Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:45, 15 March 2006

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/Vfu header This page is about articles, not about people. If you feel that a sysop is routinely deleting articles prematurely, or otherwise abusing their powers, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators. Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.

Content review

Editors who wish to see the content of a deleted article may place a request here. They may wish to use that content elsewhere, for example. Alternatively, they may suspect that an article has been wrongly deleted, but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted. As a subset of this, sometimes an article which is appropriate for a sister site is deleted without being properly transwikied. If the page is undeleted temporarily, it can be exported complete with history using Special:Export, and then redeleted. This will be especially useful once the import feature is completed.

Many administrators will honour requests to provide the content of a deleted article if asked politely. See Category:User undeletion.

Proposed deletions

Articles deleted under the Misplaced Pages: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.

History only undeletion

History only undeletions can be performed without needing a vote on this page. For example, suppose someone writes a biased article on Fred Flintstone, it is deleted, and subsequently someone else writes a decent article on Fred Flintstone. The original, biased article can be undeleted, in which case it will merely sit in the page history of the Fred Flintstone article, causing no harm. Please do not do this in the case of copyright violations.

Decisions to be reviewed

Template loop detected: Template:Vfu mechanics Important notice: all userbox undeletions are being discussed on a subpage: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates. Please post all new such requests there (though you may link them from this page if you like)

15 March 2006

Peter_Fletcher

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Peter Fletcher

Article was deleted because the admin Splash concluded that it was a soapbox and a "walled garden." He also makes unsubstantiated and completely inappropriate personal attacks on me in the deletion review, but I suppose that's beside the point. In any event, it got, by my vote, 7 delete votes, 3 clear keeps, 1 equivocal keeps, and 1 week keep. This does not approach a community consenus, and Splash clearly made the wrong call. --Leifern 23:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Splash closed the AfD as a delete without prejudice to the writing of a new, NPOV article about Peter Fletcher. Having had a look at the deleted article I agree that it is POV, and that it would be better to start again. Hence, keep deleted, but don't stop anyone having another go at writing it. David | Talk 23:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

13 March 2006

Stephen Glicker

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Steve Glicker

This artcile has been listed as deleated for nearly a year now, however the site has grown enormasoulsy due to Steve's 'close' links with Spore. Alexa now lists thw website 28,137 (Alexa Listing for Gaming Steve

• Well, a little more than half a year, anyway. The Alexa rank is improved from the hundreds-of-thousandth of July to know about 29,000th over the last 3 months. I'm not sure that this is likely to persuade AfD, and nor is a rank of about 20,000th for this last week, since the graph shows that traffic is very spiky and that a one week average is not usefully meaningful. The graph shows that the site only hit Alexa's radar in December: I'm not sure that a site that's only been visible to Alexa for 3 months is for Misplaced Pages yet. I find nothing on Google News under either "Steve Glicker" or Steven Glicker nor under gamingsteve.com. The nomination here relies only on the Alexa rank, and thus, in my opinion, presents no information that is likely at present to change the result of the AfD, whether it is on the person or the website. If nothing better can be found, then Endorse deletion. -Splash 20:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Definitely Reasoning: The Reason google news doesn't have any sources on Steve is because nobody has thought to tell google to put him into it's system. It has Stuff from the Clovis News Journal, and other sources Which Misplaced Pages has nothing about. You can't really use it as a determanation of noteablility. Although if you type in his podcast (Which also happens to be in the top 100 gaming casts on Itunes) You'll get multiple results. He's got one of the most respected gaming podcasts out there, Attracting attention from many people in the gaming industry including people at Maxis (Sims, SimCity, Spore) and Bethedesa (The Elder Scrolls) I really think it's noteable enough to be undeleted. Besides, You Say top 20,000 isn't notable enough. Sites like Langmaker and Trekweb.com Which Are currently signifigantly below Gamingsteve in Alexa.com Rank have had articles on here for months. So Yeah, I'd say the site and the man are more then Noteable. (Including in it's over 1100 members)--Sgore 21:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Fundamentally, nothing has changed; he and/or his site are still not notable.  RasputinAXP  c 21:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete His rising popularity is reason enough to undelete the article. However I too will cite the Alexa ranking and the cult following he has gathered. Additionally the interviews Steve has posted are with some very high profile people in the industry and are a testament to his status as a podcaster. ~PatMan33 22:35:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • note: this user's only edits to Misplaced Pages so far have been to this discussion and the userpage
  • second note: at 19:27, this user attempted to remove the contribution notice. see here
  • 3rd note, Actually this user has been a member for around a year and most of his edits were in an article that ended up being deleted.
• Undelete He is listed as a source in a textbook from our GSP course in college. He was under "Reccomended Reading/Listening". Mr Wizard 22:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • note: this user's only edits to Misplaced Pages so far have been to this discussion
    • Untrue, I just signed in to validate my vote.
• Endorse closure (keep deleted) at least for now. To answer the claim above, nobody needs to "tell google to put him into its system". That's the beauty of their kind of search engine. When lots of independent people start writing about his, the search engine will start to catch those writings. The recent Alexa rankings are worth watching but I agree with Splash that a short-term spike should not be cause to overturn our previous decision. If they stay high for an extended period, we can reconsider the decision then. Rossami (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Oh yeah, you probably didn't find much under Steven Glicker, because that's a typo. He spells it Stephen Glicker.(Sorry Still Sgore, Logged out accidently)-72.230.6.138
• Undelete Google rankings are often a poor judge of notability. Googling "Village of Fools" will give you my web site, which I wouldn't consider notable enough for wikipedia, before it gives you results for Chelm, the original "Village of Fools," so to speak. At any rate, Stephen Glicker obviously is notable because of the very high popularity of his web site, the enormity of his web forum, the popularity of his podcast, and his interviews with very big people in the game industry. syphonbyte 00:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • contribution history
    • second note: at 22:58, anon user:24.4.244.243 attempted to remove this contribution notice.
    • 3rd note: The contribution notice is uneccesary as he actually has tons of contributions but most people who see that won't bother to click it and will just think low contributions are being implied. Please don't post them for no reason, so confusion among editors can be kept to a minimum.
• I'm not currently seeing in this discussion evidence that anything has changed in a way that I interprate as "new information". Do we have any media references, etc, that shows a change on notability? While the proper forum for examining claims to satisfying the website inclusion guidelines is AfD, I'm not yet seeing any serious claim that this does. - brenneman 01:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• To Answer Brenneman you mean Besides the Huge steady Rise in it's alexa ranking since the article's deletion? A Multitude of of articles on Joystiq (AnotherVery Popular Gaming site with an article) mention steve, many articles themselves have been taken directly from the site: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Gaming+Steve%22+site:www.joystiq.com&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&start=0&sa=N (All 30 pages are Rock solid listing steve from Joystiq) Not To mention Coutless Blogs mentioning him, and Apparently Mr.Wizard's Textbook mentions him. There's also a gaming magazine article which mentions him and if I find it I'll put it here.--Sgore 02:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Barring the textbook and magazine articles that we're yet to see a link to, I'm still not seeing anything that satifies the reliability threshold. - brenneman 05:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Clearly meets a threshold of notability. --Delirium 02:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you have any proof of this, save for the frothy enthusiasm shown above? -Splash 03:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment His site has been visited by very famous Developers. Will Wright paid his site a visit, and at a director from EA admitted that he listen when I asked him in a recent tour I took to EA Redwood Shores. Mr Wizard 03:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/relist. Very simply Steve is very well known in the gaming industry. Between his podcast (which is consistently in the top 50 rankings on iTunes), his site (which is currently ranked 28,137 in Alexa), his ranking in technorati (over 500 links from 294 sites), and his constant mentions industry web sites and printed magazines Steve is quite well known and deserves to be listed. Perhaps not a year ago when this was first entered, but at this point he has earned the listing. Stonesnake 03:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • another suspiciously new user whose only contributions to Misplaced Pages have been this discussion
  • Wrong, His only edits have been in the Undelete section, but not only to this discussion. Please don't post misleading notes, it will confuse editors.
• Undelete. Noting his podcasts popularity is enough I'd say. A LOT of people listen to him, that makes him notable enough I'd say. Chris M. 04:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • How do we know that a lot of people listen to him? - brenneman 05:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Because there have been several references thus far to it's rankings in iTunes (if you'd look above). Maybe they don't listen to him, maybe they just download his podcast and then delete it, but at least THAT amount of effort still makes him notable :). Chris M. 05:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      • While it's often the case that I'm dense, I don't see a link for iTunes ranking? - brenneman 06:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Looking on Google I still see no reliable sources from which to build an article, just his own website and mentions in blogs (which confirm that he exists, but that's it). That's the very definition of non-notability and the reason we have such a definition. To those that are voting to undelete, please show me some sources and not 'this number is now x when before it was y, therefore we must have an article on him'. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Again to answer Brenneman The Way the iTunes Sytem works, You need Itunes itself to actually see these things, It's store is only visitable through the program as far as I know. And You can't actually link to them. You can find it easily though.--72.230.6.138 11:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think I'd need a lot of convincing before I took iTunes as a reliable source. Any thoughts on that, anyone? - brenneman 12:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Same as my thoughts on Alexa, personally. Whether it's reliable or not, it's a number. It can't help us write a verified, neutral article on the guy. I know that people use these numbers to make judgements on notability, and I don't condemn that, but the issue of Alexa ranks etc. is secondary to the question of reliable sources. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Splash. I'm mainly commenting to help swat down the puppetry plague that seems to have developed on the question. Xoloz 11:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Surely articles such as this which will have a large following, high ranking and well know, a recent figure states that 10% of the worlds population visits in a month. This form of article, perhaps not a biography, but an article about his site and works, is definatly much more useful than a vast ammount of information on wikipedia, such as this--Dr dozzy 16:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close. I agree with Sam, Rossami, and Splash. And Brenneman. —Encephalon 16:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure. I'm not convinced by the "new information" being raised here, and the sockpuppet parade doesn't help. android79 16:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure per Encephalon. Steve block talk 19:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Question, Comment and More Evidance for noteabillity First the Question: You keep asking how these things show noteability. How don't they? Seriously, What is the set standard before you concider a site noteable. He's got a conciderably high ranking on Alexa, Which apparently doesn't count. He's got attention by some of the biggest names in gaming industry to actually come on his show but that apparently doesn't count. Nobody even took mention of all the times he's been mentioned on Joystiq, (30 times in one year on just one site is a lot, by anyone's standards) So apparently those don't count. He Build up and Sold a Very successful company, Which out of respect to steve I will not post the Link to. (He signed an NDA and I don't know what the conciquences of breaking that would be.) But If you do a minimal amount of searching on google you can find pretty easily the Company Stephen Glicker used to run. Apparently that doesn't count. If these last two things don't even count I'm starting to think Your standards of noteabillity change no matter what I post. And please don't call anyone sockpuppets. It's uncalled for. Just because someone may not Edit Misplaced Pages much, It doesn't mean they don't care just as much about the content. You have a vast Reading non editing community that you disrespect by acting like that. Anyway Here's the online version of the Magazine article: (Note, It's from a German Magazine, called Pcgames, there is an actual issue you may be able to find if you go out to a store or something) And Finally, Gaming Steve's Google Maps Frappr(To show his wide fanbase): These are both here not to do anything else then prove noteabillity. That's the Reason the Article was deleted and if it is proved there is noteabillity then there is an obligation to undelete it. If you look at all of the sources given throughout this whole thing, and you say to me that noteabillity hasn't been proved, I'm going to have to think that You've been prejudiced against this article being undeleted from the start, and that no amount of credable Noteabillity proving sources would change your mind. Seriously, It was deleted for reasons of noteabillity. That was the only reason. And Noteablillty has been proven here. For anyone to say otherwise now they really would have to elaborate more.--Sgore 20:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Kat Desktop Search Environment

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kat Desktop Search Environment
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kat Desktop Search Environment (Second nomination)

This article was listed for AfD a while ago, and the result was KEEP unanimously apart from nom. It appears that it was listed for deletion again recently, but there was no vote and the article was promptly deleted. Not sure what this is about.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  02:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Undelete There WAS a second vote (found here) but with only one participant besides the nom. I'm inclined to say that's not quite enough, especially considering the points raised in the first AFD discussion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Relist —BorgHunter (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete/relist I'm sure Splash will happily reverse this, as he said, for further consideration. Xoloz 04:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Relist is fine by me, as nominator this time round. Just zis Guy you know? 12:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undeleted. Someone else can relist it if they feel that is warranted. Apologies for using the wrong link in my original deletion 'summary'. -Splash 13:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Kawaii (mascot) should be undeleted too, as it was deleted as a redirect. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 14:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Relist, though I'm not sure I understand Freshgavin's summary of the second discussion. The nomination did attract one vote, which was for deletion, and it was not 'promptly deleted', it was closed properly after a week had passed. With only a 2-0 consensus and a previous consensus to keep it should have been 'relisted to generate a clearer consensus', though. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There's no need to vote on relisting an already undeleted article. You can {{sofixit}} as they say. I deleted it, as you saw from my closure comment, because it was essentially an uncontested deletion in the nature of a PROD. The nomination was cogent and argued reasonably well (it is not merely a "d, nn kruft") and not opposed. -Splash 14:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Originally, freshgavin hadn't spotted the second deletion nomniation because of my incorrect deletion summary link to the original VfD (as I already mentioned in my earlier comment).

House humping

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/House humping
• Relist When this term was deleted in late October, the discussion focussed on whether the term had been used in MSM, and if so, it could be brought back from deletion. To wit, the March issue of GQ magazine (US edition) has a big article on House Humping (it's even blurbed on the cover). There have also been references to it in the San Francisco Bay Guardian and other papers in the US. I hear there's also a MySpace group devoted to house humping, though I'm not sure how relevant that is to undeletion. Again, I'm still new to Wiki, so I'm not sure I'm doing this right, but this seemed like the place to bring this up. thanks. St Germain23 14:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/keep deleted. Looking at the March GQ online, I can find no mention of house humping; therefore, I must question the nomination's accuracy. Xoloz 16:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Yes, I went to their site, too, and you're right, it's not online. The trouble with magazines is that not all their content goes into their online versions (if it was, they'd have a hard time selling their print versions). So, you can either go to a newstand and see for yourself or go to the MySpace group where someone scanned the article and posted it up - here's the scan. The text itself is a little hard to read, but here's a blog that transcribed it. Thanks. St germain23 18:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Currently functionally unverifiable fomr reliabel sources. Let's sit back and wait a while, there is no deadline to meet. Just zis Guy you know? 22:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Alexander (cartoonist)

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Patrick Alexander (cartoonist)

Also appears to have had one round of DRV, but I'm not keen to go looking for the diff right now.

The version I just deleted actually had less material than the last version but if I read the history correct that had more than the AfD version. So... while I'm confident that the version I deleted falls into "recreated content" I'm not 100% on that the last pre-recreation version doesn't deserve an airing here. I mean the "(Deleted revision as of 31 January 2006)" but don't know how to link to that.
brenneman 10:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• The article was originally deleted on the 28th January 2006, the version deleted being here. The problem with reading the afd to my mind is that the article was nominated when the article was in this state. I think the comments regarding POV and vanity at the afd discussion could well have been addressed. I'm not sure how one addresses the comment alleging the article is nonsense, a quick reading of the nonsense criterion at WP:CSD quickly disabuses us of the notion that this article is nonsense as it applies to the deletion process, there is obviously salvagble material here. The other comments from users averring delete fail to quantify their opinions beyond nn. Since an afd is not a vote but a discussion, it's hard to read those comments and gather why the people in question wish to delete the page, since they do not assert why the cartoonist is not notable. I would hope this review could address that situation here.

• I will declare my bias at start. I believe the article should be kept as the cartoonist is, as averred in the article, a nationally published cartoonist. I would hope people agree that a nationally published cartoonist is notable. Steve block talk 11:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Nothing of substance has changed since the AfD and previous DRV, for which the content was temporarily undeleted. Let's wait a while and see if six months or so makes a difference. User:DollyD's zealousness in promoting this cause is commendable but after six deletions and one move from another location where the deleted content was also re-created good faith is wearing a little thin. Just zis Guy you know? 11:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• I appreciate your comments, but first up, an awful lot of those six deletions were because of process warring rather than proper deletions. Secondly, what page move? Thirdly, the new page isn't created by Dolly D, and I think your statements towards that user indicate bad faith. Finally, you still haven't addressed the process. Was there consensus to delete or not? Are you satisfied that the deletion debate was robust enough and comments and thoughts were exchanged such that a consensual delete could be justified? Steve block talk 12:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I also want to make clear my belief that the original drv failed in its duty; mainly due to the fact that there was no clear process that was under review; a non-admin kept the page, an admin over-ruled. Another admin over-ruled that over-ruling and it all went downhill. I would hope we could focus this debate on the consensus to delete, rather than any sense of weariness over discussing the issue or recreations of the page. Steve block talk 12:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Aye, I made a mistake here. Looking at the article's actual AfD as opposed to being distracted by the silliness, I think the close was questionable enough to not have warranted re-deletion, although every "box was ticked" so to speak. A better solution would have been another trip through AfD, along with perhaps a note on the two most recent contributor's talk pages. Trout slapping for me, and suggest restore and relist. Since I'm the deleting admin, and can reverse my own mistake at any time, I'm going to do so in the next hour or three if no one screams. - brenneman 12:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure, keep deleted, padlock door and post a guard. I believe I have voted on at least one AfD for ths and an earlier Deletion review, if memory serves. I think consensus is crystal clear: not notable enough. Constantly recreating this strikes me as WP:POINT, or as JzG notes contrary to good faith. Are we going to keep debating this until a few committed souls get what they want when consensus clearly is unfavourable? Eusebeus 12:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Play fair I don't see your name at the afd, so it's unlikely you particpated there. I also don't see a consensus that a nationally published cartoonist is non-notable, since nowhere in the deletion debate was that issue addressed. That's my interest in the case. Can I also ask that we leave the personal attacks out of it? I'm quite happy to stick the article up on afd again, argue my case and have the thing decided one way or the other. It's just worrying when we can write referenced articles on nationally published artists and see them deleted, and yet have articles such as LUEshi stick around for ever with no sourcing or established notability. The worry I have is that there was no concept of a redirect to list of comic creators discussed, which your comment would once again preclude. I do sometimes question myself as to the inclusion criteria of Misplaced Pages. Perhaps we could amend the policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR so as to establish the supremacy of an admin's interpretation of a discussion at WP:AFD. Steve block talk 12:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The article was considerably expanded during the last DRV, despite several deletions and protections which were apparently intended to prevent this happening. There is thus in the history of this thing a perfectly good article. --Tony Sidaway 13:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have played a part in the re-creation of this article. The article Patrick Alexander was a diambiguation page to which User:Arcita added text about Patrick Alexander the cartoonist. Forgetting all about the previously deleted article, I moved Arcita's text to a new article. The cartoonist seems to have at least one enthusiastic fan. Gaius Cornelius 18:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, an acceptable article. No standing consensus to delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I think my opinion on the AfD is fairly well documented already. Furthermore, since it seems that User:Arcita wrote the text of the current page at the disambig page, User:Gaius Cornelius moved it, and User:DollyD was nowhere near this, I find it highly unlikely that it is a recreation of deleted content. But I don't know, as I can't see it. I'd say let the past rest, and judge the most recent posting. Throw it on AfD--if people think the guy is non-notable, they can get a clean consensus to delete. (And no, I'm not touching that AfD with a 10-foot pole.) -- Jonel | Speak 05:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • We should restore the better version from a few deletions back instead of the not-so-good version that I deleted if we're going to to do that. - brenneman 06:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok by me. -- Jonel | Speak 01:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on AFD for further investigation. What Steve Block says about this cartoonist warrants another go for this, especially if we have an expanded version. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Although policy explicitly says AfD votes should be based on the article in principle, not its current state, many of the delete votes are clearly cast with reference to its state at the time, and therefore not properly cast in keeping with policy. Therefore it should be reopened and properly reviewed in its new state. --Delirium 02:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I had nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of this most recent Patrick Alexander article. This is NOT a recreation of my article and the content bears virtually NO resemblence to what I originally wrote. It should be judged on its own terms. Someone else obviously felt that Patrick Alexander deserved an article on Misplaced Pages. Which he does.

The fact is, Patrick Alexander is a notable cartoonist in Australian children's magazines and has a growing reputation for his webcomics. This can be easily verified by simple research or asking someone knowledgable about the field. DollyD 05:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that your opinion of Alexander is provably non-neutral, and your edit history includes only one edit unrelated to Alexander. Just zis Guy you know? 19:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Third culture

This was speedied, and deleted just as I was about to pull the tag. The speedy comment was "absurd", by which I guess the nominator and closer meant "patent nonsense", which it just ain't. No way is this speedy or even a Prod. It should go to AfD, where it has at least a reasonable chance of survival, given that it's a real term, has a quarter million Ghits, at least one one book about it and so on. Careful with that speedy tag, guys. (And was the closing admin asleep at the wheel?) Herostratus 08:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Is the current redirect a problem, then? Just zis Guy you know? 11:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as is. The redirect seems to work fine. If some material has been lost from the article-less Third Culture, maybe someone could dig it out for a merge. This should have just been a redrect in the first place. (Also, "Brockmancruft." :) · rodii · 13:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Whatever it was, it absolutely wasn't patent nonsense. I've undeleted the history. —Cryptic (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This is odd. When I posted this, there was no redirect. The page was apparently deleted and then turned into a redirect (which may have been for technical reasons? I think I recall something about, a page with a serious edit history can't be turned into a redirect straight out, as an anti-vandalism feature?) The page was literally deleted from my grasp, so the page have have only non-existed for a few minutes. Herostratus 18:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• More Immportant Comment. No, the current redirect is in no way equivilant to the original article. A quick Google reveals two entirely different meanings for third culture, intertwined. The first refers to a book (and perhaps resulting meme) apparently based on a response to C.P. Snow's book The Two Cultures (these being science vs. the humanities). The second meaning refers to, basically, military brats and the like. There is (at leat one) separate book about that. (I infer that the "third culture" is the culture these kids -- neither American, nor European/Asian/etc depending on where their families were based, but a separate third culture. Anyway, the redirect goes to an article on the first meaning, and the deleted article is about the second meaning. (So perhaps there needs to be a disambig page). Herostratus 18:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Now that the page history is restored, I see that that speedy tag was placed by an anon IP with two edits, this one and - interestingly - a revert in a different article of acceptable material by the same person who wrote Third culture, a named editor with 951 edits. C'mon, this is why we have admins do the actual deleting, to catch stuff like this. I know how busy and harassed closing admins are, perhaps we need more admins, and anybody can make a mistake, but still.Herostratus 18:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• I did not delete third culture, but after reviewing the deleted article, there didn't seem to be anything worth merging into the article we already have on third culture kids, thus I didn't bring it up for deletion review, and added a redirect instead. It was replaced with a redirect to The Third Culture. I suggest a disambiguation page. — Matt Crypto 19:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oops, sorry, you created the redirect... I guess the deletion itself doesn't show up in the edit history.... Herostratus 00:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Hmph. So the result is several paragraphs by a 1,000-edit editor get deleted w/o any AfD or anything (by (in essence) an anon with perhaps a score to settle...). Enh, not big deal, but still its not a nice way treat him. Also I did not know about the article third culture kids. OK problem seems basically solved, I'm OK with with closing the nom, if that's appropriate. Herostratus 00:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I am confused by this whole thing. · rodii · 03:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Perhaps a speedy close is in order, since everybody's reasonably gruntled, lest others fall prey to the mental state that has snared user Rodii? Herostratus 08:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

12 March 2006

United Hardware

Article on same subject had been deleted as advertising, described as "spamtastic advertisement." New article written that was straightforward and objective, but nevertheless tagged for speedy. Speedied without substantive discussion despite at least two objections. Since new version of article was not recreation of deleted version, was not a speedy candidate. Monicasdude 23:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy, keep deleted. Articles are not that different, and the last deleted was also somewhat spammy. Much of the article was taken up with a list of places where the company's customer has locations. No prejudice against mentioning it in an article on Hardware Hank. Just zis Guy you know? 23:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and send to AfD.The article as it is doesn't seem to be total spam. I think it should have been Prod'd rather than speedied, in which case I guess it would have been pulled, taken to AfD, where it will almost certainly have lost, so it's kind of waste of time, but if they really are the 4th largest whatever they're not a speedy candidate, IMO.Herostratus 09:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely not speedy content; it's a verifiable article on an actual company of at least moderate size. --Delirium 02:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

This was deleted on March 7, 2006. It was a rediect that redirected to wikipedia:userboxes.Apparently, it was a "soft redirect", though it was no different than any other redirect. I fought fouriously to keep it undeleted after some whacked out conspiricy, but the other side got thier way. I request this gets undeleted, as it's a pain in the ass to get to the userbox page and because it wan't really a soft redirect. Thank you. The Republican 22:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I seem to recall that I'd had to delete this redirect, and also userboxes. They were inappropriate cross-namespace redirects. Use WP:UBX instead. --Tony Sidaway 23:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  Which is also, technically, a cross-namespace redirect, though we tolerate it for expediency. If you're in the mood you can also delete Featured articles, Featured pictures, Featured lists and Arbcom — or maybe they should be taken through WP:RFD to keep the "whacked out conspiracy" out in the open :) Haukur

  The use of articlespace redirects starting WP: as shortcuts is fairly well documented (see Misplaced Pages:Namespace#Pseudo-namespaces ). Obviously it's undesirable to have unnecessary pollution of article namespace. --Tony Sidaway 00:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Either undelete or delete (or turn into articles or dab pages) all cross-namespace-redirecting pages, including CotW (redirects to Misplaced Pages:Collaboration of the week, an article-editing project), Disambiguation (redirects to Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation, a style-guideline page), and NPOV (redirects to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, an official policy). If the unlikelihood of a pagename to be searched-for for anything other than its use on Misplaced Pages: is not relevant towards whether that redirect should exist or not, and if the ease-of-use, helpfulness, and convenience of cross-namespace links to users is similarly irrelevant, I see no reason why any others are being spared. The above examples are even more compelling than the Userbox one, as while "Userbox" has no potential usage, meaning or value except as a redirect to the Misplaced Pages: page in question (hence why it's now merely a deleted page, benefiting no one and serving only to make a point to users who aren't already aware of the correct name of Misplaced Pages's userbox pages), "disambiguation" is a valid word in the English language and "COTW" and "NPOV" valid four-letter abbreviations. I'm sure there are hundreds of other, very similar cross-namespace links and redirects on Misplaced Pages articles; why was this one singled out?

