neutrally and does not stray into original research. The fact that some people want to cover subjects which have not been discussed widely enough to ensure neutral coverage is well-known and does not require a userbox. Just zis Guy you know? 20:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, so that means every article you haven't heard of can't ever be discussed neutrally? That's why notability exists? I thought encyclopedias were for learning new things, not confirming what one already knows. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 14:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Undelete All you need to do is look at the first rationale proposed for keep-deletion: "shows a disrect to an accepted, wide consensus policy" Um, tyranny of the majority anyone? Since when was Wikipedia so goddamned establishment? George Kaplan 13:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Syed Ahmed

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ahmed

• relist why can't he have an Article i mean why can Syed not have one but michelle dewberry have one, syed has done lots of things aswell as appearing on The Apprentice he appeared in the Celebrity world cup sixes and he is the head of IT People. Bobo6balde66 20:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• The deletion discussion was virtually unanimous. No new evidence has been presented that would suggest that a new discussion would reach a different decision. Endorse closure (content deleted, protected redirect). Rossami (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Rossami. Nobody cares about The Apprentice. --Disavian 23:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Rossami. Kimchi.sg 02:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure — unanimous original AfD, and good content already included in The Apprentice (UK series 2). No good reasons have been presented for re-creating this article - the subject simply is not sufficiently notable to merit his own article. A redirect already ensures a reader entering his name can find a brief biography on the relevant article. The fact that Michelle Dewberry has an article is not a reason to undelete this — if her notability is in question that article should be listed at WP:AFD. Finally, IT People, his company was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IT People, so the fact that he is the CEO of a company deemed non-notable should be no reason for undeleting this article either. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 08:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse: Reality shows have, by now I hope, settled down: if the contestant becomes notable aside from the appearance, then the person is notable. If the person is merely one face among many squabbling and scratching, then the person should be discussed at the show's article. When the person breaks away from the show in fame, then the article breaks away from the show. This individual has not, at least yet. Geogre 13:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Rossami. Nobody cares about The Apprentice. --mboverload@ 19:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I watched The Apprentice, enjoyed it, and I absolutely agree with Mboverload: I still don't care. If he ever becomes independently notable, then he gets his own article. Just zis Guy you know? 20:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ho Shin Do

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ho_Shin_Do

Undelete Ho Shin Do I worked hard to put up good information on the page and added more info to give backing on the origins of the martial art. I feel that the style itself is worthy of being listed here and train in it with the best of intentions for the founders. The martial art has legitimate roots in Korean martial arts, and I sincerely hope that the deleted can be re-considered. Frankiefuller 08:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)frankiefuller, 03:33 (EST), 6-10-06. I say Overturn and Undelete

• endorse closure. This was a valid AfD with a unanimous "delete" result, I could see no significant and substantial differences between the version as of the deletion nomination and the version as of the afd closure (with the exception of the picture being added, which is not enough), so there was no additional information that was not available to the early voters that may have made them change their minds. Thryduulf 16:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Thryduulf. Kimchi.sg 03:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, so what is necessary to make it stay? I could put in a great amount of detail about the art itself and the structure of the system. Man you guys are so stubborn, there are many more sub-par articles out there than this. What makes you guys particular academic experts here, and how many of you are martial arts scholars? Heck, I could get deep into the philosophical side of this if you like. Let's go, baby, I love debates. Politics, after all, is what I'm studying for my doctoral program.Frankiefuller 09:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• "Man, people commit murder all the time, why do you have to arrest me?" The existence of poor articles does not justify the existence of poor articles; in this case, the lack of notability of the subject makes it a poor candidate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -Objectivist-C 12:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• We are not academic experts. We are reporters of academic experts. If there are experts out there discussing this fellow, and if the art has made sufficient splash to be discussed in multiple contexts, then there should be an article. The presence of an article doesn't make something good, and the absence doesn't make it bad; there is no judgment of worth, only of need. Geogre 13:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep undeleted per FrankiefullerQuizQuick 00:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for now or userfy with leave to present when appropriate - here is the article from google cache - [81] - the fact that there are multiple schools teaching this kind of Tae Kwon Do says to me that it is notable. The only problem I see with the article is that it is entirely original research. For that reason and that reason alone, I believe that the deletion is appropriate, but if Frankiefuller would like to rewrite or modify the article as to include other references, I don't see any reason why the subject is not permissible. BigDT 02:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy with leave to present when appropriate. Let frankiepoo show you that the article is not original research. I can show that the wheel is not being re-invented and can point out how the art has borrowed from several distinctly Korean arts. I am going to go ahead and try modifying the information and then presenting it after I can authenticate the specific data to show non-original research.72.145.93.79 05:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Frankiefuller

Israel News Agency

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel news agency - closed as "keep" on 15 Jan 06

Speedy-deleted as "vanity page by banned user" on 10 May 06

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Israel News Agency - closed as "overturn speedy and list on AFD" on 23 May 06

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel News Agency (2nd nomination) - closed for procedural irregularities on 29 May 06

Speedy-deleted as "more of the same nonsense" on 1 Jun 06

It passed its original deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel news agency, but when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel News Agency (2nd nomination) was created, the closing administrator said that because someone didn't follow process and grouped arguements into those for keeping and deleting, that the individual discussion was broken beyond repair. The administrator stated that he had no prejudice toward reopening the debate for a third time, then the article was again deleted by Danny, so I'm requesting it again be created and relisted. Daniel Bush 22:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment, if Danny is the person who deleted it, why did User:Sean Black salt the earth? GRBerry 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Self-promotion of a non-notable non-agency by a banned user. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as out-of-process deletion. If someone believes that something was missed in the first AFD, then relist. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. It's still a nonnotable blog that anyone who was clever enough to register a name like that could set up. --Improv 23:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• I think this article should be deleted but I think we should do it properly. Overturn the speedy-deletion, relist on AFD and I'll help watch the deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Wasn't this thing deleted via WP:OFFICE? If so, WP:SNOW--Rayc 23:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW isn't policy nor does it possibly apply in this case, WP:OFFICE was never cited. Undelete and relist properly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oh my goodness, the second AfDs closing admin's note of procedural irregularities is certainly true. That is a major refactoring from when I last saw the page. (I was the first to make a non-comment response.) I wish, however, that the closing admin had immediately opened a third AFD... It was in AFD via a community decision. I think Resend to AFD is the appropriate outcome, but it is a borderline call, concluded this way because process is important and because the refactoring appears not to have been done by the articles author or one of the new voices brought in. GRBerry 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, should probably go to AfD again, but definitely undelete it. This abuse of process has got to stop. We have rules here—follow them. Everyking 03:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• This is just taking the piss. Undelete, do not relist anywhere, and censure the admin who deleted it against consensus. There is no point having shitloads of policy documents and votes on this, that and the other if privileged users can just ignore them out of personal animus. Also censure the admin who has protected the page. This is an egregious abuse of his powers that has become too common these days. The consensus was that there should be an article: protecting it so that there cannot be is completely unacceptable. Apologies for not signing in. -- Grace Note.
• SPEEDY Undelete per Grace Note. --Col. Hauler 08:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. nn blog, clear sentiment to delete among non-sock, non-meatpuppets. We should stop wasting our time, and stop allowing the associated harrassment of legitimate editors over this. NoSeptember ^talk 09:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Could you please list all of these sock or meat puppets--or if the list would be shorter everyone who's opinions you find valid? Yes, there are those that I would call foopuppets on the keep side, but there are also several legitimate users. Kotepho 19:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Puppets are listed at: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Israelbeach

• SPEEDY Undelete per Grace Note. Potterseesall 09:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• AfD was closed as borked by Aaron Brenneman, no bleeding-heart inclusionist. I still haven't seen any verifiable 3rd party information about this website and I don't think it qualifies for an article on Wikipedia. But I would vastly prefer to have this deleted the bureaucratic way rather than through a wheel-warring Danny. Haukur 10:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Removed comment from banned user Zordrac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Malber (talk • contribs) 15:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Generally, anonymous editors have less weight in deletion reviews. This was not deleted on the grounds of censorship because they disagree with Wikipedia. You have no understanding of the issue at all. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 20:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete due to violation of the deletion process. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 20:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, Resend to AfD unless there is a clear indication that the speedy deletion was done for legal or other overiding reasons under WP:OFFICE. (I can't see any reason why there would have been litigtion about this article~) The Land 22:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, no need to relist this at AFD again. This unjust wheel-warring by Danny needs to stop. Now. Silensor 23:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - Danny has the right to take necessary actions under WP:OFFICE. Given INA's apparant hostility to Wikipedia (see [82], [83], [84]), I'm willing to assume good faith on Danny's part and endorse the deletion. BigDT 02:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. In WP:OFFICE Danny says that he will exercise Office powers under the name User:Dannyisme. User:Danny is Danny acting as a regular administrator/editor. Since Israel News Agency was deleted under the regular username Danny as opposed to Dannyisme, it shouldn't be considered an Office decision. Furthermore, the deletion did not reference WP:OFFICE in the edit summary, nor is it listed on the WP:OFFICE page. It is true that INA is hostile to Wikipedia, but one of its grievances (albeit not the first or only one) is the previous out-of-process deletion of the Israel News Agency article [85]. There are reasons both for and against having an article about this news agency on Wikipedia, but the proper place to deal with them is an AfD, not a speedy deletion. "More of the same nonsense" is not a valid reason for speedy deletion unless the nonsense is patent, which was not the case for Israel News Agency. --Metropolitan90 03:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per user Metropolitan90 Bonnieisrael 09:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I have read news stories by the Israel News Agency before Wikipedia existed. Saying that the Israel government acredited INA is "nonsense" is nothing less than a travesty. Tzanchan 17:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This is not a "news agency", it's a blog. How many bylines are there on this supposed "news agency"? I could only find one: Joel Leyden. WP:NOT an advertisement hoarding, a tool for promoting your website, a search engine optimisation mechanism, a soapbox etc. This is the personal site of an indef-blocked user. Just zis Guy you know? 20:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• If the Israel News Agency is not a news agency then it would qualify being "notable" as Israel's first "blog" dating back to 1995. But given the various, consistent direct news feeds from the Israel Government Press Office that only an accredited news organization can obtain in Israel, it appears to be a real news agency with real government accredition news agency - for over 11 years. Also, one can see several other bylines besides Leyden. Perform a search on Google News for "Israel" [86] the INA stories appear in the top ten. If one calls this agency a "soapbox" then we should start labeling Google News, all news organizations as "soapboxes" - including non media such as US Homeland Security. Karnei 15:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• You didn't look hard enough: By Debbie Lahav, By Israel News Agency Staff[87][88],By Joe Yudin, By Michael Bernstein, By Herb Brandon[89], By Sara Lavi, By Dr. Batya L. Ludman[90], By Sara Silber M.Sc.Ed[91]... Kotepho 19:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per Chris — ßottesiηi ^(talk) 21:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Metropolitan90, for unexplained out-of-process deletion. No opinion as to the merits, as I haven't ever seen that article, even though a look at the site does point to "non-notable blog". Sandstein 21:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per the reasons provided by Karnei and Silensor in the previous deletion debate. Blog or not this news project does appear to be notable. Yamaguchi先生 15:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete immediately. Out-of process deletion compounded by second out-of-process deletion =total disrespect for the community. Somehow "More of the same nonsense" was entirely fitting. --JJay 00:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

31 May 2006

Template:User Christian

The template received a near unanimous keep on TfD which was closed on May 28, 2006. It was deleted by User:Improv today for no apparent reason, completely ignoring the consensus of a community. I say, Overturn and undelete.  Grue  21:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. Again. We need to get something to agree on such as the German solution to someday get this settled. --StuffOfInterest 21:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleting until all these things (WHATEVER their pov) are history. We endorsed the deletion of the Marxism and Scientology boxes - so why should Christianity and Atheism be any different. --Doc ^ask? 21:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This page is about questioning the process that this template went through, not saying that an endorsement on a particular template makes the deletion of this template, which was completely outside of community consensus, allowable. Ansell Review my progress! 09:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Community consensus is moving towards keeping this an encyclopaedia rather than a faction ridden social club. Stephen B Streater 22:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete as bad faith deletion. I was in the middle of submitting this template for DRV when Grue got there first. This template has been through eleventy billion TFDs and DRVs and multiple administrative edit wars. In every case, the consensus was to keep. See [92] for the most recent DRVU and see [93]. See also the lengthy logs for this template [94]. This is not a referendum on userboxes. Nor, though such a discussion probably needs to be held, is it a referendum on the appropriateness of administrators ignoring consensus and inventing rules. The sole question here is whether it was proper for this template to be deleted according to the currently existing criteria for speedy delete. In other words, is it "divisive and inflammatory" to state, "This user is a Christian." BigDT 21:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of all political and religious userbox templates -- Drini 21:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You did not answer any of the questions in that, it is merely your view. Take it to Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates, not here. Ansell Review my progress! 10:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per Drini. Whether or not a user is a Christian (as am I) can add nothing to wikipedia. Let's keep it on-topic, shall we?Timothy Usher 21:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • See reason for drini as to why it is not appropriate to say that here. Ansell Review my progress! 10:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Grrr! Edit conflict - and I was almost the first one to vote! Waaagh! Two edit conficts! But what should I say, anyway? Lemme think... Undelete, subst: all instances, delete and protect. How 'bout this? Misza13 ^{T C} 21:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

  There aren't that many transclusions left after Immari did a bunch because of Cyde's antics. Paste me the contents and I'll do it or undelete it and have Cydebot do it. Kotepho 22:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete because Keep means Keep. Less than 72 hours after it survived TfD it is inappropriate to speedy delete it without even the courtesy of an explanation on the article's talk page. The closest thing there is to an explanation by the deleter is their comment below in the deletion review for Template:User satanist. I can understand deleting it, although it was clearly wrong. I don't understand salting the earth for a speedy deletion of something that was just kept after a speedy, review, TfD cycle. GRBerry 21:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Haven't we had this already? Keep deleted again. --Tony Sidaway 21:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - yes, we did, and the consensus both on DRVU and on TFD was undelete/keep. BigDT 21:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: This user is against userboxes in general. Wokka-wokka-wokka. --Bobak 21:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. This debate, as that is what it has become, is also about general policy; certainly, you would let users who wish to have userboxes have them, even if you do not wish to have any; and you would allow them the due process of review/AfD, for if you created a template, you would like to be treated fairly as well. Thus, being against userboxes (a position I do not share, but I do respect) does not nessasarily behoove you to vote one way or the other in these two instances. --Disavian 04:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted along with any other religious user boxes. --pgk^(talk) 21:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: do those who are saying it's been discussed countless times not realise the huge disruption and distraction this implies? —Phil | Talk 21:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Many of us feel that the primary, if not sole, cause of the disruption as it pertains to this template, at least, is the deletions. Keeping it deleted would reward the disrupters, which is a very bad outcome. GRBerry 21:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, per above.--Sean Black 21:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete If it survied TfD it shouldn't be deleted under speedy, which I do not see a reason for. —David618 ^t e 21:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn (Undelete), Although I wholeheartedly agree with Drini above, we have a process here that must be followed to maintain order. The process was not followed here. This is not the place to argue for or against the template, only whether the process was carried out correctly (which it apparently wasn't). Try to formulate an oficial policy prohibiting religious/political/nationalist user boxes instead of trying to delete them one-by-one. I'll be the first to support it.--WilliamThweatt 21:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment well, it looks like Template:User Christian and Template:User satanist are on equal footing now, although I'm sorry it had to happen this way -_- --Disavian 21:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, again. Not T1 or T2. If a T3 reaches consensus that religious userboxes should be deleted, delete it then (but first subst all copies in {{userbox}} form. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. This is an example of rogue admins deleting stuff under CSD when they don't get their way under TfD. They rely on the fact that DRv is much less well-known than TfD. —Ashley Y 22:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Graaahhh I really want to vote keep deleted. I wish we didn't have this userbox (or if people didn't care about userboxes), I think it possibly meets T1, and obviously meets T2. That being said if you are just going to delete it anyways why bother putting it through DRVU and TFD? It just pisses people off, more so I think than deleting it in the first place; and I don't want to encourage people to keep deleting things out of process until it magically gets a majority to keep deleted by attrition. On the other hand, it is just a userbox. I think they are silly, but I understand that some people care about them (even deeply) and they too are people. No matter how many times someone calls everyone that likes userboxes a myspacer it doesn't make it true. Screwing with contributors is not a good way to make an encyclopedia. Kotepho 22:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: there is no T2 anymore. —Ashley Y 22:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Katepho. It's not my userbox; but not abiding by a consensus decision is harmful to the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis 23:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete as out-of-process deletion. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete per community consensus. Crazyswordsman 23:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - all such userboxes should be userfied and removed from template space. Metamagician3000 23:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete it seems the "I'm an admin, and enforce my own consensus" mentality is spreading. I wonder... if recreating templates/articles that were deleted by consensus is vandalism, then what is deleting templates/articles that were kept by consensus... CharonX talk Userboxes 00:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete If T2 is toast, there's even less reason to delete this than before. Besides, the consensus was keep, whats the deal here? Homestarmy 00:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, not going to make the same points again. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 01:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, per consistency with Template:User satanist arguments for deletion. Both are religeons, both have the same rights. Who at wikipedia is to decide which religeons are allowed and which are not. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, and get back to things that help the encyclopedia. Ral315 (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. MySpace is thataway. --Calton | Talk 03:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Kim van der Linde. Snottygobble 04:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted/Userfy again. We're moving all the ideological stuff out of template space, better userfy your boxes now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you point me to that policy, please? BigDT 04:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The policy in question is probably Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates. --Disavian 05:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The policy in question is WP:NOT. The interpretation is courtesy of Jimbo, 3 days ago, on his talk page, here: "no, really, the template namespace is not for that, . . . we do not endorse this behavior." -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Keep in mind that WP:NOT says Wikipedia IS an online community. Online communities are made of people, and people have opinions and biases, and they choose to express them in the form of userboxes. I didn't feel the interpretation by Jimbo was very clear, although it was rather recent. In the end, there just needs to be a User template: namespace. I have a feeling that would solve some of these issues, mostly those unrelated to T1. By no means is any of this clear or easy :( --Disavian 05:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Jimbo was clearer here back in March. The German solution is gaining support; I think it's the way to go. Templates will be safe in userspace, stored in user page directories like they have on de:, as long as they don't cause problems. I think this solution will fly, unless it blows up of its own accord. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• What's the point of even having this discussion? Enough administrators have made it clear that they are going to do whatever the heck they feel like regardless of policy. Administrators User:Doc glasgow, User:Tony Sidaway, User:Phil Boswell, User:Sean Black, User:Metamagician3000, User:Jareth, and User:GTBacchus have all demonstrated that community consensus is irrelevant to them by endorsing a patently incorrect deletion. I find it incomprehensible that we are even having this discussion. You guys are just making up rules as we go along. If you are going to refuse to enforce whatever actual policy is decided on and just delete anything you don't like out of process, why are we even pretending to have this discussion? Even if it gets undeleted, another one of you will just delete it next week. BigDT 05:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  We've had the T1 policy for some time now, and dozens of deletion reviews have endorsed a broad interpretation. The arbitration committee explicitly recognised this in the arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway just over two months ago. --Tony Sidaway 05:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't question that T1 exists. I question that T1 has anything to do with this userbox. If it is divisive or inflammatory, it is only so because of your actions and the actions of other administrators. There is nothing INHERENTLY divisive or inflammatory about it. If the userbox said "this user doesn't like atheists" or "this user is anti-Catholic" or something like that, I'd be the first one to vote keep deleted on the DRV. But in order for you to say that this userbox is "divisive and inflammatory", you would also have to say that any expression of faith in any way is divisive and inflammatory. (I'm aware that T1 is only relevant to such expressions in template space, but the words "divisive" and "inflammatory" exist and have meaning outside the context of userboxes.) Is it "divisive" or "inflammatory" that I go to church Sunday mornings? That I say, "I am a Christian"? That I pray before meals? How, then, is a userbox that says no more nor less than "this user is a Christian" divisive and inflammatory? There is nothing INHERENTLY inflammatory about it. What is inflammatory is the edit warring, wheel warring, vandalism, and refusal to enforce a consensus. Repeated out-of-process deletions and trips to DRV are divisive and inflammatory - the template itself is not. No, I don't question the existence of T1. I question your application of it. BigDT 05:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, this template does not deserve to be used to make a point, especially not this many times in a row. --tjstrf 05:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Whether or not this template is 'good' is immaterial to this discussion. The template was unilaterally deleted by an admin ignoring a consensus to keep and therefore this should be a speedy undelete. All your legitimate concerns about the usefulness of POV boxes can be addressed at TfD, not speedy deletion. IMO Delete votes citing the inappropriateness of POV userboxen should be ignored because that's not what this debate is about, let the community decide that. No one admin (or even a group of them) has the power to decide what is in the best interests of the community when the community itself wants to go the opposite way. Let's stop playing the Big Brother. Loom91 05:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Like I've said somewhere else, I have absolutely no idea why the admins don't just do a mass delete. What is the point of allowing these votes anyway? Wikipedia is not a democracy, and it's obvious the admins will interpret a Userbox as "divisive or inflammatory" in whatever way they see fit and delete it. Personally, I'm OK with a mandate and mass delete on Userboxes, but the way the situation is being handled is incredibly inept. Like someone else said, this is essentially a mass delete, carried out in a very annoying manner. Hong Qi Gong 05:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete Why shouldn't we be allowed to state that we are christians in userboxes if we want to? Besides, the speedy deletion of this userbox template was not justified. Ifrit 05:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete since this has been on DRV something like three times already. THis is becoming a pointless attempt at deletion by attrition. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted The only userboxes of any value are time zone, technical, linquistic and project participation. Sophia 06:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. What is it with you people? I like having a flourishing community with all that that entails. User pages were one manifestation of it, userboxes are just another one. Cracking down on them will do not one tiny bit of good and has the potential to drive many people away, or discourage them into reducing the frequency of their contributions (instead of drawing them deeper into the site, which is the kind of thing userboxes do)—either because of frustration at their disappearing userboxes or because of frustration at the ridiculous admin abuse of powers that has gone on in the effort to get rid of them. People want their ability to express themselves maximized, not minimized, and they want to believe that there's some process, some sort of order and rule structure that protects them—I imagine it must be quite vexing to find out how a small minority can rule arbitrarily like this. Everyking 06:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete - This template just restored here couple days ago and just survived TfD, what makes one to think things have changed?? "-Template:User Christian restored by 27-36 majority, will be relisted at TfD in pre-edit war form. 17:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review" & TfD Hunter 08:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I would have voted to undelete six months ago, and I still think that the way this was originally handled showed a complete contempt for the community, but it's quite clear Jimbo doesn't want these boxes, and so at the very least they shouldn't be in template space. I do think, however, that it's ridiculous to say that using a box which says "This user is a Christian" is an attempt to convert others. AnnH ♫ 08:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Stop deleting userbox templates (and indeed creating new ones) until a consensus policy is reached, per Jimbo's request of 'one user at a time.' Deleting them, then having a DRV on everyone is just wasting everyone's time. Having said that - it's now clear to me that no matter what the outcome, we are going to keep having this debate over and over, template by template, as certain admins don't appear to be willing to await the outcome of debate or consensus on the whole userbox/template thing. A template survives a DRV - it get's re-deleted. (Strange how this isn't vandalism, but re-creating something is!) We end up with the ridiculous situation of the {insert religious or political userbox} being deleted while another {insert religious or political userbox} is restored (or, at least, not yet deleted) - obvious examples being Republican / Democrat or Christian / Satanist. So. All religious userbox templates are on one page, yes? As are all political userbox templates? How does one go about nominating them all, simultaneously, for a T1 TfD? Bastun 09:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Why do single admins take it on their high horse to act as they please. Why is this discussion even happening. It is a joke that a successful deletion review, immediately followed by a successful TfD, can be followed by someone going and deleting on a whim. Ansell Review my progress! 09:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Templates of the type user_worldview have created a big load of unproductive and pointless unrest. The most effective way to avoid this from now on is to have them deleted alltogether. The problem with that approach is that many users feel discriminated if "their" worldview-box is deleted, while others are not; So, as it can be assumed that user_christian is among the most popular boxes on en.WP, deleting it is a major step. -- 790 10:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, it's already been through TfD's and DRV's that've supported keeping this userbox. Will (^E_@) T 10:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Knowing peoples' POVs is a very positive thing, and helps us know who is liable to POV-pushing. Someone who has "faith" (which is by definition blind belief/ignorance with no requirement for Verifiability) in any religion cannot be expected to edit any religion-orientated article neutrally. --Col. Hauler 11:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete - I post this as if my opinion matters on Wikipedia... but if the consensus repeatedly is for keeping it, then speedy deleting it yet again shows nothing but complete contempt for the user community. Arguing that Jimbo supports speedy deleting it is nothing more than arguing that Jimbo has nothing but complete contempt for the user community, as well. Is that really what you want to say? Or is it the truth? Jay Maynard 11:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - I don't have this or ever plan to have this as a userbox but I can see no reason why this or any other religions or ideologies should ever be deleted! If they aren't innately offensive I have no problem with them! -- UKPhoenix79 11:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The admins who are repeatedly deleting this out of process find anything but bland, homogenous user pages innately offensive. Jay Maynard 11:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete like that robot mouse Jerry had on that one episode of Tom and Jerry.-Strip Improv of his powers while we are at it! -user:Gangsta-Easter-Bunny --13:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, there has been a consensus to keep on several occasions. There has never been a consensus to delete. "this user/administrator dislikes this" is NOT a valid deltion criteria, let alone a speedy one. Thryduulf 16:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete! Korossyl 17:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid T1, as can be seen by the divided and heated nature of this very discussion. No obvious reason to question Improv's judgement. Let it go. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply The template is not controversial, the deletion is. A controversial deletion is reason for keeping, not the inverse. --tjstrf 21:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Lets follow the process, and abide by consensus. Bo 19:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. T1. It was valid to delete when I first deleted it many months ago, and T1 still applies. --Improv 21:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So you're not too bothered by the strong consensus to keep on its TfD? —Ashley Y 21:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete For same rationale as per Col. Hauler, above. Knowlege of their POV pushing nature is valuable and should mean they should recuse themseleves from editing on articles of a religious nature, except to give info about it on talk pages. I don't think its a means to convert, nor do I think it helps to build their cabal (as they just flock to their articles anyway). But, it should be a way to identify who should be discouraged from editing in various articles, esp. those playing admin roles.Giovanni33 21:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: POV religious boxes are divisive. See Satanist below. Stephen B Streater 22:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral I don't care whether it's undeleted or not, as long as the decision matches Satanist below. Delete both or keep both. Fan1967 23:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, though it is divisive: "Having a quality that divides or separates", T1 as it stands says the templates must both be divisive and inflammatory. Having a POV is not inflammatory. Having POV is however CSD T2. If T2 was policy, then my vote would be to delete. Also, Citing the deletion policy:

  Repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted, and in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rayc (talk • contribs) 23:14, 1 June 2006.

  This is a userbox, not an article. This userbox is obviously unsuitable and will either be altered to be suitable for Wikipedia or else deleted--all we're arguing over are the details. --Tony Sidaway 00:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  Who died and made you Jimbo? Jay Maynard 01:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  It's only "obvious" to you and the others who are distorting the purpose of T1 to fulfil your goal of deleting all non-project userboxes. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that goal, but please, be frank about it, admit your motives, and don't abuse existing rules against their original intent. --tjstrf 00:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  T1 says divisive and inflammatory. You already acknowledge divisive. Anything divisive has the potential to become inflammatory. Look at the number of people expressing opinions here, and you'll see this userbox has become inflammatory. Stephen B Streater 09:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  You're confusing the actions of editors and administrators with the template in a vacuum. The template is neither divisive nor inflammatory when taken alone, divisive only in the context of a strong POV holding user viewing it, and not inflammatory at all. These repeated deletions, on the other hand, are both divisive and inflammatory, and as such should be overturned. The template is not divisive and inflammatory, User:Improv is. (and if he were a template, he would be deleted) --tjstrf 10:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  The template divides Wikipedians by their beliefs. If anyone feels more aligned to another editor because they have this userbox, then it is divisive. Stephen B Streater 11:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  If I get a swollen ankle, it is the ankle that swells, not the sprain that caused it. Often the swelling can take some time to show. So this debate is the swollen ankle - the sympton of the inflammatory userbox (the sprain). If the cells which trigger the swelling are the admins, you are blaming the cells in the ankle for the swelling, not the sprain. It is true that if the cells didn't swell, the ankle wouldn't either (and some pain relief drugs prevent swelling), but the swelling aids recovery. Personally, I wouldn't delete a userbox against consensus because I think it polarises debate and makes consensus harder to reach. If a neutral userbox such as a babel box were to be deleted, the debate would be one sided and the box would be clearly seen to be non-inflammatory. The inflammation here requires the original box to be potentially inflammatory. I would not trigger the inflammation myself, but we're here now. Do we treat the symptoms or the cause? Stephen B Streater 11:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per process. Also urge admins to wait for a solution and stop wasting time deleting boxes. Λυδαcιτγ^{(TheJabberwock)} 23:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment is it worth sorting the votes? —Ashley Y 23:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Obviously divisive. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted in accordance with the deletion of other religious bias userboxes. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 00:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't care whether this one is kept or deleted, but I hope whichever way it goes, it's done consistently for all religions rather than showing preference for "approved" ones. *Dan T.* 01:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: This is no more inflammatory than if you declared yourself to be a dentist; some people hate Christians and some hate dentists. If you see Christianity as inflammatory, it is because you want it to be. That's your POV problem, not the userbox's. WestonWyse 04:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Does not meet any speedy-deletion criterion. T1 is not relevant here, as being Christian is not "divisive and inflammatory" anymore than being Muslim or atheist or Rastafarian is. T2 is not settled policy, and thus clearly cannot be arbitrarily imposed on random templates in an attempt to force it into becoming a de facto policy; and even if T2 was policy (or becomes one in the future), it would be much easier to simply make this into a redirect to {{user christianity}} and subst the original {{user christian}} to the users who were using it, thus preventing endless DRVs like this one. But right now, as T2 is still under discussion, this deletion is premature at the very least, and downright destructive (much more than the template itself, which never caused an ounce of harm before it was used as a tool by certain admins to exacerbate the userbox debate) at worst. -Silence 12:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted or we risk a "tyranny of the majority" situation. Rob 13:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - Exactly how is that worse than the tyranny of the admins we have now? If you object to that term, exactly how is it inapplicable to the situation we have, where it's repeatedly speedy deleted in the face of repeated consensus to keep it? Jay Maynard 14:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  "Tyranny of the minority," I think it should be. It's certainly at least equally applicable. WestonWyse 02:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. It made it through TfD 3 days ago, and then it got deleted again?! // The True _Sora 13:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The mere act of declaring one's religion is only divisive to people who hate and fear religion. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 17:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete. Now again? --H.T. Chien / 眼鏡虎 (Discuss|Contributions) 19:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• undelete please there was no reason for this really Yuckfoo 00:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV QuizQuick 00:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete - This is ridiculous. Religion is not a divisive point of view - it merely expresses what someone believes - what is wrong with that? If it passed a vote for deletion, then leave it as is. There should be no reason why this should be deleted. A violation of human rights and free speech if it is. (JROBBO 04:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

  I think it's pretty insulting to people who are actually having their human rights violated in this world, that you would apply such rhetoric to an issue as trivial as whether, in one particular namespace on one particular website on the wide internet, you can announce your religion. The only issue here is where these things are stored on the server. Pretending it's about human rights and freedom of speech must be very satisfying, from a drama perspective, but it's pretty depressing, in the eyes of someone who's actually seen human rights abuses. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment In America, Freedom of Speech is considered a human right. Wikipedia is not America, of course, but he isn't actually misusing the term. --tjstrf 05:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  No. He's misusing the term. Human rights, including freedom of speech, are things that matter, things worth dying for. Nobody's freedom of speech is being violated when all anyone's saying is, "hey, that template is stored in the wrong namespace, move it," so JROBBO's assertion that this is about freedom of speech is laughable. If you're privileged enough to be accessing Wikipedia from a computer in the first world, and to have the free time to complain about userboxes (from any side of the dispute), then you're in the luckiest 1% of people on Earth. Don't trivialize human rights. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Reply In that case, I think your gripes would be better addressed to the Founding Fathers than myself or JROBBO. My personal opposition to the deletion is based on it being an abuse of the T1 criteria by an admin with ulterior motives. --tjstrf 05:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  My "gripes"? What are you even talking about? I was getting on JROBBO's case for talking like a spoiled brat; the Founding Fathers are... unrelated. As for the deletion, all these templates are moving to user space anyway, see The German solution. Nobody will delete them there. That's how the userbox wars end, it turns out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Your gripes about his use of the phrase human rights. Also, userfying doesn't solve a thing, we'd still have collections of stupid, worthless userboxes sitting around, they just wouldn't be in template space. Also, what deletion criteria, if any, would keep userfied boxes from becoming worse, more offensive, more pointless, and more page-consuming than the template space ones ever were? --tjstrf 06:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Userfying does at least one thing: it removes the appearance of official sanction for POV userboxes that comes from keeping them in Template space. What's more, it might be the only thing that people on both sides of the userbox controversy can agree on - it might end the stupid "userbox wars", and that's a Good Thing. In user space, the boxes will still be subject to WP:UP and to basic rules prohibiting attacks or polemical statements. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Reply Not to be offensive in any way, but that's just sophistry. The "appearance of sanction" is as much present when the box is in the userspace, or even coded in by hand, as it is when it's in templatespace. Those users who follow the userbox debate all understand that userboxes are not an endorsement of the statements they contain by the wikimedia foundation regardless of their location, and those who don't follow it will be ignorant of the entire debate, and may draw either conclusion no matter where we put the boxes. The German Solution may pacify, but it doesn't solve or conclude. If anything it is actually a crippling defeat for the deletionist side, who have essentially traded all their credit in exchange for a superficial compromise that does nothing. I believe the deletionist side would be better to strategically withdraw and come back with a new proposal. (See also my comments at Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates.) --tjstrf 07:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken, but you're wrong. It's not sophistry. If a user sees that user boxes live on various people's user pages, under someone's name, that stands out as different from other templates, which exist in a common Template space. If they ask someone why that is, they find out that it's because userboxes aren't considered official Wikipedia templates the way other templates are. That'll mean something to that user; they'll think about it. User space is phychologically different from the other name spaces because it's not a shared area - all the pages in userspace are in somebody's "personal area". Besides all that, the German solution has Jimbo's support. As far as I'm concerned, you're proposing prolonging the userbox controversy, and all I care about is ending it. Convincing people that userboxes are wrong now has to be done with reason and dialogue. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's only psychologically different to those who understand the situation leading up to it. For everyone else, it will just be another layer of confusion to those who even notice. Also, I'm not trying to prolong the debate, I'm trying to resolve it. From my view, even a prolonged debate with an actual conclusion that did something non-superficial would be better than one that forces a false peace on us. Preferably though, it would not be a prolongation of the current debate, but rather a new debate entirely. However, if Jimbo says, then we should obey, even if I personally disagree. Also, we're stretching out the deletion review with mostly unrelated arguments, so let's end on that note. --tjstrf 09:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment What's wrong with it is, it has nothing to do with building a respectable reliable encyclopedia.

  Somewhere along the line, one policy came to be radically misinterpreted to the detriment of all the others, including the most basic: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If we can't coherently explain what it has to do with furthering the mission - and I don't for one moment buy "disclosure of bias", that is at most an unintended side-effect of the honestly stated goal of self-expression (such that the deletion of a userbox is said to be a "violation of human rights and free speech") - then it shouldn't exist. No, wikipedia is not censored, but it's not a free webhost either. Free speech means you can unashamedly write from a strong point of view. You can cite unreliable sources. You can pursue and disseminate original research. You can be incivil and even make personal attacks. Etc. All those things are a part of our personal freedom and protected self-expression. Wikipedia isn't about freedom or self-expression. Those are burdens that could never be carried by any single enterprise, and really, should they be? At the end of the day, Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia.Timothy Usher 05:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - does anyone else think that maybe it's time this thing just got taken to arbitration? The wheel warring [95] has continued into tonight. This template has been through repeated discussions, arguments, and everything else. Plenty of administrators have made it clear that they have no intention of enforcing the consensus and are going to delete it out of process regardless of what the consensus is. At least if it goes to arbitration, a final decision can be made once and for all and the silly edit warring and wheel warring can stop. BigDT 07:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• No one like wheel warring. It indicates an emotional involvement which can polarise a debate along irrational lines. It also indicates that this userbox has become (possible indirectly) inflammatory. I think this is too early for arbitration, as various viewpoints are still working through the system and almost everyone is still engagng in constructive debate. When the good ideas are all presented, I will support your call for arbitration. Stephen B Streater 09:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete the tfd for keep speaks for itself. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete Either process has some meaning or it doesn't. When userboxes are kept in TfD, and there is no clear policy against them, (T1 is not clearly against relgion userboxes or this one in particular, and T2 is neither consensus nor policy) then admins can not turn around and do as they see fit. When an editor is promoted to admin, they are symbolically given a mop, not a sceptre; this means that they serve us, not rule us. While that means excercising judgement and discretion and not always going along with the crowd, it does not give them license to overrule a clearly-expressed consensus even when that consensus goes against their personal interpretation of Wikipedia's goals. The only way to overrule such a consensus should be to have a clear pronouncement from the office, and I'm sorry, but no such clear pronouncement has come forth. What would such a pronouncement sound like? How about, "Delete all userboxes except _____." Until then, consensus has to come first. Vadder 18:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Count: at this point, 41 (incl. nom.) overturn & undelete; 20 endorse deletion [96] —Ashley Y 16:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• That's on par with the 2/1 split commonly seen with userbox issues. It's not enough to get a concensus, not enough to delete through TfD, and not enough to overturn a speedy. In other words, a mess. --StuffOfInterest 16:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• It seems pretty clear though "If there is neither a majority to endorse the decision nor a three-quarters supermajority to overturn and apply some other result, the article is relisted on the relevant deletion process.", this would indicate sending this to TFD, where a supermajority already endorsed Keep. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm, interesting. Which policy page does that come from as I may like to use it in the future. When you consider that this particular template survived a TfD three days before its deletion the whole situation is just that much more ugly. All in all, in the long term, moving it out to user space probably has a better chance. --StuffOfInterest 16:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Vfu mechanics, though I'm not sure what status that has. —Ashley Y 20:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• And VFU/M is transcluded right at the top of this page. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, Keep deleted, per Sophia et al. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:User organ donor

Speedydeleted by Tony Sidaway on 30 May 2006 stating "T1, blatant campaigning". A borderline case - while this userbox is definity pushing for organ-donation (a good cause in itself) I am not entirely sure if campainging fulfills the T1 criteria. So I'd say Overturn and Relist. Alternativly the text could be changed to "user is a organ donor". CharonX 01:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note: I userified these 3 boxes to CharonX userspace at CharonX's request.... Keep deleted this userbox is advocacy. Organ donation is an admirable thing to advocate (and I have so pledged, and so, dear reader, should you) but it nevertheless is advocacy. For consistency we cannot allow advocacy. Of any sort. ++Lar: t/c 01:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted in accordance with objective of removing all such userboxes from template space. Metamagician3000 02:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per Metamagician.Timothy Usher 02:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Divisive. --Tony Sidaway 03:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Does not fall under T1. —David618 ^t 03:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Can we see the content? (If I don't come back here, undelete if it's just "this user is an organ donor" or "this user is interested in organ donation," but keep deleted if it's more opinionated than that) --Rory096 03:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, keep deleted with no prejudice towards a neutral and solely factual recreation. --Rory096 03:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The content is right above. I restored the last version to userspace as I noted. Did you want to see all the versions??? ++Lar: t/c 03:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Where'd it go? If it got removed it may have been nice to say why, whoever did it. ++Lar: t/c 17:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and send to TfD This is a borderline case, and I feel it merits reconsideration. --Disavian 04:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • After seeing the template, I feel it did not deserve deletion at all. As it is obviously not under T1. --Disavian 05:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per Rory, but unprotect so that a non-divisive version may be created BigDT 04:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Does not fall under any existing speedy-deletion criterion, as it's very clearly not "divisive and inflammatory". Send this to TfD if you think it should be deleted. -Silence 04:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Aw, come on. I rarely get into userbox debates, but can't "This user is an organ donor" satisfy the "no advocacy" requirement? If rewritten, undelete. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• undelete and TFD if you must. not really divisive or inflamitory. Mike McGregor (Can) 05:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: not divisive or inflammatory. —Ashley Y 07:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: A divisive version would state: "This user has arranged for organ donation and is better than you because of it" or "This user has not arranged for organ donation as it would violate their God-given right to remain whole as a corpse". Even if anyone actually considered the addition of "have you?" to the template to be in any way divisive or inflammatory, wouldn't it make more sense to edit those words out rather than outright delete the template? ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 08:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete And remove "have you?" from it. Information only. --mboverload@ 08:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Reword - one should reword the template instead of speedy it. Hunter 09:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: Stop deleting userbox templates (and indeed creating new ones) until a consensus policy is reached, per Jimbo's request of 'one user at a time.' Deleting them, then having a DRV on everyone is just wasting everyone's time. Bastun 10:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per T1: just considering all the screeching and hollering should give people an idea of just how bloody disruptive these damn things can be. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Until or unless a concensus based policy is established. --StuffOfInterest 11:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, valid deletion. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist on ATfD. Not T1 or T2, but non-speedy-deletion criteria are more extensive. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Xanga/Livejournal beckon. --Improv 18:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete now this IS ridiculous.  Grue  20:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: Burn them all, may the internet run binary with the ones and zeros of the fallen boxes! --Bobak 21:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted --pgk^(talk) 21:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and list per nom. Let's see what the community thinks. Septentrionalis 23:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Perfectly valid T1 deletion, say a few words about it on your userpage if you want. Keep your personal preferences out of template space. Rx StrangeLove 02:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Inappropriate use of template space. AnnH ♫ 08:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Recreate in factual format. "This user is an organ donor." --tjstrf 08:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Recreate per Tjstrf Will (^E_@) T 11:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Recreate as a factual box. What's next, Template:User 911?! Jay Maynard 12:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Recreate per Tjstrf, however I do not endorse its speedy deletion - this was borderline and so obviously easy to change to a neutral version that talk page discussion or a TfD debate would have been less devisive than a speedy deletion. Thryduulf 16:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, I can't see what it initially said, but if it was "I am an organ donor", it's stating a fact, not a POV. If a fact is inflammitory, then so would be "This user owns a car" to enviromentalist. Great, I think I just WP:BEANS --Rayc 23:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, you can't prevent offending EVERYBODY. Rob 13:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, you can't prevent offending EVERYBODY.Giovanni33 17:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, you can't prevent offending EVERYBODY. 03:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Userboxes have failed to hold my interest, but I fail to see how this is even remotely divisive. If this template offends you, you probably should turn off your computer right now. Yamaguchi先生 15:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, Keep deleted, how can this possibly help build an Encyclopedia? This is not MySpace. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

2006 June

1. Okashina_Okashi - Decision of the original closer to relist at AfD is endorsed. 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
2. Dismal's Paradox - Relisted at AfD. 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
3. User:SPUI/jajaja - Nomination withdrawn. 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
4. List of political leaders widely regarded as totalitarian - Request for information answered. 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
5. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed. 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
6. Cultural references in Pokémon - Deletion endorsed. 16:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
7. Fluffy (The Lion King) - Deletion endorsed. 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
8. Kelly Roberti - Copyright issue resolved, restored. 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
9. Image:Pierre Janssen.jpg - Commons image, action impossible here. 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Review
10. Neanderthal theory of autism - Deletion endorsed. 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
11. Be bold, Be Bold - Overturn RfD and revert to WP:BOLD. 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
12. Jeff Lindsay - Deletion endorsed. 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
13. "State Debate Associations" - Deletion endorsed. 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
14. How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 - Deletion endorsed. 17:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
15. Kinston Indians - Deletion endorsed. 17:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
16. Wikipedia:SCAG - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
17. Image:Nuvola 64 apps important.png - undeletion impossible; deleted prior to 16 June 2006. 13:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
18. Sick Nick Mondo - Deletion endorsed for now, pending AfD outcome for related Nick Mondo; should that survive, this is a suitable redirect. 18:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review

    Nick Mondo having survived AfD, this is restored as a redirect. 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

19. True Torah Jews - Deletion endorsed. 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
20. UCIP - Deletion endorsed. 18:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
21. Mending Wall - Keep endorsed. 11:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
22. Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) - Deletion endorsed. 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
23. TheSmartMarks.com - Deletion endorsed. 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
24. Dirt pudding - Transwiki and deletion endorsed. 17:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
25. Kirill Makharinsky - Deletion endorsed. 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
26. Armando Lloréns-Sar - History restored, maintained as redirect; merge issues are an editorial concern for article's talk page. 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
27. Hollywood Undead - Deletion endorsed. 17:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
28. Trexy - Closing administrator agreed to relist AFD. 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Review
29. Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak - No consensus closure endorsed. 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
30. Knox (animator) - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
31. Lightsaber combat - Keep closure endorsed. 18:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
32. Stone Trek - Deletion closure endorsed. 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
33. File:944 h.jpg - DRV closed, image in Commons jurisdiction. 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
34. Sadullah Khan - Undeleted, relisted. 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
35. Atromitos - Undeleted. 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
36. Walk To Emmaus - Deletion endorsed. 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
37. Wikipedia:Conservative notice board. Kept deleted. Strong endorsement. 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Review.
38. Lost: The Journey - Relisted. 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
39. User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes and Template:User Gangster - Undeleted. 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
40. The Lost Boys (demogroup) - Relist. 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
41. Second War (Harry Potter) - Deletion endorsed. 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
42. IRCDig - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
43. Saryn Hooks - Undeleted and relisted at AfD. 17:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
44. Template:Major_programming_languages - template content restored 06:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) review
45. Strategic Policy Consulting - Deletion endorsed. 16:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
46. Actuarial Outpost - Kept kept, mistaken nomination. 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
47. Image:WikiPâques.png - Uploaded to Commons, as suggested. 16:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
48. The Esplanade Mall - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 16:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
49. Sydney Ling - AfD result of "no consensus" endorsed. 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
50. Siberian language - Deletion endorsed. 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
51. Burlington Center Mall - Challenge of no consensus afd withdrawn. 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
52. Erik Möller - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
53. theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh - Deletions endorsed. 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
54. Wikipedia:OURS - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
55. 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) - Deletion endorsed. 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
56. Conservative Underground - Deletion endorsed. 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
57. Boring Business Systems - AfD reopened by acclamation. 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
58. Joseph D. Campbell - Previous AfD overturned, to be relisted at AfD. 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
59. Church of Reality - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
60. Heinen's - Result reversed by consensus, AfD now closed as "no consensus". 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
61. BB Sinha - Restored, listed at AfD. 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (deleted at AfD 20:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)) Review
62. Mending Wall - Restored, listed at AfD, closed as keep, brought here again (above). 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
63. Cancer Bats - Restored, to be resubmitted to AfD in light of new evidence. 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
64. Cum On Her Face - Deletion endorsed. 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
65. AlternC - Deletion endorsed. 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
66. Tiffany Holiday - Deletion endorsed. 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
67. Shane Cubis - Deletion endorsed unanimously (excepting discounted anons/newbies.) 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
68. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
69. Big Brother 7 chronology - Deletion endorsed. Will userfy upon request. 15:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
70. Wikimedia Meta-Wiki - action reverted by the closer. AFD reopened. 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
71. The Adventures of Dr. McNinja - Consensus to permit userpage draft as new recreation, will be submitted to AfD. 17:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
72. Cory kennedy - Deletion endorsed. 17:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
73. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics - Kept deleted unanimously. 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
74. Yar - Deletion endorsed without prejudice to unrelated redirect now at title. 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
75. List of midnight movies - Content restored for merge and redirect. 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
76. AK Productions - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
77. FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together - Undeleted and sent to AfD. 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
78. List of tongue-twisters - Deletion endorsed in light of new Wikiquote transwiki. 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
79. User:Raphael1/Wikiethics - Deletion endorsed. 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
80. Roosters1908, Sydneyroosters1909, and Sydneyroosters1910 - Undeleted to be AfD'ed in light of new evidence. 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
81. National Hockey Leaque player lists - Restored speedily and AFD reopened. 08:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
82. User:AKMask/log - Restored (by a narrow margin) to be sent to MfD. 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
83. Male Unbifurcated Garment - Deletion endorsed (again -- Second DRV in two weeks.) 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
84. Penis banding - Deletion endorsed. 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Review
85. Template:User no notability - Deletion narrowly endorsed. (date unavailable, deletion review never archived) Permalink
86. Syed Ahmed - deletion endorsed, redirected to The Apprentice (UK series 2) 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
87. Ho Shin Do - deletion endorsed without prejudice 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
88. Israel News Agency - article content restored 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
89. Delaware County Intermediate Unit - Deletion closure endorsed. 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
90. Steve Bellone - Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
91. Team NoA - Previous version restored, survived AfD as no consensus. 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
92. Springfield M21 - Restored as redirect with history. 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
93. The drips - Speedy deletion contested, overturned; sent to AfD. 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
94. Template:Voting icons - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
95. Ali Zafar - New NPOV recreation permitted. 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
96. Barbara Bauer, The Literary Agency Group and others - Bauer undeleted and kept at AfD; others kept deleted. 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
97. Scienter - deletion overturned. 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
98. Auto repair shop - original speedy deletion endorsed, without prejudice to now-existing distinct redirect at this title. 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
99. Wikipedia v search engines - deletion endorsed unanimously. 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
100. Pat Price - deletion overturned unanimously, no need to relist. 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
101. Talk:Brian Peppers - kept deleted. 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
102. The Juggernaut Bitch - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
103. South Coast League - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
104. Other side of the pillow - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
105. Joel Leyden - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
106. Sharting - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
107. User:Disavian/Userboxes/Green Energy - deletion endorsed, narrowly 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
108. Left-wing terrorism - article history restored 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
109. Stella Maris College Scout Group - deletion endorsed 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
110. List of Michael Savage neologisms - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
111. Superhorse - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
112. Exicornt - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
113. Image:Lock-icon.jpg - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
114. College Confidential - article content restored 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
115. Tim Dingle - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
116. Abstract People - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
117. Christian views of Hanukkah - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
118. Claught of a bird dairy products - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
119. LIP6 - continue from rewritten version 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
120. Hulk 2 - redirected to Hulk (film) for now 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
121. Xombie - article content restored 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
122. Possible wars between liberal democracies speedy-deletion undone by deleting admin. listed to AFD. 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
123. Gary Howell deletion endorsed. 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
124. New Sincerity - deletion endorsed. 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
125. Successful Praying - speedy deletion as copyvio endorsed. 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
126. Videohypertransference - user copy granted. deletion from articlespace endorsed. 20:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
127. Oz Categories 8 endorse, 5 overturn, deletion endorsed. 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Review

Userbox discussions

• Template:User no notability - deletion endorsed, narrowly 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• Template:User organ donor template content restored 17:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian See WP:TGS
• Template:User satanist kept deleted
• Template:User cannabis kept deleted
• Template:User CCP - kept deleted. 00:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User against fox hunting (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW. Massive endorsement.)

Archives

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 May)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 April)

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Steps to list a new deletion review

1.	Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 October 1}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	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 <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 October 1}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 October 1|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

• Endorse the original closing decision; or
• Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
• List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
• Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
• Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

• *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
• *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
• *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
• *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of 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.

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

06 June 2006

Big Brother 7 chronology

Big Brother 7 Chronology (AfD discussion)

This page had more people wanting to keep it then people wanting to delete it. It has been wronlgy deleted by someone who was against the page from its existence. As soon as it was created, this user marked it for deletion. It was wrongly deleted and I campaign for it to be restored... Ellisjm 16:06 UTC 6 June 06

• Overturn: At least have the page there until the series is over and the page can be condensed. --JD^talk_email 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Why was the page deleted? Celestianpower says at the top of the page that the result of the debate was deleted. The results were: 6 for "delete"; 11 for "keep"; 1 for "weak keep" and 1 for "strong delete"!!! I think it's pretty obvious that more people want to keep the page than delete it!! Ellisjm 16:36 UTC 6 June 06

AfD is not a vote. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That may be true, but good reasons for having the page stay were still brought up. Even if only until the end of the series, the page is worth having in peoples' opinions. --JD^talk_email 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. People who wanted the article deleted seem to have more grounds than those who wanted the article kept. — FireFox • 16:44, 06 June '06
• Endorse deletion per FireFox. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Reasons given for deletion were in line with WP policies and guidelines; reasons given for keep were mostly "But I want to keep it" variety. Process was followed, deletion is valid. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn for violation of process. I would have voted "delete", as this does look like non-notable TV cruft, but the result of the debate was no consensus. The keep voters may have been uninformed, but Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators allows only disregarding bad faith votes when establishing consensus, and few such are apparent here. I know of no policy that allows the closing administrator to determine consensus on the basis of which side they agree with. Sandstein 17:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The guidelines say that for example comments made in bad faith may be ignored. In general, the guidelines say admins should use their common sense to determine if a rough consensus exists and should try to remain as objective as possible — they don't provide strict rules for doing this, since no such rule can exists. (Anyway, it's not a "vote".) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and close as no consensus. Neither side had arguments that were all that compelling, and closer was not at all clear as to his/her rationale for the decision. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse- this was a reasonable decision. Possibly the DRV could have been avoided tho, if the closer had given more reasoning about why they closed the way they did. Friday (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, a level of detail far in excess of anything which could possibly be justified by any encyclopaedic purpose. BB7 is more than adequately covered in the main article. This is a fan blog and belongs on a fan site: it is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information.. Just zis Guy you know? 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not meant to be a blog; it's meant to keep the main article small. --JD^talk_email 19:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there some objective measure you're using to make this statement? At what point is it not excessive anymore? Why is detail bad? etc etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm measuring it by the articles for other comparable series. We're a couple of weeks in and already it's longer than many articles on entire series. And this is BB7, not BB1, so it is less notable in the first place. What we have here is a blog, a day-by-day log of events. That's one of the things Wikipedia is not. I have nothing against logging this info at a user subpage for later distillation into an actual article, but speaking as a Brit and part of the target audience this is considerably beyond the defensible encyclopaedic content. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: am I correcting in thinking that people think this article is necessary so that at the end of the show it can be reduced into something encyclopedic? That seems to be what was being said at the AfD, but I just want to verify that before making a decision. Metros232 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That was the plan. --JD^talk_email 19:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Then you should store it somewhere else and repost it when it's encyclopidic. WP isn't a dumping ground for random information. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, then in that case, restore and move to user space. Put it someone's user space so it can be worked on as a future article rather than having it in the mainspace as an actual article. Metros232 19:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Endorse and keep deleted - Wikipedia is not a democracy. The closer based his decision of the strengh of the arguments, not the amount. I agree with User:Friday that the closer should have stated this more clearly. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Per above, restoring to the userspace would also be quite acceptable. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn the result of the discussion was keep and not by a small margin. I completely agree with Ellisjm that the article was wrongly deleted.

-- JAB^[T]_[C] 20:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and Undelete for being out-of-process. --Rob 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak endorse, closure seems to have been within acceptable bounds of discretion. Most of the arguments provided by either side in the debate were rather weak, but some of the arguments for deletion were slightly less weak that the arguments against it. I'm quite willing, however, to userfy the deleted content upon request (a possibility some of the participants in the original debate appear to have been unaware of). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It just makes more sense to have the page in the main Wikipedia area while it exists, because it still has the information that many people may find useful. If that ends up being the only other option, then it may end up happening. But I'm sure you can see what I'm trying to say. --JD^talk_email 23:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem is, if it were in the main namespace it would have to satisfy the Wikipedia policies regarding article content. As it is, it seems to have trouble meeting several, including no original research, reliable sources and several parts of what Wikipedia is not. In short, it is unencyclopedic. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy somewhere by all means but keep deleted per above. Metamagician3000 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. I would rather delete this article but the discussion was at most a "no consensus", not a "delete". --Metropolitan90 02:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:WikiPâques.png

Image:WikiPâques.png was deleted in February on the basis it was an orphan. Well, of course it was an orphan - it was February and the image was an Easter Wikipedia logo, so it'll only be unorphaned when it's Easter. I see no valid reason to delete this. Users may still want it on their user page at Easter. It's also causing red links in older revisions. See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 February 14 for the listing on IfD. There's a copy here if the deletion is overturned and someone wants to reupload it. Angela. 08:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Re-upload to Commons, so any project can use it, and Commons is outside of enwiki's jurisdiction. --Rory096 08:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

National Hockey League player lists

List of every NHL player NHL players A NHL players B NHL players C NHL players D NHL players E NHL players F NHL players G NHL players H NHL players I

NHL players J NHL players K NHL players L NHL players M NHL players N NHL players O NHL players P NHL players Q NHL players R

NHL players S NHL players T NHL players U NHL players V NHL players W NHL players X NHL players Y NHL players Z

Relist. They were improperly speedy deleted out of process for "already have lists of hockey players. don't need two" . Although they were posted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHL players A, I was not given an opportunity to state some reasons as to why they should be kept, such as (briefly):

• They follow Wikipedia:List guideline
• They can be cleaned up. We can remove the external spam links, but add some dates and stats to each entry.
• There are other similar list pages thay list sports players in alphabetical order such as List of retired American football players, List of Major League Baseball players, List of National Basketball Association players, List of English footballers, List of footballers (Rugby Union), etc.
• In fact, there are many, many other lists of people on Wikipedia that are just lists of names in alphabetical order.

Because of these reasons, there is really no basis for speedy deletion -- they were out of process Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, bring the lists back. They were the best way of keeping tabs on hockey player articles so that duplicate articles weren't created and so that disambigs are easier. Masterhatch 07:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Bring them back! This is not link-farming or spamming. Although it's not always 100% accurate, as far as being a simple and comprehensive directory of statistics Hockeydb is the best site I've seen. Criticizing them for having advertisements is absurd -- apart from Wikipedia, almost every other site on the web does too! And like Masterhatch said, the list itself was invaluable for keeping track of NHL player articles. — GT 09:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:EL. Internal links are fine, and an external link to Hockeydb on each individual article is fine, too, but the point of WP lists is not to link to external articles on each of a number of related subjects, and the removal of external links from list articles is very common practice supported by policy and guidelines. As far as the lists themselves are concerned, they would be worth having if there are many redlinks, otherwise I can't see what this adds to a (self-maintaining) category. Just zis Guy you know? 10:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My recollection is that the majority of players who played before last decade do not have articles. That's why these pages were so useful -- you could browse them and see if a player you recognized didn't yet have an article. The nice thing about having the Hockeydb links right there was that you could instantly see the "story" behind each red-linked player as represented by his career statistics (which often tells you as much as you care to know about him). As far as not obeying WP:EL, I disagree as the point of the page was to be a list of players, and the external links served a secondary purpose. — GT 16:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, having the external link right beside each player helped keep people from adding their own name as a vanity article. hockeydb.com is, as far as i know, the most complete list of hockey players and their stats on the net and it because really easy to see if an added name is a vanity article or a real player. Masterhatch 17:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So why not make an infobox template with a parameter for the hockeydb entry? A Wikipedia list with external links (first!) and predominantly redlinks for the internal links is practically begging for deletion. External links are for references in articles. Just zis Guy you know? 19:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What's taking so long to get A through G back? Masterhatch 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I put everything back. Another admin deleted them again. Go talk to him. pschemp | talk 17:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Tagged as A3: article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections); deleted as such (i.e. in-process, as this is a valid speedy criterion). I didn't see any evidence that the deleting admin was aware of this debate.

• I have reopened the AfD and restored the deleted ones, as valid but contested speedy deletions. These are bare lists of links. The list of mainly redlinks may serve a purpose; perhaps it would be better to have these in Project space as part of a wikiproject's work list? Bare lists with no other data are an abomination unto Nuggan and should be shunned into oblivion; if dates and other encyclopaedic information are added then these are defensible (without, obviously, the external links). I have removed the external links to make this less like a mirror of HockeyDB with one or two Wikipedia articles added Just zis Guy you know? 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

05 June 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it or delete it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 19:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja

With respect to the Original Undelete request by me, I have composed the following article in my userspace which meets (as far as I can tell) the requirements of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:Notability, etc.

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja (Userspace draft)

I, do,once again, request request undeletion per original request:

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja, undelete request by PHDrillSergeant. This web comic has grown in poularity since the last time it was deleted through AFD, and although the site's archive has 'only three entries', each of those entries has about 20-40 pages, which adds up to over 100 pages total including the current storyline. This comic is extremely funny and is important, especially one who wishes to know more about this odd character and his adventures. I think this comic should get another chance. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 23:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 21:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Is there any evidence that it has grown significantly in popularity? The Alexa rating is five digits, and a quick scan of Google turns up lots of self- and friend-promotion, but not much analysis or commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question Has there been any stories, interviews, or other coverage in mainstream or semi-mainstream press (not counting simple lists of webcomics)? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• What has changed since deletion? As noted above, the fundamental problem was a lack of evident encyclopaedic notability. Just zis Guy you know? 10:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
    • The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
      • WebComicList (a non-trivial published site that is independent of the site itself) has its own article, stated in the external links section. The web comic has ablso been the subject of debate on multiple community-based forums, such as eBaum's World Forums, SNAFU Comics Forums, and VG Cats Forums. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 17:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
        • That article on WebComicList is one sentence, as part of a list of webcomics. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, then, since this is a single trivial reference rather than multiple non-trivial references. We have no deadline to meet, we can afford to wait until it is genuinely notable and has atracted enough external attention to allow a verifiably neutral article to be written. Just zis Guy you know? 16:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Categorical undelete. This article has had very poor defense in the past. I did not see it mentioned that Dr. McNinja is a member of Dayfree Press, a very well-known collective in the webcomics community and therefore a peer to heavyweights such as Questionable Content and Dinosaur Comics. It has been brought up on the talk page that extreme bias has been built up against this article because of its rocky faring in the past. I would point out that there is no shame in accepting it now -- it does not undermine Wikipedia or any of the users who have criticized it; rather, it is a testament to our sometimes rigorous standards. It is now due time to recognize this professional-level webcomic, as anyone vaguely familiar with this online community must know of its near meteoric rise. Let's not be reactionary or snobbish; much lesser topics have their due recognition already. --BDD 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I was unaware that this comic was under Dayfree Press, yet this information seems to strengthen my resolve even more. Remember: if you can read it, if you can comprehend it, if you can learn from it...it isn't trivial. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 22:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I seem to remember (though I can't find the proper documentation, and it's possible that this was changed) a policy that members of the most prominent webcomic collectives merited articles. It's a sound policy. --BDD 00:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I'm the one who locked McNinja down as a {{deletedpage}}, but I agree with BDD. We may want to table this until the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards come out next month. I think there's a good chance McNinja will win one, and if it does, there won't be any question it will have met WP:WEB. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: I havn't read much of it, but I have seen references to it in other webcomics such as Bunny [97]. Also undelete per Abe. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Definitely notable per talk of deleted page.--Eloquence* 11:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Cory kennedy

My article on Cory kennedy was deleted via speedy deletion. I think this was a wrong move. Cory Kennedy is a becoming a huge internet phenenomenon. She has found a cult following on myspace, livejournal, and the cobra snake - as well as a place in current pop culture. This is the digital age. People are going to be looking her up. There is no reason for this article to have been deleted. This site should provide the most information possible - even about "internet celebrities." In fact, internet phenenomenons are particularly relevent on wikipedia because this IS the internet! I am requesting that this article be placed back up. I put in quite a bit of useful, accurate information about a person who is becoming very well known on the internet. Cory was also recently featured in Nylon magazine. Please review this. ~user:sleepyasthesouth