  Having a deletedpage marker there (1) helps to notify people still using it that they need to update their links and (2) provides an opportunity for discussion should anyone want to start an article or articlespace redirect called "userbox". This redirect was "singled out" because I happened to encounter it. --Tony Sidaway 00:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• There is an interesting debate to be had about the utility and propriety of cross-space redirects of this kind, given the usual allowance for WP: redirects. Undelete/list at RfD, though (for once) I don't think Mr. Sidaway's speedy deletion was particularly egregious; it is something a could imagine a normal responsible administrator doing. Xoloz 06:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This already went through RfD. Mackensen (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Undelete. Either redirect or short description with links. Then protect if necessary. It will make it much easier to find the userbox page(s). --Singkong2005 09:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Arc Flashlights

On 1 February 2006 this article was deleted: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arc Flashlights. The stated reason was spam/advertising, which seems in error. The company (Arc Flashlights LLC) no longer exists and their products are no longer manufactured. There is an existing company with a similar name, but I don't think the article was about that.

The article is needed for historical business/technical reference as Arc Flashlights LLC manufacturered the first Luxeon LED flashlight, the genesis of a product type now widely used. There are many current articles on various flashlight companies, watch companies, etc, so deleting this one seems very selective.

I have no relationship to the company or products, flashlights are just a hobby. Request the article be undeleted. If there are any spam/advertising elements (despite the company no longer existing), I'll be happy to fix them. Joema 13:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that an article should be written on Arc Flashlights, which are notable and encyclopedic as a generic product. Based on the AfD, I'd assume that this article was like that, however. At least in the case of advertising, sometimes no article is better than one that violates policy. Please, though, feel free to create a NPOV article about the history of the product. Endorse closure as usual, without prejudice against an improved recreation. Xoloz 16:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• OK I found a cached copy of the article on answers.com: . It definitely had problems and wasn't appropriate as written (although I've seen many worse articles that never get deleted). It should have been fixed, not deleted. I'll fix the bad parts and write a new article. Let me repeat for the record: there was no advertising/spam, as the company no longer exists and their products are no longer manufactured. The people deleting the article likely weren't aware of that. Joema 22:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Just a note that the version found above is identical to the deleted article. It was started by User:Gransee, tellingly, so probably wasn't completely without a little WP:AUTOship to it. Arc Flashlights are clearly notable, and a proper article will not be a speedy, so go ahead and write it. The history can be undeleted behind it then. -Splash 00:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

11 March 2006

Category:Roman Catholic actors

Postdlf deleted Category:Roman Catholic actors today as a recreation of a previously deleted category, citing an August CfD. At the time I (re)created the category, I was unaware of the previous CfD, and was simply attempting to subcategorize Category:Roman Catholics.

The parent category is hard to use as it contains several hundred articles (Special:Categories lists 802, which is after I moved a few hundred into subcats). I think the deletion decision should be reviewed, as Misplaced Pages:Categorization states: When a given category gets crowded, also consider making several subcategories. Group similar articles together in a meaningful and useful way that will make it easy for readers to navigate later. In my opinion, dividing a category of people by their occupation is a meaningful division. Gentgeen 07:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. In my experience Postdlf is far too willing to speedy delete categories based on previous votes, and invariably assumes bad faith. David | Talk 14:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No bad faith on Gentgeen's part was assumed; it appears you've merely assumed that bad faith was assumed. Postdlf 19:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd say that deleting using an edit summary of "Reposted in violation of cfd" and then sticking the {{deletedpage}} template on it was a pretty good indication that you considered bad faith was involved. David | Talk 14:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/relist without any prejudice against Postdlf. In the case of a CfD, the passage of time (and the increase in subject articles) can make a prior decision ripe for review. This is such a case. Xoloz 17:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist Gentgreen was unaware of the old CFD and Postdlf should have never speedy it as a recreation of a deleted category back in August --Jaranda 17:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Consider not bothering to relist. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete since there is clearly a good argument for having for the category. Just zis Guy you know? 09:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I believe that Gentgeen was innocently unaware of the previous CFD, but that's irrelevant as to whether the category should be recreated, as is the passage of several months since the CFD. If we allow CFD decisions to simply "expire," particularly after such a relatively short period, then the whole process is a waste of time. Furthermore, this category does not group "similar articles together in a meaningful and useful way," because it simply takes two unrelated traits and combines them to random effect; the religion and acting careers of these individuals have no necessary or obvious relationship as a group, nor is there precedent outside of Misplaced Pages for studying or classifying actors by religion, or for asserting that there is a meaningful connection between having a Roman Catholic faith and being an actor. Misplaced Pages is not for original research or analysis. Postdlf 19:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Is the argument about passage of time not a ludicrous one when examined? Most CfD debates have a tiny number of participants. The idea that a CfD debate months or years before should be a never-ending precedent against the existence of a category, or even one which is merely similar, is in severe danger of ending in the tyranny of the tiny minority who frequent CfD. Jimbo has often remarked on the brokenness of AfD and this is a classic example. David | Talk 21:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete again. This is reccurent topic on CfD, almost always ending with deletion of the category. They present quite absurd view of the world and do not contribute with encyclopedic value.

Such categories are quite often created by people who are not able or willing to spend time on coherent and valid article but feel inner pressure to "contribute" anyway. The simplest way is to create a new "category". The current system of categories is very, very limited and need be overhauled (for example to have primary and secondary categories, categories with comment attached etc). Then the pressure on CfD will be reduced. Pavel Vozenilek 21:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. In my experience Postdlf is far too willing to speedy delete categories based on previous votes, exactly as the official policy states at Misplaced Pages:Category deletion policy. --Kbdank71 22:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm puzzled by what Gentgeen says. Perhaps as a result of later edits, this category is not itself categorized (other than related to deletion) and has no subcategories. Moreover, the comment dividing a category of people by their occupation is a meaningful division: if this is relevant here, it seems to imply that Roman Catholic people are a category, while (a) Category:Roman Catholic Church suggests that in the WP sense they are not, and (b) in most of the real world (northern Ireland, etc. being unpleasant exceptions) I don't think they are either. Furthermore, I'm puzzled by what I infer as enthusiasm on WP for categorizing people by religion, sex, sexual inclination, etc.: to me, Tom Cruise is an uninteresting actor who appears in mediocre Hollywood product; his belief in "scientology", his sex life, etc., are merely of minor, gossip-magazine significance. -- Hoary 07:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Mike H. That's hot 08:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on CFD. Presence of more articles than we used to which might fit into this category, and the presence of counterparts in other occupations such as Category:Roman Catholic artists (which seems to have as much merit as a category of actors) has changed the situation since the last CFD. Deserves further discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - for further precedent, the discussion on Cat:Roman Catholic painters was just decided as consensus deletion today. --Syrthiss 13:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Colignatus

If I understand correctly: "To nominate a page for undeletion, place the page title on Misplaced Pages:Deletion review, with the reason why you think it should be undeleted. Sign and date your entry (Colignatus 02:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)). "

I noticed that the article Colignatus has been deleted with no trace of its existence.

If there is a strong opinion that this article should not exist, so be it, but then I would like to have the text, to use in wikinfo, and it would be wonderful, if that is not too much work, if it is sent to me by email (see my talk page).

I started the page Colignatus in the main body of the text since it would allow readers an overview of my work as an economist. (See list of economists where I don't occur now.) My work is in various directions, but it would help readers to link these directions (as I link them up). And readers would generally not look at a user talk page since they might not know that I am a user (for the time being).

I also wonder who deleted me, and with what argument. There now is a distressing dispute on Borda fixed point, where another user User:Fahrenheit451 referred a year ago to my invention of that particular voting system, where I corrected the text, linked up with voting system, and where User:Rspeer suddenly started an attack that I consider to be full of bias. He apologized a couple of times for being too rash, but always came back with new attacks. As he started to remove other contributions by me with similar bias, I just wonder whether he is behind this removal. Though he need not be, of course. It just would help clarity to know who deleted it, and with what purpose.

Obviously, wikipedians are sensitive to users creating their own articles, but if you see the text, then you might agree that it is only short and factual, allowing readers to link up on proper content.

And if you would disagree about the content, perhaps a re-edit is better than complete deletion. Colignatus 02:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• 04:12, March 9, 2006 Sean Black deleted "Colignatus" (No claim to notability) is the text on the deletion log, so it was not Fahrenheit451. I have sent you the text in email per your request. --Syrthiss 03:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Because of the inherent difficulties maintaining perspective, balance and a neutral point of view, we have a pretty strong prohibition against autobiographies. It's not an absolute rule but it is very good advice that if you're notable enough to be included in the encyclopedia, someone else should write the article. On that basis, I would strongly urge you to invest the time in other articles and in your userpage. Have faith - it it's relevant to their work, other people will find your userpage. Rossami (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Many thanks Syrthiss. It is a relief to have the text again, and now I put it at Colignatus at wikinfo. (1) It is good to know how and why it got deleted. It is a pity that Sean Black did not warn me on my talk page. I hope he sees this and reconsiders his rash act. (2) Of course I'm not "notable". My work has been censored by the Dutch government, I'm waiting for this censorship to be lifted, and in the mean time (which is now for 16 years) I only show others indications about what the censorship is about, so that they can start doing something about that censorship. Thus there little chance to get "notable", at least in the common sense of citations, though I don't know how you would value the access statistics at my page at RepEc. Thus, I mean, that criterion is little helpful. (3) I knew about that autobio criterion, Rossami, but as you said, it is not an absolute rule. In this case I have really considered all aspects and decided that starting this overview article on my contributions to economic theory would be best, see the explanation I gave and wikinfo. I entered into wikipedia contributions on the minimum wage, tax void, Stagflation, Economic Supreme Court, Separation of powers, Arrow's impossibility theorem, Borda Fixed Point, Economics and Risk, not as original research as it was some time ago, but as encyclopedic review and reasoned argument with respect to the existing texts in wikipedia. My edits greatly improved the value of the articles to the readers. It would help readers to understand where these contributions came from and how these are linked in my work. For example you cannot understand the issue of the minimum wage if you don't understand that in the current set-up of economic policy making you are consistently lied to by the government. If that explanation of the usefulness of link up and reference to the original author is not convincing, so be it. (4) I have great optimistic faith that the censorship will be ended eventually so that people can freely use my work, but perhaps there first must be another world war or a Collapse. (5) However, it would be wrong for readers to go to my user page, since this page is editted by me for different purposes than an encyclopedia article on my work. Sincerely Yours, Colignatus 15:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you read WP:AUTO, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE? The article as writen failed on all of the above. Just zis Guy you know? 23:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I move for speedy closure on the grounds that this is being considered at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Colignatus and User:Colignatus is now indef-blocked. Resurrect the debate if requested by anyone when the other process is done. Just zis Guy you know? 12:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

10 March 2006

Michael Crook

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michael Crook

This article was voted as a keep, despite a strong consensus for delete. The decision to keep it was a biased one, and a review is requested. This article has no relevance. More importantly, it is rife with inaccuracies. Numerous corrections have been made with accurate facts, only to be deleted by Rhobite and other WP admins who appear to be biased against the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.157.29.196 (talk • contribs) March 10, 2006 (UTC) Michael Crook (AfD discussion)

• Endorse closure. Looks to be a valid AfD and AfD closure. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure This DRV nomination is unsigned, for starters. The closer is Splash; the chances of him making a mistake are very close to zero, for seconds. This discussion, however, wasn't even close. Valid AfD, notable subject, no relevant reason for review given. Xoloz 03:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Vandalism, WP:OWN and inaccuracy are not grounds for deletion, even if that were the case here (which I am not sure about). Just zis Guy you know? 09:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Clearly valid keep result on the AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, speedily if possible to prevent another outbreak of sockpuppetry here. Possible bad faith AfD, probably bad faith DRV, certainly utterly pointless when the reason for review is self-contradictory ("This article was voted as a keep, despite a strong consensus for delete"). There was aclear keep consensus. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• This is a poorly written article on an eminently forgettable fellow. However, there can be no doubt as to the AFD consensus, nor the correctness of Splash's decision—he's right, as usual. On this matter of bad faith, I must disagree. When we say that someone is acting in bad faith, we imply that he is acting with malicious intentions; when the charge is unqualified, it usually means "malicious intentions with respect to the well-being or integrity of the encyclopedia". An example of someone acting in bad faith is the vandal who surreptitiously inserts subtle errors into articles, purely to damage the encyclopedia. I do not think that the nominator possesses any such frightful motivations: he's just a chap who dislikes the article, probably because he has been unable to make it stay the way he wants it to. Newer users or those not quite accustomed to Misplaced Pages norms may say things about consensus or article deletion or article policy that can strike Wikipedian ears as decidedly odd. This does not mean that they act in bad faith, and we should be careful not to label them so—it does little to promote understanding and goodwill. cf the third paragraph of WP:FAITH. —Encephalon 16:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. To address nom's concerns: Closure was not biased; it appropriately reflected the discussion that took place. DRV is not the place to discuss the relevance or factual accuracy of the article; relevance was discussed at the AfD, and factual inaccuracies (which are grounds for article improvement via consensus editing; never deletion) should be addressed at the article's talk page. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure. Consensus editiing is infinitely more appropriate, and facts do need to be discussed on the discussion page of the article. As of now all discussion of the original nomination for deletion was unprodcutive, and gleaned few new or disputed facts.
• Endorse Closure (i.e., keep). I don't see how the anon who nominated this for deletion review can with a straight face say "despite a strong consensus for delete", when clearly there is not even a majority in favor of deleting. --Delirium 02:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This article absolutely should be deleted, because the subject is very unhappy with the article and claims that is libelous and that he is unable to fix it, and the subject is marginally notable anyway. What I recommend to Michael Cook is that he contact User:Jimbo Wales and/or the Foundation and ask that the article be removed as a WP:OFFICE action -- which will probably be done. Recognizing that the AfD was closed properly, I have to ask the AfD commentators and the commentators on this DRv: what are you people thinking? Number one, having an encyclopedia is not an license to harass marginally-notablle people; and number two, the article will most likely be removed anyway, by fiat, as an office action (if Mr. Cook presses his complaint), thus resulting in no article anyway PLUS as a bonus a bunch of pissed-off people running around moaning that Misplaced Pages is like Spain under Franco. So c'mon people get off your horses and give some serious consideration to Jimbo's policy about articles on living people. (I'm not saying Jimbo is right - I think he is, but I've been wrong before - but that he's made it clear he doesn't like articles like this, so why turn this into a power struggle. Over Michael freaken Cook.) Herostratus 13:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything in WP:LIVING about removing an article because the subject doesn't like it. After reading WP:OFFICE, I don't see how that applies here, either -- that's for people complaining that their bios are being deleted, not for complaints that their bios are being kept. Now, true, WP:LIVING does request that we keep the feelings of the subject in mind; if the article has POV or libel issues, those need to be corrected through the proper channels. Deleting the article is not the best way to address those issues. Powers 14:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Azure_Sheep

Deletion details: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Azure_Sheep

This a Half-Life mod and was deleted based as part of a retaliation (check the deletion details). This mod haves more then 200,000 downloads and was released in several computer magazines. Only 5 people agreed with the delete and based on their personal option about the mod. Not liking something shouldnt be reason to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snewerl (talk • contribs)

• Endorse closure The participants in the AfD said little about whether they liked or disliked this mod, only that it was non-notable. The fact that retaliation might have played a role in the nom. is irrelevant in cases where the questioning of notability is legitimate. We must AGF on the nominator's part, and obviously his concern with notability was legitimate, as the participants agreed with the nomination. Valid AfD, no relevant reason given to initiate review, no new evidence presented. Xoloz 03:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete They said it is non-notable based on their opinion. What defines a mod as notable? What evidences are needed? A complete list of the magazines that release the mod? A list of users that played the mod? Search the internet. You will find tons of sites that have Azure Sheep and talk about it. What you are saying? That Misplaced Pages is not a Free Excyclopedia where diferent contents can be found but a place that haves only what a small number of people that cares about the AfD allow to be here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snewerl (talk • contribs)

• Please don't 'vote' twice. If you leave a second comment, preface it with "comment" or nothing. Especially when you don't sign your comments it looks like an attempt to sway the vote by sockpuppetry. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Struck out repeated vote. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Unanimous AfD, individual mods are rarely, if ever, independently notable. Just zis Guy you know? 09:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. Valid AfD decision, closed properly, no new evidence presented which would theoretically have changed it. Mods for online computer games have a sky-high cruft multiple; digging through the Google hits there is nothing that presents itself as a reliable source on which to base an article. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, not an experiment in anarchy, thus non-notable games have to be deleted because articles about them can't be properly verified and neutral. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted unanimously valid AfD. I like the DRV nominator's "only five people agreed with the delete" comment. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: What evidences are needed? What makes a mod notable to avoid deletion? --Snewerl
  • If you'd like to see some examples of articles on notable mods, check out Hot Coffee mod (notable due to media furor it created) and Counter-Strike (notable as genre-defining game and created a culture all its own). By far, the vast majority of game mods, however, are not notable enough on their own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • If a mod needs to be that notable, then all the mod pages have to deleted since only those two manage to do that or something similar... Snewerl
      • You're right, and nearly all of them are deleted when they come up for AFD. Just because a non-notable article exists doesn't mean Misplaced Pages wants it there, it just means nobody's noticed it and bothered to AFD it yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
        • It makes sence but then why the Half-Life mods Category exists and other pages related to the subject? Snewerl
• Keep Deleted unanimous valid AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Kd per Sam and Xoloz. —Encephalon 17:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Relist. 200,000 downloads likely meets the criteria laid out in WP:SOFTWARE. If this is true, the article should probably be undeleted, altered to reflect the evidence of notability, and relisted. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Following the WP:SOFTWARE, it was also released in this magazines: The Games Machine (Italy); Swiat Gier Komputerowych (Poland); PC Zone (Uk, also reviewed on Modwatch); PCGamer (UK); Computer Gaming World (USA); GameStar (Germany) and PC Format (UK). It was also reviewed in various mod/games related sites like, for example, PlanetHalfLife (a well known game/mod related site, part of gamespy). Snewerl
    • I still have the PC Zone where is reviewed on Modwatch. If proof is needed I can scan the article and upload it for checking. Snewerl 20:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: ok I am new in this but now what? Will the WP:SOFTWARE lines be followed? Doesnt Azure Sheep fills, at least, points 1.1 (PlanetHalfLife review ), 1.2 (PC Zone magazine review that I can scan the article and upload it to prove) and 3. (more them 5000 downloads, just add the number of download from the locations in this page )? If there arent notable mods then for what there is a category for them in Half-Life (Category:Half-Life_mods)? Snewerl 11:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Relist If the mod meets the WP:SOFTWARE criteria, it ought to be relisted. The mod is even listed on GameFAQs.com, which only has a few of the top Half-Life mods. syphonbyte 01:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain. Software I am involved in was deleted and notability was one of the reasons given - even though it clearly meets the notability guidelines. The guidelines don't seem to correspond with actual Wikipedian reality yet. The discussion on software guidelines is here. Stephen B Streater 10:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Samurang

This article underwent speedy deletion soon after nominated for deletion (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Samurang). But I think the decision does not meet a criterion for speedy deletion. Deltabeignet claimed it was an "attack page". In my understanding, "attack pages" have to do with defamation of character just like the example: "John Citizen is a moron" (Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion). Samurang is not the case. Undelete. --Nanshu 01:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• For an article to be speedy-deleted as an attack page, every non-blanked version must be an attack. I think that some of the earliest versions of this article were judgment calls. Judgments are made thru AFD, not via speedy. Overturn the speedy-deletion and reopen the AFD discussion. Rossami (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on AfD per Rossami. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/relist per Rossami. Xoloz 03:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, it was a valid interpretation of CSD A6, and I very much doubt it would have survived AfD; this article seems to me to serve no purpose other than to disparage the (non-titular) subject, Haidong Gumdo: Samurang is one of fabrications by Haidong Gumdo, who says it was a name for Goguryeo warriors and the origin of samurai. The word Samurang is, however, never appeared in history books ] Haidong Gumdo coined this word so that it sounds similar to samurai in the modern Korean language. Considering the ultimate etymology of samurai, the verb samorafu, the fabrication is seemingly obvious to Japanese, but some uninformed Koreans and Westerners are deceived. If this minor fiction is of encyclopaedic merit it can be covered in Samurai (in neutral terms, unlike this article) and a redirect established here. Just zis Guy you know? 09:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per JzG above. Foreign-language loanwords and when they should and shouldn't be in WP was extensively debated in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kawaii. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, and that precedent was a keep. Precedential power at AfD is weak anyway, but this one appears to point in the opposite direction. If you are making some point about the reasoning used in the prior debate, that sort of analysis (not the direct result) has even less precedental power. Please clarify. Xoloz 19:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Wasn't trying to draw a direct analogy between the two articles, just pointing out some (possibly) relevant discussion of what is and isn't considered kosher, in the absence of Misplaced Pages:Loanwords. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Halliburton_shill

This article underwent speedy deletion.

I received no notification until I visisted the site, even though the article is on my watch list. It is not a personal attack. Halliburton is a public corporation. Shill is a well defined term found in any dictionary. Dick Cheney is a public figure. Relevant Misplaced Pages articles are linked too.

I have a rewritten version that will make the general use of the term more understanable for those lacking background, and even those that abuse the term disparage in attemtping to make the article something that it isn't.

Regarding 1 of the comments that only 111 matches on google for the phrase Halliburton shill, here's some more statistics for you to consider that would be included in the revised article:

As of September 29, 2005, a search for Dick-Cheney shill returned 50,700 results. Today (2006.03.10), the same search returns 89,000 results.

2005.09.29 Halliburton shill returned 44,500 results. Other references to shills for Halliburton (e.g., "shill for Halliburton") obviously get missed on a simple phrase search. As of 2006.03.10, 54,800 results.