• Endorse speedy - As the deleting admin, it looked to be a nn-bio. The references were not reliable sources (blogs and livejournal). I deleted it first on a csd placed by another editor, then as a recreation (sleepyasthesouth recreated it including the notability and csd tags) and salted the earth. Syrthiss 12:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per Syrthiss. From the speedy tag: "it is an article about a person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)" There is no evidence that The Cobra Snake is itself a notable website, or that the parties she attends are notable, so all the more there cannot be evidence that she is notable for being on The Cobra Snake or for attending parties. Johnleemk | Talk 12:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• ADD-ON : I now understand why is was deleted. However, Isn't Cory Kennedy notable for suddenly having so many "fans" and finding herself all over the internet so quickly? What would qualify as a notable source? Would her feature in Nylon magazine qualify? Even if the information in the wikipedia article did not contain more than what is provided in the Nylon article? ~user:sleepyasthesouth
• Undelete and list on AfD As a contested speedy and the presence in Nylon constitutes a minimal claim to notability. JoshuaZ 16:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse / keep deleted As far as "internet phenomenon" qualifications go, I get 207 unique Google hits and the vast majority of those seem to be about other people by that name, among them a male bodybuilder, a soccer player, a congressional staff member, and a volleyball player. If she's an internet phenomenon, the internet doesn't really seem to be aware of that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Cory has only recently exploded on the internet over the past few weeks and it has been almost entirely on myspace, blogs and livejournal - places that will not really end up in google. A community was made for her on livejournal and in just over a week there are already over 200 members.
    However, if that's the final word - fine. I imagine soon she'll be on the site because her popularity seems to be only increasing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.205.176 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Above comment is misinformed. Those sites are very heavily indexed by google. Fan1967 18:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • comment A lot of absolute bullshit is heavily indexed by google, too. Being indexed by google doesn't make something a reliable source. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment I'm aware of that. However, the anon was trying to argue there was more attention being paid to this person in myspace and such sites that google wouldn't pick up. Google picks up pretty much everything there, so there's no hidden trove of notability. Fan1967 20:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, I typed that early this morning, apparently before things started to make sense. Reading it now, yes, you're right. I agree that if google can't see you; you aren't much of an internet phenomenon.
• Endorse deletion, quite blatantly there are no reliable sources for this. And 'contested speedy' is not a reason to restore (unlike contested PROD). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Well, I think the article definitely should have been deleted, however, I do not believe that it met the deliberately narrow speedy deletion criteria. I believe quite strongly that Sam is incorrect. A speedy-deletion that is contested in good faith is to be immediately restored and listed to AFD. That was a requirement set up when the speedy-deletion process was first established. Much as I hate to be a process wonk, we have to keep our own process creep under control. Overturn speedy and list to AFD. Being unsourced may be a deletion criteria but it is not a speedy-deletion criterion. Rossami (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you mind telling me where it says that contested speedy deletions get automatically sent to AfD, Rossami? Because I've never heard that, there's nothing in any of the obvious places saying that (e.g. next to the section on contested WP:PRODs on this very page), and if it ever was true, the widespread acceptance of WP:SNOW appears to contradict it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:CSD:A7 says "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead.". Also WP:SNOW has the text "If an issue raises no controversy, and ...", and therefor can't be used in disputed or controversial cases. --Rob 23:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Though I think that practically, the bar for 'disputed' there is significantly higher than for PRODs. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Widespread acceptance? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. There's no sourced claim of notability. Hence, CSD A7. The recourse for contested speedy deletions is this page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Valid speedy A7, and stands no chance whatsoever at AfD Just zis Guy you know? 21:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You can see the future here? WP:SNOW is never appropriate, specifically in a discussion about a speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yup, I can see the future fairly accurately here. Articles on vapid pseudo-celebrities with no objective claim to notability get daleted almost without exception. Most likely it would be tagged and speedied as A7 almost immediately it was listed. Somewhere I have a postcard with a picture of Michael Fish and the caption"I Predict The Future: Weatherman's Amazing Claim"... Just zis Guy you know? 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion sort of reluctantly. Rossami and Thieverr are quite right that this wasn't a good choice for speedy deletion, and for a dozen reasons it's better to err on the side of AfD - worst thing that happens is someone speedies it from there anyway. But... I dunno. These darn internet meme and internet meme wannabe articles are such pains, because there tends to be a crowd willing to stonewall against policy on them every time, and then we end up back at DRV. It would never be kept by a proper AfD, but it probably won't ever see one either, so it's best to keep it dead once it's dead. If the girl actually sticks around, there'll be media, and you can rewrite the article about her then. Does it really hurt that much if the interweb's flavor of the month doesn't automatically get a Wikipedia article? There's something to be said for standards. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per others and per WP:SNOW.
• Endorse deletion: Websites generate huge numbers for anything and everything, but it would be very wrong to call these numbers "fans." Further, it's all about the effect on the recorded world, the verifiable world. Anything that vanishes when the power goes out is less reliable than anything that needs a flood to destroy it. Geogre 13:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics

User:Thebainer requested me to file this request below. The article has been speedied, because User:Rgulerdem allegedly edited it after he was indefinitely banned. Even if that allegation is correct, WP:CSD G5 only allows pages to be speedied, if they were created by banned users while they were banned. Irregular edits can easily be reverted instead. Raphael1 12:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Pointless rulelawyering is the only reason given to undelete, and does not address the original reason this page was tagged with the speedy tag: "rejected 'policy'. This page has become a permanently banned user magnet, please review history." (Oh, and did anyone mention that essentially the same page already exists at Wikipedia:Wikiethics?) Johnleemk | Talk 12:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know of any policy, which prohibits to copy a rejected policy to user space. Any why do you care so much, whether permanently banned users edit on a user space page? Would you rather want them to edit Wikipedia:Wikiethics? Raphael1 13:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Because userpages don't belong to users. Johnleemk | Talk 13:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • That's a non sequitur. I've never stated, that User:Rgulerdem or myself owned that page. Raphael1 13:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, a permanently banned user coming back to edit on a page in the previous user space accorded him is bad. This is not an allegation but indeed was what occurred as User:Rgulerdem again used an IP address or two that started with 216. which was previously reported on the RFCU confirming his sockpuppetry and left editorial commentary corresponding to his use of IP addresses as he returned to edit. Better that the page be kept deleted to discourage the return of the banned editor. Netscott 13:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question - what's the actual argument for this page's existence? Does it help bulid the encyclopedia? -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This page has been created to work on the prematurely polled proposal (5 days after the first draft has been created). Its location in user space has been suggested by User:Johntex to avoid controversy with opposing parties.[98] Raphael1 13:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well now that User:Rgulerdem is banned, the logic necessitating his usage of a subpage is no longer applicable. Regardless, he did come back via an anon IP address to edit on it and that's reason enough alone to delete it and keep it deleted. Netscott 14:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • As you know, I'd like to take over Rgulerdems work. What's your problem with that? Raphael1 16:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • My problem is that you are setting yourself up to act as a proxy to edit for a banned editor. This is bad. Netscott 17:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Netscott, at this point, how do you distinguish Raphael1's own ideas from ideas that are a banned editor's by proxy? Can nobody ever propose a similar policy, now that whatsisname is banned? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
            • GTBacchus, thank you for expressing your concerns. I have one question. Have you been following the discussion occurring on the Wikipedia mailing-list WikiEn-I? If you had you would instantly know that User:Raphael1 is acting as a proxy for User:Rgulerdem (particularly when Raphael1 started Resid Gulerdem's now G5 speedy deleted WP:OURS proposal). That is why I have proxy concerns. Banned editors should not have proxies working on their behalf, or am I wrong in making that statement? Netscott 20:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
              • I haven't been following WikiEn-I. I've never actually figured out how to subscribe to that. Nevertheless, I was pretty much aware that Raphael was trying to run with Rgulerdem's ideas. I guess what you're telling me is that there's no question that Raphael isn't acting based on his own initiative at all, but just acting for Rgulerdem, end of story. I don't know how you know that, but I'm willing to take your word for it. I also confess to not really getting what they're driving at with this proposed policy, but I guess it's neither here nor there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am Sam, Sam I am.

I do not like this censor sham.

Keep deleted in user space.

Keep deleted in any place.

Keep deleted from the socks.

Keep deleted says userbox.

Keep deleted here or there,

Keep deleted anywhere. --Dr. Blanning 16:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious. Kotepho 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Unsure why do we need a copy of this in User: and Wikipedia:? why is this so harmful or worthless that it must be deleted? Kotepho 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • May I congratulate you on your instincts? You've definitely asked the right question: "Why is this so harmful or worthless that it must be deleted?" Nobody here will be able to answer that question, because it's neither harmful nor is it worthless (at least not any more worthless, than most other stuff lying around in user space). Raphael1 02:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Sam I Am. --Cyde↔Weys 20:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. How many copies of a comprehensively rejected proposal do we need? Just zis Guy you know? 21:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment What exactly did the proposal contain in the first place? Even if it's already been voted down, couldn't it be kept and tagged as a rejected proposal or some such? --tjstrf 02:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Isn't that at Wikipedia:Wikiethics already? --Rory096 06:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and stop flogging a dead horse. Metamagician3000 06:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Nuke from orbit. Raphael has been openly communicating with a banned user on wikipedia-en-l to continue said banned editors interests. Shell babelfish 14:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, we don't need a banned user's disruptive attempt at policy-making resurrected in anybody's userspace. —Stormie 21:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Rgulerdem forfeited his user space when he got himself blocked. Many people warned him to stop wasting other people's time pushing this proposal. Rhobite 21:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Banned user. Unwelcome. Big Blue Marble 01:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

04 June 2006

List of midnight movies

This article was tagged for speedy deletion as "patent nonsense," which I felt was unjustified. I placed a "hangon" tag on the article, and stated my reasoning on the article's talk page. I was going to list it on AfD and propose that it be merged with the main Midnight Movies article. I never got the opportunity to do so, however, since the article was, and I think rather precipitously, deleted. I propose, therefore, that the speedy deletion be reversed, the article be listed on AfD and suggest it's merger as stated above. ---Charles 03:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• The article was tagged for speedy deletion with that reason. I agree that it was not patent nonsense in the very specific and narrow way that we use the term here on Wikipedia. It the actual reason given for the deletion, however, was "WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information". Unfortunately, that is not an accepted criteria for speedy-deletion. I see little redeeming value to this list but as a procedural matter, it should have been AFD'd, not speedy-deleted. Rossami (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, undelete and send to AfD. No legitimate speedy reason given. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undeleted without prejudice, if someone wants to send this to AFD they can (obviously). --Cyde↔Weys 13:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• I have carried out a rough merger and redirect, which seems the best fate for the list's content. Xoloz 23:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yar

I would appreciate opinions/education on the deletion of Yar. I understand the Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, it would seem that certain concepts, which may be expressed in a single word, have some merit to their explanation. For a very similar use-case, see Gemütlichkeit. Thanks. --Incarnate

• Endorse deletion. Certainly, there is merit to there explanation of a word. That's what a dictionary is for. There was nothing in any version of this page that even attempted to be more than a definition. Please try creating it at Wiktionary.
  I'll note, however, that this particular word doesn't actually appear in any dictionary I could quickly put my hands on. (Merriam Webster had an entry as a variant spelling of "yare" but the definition given has nothing to do with any of the definitions on the deleted page.) Be prepared to offer some verifiable sources for the alleged definitions when you do so. Rossami (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks much for the clarification. I was uncertain of where the line might exist between the definition of a "word" and the definition of a "concept" (ie, definition of the word "cottage" versus a cottage) Additionally, the original article was based on my own experience, which is probably a better reason for deletion per the standards of articles (which I do support). Formal definitions are virtually nonexistent, only cropping up occasionally in film or TV as a truncated reference to boating. I'll give up and leave it be, thanks again for the appraisal. Incarnate 03:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, if you take it to Wiktionary be sure to give some evidence of attestation. One mention in The Simpsons does not make a valid yachting term. Maybe it's US-specific and that's why I have never heard it (I have many yachting friends including one who recently returned from sailing run d the world and another who teaches yachtmasters but they are all British). Just zis Guy you know? 08:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, with no prejudice against recreation if it can be made into something more than a dicdef. Apparently there is a real nautical term to be found under all the noise (see [99] and [100]) — however, that in itself makes it eligible for Wiktionary, not for Wikipedia. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. Dicdef. It's a real nautical word (may be spelled yar or yare), figures heavily in a section of dialog from The Philadelphia Story ([101]), but there's not much else to say about it. Fan1967 15:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• I've been bold and recreated this as a redirect to Tasha Yar, Denise Crosby's infamous Star Trek: The Next Generation character. Xoloz 18:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The Skin of Evil would be proud! Syrthiss 19:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

AK Productions

AK Productions was deleted suddenly and for know told reason. I believe that AK Productions should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia, sure it is a young company but still exists. I would like the article to be restored or for a reason to be given for it's overnight deletion. Comrade_Kale 2:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Mere existence is insufficient reason to justify a Wikipedia article. There appear to be a number of companies out there by that name. Which one is yours? Fan1967 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid A7. --Rory096 20:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• The opening sentence of this page read "AK Productions, is a recently created Production Company operating out of Waterville High School in New York State. Founded by Kale Carter, Brendan Carter, Olin Carlsen and Andrew Desimone in late May of 2006". It probably did not fit the deliberately narrow speedy-deletion criteria but if it had gone to AFD, it would have been measured against the standards of WP:CORP. From the information available, I don't see any chance that it would have succeeded in that discussion. I can not endorse the speedy-deletion but neither can I support it's undeletion without at least a little bit of evidence that this is appropriate to the encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• In other words, when I asked which of the many googleable "AK Productions" this was, the answer is "None of them". Endorse Deletion. Fan1967 22:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: We get a ton of buddy articles from youngsters. Simply put, they need to be real before they can even go to AfD, IMO. If something is just three kids announcing that they are now a corporation (or rock band, or rap group, or game faction, or gang), then it's true A7. The kick is the "formed in 2006" and "recently." We need to have things generate effects on the world before anyone will need them explained. Geogre 13:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AK Productions, is a recently created Production Company operating out of Waterville High School in New York State. And the article was created and edited solely by the people named in the article. A textbook case of WP:NFT. Just zis Guy you know? 15:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together

FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together was deleted as not notable. I think it is notable, given the press coverage listed under "References" and the people behind it, and I would like the article to be restored. TruthbringerToronto 11:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete; seems to be notable (albeit with less than 1000 google hits). &#0151; JEREMY 15:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't find an AfD on this one. The AfD article that exists (here) was just created by TruthbringerToronto as a mistaken attempt to launch the DRV. How was it originally deleted? Fan1967 16:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and AFD as a contested A7 speedy deletion. --Allen3 ^talk 17:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist if it was a contested speedy, though I'm inclined to suspect there will still be a consensus to delete. (Google cache of article is here). Fan1967 17:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Speedy deletion is not prod, you can't just contest it and force it to AfD. This has 11 Google hits. Most of those "articles" are on the group's site! --Rory096 20:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I get about 700 by looking for variations, which IMO gets over speediable territory, but probably still fails AFD consensus. Fan1967 21:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Doubtful that's more than A7, I get that many hits (and I was speedied, and quite justifiably so). --Rory096 21:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, speedy-deletion is exactly like prod in that regard. By policy and long tradition, any speedy-deletion which is contested in good faith is immediately undeleted and listed on AFD. That was one of the requirements set up when the speedy-deletion process was first approved. Rossami (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmm, so why do we even have things like {{hangon}}? --Rory096 06:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• AfD it due to possible WP:V violation as well as a name that doesn't follow naming converntions. Likely an article by an inexperienced or new user due to the use of an abrreviation in the title, which gives an idea of the quality. I can't say without reading it, so relaunch it for afd.-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 01:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Notable cause which deserves as much support as possible. Karnei 18:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So is it notable, or does it deserve support? If just the latter, that's not a valid reason to undelete. If the former, how is it notable? --Rory096 06:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

List of tongue-twisters

I listed the article for deletion on 17 April. The consensus was to either keep, or move to Wikibooks. The article was transwikied on 29 May by User:theProject, and subsequently deleted by User:Tijuana Brass. However, it was proclaimed unsuitable for Wikibooks and deleted from there by b:User:Jguk. As the alternative to transwiki was keep, and transwikiing failed, we should restore it. Rain74 11:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Since it's on Wikiquote now, keep deleted (I hope they'll accept it). Rain74 18:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Reinstate and relist. I will vote delete on AfD. Just zis Guy you know? 12:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  Keep deleted since it's at Wikiquote now, which seems like a much better place. Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Reinstate and relist - makes sense in the circs. keep deleted given the new information available Metamagician3000 12:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Suggestion why not move it to the Department of Fun? Sophia 12:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted no point in duplicating as it's at Wikiquote now. Sophia 05:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, the afd was pretty clear that this should be kept somewhere. After undeletion transwiki discussions should continue. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Changed to endorse.
  • • Endorse deletion as this has been transwiki'd in line with the AFD. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It has been. Please check the Transwiki log more carefully. Also, just because one wiki doesn't want it doesn't mean we must keep it. -Splash - tk 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Posting the result of the transwiki log was helpful here, implying that I was required to search that backloged page is not helpful, I assumed good faith in the nominator. Just because one wiki doesn't want it certainly doesn't mean we should give it safe haven, but the afd was clear that it should be transwikid or kept, not transwiki'd or deleted. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete don't know why it was deleted in the first place, because it was one of the better lists on Wikipedia. Promote to featured after undeletion.  Grue  12:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist: I'd prefer that conjunctive votes get clear on the matter. Yes, it will probably be kept, but I should like AfD to speak clearly. Geogre 13:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted in light of information that the thing was transwiki'd. If there has been a transwiki, then this is a no-brainer (and pretty much an invalid review), as duplicate material is forbidden. If the authors don't want it on Wikiquote, then that's sort of too bad, as authors are no more priviledged than readers at Wikipedia. Geogre 22:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It did. It was transwikied, rejected at it's target, and now transwiki'd elsewhere. -Splash - tk 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Splash. I took the deletion summary and his comment on WT:DRV too literally and did not realize it was already moved to Wikiquote. Kotepho 21:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Undelete/Transwiki to wikiquote, this is just silly. Kotepho 19:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• No, no, no. People should do there research first. It's been transwiki'd to Wikiquote. See q:Transwiki:List of tongue-twisters. Wikipedia didn't want it, and neither did Wikibooks. That is no reason to restore it here. You don't get some kind of free pass into Wikipedia just because noone else wants it! Anyway, it's been transwiki'd elsewhere. That's all that's needed. -Splash - tk 20:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme keep deleted. Just because wikibooks doesn't want something doesn't mean we have to keep it. And I totally agree with Splash. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Splash. The AfD debate did show a strong consensus that the content be kept somewhere, but now that it's on Wikiquote, there's no reason to keep it here. (I've notified all the people who voted before Splash's comment and asked them to revise or confirm their vote in light of it. Sorry for the spam.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems my spamming was actually redundant. Doubly sorry. *embarrassed* —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Helped me, actually, as I was crossing this one off my internal list. Geogre 03:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, as the desired outcome (keeping the content elsewhere) has been reached. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the VfD in question has a consensus to keep. Most users voted for keep as a primary solution and transwiki as a secondary. The VfD was closed inproperly. There were no delete votes. The decision should be overturned.  Grue  09:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, my closure did use a modicum of discretion, but isn't it a leap to improper? Kotepho 20:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Your closure was valid, in my book: more than one person pointed out that the list is inherently unverifiable (i.e. unsuitable for Wikipedia) and most offered Transwiki as a valid outcome, which it seems to me to be. Status quo appears to be reasonable. Just zis Guy you know? 15:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• undelete, but remove the non-English tongue twisters and have interwiki links to the other languages for their tongue twisters. Masterhatch 18:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Raphael1/Wikiethics

This page got deleted for the following reason: "can't have copy & paste moves of deleted pages - GFDL requires the history"

I've copied the page from User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics (before it was removed) and pasted it to User:Raphael1/Wikiethics. I didn't know how I could have copied the history of this article as well and certainly didn't want to violate GFDL. Please restore that page together with the history of User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics to make it compliant with GFDL. Raphael1 00:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse. Anyway, Rgulerdem is banned, and it was a fair deletion that time. Will (^E_@) T 01:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It was removed, because it has been in the userspace of an indef-banned user. I am not banned, therefore User:Raphael1/Wikiethics can't be removed for the same reason. Raphael1 01:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It's CSD G4 and possibly G5 Will (^E_@) T 01:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • It's neither G4, because it hasn't been recreated, instead it has been copied before deletion (besides G4 doesn't apply for user space pages), nor is it G5 (because I'm not banned). Raphael1 01:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
        • It's a recreation. The G4 exception for user space is supposed to be for articles undeleted at a user's request, not for recreation of deleted content that was originally in the user namespace. Will (^E_@) T 01:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
          • It's not a recreation. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics has been removed on the 2006-05-31 and I've copied the page before that date. BTW please restore User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics as well since G5 only applies for pages created by banned users while they were banned. Raphael1 01:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. This "policy" has been the source of highly contentious and disruptive editing and User:Raphael1's user page is just an unecessary copy of the rejected Wikipedia:Wikiethics that is likely to do the same as User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics which is to encourage banned editors to use sockpuppets or anonymous IPs to circumvent their block to edit on Wikipedia. Netscott 09:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Whether you deem my copy to be "unnecessary" is certainly no part of WP:CSD. Furthermore did User:Raphael1/Wikiethics with no syllable encourage banned editors to circumvent their block. I wonder, where you got that from? Raphael1 14:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well this MfD for User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics is what relates to my mentioning banned and sockpuppet users. I'm curious Raphael1, why did you actually save a copy of permanently banned user User:Rgulerdem's page? I understand that as Wikipedia editors we are to assume good faith in the editing of our fellow contributors but was the reason you saved a copy because you noticed that as a banned editor Resid Gulerdem was editing on it and figured that it'd be deleted and to disrupt that process you decided to save a copy? It seems so odd to me that you should have just happened to save a copy of his user page version just prior to its deletion. Netscott 19:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: the article itself isn't banned, just one of the originating editors. Netscott, why is it a problem for Raphael1 to have a userspace copy (I assume a developmental version, like User:Jeremygbyrne/Roger Elwood or User:Jeremygbyrne/Brontosaurus) of an article? &#0151; JEREMY 15:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note - this vote was gained through advertisement.[102]Timothy Usher 17:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Jeremy, it's all a question of good faith. I didn't request deletion or even mention the existence of Raphael1's user page copy of permanently banned User:Rgulerdem's user page to anyone (despite misgivings about seeing him copy it just prior to its deletion) but someone else from the WikiEn-I mailing list appears to have seen mention of it by Raphael1 there and decided independently to delete it. Now that the act is done I support it for the reasons I expressed above. I would recommend the both of you to disassociate yourselves from Resid Gulerdem for anyone editing in support of him is likely to have his or her own reputation tarnished as he was not only disruptive here but in a completely independent fashion was repeatedly disruptive and blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia. Resid Gulerdem is just bad for Wikipedia. Netscott 19:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't understand your "good faith" argument. It's obvious that most material which is about to be deleted will continue to exist elsewhere — in google's cache for example. Raphael1 could have taken a copy of the article offsite and done to it whatever he chose, in the privacy of his own home. Instead, he chose to keep it on wikipedia (which looks like good faith to me), and he has suffered for it. Next time, do you think he will be more or less inclined to act in secrecy? &#0151; JEREMY 10:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • The preceding user's comments were solicited through targetted advertisement[103].Timothy Usher 10:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • No need to persist with your well-poisoning, Timothy. Most people understood your accusation the first time. &#0151; JEREMY 10:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
            • I did understand User:Timothy Usher's statement of fact the first time and also saw it as an attempt by User:Raphael1 to "game the system", but do agree that it's a bit silly to repeat such a statement. ;-) Netscott 11:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Suffered? Where's the suffering? The only ones suffereing are those having to spend time dealing with this nonsense. Let's face it Jeremy, Raphael1's actions were to thwart in a disruptive fashion the virtually assured deletion of Resid Gulerdem's user page. Is that not so difficult to understand? Regardless as bainer's comment below illustrates, Raphael1 shouldn't be trying to resurrect his own copy of Resid Gulerdem's final version of "Wikiethics" but in fact should be trying to resurrect Resid Gulerdem's (rightly imho) deleted user page. Netscott 10:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Raphael1's actions were to thwart in a disruptive fashion And you foresaw this via which divinatory or telepathic methodology, exactly? It would seem far more likely that Raphael1 took a copy to preserve relevant material for a future proposal. Your refusal to assume good faith (or at least not to assume the first bad faith interpretation that springs to mind) is troubling. This is yet another example of flawed rules-lawyering supported by the tyranny of the majority. Raphael1's editing may frustrate some people, but the way he has been treated is disgraceful. &#0151; JEREMY 11:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
              • The plea to "rules lawyering" is rather lame, can't you do better than use that argumentation device? Honestly, Raphael1 like myself and User:Metros232 saw that the permanently banned editor User:Rgulerdem was editing via IP addresses on his failed Wikiethics proposal and realized (again rightly so) that it was likely to be deleted because of that and to thwart such a deletion he saved a copy. Raphael1 wasn't involved in editing on that policy since it was last worked on over at Wikipedia:Wikiethics. Does it not strike either of you as foolish to be here wasting our time discussing the saving of a policy that was founded by a demonstrably disruptive editor? It's as if you're here trying to defend a banned user's right to continue to make policy on Wikipedia even when he's blocked. The only reason I can see for this is because "it's a cause!". You know if Resid Gulerdem had only been blocked on the English Wikipedia I might understand better those wanting to defend him and his ridiculous policy but the fact that he's been independently repetitively blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia makes me sooner see such individuals as foolish. Netscott 11:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
                • Firstly I have not seen User:Rgulerdem editing on User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics via IP addresses, and secondly I have been editing User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics before it was removed. Raphael1 12:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
                  • Raphael1, why did you think his user page was going to be deleted then? If the user page had just sat there no one's attention would have been brought to it, but this is not what occurred. Netscott 12:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
                    • Don't you first want to apologize for your wrong claims before you ask any further questions? Raphael1 13:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
                      • No, due to my witnessing your previous demonstrations of a lack of good faith I'm inclined to view this as another example of the same. Netscott 14:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse~. Per Netscott's above comments -- Karl Meier 17:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Netscott.Timothy Usher 17:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Wikipedia:Wikiethics still exists if you want to go edit that. What you did by copy and pasting it into your own user space was done only to get around the fact that it was about to be deleted it. That is, in an ironic way, unethical. I also frown up the nominating user for the advertising of this discussion [104], [105], [106], etc. 6 advertisements in total. Metros232 17:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I've got no supernatural skill to see the future. How could I have acted upon a "fact", which still lied ahead? Raphael1 17:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Why did you copy and paste it to yours then? If you didn't think it was going to be deleted, why did you need a copy of your own instead of just editing the one that existed at Rgulerdem's user page? Why did you think that two needed to exist? Metros232 17:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed I did suspect, that it might get deleted in the future, but I certainly didn't know about that. I still don't see, how it is in any way unethical to take over the work of an indef-banned user. Besides User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics shouldn't have been removed as well since G5 only applies for pages created by banned users while they were banned. Raphael1 19:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, copy of a previously rejected attempt at censorship. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted since this was proposed at Wikipedia:Wikiethics and solidly rejected I see no particular merit in keeping it hanging around in user space in a form which (at first glance) looks to be even less acceptable. Just zis Guy you know? 22:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not going to endorse or overturn my own deletion, though I will say to Raphael1 that if he wants the content, he needs to hold a DRV on the original page (User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics) because copy & pasted pages cannot possibly exist when the original page is deleted. --bainer (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've read through this deletion review, and what I'm missing is any argument for why this page should exist. Why maintain a copy of a rejected policy written by a banned user? How does it help write the encyclopedia? -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I wonder, why you even ask that question. Shouldn't you rather ask, why should that page be removed? Nevertheless I will answer your question: Rgulerdem and some other editors worked on this former prematurely rejected policy in userspace to avoid controversy with opposing parties. I'd like to continue Rgulerdems work, which is why I've created a copy. Raphael1 16:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I think it's pretty clear from reading this discussion that it's being removed because it's the work of a banned editor, and seems to be a sore spot for a lot of people. At that point, the ball's back in your court - if so many Wiki regulars are against it, what's so great about it to make it worth the static you incur by recreating it? I've asked a more pertinent question at your talk page. If your goal is to improve Wikipedia, a bad way to start is by pissing a bunch of people off by acting as proxy for a banned user, practically speaking. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I can't believe, that you are repeating Netscotts accusation ("proxy editing"). I consider this a personal attack, since it completely disregards my individuality. What's so bad about the work of this banned editor, that it needs to be removed? Will you remove Interfaith as well, because it's mostly his work? IMHO this whole agitation to delete User:Rgulerdems work and keep it deleted, is a clear sign, that Rgulerdem hasn't been blocked for his behaviour, but for the position he has taken on various topics. Raphael1 02:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

        I don't enter the conversation just assuming that Netscott is lying; why not trust that I'm taking his word in, whadyecallit... good faith? So you say you're not being his proxy. I don't have any evidence to say which of you is right. I know basically nothing about Rgulerdem. I still think you're running into a lot of static, and would probably try a different approach, if I were in your position, and if I were more interested in results than in drama. You choose your battles - is it more important to you to influence Wikipedia in a positive direction, or to do it using this particular guy's words? There's reasons to stand on principle, and there's reasons not to. You can probably cause a big scene, if you set your mind to it, but that'll poison the policy you're talking about in the community's eyes even more. Have you noticed some pretty stiff opposition to this policy? If I were you, I'd be sitting back from this DRV and trying to start some conversations about what's so incompatible between this proposal of yours and the current state of Wikipedia - you haven't replied to my post on your talk page where I'd love to have that conversation with you, if you're down to have it. Come on, don't knock your head against this wall, it won't move. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - I have done a little work on this proposal and having a record of it is helpful in case anyone decides to work on it in the future. Also, as a comment to the closing admin, despite insinuations to the contrary, advertising a deletion reveiw is not a violation of any policy. Johntex\^talk 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It violates the spam guidelines: "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view."Timothy Usher 23:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted once and for all. Metamagician3000 06:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, we don't need a banned user's disruptive attempt at policy-making resurrected in anybody's userspace. —Stormie 21:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Meatpuppet of a banned user. Unwelcome. Big Blue Marble 02:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

03 June 2006

Sydney Roosters Season articles

Three articles I created simultaneously, that being Roosters1908; SydneyRoosters1909; and SydneyRoosters1910 were deleted in the last few days. The Sydneyroosters1909 article held a debate for the deletion while I had only added little content to the page, the article was then up for deletion before I had done any updates. While the debate took place I continued doing the updates, as seen in the discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sydneyroosters1909

I have plead my case to show that there are updates coming and its justification of existence.

I had also created a fourth article, however this was later and I must add that I created the page before the others were deleted. The fourth article; Sydney Roosters 1911 Season was created and included the updates I had promised with the 3 previous articles.

However when this article was put to debate re: deletion, the general consensus so far has been to keep the article based on the argument brought forward by Athenaeum who states; 'Wikipedia is an almanac. It says so in the first sentence of Wikipedia:What is an article. This is verifiable real world information. It is not indiscrimate, and deleting it would do some harm and absolutely no good. Wikipedia is a free reference resource and this is mainstream reference material.'

Considering the 3 previous articles were exact replicas in structure to the Sydney Roosters 1911 Season only differing in factual content, I propose that if the outcome of the debate be to keep the Sydney Roosters 1911 Season that the 3 previous articles be restored as this argument brought forward by Athenaeum was not put forward re: the debate of the other 3 articles.Sbryce858 07:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and relist at the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Roosters 1911 Season, where consensus now appears to favor keeping that sort of content. This will ensure a more-or-less coherent decision. Sandstein 22:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist - perhaps it was closed properly, but this is very likely good encyclopedic content. The team concerned has long been a major force in the NSW league. Let's see how it goes this time. Metamagician3000 09:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User:AKMask/log

April Fools Day this year included a minor invasion of the GNAA IRC chat by members of wikipedia crapflooding with very informative information about Keynesian economics. Deleted with the note of Privacy Violation. Note the GNAA has no rules against logging the chats, and infact encourages their members, which granted we are not, to do so. There was no privacy violation. I humbly request it to be undeleted.Edit:Also to note, it was linked to off the BJAODN page for the April fools day section. -M^ask 09:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm... I think you got the name wrong. There's no deleted content at the pagename you provided. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So I did, fixed now (dang capital letter) -M^ask 09:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak undelete If there are no privacy violation issues here; that is, if the GNAA chat does not hold a policy against public logging, then I could care less. I mean, the log's pure nonsense and a waste of server space (I'm quietly for deleting BJAODN altogether), but whatever. Let him have his log. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted conditionally - only if it can be verified there is no rule against public posting of logs, then undelete. NSLE _(T+C) at 09:47 UTC (2006-06-03)
• Keep deleted: Who cares if GNAA has a rule? It's Freenode that forbids reposting. The "authors" can't be verified and don't get to say. Geogre 12:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Last I checked #gnaa was juped on freenode, so I don't think the irc logs are from freenode. Kotepho 17:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The channel was not on Freenode. -M^ask 18:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and send to MFD if you want it deleted unless someone can show that it is from a network that prohibits public posting of logs (it certainly isn't the norm). Kotepho 17:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Someone should have checked with the page owner before speedying. --StuffOfInterest 18:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  No one owns any article on Wikipedia. --mboverload@ 19:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Amazingly, I agree with Geogre. This hardly ever happens. Except when there is a Y in the day name. Just zis Guy you know? 23:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, aside from the privacy concerns, Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, not the repository for inane crap. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Christopher Parham. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete If want deleted should go to MfD, and is imo, within the bounds of what we allow people to put in their userspace(and I'm under the impression that there is no privacy issue in this case). JoshuaZ 16:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. How is this not a privacy invasion? Metamagician3000 12:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Male Unbifurcated Garment

Regarding "Male Unbifurcated Garment", (the article should have been named "Male unbifurcated garments") which was deleted after this AFD, and the subsequent deletion review. I closed the AfD as delete (a decision that I believe reflected the AfD consensus), and for which someone started a silly RFC against me. I believe the AfD and DRV discussions were unneccesarily perturbed by personal opinions (especially by those supporting the article). While editing Men's fashion freedom (which is propaganda for a non-notable movement, and should be deleted), I searched for Male unbifurcated garments and found that this is the most common term used to refer collectively to kilts, caftans, lungis, tupenus, dashikis, hakamas etc, for men. I think the reason why consensus was to delete the article is because it was being used by proponents of "Men's fashion freedom" to popularize their cause, and that those who "voted" against intended to deprive them of using wikipedia for propaganda – meanwhile, useful encyclopedic information went lost. I cannot safely revive this article (even if severely rewritten) without some consensus. I therefore request that the article be taken back to AfD. The previous AfD, after all, did have good arguments to keep, and the DRV was doomed from the beginning because of certain somewhat incivil artitudes. --Ezeu 17:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Requesting speedy close. Male unbifurcated garments has been created. --Ezeu 19:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Recreating deleted content at a different title merely makes it necessary to speedy-delete the recreated page. By the way, the manual of style says that articles should be created at the singular anyway. Rossami (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• This article was deleted after a deletion vote on the criteria that the term was not very popular but the phenomenon is very common. It was sent for a deltion review for undeletion where the deletion was not reverted. I propose renaming and redirecting of the article to a new name ("Man-Skirt") which was found by some participants in the votes to be more common. So vote Redirect for supporting the motion , that is to rename and redirect to Man-Skirt, and Keep Deleted for opposing the motion that is to keep the article deleted.

Unitedroad 08:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I does not matter to me. MUGs, Manskirts, man's skirts, male skirts, whatever. This needs to be mentioned somewhere. Just as I suspected (and the reason why I brought this here), it does not matter in which way one tries to create an article describing this particularity, it will be speedily deleted merely out of principle. --Ezeu 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• DRV is to question deletion process. AFD, community consensus, has agreed it should be deleted. Therefore, keep deleted. NSLE _(T+C) at 08:13 UTC (2006-06-03)
• Keep Deleted Didn't we just close a DRV on this? Fan1967 14:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: It's a tunic, and it's what everyone wore before pants -- "shirt" <-Anglo-Saxon "skirt" <-Old Norse, same garment. <shrug> No undeletion. Geogre 14:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted as there is no reason for resurrecting it under a NEW neologism. If there is material in it that is of value to merge elsewhere, ask an admin to give you a userification. There is no need for multiple DRVs that I can see. ++Lar: t/c 14:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and close this DRV - the last one ended less than two weeks ago. You can just write a new article under a new name if you want this to be on WP, there's no need to undelete this just to rename and rewrite it... - ulayiti (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Only 755 GHits? It's not just a neologism, it's a wikineologism. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 18:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Validly deleted in process, confirmed by deletion review. Article had no references at all. Sources meeting the reliable source guidelines have still not been cited, nor convincing evidence that the term is in widespread use. Nothing has changed significantly since the AfD or DRV. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The term has very limited currency outside the "male fashion freedom" community. Actually, virtually no currency outside of that community as far as I can tell, and I looked into it in some considerable detail. The current situation, where it is discussed in men's fashion freedom seems entirely sensible. I would support a protected redirect (protected because the proponents of the term are on a mission to promote it, as evidence prior debates). I would also take issue with it being the most widely used term: excluding kiltmen and WP yields something over 8000 ghits for "male unbifurcated garments", but repeating the search with "skirts for men" gets over 13k ghits. Even within the highly restricted locus of those seeking to discuss this topic (which is primarily Western, since they are normal in many countries) I see no compelling evidence that this is the most widely used term. Few if any of the mainstream articles on celebrities who briefly followed the fashion trend for skirts mention the term, it appears to be used solely in the context of the fashion freedom movement. Just zis Guy you know? 20:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete. Numerous print references, websites, and manufacturers confirm usage (as I have pointed out over and over). These references have nothing to do with the fashion freedom movement. --JJay 20:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed you did, in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Male_Unbifurcated_Garment. I checked your New York Times reference, Feuer, Alan (2004) "Do Real Men Wear Skirts? Try Disputing A 340-Pounder," and it checks out. Changing vote accordingly. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Except that what the article says, as far as I recall, is that the movement calls them that, not that they are widely called that. "male unbifurcated garment" (in quotes) still gets under 500 ghits, and there is still, despite the incessant protestations of its proponents, no evidence of its widespread mainstream use, still less that this is the usual term for these garments. Just zis Guy you know? 21:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      • ... and "male unbifurcated garments" gets 8,540 ghits. --Ezeu 21:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
        • If you click through the first few pages of these results, Google discards nearly all of them as "very similar", leaving only 42. FreplySpang 05:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
        • You also find that a good many trace back to the top hit, the kiltmen community. Which appears to be where it originated, and where the advocates come from. Most of those hits are forum posts anyway. Despite all the arm-waving, thew advocates of this term have yet to provide a single credible reference showing that this is the generally used term to describe these garments, or giving any significant usage outside of the small men's fashion freedom community in which context we have pretty much its sole mention in the mainstream press. One article saying that this group uses the term is not really enough, in my view. Just zis Guy you know? 13:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, yeah... I guess I'm just a softie for anything that cites good, verifiable sources. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, undelete, and relist on AfD. Or, those interested can create a new article under this title that cites sources, presents a more neutral, less promotional point of view, and does not read like a personal essay. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy close, we don't need to keep discussing this ad nauseum. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, no process violation apparent, the new references are not really convincing of the notability of this term. Incidentally, see now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men's fashion freedom. (Just stumbled across it via a cleanup of High-heeled shoe, which until recently also featured an exhortation on why men should feel good about wearing shirts...) Sandstein 21:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• This was here last week. --Rory096 03:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. JJay did some excellent research in the last Deletion Review discussion documenting the uses of this phrase. I concluded from that research that this neologism is in infrequent use primarily in human interest stories about this small group of activists. No new evidence has been presented convincing me that this decision should be revisited yet. Rossami (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Rossami. Several advocates of deletion from the original AfD (including me) have indicated that they were aware of JJay's sources. In the AfD/DRV discussion of this topic, it's been noted that, for most men who wear unbifurcated garments outside the Western world, they're just normal clothing. Thus, I suggest that anyone who wants to write about this in an NPOV, non-soapboxy way, could find a way to fit it into the article Clothing or its offshoots. FreplySpang 05:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete - This term is in widespread use among some circles. Wiki includes detailed articles on information specific to very small circles, yet bans information that's in considerably wider use simply because it offends someone's sensibilities? MUGs isn't a new fad - it's the continuation of what men have been wearing for tens of thousands of years, and what approximately a third of men throughout the world routinely wear today. If you delete this, I will recommend you delete "skirt," "dress," and "pants" for whatever reasons you provide herein. If they apply to MUGs, they apply elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.166.180.34 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

  This is precisely the kind of ludicrous hyperbole which has infested every previous discussion of this topic. You say that if we delete this term used by a very small group of people and scoring a negligible number of unique Google hits, then we must also delete a word used by millions every day. Assertions like that make it almost impossible to take this subject even slightly seriously: the actions of the proponents of this term have consistently given the impression of zealots with little or no connection to reality, and this is no exception. Just zis Guy you know? 19:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn per JJay. Clearly notable.  Grue  12:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  So a single newspaper article which notes that a small group uses a given neologism is sufficient to make it clearly notable? Just zis Guy you know? 19:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• I really need to ask you to stop spreading misinformation as you complain about "ludicrous hyperbole" and "zealots" with "no connection to reality". After stating repeatedly that no sources exist [107], [108], [109], and failing to respond or blatantly ignoring any of the sources offered [110] [111] ,you seem to have now recognized one. Since I know of at least 25 print sources, and a number of manufacturer websites, here are a few links you might find enlightening: The Scotsman, NY Times, Pittsburgh Tribune,Lucire fashion magazine Village Voice- Para 2, New York Magazine, Little India magazine, Out in the Mountains- book review, Reno Gazette, etc. etc. Of course this does not include many sources I can not easily link to such as Newsday, The Economic Times (India) or some of the Australian print sources. The following manufacturer sites also sell unbifurcated garments as prominently shown on their websites: Macabi, Macabi again Utilikilts. This obviously ignores the widespread usage on blogs and the web. The extent of the "notability" of the trend can certainly be debated...and as shown by the links, the term can vary depending on the source. But please stop the nonsense about google hits, zealots, no reliable sources, arm waving, and the like. --JJay 22:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• JJay, do you not think that the statement If you delete this, I will recommend you delete "skirt," "dress," and "pants" for whatever reasons you provide herein is ludicrous hyperbole? How many references to skirt, dress and pants are there? How many to the term "male unbifurcated garment"? We've been assured that Googling for MUG is a good test for its currency despite the fact that the vast majority of hits are for the ceramic containers. I have seen no credible evidence that this term has any currency outside the (very small) men's fashion freedom movement, and it was in that context that the few mentions we have were made. Right now it is covered in men's fashion freedom, which contextualises it nicely. It has been deleted through valid process and after much discussion, and that deletion has already been confirmed once. No new evidence is being presented here as far as I can tell, it's just a case of them keep asking until they get what they want. Sorry, but that pushes my parental "no means no" button. The clincher for me is that in all the coverage of the prominent men who have been seen wearing skirts (Beckham, Cruise, Gaultier etc.) this term is pretty much absent. The only references I can find linking Beckham to the term, for example, come from the usual source: kiltmen. It is their private conceit which has no real currency. They really really want it to have some currency (read: protologism) but as yet it has pretty much none outside of themselves, and WP:NOT the place to fix that. Just zis Guy you know? 08:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. A silly, non-notable term. Also the fact that a DRV on this just ended not too long ago. WarpstarRider 23:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Non-notable Meanax 16:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

02 June 2006

Template:User hate profanity

Speedy deletion. The text of the userbox says "This user does not tolerate profanity." This'd refer to user conduct, since wikipedia is not censored. How is this divisive? Is there a danger of an anti-profanity cabal forming? The userbox is good in highlighting a form of incivility that wikipedia can do without. I'm not a big userbox warrior, so please take this request seriously. Andjam 07:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Recreate under name User no profanity, with the text "This user does not use (or does not enjoy) profanity.", and then Redirect. Simple enough, and not divisive that way. --tjstrf 07:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  If you're just proposing to create a different template, with a different name and different text, why mess around with DRV? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Reply Clarified. Also, I was giving a potential solution. --tjstrf 07:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted without prejudice against creation of some suitably congenial version in user space. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - unencyclopedic, argumentative, divisive etc. As always, I am prepared to help users userfy the box, as long as there are not too many requests for me to handle. But it doesn't belong in template space. Metamagician3000 09:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - for instances of profanity which are already prohibited, the template is redundant. For instances that aren't, well, they aren't, so who are we to "not tolerate" them? Particularly in template space.Timothy Usher 17:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete —David618 ^t e 18:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion users can write is so on their page should they want to. No need to have a template for this. -- Drini 19:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This user does not tolerate divisive userboxen ;) --Improv 18:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Divisive