2005.09.29 pages that discussed Halliburton shill without any mention of Cheney equaled 10,500 (44,500 - 10,500 = 34,000 pages where Cheney is mentioned). As of 2006.03.10, 14,900 (50,700 - 14,900 = 35,800). 13,700 of those mention Bush instead. --Halliburton Shill 04:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy deletion. While it's debatable that it could be deleted as an attack page, since Cheney is a public figure, it was hopelessly, irreversibly POV, saying that Cheney gained money by giving contracts to Halliburton, and WP:SNOW tells me that it shouldn't matter that it might have been slightly out of process. --Rory096 04:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

  List on AfD. Actually, the part of WP:SNOW that Radiant took from my user talk page points out that it sometimes can matter if something like this is done out of process. Viz: this deletion review, which wouldn't need to be happening if everyone could have expressed their opinion in a proper AfD. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

  Oh, and "Halliburton shill" in quotation marks (so it's not just someone using the word Halliburton and the word shill on the same page) yields only 112 results, some of which are Misplaced Pages, and several are someone making a fake profile on Myspace. --Rory096 04:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

  And what the hell is this? --Rory096 04:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy deletion. I also note that the page was created by User:Halliburton Shill who has apparently made only two other non-deleted edits to Misplaced Pages and who may have to be counselled on appropriate usernames. Rossami (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Cheney did gain money. Read Misplaced Pages's own Halliburton page. It has an entire section called "Dick Cheney Ties". Read a CBS article published in 2003. As for the Halliburton search, if it's so common for someone to "just" happen (oops) to use shill and Halliburton on the same page with no intention of them relating to one another, I'm sure it should be easy to provide a link to an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halliburton Shill (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. Even if he did gain money off any contracts given to Halliburton- which is false and even REFUTED by the page you point to, this removes any possible doubt in my mind that you're just POV pushing. I try to WP:AGF, but it's very hard when I see something like that page. --Rory096 05:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Article created in bad faith, given above link to blog post. android79 05:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Also note that the text of the article exists at User:Halliburton Shill as well. android79 05:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. A personal attack on me in an attempt to justify a delete based on an unsubstantiated personal attack. If you can't understand satire, which I make very clear that blog is on the so-called "POV" page, don't read it. And, no, the Halliburton page does not in any way refute what I claim. At worst, it supports the claim and tries to excuse by reference to a campaign promise. (Turn on satire detector.) I know I make all my decisions based on campaign promises. Just like I still have faith in the promise there are WMDs in Iraq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halliburton Shill (talk • contribs)
    • Comment. I'd prefer not to get into a political discussion here, as it's not even the point. Your page was clearly POV, and then you posted on a blog about how you were pushing your POV on Misplaced Pages. You then claimed Misplaced Pages was biased towards the right in another blog, while simultaneously saying that I was personally attacking you. By the way, sign your posts with 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~. --Rory096 06:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It's established that it is not an attack page, which was the main argument for speedy deletion. And as for POV, that's not mentioned as a reason for any kind of deletion on the speedy page or AfD. That means there is no justification deletion.--Halliburton Shill 07:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion. Mr Shill, Misplaced Pages is not your soapbox. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion Dick Cheney is pure evil, but that doesn't mean WP will accept an article created in bad faith... "covert operation... sheesh. Xoloz 17:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Rory096. POV pushers go home. · rodii · 14:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• The link above makes me believe that the article was not created with encyclopedic intentions in mind. Keep deleted and protect if necessary. Titoxd 06:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

9 March 2006

Savvica

This article was kept as a no consensus after Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Savvica. However, I disagree because both the users that voted 'keep' are contributors of the article. Also the administrator states the only reason for deletion is non-notability. Exactly! That is the reason for deletion! The article does not meet the WP:CORP guideline for notability and should be deleted. --Sleepyhead 11:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• As the closer, I will not vote either way. I will say that what swayed my decision from a "delete" to a "no consensus" was the following argument: "Savvica has been covered on ComputerWorld, eWeek, TechCrunch, InfoTech, MacNN, and hundreds of blogs all in the last 3 months", if this is true, the company would meet point 1 of WP:CORP. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. If Dritter is discounted as too new (5th edit) there is an 80% consensus to delete, usually sufficient, but given that the claims of outside coverage weren't addressed I think there's sufficient grounds to keep the article on the basis of the last AfD, and the article should possibly be relisted so those claims are explictly addressed. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I can only find press releases from this company when I search on Google. That is not enough to meet the criteria for notability per WP:CORP. In regards to the user Dritter and Heyjohngreen it is not about the number of edits they have done. It is about what type of edits. Dritter has only edited the Savvica and Nuvvo (a product from Savvica) articles while Heyjohngreen started the Savvica and Nuvvo articles and his other contributions has only included adding links to this. Both these users votes are subjective as they probably work for the company. --Sleepyhead 13:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Relist I understand the close, but the point offered by the that voter needs further inspection, and relisting will accomplish that. Xoloz 16:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure but only weakly, and relist is also acceptable. Nuovvo is, I think, notable - I saw it on a list Ow as pruning and it checked out OK to me. Whether the manufacturer is independently notable I wouldn't like to say. A redirect would be good enough, to my mind. Just zis Guy you know? 17:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong endorsement of closure. Closing admin used own judgement and understanding of WP policy and guidelines to avoid a possibly unwarranted deletion. Admins aren't robots and shouldn't be expected to behave like vote counting robots; this is a discussion, and the admins are meant to evaluate the consensus of the discussion and then render a final closure based on that discussion with reference to their (supposedly superior) understanding of WP policy and guideline. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Random Acts Films

This article was deleted for no reason. -- Doo Doo 00:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Or so you think. It clearly didn't assert notability, nor does it show itself to be notable in Web searches. Keep deleted. --Nlu (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• On the contrary. It was deleted the first time for being nothing but an external link; the second time for being nothing but an external link plus the text "More content this afternoon."; and the third time because it described a group of people with no apparent claim to notability (see WP:CSD#Articles, number 7). Keep Deleted. android79 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Actually, a reason was given for the latest deletion though it was a bit cryptic. (Prior versions were deleted months ago for being basically contentless.) The deleting admin believed that this qualified for speedy-deletion under criterion A7 - "an article about a real person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." Looking at the content of the article and the linked website, I'm afraid that I would have to agree with that assessment. However, if you can make an assertion that this article might meet one of the generally accepted inclusion criteria (such as WP:BIO, WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC), then we can undelete the article and submit it for a longer discussion and decision using the articles for deletion process. Rossami (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Look at many of the articles in Category:Comedy_troupes, Random Acts Films is like them. The films have even been shown on Australian TV. -- Doo Doo 02:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The most recent version of the article contains no references other than Random Acts' own website, and thus does not meet the verifiability policy. If Doo Doo can create an article that includes good, verifiable source citations to film magazines, national newspapers, major film websites like imdb, that meets the verifiability policy and that clearly shows how the article meets WP:BIO, WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC, he should compose it--offline or in his user space--then re-create the article when it is decent shape. This would be far better than insisting on dragging the present article through AfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• That's cool. Can someone post the deleted code into User:Doo Doo/ra. -- Doo Doo 02:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  Will do in a minute. --Nlu (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Computerjoe 21:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, list on AfD. Article was deleted as a group of people making no assertion of notability, the interpretation of A7 as covering companies (rather than bands and school clubs, its intended purpose) is contentious, there are some unambiguous assertions of notability above, and this is not the place to debate the merits of the subject - this is to endorse or overturn dleetion decisions. This is definitely not a case of WP:SNOW, if the films have been shown on national TV. Just zis Guy you know? 21:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that it was not deleted as a nn-company, but as an nn-group (an assessment that I agree with given the article), which is subtly but importantly different. Specfically, deletion of nn-companies is not a supported position but nn-groups are, whether they purport to play with instruments or cameras. -Splash 02:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, unprotect if the nominator thinks they can genuinely write a decent stub on this that actually says, with reliable sources (nominator: please read that link) why they are notable. The article as deleted, however, was a speedy in every revision, as observed above and there is no need to restore those absent an improved version to sit on top of them. They'd just get speedied again. -Splash 02:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy, endorse userfication. Nom is invited to familiarize self with Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy and Misplaced Pages:Notability. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Seduction Community

Deleted through AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Seduction Community. Please undelete this article. It describes a current relevant phenomenon. Streamless 15:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Please provide evidence that it's a "current relevant phenomenon". android79 15:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • book called "The Game..." by Neil Strauss. anticipating the suggestion that there's already an article for the book, the community preceded the events of the book and appears to continue. Streamless 15:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Some friendly admin please drop the content of this in my userspace; I have heard the term before, but I want to confirm what this thing said before speaking. Thanks Xoloz 16:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Xoloz/SC seems to be the last version before poeple started really hacking at it. Please speedy tag when you've finished, for GFDL reasons. Just zis Guy you know? 17:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted, valid picking apart of a sockfest. Most sources seem to be blogs, and in any case it seems incredibly crufty, certainly not compelling enough to overturn an AfD. Article history prominently features User:SeductionCommunity which also strongly supports the diagnosis of vanispamcruftisement of the known faces in the AfD debate. Subsequent re-creation also looks like gaming the system. Just zis Guy you know? 17:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It's simply not true that most of the sources on the seduction community are blogs. See my comments below. --SecondSight 02:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure The community does exist, and I (amateur sexologist) find it interesting; however, after a consideration of the available internet sources, I don't think a WP:V article is able to be written at this time. If this "community" does endure, it will become the object of independent interest, and at that time it will become encyclopedic. Xoloz 17:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Why don't you think a verifiable article is able to be written? There is extensive coverage of the seduction community both in The_Game_(book_on_Pickup_Artists), and in the news media. What is not verifiable about these sources? Also, it's not true, as you presume, that the community is not an "object of independent interest." The community has received extensive media coverage, will soon be the subject of a movie, and possibly a reality TV show (see Talk:Seduction Community for documentation). That hardly sounds like a lack of "independent interest" to me. --SecondSight 02:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per both votes above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. I have started documenting the size of the seduction community, and the increasing media attention it is receiving, on Talk:Seduction Community, and I request that everyone voting on the subject please review that page. Some of these news articles on the seduction community have come to light since the the deletion of the original article (such as the announcement that Columbia is making a movie out of The Game, which warrant a reconsidering of the deletion (though I personally think the deletion was undeserved in the first place). On this page alone, I see several misconceptions by voters who endorse closure: that the sources on the community are "mostly blogs," that a verifiable article cannot be written about the seduction community, and that the seduction community is not the "object of independent interest." Since the seduction community is covered in mainstream news sources, including the New York Times and San Francisco Chronicle, all of those claims are false. It seems to me that many opponents of a seduction community article are badly uninformed of the massive size and influence of the community, and of the extensive media attention it has received (which has increased since the original deletion). --SecondSight 02:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, SecondSight, I agree that you do show a very nice collection of sources on the talk page. Please use them to write a new draft of the article incorporating them. Since the article is currently protected, feel free to compose the draft as a subpage of your userspace. I do think that the SC will be encyclopedic sooner or later, but I am not convinced a WP:V article can be written yet -- I invite you to prove your point by showing that it can. If you substantially improve a recreation, it will not be speediable, and we will be happy to review it anew. Xoloz 03:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for acknowledging my efforts to demonstrate the notability of the seduction community. I have drafted a new version of the article on User:SecondSight, and I believe that it is compeletely verifiable. Feel free to suggest improvements to it. --SecondSight 01:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure I am very sorry SecondSight, but it seems to me all you have done is collect the accumulated press clippings that have been spawned by a book publicity campaign. This is an encyclopedia, not an extension of the marketing arm of Strauss' publiusher, Regan Books. Eusebeus 11:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Why does it matter whether those articles are part of a "book publicity campaign" or not? They are still verifiable secondary sources published by reputable publishers (I don't see any policy on WP:V saying that book reviews are not admissable if they publicize a book). It is true that many of the articles do reference Strauss' book, though this one doesn't, and neither does Strauss' original NYT article (see Talk:Seduction for citation). Halo.Bungie.Org only has a few news references, yet it was found to be notable and survived deletion. Also, it confuses me that you seem to ignore the other notability evidence I provided. I challenge you, and anyone else who denies the notability of the seduction community, to explain why a community that is the subject of a bestelling book, that involves web communities with tens of thousands of members, that has international branches and meetings (called "lairs" and "summits"), that will be the subject of a movie and prospective reality TV show, and that has 1400+ Google hits (for "seduction community" and "pickup community," which are synonyms) is somehow not notable. Honestly, I believe that the evidence I have provided for notability is overkill (for instance, it much surpasses the notability of Halo.Bungie.Org). --SecondSight 01:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• New At This -- what does "endorse closure" mean? to Eusebeus, i would answer that the community is larger than merely the events of the book. indeed, many members of the community seem to be detractors of the book. admittedly, most of the sources are blogs and commercial websites; nevertheless, the members of the community are continuing to get more attention, irrespective of the source of the attention. moreover, while some of the members of the community have wikipedia articles devoted to them, there is no general article, which i would hope outlines some of the common/popular techniques, trends, strategies, principles, and jargon. please keep an open mind. thanks to SecondSight and Xoloz for their efforts/thoughts. Streamless 13:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate that my comment invites your reply, the fact remains that the process here was perfectly valid, and the fact that what you have accumulated pertains primarily to a publicity campaign regarding the publication of this book does little to answer the charge (pointedly raised in the AfD) that this is a viral marketing campaign. Pointing to other ephemera that have survived AfD because of the highly skewed perspective that the WP community finds notable is missing the point. Eusebeus 10:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

i understand re: the process. however, assuming it's okay to comment on your comment, Eusebeus, i reiterate that the community preceded the book (stated in the beginning of the book). this has nothing to do with viral marketing and everything to do with a distinct group of people with similar goals and similar methods. Streamless 19:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Endorse closure means that when the people here reviewed the deletion discussion on AfD, they found that it was closed according to wikipedia guidelines. In this case, the closing admin deleted the article...so Endorse Closure means keep it deleted. --Syrthiss 15:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Deletion review is not the place to rehash the discussion that took place on AfD; it is a place to question whether or not a closure of an AfD was performed appropriately. It was performed appropriately, in accordance with AfD consensus discussion and relevant WP policy. I second Xoloz' suggestion that if a policy-compatible version of the article can be written that addresses the concerns of the AfD discussion, it should be done, and then any admin should be glad on request to move that article into the currently protected articlespace. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A deletion review of the seduction community article is appropriate, because (a) users voting for deletion seem to have been unaware of the press coverage on the seduction community, which may have changed their perceptions on its notability and verifiability, and (b) new information on the seduction community has come to light since the original AfD. I have started documenting evidence on the notability of the seduction community on Talk:Seduction Community, so that users can now be properly informed on the subject. (Also, the charge that the seduction community wasn't notable during the AfD was not backed up, because nobody proposing deletion explained why a community that is the subject of a New York Times Bestseller is not notable.) I have just created a new seduction community article from scratch on my user page, at Xoloz' and your suggestion, and I believe that it is policy-compatible. I invite everyone to review it and suggest improvements (I am a relatively inexperienced wikipedia-editor). How do I go about requesting that it be moved into the protected page? --SecondSight 01:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It looks good to me. Try asking Xoloz on the User talk:Xoloz page. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I actually figured it out myself a couple minutes ago. --SecondSight 23:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

1. Alina and Billysan. Speedy deletion endorsed, undeletion request withdrawn by nominator. 10:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Template:If defined et. al. Overturned and undeleted. 07:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Bashas' withdrawn by nom. 23:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Sean Ripple deletion overturned (no relist requested). 23:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Hunter Ellis deletion overturned, undel history+revert from redir. 23:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
6. Sustainable National Income history undel. 23:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Jewfro 'kept deleted', actually as a redirect. 23:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Gail (goldfish) not speedy but already a redirect/merge which this debate ok's. 23:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
9. Tom Dorsch deletion endorsed. 23:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
10. Kamyar Cyrus Habib deletion endorsed. 23:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
11. Demilich (band) already kept by new afd. 23:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
12. London Buses route 4 already remade, so history undel. 23:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
13. Math of Quran kd, what little there is does not overturn. 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
14. Crying While Eating deletion overturned, already undeleted, will unprotect. 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
15. Various warcrimes bios keep close endorsed since changes editorial in nature. 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
16. SourceryForge already redel'd by afd. 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
17. Male bikini-wearing speedy endorsed, kept deleted
18. Mucky Pup re-created, speedy kept on AFD 09:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
19. Blog Torrent restored and listed on afd 23:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
20. TimeSplitters: Future Perfect strategy guide has been transwikied properly now 23:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
21. Glossary of Japanese film credit terms nominator appears happy with transwiki (right?) 23:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
22. Template:Background, no majority to overturn 23:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Content review

Editors who wish to see the content of a deleted article may place a request here. They may wish to use that content elsewhere, for example. Alternatively, they may suspect that an article has been wrongly deleted, but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted. As a subset of this, sometimes an article which is appropriate for a sister site is deleted without being properly transwikied. If the page is undeleted temporarily, it can be exported complete with history using Special:Export, and then redeleted. This will be especially useful once the import feature is completed.

Many administrators will honour requests to provide the content of a deleted article if asked politely. See Category:User undeletion.

Proposed deletions

Articles deleted under the Misplaced Pages: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.

History only undeletion

History only undeletions can be performed without needing a vote on this page. For example, suppose someone writes a biased article on Fred Flintstone, it is deleted, and subsequently someone else writes a decent article on Fred Flintstone. The original, biased article can be undeleted, in which case it will merely sit in the page history of the Fred Flintstone article, causing no harm. Please do not do this in the case of copyright violations.

Decisions to be reviewed

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/Vfu header This page is about articles, not about people. If you feel that a sysop is routinely deleting articles prematurely, or otherwise abusing their powers, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators. Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.

Content review

Editors who wish to see the content of a deleted article may place a request here. They may wish to use that content elsewhere, for example. Alternatively, they may suspect that an article has been wrongly deleted, but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted. As a subset of this, sometimes an article which is appropriate for a sister site is deleted without being properly transwikied. If the page is undeleted temporarily, it can be exported complete with history using Special:Export, and then redeleted. This will be especially useful once the import feature is completed.

Many administrators will honour requests to provide the content of a deleted article if asked politely. See Category:User undeletion.

Proposed deletions

Articles deleted under the Misplaced Pages: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.

History only undeletion

History only undeletions can be performed without needing a vote on this page. For example, suppose someone writes a biased article on Fred Flintstone, it is deleted, and subsequently someone else writes a decent article on Fred Flintstone. The original, biased article can be undeleted, in which case it will merely sit in the page history of the Fred Flintstone article, causing no harm. Please do not do this in the case of copyright violations.

Decisions to be reviewed

Template loop detected: Template:Vfu mechanics Important notice: all userbox undeletions are being discussed on a subpage: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates. Please post all new such requests there (though you may link them from this page if you like)

15 March 2006

Peter_Fletcher

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Peter Fletcher

Article was deleted because the admin Splash concluded that it was a soapbox and a "walled garden." He also makes unsubstantiated and completely inappropriate personal attacks on me in the deletion review, but I suppose that's beside the point. In any event, it got, by my vote, 7 delete votes, 3 clear keeps, 1 equivocal keeps, and 1 week keep. This does not approach a community consenus, and Splash clearly made the wrong call. --Leifern 23:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Splash closed the AfD as a delete without prejudice to the writing of a new, NPOV article about Peter Fletcher. Having had a look at the deleted article I agree that it is POV, and that it would be better to start again. Hence, keep deleted, but don't stop anyone having another go at writing it. David | Talk 23:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

13 March 2006

Stephen Glicker

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Steve Glicker

This artcile has been listed as deleated for nearly a year now, however the site has grown enormasoulsy due to Steve's 'close' links with Spore. Alexa now lists thw website 28,137 (Alexa Listing for Gaming Steve

• Well, a little more than half a year, anyway. The Alexa rank is improved from the hundreds-of-thousandth of July to know about 29,000th over the last 3 months. I'm not sure that this is likely to persuade AfD, and nor is a rank of about 20,000th for this last week, since the graph shows that traffic is very spiky and that a one week average is not usefully meaningful. The graph shows that the site only hit Alexa's radar in December: I'm not sure that a site that's only been visible to Alexa for 3 months is for Misplaced Pages yet. I find nothing on Google News under either "Steve Glicker" or Steven Glicker nor under gamingsteve.com. The nomination here relies only on the Alexa rank, and thus, in my opinion, presents no information that is likely at present to change the result of the AfD, whether it is on the person or the website. If nothing better can be found, then Endorse deletion. -Splash 20:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Definitely Reasoning: The Reason google news doesn't have any sources on Steve is because nobody has thought to tell google to put him into it's system. It has Stuff from the Clovis News Journal, and other sources Which Misplaced Pages has nothing about. You can't really use it as a determanation of noteablility. Although if you type in his podcast (Which also happens to be in the top 100 gaming casts on Itunes) You'll get multiple results. He's got one of the most respected gaming podcasts out there, Attracting attention from many people in the gaming industry including people at Maxis (Sims, SimCity, Spore) and Bethedesa (The Elder Scrolls) I really think it's noteable enough to be undeleted. Besides, You Say top 20,000 isn't notable enough. Sites like Langmaker and Trekweb.com Which Are currently signifigantly below Gamingsteve in Alexa.com Rank have had articles on here for months. So Yeah, I'd say the site and the man are more then Noteable. (Including in it's over 1100 members)--Sgore 21:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Fundamentally, nothing has changed; he and/or his site are still not notable.  RasputinAXP  c 21:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete His rising popularity is reason enough to undelete the article. However I too will cite the Alexa ranking and the cult following he has gathered. Additionally the interviews Steve has posted are with some very high profile people in the industry and are a testament to his status as a podcaster. ~PatMan33 22:35:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • note: this user's only edits to Misplaced Pages so far have been to this discussion and the userpage
  • second note: at 19:27, this user attempted to remove the contribution notice. see here
  • 3rd note, Actually this user has been a member for around a year and most of his edits were in an article that ended up being deleted.
• Undelete He is listed as a source in a textbook from our GSP course in college. He was under "Reccomended Reading/Listening". Mr Wizard 22:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • note: this user's only edits to Misplaced Pages so far have been to this discussion
    • Untrue, I just signed in to validate my vote.
• Endorse closure (keep deleted) at least for now. To answer the claim above, nobody needs to "tell google to put him into its system". That's the beauty of their kind of search engine. When lots of independent people start writing about his, the search engine will start to catch those writings. The recent Alexa rankings are worth watching but I agree with Splash that a short-term spike should not be cause to overturn our previous decision. If they stay high for an extended period, we can reconsider the decision then. Rossami (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Oh yeah, you probably didn't find much under Steven Glicker, because that's a typo. He spells it Stephen Glicker.(Sorry Still Sgore, Logged out accidently)-72.230.6.138
• Undelete Google rankings are often a poor judge of notability. Googling "Village of Fools" will give you my web site, which I wouldn't consider notable enough for wikipedia, before it gives you results for Chelm, the original "Village of Fools," so to speak. At any rate, Stephen Glicker obviously is notable because of the very high popularity of his web site, the enormity of his web forum, the popularity of his podcast, and his interviews with very big people in the game industry. syphonbyte 00:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • contribution history
    • second note: at 22:58, anon user:24.4.244.243 attempted to remove this contribution notice.
    • 3rd note: The contribution notice is uneccesary as he actually has tons of contributions but most people who see that won't bother to click it and will just think low contributions are being implied. Please don't post them for no reason, so confusion among editors can be kept to a minimum.
• I'm not currently seeing in this discussion evidence that anything has changed in a way that I interprate as "new information". Do we have any media references, etc, that shows a change on notability? While the proper forum for examining claims to satisfying the website inclusion guidelines is AfD, I'm not yet seeing any serious claim that this does. - brenneman 01:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• To Answer Brenneman you mean Besides the Huge steady Rise in it's alexa ranking since the article's deletion? A Multitude of of articles on Joystiq (AnotherVery Popular Gaming site with an article) mention steve, many articles themselves have been taken directly from the site: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Gaming+Steve%22+site:www.joystiq.com&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&start=0&sa=N (All 30 pages are Rock solid listing steve from Joystiq) Not To mention Coutless Blogs mentioning him, and Apparently Mr.Wizard's Textbook mentions him. There's also a gaming magazine article which mentions him and if I find it I'll put it here.--Sgore 02:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Barring the textbook and magazine articles that we're yet to see a link to, I'm still not seeing anything that satifies the reliability threshold. - brenneman 05:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Clearly meets a threshold of notability. --Delirium 02:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you have any proof of this, save for the frothy enthusiasm shown above? -Splash 03:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment His site has been visited by very famous Developers. Will Wright paid his site a visit, and at a director from EA admitted that he listen when I asked him in a recent tour I took to EA Redwood Shores. Mr Wizard 03:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/relist. Very simply Steve is very well known in the gaming industry. Between his podcast (which is consistently in the top 50 rankings on iTunes), his site (which is currently ranked 28,137 in Alexa), his ranking in technorati (over 500 links from 294 sites), and his constant mentions industry web sites and printed magazines Steve is quite well known and deserves to be listed. Perhaps not a year ago when this was first entered, but at this point he has earned the listing. Stonesnake 03:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • another suspiciously new user whose only contributions to Misplaced Pages have been this discussion
  • Wrong, His only edits have been in the Undelete section, but not only to this discussion. Please don't post misleading notes, it will confuse editors.
• Undelete. Noting his podcasts popularity is enough I'd say. A LOT of people listen to him, that makes him notable enough I'd say. Chris M. 04:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • How do we know that a lot of people listen to him? - brenneman 05:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Because there have been several references thus far to it's rankings in iTunes (if you'd look above). Maybe they don't listen to him, maybe they just download his podcast and then delete it, but at least THAT amount of effort still makes him notable :). Chris M. 05:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      • While it's often the case that I'm dense, I don't see a link for iTunes ranking? - brenneman 06:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Looking on Google I still see no reliable sources from which to build an article, just his own website and mentions in blogs (which confirm that he exists, but that's it). That's the very definition of non-notability and the reason we have such a definition. To those that are voting to undelete, please show me some sources and not 'this number is now x when before it was y, therefore we must have an article on him'. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Again to answer Brenneman The Way the iTunes Sytem works, You need Itunes itself to actually see these things, It's store is only visitable through the program as far as I know. And You can't actually link to them. You can find it easily though.--72.230.6.138 11:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think I'd need a lot of convincing before I took iTunes as a reliable source. Any thoughts on that, anyone? - brenneman 12:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Same as my thoughts on Alexa, personally. Whether it's reliable or not, it's a number. It can't help us write a verified, neutral article on the guy. I know that people use these numbers to make judgements on notability, and I don't condemn that, but the issue of Alexa ranks etc. is secondary to the question of reliable sources. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Splash. I'm mainly commenting to help swat down the puppetry plague that seems to have developed on the question. Xoloz 11:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Surely articles such as this which will have a large following, high ranking and well know, a recent figure states that 10% of the worlds population visits in a month. This form of article, perhaps not a biography, but an article about his site and works, is definatly much more useful than a vast ammount of information on wikipedia, such as this--Dr dozzy 16:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close. I agree with Sam, Rossami, and Splash. And Brenneman. —Encephalon 16:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure. I'm not convinced by the "new information" being raised here, and the sockpuppet parade doesn't help. android79 16:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure per Encephalon. Steve block talk 19:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Question, Comment and More Evidance for noteabillity First the Question: You keep asking how these things show noteability. How don't they? Seriously, What is the set standard before you concider a site noteable. He's got a conciderably high ranking on Alexa, Which apparently doesn't count. He's got attention by some of the biggest names in gaming industry to actually come on his show but that apparently doesn't count. Nobody even took mention of all the times he's been mentioned on Joystiq, (30 times in one year on just one site is a lot, by anyone's standards) So apparently those don't count. He Build up and Sold a Very successful company, Which out of respect to steve I will not post the Link to. (He signed an NDA and I don't know what the conciquences of breaking that would be.) But If you do a minimal amount of searching on google you can find pretty easily the Company Stephen Glicker used to run. Apparently that doesn't count. If these last two things don't even count I'm starting to think Your standards of noteabillity change no matter what I post. And please don't call anyone sockpuppets. It's uncalled for. Just because someone may not Edit Misplaced Pages much, It doesn't mean they don't care just as much about the content. You have a vast Reading non editing community that you disrespect by acting like that. Anyway Here's the online version of the Magazine article: (Note, It's from a German Magazine, called Pcgames, there is an actual issue you may be able to find if you go out to a store or something) And Finally, Gaming Steve's Google Maps Frappr(To show his wide fanbase): These are both here not to do anything else then prove noteabillity. That's the Reason the Article was deleted and if it is proved there is noteabillity then there is an obligation to undelete it. If you look at all of the sources given throughout this whole thing, and you say to me that noteabillity hasn't been proved, I'm going to have to think that You've been prejudiced against this article being undeleted from the start, and that no amount of credable Noteabillity proving sources would change your mind. Seriously, It was deleted for reasons of noteabillity. That was the only reason. And Noteablillty has been proven here. For anyone to say otherwise now they really would have to elaborate more.--Sgore 20:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Kat Desktop Search Environment