Penis banding

I have no idea what this page is about, but User:JoeCool722 requested a deletion review. I've asked him to comment on what the page was about. // ^The True _Sora 00:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penis banding. No idea what it is, probably don't want to know. Fan1967 01:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain until I can see the conecpt of the page. If it's gone through an AfD already (per below), then I agree with it and endorse delete. // The True _Sora 00:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Don't even want to know what it is. QuizQuick 02:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - The AFD was properly concluded and this was a valid deletion. As for the article text, I'm assuming that this - http://www.answers.com/topic/penis-banding - from answers.com is the text of the article, by the way. Most of the google hits are related to each other, so it strikes me as a non-notable neologism unless there is evidence otherwise. BigDT 02:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletionTimothy Usher 02:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I'm putting my faith in the AfD determining this one to be a neologism. --StuffOfInterest 02:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist This is the first Wikipedia article I've written. I decided to write the article because there is a noticable lack of information on this topic. This is a not uncommon practice that is performed in BDSM and other contexts. I supposed my confusion over the deletion is that there are numerous other Wikipedia articles related to Body Modification and BDSM. During the initial deletion discussion someone mentioned that there was not a large amount of supporting evidence that this pratice exists. While that was part of my original reasoning to create the article, there are other articles from reputable sources like the following link [112]. I must say I'm very surprised at the apparant lack of open-mindedness. The article was put up a while ago, and even had various edits from other users as well as people linking to it. I don't feel that just because some folks may not understand or agree with a practice is a reason for removal. I do not feel that this article is out of line with numerous other Wikipedia articles, i.e. Transscrotal_piercing, Suspension_(body_modification), Body_nullification, Penis_removal. The Body Nullification article makes an interesting point regarding how many less mainstream practices have become more well known as people are discovering each other as a result of the Internet. That said, as a member of the BDSM community, I can say that this is not an unheard of activity. It's typically more commonly performed on the testicles, but frequnetly done to the penis. It's even discussed in the book "Family Jewels, A Guide to Male Genital Play and Torment." Another consideration is that within the BDSM Community many things are passed on via word of mouth. Many people meet at various BDSM related gatherings and are taught various techniques and practices that are not necessarily well documented. Hence my effort to try to take some time and better document this practice. We run into a frustrating Catch-22 where where Wikipedia prefers to have "verifiable" sources, yet, until someone writes something on the topic, it's not "verifiable." There's a bit of a flaw in logic as just because something is not easily verifiable does not necessarily indicate that it's not a valid practice. However, just because someone writes something in a book really doesn't prove that practice to be valid. As mentioned, the BDSM community is historically been a word of mouth type of community as it has not always been well accepted. While I don't have the resources/time to try to write an actual book on more advanced BDSM related techniques, I felt sharing some knowledge of a not well documented practice would have been well received by Wikipedia. JoeCool722 15:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There's no catch-22 at all. Wikipedia deliberately chooses NOT to be a primary source. In fact, it is considered a tertiary source. In other words, Wikipedia will report on things that have been clearly documented and verified elsewhere. Wikipedia does not serve as the primary, initial source for anything. Fan1967 15:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The BME website is referenced as an ezine in an existing Wikipedia Article - BME_(website), As per the link in my original post, Banding is referenced in the encyclopedia section of BME as well as numerous other areas of the site. I know we're getting into a fuzzy area regarding "verifiability" but I think a lot of the existing articles in this category are not extensively documented and therefore "verifiable."
• The fact that there is no information on this "out there" is the very reason there cannot be an article on WP, as stated above and elsewhere. WP:NOR refers. Just zis Guy you know? 11:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it deleted and disable undelete for this page. This is really sick. An encyclopedia is no place for this. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 19:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Well I must say this is more than a little disappointing. I had hoped that Wikipedia as a group would be more open-minded. I'm not asking anyone to agree with the practice, or take part in it. But I don't think it should be censored because some folks don't understand it. I would ask that the decision on this article be made based on policy as opposed to opinion. I'm working on tracking down some additional verifiable resources. Please let me know the best way to proceed to ensure this article remains listed in compliance with policy. JoeCool722 19:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. No reliable sources cited, and no credible evidence thus far that any such exist. As usual the red herring of censorship is being trailed, and as usual it is absurd (can we say autofellatio, children?). All the author need do is cite reliable sources and evidence of encyclopaedic notability. - Just zis Guy you know? 20:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Relist I've cited a book and the BME website that has been around for more than 10 years and is recognized by Wikipedia. Most people familiar with the Body Modification subject would recognize BME and Shannon who runs BME as an expert resource on the topic. Will the items I've already cited suffice? Or do I need to locate more? I know there were a few more books that had references to banding in them. Please Advise JoeCool722 21:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The AfD arguments were convincing, and there has been no error in procedure. Still not verifiable, as referencing a website in its entirety is not sufficient - we need specific links or quotes regarding the existence and notability of this activity. Sandstein 22:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Actually the first reference is to a specific page in BME regarding banding. I also cited a book. I believe this is getting away from the spirit of Wikipedia and becoming a push to squash something that is not understood. What I really don't understand is there are a dozen other articles in similar subject areas on Wikipedia that are not citing anything and they've been there for a while. I'm really surprised that there is no leniency allowed.

• Endorse deletion. Properly and rightly AfDed. --Audiovideo 22:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• WTF? --mboverload@ 22:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Relist First let me thank the administrators. I’ve had a delightful time going through all my books to find resources for them. It’s always fun to re-read favorite books. Many of these can be bought on Amazon. I’ve also included an article from a well known in the BDSM scene magazine. It has also been brought to my attention that Freud covered some of the penis binding (they didn’t have elastrators in his time) in his works. While he considered fetishism a deviant practice the recent American Psychological Association has declared it not to be so since the 1970’s.

If there is a vote I believe the comments “ Keep it deleted and disable undelete for this page. This is really sick. An encyclopedia is no place for this. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 19:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)” and “Speedy Delete Don't even want to know what it is. QuizQuick 02:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)” should not apply as these are clearly bias and not related to actual policy.

Here are a few books that discuss penile banding and related Cock and Ball Tortures:

• The Family Jewels: A Guide to Male Genital Play and Torment (Paperback) by Hardy Haberman
• Intimate Invasions: the erotic ins & outs of enema playby M.R. Strict
• Female Dominance: Rituals and Practices by Claudia Varrin
• Leatherfolk by Mark Thompson
• Tony DeBlase aka Fledermaus 1993, 'Male Genitorture (Also known as Cock and Ball Torture, CBT)' in Sandmutopia Guardian 14, pp14-22
• Trust, the Hand Book: A Guide to the Sensual and Spiritual Art of Handballing by Bert Herrman
• Sigmund Freud 1938, The Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud, translated and edited by A A Brill, New York: Modern Library
• -- 1953, 'Three Essays on Sexuality' in the Standard Edition of The Complete Psychological Works Vol VII, London: Hogarth
• -- 1953a, 'Fetishism' in the Standard Edition of The Complete Psychological Works Vol XXI (written in 1927), London: Hogarth

• Taboo 22:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Where's the original content? Exploding Boy 22:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, because of all the people saying "I trust the original AfD" (what do you think the Deletion review process is for then?) and because this is clearly a well-documented practice in its own cultural niche. &#0151; JEREMY 15:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This has been my frustration from the beginning. I missed the initial deletion review as I got busy with work. My wife went to send the link to someone and realized it was gone. Most of the comments in the initial deletion discussion and in this deletion review have been blanket agreements citing the fact that an AfD took place. I would rather have people look at this and assess it for themselves. And of course there are those that just say it should be deleted because it's "Sick" I don't think an individuals personal comfort on a subject should be related to it's inclusion in Wikipedia. JoeCool722 18:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Once again, where is the original content? How are people making decisions without reading the original article? Exploding Boy 16:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've been asking for this from the beginning. This was my first article that I've ever written for Wikipedia. I didn't back it up as I didn't realize it could just be deleted without a chance to go change it back. I read somewhere that there is some process in place to restore the article temporarily during a deletion review, but I don't know how else to go about requesting this. Any assistance from some of the more seasoned Wikipedians would be appreciated. JoeCool722 18:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well, until someone can provide a link to or a copy of the original content, I don't see how this can proceed. Exploding Boy 18:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Right. I've uncovered what I think is the most recent version of the article, which can be viewed (temporarily) at User talk:Exploding Boy/Penis banding. I think this vote needs to be restarted after people have read the content, and my vote is to undelete. Exploding Boy 18:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I've temporarily undeleted the history of the article while its deletion is being reviewed. You may see the actual last version here. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion without prejudice against recreation if reliable sources can be provided to show that the topic is more than a fringe paraphilia practiced by a couple of guys on the internet. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Why would you endorse the deletion if there were reliable sources? Exploding Boy 16:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The "if" was supposed to apply to the part about recreating it. In any case, the AfD closure seems valid based on the arguments provided in that debate, and the article itself, if kept, would in any case require heavy editing to comply with Wikipedia policies (specifically "Wikipedia is not a how-to guide"). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no reliable sources and the how-to information is about as inappropriate as it gets. It seems like an attempt to validate bizarre sexual practices, too: "It's not stupid/crazy/bizarre, it's in an encyclopedia." -- Kjkolb 22:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

01 June 2006

Template:User no notability

NN	This user hates notability and how it is used mercilessly on AfD as policy.

Here is the template, why was it deleted? No one posted anything on the TfD page Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:User no notability. It is a valid, useable userbox that shouldnt be deleted, just like ones that state POV can be used in userboxes or ones that state that they are inclusionist... Also, there was a TfD that reflected consensus, but this UB was speedy deleted and no message was left on the TfD page. Sorry for the ditto. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 01:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete as bad-faith deletion. --Disavian 01:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted shows a disrect to an accepted, wide consensus policy, template space is for encyclopedic endeavors, not the advocacy of eliminationg them. Userfy, subst, let people keep it, but get it out of encyclopedic space. -M^ask 01:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Notability is not policy. You people are the reason this UB was created. Because you don't understand: Essays carry so much less weight than policy. There's an essay saying that all TV show summarys should be deleted. It must be put into effect since you consider essays policy. Besides, it was not a CSD. There is a TfD going on about it that reflected a Keep consensus, but the deleter ignored it, deleted it, AND didn't even close the TfD debate! -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 04:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted This one clearly has the potential to divide Wikipedians and to inflame Wikipedians, which makes it a T1 CSD candidate. But I did learn something from my pre-conclusion research. Of course, someone should implement the German solution on it. GRBerry 02:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment after more thought and some more discussion. The most troubling word is "hates". But there clearly could be versions that would not be inflammatory. So the salting of the earth is too strong a response - overturn only the salting and put a warning on the talk page of the template that language like "disagrees with", "rejects", or "would like to out that notability is only an essay, not a guideline or policy" is acceptable, but that vehement language like "hates" and "mercilessly" is inappropriate. GRBerry 16:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted as bad-faith userbox. Obviously divisive in intent, probably speediable. --Calton | Talk 02:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as the subject it addresses is not notable.Timothy Usher 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You're kidding, right??? Seriously? You think that this is less notable than the 5000 fan userboxes? I knew that the people who would want it deleted were people eho support notability... -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 04:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - not notable per Timothy Usher. ;) (Actually, it is argumentative, divisive, etc.) Metamagician3000 02:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The irony is killing me here ;p --Disavian 02:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain - I am almost convinced that this should exist, because unlike the vast majority of userboxen that have no relevance to Wikipedia (or at least should not), like "This User is Christian" or "This user licks Goats", this is actually relevant to wikipedia and is the kind of content that fits well on a userpage. It's not exactly the same kind of bumper-sticker crap that most userboxes are. It is still divisive though.. --Improv 04:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• How about a milder one? Proposal:

NN	This user is against the use of the notability essay as criteria for deletion on AfD

-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 04:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Oh no, that's still far too divisive and inflammatory, don't you know? Consider this:

NN	This user is interested in the critical examination of the notability essay as criteria for deletion on AfD

—Ashley Y 07:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Why? That one is like a censored version thats too positive. Why not this:

NN	This user is against the views of the notability essay.

-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 13:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Chris, I have a slight but suspicious feeling that Ashley was being sarcastic. // The True _Sora 23:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, let the TFD run its course. (It is running at a strong keep consensus now. THen rewrite it slightly to soften it up a bit. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid T1, not to mention its obvious potential for aiding in votestacking. --Rory096 06:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I don't care about most userboxes but this one clearly should go. It encourages users to lock in on a position rather than to continue to explore, discuss and debate. It polarizes an already difficult discussion unnecessarily. Rossami (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Speedy-deletion criteria should not be used to silence ongoing TfDs just because an admin dislikes the results of the discussion; if you thought the template should be deleted, you should have simply argued for that case on the TfD. Also, it looks to me like it's not the basic message of the template ("I'm opposed to treating 'Notability' as policy"), but the tone, which is potentially inflammatory: I support undeleting this and changing the text to a less belligerent wording, like "This user is against the use of the notability essay as criteria for deletion on AfD". -Silence 12:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - patently divisive, no debate neccessary (not even here). We can discuss notability without factionalist bumper-stickers. --Doc ^ask? 12:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought you were leaving. (that might be vandalism) -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 20:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and move to user space based on the German solution. --StuffOfInterest 12:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per MM3k, GRBerry and Rossami. ++Lar: t/c 12:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Is there any possibility that we could Soft redirect Template:User no notability to the not-yet-made page User:Ccool2ax/User no notability ? I know some people might be interested in it, and I personally have never been able to find userboxes in the User namespace. Isn't my revision (1) less inflammatory than the one about admin's out-of-process deletions? (see my userpage for the box) -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 13:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep'em all deleted -- Drini 17:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and modify to Chris's last proposal above. Valid TfD keep; a non-inflammatory version is not T1. Septentrionalis 19:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted --pgk^(talk) 19:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and rewrite to non-emotive form. I don't support the "is interested in" rewrites though, as the term would swiftly come to mean the exact same thing as the original did via the euphemism treadmill. --tjstrf 19:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and rewrite as tjstrf above. After all the notability essay is just that a essay. --Whispering 20:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - it's outrageous that a userbox that is actually useful is being deleted for political reasons. For great justice. 21:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. It's a fair opinion, but the very last thing that Wikipedia needs are templates useful for vote stacking. Divisive indeed. -- SCZenz 21:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn (undelete) Does not fall under speedy criteria. —David618 ^t e 22:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete; since when was this inflamatory? If anything, list on TfD.
• Endorse Deletion I can imagine few uses of the word "hate" on a userbox that would not be divisive. BigDT 01:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • What about the 1st or 2nd revision (not the "interested in" one)-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 04:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy per The German solution. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Obviously divisive. Kelly Martin (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Userboxes that are about Wikipedia process are different in kind than userboxes about off-Wikipedia beliefs and practices. Bringing meatspace political beliefs into the Wikipedia process could be divisive (though not automatically so), but putting one's Wikipedia philosophies and practices on display in that manner is just a shorthand for what is already manifest in our actions. To me, "divisive" means creating division where none was previously apparent. Read AfD or DRV for a while and you will see that we are already divided over notability; userboxes to that effect don't make it more or less so. Vadder 18:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Obviously divisive. About a year ago someone started decorating AfD with little pastel boxes expressing his opinion that the nominator's stated reason for deletion did not meet the deletion policy. It was not helpful. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, divisive. Plus: notability is shorthand for a subject which has garnered enough external attention to allow us to ensure it is verifiable, covered neutrally and does not stray into original research. The fact that some people want to cover subjects which have not been discussed widely enough to ensure neutral coverage is well-known and does not require a userbox. Just zis Guy you know? 20:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, so that means every article you haven't heard of can't ever be discussed neutrally? That's why notability exists? I thought encyclopedias were for learning new things, not confirming what one already knows. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 14:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Undelete All you need to do is look at the first rationale proposed for keep-deletion: "shows a disrect to an accepted, wide consensus policy" Um, tyranny of the majority anyone? Since when was Wikipedia so goddamned establishment? George Kaplan 13:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Syed Ahmed

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ahmed

• relist why can't he have an Article i mean why can Syed not have one but michelle dewberry have one, syed has done lots of things aswell as appearing on The Apprentice he appeared in the Celebrity world cup sixes and he is the head of IT People. Bobo6balde66 20:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• The deletion discussion was virtually unanimous. No new evidence has been presented that would suggest that a new discussion would reach a different decision. Endorse closure (content deleted, protected redirect). Rossami (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Rossami. Nobody cares about The Apprentice. --Disavian 23:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Rossami. Kimchi.sg 02:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure — unanimous original AfD, and good content already included in The Apprentice (UK series 2). No good reasons have been presented for re-creating this article - the subject simply is not sufficiently notable to merit his own article. A redirect already ensures a reader entering his name can find a brief biography on the relevant article. The fact that Michelle Dewberry has an article is not a reason to undelete this — if her notability is in question that article should be listed at WP:AFD. Finally, IT People, his company was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IT People, so the fact that he is the CEO of a company deemed non-notable should be no reason for undeleting this article either. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 08:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse: Reality shows have, by now I hope, settled down: if the contestant becomes notable aside from the appearance, then the person is notable. If the person is merely one face among many squabbling and scratching, then the person should be discussed at the show's article. When the person breaks away from the show in fame, then the article breaks away from the show. This individual has not, at least yet. Geogre 13:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Rossami. Nobody cares about The Apprentice. --mboverload@ 19:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I watched The Apprentice, enjoyed it, and I absolutely agree with Mboverload: I still don't care. If he ever becomes independently notable, then he gets his own article. Just zis Guy you know? 20:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ho Shin Do

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ho_Shin_Do

Undelete Ho Shin Do I worked hard to put up good information on the page and added more info to give backing on the origins of the martial art. I feel that the style itself is worthy of being listed here and train in it with the best of intentions for the founders. The martial art has legitimate roots in Korean martial arts, and I sincerely hope that the deleted can be re-considered. Frankiefuller 08:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)frankiefuller, 03:33 (EST), 6-10-06. I say Overturn and Undelete

• endorse closure. This was a valid AfD with a unanimous "delete" result, I could see no significant and substantial differences between the version as of the deletion nomination and the version as of the afd closure (with the exception of the picture being added, which is not enough), so there was no additional information that was not available to the early voters that may have made them change their minds. Thryduulf 16:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Thryduulf. Kimchi.sg 03:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, so what is necessary to make it stay? I could put in a great amount of detail about the art itself and the structure of the system. Man you guys are so stubborn, there are many more sub-par articles out there than this. What makes you guys particular academic experts here, and how many of you are martial arts scholars? Heck, I could get deep into the philosophical side of this if you like. Let's go, baby, I love debates. Politics, after all, is what I'm studying for my doctoral program.Frankiefuller 09:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• "Man, people commit murder all the time, why do you have to arrest me?" The existence of poor articles does not justify the existence of poor articles; in this case, the lack of notability of the subject makes it a poor candidate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -Objectivist-C 12:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• We are not academic experts. We are reporters of academic experts. If there are experts out there discussing this fellow, and if the art has made sufficient splash to be discussed in multiple contexts, then there should be an article. The presence of an article doesn't make something good, and the absence doesn't make it bad; there is no judgment of worth, only of need. Geogre 13:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep undeleted per FrankiefullerQuizQuick 00:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for now or userfy with leave to present when appropriate - here is the article from google cache - [113] - the fact that there are multiple schools teaching this kind of Tae Kwon Do says to me that it is notable. The only problem I see with the article is that it is entirely original research. For that reason and that reason alone, I believe that the deletion is appropriate, but if Frankiefuller would like to rewrite or modify the article as to include other references, I don't see any reason why the subject is not permissible. BigDT 02:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy with leave to present when appropriate. Let frankiepoo show you that the article is not original research. I can show that the wheel is not being re-invented and can point out how the art has borrowed from several distinctly Korean arts. I am going to go ahead and try modifying the information and then presenting it after I can authenticate the specific data to show non-original research.72.145.93.79 05:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Frankiefuller

Israel News Agency

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel news agency - closed as "keep" on 15 Jan 06

Speedy-deleted as "vanity page by banned user" on 10 May 06

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Israel News Agency - closed as "overturn speedy and list on AFD" on 23 May 06

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel News Agency (2nd nomination) - closed for procedural irregularities on 29 May 06

Speedy-deleted as "more of the same nonsense" on 1 Jun 06

It passed its original deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel news agency, but when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel News Agency (2nd nomination) was created, the closing administrator said that because someone didn't follow process and grouped arguements into those for keeping and deleting, that the individual discussion was broken beyond repair. The administrator stated that he had no prejudice toward reopening the debate for a third time, then the article was again deleted by Danny, so I'm requesting it again be created and relisted. Daniel Bush 22:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment, if Danny is the person who deleted it, why did User:Sean Black salt the earth? GRBerry 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Self-promotion of a non-notable non-agency by a banned user. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as out-of-process deletion. If someone believes that something was missed in the first AFD, then relist. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. It's still a nonnotable blog that anyone who was clever enough to register a name like that could set up. --Improv 23:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• I think this article should be deleted but I think we should do it properly. Overturn the speedy-deletion, relist on AFD and I'll help watch the deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Wasn't this thing deleted via WP:OFFICE? If so, WP:SNOW--Rayc 23:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW isn't policy nor does it possibly apply in this case, WP:OFFICE was never cited. Undelete and relist properly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oh my goodness, the second AfDs closing admin's note of procedural irregularities is certainly true. That is a major refactoring from when I last saw the page. (I was the first to make a non-comment response.) I wish, however, that the closing admin had immediately opened a third AFD... It was in AFD via a community decision. I think Resend to AFD is the appropriate outcome, but it is a borderline call, concluded this way because process is important and because the refactoring appears not to have been done by the articles author or one of the new voices brought in. GRBerry 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, should probably go to AfD again, but definitely undelete it. This abuse of process has got to stop. We have rules here—follow them. Everyking 03:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• This is just taking the piss. Undelete, do not relist anywhere, and censure the admin who deleted it against consensus. There is no point having shitloads of policy documents and votes on this, that and the other if privileged users can just ignore them out of personal animus. Also censure the admin who has protected the page. This is an egregious abuse of his powers that has become too common these days. The consensus was that there should be an article: protecting it so that there cannot be is completely unacceptable. Apologies for not signing in. -- Grace Note.
• SPEEDY Undelete per Grace Note. --Col. Hauler 08:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. nn blog, clear sentiment to delete among non-sock, non-meatpuppets. We should stop wasting our time, and stop allowing the associated harrassment of legitimate editors over this. NoSeptember ^talk 09:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Could you please list all of these sock or meat puppets--or if the list would be shorter everyone who's opinions you find valid? Yes, there are those that I would call foopuppets on the keep side, but there are also several legitimate users. Kotepho 19:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Puppets are listed at: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Israelbeach