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kat Desktop Search Environment
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kat Desktop Search Environment (Second nomination)

This article was listed for AfD a while ago, and the result was KEEP unanimously apart from nom. It appears that it was listed for deletion again recently, but there was no vote and the article was promptly deleted. Not sure what this is about.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  02:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Undelete There WAS a second vote (found here) but with only one participant besides the nom. I'm inclined to say that's not quite enough, especially considering the points raised in the first AFD discussion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Relist —BorgHunter (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete/relist I'm sure Splash will happily reverse this, as he said, for further consideration. Xoloz 04:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Relist is fine by me, as nominator this time round. Just zis Guy you know? 12:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undeleted. Someone else can relist it if they feel that is warranted. Apologies for using the wrong link in my original deletion 'summary'. -Splash 13:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Kawaii (mascot) should be undeleted too, as it was deleted as a redirect. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 14:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Relist, though I'm not sure I understand Freshgavin's summary of the second discussion. The nomination did attract one vote, which was for deletion, and it was not 'promptly deleted', it was closed properly after a week had passed. With only a 2-0 consensus and a previous consensus to keep it should have been 'relisted to generate a clearer consensus', though. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There's no need to vote on relisting an already undeleted article. You can {{sofixit}} as they say. I deleted it, as you saw from my closure comment, because it was essentially an uncontested deletion in the nature of a PROD. The nomination was cogent and argued reasonably well (it is not merely a "d, nn kruft") and not opposed. -Splash 14:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Originally, freshgavin hadn't spotted the second deletion nomniation because of my incorrect deletion summary link to the original VfD (as I already mentioned in my earlier comment).

House humping

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/House humping
• Relist When this term was deleted in late October, the discussion focussed on whether the term had been used in MSM, and if so, it could be brought back from deletion. To wit, the March issue of GQ magazine (US edition) has a big article on House Humping (it's even blurbed on the cover). There have also been references to it in the San Francisco Bay Guardian and other papers in the US. I hear there's also a MySpace group devoted to house humping, though I'm not sure how relevant that is to undeletion. Again, I'm still new to Wiki, so I'm not sure I'm doing this right, but this seemed like the place to bring this up. thanks. St Germain23 14:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/keep deleted. Looking at the March GQ online, I can find no mention of house humping; therefore, I must question the nomination's accuracy. Xoloz 16:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Yes, I went to their site, too, and you're right, it's not online. The trouble with magazines is that not all their content goes into their online versions (if it was, they'd have a hard time selling their print versions). So, you can either go to a newstand and see for yourself or go to the MySpace group where someone scanned the article and posted it up - here's the scan. The text itself is a little hard to read, but here's a blog that transcribed it. Thanks. St germain23 18:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Currently functionally unverifiable fomr reliabel sources. Let's sit back and wait a while, there is no deadline to meet. Just zis Guy you know? 22:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Alexander (cartoonist)

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Patrick Alexander (cartoonist)

Also appears to have had one round of DRV, but I'm not keen to go looking for the diff right now.

The version I just deleted actually had less material than the last version but if I read the history correct that had more than the AfD version. So... while I'm confident that the version I deleted falls into "recreated content" I'm not 100% on that the last pre-recreation version doesn't deserve an airing here. I mean the "(Deleted revision as of 31 January 2006)" but don't know how to link to that.
brenneman 10:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• The article was originally deleted on the 28th January 2006, the version deleted being here. The problem with reading the afd to my mind is that the article was nominated when the article was in this state. I think the comments regarding POV and vanity at the afd discussion could well have been addressed. I'm not sure how one addresses the comment alleging the article is nonsense, a quick reading of the nonsense criterion at WP:CSD quickly disabuses us of the notion that this article is nonsense as it applies to the deletion process, there is obviously salvagble material here. The other comments from users averring delete fail to quantify their opinions beyond nn. Since an afd is not a vote but a discussion, it's hard to read those comments and gather why the people in question wish to delete the page, since they do not assert why the cartoonist is not notable. I would hope this review could address that situation here.

• I will declare my bias at start. I believe the article should be kept as the cartoonist is, as averred in the article, a nationally published cartoonist. I would hope people agree that a nationally published cartoonist is notable. Steve block talk 11:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Nothing of substance has changed since the AfD and previous DRV, for which the content was temporarily undeleted. Let's wait a while and see if six months or so makes a difference. User:DollyD's zealousness in promoting this cause is commendable but after six deletions and one move from another location where the deleted content was also re-created good faith is wearing a little thin. Just zis Guy you know? 11:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• I appreciate your comments, but first up, an awful lot of those six deletions were because of process warring rather than proper deletions. Secondly, what page move? Thirdly, the new page isn't created by Dolly D, and I think your statements towards that user indicate bad faith. Finally, you still haven't addressed the process. Was there consensus to delete or not? Are you satisfied that the deletion debate was robust enough and comments and thoughts were exchanged such that a consensual delete could be justified? Steve block talk 12:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I also want to make clear my belief that the original drv failed in its duty; mainly due to the fact that there was no clear process that was under review; a non-admin kept the page, an admin over-ruled. Another admin over-ruled that over-ruling and it all went downhill. I would hope we could focus this debate on the consensus to delete, rather than any sense of weariness over discussing the issue or recreations of the page. Steve block talk 12:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Aye, I made a mistake here. Looking at the article's actual AfD as opposed to being distracted by the silliness, I think the close was questionable enough to not have warranted re-deletion, although every "box was ticked" so to speak. A better solution would have been another trip through AfD, along with perhaps a note on the two most recent contributor's talk pages. Trout slapping for me, and suggest restore and relist. Since I'm the deleting admin, and can reverse my own mistake at any time, I'm going to do so in the next hour or three if no one screams. - brenneman 12:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure, keep deleted, padlock door and post a guard. I believe I have voted on at least one AfD for ths and an earlier Deletion review, if memory serves. I think consensus is crystal clear: not notable enough. Constantly recreating this strikes me as WP:POINT, or as JzG notes contrary to good faith. Are we going to keep debating this until a few committed souls get what they want when consensus clearly is unfavourable? Eusebeus 12:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Play fair I don't see your name at the afd, so it's unlikely you particpated there. I also don't see a consensus that a nationally published cartoonist is non-notable, since nowhere in the deletion debate was that issue addressed. That's my interest in the case. Can I also ask that we leave the personal attacks out of it? I'm quite happy to stick the article up on afd again, argue my case and have the thing decided one way or the other. It's just worrying when we can write referenced articles on nationally published artists and see them deleted, and yet have articles such as LUEshi stick around for ever with no sourcing or established notability. The worry I have is that there was no concept of a redirect to list of comic creators discussed, which your comment would once again preclude. I do sometimes question myself as to the inclusion criteria of Misplaced Pages. Perhaps we could amend the policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR so as to establish the supremacy of an admin's interpretation of a discussion at WP:AFD. Steve block talk 12:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The article was considerably expanded during the last DRV, despite several deletions and protections which were apparently intended to prevent this happening. There is thus in the history of this thing a perfectly good article. --Tony Sidaway 13:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have played a part in the re-creation of this article. The article Patrick Alexander was a diambiguation page to which User:Arcita added text about Patrick Alexander the cartoonist. Forgetting all about the previously deleted article, I moved Arcita's text to a new article. The cartoonist seems to have at least one enthusiastic fan. Gaius Cornelius 18:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, an acceptable article. No standing consensus to delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I think my opinion on the AfD is fairly well documented already. Furthermore, since it seems that User:Arcita wrote the text of the current page at the disambig page, User:Gaius Cornelius moved it, and User:DollyD was nowhere near this, I find it highly unlikely that it is a recreation of deleted content. But I don't know, as I can't see it. I'd say let the past rest, and judge the most recent posting. Throw it on AfD--if people think the guy is non-notable, they can get a clean consensus to delete. (And no, I'm not touching that AfD with a 10-foot pole.) -- Jonel | Speak 05:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • We should restore the better version from a few deletions back instead of the not-so-good version that I deleted if we're going to to do that. - brenneman 06:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok by me. -- Jonel | Speak 01:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on AFD for further investigation. What Steve Block says about this cartoonist warrants another go for this, especially if we have an expanded version. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Although policy explicitly says AfD votes should be based on the article in principle, not its current state, many of the delete votes are clearly cast with reference to its state at the time, and therefore not properly cast in keeping with policy. Therefore it should be reopened and properly reviewed in its new state. --Delirium 02:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I had nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of this most recent Patrick Alexander article. This is NOT a recreation of my article and the content bears virtually NO resemblence to what I originally wrote. It should be judged on its own terms. Someone else obviously felt that Patrick Alexander deserved an article on Misplaced Pages. Which he does.

The fact is, Patrick Alexander is a notable cartoonist in Australian children's magazines and has a growing reputation for his webcomics. This can be easily verified by simple research or asking someone knowledgable about the field. DollyD 05:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that your opinion of Alexander is provably non-neutral, and your edit history includes only one edit unrelated to Alexander. Just zis Guy you know? 19:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Third culture

This was speedied, and deleted just as I was about to pull the tag. The speedy comment was "absurd", by which I guess the nominator and closer meant "patent nonsense", which it just ain't. No way is this speedy or even a Prod. It should go to AfD, where it has at least a reasonable chance of survival, given that it's a real term, has a quarter million Ghits, at least one one book about it and so on. Careful with that speedy tag, guys. (And was the closing admin asleep at the wheel?) Herostratus 08:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Is the current redirect a problem, then? Just zis Guy you know? 11:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as is. The redirect seems to work fine. If some material has been lost from the article-less Third Culture, maybe someone could dig it out for a merge. This should have just been a redrect in the first place. (Also, "Brockmancruft." :) · rodii · 13:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Whatever it was, it absolutely wasn't patent nonsense. I've undeleted the history. —Cryptic (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This is odd. When I posted this, there was no redirect. The page was apparently deleted and then turned into a redirect (which may have been for technical reasons? I think I recall something about, a page with a serious edit history can't be turned into a redirect straight out, as an anti-vandalism feature?) The page was literally deleted from my grasp, so the page have have only non-existed for a few minutes. Herostratus 18:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• More Immportant Comment. No, the current redirect is in no way equivilant to the original article. A quick Google reveals two entirely different meanings for third culture, intertwined. The first refers to a book (and perhaps resulting meme) apparently based on a response to C.P. Snow's book The Two Cultures (these being science vs. the humanities). The second meaning refers to, basically, military brats and the like. There is (at leat one) separate book about that. (I infer that the "third culture" is the culture these kids -- neither American, nor European/Asian/etc depending on where their families were based, but a separate third culture. Anyway, the redirect goes to an article on the first meaning, and the deleted article is about the second meaning. (So perhaps there needs to be a disambig page). Herostratus 18:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Now that the page history is restored, I see that that speedy tag was placed by an anon IP with two edits, this one and - interestingly - a revert in a different article of acceptable material by the same person who wrote Third culture, a named editor with 951 edits. C'mon, this is why we have admins do the actual deleting, to catch stuff like this. I know how busy and harassed closing admins are, perhaps we need more admins, and anybody can make a mistake, but still.Herostratus 18:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• I did not delete third culture, but after reviewing the deleted article, there didn't seem to be anything worth merging into the article we already have on third culture kids, thus I didn't bring it up for deletion review, and added a redirect instead. It was replaced with a redirect to The Third Culture. I suggest a disambiguation page. — Matt Crypto 19:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oops, sorry, you created the redirect... I guess the deletion itself doesn't show up in the edit history.... Herostratus 00:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Hmph. So the result is several paragraphs by a 1,000-edit editor get deleted w/o any AfD or anything (by (in essence) an anon with perhaps a score to settle...). Enh, not big deal, but still its not a nice way treat him. Also I did not know about the article third culture kids. OK problem seems basically solved, I'm OK with with closing the nom, if that's appropriate. Herostratus 00:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I am confused by this whole thing. · rodii · 03:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Perhaps a speedy close is in order, since everybody's reasonably gruntled, lest others fall prey to the mental state that has snared user Rodii? Herostratus 08:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

12 March 2006

United Hardware

Article on same subject had been deleted as advertising, described as "spamtastic advertisement." New article written that was straightforward and objective, but nevertheless tagged for speedy. Speedied without substantive discussion despite at least two objections. Since new version of article was not recreation of deleted version, was not a speedy candidate. Monicasdude 23:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy, keep deleted. Articles are not that different, and the last deleted was also somewhat spammy. Much of the article was taken up with a list of places where the company's customer has locations. No prejudice against mentioning it in an article on Hardware Hank. Just zis Guy you know? 23:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and send to AfD.The article as it is doesn't seem to be total spam. I think it should have been Prod'd rather than speedied, in which case I guess it would have been pulled, taken to AfD, where it will almost certainly have lost, so it's kind of waste of time, but if they really are the 4th largest whatever they're not a speedy candidate, IMO.Herostratus 09:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely not speedy content; it's a verifiable article on an actual company of at least moderate size. --Delirium 02:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

This was deleted on March 7, 2006. It was a rediect that redirected to wikipedia:userboxes.Apparently, it was a "soft redirect", though it was no different than any other redirect. I fought fouriously to keep it undeleted after some whacked out conspiricy, but the other side got thier way. I request this gets undeleted, as it's a pain in the ass to get to the userbox page and because it wan't really a soft redirect. Thank you. The Republican 22:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I seem to recall that I'd had to delete this redirect, and also userboxes. They were inappropriate cross-namespace redirects. Use WP:UBX instead. --Tony Sidaway 23:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  Which is also, technically, a cross-namespace redirect, though we tolerate it for expediency. If you're in the mood you can also delete Featured articles, Featured pictures, Featured lists and Arbcom — or maybe they should be taken through WP:RFD to keep the "whacked out conspiracy" out in the open :) Haukur

  The use of articlespace redirects starting WP: as shortcuts is fairly well documented (see Misplaced Pages:Namespace#Pseudo-namespaces ). Obviously it's undesirable to have unnecessary pollution of article namespace. --Tony Sidaway 00:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Either undelete or delete (or turn into articles or dab pages) all cross-namespace-redirecting pages, including CotW (redirects to Misplaced Pages:Collaboration of the week, an article-editing project), Disambiguation (redirects to Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation, a style-guideline page), and NPOV (redirects to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, an official policy). If the unlikelihood of a pagename to be searched-for for anything other than its use on Misplaced Pages: is not relevant towards whether that redirect should exist or not, and if the ease-of-use, helpfulness, and convenience of cross-namespace links to users is similarly irrelevant, I see no reason why any others are being spared. The above examples are even more compelling than the Userbox one, as while "Userbox" has no potential usage, meaning or value except as a redirect to the Misplaced Pages: page in question (hence why it's now merely a deleted page, benefiting no one and serving only to make a point to users who aren't already aware of the correct name of Misplaced Pages's userbox pages), "disambiguation" is a valid word in the English language and "COTW" and "NPOV" valid four-letter abbreviations. I'm sure there are hundreds of other, very similar cross-namespace links and redirects on Misplaced Pages articles; why was this one singled out?

  Having a deletedpage marker there (1) helps to notify people still using it that they need to update their links and (2) provides an opportunity for discussion should anyone want to start an article or articlespace redirect called "userbox". This redirect was "singled out" because I happened to encounter it. --Tony Sidaway 00:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• There is an interesting debate to be had about the utility and propriety of cross-space redirects of this kind, given the usual allowance for WP: redirects. Undelete/list at RfD, though (for once) I don't think Mr. Sidaway's speedy deletion was particularly egregious; it is something a could imagine a normal responsible administrator doing. Xoloz 06:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This already went through RfD. Mackensen (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Undelete. Either redirect or short description with links. Then protect if necessary. It will make it much easier to find the userbox page(s). --Singkong2005 09:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Arc Flashlights

On 1 February 2006 this article was deleted: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arc Flashlights. The stated reason was spam/advertising, which seems in error. The company (Arc Flashlights LLC) no longer exists and their products are no longer manufactured. There is an existing company with a similar name, but I don't think the article was about that.

The article is needed for historical business/technical reference as Arc Flashlights LLC manufacturered the first Luxeon LED flashlight, the genesis of a product type now widely used. There are many current articles on various flashlight companies, watch companies, etc, so deleting this one seems very selective.

I have no relationship to the company or products, flashlights are just a hobby. Request the article be undeleted. If there are any spam/advertising elements (despite the company no longer existing), I'll be happy to fix them. Joema 13:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that an article should be written on Arc Flashlights, which are notable and encyclopedic as a generic product. Based on the AfD, I'd assume that this article was like that, however. At least in the case of advertising, sometimes no article is better than one that violates policy. Please, though, feel free to create a NPOV article about the history of the product. Endorse closure as usual, without prejudice against an improved recreation. Xoloz 16:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• OK I found a cached copy of the article on answers.com: . It definitely had problems and wasn't appropriate as written (although I've seen many worse articles that never get deleted). It should have been fixed, not deleted. I'll fix the bad parts and write a new article. Let me repeat for the record: there was no advertising/spam, as the company no longer exists and their products are no longer manufactured. The people deleting the article likely weren't aware of that. Joema 22:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Just a note that the version found above is identical to the deleted article. It was started by User:Gransee, tellingly, so probably wasn't completely without a little WP:AUTOship to it. Arc Flashlights are clearly notable, and a proper article will not be a speedy, so go ahead and write it. The history can be undeleted behind it then. -Splash 00:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

11 March 2006

Category:Roman Catholic actors

Postdlf deleted Category:Roman Catholic actors today as a recreation of a previously deleted category, citing an August CfD. At the time I (re)created the category, I was unaware of the previous CfD, and was simply attempting to subcategorize Category:Roman Catholics.

The parent category is hard to use as it contains several hundred articles (Special:Categories lists 802, which is after I moved a few hundred into subcats). I think the deletion decision should be reviewed, as Misplaced Pages:Categorization states: When a given category gets crowded, also consider making several subcategories. Group similar articles together in a meaningful and useful way that will make it easy for readers to navigate later. In my opinion, dividing a category of people by their occupation is a meaningful division. Gentgeen 07:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. In my experience Postdlf is far too willing to speedy delete categories based on previous votes, and invariably assumes bad faith. David | Talk 14:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No bad faith on Gentgeen's part was assumed; it appears you've merely assumed that bad faith was assumed. Postdlf 19:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd say that deleting using an edit summary of "Reposted in violation of cfd" and then sticking the {{deletedpage}} template on it was a pretty good indication that you considered bad faith was involved. David | Talk 14:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/relist without any prejudice against Postdlf. In the case of a CfD, the passage of time (and the increase in subject articles) can make a prior decision ripe for review. This is such a case. Xoloz 17:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist Gentgreen was unaware of the old CFD and Postdlf should have never speedy it as a recreation of a deleted category back in August --Jaranda 17:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Consider not bothering to relist. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete since there is clearly a good argument for having for the category. Just zis Guy you know? 09:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I believe that Gentgeen was innocently unaware of the previous CFD, but that's irrelevant as to whether the category should be recreated, as is the passage of several months since the CFD. If we allow CFD decisions to simply "expire," particularly after such a relatively short period, then the whole process is a waste of time. Furthermore, this category does not group "similar articles together in a meaningful and useful way," because it simply takes two unrelated traits and combines them to random effect; the religion and acting careers of these individuals have no necessary or obvious relationship as a group, nor is there precedent outside of Misplaced Pages for studying or classifying actors by religion, or for asserting that there is a meaningful connection between having a Roman Catholic faith and being an actor. Misplaced Pages is not for original research or analysis. Postdlf 19:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Is the argument about passage of time not a ludicrous one when examined? Most CfD debates have a tiny number of participants. The idea that a CfD debate months or years before should be a never-ending precedent against the existence of a category, or even one which is merely similar, is in severe danger of ending in the tyranny of the tiny minority who frequent CfD. Jimbo has often remarked on the brokenness of AfD and this is a classic example. David | Talk 21:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete again. This is reccurent topic on CfD, almost always ending with deletion of the category. They present quite absurd view of the world and do not contribute with encyclopedic value.

Such categories are quite often created by people who are not able or willing to spend time on coherent and valid article but feel inner pressure to "contribute" anyway. The simplest way is to create a new "category". The current system of categories is very, very limited and need be overhauled (for example to have primary and secondary categories, categories with comment attached etc). Then the pressure on CfD will be reduced. Pavel Vozenilek 21:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. In my experience Postdlf is far too willing to speedy delete categories based on previous votes, exactly as the official policy states at Misplaced Pages:Category deletion policy. --Kbdank71 22:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm puzzled by what Gentgeen says. Perhaps as a result of later edits, this category is not itself categorized (other than related to deletion) and has no subcategories. Moreover, the comment dividing a category of people by their occupation is a meaningful division: if this is relevant here, it seems to imply that Roman Catholic people are a category, while (a) Category:Roman Catholic Church suggests that in the WP sense they are not, and (b) in most of the real world (northern Ireland, etc. being unpleasant exceptions) I don't think they are either. Furthermore, I'm puzzled by what I infer as enthusiasm on WP for categorizing people by religion, sex, sexual inclination, etc.: to me, Tom Cruise is an uninteresting actor who appears in mediocre Hollywood product; his belief in "scientology", his sex life, etc., are merely of minor, gossip-magazine significance. -- Hoary 07:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Mike H. That's hot 08:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on CFD. Presence of more articles than we used to which might fit into this category, and the presence of counterparts in other occupations such as Category:Roman Catholic artists (which seems to have as much merit as a category of actors) has changed the situation since the last CFD. Deserves further discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - for further precedent, the discussion on Cat:Roman Catholic painters was just decided as consensus deletion today. --Syrthiss 13:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Colignatus

If I understand correctly: "To nominate a page for undeletion, place the page title on Misplaced Pages:Deletion review, with the reason why you think it should be undeleted. Sign and date your entry (Colignatus 02:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)). "

I noticed that the article Colignatus has been deleted with no trace of its existence.

If there is a strong opinion that this article should not exist, so be it, but then I would like to have the text, to use in wikinfo, and it would be wonderful, if that is not too much work, if it is sent to me by email (see my talk page).

I started the page Colignatus in the main body of the text since it would allow readers an overview of my work as an economist. (See list of economists where I don't occur now.) My work is in various directions, but it would help readers to link these directions (as I link them up). And readers would generally not look at a user talk page since they might not know that I am a user (for the time being).

I also wonder who deleted me, and with what argument. There now is a distressing dispute on Borda fixed point, where another user User:Fahrenheit451 referred a year ago to my invention of that particular voting system, where I corrected the text, linked up with voting system, and where User:Rspeer suddenly started an attack that I consider to be full of bias. He apologized a couple of times for being too rash, but always came back with new attacks. As he started to remove other contributions by me with similar bias, I just wonder whether he is behind this removal. Though he need not be, of course. It just would help clarity to know who deleted it, and with what purpose.

Obviously, wikipedians are sensitive to users creating their own articles, but if you see the text, then you might agree that it is only short and factual, allowing readers to link up on proper content.

And if you would disagree about the content, perhaps a re-edit is better than complete deletion. Colignatus 02:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• 04:12, March 9, 2006 Sean Black deleted "Colignatus" (No claim to notability) is the text on the deletion log, so it was not Fahrenheit451. I have sent you the text in email per your request. --Syrthiss 03:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Because of the inherent difficulties maintaining perspective, balance and a neutral point of view, we have a pretty strong prohibition against autobiographies. It's not an absolute rule but it is very good advice that if you're notable enough to be included in the encyclopedia, someone else should write the article. On that basis, I would strongly urge you to invest the time in other articles and in your userpage. Have faith - it it's relevant to their work, other people will find your userpage. Rossami (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Many thanks Syrthiss. It is a relief to have the text again, and now I put it at Colignatus at wikinfo. (1) It is good to know how and why it got deleted. It is a pity that Sean Black did not warn me on my talk page. I hope he sees this and reconsiders his rash act. (2) Of course I'm not "notable". My work has been censored by the Dutch government, I'm waiting for this censorship to be lifted, and in the mean time (which is now for 16 years) I only show others indications about what the censorship is about, so that they can start doing something about that censorship. Thus there little chance to get "notable", at least in the common sense of citations, though I don't know how you would value the access statistics at my page at RepEc. Thus, I mean, that criterion is little helpful. (3) I knew about that autobio criterion, Rossami, but as you said, it is not an absolute rule. In this case I have really considered all aspects and decided that starting this overview article on my contributions to economic theory would be best, see the explanation I gave and wikinfo. I entered into wikipedia contributions on the minimum wage, tax void, Stagflation, Economic Supreme Court, Separation of powers, Arrow's impossibility theorem, Borda Fixed Point, Economics and Risk, not as original research as it was some time ago, but as encyclopedic review and reasoned argument with respect to the existing texts in wikipedia. My edits greatly improved the value of the articles to the readers. It would help readers to understand where these contributions came from and how these are linked in my work. For example you cannot understand the issue of the minimum wage if you don't understand that in the current set-up of economic policy making you are consistently lied to by the government. If that explanation of the usefulness of link up and reference to the original author is not convincing, so be it. (4) I have great optimistic faith that the censorship will be ended eventually so that people can freely use my work, but perhaps there first must be another world war or a Collapse. (5) However, it would be wrong for readers to go to my user page, since this page is editted by me for different purposes than an encyclopedia article on my work. Sincerely Yours, Colignatus 15:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you read WP:AUTO, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE? The article as writen failed on all of the above. Just zis Guy you know? 23:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I move for speedy closure on the grounds that this is being considered at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Colignatus and User:Colignatus is now indef-blocked. Resurrect the debate if requested by anyone when the other process is done. Just zis Guy you know? 12:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

10 March 2006

Michael Crook

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michael Crook

This article was voted as a keep, despite a strong consensus for delete. The decision to keep it was a biased one, and a review is requested. This article has no relevance. More importantly, it is rife with inaccuracies. Numerous corrections have been made with accurate facts, only to be deleted by Rhobite and other WP admins who appear to be biased against the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.157.29.196 (talk • contribs) March 10, 2006 (UTC) Michael Crook (AfD discussion)

• Endorse closure. Looks to be a valid AfD and AfD closure. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure This DRV nomination is unsigned, for starters. The closer is Splash; the chances of him making a mistake are very close to zero, for seconds. This discussion, however, wasn't even close. Valid AfD, notable subject, no relevant reason for review given. Xoloz 03:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Vandalism, WP:OWN and inaccuracy are not grounds for deletion, even if that were the case here (which I am not sure about). Just zis Guy you know? 09:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Clearly valid keep result on the AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, speedily if possible to prevent another outbreak of sockpuppetry here. Possible bad faith AfD, probably bad faith DRV, certainly utterly pointless when the reason for review is self-contradictory ("This article was voted as a keep, despite a strong consensus for delete"). There was aclear keep consensus. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• This is a poorly written article on an eminently forgettable fellow. However, there can be no doubt as to the AFD consensus, nor the correctness of Splash's decision—he's right, as usual. On this matter of bad faith, I must disagree. When we say that someone is acting in bad faith, we imply that he is acting with malicious intentions; when the charge is unqualified, it usually means "malicious intentions with respect to the well-being or integrity of the encyclopedia". An example of someone acting in bad faith is the vandal who surreptitiously inserts subtle errors into articles, purely to damage the encyclopedia. I do not think that the nominator possesses any such frightful motivations: he's just a chap who dislikes the article, probably because he has been unable to make it stay the way he wants it to. Newer users or those not quite accustomed to Misplaced Pages norms may say things about consensus or article deletion or article policy that can strike Wikipedian ears as decidedly odd. This does not mean that they act in bad faith, and we should be careful not to label them so—it does little to promote understanding and goodwill. cf the third paragraph of WP:FAITH. —Encephalon 16:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. To address nom's concerns: Closure was not biased; it appropriately reflected the discussion that took place. DRV is not the place to discuss the relevance or factual accuracy of the article; relevance was discussed at the AfD, and factual inaccuracies (which are grounds for article improvement via consensus editing; never deletion) should be addressed at the article's talk page. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure. Consensus editiing is infinitely more appropriate, and facts do need to be discussed on the discussion page of the article. As of now all discussion of the original nomination for deletion was unprodcutive, and gleaned few new or disputed facts.
• Endorse Closure (i.e., keep). I don't see how the anon who nominated this for deletion review can with a straight face say "despite a strong consensus for delete", when clearly there is not even a majority in favor of deleting. --Delirium 02:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This article absolutely should be deleted, because the subject is very unhappy with the article and claims that is libelous and that he is unable to fix it, and the subject is marginally notable anyway. What I recommend to Michael Cook is that he contact User:Jimbo Wales and/or the Foundation and ask that the article be removed as a WP:OFFICE action -- which will probably be done. Recognizing that the AfD was closed properly, I have to ask the AfD commentators and the commentators on this DRv: what are you people thinking? Number one, having an encyclopedia is not an license to harass marginally-notablle people; and number two, the article will most likely be removed anyway, by fiat, as an office action (if Mr. Cook presses his complaint), thus resulting in no article anyway PLUS as a bonus a bunch of pissed-off people running around moaning that Misplaced Pages is like Spain under Franco. So c'mon people get off your horses and give some serious consideration to Jimbo's policy about articles on living people. (I'm not saying Jimbo is right - I think he is, but I've been wrong before - but that he's made it clear he doesn't like articles like this, so why turn this into a power struggle. Over Michael freaken Cook.) Herostratus 13:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything in WP:LIVING about removing an article because the subject doesn't like it. After reading WP:OFFICE, I don't see how that applies here, either -- that's for people complaining that their bios are being deleted, not for complaints that their bios are being kept. Now, true, WP:LIVING does request that we keep the feelings of the subject in mind; if the article has POV or libel issues, those need to be corrected through the proper channels. Deleting the article is not the best way to address those issues. Powers 14:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Azure_Sheep

Deletion details: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Azure_Sheep

This a Half-Life mod and was deleted based as part of a retaliation (check the deletion details). This mod haves more then 200,000 downloads and was released in several computer magazines. Only 5 people agreed with the delete and based on their personal option about the mod. Not liking something shouldnt be reason to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snewerl (talk • contribs)

• Endorse closure The participants in the AfD said little about whether they liked or disliked this mod, only that it was non-notable. The fact that retaliation might have played a role in the nom. is irrelevant in cases where the questioning of notability is legitimate. We must AGF on the nominator's part, and obviously his concern with notability was legitimate, as the participants agreed with the nomination. Valid AfD, no relevant reason given to initiate review, no new evidence presented. Xoloz 03:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete They said it is non-notable based on their opinion. What defines a mod as notable? What evidences are needed? A complete list of the magazines that release the mod? A list of users that played the mod? Search the internet. You will find tons of sites that have Azure Sheep and talk about it. What you are saying? That Misplaced Pages is not a Free Excyclopedia where diferent contents can be found but a place that haves only what a small number of people that cares about the AfD allow to be here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snewerl (talk • contribs)

• Please don't 'vote' twice. If you leave a second comment, preface it with "comment" or nothing. Especially when you don't sign your comments it looks like an attempt to sway the vote by sockpuppetry. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Struck out repeated vote. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Unanimous AfD, individual mods are rarely, if ever, independently notable. Just zis Guy you know? 09:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. Valid AfD decision, closed properly, no new evidence presented which would theoretically have changed it. Mods for online computer games have a sky-high cruft multiple; digging through the Google hits there is nothing that presents itself as a reliable source on which to base an article. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, not an experiment in anarchy, thus non-notable games have to be deleted because articles about them can't be properly verified and neutral. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted unanimously valid AfD. I like the DRV nominator's "only five people agreed with the delete" comment. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: What evidences are needed? What makes a mod notable to avoid deletion? --Snewerl
  • If you'd like to see some examples of articles on notable mods, check out Hot Coffee mod (notable due to media furor it created) and Counter-Strike (notable as genre-defining game and created a culture all its own). By far, the vast majority of game mods, however, are not notable enough on their own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • If a mod needs to be that notable, then all the mod pages have to deleted since only those two manage to do that or something similar... Snewerl
      • You're right, and nearly all of them are deleted when they come up for AFD. Just because a non-notable article exists doesn't mean Misplaced Pages wants it there, it just means nobody's noticed it and bothered to AFD it yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
        • It makes sence but then why the Half-Life mods Category exists and other pages related to the subject? Snewerl
• Keep Deleted unanimous valid AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Kd per Sam and Xoloz. —Encephalon 17:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Relist. 200,000 downloads likely meets the criteria laid out in WP:SOFTWARE. If this is true, the article should probably be undeleted, altered to reflect the evidence of notability, and relisted. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Following the WP:SOFTWARE, it was also released in this magazines: The Games Machine (Italy); Swiat Gier Komputerowych (Poland); PC Zone (Uk, also reviewed on Modwatch); PCGamer (UK); Computer Gaming World (USA); GameStar (Germany) and PC Format (UK). It was also reviewed in various mod/games related sites like, for example, PlanetHalfLife (a well known game/mod related site, part of gamespy). Snewerl
    • I still have the PC Zone where is reviewed on Modwatch. If proof is needed I can scan the article and upload it for checking. Snewerl 20:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: ok I am new in this but now what? Will the WP:SOFTWARE lines be followed? Doesnt Azure Sheep fills, at least, points 1.1 (PlanetHalfLife review ), 1.2 (PC Zone magazine review that I can scan the article and upload it to prove) and 3. (more them 5000 downloads, just add the number of download from the locations in this page )? If there arent notable mods then for what there is a category for them in Half-Life (Category:Half-Life_mods)? Snewerl 11:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Relist If the mod meets the WP:SOFTWARE criteria, it ought to be relisted. The mod is even listed on GameFAQs.com, which only has a few of the top Half-Life mods. syphonbyte 01:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain. Software I am involved in was deleted and notability was one of the reasons given - even though it clearly meets the notability guidelines. The guidelines don't seem to correspond with actual Wikipedian reality yet. The discussion on software guidelines is here. Stephen B Streater 10:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Samurang

This article underwent speedy deletion soon after nominated for deletion (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Samurang). But I think the decision does not meet a criterion for speedy deletion. Deltabeignet claimed it was an "attack page". In my understanding, "attack pages" have to do with defamation of character just like the example: "John Citizen is a moron" (Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion). Samurang is not the case. Undelete. --Nanshu 01:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• For an article to be speedy-deleted as an attack page, every non-blanked version must be an attack. I think that some of the earliest versions of this article were judgment calls. Judgments are made thru AFD, not via speedy. Overturn the speedy-deletion and reopen the AFD discussion. Rossami (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on AfD per Rossami. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/relist per Rossami. Xoloz 03:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, it was a valid interpretation of CSD A6, and I very much doubt it would have survived AfD; this article seems to me to serve no purpose other than to disparage the (non-titular) subject, Haidong Gumdo: Samurang is one of fabrications by Haidong Gumdo, who says it was a name for Goguryeo warriors and the origin of samurai. The word Samurang is, however, never appeared in history books ] Haidong Gumdo coined this word so that it sounds similar to samurai in the modern Korean language. Considering the ultimate etymology of samurai, the verb samorafu, the fabrication is seemingly obvious to Japanese, but some uninformed Koreans and Westerners are deceived. If this minor fiction is of encyclopaedic merit it can be covered in Samurai (in neutral terms, unlike this article) and a redirect established here. Just zis Guy you know? 09:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per JzG above. Foreign-language loanwords and when they should and shouldn't be in WP was extensively debated in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kawaii. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, and that precedent was a keep. Precedential power at AfD is weak anyway, but this one appears to point in the opposite direction. If you are making some point about the reasoning used in the prior debate, that sort of analysis (not the direct result) has even less precedental power. Please clarify. Xoloz 19:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Wasn't trying to draw a direct analogy between the two articles, just pointing out some (possibly) relevant discussion of what is and isn't considered kosher, in the absence of Misplaced Pages:Loanwords. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Halliburton_shill

This article underwent speedy deletion.

I received no notification until I visisted the site, even though the article is on my watch list. It is not a personal attack. Halliburton is a public corporation. Shill is a well defined term found in any dictionary. Dick Cheney is a public figure. Relevant Misplaced Pages articles are linked too.

I have a rewritten version that will make the general use of the term more understanable for those lacking background, and even those that abuse the term disparage in attemtping to make the article something that it isn't.

Regarding 1 of the comments that only 111 matches on google for the phrase Halliburton shill, here's some more statistics for you to consider that would be included in the revised article:

As of September 29, 2005, a search for Dick-Cheney shill returned 50,700 results. Today (2006.03.10), the same search returns 89,000 results.

2005.09.29 Halliburton shill returned 44,500 results. Other references to shills for Halliburton (e.g., "shill for Halliburton") obviously get missed on a simple phrase search. As of 2006.03.10, 54,800 results.

2005.09.29 pages that discussed Halliburton shill without any mention of Cheney equaled 10,500 (44,500 - 10,500 = 34,000 pages where Cheney is mentioned). As of 2006.03.10, 14,900 (50,700 - 14,900 = 35,800). 13,700 of those mention Bush instead. --Halliburton Shill 04:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy deletion. While it's debatable that it could be deleted as an attack page, since Cheney is a public figure, it was hopelessly, irreversibly POV, saying that Cheney gained money by giving contracts to Halliburton, and WP:SNOW tells me that it shouldn't matter that it might have been slightly out of process. --Rory096 04:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

  List on AfD. Actually, the part of WP:SNOW that Radiant took from my user talk page points out that it sometimes can matter if something like this is done out of process. Viz: this deletion review, which wouldn't need to be happening if everyone could have expressed their opinion in a proper AfD. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

  Oh, and "Halliburton shill" in quotation marks (so it's not just someone using the word Halliburton and the word shill on the same page) yields only 112 results, some of which are Misplaced Pages, and several are someone making a fake profile on Myspace. --Rory096 04:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

  And what the hell is this? --Rory096 04:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy deletion. I also note that the page was created by User:Halliburton Shill who has apparently made only two other non-deleted edits to Misplaced Pages and who may have to be counselled on appropriate usernames. Rossami (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Cheney did gain money. Read Misplaced Pages's own Halliburton page. It has an entire section called "Dick Cheney Ties". Read a CBS article published in 2003. As for the Halliburton search, if it's so common for someone to "just" happen (oops) to use shill and Halliburton on the same page with no intention of them relating to one another, I'm sure it should be easy to provide a link to an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halliburton Shill (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. Even if he did gain money off any contracts given to Halliburton- which is false and even REFUTED by the page you point to, this removes any possible doubt in my mind that you're just POV pushing. I try to WP:AGF, but it's very hard when I see something like that page. --Rory096 05:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Article created in bad faith, given above link to blog post. android79 05:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Also note that the text of the article exists at User:Halliburton Shill as well. android79 05:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. A personal attack on me in an attempt to justify a delete based on an unsubstantiated personal attack. If you can't understand satire, which I make very clear that blog is on the so-called "POV" page, don't read it. And, no, the Halliburton page does not in any way refute what I claim. At worst, it supports the claim and tries to excuse by reference to a campaign promise. (Turn on satire detector.) I know I make all my decisions based on campaign promises. Just like I still have faith in the promise there are WMDs in Iraq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halliburton Shill (talk • contribs)
    • Comment. I'd prefer not to get into a political discussion here, as it's not even the point. Your page was clearly POV, and then you posted on a blog about how you were pushing your POV on Misplaced Pages. You then claimed Misplaced Pages was biased towards the right in another blog, while simultaneously saying that I was personally attacking you. By the way, sign your posts with 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~. --Rory096 06:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It's established that it is not an attack page, which was the main argument for speedy deletion. And as for POV, that's not mentioned as a reason for any kind of deletion on the speedy page or AfD. That means there is no justification deletion.--Halliburton Shill 07:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion. Mr Shill, Misplaced Pages is not your soapbox. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion Dick Cheney is pure evil, but that doesn't mean WP will accept an article created in bad faith... "covert operation... sheesh. Xoloz 17:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Rory096. POV pushers go home. · rodii · 14:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• The link above makes me believe that the article was not created with encyclopedic intentions in mind. Keep deleted and protect if necessary. Titoxd 06:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

9 March 2006

Savvica

This article was kept as a no consensus after Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Savvica. However, I disagree because both the users that voted 'keep' are contributors of the article. Also the administrator states the only reason for deletion is non-notability. Exactly! That is the reason for deletion! The article does not meet the WP:CORP guideline for notability and should be deleted. --Sleepyhead 11:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• As the closer, I will not vote either way. I will say that what swayed my decision from a "delete" to a "no consensus" was the following argument: "Savvica has been covered on ComputerWorld, eWeek, TechCrunch, InfoTech, MacNN, and hundreds of blogs all in the last 3 months", if this is true, the company would meet point 1 of WP:CORP. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. If Dritter is discounted as too new (5th edit) there is an 80% consensus to delete, usually sufficient, but given that the claims of outside coverage weren't addressed I think there's sufficient grounds to keep the article on the basis of the last AfD, and the article should possibly be relisted so those claims are explictly addressed. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I can only find press releases from this company when I search on Google. That is not enough to meet the criteria for notability per WP:CORP. In regards to the user Dritter and Heyjohngreen it is not about the number of edits they have done. It is about what type of edits. Dritter has only edited the Savvica and Nuvvo (a product from Savvica) articles while Heyjohngreen started the Savvica and Nuvvo articles and his other contributions has only included adding links to this. Both these users votes are subjective as they probably work for the company. --Sleepyhead 13:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Relist I understand the close, but the point offered by the that voter needs further inspection, and relisting will accomplish that. Xoloz 16:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure but only weakly, and relist is also acceptable. Nuovvo is, I think, notable - I saw it on a list Ow as pruning and it checked out OK to me. Whether the manufacturer is independently notable I wouldn't like to say. A redirect would be good enough, to my mind. Just zis Guy you know? 17:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong endorsement of closure. Closing admin used own judgement and understanding of WP policy and guidelines to avoid a possibly unwarranted deletion. Admins aren't robots and shouldn't be expected to behave like vote counting robots; this is a discussion, and the admins are meant to evaluate the consensus of the discussion and then render a final closure based on that discussion with reference to their (supposedly superior) understanding of WP policy and guideline. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Random Acts Films

This article was deleted for no reason. -- Doo Doo 00:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Or so you think. It clearly didn't assert notability, nor does it show itself to be notable in Web searches. Keep deleted. --Nlu (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• On the contrary. It was deleted the first time for being nothing but an external link; the second time for being nothing but an external link plus the text "More content this afternoon."; and the third time because it described a group of people with no apparent claim to notability (see WP:CSD#Articles, number 7). Keep Deleted. android79 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Actually, a reason was given for the latest deletion though it was a bit cryptic. (Prior versions were deleted months ago for being basically contentless.) The deleting admin believed that this qualified for speedy-deletion under criterion A7 - "an article about a real person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." Looking at the content of the article and the linked website, I'm afraid that I would have to agree with that assessment. However, if you can make an assertion that this article might meet one of the generally accepted inclusion criteria (such as WP:BIO, WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC), then we can undelete the article and submit it for a longer discussion and decision using the articles for deletion process. Rossami (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Look at many of the articles in Category:Comedy_troupes, Random Acts Films is like them. The films have even been shown on Australian TV. -- Doo Doo 02:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The most recent version of the article contains no references other than Random Acts' own website, and thus does not meet the verifiability policy. If Doo Doo can create an article that includes good, verifiable source citations to film magazines, national newspapers, major film websites like imdb, that meets the verifiability policy and that clearly shows how the article meets WP:BIO, WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC, he should compose it--offline or in his user space--then re-create the article when it is decent shape. This would be far better than insisting on dragging the present article through AfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• That's cool. Can someone post the deleted code into User:Doo Doo/ra. -- Doo Doo 02:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  Will do in a minute. --Nlu (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Computerjoe 21:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, list on AfD. Article was deleted as a group of people making no assertion of notability, the interpretation of A7 as covering companies (rather than bands and school clubs, its intended purpose) is contentious, there are some unambiguous assertions of notability above, and this is not the place to debate the merits of the subject - this is to endorse or overturn dleetion decisions. This is definitely not a case of WP:SNOW, if the films have been shown on national TV. Just zis Guy you know? 21:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that it was not deleted as a nn-company, but as an nn-group (an assessment that I agree with given the article), which is subtly but importantly different. Specfically, deletion of nn-companies is not a supported position but nn-groups are, whether they purport to play with instruments or cameras. -Splash 02:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, unprotect if the nominator thinks they can genuinely write a decent stub on this that actually says, with reliable sources (nominator: please read that link) why they are notable. The article as deleted, however, was a speedy in every revision, as observed above and there is no need to restore those absent an improved version to sit on top of them. They'd just get speedied again. -Splash 02:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy, endorse userfication. Nom is invited to familiarize self with Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy and Misplaced Pages:Notability. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Seduction Community