• SPEEDY Undelete per Grace Note. Potterseesall 09:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• AfD was closed as borked by Aaron Brenneman, no bleeding-heart inclusionist. I still haven't seen any verifiable 3rd party information about this website and I don't think it qualifies for an article on Wikipedia. But I would vastly prefer to have this deleted the bureaucratic way rather than through a wheel-warring Danny. Haukur 10:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Removed comment from banned user Zordrac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Malber (talk • contribs) 15:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Generally, anonymous editors have less weight in deletion reviews. This was not deleted on the grounds of censorship because they disagree with Wikipedia. You have no understanding of the issue at all. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 20:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete due to violation of the deletion process. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 20:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, Resend to AfD unless there is a clear indication that the speedy deletion was done for legal or other overiding reasons under WP:OFFICE. (I can't see any reason why there would have been litigtion about this article~) The Land 22:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, no need to relist this at AFD again. This unjust wheel-warring by Danny needs to stop. Now. Silensor 23:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - Danny has the right to take necessary actions under WP:OFFICE. Given INA's apparant hostility to Wikipedia (see [114], [115], [116]), I'm willing to assume good faith on Danny's part and endorse the deletion. BigDT 02:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. In WP:OFFICE Danny says that he will exercise Office powers under the name User:Dannyisme. User:Danny is Danny acting as a regular administrator/editor. Since Israel News Agency was deleted under the regular username Danny as opposed to Dannyisme, it shouldn't be considered an Office decision. Furthermore, the deletion did not reference WP:OFFICE in the edit summary, nor is it listed on the WP:OFFICE page. It is true that INA is hostile to Wikipedia, but one of its grievances (albeit not the first or only one) is the previous out-of-process deletion of the Israel News Agency article [117]. There are reasons both for and against having an article about this news agency on Wikipedia, but the proper place to deal with them is an AfD, not a speedy deletion. "More of the same nonsense" is not a valid reason for speedy deletion unless the nonsense is patent, which was not the case for Israel News Agency. --Metropolitan90 03:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per user Metropolitan90 Bonnieisrael 09:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I have read news stories by the Israel News Agency before Wikipedia existed. Saying that the Israel government acredited INA is "nonsense" is nothing less than a travesty. Tzanchan 17:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This is not a "news agency", it's a blog. How many bylines are there on this supposed "news agency"? I could only find one: Joel Leyden. WP:NOT an advertisement hoarding, a tool for promoting your website, a search engine optimisation mechanism, a soapbox etc. This is the personal site of an indef-blocked user. Just zis Guy you know? 20:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• If the Israel News Agency is not a news agency then it would qualify being "notable" as Israel's first "blog" dating back to 1995. But given the various, consistent direct news feeds from the Israel Government Press Office that only an accredited news organization can obtain in Israel, it appears to be a real news agency with real government accredition news agency - for over 11 years. Also, one can see several other bylines besides Leyden. Perform a search on Google News for "Israel" [118] the INA stories appear in the top ten. If one calls this agency a "soapbox" then we should start labeling Google News, all news organizations as "soapboxes" - including non media such as US Homeland Security. Karnei 15:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• You didn't look hard enough: By Debbie Lahav, By Israel News Agency Staff[119][120],By Joe Yudin, By Michael Bernstein, By Herb Brandon[121], By Sara Lavi, By Dr. Batya L. Ludman[122], By Sara Silber M.Sc.Ed[123]... Kotepho 19:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per Chris — ßottesiηi ^(talk) 21:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Metropolitan90, for unexplained out-of-process deletion. No opinion as to the merits, as I haven't ever seen that article, even though a look at the site does point to "non-notable blog". Sandstein 21:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per the reasons provided by Karnei and Silensor in the previous deletion debate. Blog or not this news project does appear to be notable. Yamaguchi先生 15:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete immediately. Out-of process deletion compounded by second out-of-process deletion =total disrespect for the community. Somehow "More of the same nonsense" was entirely fitting. --JJay 00:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

31 May 2006

Template:User Christian

The template received a near unanimous keep on TfD which was closed on May 28, 2006. It was deleted by User:Improv today for no apparent reason, completely ignoring the consensus of a community. I say, Overturn and undelete.  Grue  21:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. Again. We need to get something to agree on such as the German solution to someday get this settled. --StuffOfInterest 21:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleting until all these things (WHATEVER their pov) are history. We endorsed the deletion of the Marxism and Scientology boxes - so why should Christianity and Atheism be any different. --Doc ^ask? 21:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This page is about questioning the process that this template went through, not saying that an endorsement on a particular template makes the deletion of this template, which was completely outside of community consensus, allowable. Ansell Review my progress! 09:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Community consensus is moving towards keeping this an encyclopaedia rather than a faction ridden social club. Stephen B Streater 22:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete as bad faith deletion. I was in the middle of submitting this template for DRV when Grue got there first. This template has been through eleventy billion TFDs and DRVs and multiple administrative edit wars. In every case, the consensus was to keep. See [124] for the most recent DRVU and see [125]. See also the lengthy logs for this template [126]. This is not a referendum on userboxes. Nor, though such a discussion probably needs to be held, is it a referendum on the appropriateness of administrators ignoring consensus and inventing rules. The sole question here is whether it was proper for this template to be deleted according to the currently existing criteria for speedy delete. In other words, is it "divisive and inflammatory" to state, "This user is a Christian." BigDT 21:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of all political and religious userbox templates -- Drini 21:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You did not answer any of the questions in that, it is merely your view. Take it to Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates, not here. Ansell Review my progress! 10:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per Drini. Whether or not a user is a Christian (as am I) can add nothing to wikipedia. Let's keep it on-topic, shall we?Timothy Usher 21:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • See reason for drini as to why it is not appropriate to say that here. Ansell Review my progress! 10:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Grrr! Edit conflict - and I was almost the first one to vote! Waaagh! Two edit conficts! But what should I say, anyway? Lemme think... Undelete, subst: all instances, delete and protect. How 'bout this? Misza13 ^{T C} 21:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

  There aren't that many transclusions left after Immari did a bunch because of Cyde's antics. Paste me the contents and I'll do it or undelete it and have Cydebot do it. Kotepho 22:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete because Keep means Keep. Less than 72 hours after it survived TfD it is inappropriate to speedy delete it without even the courtesy of an explanation on the article's talk page. The closest thing there is to an explanation by the deleter is their comment below in the deletion review for Template:User satanist. I can understand deleting it, although it was clearly wrong. I don't understand salting the earth for a speedy deletion of something that was just kept after a speedy, review, TfD cycle. GRBerry 21:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Haven't we had this already? Keep deleted again. --Tony Sidaway 21:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - yes, we did, and the consensus both on DRVU and on TFD was undelete/keep. BigDT 21:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: This user is against userboxes in general. Wokka-wokka-wokka. --Bobak 21:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. This debate, as that is what it has become, is also about general policy; certainly, you would let users who wish to have userboxes have them, even if you do not wish to have any; and you would allow them the due process of review/AfD, for if you created a template, you would like to be treated fairly as well. Thus, being against userboxes (a position I do not share, but I do respect) does not nessasarily behoove you to vote one way or the other in these two instances. --Disavian 04:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted along with any other religious user boxes. --pgk^(talk) 21:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: do those who are saying it's been discussed countless times not realise the huge disruption and distraction this implies? —Phil | Talk 21:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Many of us feel that the primary, if not sole, cause of the disruption as it pertains to this template, at least, is the deletions. Keeping it deleted would reward the disrupters, which is a very bad outcome. GRBerry 21:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, per above.--Sean Black 21:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete If it survied TfD it shouldn't be deleted under speedy, which I do not see a reason for. —David618 ^t e 21:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn (Undelete), Although I wholeheartedly agree with Drini above, we have a process here that must be followed to maintain order. The process was not followed here. This is not the place to argue for or against the template, only whether the process was carried out correctly (which it apparently wasn't). Try to formulate an oficial policy prohibiting religious/political/nationalist user boxes instead of trying to delete them one-by-one. I'll be the first to support it.--WilliamThweatt 21:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment well, it looks like Template:User Christian and Template:User satanist are on equal footing now, although I'm sorry it had to happen this way -_- --Disavian 21:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, again. Not T1 or T2. If a T3 reaches consensus that religious userboxes should be deleted, delete it then (but first subst all copies in {{userbox}} form. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. This is an example of rogue admins deleting stuff under CSD when they don't get their way under TfD. They rely on the fact that DRv is much less well-known than TfD. —Ashley Y 22:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Graaahhh I really want to vote keep deleted. I wish we didn't have this userbox (or if people didn't care about userboxes), I think it possibly meets T1, and obviously meets T2. That being said if you are just going to delete it anyways why bother putting it through DRVU and TFD? It just pisses people off, more so I think than deleting it in the first place; and I don't want to encourage people to keep deleting things out of process until it magically gets a majority to keep deleted by attrition. On the other hand, it is just a userbox. I think they are silly, but I understand that some people care about them (even deeply) and they too are people. No matter how many times someone calls everyone that likes userboxes a myspacer it doesn't make it true. Screwing with contributors is not a good way to make an encyclopedia. Kotepho 22:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: there is no T2 anymore. —Ashley Y 22:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Katepho. It's not my userbox; but not abiding by a consensus decision is harmful to the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis 23:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete as out-of-process deletion. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete per community consensus. Crazyswordsman 23:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - all such userboxes should be userfied and removed from template space. Metamagician3000 23:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete it seems the "I'm an admin, and enforce my own consensus" mentality is spreading. I wonder... if recreating templates/articles that were deleted by consensus is vandalism, then what is deleting templates/articles that were kept by consensus... CharonX talk Userboxes 00:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete If T2 is toast, there's even less reason to delete this than before. Besides, the consensus was keep, whats the deal here? Homestarmy 00:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, not going to make the same points again. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 01:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, per consistency with Template:User satanist arguments for deletion. Both are religeons, both have the same rights. Who at wikipedia is to decide which religeons are allowed and which are not. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, and get back to things that help the encyclopedia. Ral315 (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. MySpace is thataway. --Calton | Talk 03:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Kim van der Linde. Snottygobble 04:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted/Userfy again. We're moving all the ideological stuff out of template space, better userfy your boxes now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you point me to that policy, please? BigDT 04:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The policy in question is probably Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates. --Disavian 05:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The policy in question is WP:NOT. The interpretation is courtesy of Jimbo, 3 days ago, on his talk page, here: "no, really, the template namespace is not for that, . . . we do not endorse this behavior." -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Keep in mind that WP:NOT says Wikipedia IS an online community. Online communities are made of people, and people have opinions and biases, and they choose to express them in the form of userboxes. I didn't feel the interpretation by Jimbo was very clear, although it was rather recent. In the end, there just needs to be a User template: namespace. I have a feeling that would solve some of these issues, mostly those unrelated to T1. By no means is any of this clear or easy :( --Disavian 05:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Jimbo was clearer here back in March. The German solution is gaining support; I think it's the way to go. Templates will be safe in userspace, stored in user page directories like they have on de:, as long as they don't cause problems. I think this solution will fly, unless it blows up of its own accord. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• What's the point of even having this discussion? Enough administrators have made it clear that they are going to do whatever the heck they feel like regardless of policy. Administrators User:Doc glasgow, User:Tony Sidaway, User:Phil Boswell, User:Sean Black, User:Metamagician3000, User:Jareth, and User:GTBacchus have all demonstrated that community consensus is irrelevant to them by endorsing a patently incorrect deletion. I find it incomprehensible that we are even having this discussion. You guys are just making up rules as we go along. If you are going to refuse to enforce whatever actual policy is decided on and just delete anything you don't like out of process, why are we even pretending to have this discussion? Even if it gets undeleted, another one of you will just delete it next week. BigDT 05:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  We've had the T1 policy for some time now, and dozens of deletion reviews have endorsed a broad interpretation. The arbitration committee explicitly recognised this in the arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway just over two months ago. --Tony Sidaway 05:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't question that T1 exists. I question that T1 has anything to do with this userbox. If it is divisive or inflammatory, it is only so because of your actions and the actions of other administrators. There is nothing INHERENTLY divisive or inflammatory about it. If the userbox said "this user doesn't like atheists" or "this user is anti-Catholic" or something like that, I'd be the first one to vote keep deleted on the DRV. But in order for you to say that this userbox is "divisive and inflammatory", you would also have to say that any expression of faith in any way is divisive and inflammatory. (I'm aware that T1 is only relevant to such expressions in template space, but the words "divisive" and "inflammatory" exist and have meaning outside the context of userboxes.) Is it "divisive" or "inflammatory" that I go to church Sunday mornings? That I say, "I am a Christian"? That I pray before meals? How, then, is a userbox that says no more nor less than "this user is a Christian" divisive and inflammatory? There is nothing INHERENTLY inflammatory about it. What is inflammatory is the edit warring, wheel warring, vandalism, and refusal to enforce a consensus. Repeated out-of-process deletions and trips to DRV are divisive and inflammatory - the template itself is not. No, I don't question the existence of T1. I question your application of it. BigDT 05:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, this template does not deserve to be used to make a point, especially not this many times in a row. --tjstrf 05:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Whether or not this template is 'good' is immaterial to this discussion. The template was unilaterally deleted by an admin ignoring a consensus to keep and therefore this should be a speedy undelete. All your legitimate concerns about the usefulness of POV boxes can be addressed at TfD, not speedy deletion. IMO Delete votes citing the inappropriateness of POV userboxen should be ignored because that's not what this debate is about, let the community decide that. No one admin (or even a group of them) has the power to decide what is in the best interests of the community when the community itself wants to go the opposite way. Let's stop playing the Big Brother. Loom91 05:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Like I've said somewhere else, I have absolutely no idea why the admins don't just do a mass delete. What is the point of allowing these votes anyway? Wikipedia is not a democracy, and it's obvious the admins will interpret a Userbox as "divisive or inflammatory" in whatever way they see fit and delete it. Personally, I'm OK with a mandate and mass delete on Userboxes, but the way the situation is being handled is incredibly inept. Like someone else said, this is essentially a mass delete, carried out in a very annoying manner. Hong Qi Gong 05:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete Why shouldn't we be allowed to state that we are christians in userboxes if we want to? Besides, the speedy deletion of this userbox template was not justified. Ifrit 05:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete since this has been on DRV something like three times already. THis is becoming a pointless attempt at deletion by attrition. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted The only userboxes of any value are time zone, technical, linquistic and project participation. Sophia 06:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. What is it with you people? I like having a flourishing community with all that that entails. User pages were one manifestation of it, userboxes are just another one. Cracking down on them will do not one tiny bit of good and has the potential to drive many people away, or discourage them into reducing the frequency of their contributions (instead of drawing them deeper into the site, which is the kind of thing userboxes do)—either because of frustration at their disappearing userboxes or because of frustration at the ridiculous admin abuse of powers that has gone on in the effort to get rid of them. People want their ability to express themselves maximized, not minimized, and they want to believe that there's some process, some sort of order and rule structure that protects them—I imagine it must be quite vexing to find out how a small minority can rule arbitrarily like this. Everyking 06:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete - This template just restored here couple days ago and just survived TfD, what makes one to think things have changed?? "-Template:User Christian restored by 27-36 majority, will be relisted at TfD in pre-edit war form. 17:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review" & TfD Hunter 08:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I would have voted to undelete six months ago, and I still think that the way this was originally handled showed a complete contempt for the community, but it's quite clear Jimbo doesn't want these boxes, and so at the very least they shouldn't be in template space. I do think, however, that it's ridiculous to say that using a box which says "This user is a Christian" is an attempt to convert others. AnnH ♫ 08:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Stop deleting userbox templates (and indeed creating new ones) until a consensus policy is reached, per Jimbo's request of 'one user at a time.' Deleting them, then having a DRV on everyone is just wasting everyone's time. Having said that - it's now clear to me that no matter what the outcome, we are going to keep having this debate over and over, template by template, as certain admins don't appear to be willing to await the outcome of debate or consensus on the whole userbox/template thing. A template survives a DRV - it get's re-deleted. (Strange how this isn't vandalism, but re-creating something is!) We end up with the ridiculous situation of the {insert religious or political userbox} being deleted while another {insert religious or political userbox} is restored (or, at least, not yet deleted) - obvious examples being Republican / Democrat or Christian / Satanist. So. All religious userbox templates are on one page, yes? As are all political userbox templates? How does one go about nominating them all, simultaneously, for a T1 TfD? Bastun 09:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Why do single admins take it on their high horse to act as they please. Why is this discussion even happening. It is a joke that a successful deletion review, immediately followed by a successful TfD, can be followed by someone going and deleting on a whim. Ansell Review my progress! 09:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Templates of the type user_worldview have created a big load of unproductive and pointless unrest. The most effective way to avoid this from now on is to have them deleted alltogether. The problem with that approach is that many users feel discriminated if "their" worldview-box is deleted, while others are not; So, as it can be assumed that user_christian is among the most popular boxes on en.WP, deleting it is a major step. -- 790 10:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, it's already been through TfD's and DRV's that've supported keeping this userbox. Will (^E_@) T 10:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Knowing peoples' POVs is a very positive thing, and helps us know who is liable to POV-pushing. Someone who has "faith" (which is by definition blind belief/ignorance with no requirement for Verifiability) in any religion cannot be expected to edit any religion-orientated article neutrally. --Col. Hauler 11:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete - I post this as if my opinion matters on Wikipedia... but if the consensus repeatedly is for keeping it, then speedy deleting it yet again shows nothing but complete contempt for the user community. Arguing that Jimbo supports speedy deleting it is nothing more than arguing that Jimbo has nothing but complete contempt for the user community, as well. Is that really what you want to say? Or is it the truth? Jay Maynard 11:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - I don't have this or ever plan to have this as a userbox but I can see no reason why this or any other religions or ideologies should ever be deleted! If they aren't innately offensive I have no problem with them! -- UKPhoenix79 11:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The admins who are repeatedly deleting this out of process find anything but bland, homogenous user pages innately offensive. Jay Maynard 11:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete like that robot mouse Jerry had on that one episode of Tom and Jerry.-Strip Improv of his powers while we are at it! -user:Gangsta-Easter-Bunny --13:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, there has been a consensus to keep on several occasions. There has never been a consensus to delete. "this user/administrator dislikes this" is NOT a valid deltion criteria, let alone a speedy one. Thryduulf 16:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete! Korossyl 17:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid T1, as can be seen by the divided and heated nature of this very discussion. No obvious reason to question Improv's judgement. Let it go. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply The template is not controversial, the deletion is. A controversial deletion is reason for keeping, not the inverse. --tjstrf 21:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Lets follow the process, and abide by consensus. Bo 19:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. T1. It was valid to delete when I first deleted it many months ago, and T1 still applies. --Improv 21:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So you're not too bothered by the strong consensus to keep on its TfD? —Ashley Y 21:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete For same rationale as per Col. Hauler, above. Knowlege of their POV pushing nature is valuable and should mean they should recuse themseleves from editing on articles of a religious nature, except to give info about it on talk pages. I don't think its a means to convert, nor do I think it helps to build their cabal (as they just flock to their articles anyway). But, it should be a way to identify who should be discouraged from editing in various articles, esp. those playing admin roles.Giovanni33 21:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: POV religious boxes are divisive. See Satanist below. Stephen B Streater 22:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral I don't care whether it's undeleted or not, as long as the decision matches Satanist below. Delete both or keep both. Fan1967 23:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, though it is divisive: "Having a quality that divides or separates", T1 as it stands says the templates must both be divisive and inflammatory. Having a POV is not inflammatory. Having POV is however CSD T2. If T2 was policy, then my vote would be to delete. Also, Citing the deletion policy:

  Repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted, and in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rayc (talk • contribs) 23:14, 1 June 2006.