Deleted through AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Seduction Community. Please undelete this article. It describes a current relevant phenomenon. Streamless 15:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Please provide evidence that it's a "current relevant phenomenon". android79 15:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • book called "The Game..." by Neil Strauss. anticipating the suggestion that there's already an article for the book, the community preceded the events of the book and appears to continue. Streamless 15:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Some friendly admin please drop the content of this in my userspace; I have heard the term before, but I want to confirm what this thing said before speaking. Thanks Xoloz 16:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Xoloz/SC seems to be the last version before poeple started really hacking at it. Please speedy tag when you've finished, for GFDL reasons. Just zis Guy you know? 17:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted, valid picking apart of a sockfest. Most sources seem to be blogs, and in any case it seems incredibly crufty, certainly not compelling enough to overturn an AfD. Article history prominently features User:SeductionCommunity which also strongly supports the diagnosis of vanispamcruftisement of the known faces in the AfD debate. Subsequent re-creation also looks like gaming the system. Just zis Guy you know? 17:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It's simply not true that most of the sources on the seduction community are blogs. See my comments below. --SecondSight 02:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure The community does exist, and I (amateur sexologist) find it interesting; however, after a consideration of the available internet sources, I don't think a WP:V article is able to be written at this time. If this "community" does endure, it will become the object of independent interest, and at that time it will become encyclopedic. Xoloz 17:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Why don't you think a verifiable article is able to be written? There is extensive coverage of the seduction community both in The_Game_(book_on_Pickup_Artists), and in the news media. What is not verifiable about these sources? Also, it's not true, as you presume, that the community is not an "object of independent interest." The community has received extensive media coverage, will soon be the subject of a movie, and possibly a reality TV show (see Talk:Seduction Community for documentation). That hardly sounds like a lack of "independent interest" to me. --SecondSight 02:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per both votes above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. I have started documenting the size of the seduction community, and the increasing media attention it is receiving, on Talk:Seduction Community, and I request that everyone voting on the subject please review that page. Some of these news articles on the seduction community have come to light since the the deletion of the original article (such as the announcement that Columbia is making a movie out of The Game, which warrant a reconsidering of the deletion (though I personally think the deletion was undeserved in the first place). On this page alone, I see several misconceptions by voters who endorse closure: that the sources on the community are "mostly blogs," that a verifiable article cannot be written about the seduction community, and that the seduction community is not the "object of independent interest." Since the seduction community is covered in mainstream news sources, including the New York Times and San Francisco Chronicle, all of those claims are false. It seems to me that many opponents of a seduction community article are badly uninformed of the massive size and influence of the community, and of the extensive media attention it has received (which has increased since the original deletion). --SecondSight 02:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, SecondSight, I agree that you do show a very nice collection of sources on the talk page. Please use them to write a new draft of the article incorporating them. Since the article is currently protected, feel free to compose the draft as a subpage of your userspace. I do think that the SC will be encyclopedic sooner or later, but I am not convinced a WP:V article can be written yet -- I invite you to prove your point by showing that it can. If you substantially improve a recreation, it will not be speediable, and we will be happy to review it anew. Xoloz 03:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for acknowledging my efforts to demonstrate the notability of the seduction community. I have drafted a new version of the article on User:SecondSight, and I believe that it is compeletely verifiable. Feel free to suggest improvements to it. --SecondSight 01:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure I am very sorry SecondSight, but it seems to me all you have done is collect the accumulated press clippings that have been spawned by a book publicity campaign. This is an encyclopedia, not an extension of the marketing arm of Strauss' publiusher, Regan Books. Eusebeus 11:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Why does it matter whether those articles are part of a "book publicity campaign" or not? They are still verifiable secondary sources published by reputable publishers (I don't see any policy on WP:V saying that book reviews are not admissable if they publicize a book). It is true that many of the articles do reference Strauss' book, though this one doesn't, and neither does Strauss' original NYT article (see Talk:Seduction for citation). Halo.Bungie.Org only has a few news references, yet it was found to be notable and survived deletion. Also, it confuses me that you seem to ignore the other notability evidence I provided. I challenge you, and anyone else who denies the notability of the seduction community, to explain why a community that is the subject of a bestelling book, that involves web communities with tens of thousands of members, that has international branches and meetings (called "lairs" and "summits"), that will be the subject of a movie and prospective reality TV show, and that has 1400+ Google hits (for "seduction community" and "pickup community," which are synonyms) is somehow not notable. Honestly, I believe that the evidence I have provided for notability is overkill (for instance, it much surpasses the notability of Halo.Bungie.Org). --SecondSight 01:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• New At This -- what does "endorse closure" mean? to Eusebeus, i would answer that the community is larger than merely the events of the book. indeed, many members of the community seem to be detractors of the book. admittedly, most of the sources are blogs and commercial websites; nevertheless, the members of the community are continuing to get more attention, irrespective of the source of the attention. moreover, while some of the members of the community have wikipedia articles devoted to them, there is no general article, which i would hope outlines some of the common/popular techniques, trends, strategies, principles, and jargon. please keep an open mind. thanks to SecondSight and Xoloz for their efforts/thoughts. Streamless 13:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate that my comment invites your reply, the fact remains that the process here was perfectly valid, and the fact that what you have accumulated pertains primarily to a publicity campaign regarding the publication of this book does little to answer the charge (pointedly raised in the AfD) that this is a viral marketing campaign. Pointing to other ephemera that have survived AfD because of the highly skewed perspective that the WP community finds notable is missing the point. Eusebeus 10:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

i understand re: the process. however, assuming it's okay to comment on your comment, Eusebeus, i reiterate that the community preceded the book (stated in the beginning of the book). this has nothing to do with viral marketing and everything to do with a distinct group of people with similar goals and similar methods. Streamless 19:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Endorse closure means that when the people here reviewed the deletion discussion on AfD, they found that it was closed according to wikipedia guidelines. In this case, the closing admin deleted the article...so Endorse Closure means keep it deleted. --Syrthiss 15:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Deletion review is not the place to rehash the discussion that took place on AfD; it is a place to question whether or not a closure of an AfD was performed appropriately. It was performed appropriately, in accordance with AfD consensus discussion and relevant WP policy. I second Xoloz' suggestion that if a policy-compatible version of the article can be written that addresses the concerns of the AfD discussion, it should be done, and then any admin should be glad on request to move that article into the currently protected articlespace. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A deletion review of the seduction community article is appropriate, because (a) users voting for deletion seem to have been unaware of the press coverage on the seduction community, which may have changed their perceptions on its notability and verifiability, and (b) new information on the seduction community has come to light since the original AfD. I have started documenting evidence on the notability of the seduction community on Talk:Seduction Community, so that users can now be properly informed on the subject. (Also, the charge that the seduction community wasn't notable during the AfD was not backed up, because nobody proposing deletion explained why a community that is the subject of a New York Times Bestseller is not notable.) I have just created a new seduction community article from scratch on my user page, at Xoloz' and your suggestion, and I believe that it is policy-compatible. I invite everyone to review it and suggest improvements (I am a relatively inexperienced wikipedia-editor). How do I go about requesting that it be moved into the protected page? --SecondSight 01:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It looks good to me. Try asking Xoloz on the User talk:Xoloz page. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I actually figured it out myself a couple minutes ago. --SecondSight 23:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

1. Alina and Billysan. Speedy deletion endorsed, undeletion request withdrawn by nominator. 10:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Template:If defined et. al. Overturned and undeleted. 07:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Bashas' withdrawn by nom. 23:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Sean Ripple deletion overturned (no relist requested). 23:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Hunter Ellis deletion overturned, undel history+revert from redir. 23:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
6. Sustainable National Income history undel. 23:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Jewfro 'kept deleted', actually as a redirect. 23:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Gail (goldfish) not speedy but already a redirect/merge which this debate ok's. 23:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
9. Tom Dorsch deletion endorsed. 23:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
10. Kamyar Cyrus Habib deletion endorsed. 23:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
11. Demilich (band) already kept by new afd. 23:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
12. London Buses route 4 already remade, so history undel. 23:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
13. Math of Quran kd, what little there is does not overturn. 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
14. Crying While Eating deletion overturned, already undeleted, will unprotect. 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
15. Various warcrimes bios keep close endorsed since changes editorial in nature. 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
16. SourceryForge already redel'd by afd. 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
17. Male bikini-wearing speedy endorsed, kept deleted
18. Mucky Pup re-created, speedy kept on AFD 09:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
19. Blog Torrent restored and listed on afd 23:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
20. TimeSplitters: Future Perfect strategy guide has been transwikied properly now 23:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
21. Glossary of Japanese film credit terms nominator appears happy with transwiki (right?) 23:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
22. Template:Background, no majority to overturn 23:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Important notice: all userbox undeletions are being discussed on a subpage: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates. Please post all new such requests there (though you may link them from this page if you like)

15 March 2006

Peter_Fletcher

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Peter Fletcher

Article was deleted because the admin Splash concluded that it was a soapbox and a "walled garden." He also makes unsubstantiated and completely inappropriate personal attacks on me in the deletion review, but I suppose that's beside the point. In any event, it got, by my vote, 7 delete votes, 3 clear keeps, 1 equivocal keeps, and 1 week keep. This does not approach a community consenus, and Splash clearly made the wrong call. --Leifern 23:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Splash closed the AfD as a delete without prejudice to the writing of a new, NPOV article about Peter Fletcher. Having had a look at the deleted article I agree that it is POV, and that it would be better to start again. Hence, keep deleted, but don't stop anyone having another go at writing it. David | Talk 23:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

13 March 2006

Stephen Glicker

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Steve Glicker

This artcile has been listed as deleated for nearly a year now, however the site has grown enormasoulsy due to Steve's 'close' links with Spore. Alexa now lists thw website 28,137 (Alexa Listing for Gaming Steve

• Well, a little more than half a year, anyway. The Alexa rank is improved from the hundreds-of-thousandth of July to know about 29,000th over the last 3 months. I'm not sure that this is likely to persuade AfD, and nor is a rank of about 20,000th for this last week, since the graph shows that traffic is very spiky and that a one week average is not usefully meaningful. The graph shows that the site only hit Alexa's radar in December: I'm not sure that a site that's only been visible to Alexa for 3 months is for Misplaced Pages yet. I find nothing on Google News under either "Steve Glicker" or Steven Glicker nor under gamingsteve.com. The nomination here relies only on the Alexa rank, and thus, in my opinion, presents no information that is likely at present to change the result of the AfD, whether it is on the person or the website. If nothing better can be found, then Endorse deletion. -Splash 20:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Definitely Reasoning: The Reason google news doesn't have any sources on Steve is because nobody has thought to tell google to put him into it's system. It has Stuff from the Clovis News Journal, and other sources Which Misplaced Pages has nothing about. You can't really use it as a determanation of noteablility. Although if you type in his podcast (Which also happens to be in the top 100 gaming casts on Itunes) You'll get multiple results. He's got one of the most respected gaming podcasts out there, Attracting attention from many people in the gaming industry including people at Maxis (Sims, SimCity, Spore) and Bethedesa (The Elder Scrolls) I really think it's noteable enough to be undeleted. Besides, You Say top 20,000 isn't notable enough. Sites like Langmaker and Trekweb.com Which Are currently signifigantly below Gamingsteve in Alexa.com Rank have had articles on here for months. So Yeah, I'd say the site and the man are more then Noteable. (Including in it's over 1100 members)--Sgore 21:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Fundamentally, nothing has changed; he and/or his site are still not notable.  RasputinAXP  c 21:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete His rising popularity is reason enough to undelete the article. However I too will cite the Alexa ranking and the cult following he has gathered. Additionally the interviews Steve has posted are with some very high profile people in the industry and are a testament to his status as a podcaster. ~PatMan33 22:35:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • note: this user's only edits to Misplaced Pages so far have been to this discussion and the userpage
  • second note: at 19:27, this user attempted to remove the contribution notice. see here
  • 3rd note, Actually this user has been a member for around a year and most of his edits were in an article that ended up being deleted.
• Undelete He is listed as a source in a textbook from our GSP course in college. He was under "Reccomended Reading/Listening". Mr Wizard 22:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • note: this user's only edits to Misplaced Pages so far have been to this discussion
    • Untrue, I just signed in to validate my vote.
• Endorse closure (keep deleted) at least for now. To answer the claim above, nobody needs to "tell google to put him into its system". That's the beauty of their kind of search engine. When lots of independent people start writing about his, the search engine will start to catch those writings. The recent Alexa rankings are worth watching but I agree with Splash that a short-term spike should not be cause to overturn our previous decision. If they stay high for an extended period, we can reconsider the decision then. Rossami (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Oh yeah, you probably didn't find much under Steven Glicker, because that's a typo. He spells it Stephen Glicker.(Sorry Still Sgore, Logged out accidently)-72.230.6.138
• Undelete Google rankings are often a poor judge of notability. Googling "Village of Fools" will give you my web site, which I wouldn't consider notable enough for wikipedia, before it gives you results for Chelm, the original "Village of Fools," so to speak. At any rate, Stephen Glicker obviously is notable because of the very high popularity of his web site, the enormity of his web forum, the popularity of his podcast, and his interviews with very big people in the game industry. syphonbyte 00:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • contribution history
    • second note: at 22:58, anon user:24.4.244.243 attempted to remove this contribution notice.
    • 3rd note: The contribution notice is uneccesary as he actually has tons of contributions but most people who see that won't bother to click it and will just think low contributions are being implied. Please don't post them for no reason, so confusion among editors can be kept to a minimum.
• I'm not currently seeing in this discussion evidence that anything has changed in a way that I interprate as "new information". Do we have any media references, etc, that shows a change on notability? While the proper forum for examining claims to satisfying the website inclusion guidelines is AfD, I'm not yet seeing any serious claim that this does. - brenneman 01:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• To Answer Brenneman you mean Besides the Huge steady Rise in it's alexa ranking since the article's deletion? A Multitude of of articles on Joystiq (AnotherVery Popular Gaming site with an article) mention steve, many articles themselves have been taken directly from the site: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Gaming+Steve%22+site:www.joystiq.com&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&start=0&sa=N (All 30 pages are Rock solid listing steve from Joystiq) Not To mention Coutless Blogs mentioning him, and Apparently Mr.Wizard's Textbook mentions him. There's also a gaming magazine article which mentions him and if I find it I'll put it here.--Sgore 02:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Barring the textbook and magazine articles that we're yet to see a link to, I'm still not seeing anything that satifies the reliability threshold. - brenneman 05:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Clearly meets a threshold of notability. --Delirium 02:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you have any proof of this, save for the frothy enthusiasm shown above? -Splash 03:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment His site has been visited by very famous Developers. Will Wright paid his site a visit, and at a director from EA admitted that he listen when I asked him in a recent tour I took to EA Redwood Shores. Mr Wizard 03:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/relist. Very simply Steve is very well known in the gaming industry. Between his podcast (which is consistently in the top 50 rankings on iTunes), his site (which is currently ranked 28,137 in Alexa), his ranking in technorati (over 500 links from 294 sites), and his constant mentions industry web sites and printed magazines Steve is quite well known and deserves to be listed. Perhaps not a year ago when this was first entered, but at this point he has earned the listing. Stonesnake 03:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • another suspiciously new user whose only contributions to Misplaced Pages have been this discussion
  • Wrong, His only edits have been in the Undelete section, but not only to this discussion. Please don't post misleading notes, it will confuse editors.
• Undelete. Noting his podcasts popularity is enough I'd say. A LOT of people listen to him, that makes him notable enough I'd say. Chris M. 04:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • How do we know that a lot of people listen to him? - brenneman 05:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Because there have been several references thus far to it's rankings in iTunes (if you'd look above). Maybe they don't listen to him, maybe they just download his podcast and then delete it, but at least THAT amount of effort still makes him notable :). Chris M. 05:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      • While it's often the case that I'm dense, I don't see a link for iTunes ranking? - brenneman 06:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Looking on Google I still see no reliable sources from which to build an article, just his own website and mentions in blogs (which confirm that he exists, but that's it). That's the very definition of non-notability and the reason we have such a definition. To those that are voting to undelete, please show me some sources and not 'this number is now x when before it was y, therefore we must have an article on him'. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Again to answer Brenneman The Way the iTunes Sytem works, You need Itunes itself to actually see these things, It's store is only visitable through the program as far as I know. And You can't actually link to them. You can find it easily though.--72.230.6.138 11:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think I'd need a lot of convincing before I took iTunes as a reliable source. Any thoughts on that, anyone? - brenneman 12:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Same as my thoughts on Alexa, personally. Whether it's reliable or not, it's a number. It can't help us write a verified, neutral article on the guy. I know that people use these numbers to make judgements on notability, and I don't condemn that, but the issue of Alexa ranks etc. is secondary to the question of reliable sources. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Splash. I'm mainly commenting to help swat down the puppetry plague that seems to have developed on the question. Xoloz 11:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Surely articles such as this which will have a large following, high ranking and well know, a recent figure states that 10% of the worlds population visits in a month. This form of article, perhaps not a biography, but an article about his site and works, is definatly much more useful than a vast ammount of information on wikipedia, such as this--Dr dozzy 16:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close. I agree with Sam, Rossami, and Splash. And Brenneman. —Encephalon 16:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure. I'm not convinced by the "new information" being raised here, and the sockpuppet parade doesn't help. android79 16:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure per Encephalon. Steve block talk 19:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Question, Comment and More Evidance for noteabillity First the Question: You keep asking how these things show noteability. How don't they? Seriously, What is the set standard before you concider a site noteable. He's got a conciderably high ranking on Alexa, Which apparently doesn't count. He's got attention by some of the biggest names in gaming industry to actually come on his show but that apparently doesn't count. Nobody even took mention of all the times he's been mentioned on Joystiq, (30 times in one year on just one site is a lot, by anyone's standards) So apparently those don't count. He Build up and Sold a Very successful company, Which out of respect to steve I will not post the Link to. (He signed an NDA and I don't know what the conciquences of breaking that would be.) But If you do a minimal amount of searching on google you can find pretty easily the Company Stephen Glicker used to run. Apparently that doesn't count. If these last two things don't even count I'm starting to think Your standards of noteabillity change no matter what I post. And please don't call anyone sockpuppets. It's uncalled for. Just because someone may not Edit Misplaced Pages much, It doesn't mean they don't care just as much about the content. You have a vast Reading non editing community that you disrespect by acting like that. Anyway Here's the online version of the Magazine article: (Note, It's from a German Magazine, called Pcgames, there is an actual issue you may be able to find if you go out to a store or something) And Finally, Gaming Steve's Google Maps Frappr(To show his wide fanbase): These are both here not to do anything else then prove noteabillity. That's the Reason the Article was deleted and if it is proved there is noteabillity then there is an obligation to undelete it. If you look at all of the sources given throughout this whole thing, and you say to me that noteabillity hasn't been proved, I'm going to have to think that You've been prejudiced against this article being undeleted from the start, and that no amount of credable Noteabillity proving sources would change your mind. Seriously, It was deleted for reasons of noteabillity. That was the only reason. And Noteablillty has been proven here. For anyone to say otherwise now they really would have to elaborate more.--Sgore 20:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Kat Desktop Search Environment

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kat Desktop Search Environment
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kat Desktop Search Environment (Second nomination)

This article was listed for AfD a while ago, and the result was KEEP unanimously apart from nom. It appears that it was listed for deletion again recently, but there was no vote and the article was promptly deleted. Not sure what this is about.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  02:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Undelete There WAS a second vote (found here) but with only one participant besides the nom. I'm inclined to say that's not quite enough, especially considering the points raised in the first AFD discussion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Relist —BorgHunter (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete/relist I'm sure Splash will happily reverse this, as he said, for further consideration. Xoloz 04:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Relist is fine by me, as nominator this time round. Just zis Guy you know? 12:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undeleted. Someone else can relist it if they feel that is warranted. Apologies for using the wrong link in my original deletion 'summary'. -Splash 13:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Kawaii (mascot) should be undeleted too, as it was deleted as a redirect. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 14:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Relist, though I'm not sure I understand Freshgavin's summary of the second discussion. The nomination did attract one vote, which was for deletion, and it was not 'promptly deleted', it was closed properly after a week had passed. With only a 2-0 consensus and a previous consensus to keep it should have been 'relisted to generate a clearer consensus', though. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There's no need to vote on relisting an already undeleted article. You can {{sofixit}} as they say. I deleted it, as you saw from my closure comment, because it was essentially an uncontested deletion in the nature of a PROD. The nomination was cogent and argued reasonably well (it is not merely a "d, nn kruft") and not opposed. -Splash 14:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Originally, freshgavin hadn't spotted the second deletion nomniation because of my incorrect deletion summary link to the original VfD (as I already mentioned in my earlier comment).

House humping

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/House humping
• Relist When this term was deleted in late October, the discussion focussed on whether the term had been used in MSM, and if so, it could be brought back from deletion. To wit, the March issue of GQ magazine (US edition) has a big article on House Humping (it's even blurbed on the cover). There have also been references to it in the San Francisco Bay Guardian and other papers in the US. I hear there's also a MySpace group devoted to house humping, though I'm not sure how relevant that is to undeletion. Again, I'm still new to Wiki, so I'm not sure I'm doing this right, but this seemed like the place to bring this up. thanks. St Germain23 14:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/keep deleted. Looking at the March GQ online, I can find no mention of house humping; therefore, I must question the nomination's accuracy. Xoloz 16:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Yes, I went to their site, too, and you're right, it's not online. The trouble with magazines is that not all their content goes into their online versions (if it was, they'd have a hard time selling their print versions). So, you can either go to a newstand and see for yourself or go to the MySpace group where someone scanned the article and posted it up - here's the scan. The text itself is a little hard to read, but here's a blog that transcribed it. Thanks. St germain23 18:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Currently functionally unverifiable fomr reliabel sources. Let's sit back and wait a while, there is no deadline to meet. Just zis Guy you know? 22:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Alexander (cartoonist)

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Patrick Alexander (cartoonist)

Also appears to have had one round of DRV, but I'm not keen to go looking for the diff right now.

The version I just deleted actually had less material than the last version but if I read the history correct that had more than the AfD version. So... while I'm confident that the version I deleted falls into "recreated content" I'm not 100% on that the last pre-recreation version doesn't deserve an airing here. I mean the "(Deleted revision as of 31 January 2006)" but don't know how to link to that.
brenneman 10:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• The article was originally deleted on the 28th January 2006, the version deleted being here. The problem with reading the afd to my mind is that the article was nominated when the article was in this state. I think the comments regarding POV and vanity at the afd discussion could well have been addressed. I'm not sure how one addresses the comment alleging the article is nonsense, a quick reading of the nonsense criterion at WP:CSD quickly disabuses us of the notion that this article is nonsense as it applies to the deletion process, there is obviously salvagble material here. The other comments from users averring delete fail to quantify their opinions beyond nn. Since an afd is not a vote but a discussion, it's hard to read those comments and gather why the people in question wish to delete the page, since they do not assert why the cartoonist is not notable. I would hope this review could address that situation here.

• I will declare my bias at start. I believe the article should be kept as the cartoonist is, as averred in the article, a nationally published cartoonist. I would hope people agree that a nationally published cartoonist is notable. Steve block talk 11:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Nothing of substance has changed since the AfD and previous DRV, for which the content was temporarily undeleted. Let's wait a while and see if six months or so makes a difference. User:DollyD's zealousness in promoting this cause is commendable but after six deletions and one move from another location where the deleted content was also re-created good faith is wearing a little thin. Just zis Guy you know? 11:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• I appreciate your comments, but first up, an awful lot of those six deletions were because of process warring rather than proper deletions. Secondly, what page move? Thirdly, the new page isn't created by Dolly D, and I think your statements towards that user indicate bad faith. Finally, you still haven't addressed the process. Was there consensus to delete or not? Are you satisfied that the deletion debate was robust enough and comments and thoughts were exchanged such that a consensual delete could be justified? Steve block talk 12:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I also want to make clear my belief that the original drv failed in its duty; mainly due to the fact that there was no clear process that was under review; a non-admin kept the page, an admin over-ruled. Another admin over-ruled that over-ruling and it all went downhill. I would hope we could focus this debate on the consensus to delete, rather than any sense of weariness over discussing the issue or recreations of the page. Steve block talk 12:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Aye, I made a mistake here. Looking at the article's actual AfD as opposed to being distracted by the silliness, I think the close was questionable enough to not have warranted re-deletion, although every "box was ticked" so to speak. A better solution would have been another trip through AfD, along with perhaps a note on the two most recent contributor's talk pages. Trout slapping for me, and suggest restore and relist. Since I'm the deleting admin, and can reverse my own mistake at any time, I'm going to do so in the next hour or three if no one screams. - brenneman 12:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure, keep deleted, padlock door and post a guard. I believe I have voted on at least one AfD for ths and an earlier Deletion review, if memory serves. I think consensus is crystal clear: not notable enough. Constantly recreating this strikes me as WP:POINT, or as JzG notes contrary to good faith. Are we going to keep debating this until a few committed souls get what they want when consensus clearly is unfavourable? Eusebeus 12:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Play fair I don't see your name at the afd, so it's unlikely you particpated there. I also don't see a consensus that a nationally published cartoonist is non-notable, since nowhere in the deletion debate was that issue addressed. That's my interest in the case. Can I also ask that we leave the personal attacks out of it? I'm quite happy to stick the article up on afd again, argue my case and have the thing decided one way or the other. It's just worrying when we can write referenced articles on nationally published artists and see them deleted, and yet have articles such as LUEshi stick around for ever with no sourcing or established notability. The worry I have is that there was no concept of a redirect to list of comic creators discussed, which your comment would once again preclude. I do sometimes question myself as to the inclusion criteria of Misplaced Pages. Perhaps we could amend the policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR so as to establish the supremacy of an admin's interpretation of a discussion at WP:AFD. Steve block talk 12:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The article was considerably expanded during the last DRV, despite several deletions and protections which were apparently intended to prevent this happening. There is thus in the history of this thing a perfectly good article. --Tony Sidaway 13:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have played a part in the re-creation of this article. The article Patrick Alexander was a diambiguation page to which User:Arcita added text about Patrick Alexander the cartoonist. Forgetting all about the previously deleted article, I moved Arcita's text to a new article. The cartoonist seems to have at least one enthusiastic fan. Gaius Cornelius 18:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, an acceptable article. No standing consensus to delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I think my opinion on the AfD is fairly well documented already. Furthermore, since it seems that User:Arcita wrote the text of the current page at the disambig page, User:Gaius Cornelius moved it, and User:DollyD was nowhere near this, I find it highly unlikely that it is a recreation of deleted content. But I don't know, as I can't see it. I'd say let the past rest, and judge the most recent posting. Throw it on AfD--if people think the guy is non-notable, they can get a clean consensus to delete. (And no, I'm not touching that AfD with a 10-foot pole.) -- Jonel | Speak 05:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • We should restore the better version from a few deletions back instead of the not-so-good version that I deleted if we're going to to do that. - brenneman 06:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok by me. -- Jonel | Speak 01:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on AFD for further investigation. What Steve Block says about this cartoonist warrants another go for this, especially if we have an expanded version. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Although policy explicitly says AfD votes should be based on the article in principle, not its current state, many of the delete votes are clearly cast with reference to its state at the time, and therefore not properly cast in keeping with policy. Therefore it should be reopened and properly reviewed in its new state. --Delirium 02:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I had nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of this most recent Patrick Alexander article. This is NOT a recreation of my article and the content bears virtually NO resemblence to what I originally wrote. It should be judged on its own terms. Someone else obviously felt that Patrick Alexander deserved an article on Misplaced Pages. Which he does.

The fact is, Patrick Alexander is a notable cartoonist in Australian children's magazines and has a growing reputation for his webcomics. This can be easily verified by simple research or asking someone knowledgable about the field. DollyD 05:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that your opinion of Alexander is provably non-neutral, and your edit history includes only one edit unrelated to Alexander. Just zis Guy you know? 19:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Third culture

This was speedied, and deleted just as I was about to pull the tag. The speedy comment was "absurd", by which I guess the nominator and closer meant "patent nonsense", which it just ain't. No way is this speedy or even a Prod. It should go to AfD, where it has at least a reasonable chance of survival, given that it's a real term, has a quarter million Ghits, at least one one book about it and so on. Careful with that speedy tag, guys. (And was the closing admin asleep at the wheel?) Herostratus 08:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Is the current redirect a problem, then? Just zis Guy you know? 11:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as is. The redirect seems to work fine. If some material has been lost from the article-less Third Culture, maybe someone could dig it out for a merge. This should have just been a redrect in the first place. (Also, "Brockmancruft." :) · rodii · 13:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Whatever it was, it absolutely wasn't patent nonsense. I've undeleted the history. —Cryptic (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This is odd. When I posted this, there was no redirect. The page was apparently deleted and then turned into a redirect (which may have been for technical reasons? I think I recall something about, a page with a serious edit history can't be turned into a redirect straight out, as an anti-vandalism feature?) The page was literally deleted from my grasp, so the page have have only non-existed for a few minutes. Herostratus 18:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• More Immportant Comment. No, the current redirect is in no way equivilant to the original article. A quick Google reveals two entirely different meanings for third culture, intertwined. The first refers to a book (and perhaps resulting meme) apparently based on a response to C.P. Snow's book The Two Cultures (these being science vs. the humanities). The second meaning refers to, basically, military brats and the like. There is (at leat one) separate book about that. (I infer that the "third culture" is the culture these kids -- neither American, nor European/Asian/etc depending on where their families were based, but a separate third culture. Anyway, the redirect goes to an article on the first meaning, and the deleted article is about the second meaning. (So perhaps there needs to be a disambig page). Herostratus 18:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Now that the page history is restored, I see that that speedy tag was placed by an anon IP with two edits, this one and - interestingly - a revert in a different article of acceptable material by the same person who wrote Third culture, a named editor with 951 edits. C'mon, this is why we have admins do the actual deleting, to catch stuff like this. I know how busy and harassed closing admins are, perhaps we need more admins, and anybody can make a mistake, but still.Herostratus 18:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• I did not delete third culture, but after reviewing the deleted article, there didn't seem to be anything worth merging into the article we already have on third culture kids, thus I didn't bring it up for deletion review, and added a redirect instead. It was replaced with a redirect to The Third Culture. I suggest a disambiguation page. — Matt Crypto 19:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oops, sorry, you created the redirect... I guess the deletion itself doesn't show up in the edit history.... Herostratus 00:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Hmph. So the result is several paragraphs by a 1,000-edit editor get deleted w/o any AfD or anything (by (in essence) an anon with perhaps a score to settle...). Enh, not big deal, but still its not a nice way treat him. Also I did not know about the article third culture kids. OK problem seems basically solved, I'm OK with with closing the nom, if that's appropriate. Herostratus 00:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I am confused by this whole thing. · rodii · 03:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Perhaps a speedy close is in order, since everybody's reasonably gruntled, lest others fall prey to the mental state that has snared user Rodii? Herostratus 08:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

12 March 2006

United Hardware

Article on same subject had been deleted as advertising, described as "spamtastic advertisement." New article written that was straightforward and objective, but nevertheless tagged for speedy. Speedied without substantive discussion despite at least two objections. Since new version of article was not recreation of deleted version, was not a speedy candidate. Monicasdude 23:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy, keep deleted. Articles are not that different, and the last deleted was also somewhat spammy. Much of the article was taken up with a list of places where the company's customer has locations. No prejudice against mentioning it in an article on Hardware Hank. Just zis Guy you know? 23:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and send to AfD.The article as it is doesn't seem to be total spam. I think it should have been Prod'd rather than speedied, in which case I guess it would have been pulled, taken to AfD, where it will almost certainly have lost, so it's kind of waste of time, but if they really are the 4th largest whatever they're not a speedy candidate, IMO.Herostratus 09:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely not speedy content; it's a verifiable article on an actual company of at least moderate size. --Delirium 02:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

This was deleted on March 7, 2006. It was a rediect that redirected to wikipedia:userboxes.Apparently, it was a "soft redirect", though it was no different than any other redirect. I fought fouriously to keep it undeleted after some whacked out conspiricy, but the other side got thier way. I request this gets undeleted, as it's a pain in the ass to get to the userbox page and because it wan't really a soft redirect. Thank you. The Republican 22:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I seem to recall that I'd had to delete this redirect, and also userboxes. They were inappropriate cross-namespace redirects. Use WP:UBX instead. --Tony Sidaway 23:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  Which is also, technically, a cross-namespace redirect, though we tolerate it for expediency. If you're in the mood you can also delete Featured articles, Featured pictures, Featured lists and Arbcom — or maybe they should be taken through WP:RFD to keep the "whacked out conspiracy" out in the open :) Haukur

  The use of articlespace redirects starting WP: as shortcuts is fairly well documented (see Misplaced Pages:Namespace#Pseudo-namespaces ). Obviously it's undesirable to have unnecessary pollution of article namespace. --Tony Sidaway 00:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Either undelete or delete (or turn into articles or dab pages) all cross-namespace-redirecting pages, including CotW (redirects to Misplaced Pages:Collaboration of the week, an article-editing project), Disambiguation (redirects to Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation, a style-guideline page), and NPOV (redirects to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, an official policy). If the unlikelihood of a pagename to be searched-for for anything other than its use on Misplaced Pages: is not relevant towards whether that redirect should exist or not, and if the ease-of-use, helpfulness, and convenience of cross-namespace links to users is similarly irrelevant, I see no reason why any others are being spared. The above examples are even more compelling than the Userbox one, as while "Userbox" has no potential usage, meaning or value except as a redirect to the Misplaced Pages: page in question (hence why it's now merely a deleted page, benefiting no one and serving only to make a point to users who aren't already aware of the correct name of Misplaced Pages's userbox pages), "disambiguation" is a valid word in the English language and "COTW" and "NPOV" valid four-letter abbreviations. I'm sure there are hundreds of other, very similar cross-namespace links and redirects on Misplaced Pages articles; why was this one singled out?

  Having a deletedpage marker there (1) helps to notify people still using it that they need to update their links and (2) provides an opportunity for discussion should anyone want to start an article or articlespace redirect called "userbox". This redirect was "singled out" because I happened to encounter it. --Tony Sidaway 00:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• There is an interesting debate to be had about the utility and propriety of cross-space redirects of this kind, given the usual allowance for WP: redirects. Undelete/list at RfD, though (for once) I don't think Mr. Sidaway's speedy deletion was particularly egregious; it is something a could imagine a normal responsible administrator doing. Xoloz 06:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This already went through RfD. Mackensen (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Undelete. Either redirect or short description with links. Then protect if necessary. It will make it much easier to find the userbox page(s). --Singkong2005 09:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Arc Flashlights

On 1 February 2006 this article was deleted: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arc Flashlights. The stated reason was spam/advertising, which seems in error. The company (Arc Flashlights LLC) no longer exists and their products are no longer manufactured. There is an existing company with a similar name, but I don't think the article was about that.

The article is needed for historical business/technical reference as Arc Flashlights LLC manufacturered the first Luxeon LED flashlight, the genesis of a product type now widely used. There are many current articles on various flashlight companies, watch companies, etc, so deleting this one seems very selective.

I have no relationship to the company or products, flashlights are just a hobby. Request the article be undeleted. If there are any spam/advertising elements (despite the company no longer existing), I'll be happy to fix them. Joema 13:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that an article should be written on Arc Flashlights, which are notable and encyclopedic as a generic product. Based on the AfD, I'd assume that this article was like that, however. At least in the case of advertising, sometimes no article is better than one that violates policy. Please, though, feel free to create a NPOV article about the history of the product. Endorse closure as usual, without prejudice against an improved recreation. Xoloz 16:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• OK I found a cached copy of the article on answers.com: . It definitely had problems and wasn't appropriate as written (although I've seen many worse articles that never get deleted). It should have been fixed, not deleted. I'll fix the bad parts and write a new article. Let me repeat for the record: there was no advertising/spam, as the company no longer exists and their products are no longer manufactured. The people deleting the article likely weren't aware of that. Joema 22:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Just a note that the version found above is identical to the deleted article. It was started by User:Gransee, tellingly, so probably wasn't completely without a little WP:AUTOship to it. Arc Flashlights are clearly notable, and a proper article will not be a speedy, so go ahead and write it. The history can be undeleted behind it then. -Splash 00:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

11 March 2006

Category:Roman Catholic actors

Postdlf deleted Category:Roman Catholic actors today as a recreation of a previously deleted category, citing an August CfD. At the time I (re)created the category, I was unaware of the previous CfD, and was simply attempting to subcategorize Category:Roman Catholics.

The parent category is hard to use as it contains several hundred articles (Special:Categories lists 802, which is after I moved a few hundred into subcats). I think the deletion decision should be reviewed, as Misplaced Pages:Categorization states: When a given category gets crowded, also consider making several subcategories. Group similar articles together in a meaningful and useful way that will make it easy for readers to navigate later. In my opinion, dividing a category of people by their occupation is a meaningful division. Gentgeen 07:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. In my experience Postdlf is far too willing to speedy delete categories based on previous votes, and invariably assumes bad faith. David | Talk 14:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No bad faith on Gentgeen's part was assumed; it appears you've merely assumed that bad faith was assumed. Postdlf 19:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd say that deleting using an edit summary of "Reposted in violation of cfd" and then sticking the {{deletedpage}} template on it was a pretty good indication that you considered bad faith was involved. David | Talk 14:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/relist without any prejudice against Postdlf. In the case of a CfD, the passage of time (and the increase in subject articles) can make a prior decision ripe for review. This is such a case. Xoloz 17:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist Gentgreen was unaware of the old CFD and Postdlf should have never speedy it as a recreation of a deleted category back in August --Jaranda 17:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Consider not bothering to relist. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete since there is clearly a good argument for having for the category. Just zis Guy you know? 09:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I believe that Gentgeen was innocently unaware of the previous CFD, but that's irrelevant as to whether the category should be recreated, as is the passage of several months since the CFD. If we allow CFD decisions to simply "expire," particularly after such a relatively short period, then the whole process is a waste of time. Furthermore, this category does not group "similar articles together in a meaningful and useful way," because it simply takes two unrelated traits and combines them to random effect; the religion and acting careers of these individuals have no necessary or obvious relationship as a group, nor is there precedent outside of Misplaced Pages for studying or classifying actors by religion, or for asserting that there is a meaningful connection between having a Roman Catholic faith and being an actor. Misplaced Pages is not for original research or analysis. Postdlf 19:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Is the argument about passage of time not a ludicrous one when examined? Most CfD debates have a tiny number of participants. The idea that a CfD debate months or years before should be a never-ending precedent against the existence of a category, or even one which is merely similar, is in severe danger of ending in the tyranny of the tiny minority who frequent CfD. Jimbo has often remarked on the brokenness of AfD and this is a classic example. David | Talk 21:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete again. This is reccurent topic on CfD, almost always ending with deletion of the category. They present quite absurd view of the world and do not contribute with encyclopedic value.

Such categories are quite often created by people who are not able or willing to spend time on coherent and valid article but feel inner pressure to "contribute" anyway. The simplest way is to create a new "category". The current system of categories is very, very limited and need be overhauled (for example to have primary and secondary categories, categories with comment attached etc). Then the pressure on CfD will be reduced. Pavel Vozenilek 21:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. In my experience Postdlf is far too willing to speedy delete categories based on previous votes, exactly as the official policy states at Misplaced Pages:Category deletion policy. --Kbdank71 22:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm puzzled by what Gentgeen says. Perhaps as a result of later edits, this category is not itself categorized (other than related to deletion) and has no subcategories. Moreover, the comment dividing a category of people by their occupation is a meaningful division: if this is relevant here, it seems to imply that Roman Catholic people are a category, while (a) Category:Roman Catholic Church suggests that in the WP sense they are not, and (b) in most of the real world (northern Ireland, etc. being unpleasant exceptions) I don't think they are either. Furthermore, I'm puzzled by what I infer as enthusiasm on WP for categorizing people by religion, sex, sexual inclination, etc.: to me, Tom Cruise is an uninteresting actor who appears in mediocre Hollywood product; his belief in "scientology", his sex life, etc., are merely of minor, gossip-magazine significance. -- Hoary 07:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Mike H. That's hot 08:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on CFD. Presence of more articles than we used to which might fit into this category, and the presence of counterparts in other occupations such as Category:Roman Catholic artists (which seems to have as much merit as a category of actors) has changed the situation since the last CFD. Deserves further discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - for further precedent, the discussion on Cat:Roman Catholic painters was just decided as consensus deletion today. --Syrthiss 13:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Colignatus

If I understand correctly: "To nominate a page for undeletion, place the page title on Misplaced Pages:Deletion review, with the reason why you think it should be undeleted. Sign and date your entry (Colignatus 02:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)). "

I noticed that the article Colignatus has been deleted with no trace of its existence.

If there is a strong opinion that this article should not exist, so be it, but then I would like to have the text, to use in wikinfo, and it would be wonderful, if that is not too much work, if it is sent to me by email (see my talk page).

I started the page Colignatus in the main body of the text since it would allow readers an overview of my work as an economist. (See list of economists where I don't occur now.) My work is in various directions, but it would help readers to link these directions (as I link them up). And readers would generally not look at a user talk page since they might not know that I am a user (for the time being).

I also wonder who deleted me, and with what argument. There now is a distressing dispute on Borda fixed point, where another user User:Fahrenheit451 referred a year ago to my invention of that particular voting system, where I corrected the text, linked up with voting system, and where User:Rspeer suddenly started an attack that I consider to be full of bias. He apologized a couple of times for being too rash, but always came back with new attacks. As he started to remove other contributions by me with similar bias, I just wonder whether he is behind this removal. Though he need not be, of course. It just would help clarity to know who deleted it, and with what purpose.

Obviously, wikipedians are sensitive to users creating their own articles, but if you see the text, then you might agree that it is only short and factual, allowing readers to link up on proper content.

And if you would disagree about the content, perhaps a re-edit is better than complete deletion. Colignatus 02:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• 04:12, March 9, 2006 Sean Black deleted "Colignatus" (No claim to notability) is the text on the deletion log, so it was not Fahrenheit451. I have sent you the text in email per your request. --Syrthiss 03:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Because of the inherent difficulties maintaining perspective, balance and a neutral point of view, we have a pretty strong prohibition against autobiographies. It's not an absolute rule but it is very good advice that if you're notable enough to be included in the encyclopedia, someone else should write the article. On that basis, I would strongly urge you to invest the time in other articles and in your userpage. Have faith - it it's relevant to their work, other people will find your userpage. Rossami (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Many thanks Syrthiss. It is a relief to have the text again, and now I put it at Colignatus at wikinfo. (1) It is good to know how and why it got deleted. It is a pity that Sean Black did not warn me on my talk page. I hope he sees this and reconsiders his rash act. (2) Of course I'm not "notable". My work has been censored by the Dutch government, I'm waiting for this censorship to be lifted, and in the mean time (which is now for 16 years) I only show others indications about what the censorship is about, so that they can start doing something about that censorship. Thus there little chance to get "notable", at least in the common sense of citations, though I don't know how you would value the access statistics at my page at RepEc. Thus, I mean, that criterion is little helpful. (3) I knew about that autobio criterion, Rossami, but as you said, it is not an absolute rule. In this case I have really considered all aspects and decided that starting this overview article on my contributions to economic theory would be best, see the explanation I gave and wikinfo. I entered into wikipedia contributions on the minimum wage, tax void, Stagflation, Economic Supreme Court, Separation of powers, Arrow's impossibility theorem, Borda Fixed Point, Economics and Risk, not as original research as it was some time ago, but as encyclopedic review and reasoned argument with respect to the existing texts in wikipedia. My edits greatly improved the value of the articles to the readers. It would help readers to understand where these contributions came from and how these are linked in my work. For example you cannot understand the issue of the minimum wage if you don't understand that in the current set-up of economic policy making you are consistently lied to by the government. If that explanation of the usefulness of link up and reference to the original author is not convincing, so be it. (4) I have great optimistic faith that the censorship will be ended eventually so that people can freely use my work, but perhaps there first must be another world war or a Collapse. (5) However, it would be wrong for readers to go to my user page, since this page is editted by me for different purposes than an encyclopedia article on my work. Sincerely Yours, Colignatus 15:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you read WP:AUTO, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE? The article as writen failed on all of the above. Just zis Guy you know? 23:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I move for speedy closure on the grounds that this is being considered at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Colignatus and User:Colignatus is now indef-blocked. Resurrect the debate if requested by anyone when the other process is done. Just zis Guy you know? 12:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

10 March 2006

Michael Crook

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michael Crook

This article was voted as a keep, despite a strong consensus for delete. The decision to keep it was a biased one, and a review is requested. This article has no relevance. More importantly, it is rife with inaccuracies. Numerous corrections have been made with accurate facts, only to be deleted by Rhobite and other WP admins who appear to be biased against the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.157.29.196 (talk • contribs) March 10, 2006 (UTC) Michael Crook (AfD discussion)

• Endorse closure. Looks to be a valid AfD and AfD closure. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure This DRV nomination is unsigned, for starters. The closer is Splash; the chances of him making a mistake are very close to zero, for seconds. This discussion, however, wasn't even close. Valid AfD, notable subject, no relevant reason for review given. Xoloz 03:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Vandalism, WP:OWN and inaccuracy are not grounds for deletion, even if that were the case here (which I am not sure about). Just zis Guy you know? 09:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Clearly valid keep result on the AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, speedily if possible to prevent another outbreak of sockpuppetry here. Possible bad faith AfD, probably bad faith DRV, certainly utterly pointless when the reason for review is self-contradictory ("This article was voted as a keep, despite a strong consensus for delete"). There was aclear keep consensus. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• This is a poorly written article on an eminently forgettable fellow. However, there can be no doubt as to the AFD consensus, nor the correctness of Splash's decision—he's right, as usual. On this matter of bad faith, I must disagree. When we say that someone is acting in bad faith, we imply that he is acting with malicious intentions; when the charge is unqualified, it usually means "malicious intentions with respect to the well-being or integrity of the encyclopedia". An example of someone acting in bad faith is the vandal who surreptitiously inserts subtle errors into articles, purely to damage the encyclopedia. I do not think that the nominator possesses any such frightful motivations: he's just a chap who dislikes the article, probably because he has been unable to make it stay the way he wants it to. Newer users or those not quite accustomed to Misplaced Pages norms may say things about consensus or article deletion or article policy that can strike Wikipedian ears as decidedly odd. This does not mean that they act in bad faith, and we should be careful not to label them so—it does little to promote understanding and goodwill. cf the third paragraph of WP:FAITH. —Encephalon 16:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. To address nom's concerns: Closure was not biased; it appropriately reflected the discussion that took place. DRV is not the place to discuss the relevance or factual accuracy of the article; relevance was discussed at the AfD, and factual inaccuracies (which are grounds for article improvement via consensus editing; never deletion) should be addressed at the article's talk page. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure. Consensus editiing is infinitely more appropriate, and facts do need to be discussed on the discussion page of the article. As of now all discussion of the original nomination for deletion was unprodcutive, and gleaned few new or disputed facts.
• Endorse Closure (i.e., keep). I don't see how the anon who nominated this for deletion review can with a straight face say "despite a strong consensus for delete", when clearly there is not even a majority in favor of deleting. --Delirium 02:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This article absolutely should be deleted, because the subject is very unhappy with the article and claims that is libelous and that he is unable to fix it, and the subject is marginally notable anyway. What I recommend to Michael Cook is that he contact User:Jimbo Wales and/or the Foundation and ask that the article be removed as a WP:OFFICE action -- which will probably be done. Recognizing that the AfD was closed properly, I have to ask the AfD commentators and the commentators on this DRv: what are you people thinking? Number one, having an encyclopedia is not an license to harass marginally-notablle people; and number two, the article will most likely be removed anyway, by fiat, as an office action (if Mr. Cook presses his complaint), thus resulting in no article anyway PLUS as a bonus a bunch of pissed-off people running around moaning that Misplaced Pages is like Spain under Franco. So c'mon people get off your horses and give some serious consideration to Jimbo's policy about articles on living people. (I'm not saying Jimbo is right - I think he is, but I've been wrong before - but that he's made it clear he doesn't like articles like this, so why turn this into a power struggle. Over Michael freaken Cook.) Herostratus 13:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything in WP:LIVING about removing an article because the subject doesn't like it. After reading WP:OFFICE, I don't see how that applies here, either -- that's for people complaining that their bios are being deleted, not for complaints that their bios are being kept. Now, true, WP:LIVING does request that we keep the feelings of the subject in mind; if the article has POV or libel issues, those need to be corrected through the proper channels. Deleting the article is not the best way to address those issues. Powers 14:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Azure_Sheep