  This is a userbox, not an article. This userbox is obviously unsuitable and will either be altered to be suitable for Wikipedia or else deleted--all we're arguing over are the details. --Tony Sidaway 00:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  Who died and made you Jimbo? Jay Maynard 01:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  It's only "obvious" to you and the others who are distorting the purpose of T1 to fulfil your goal of deleting all non-project userboxes. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that goal, but please, be frank about it, admit your motives, and don't abuse existing rules against their original intent. --tjstrf 00:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  T1 says divisive and inflammatory. You already acknowledge divisive. Anything divisive has the potential to become inflammatory. Look at the number of people expressing opinions here, and you'll see this userbox has become inflammatory. Stephen B Streater 09:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  You're confusing the actions of editors and administrators with the template in a vacuum. The template is neither divisive nor inflammatory when taken alone, divisive only in the context of a strong POV holding user viewing it, and not inflammatory at all. These repeated deletions, on the other hand, are both divisive and inflammatory, and as such should be overturned. The template is not divisive and inflammatory, User:Improv is. (and if he were a template, he would be deleted) --tjstrf 10:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  The template divides Wikipedians by their beliefs. If anyone feels more aligned to another editor because they have this userbox, then it is divisive. Stephen B Streater 11:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  If I get a swollen ankle, it is the ankle that swells, not the sprain that caused it. Often the swelling can take some time to show. So this debate is the swollen ankle - the sympton of the inflammatory userbox (the sprain). If the cells which trigger the swelling are the admins, you are blaming the cells in the ankle for the swelling, not the sprain. It is true that if the cells didn't swell, the ankle wouldn't either (and some pain relief drugs prevent swelling), but the swelling aids recovery. Personally, I wouldn't delete a userbox against consensus because I think it polarises debate and makes consensus harder to reach. If a neutral userbox such as a babel box were to be deleted, the debate would be one sided and the box would be clearly seen to be non-inflammatory. The inflammation here requires the original box to be potentially inflammatory. I would not trigger the inflammation myself, but we're here now. Do we treat the symptoms or the cause? Stephen B Streater 11:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per process. Also urge admins to wait for a solution and stop wasting time deleting boxes. Λυδαcιτγ^{(TheJabberwock)} 23:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment is it worth sorting the votes? —Ashley Y 23:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Obviously divisive. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted in accordance with the deletion of other religious bias userboxes. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 00:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't care whether this one is kept or deleted, but I hope whichever way it goes, it's done consistently for all religions rather than showing preference for "approved" ones. *Dan T.* 01:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: This is no more inflammatory than if you declared yourself to be a dentist; some people hate Christians and some hate dentists. If you see Christianity as inflammatory, it is because you want it to be. That's your POV problem, not the userbox's. WestonWyse 04:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Does not meet any speedy-deletion criterion. T1 is not relevant here, as being Christian is not "divisive and inflammatory" anymore than being Muslim or atheist or Rastafarian is. T2 is not settled policy, and thus clearly cannot be arbitrarily imposed on random templates in an attempt to force it into becoming a de facto policy; and even if T2 was policy (or becomes one in the future), it would be much easier to simply make this into a redirect to {{user christianity}} and subst the original {{user christian}} to the users who were using it, thus preventing endless DRVs like this one. But right now, as T2 is still under discussion, this deletion is premature at the very least, and downright destructive (much more than the template itself, which never caused an ounce of harm before it was used as a tool by certain admins to exacerbate the userbox debate) at worst. -Silence 12:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted or we risk a "tyranny of the majority" situation. Rob 13:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - Exactly how is that worse than the tyranny of the admins we have now? If you object to that term, exactly how is it inapplicable to the situation we have, where it's repeatedly speedy deleted in the face of repeated consensus to keep it? Jay Maynard 14:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  "Tyranny of the minority," I think it should be. It's certainly at least equally applicable. WestonWyse 02:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. It made it through TfD 3 days ago, and then it got deleted again?! // The True _Sora 13:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The mere act of declaring one's religion is only divisive to people who hate and fear religion. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 17:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete. Now again? --H.T. Chien / 眼鏡虎 (Discuss|Contributions) 19:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• undelete please there was no reason for this really Yuckfoo 00:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV QuizQuick 00:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete - This is ridiculous. Religion is not a divisive point of view - it merely expresses what someone believes - what is wrong with that? If it passed a vote for deletion, then leave it as is. There should be no reason why this should be deleted. A violation of human rights and free speech if it is. (JROBBO 04:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

  I think it's pretty insulting to people who are actually having their human rights violated in this world, that you would apply such rhetoric to an issue as trivial as whether, in one particular namespace on one particular website on the wide internet, you can announce your religion. The only issue here is where these things are stored on the server. Pretending it's about human rights and freedom of speech must be very satisfying, from a drama perspective, but it's pretty depressing, in the eyes of someone who's actually seen human rights abuses. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment In America, Freedom of Speech is considered a human right. Wikipedia is not America, of course, but he isn't actually misusing the term. --tjstrf 05:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  No. He's misusing the term. Human rights, including freedom of speech, are things that matter, things worth dying for. Nobody's freedom of speech is being violated when all anyone's saying is, "hey, that template is stored in the wrong namespace, move it," so JROBBO's assertion that this is about freedom of speech is laughable. If you're privileged enough to be accessing Wikipedia from a computer in the first world, and to have the free time to complain about userboxes (from any side of the dispute), then you're in the luckiest 1% of people on Earth. Don't trivialize human rights. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Reply In that case, I think your gripes would be better addressed to the Founding Fathers than myself or JROBBO. My personal opposition to the deletion is based on it being an abuse of the T1 criteria by an admin with ulterior motives. --tjstrf 05:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  My "gripes"? What are you even talking about? I was getting on JROBBO's case for talking like a spoiled brat; the Founding Fathers are... unrelated. As for the deletion, all these templates are moving to user space anyway, see The German solution. Nobody will delete them there. That's how the userbox wars end, it turns out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Your gripes about his use of the phrase human rights. Also, userfying doesn't solve a thing, we'd still have collections of stupid, worthless userboxes sitting around, they just wouldn't be in template space. Also, what deletion criteria, if any, would keep userfied boxes from becoming worse, more offensive, more pointless, and more page-consuming than the template space ones ever were? --tjstrf 06:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Userfying does at least one thing: it removes the appearance of official sanction for POV userboxes that comes from keeping them in Template space. What's more, it might be the only thing that people on both sides of the userbox controversy can agree on - it might end the stupid "userbox wars", and that's a Good Thing. In user space, the boxes will still be subject to WP:UP and to basic rules prohibiting attacks or polemical statements. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Reply Not to be offensive in any way, but that's just sophistry. The "appearance of sanction" is as much present when the box is in the userspace, or even coded in by hand, as it is when it's in templatespace. Those users who follow the userbox debate all understand that userboxes are not an endorsement of the statements they contain by the wikimedia foundation regardless of their location, and those who don't follow it will be ignorant of the entire debate, and may draw either conclusion no matter where we put the boxes. The German Solution may pacify, but it doesn't solve or conclude. If anything it is actually a crippling defeat for the deletionist side, who have essentially traded all their credit in exchange for a superficial compromise that does nothing. I believe the deletionist side would be better to strategically withdraw and come back with a new proposal. (See also my comments at Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates.) --tjstrf 07:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken, but you're wrong. It's not sophistry. If a user sees that user boxes live on various people's user pages, under someone's name, that stands out as different from other templates, which exist in a common Template space. If they ask someone why that is, they find out that it's because userboxes aren't considered official Wikipedia templates the way other templates are. That'll mean something to that user; they'll think about it. User space is phychologically different from the other name spaces because it's not a shared area - all the pages in userspace are in somebody's "personal area". Besides all that, the German solution has Jimbo's support. As far as I'm concerned, you're proposing prolonging the userbox controversy, and all I care about is ending it. Convincing people that userboxes are wrong now has to be done with reason and dialogue. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's only psychologically different to those who understand the situation leading up to it. For everyone else, it will just be another layer of confusion to those who even notice. Also, I'm not trying to prolong the debate, I'm trying to resolve it. From my view, even a prolonged debate with an actual conclusion that did something non-superficial would be better than one that forces a false peace on us. Preferably though, it would not be a prolongation of the current debate, but rather a new debate entirely. However, if Jimbo says, then we should obey, even if I personally disagree. Also, we're stretching out the deletion review with mostly unrelated arguments, so let's end on that note. --tjstrf 09:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment What's wrong with it is, it has nothing to do with building a respectable reliable encyclopedia.

  Somewhere along the line, one policy came to be radically misinterpreted to the detriment of all the others, including the most basic: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If we can't coherently explain what it has to do with furthering the mission - and I don't for one moment buy "disclosure of bias", that is at most an unintended side-effect of the honestly stated goal of self-expression (such that the deletion of a userbox is said to be a "violation of human rights and free speech") - then it shouldn't exist. No, wikipedia is not censored, but it's not a free webhost either. Free speech means you can unashamedly write from a strong point of view. You can cite unreliable sources. You can pursue and disseminate original research. You can be incivil and even make personal attacks. Etc. All those things are a part of our personal freedom and protected self-expression. Wikipedia isn't about freedom or self-expression. Those are burdens that could never be carried by any single enterprise, and really, should they be? At the end of the day, Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia.Timothy Usher 05:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - does anyone else think that maybe it's time this thing just got taken to arbitration? The wheel warring [127] has continued into tonight. This template has been through repeated discussions, arguments, and everything else. Plenty of administrators have made it clear that they have no intention of enforcing the consensus and are going to delete it out of process regardless of what the consensus is. At least if it goes to arbitration, a final decision can be made once and for all and the silly edit warring and wheel warring can stop. BigDT 07:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• No one like wheel warring. It indicates an emotional involvement which can polarise a debate along irrational lines. It also indicates that this userbox has become (possible indirectly) inflammatory. I think this is too early for arbitration, as various viewpoints are still working through the system and almost everyone is still engagng in constructive debate. When the good ideas are all presented, I will support your call for arbitration. Stephen B Streater 09:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete the tfd for keep speaks for itself. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete Either process has some meaning or it doesn't. When userboxes are kept in TfD, and there is no clear policy against them, (T1 is not clearly against relgion userboxes or this one in particular, and T2 is neither consensus nor policy) then admins can not turn around and do as they see fit. When an editor is promoted to admin, they are symbolically given a mop, not a sceptre; this means that they serve us, not rule us. While that means excercising judgement and discretion and not always going along with the crowd, it does not give them license to overrule a clearly-expressed consensus even when that consensus goes against their personal interpretation of Wikipedia's goals. The only way to overrule such a consensus should be to have a clear pronouncement from the office, and I'm sorry, but no such clear pronouncement has come forth. What would such a pronouncement sound like? How about, "Delete all userboxes except _____." Until then, consensus has to come first. Vadder 18:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Count: at this point, 41 (incl. nom.) overturn & undelete; 20 endorse deletion [128] —Ashley Y 16:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• That's on par with the 2/1 split commonly seen with userbox issues. It's not enough to get a concensus, not enough to delete through TfD, and not enough to overturn a speedy. In other words, a mess. --StuffOfInterest 16:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• It seems pretty clear though "If there is neither a majority to endorse the decision nor a three-quarters supermajority to overturn and apply some other result, the article is relisted on the relevant deletion process.", this would indicate sending this to TFD, where a supermajority already endorsed Keep. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm, interesting. Which policy page does that come from as I may like to use it in the future. When you consider that this particular template survived a TfD three days before its deletion the whole situation is just that much more ugly. All in all, in the long term, moving it out to user space probably has a better chance. --StuffOfInterest 16:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Vfu mechanics, though I'm not sure what status that has. —Ashley Y 20:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• And VFU/M is transcluded right at the top of this page. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, Keep deleted, per Sophia et al. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:User organ donor

Speedydeleted by Tony Sidaway on 30 May 2006 stating "T1, blatant campaigning". A borderline case - while this userbox is definity pushing for organ-donation (a good cause in itself) I am not entirely sure if campainging fulfills the T1 criteria. So I'd say Overturn and Relist. Alternativly the text could be changed to "user is a organ donor". CharonX 01:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note: I userified these 3 boxes to CharonX userspace at CharonX's request.... Keep deleted this userbox is advocacy. Organ donation is an admirable thing to advocate (and I have so pledged, and so, dear reader, should you) but it nevertheless is advocacy. For consistency we cannot allow advocacy. Of any sort. ++Lar: t/c 01:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted in accordance with objective of removing all such userboxes from template space. Metamagician3000 02:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per Metamagician.Timothy Usher 02:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Divisive. --Tony Sidaway 03:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Does not fall under T1. —David618 ^t 03:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Can we see the content? (If I don't come back here, undelete if it's just "this user is an organ donor" or "this user is interested in organ donation," but keep deleted if it's more opinionated than that) --Rory096 03:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, keep deleted with no prejudice towards a neutral and solely factual recreation. --Rory096 03:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The content is right above. I restored the last version to userspace as I noted. Did you want to see all the versions??? ++Lar: t/c 03:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Where'd it go? If it got removed it may have been nice to say why, whoever did it. ++Lar: t/c 17:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and send to TfD This is a borderline case, and I feel it merits reconsideration. --Disavian 04:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • After seeing the template, I feel it did not deserve deletion at all. As it is obviously not under T1. --Disavian 05:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per Rory, but unprotect so that a non-divisive version may be created BigDT 04:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Does not fall under any existing speedy-deletion criterion, as it's very clearly not "divisive and inflammatory". Send this to TfD if you think it should be deleted. -Silence 04:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Aw, come on. I rarely get into userbox debates, but can't "This user is an organ donor" satisfy the "no advocacy" requirement? If rewritten, undelete. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• undelete and TFD if you must. not really divisive or inflamitory. Mike McGregor (Can) 05:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: not divisive or inflammatory. —Ashley Y 07:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: A divisive version would state: "This user has arranged for organ donation and is better than you because of it" or "This user has not arranged for organ donation as it would violate their God-given right to remain whole as a corpse". Even if anyone actually considered the addition of "have you?" to the template to be in any way divisive or inflammatory, wouldn't it make more sense to edit those words out rather than outright delete the template? ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 08:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete And remove "have you?" from it. Information only. --mboverload@ 08:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Reword - one should reword the template instead of speedy it. Hunter 09:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: Stop deleting userbox templates (and indeed creating new ones) until a consensus policy is reached, per Jimbo's request of 'one user at a time.' Deleting them, then having a DRV on everyone is just wasting everyone's time. Bastun 10:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per T1: just considering all the screeching and hollering should give people an idea of just how bloody disruptive these damn things can be. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Until or unless a concensus based policy is established. --StuffOfInterest 11:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, valid deletion. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist on ATfD. Not T1 or T2, but non-speedy-deletion criteria are more extensive. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Xanga/Livejournal beckon. --Improv 18:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete now this IS ridiculous.  Grue  20:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: Burn them all, may the internet run binary with the ones and zeros of the fallen boxes! --Bobak 21:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted --pgk^(talk) 21:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and list per nom. Let's see what the community thinks. Septentrionalis 23:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Perfectly valid T1 deletion, say a few words about it on your userpage if you want. Keep your personal preferences out of template space. Rx StrangeLove 02:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Inappropriate use of template space. AnnH ♫ 08:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Recreate in factual format. "This user is an organ donor." --tjstrf 08:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Recreate per Tjstrf Will (^E_@) T 11:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Recreate as a factual box. What's next, Template:User 911?! Jay Maynard 12:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Recreate per Tjstrf, however I do not endorse its speedy deletion - this was borderline and so obviously easy to change to a neutral version that talk page discussion or a TfD debate would have been less devisive than a speedy deletion. Thryduulf 16:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, I can't see what it initially said, but if it was "I am an organ donor", it's stating a fact, not a POV. If a fact is inflammitory, then so would be "This user owns a car" to enviromentalist. Great, I think I just WP:BEANS --Rayc 23:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, you can't prevent offending EVERYBODY. Rob 13:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, you can't prevent offending EVERYBODY.Giovanni33 17:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, you can't prevent offending EVERYBODY. 03:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Userboxes have failed to hold my interest, but I fail to see how this is even remotely divisive. If this template offends you, you probably should turn off your computer right now. Yamaguchi先生 15:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, Keep deleted, how can this possibly help build an Encyclopedia? This is not MySpace. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

2006 June

1. Okashina_Okashi - Decision of the original closer to relist at AfD is endorsed. 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
2. Dismal's Paradox - Relisted at AfD. 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
3. User:SPUI/jajaja - Nomination withdrawn. 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
4. List of political leaders widely regarded as totalitarian - Request for information answered. 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
5. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed. 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
6. Cultural references in Pokémon - Deletion endorsed. 16:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
7. Fluffy (The Lion King) - Deletion endorsed. 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
8. Kelly Roberti - Copyright issue resolved, restored. 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
9. Image:Pierre Janssen.jpg - Commons image, action impossible here. 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Review
10. Neanderthal theory of autism - Deletion endorsed. 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
11. Be bold, Be Bold - Overturn RfD and revert to WP:BOLD. 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
12. Jeff Lindsay - Deletion endorsed. 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
13. "State Debate Associations" - Deletion endorsed. 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
14. How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 - Deletion endorsed. 17:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
15. Kinston Indians - Deletion endorsed. 17:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
16. Wikipedia:SCAG - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
17. Image:Nuvola 64 apps important.png - undeletion impossible; deleted prior to 16 June 2006. 13:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
18. Sick Nick Mondo - Deletion endorsed for now, pending AfD outcome for related Nick Mondo; should that survive, this is a suitable redirect. 18:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review

    Nick Mondo having survived AfD, this is restored as a redirect. 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

19. True Torah Jews - Deletion endorsed. 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
20. UCIP - Deletion endorsed. 18:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
21. Mending Wall - Keep endorsed. 11:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
22. Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) - Deletion endorsed. 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
23. TheSmartMarks.com - Deletion endorsed. 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
24. Dirt pudding - Transwiki and deletion endorsed. 17:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
25. Kirill Makharinsky - Deletion endorsed. 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
26. Armando Lloréns-Sar - History restored, maintained as redirect; merge issues are an editorial concern for article's talk page. 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
27. Hollywood Undead - Deletion endorsed. 17:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
28. Trexy - Closing administrator agreed to relist AFD. 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Review
29. Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak - No consensus closure endorsed. 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
30. Knox (animator) - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
31. Lightsaber combat - Keep closure endorsed. 18:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
32. Stone Trek - Deletion closure endorsed. 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
33. File:944 h.jpg - DRV closed, image in Commons jurisdiction. 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
34. Sadullah Khan - Undeleted, relisted. 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
35. Atromitos - Undeleted. 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
36. Walk To Emmaus - Deletion endorsed. 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
37. Wikipedia:Conservative notice board. Kept deleted. Strong endorsement. 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Review.
38. Lost: The Journey - Relisted. 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
39. User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes and Template:User Gangster - Undeleted. 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
40. The Lost Boys (demogroup) - Relist. 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
41. Second War (Harry Potter) - Deletion endorsed. 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
42. IRCDig - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
43. Saryn Hooks - Undeleted and relisted at AfD. 17:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
44. Template:Major_programming_languages - template content restored 06:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) review
45. Strategic Policy Consulting - Deletion endorsed. 16:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
46. Actuarial Outpost - Kept kept, mistaken nomination. 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
47. Image:WikiPâques.png - Uploaded to Commons, as suggested. 16:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
48. The Esplanade Mall - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 16:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
49. Sydney Ling - AfD result of "no consensus" endorsed. 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
50. Siberian language - Deletion endorsed. 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
51. Burlington Center Mall - Challenge of no consensus afd withdrawn. 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
52. Erik Möller - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
53. theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh - Deletions endorsed. 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
54. Wikipedia:OURS - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
55. 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) - Deletion endorsed. 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
56. Conservative Underground - Deletion endorsed. 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
57. Boring Business Systems - AfD reopened by acclamation. 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
58. Joseph D. Campbell - Previous AfD overturned, to be relisted at AfD. 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
59. Church of Reality - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
60. Heinen's - Result reversed by consensus, AfD now closed as "no consensus". 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
61. BB Sinha - Restored, listed at AfD. 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (deleted at AfD 20:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)) Review
62. Mending Wall - Restored, listed at AfD, closed as keep, brought here again (above). 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
63. Cancer Bats - Restored, to be resubmitted to AfD in light of new evidence. 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
64. Cum On Her Face - Deletion endorsed. 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
65. AlternC - Deletion endorsed. 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
66. Tiffany Holiday - Deletion endorsed. 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
67. Shane Cubis - Deletion endorsed unanimously (excepting discounted anons/newbies.) 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
68. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
69. Big Brother 7 chronology - Deletion endorsed. Will userfy upon request. 15:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
70. Wikimedia Meta-Wiki - action reverted by the closer. AFD reopened. 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
71. The Adventures of Dr. McNinja - Consensus to permit userpage draft as new recreation, will be submitted to AfD. 17:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
72. Cory kennedy - Deletion endorsed. 17:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
73. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics - Kept deleted unanimously. 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
74. Yar - Deletion endorsed without prejudice to unrelated redirect now at title. 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
75. List of midnight movies - Content restored for merge and redirect. 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
76. AK Productions - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
77. FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together - Undeleted and sent to AfD. 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
78. List of tongue-twisters - Deletion endorsed in light of new Wikiquote transwiki. 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
79. User:Raphael1/Wikiethics - Deletion endorsed. 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
80. Roosters1908, Sydneyroosters1909, and Sydneyroosters1910 - Undeleted to be AfD'ed in light of new evidence. 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
81. National Hockey Leaque player lists - Restored speedily and AFD reopened. 08:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
82. User:AKMask/log - Restored (by a narrow margin) to be sent to MfD. 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
83. Male Unbifurcated Garment - Deletion endorsed (again -- Second DRV in two weeks.) 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
84. Penis banding - Deletion endorsed. 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Review
85. Template:User no notability - Deletion narrowly endorsed. (date unavailable, deletion review never archived) Permalink
86. Syed Ahmed - deletion endorsed, redirected to The Apprentice (UK series 2) 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
87. Ho Shin Do - deletion endorsed without prejudice 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
88. Israel News Agency - article content restored 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
89. Delaware County Intermediate Unit - Deletion closure endorsed. 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
90. Steve Bellone - Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
91. Team NoA - Previous version restored, survived AfD as no consensus. 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
92. Springfield M21 - Restored as redirect with history. 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
93. The drips - Speedy deletion contested, overturned; sent to AfD. 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
94. Template:Voting icons - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
95. Ali Zafar - New NPOV recreation permitted. 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
96. Barbara Bauer, The Literary Agency Group and others - Bauer undeleted and kept at AfD; others kept deleted. 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
97. Scienter - deletion overturned. 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
98. Auto repair shop - original speedy deletion endorsed, without prejudice to now-existing distinct redirect at this title. 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
99. Wikipedia v search engines - deletion endorsed unanimously. 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
100. Pat Price - deletion overturned unanimously, no need to relist. 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
101. Talk:Brian Peppers - kept deleted. 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
102. The Juggernaut Bitch - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
103. South Coast League - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
104. Other side of the pillow - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
105. Joel Leyden - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
106. Sharting - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
107. User:Disavian/Userboxes/Green Energy - deletion endorsed, narrowly 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
108. Left-wing terrorism - article history restored 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
109. Stella Maris College Scout Group - deletion endorsed 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
110. List of Michael Savage neologisms - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
111. Superhorse - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
112. Exicornt - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
113. Image:Lock-icon.jpg - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
114. College Confidential - article content restored 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
115. Tim Dingle - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
116. Abstract People - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
117. Christian views of Hanukkah - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
118. Claught of a bird dairy products - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
119. LIP6 - continue from rewritten version 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
120. Hulk 2 - redirected to Hulk (film) for now 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
121. Xombie - article content restored 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
122. Possible wars between liberal democracies speedy-deletion undone by deleting admin. listed to AFD. 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
123. Gary Howell deletion endorsed. 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
124. New Sincerity - deletion endorsed. 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
125. Successful Praying - speedy deletion as copyvio endorsed. 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
126. Videohypertransference - user copy granted. deletion from articlespace endorsed. 20:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
127. Oz Categories 8 endorse, 5 overturn, deletion endorsed. 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Review

Userbox discussions

• Template:User no notability - deletion endorsed, narrowly 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• Template:User organ donor template content restored 17:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian See WP:TGS
• Template:User satanist kept deleted
• Template:User cannabis kept deleted
• Template:User CCP - kept deleted. 00:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User against fox hunting (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW. Massive endorsement.)

Archives

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 May)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 April)