Deletion details: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Azure_Sheep

This a Half-Life mod and was deleted based as part of a retaliation (check the deletion details). This mod haves more then 200,000 downloads and was released in several computer magazines. Only 5 people agreed with the delete and based on their personal option about the mod. Not liking something shouldnt be reason to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snewerl (talk • contribs)

• Endorse closure The participants in the AfD said little about whether they liked or disliked this mod, only that it was non-notable. The fact that retaliation might have played a role in the nom. is irrelevant in cases where the questioning of notability is legitimate. We must AGF on the nominator's part, and obviously his concern with notability was legitimate, as the participants agreed with the nomination. Valid AfD, no relevant reason given to initiate review, no new evidence presented. Xoloz 03:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete They said it is non-notable based on their opinion. What defines a mod as notable? What evidences are needed? A complete list of the magazines that release the mod? A list of users that played the mod? Search the internet. You will find tons of sites that have Azure Sheep and talk about it. What you are saying? That Misplaced Pages is not a Free Excyclopedia where diferent contents can be found but a place that haves only what a small number of people that cares about the AfD allow to be here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snewerl (talk • contribs)

• Please don't 'vote' twice. If you leave a second comment, preface it with "comment" or nothing. Especially when you don't sign your comments it looks like an attempt to sway the vote by sockpuppetry. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Struck out repeated vote. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Unanimous AfD, individual mods are rarely, if ever, independently notable. Just zis Guy you know? 09:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. Valid AfD decision, closed properly, no new evidence presented which would theoretically have changed it. Mods for online computer games have a sky-high cruft multiple; digging through the Google hits there is nothing that presents itself as a reliable source on which to base an article. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, not an experiment in anarchy, thus non-notable games have to be deleted because articles about them can't be properly verified and neutral. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted unanimously valid AfD. I like the DRV nominator's "only five people agreed with the delete" comment. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: What evidences are needed? What makes a mod notable to avoid deletion? --Snewerl
  • If you'd like to see some examples of articles on notable mods, check out Hot Coffee mod (notable due to media furor it created) and Counter-Strike (notable as genre-defining game and created a culture all its own). By far, the vast majority of game mods, however, are not notable enough on their own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • If a mod needs to be that notable, then all the mod pages have to deleted since only those two manage to do that or something similar... Snewerl
      • You're right, and nearly all of them are deleted when they come up for AFD. Just because a non-notable article exists doesn't mean Misplaced Pages wants it there, it just means nobody's noticed it and bothered to AFD it yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
        • It makes sence but then why the Half-Life mods Category exists and other pages related to the subject? Snewerl
• Keep Deleted unanimous valid AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Kd per Sam and Xoloz. —Encephalon 17:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Relist. 200,000 downloads likely meets the criteria laid out in WP:SOFTWARE. If this is true, the article should probably be undeleted, altered to reflect the evidence of notability, and relisted. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Following the WP:SOFTWARE, it was also released in this magazines: The Games Machine (Italy); Swiat Gier Komputerowych (Poland); PC Zone (Uk, also reviewed on Modwatch); PCGamer (UK); Computer Gaming World (USA); GameStar (Germany) and PC Format (UK). It was also reviewed in various mod/games related sites like, for example, PlanetHalfLife (a well known game/mod related site, part of gamespy). Snewerl
    • I still have the PC Zone where is reviewed on Modwatch. If proof is needed I can scan the article and upload it for checking. Snewerl 20:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: ok I am new in this but now what? Will the WP:SOFTWARE lines be followed? Doesnt Azure Sheep fills, at least, points 1.1 (PlanetHalfLife review ), 1.2 (PC Zone magazine review that I can scan the article and upload it to prove) and 3. (more them 5000 downloads, just add the number of download from the locations in this page )? If there arent notable mods then for what there is a category for them in Half-Life (Category:Half-Life_mods)? Snewerl 11:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Relist If the mod meets the WP:SOFTWARE criteria, it ought to be relisted. The mod is even listed on GameFAQs.com, which only has a few of the top Half-Life mods. syphonbyte 01:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain. Software I am involved in was deleted and notability was one of the reasons given - even though it clearly meets the notability guidelines. The guidelines don't seem to correspond with actual Wikipedian reality yet. The discussion on software guidelines is here. Stephen B Streater 10:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Samurang

This article underwent speedy deletion soon after nominated for deletion (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Samurang). But I think the decision does not meet a criterion for speedy deletion. Deltabeignet claimed it was an "attack page". In my understanding, "attack pages" have to do with defamation of character just like the example: "John Citizen is a moron" (Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion). Samurang is not the case. Undelete. --Nanshu 01:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• For an article to be speedy-deleted as an attack page, every non-blanked version must be an attack. I think that some of the earliest versions of this article were judgment calls. Judgments are made thru AFD, not via speedy. Overturn the speedy-deletion and reopen the AFD discussion. Rossami (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on AfD per Rossami. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/relist per Rossami. Xoloz 03:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, it was a valid interpretation of CSD A6, and I very much doubt it would have survived AfD; this article seems to me to serve no purpose other than to disparage the (non-titular) subject, Haidong Gumdo: Samurang is one of fabrications by Haidong Gumdo, who says it was a name for Goguryeo warriors and the origin of samurai. The word Samurang is, however, never appeared in history books ] Haidong Gumdo coined this word so that it sounds similar to samurai in the modern Korean language. Considering the ultimate etymology of samurai, the verb samorafu, the fabrication is seemingly obvious to Japanese, but some uninformed Koreans and Westerners are deceived. If this minor fiction is of encyclopaedic merit it can be covered in Samurai (in neutral terms, unlike this article) and a redirect established here. Just zis Guy you know? 09:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per JzG above. Foreign-language loanwords and when they should and shouldn't be in WP was extensively debated in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kawaii. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, and that precedent was a keep. Precedential power at AfD is weak anyway, but this one appears to point in the opposite direction. If you are making some point about the reasoning used in the prior debate, that sort of analysis (not the direct result) has even less precedental power. Please clarify. Xoloz 19:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Wasn't trying to draw a direct analogy between the two articles, just pointing out some (possibly) relevant discussion of what is and isn't considered kosher, in the absence of Misplaced Pages:Loanwords. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Halliburton_shill

This article underwent speedy deletion.

I received no notification until I visisted the site, even though the article is on my watch list. It is not a personal attack. Halliburton is a public corporation. Shill is a well defined term found in any dictionary. Dick Cheney is a public figure. Relevant Misplaced Pages articles are linked too.

I have a rewritten version that will make the general use of the term more understanable for those lacking background, and even those that abuse the term disparage in attemtping to make the article something that it isn't.

Regarding 1 of the comments that only 111 matches on google for the phrase Halliburton shill, here's some more statistics for you to consider that would be included in the revised article:

As of September 29, 2005, a search for Dick-Cheney shill returned 50,700 results. Today (2006.03.10), the same search returns 89,000 results.

2005.09.29 Halliburton shill returned 44,500 results. Other references to shills for Halliburton (e.g., "shill for Halliburton") obviously get missed on a simple phrase search. As of 2006.03.10, 54,800 results.

2005.09.29 pages that discussed Halliburton shill without any mention of Cheney equaled 10,500 (44,500 - 10,500 = 34,000 pages where Cheney is mentioned). As of 2006.03.10, 14,900 (50,700 - 14,900 = 35,800). 13,700 of those mention Bush instead. --Halliburton Shill 04:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy deletion. While it's debatable that it could be deleted as an attack page, since Cheney is a public figure, it was hopelessly, irreversibly POV, saying that Cheney gained money by giving contracts to Halliburton, and WP:SNOW tells me that it shouldn't matter that it might have been slightly out of process. --Rory096 04:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

  List on AfD. Actually, the part of WP:SNOW that Radiant took from my user talk page points out that it sometimes can matter if something like this is done out of process. Viz: this deletion review, which wouldn't need to be happening if everyone could have expressed their opinion in a proper AfD. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

  Oh, and "Halliburton shill" in quotation marks (so it's not just someone using the word Halliburton and the word shill on the same page) yields only 112 results, some of which are Misplaced Pages, and several are someone making a fake profile on Myspace. --Rory096 04:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

  And what the hell is this? --Rory096 04:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy deletion. I also note that the page was created by User:Halliburton Shill who has apparently made only two other non-deleted edits to Misplaced Pages and who may have to be counselled on appropriate usernames. Rossami (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Cheney did gain money. Read Misplaced Pages's own Halliburton page. It has an entire section called "Dick Cheney Ties". Read a CBS article published in 2003. As for the Halliburton search, if it's so common for someone to "just" happen (oops) to use shill and Halliburton on the same page with no intention of them relating to one another, I'm sure it should be easy to provide a link to an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halliburton Shill (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. Even if he did gain money off any contracts given to Halliburton- which is false and even REFUTED by the page you point to, this removes any possible doubt in my mind that you're just POV pushing. I try to WP:AGF, but it's very hard when I see something like that page. --Rory096 05:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Article created in bad faith, given above link to blog post. android79 05:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Also note that the text of the article exists at User:Halliburton Shill as well. android79 05:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. A personal attack on me in an attempt to justify a delete based on an unsubstantiated personal attack. If you can't understand satire, which I make very clear that blog is on the so-called "POV" page, don't read it. And, no, the Halliburton page does not in any way refute what I claim. At worst, it supports the claim and tries to excuse by reference to a campaign promise. (Turn on satire detector.) I know I make all my decisions based on campaign promises. Just like I still have faith in the promise there are WMDs in Iraq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halliburton Shill (talk • contribs)
    • Comment. I'd prefer not to get into a political discussion here, as it's not even the point. Your page was clearly POV, and then you posted on a blog about how you were pushing your POV on Misplaced Pages. You then claimed Misplaced Pages was biased towards the right in another blog, while simultaneously saying that I was personally attacking you. By the way, sign your posts with 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~. --Rory096 06:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It's established that it is not an attack page, which was the main argument for speedy deletion. And as for POV, that's not mentioned as a reason for any kind of deletion on the speedy page or AfD. That means there is no justification deletion.--Halliburton Shill 07:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion. Mr Shill, Misplaced Pages is not your soapbox. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion Dick Cheney is pure evil, but that doesn't mean WP will accept an article created in bad faith... "covert operation... sheesh. Xoloz 17:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Rory096. POV pushers go home. · rodii · 14:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• The link above makes me believe that the article was not created with encyclopedic intentions in mind. Keep deleted and protect if necessary. Titoxd 06:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

9 March 2006

Savvica

This article was kept as a no consensus after Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Savvica. However, I disagree because both the users that voted 'keep' are contributors of the article. Also the administrator states the only reason for deletion is non-notability. Exactly! That is the reason for deletion! The article does not meet the WP:CORP guideline for notability and should be deleted. --Sleepyhead 11:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• As the closer, I will not vote either way. I will say that what swayed my decision from a "delete" to a "no consensus" was the following argument: "Savvica has been covered on ComputerWorld, eWeek, TechCrunch, InfoTech, MacNN, and hundreds of blogs all in the last 3 months", if this is true, the company would meet point 1 of WP:CORP. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. If Dritter is discounted as too new (5th edit) there is an 80% consensus to delete, usually sufficient, but given that the claims of outside coverage weren't addressed I think there's sufficient grounds to keep the article on the basis of the last AfD, and the article should possibly be relisted so those claims are explictly addressed. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I can only find press releases from this company when I search on Google. That is not enough to meet the criteria for notability per WP:CORP. In regards to the user Dritter and Heyjohngreen it is not about the number of edits they have done. It is about what type of edits. Dritter has only edited the Savvica and Nuvvo (a product from Savvica) articles while Heyjohngreen started the Savvica and Nuvvo articles and his other contributions has only included adding links to this. Both these users votes are subjective as they probably work for the company. --Sleepyhead 13:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Relist I understand the close, but the point offered by the that voter needs further inspection, and relisting will accomplish that. Xoloz 16:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure but only weakly, and relist is also acceptable. Nuovvo is, I think, notable - I saw it on a list Ow as pruning and it checked out OK to me. Whether the manufacturer is independently notable I wouldn't like to say. A redirect would be good enough, to my mind. Just zis Guy you know? 17:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong endorsement of closure. Closing admin used own judgement and understanding of WP policy and guidelines to avoid a possibly unwarranted deletion. Admins aren't robots and shouldn't be expected to behave like vote counting robots; this is a discussion, and the admins are meant to evaluate the consensus of the discussion and then render a final closure based on that discussion with reference to their (supposedly superior) understanding of WP policy and guideline. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Random Acts Films

This article was deleted for no reason. -- Doo Doo 00:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Or so you think. It clearly didn't assert notability, nor does it show itself to be notable in Web searches. Keep deleted. --Nlu (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• On the contrary. It was deleted the first time for being nothing but an external link; the second time for being nothing but an external link plus the text "More content this afternoon."; and the third time because it described a group of people with no apparent claim to notability (see WP:CSD#Articles, number 7). Keep Deleted. android79 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Actually, a reason was given for the latest deletion though it was a bit cryptic. (Prior versions were deleted months ago for being basically contentless.) The deleting admin believed that this qualified for speedy-deletion under criterion A7 - "an article about a real person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." Looking at the content of the article and the linked website, I'm afraid that I would have to agree with that assessment. However, if you can make an assertion that this article might meet one of the generally accepted inclusion criteria (such as WP:BIO, WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC), then we can undelete the article and submit it for a longer discussion and decision using the articles for deletion process. Rossami (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Look at many of the articles in Category:Comedy_troupes, Random Acts Films is like them. The films have even been shown on Australian TV. -- Doo Doo 02:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The most recent version of the article contains no references other than Random Acts' own website, and thus does not meet the verifiability policy. If Doo Doo can create an article that includes good, verifiable source citations to film magazines, national newspapers, major film websites like imdb, that meets the verifiability policy and that clearly shows how the article meets WP:BIO, WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC, he should compose it--offline or in his user space--then re-create the article when it is decent shape. This would be far better than insisting on dragging the present article through AfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• That's cool. Can someone post the deleted code into User:Doo Doo/ra. -- Doo Doo 02:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  Will do in a minute. --Nlu (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Computerjoe 21:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, list on AfD. Article was deleted as a group of people making no assertion of notability, the interpretation of A7 as covering companies (rather than bands and school clubs, its intended purpose) is contentious, there are some unambiguous assertions of notability above, and this is not the place to debate the merits of the subject - this is to endorse or overturn dleetion decisions. This is definitely not a case of WP:SNOW, if the films have been shown on national TV. Just zis Guy you know? 21:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that it was not deleted as a nn-company, but as an nn-group (an assessment that I agree with given the article), which is subtly but importantly different. Specfically, deletion of nn-companies is not a supported position but nn-groups are, whether they purport to play with instruments or cameras. -Splash 02:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, unprotect if the nominator thinks they can genuinely write a decent stub on this that actually says, with reliable sources (nominator: please read that link) why they are notable. The article as deleted, however, was a speedy in every revision, as observed above and there is no need to restore those absent an improved version to sit on top of them. They'd just get speedied again. -Splash 02:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy, endorse userfication. Nom is invited to familiarize self with Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy and Misplaced Pages:Notability. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Seduction Community

Deleted through AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Seduction Community. Please undelete this article. It describes a current relevant phenomenon. Streamless 15:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Please provide evidence that it's a "current relevant phenomenon". android79 15:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • book called "The Game..." by Neil Strauss. anticipating the suggestion that there's already an article for the book, the community preceded the events of the book and appears to continue. Streamless 15:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Some friendly admin please drop the content of this in my userspace; I have heard the term before, but I want to confirm what this thing said before speaking. Thanks Xoloz 16:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Xoloz/SC seems to be the last version before poeple started really hacking at it. Please speedy tag when you've finished, for GFDL reasons. Just zis Guy you know? 17:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted, valid picking apart of a sockfest. Most sources seem to be blogs, and in any case it seems incredibly crufty, certainly not compelling enough to overturn an AfD. Article history prominently features User:SeductionCommunity which also strongly supports the diagnosis of vanispamcruftisement of the known faces in the AfD debate. Subsequent re-creation also looks like gaming the system. Just zis Guy you know? 17:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It's simply not true that most of the sources on the seduction community are blogs. See my comments below. --SecondSight 02:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure The community does exist, and I (amateur sexologist) find it interesting; however, after a consideration of the available internet sources, I don't think a WP:V article is able to be written at this time. If this "community" does endure, it will become the object of independent interest, and at that time it will become encyclopedic. Xoloz 17:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Why don't you think a verifiable article is able to be written? There is extensive coverage of the seduction community both in The_Game_(book_on_Pickup_Artists), and in the news media. What is not verifiable about these sources? Also, it's not true, as you presume, that the community is not an "object of independent interest." The community has received extensive media coverage, will soon be the subject of a movie, and possibly a reality TV show (see Talk:Seduction Community for documentation). That hardly sounds like a lack of "independent interest" to me. --SecondSight 02:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per both votes above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. I have started documenting the size of the seduction community, and the increasing media attention it is receiving, on Talk:Seduction Community, and I request that everyone voting on the subject please review that page. Some of these news articles on the seduction community have come to light since the the deletion of the original article (such as the announcement that Columbia is making a movie out of The Game, which warrant a reconsidering of the deletion (though I personally think the deletion was undeserved in the first place). On this page alone, I see several misconceptions by voters who endorse closure: that the sources on the community are "mostly blogs," that a verifiable article cannot be written about the seduction community, and that the seduction community is not the "object of independent interest." Since the seduction community is covered in mainstream news sources, including the New York Times and San Francisco Chronicle, all of those claims are false. It seems to me that many opponents of a seduction community article are badly uninformed of the massive size and influence of the community, and of the extensive media attention it has received (which has increased since the original deletion). --SecondSight 02:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, SecondSight, I agree that you do show a very nice collection of sources on the talk page. Please use them to write a new draft of the article incorporating them. Since the article is currently protected, feel free to compose the draft as a subpage of your userspace. I do think that the SC will be encyclopedic sooner or later, but I am not convinced a WP:V article can be written yet -- I invite you to prove your point by showing that it can. If you substantially improve a recreation, it will not be speediable, and we will be happy to review it anew. Xoloz 03:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for acknowledging my efforts to demonstrate the notability of the seduction community. I have drafted a new version of the article on User:SecondSight, and I believe that it is compeletely verifiable. Feel free to suggest improvements to it. --SecondSight 01:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure I am very sorry SecondSight, but it seems to me all you have done is collect the accumulated press clippings that have been spawned by a book publicity campaign. This is an encyclopedia, not an extension of the marketing arm of Strauss' publiusher, Regan Books. Eusebeus 11:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Why does it matter whether those articles are part of a "book publicity campaign" or not? They are still verifiable secondary sources published by reputable publishers (I don't see any policy on WP:V saying that book reviews are not admissable if they publicize a book). It is true that many of the articles do reference Strauss' book, though this one doesn't, and neither does Strauss' original NYT article (see Talk:Seduction for citation). Halo.Bungie.Org only has a few news references, yet it was found to be notable and survived deletion. Also, it confuses me that you seem to ignore the other notability evidence I provided. I challenge you, and anyone else who denies the notability of the seduction community, to explain why a community that is the subject of a bestelling book, that involves web communities with tens of thousands of members, that has international branches and meetings (called "lairs" and "summits"), that will be the subject of a movie and prospective reality TV show, and that has 1400+ Google hits (for "seduction community" and "pickup community," which are synonyms) is somehow not notable. Honestly, I believe that the evidence I have provided for notability is overkill (for instance, it much surpasses the notability of Halo.Bungie.Org). --SecondSight 01:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• New At This -- what does "endorse closure" mean? to Eusebeus, i would answer that the community is larger than merely the events of the book. indeed, many members of the community seem to be detractors of the book. admittedly, most of the sources are blogs and commercial websites; nevertheless, the members of the community are continuing to get more attention, irrespective of the source of the attention. moreover, while some of the members of the community have wikipedia articles devoted to them, there is no general article, which i would hope outlines some of the common/popular techniques, trends, strategies, principles, and jargon. please keep an open mind. thanks to SecondSight and Xoloz for their efforts/thoughts. Streamless 13:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate that my comment invites your reply, the fact remains that the process here was perfectly valid, and the fact that what you have accumulated pertains primarily to a publicity campaign regarding the publication of this book does little to answer the charge (pointedly raised in the AfD) that this is a viral marketing campaign. Pointing to other ephemera that have survived AfD because of the highly skewed perspective that the WP community finds notable is missing the point. Eusebeus 10:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

i understand re: the process. however, assuming it's okay to comment on your comment, Eusebeus, i reiterate that the community preceded the book (stated in the beginning of the book). this has nothing to do with viral marketing and everything to do with a distinct group of people with similar goals and similar methods. Streamless 19:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Endorse closure means that when the people here reviewed the deletion discussion on AfD, they found that it was closed according to wikipedia guidelines. In this case, the closing admin deleted the article...so Endorse Closure means keep it deleted. --Syrthiss 15:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Deletion review is not the place to rehash the discussion that took place on AfD; it is a place to question whether or not a closure of an AfD was performed appropriately. It was performed appropriately, in accordance with AfD consensus discussion and relevant WP policy. I second Xoloz' suggestion that if a policy-compatible version of the article can be written that addresses the concerns of the AfD discussion, it should be done, and then any admin should be glad on request to move that article into the currently protected articlespace. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A deletion review of the seduction community article is appropriate, because (a) users voting for deletion seem to have been unaware of the press coverage on the seduction community, which may have changed their perceptions on its notability and verifiability, and (b) new information on the seduction community has come to light since the original AfD. I have started documenting evidence on the notability of the seduction community on Talk:Seduction Community, so that users can now be properly informed on the subject. (Also, the charge that the seduction community wasn't notable during the AfD was not backed up, because nobody proposing deletion explained why a community that is the subject of a New York Times Bestseller is not notable.) I have just created a new seduction community article from scratch on my user page, at Xoloz' and your suggestion, and I believe that it is policy-compatible. I invite everyone to review it and suggest improvements (I am a relatively inexperienced wikipedia-editor). How do I go about requesting that it be moved into the protected page? --SecondSight 01:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It looks good to me. Try asking Xoloz on the User talk:Xoloz page. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I actually figured it out myself a couple minutes ago. --SecondSight 23:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

1. Alina and Billysan. Speedy deletion endorsed, undeletion request withdrawn by nominator. 10:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Template:If defined et. al. Overturned and undeleted. 07:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Bashas' withdrawn by nom. 23:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Sean Ripple deletion overturned (no relist requested). 23:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Hunter Ellis deletion overturned, undel history+revert from redir. 23:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
6. Sustainable National Income history undel. 23:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Jewfro 'kept deleted', actually as a redirect. 23:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Gail (goldfish) not speedy but already a redirect/merge which this debate ok's. 23:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
9. Tom Dorsch deletion endorsed. 23:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
10. Kamyar Cyrus Habib deletion endorsed. 23:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
11. Demilich (band) already kept by new afd. 23:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
12. London Buses route 4 already remade, so history undel. 23:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
13. Math of Quran kd, what little there is does not overturn. 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
14. Crying While Eating deletion overturned, already undeleted, will unprotect. 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
15. Various warcrimes bios keep close endorsed since changes editorial in nature. 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
16. SourceryForge already redel'd by afd. 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
17. Male bikini-wearing speedy endorsed, kept deleted
18. Mucky Pup re-created, speedy kept on AFD 09:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
19. Blog Torrent restored and listed on afd 23:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
20. TimeSplitters: Future Perfect strategy guide has been transwikied properly now 23:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
21. Glossary of Japanese film credit terms nominator appears happy with transwiki (right?) 23:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
22. Template:Background, no majority to overturn 23:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages deletion
• Misplaced Pages maintenance