Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:06, 11 June 2006 view sourceRossami (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users25,096 edits →[]: closed discussion← Previous edit Revision as of 03:10, 11 June 2006 view source Splash (talk | contribs)33,425 edits →[]: long commentNext edit →
Line 34: Line 34:


The fifth keep vote from Nertz may be the same person too since it is a recently created account, shows the same fondness for exclamation points! as the other four, and expressed knowledge of the recent Jersey Shore Communciations/WWAC-TV hoax. ] 16:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC) The fifth keep vote from Nertz may be the same person too since it is a recently created account, shows the same fondness for exclamation points! as the other four, and expressed knowledge of the recent Jersey Shore Communciations/WWAC-TV hoax. ] 16:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
*Interesting. I smell socks as follows:
**{{user|Nigel_Wick}} began editing a matter of hours prior to his comment in the AfD, which was his first such comment. Such participation would typically be given a light weight anyway, the following circumstantials notwithstanding;
**{{user|ConeyCyclone}}, {{user|UncleFloyd}} and {{user|FunkyChicken!}} show almost exactly the same gaps in editing. They all ceased editing in July (August for FunkyChicken!) of 2005, and only resumed in February 2006 — all on the 20th or 22nd. All three have a further near-simultaneous gap from that burst in February to the beginning of this month, 1/2 June, a matter of days before the AfD, when all again began editing at nearly the same time. All visited the AfD within their first few edits. I conclude that these are socks of one another, and that they should be dismissed. If people concur, I would also suggest indefinite blocks given their usage.
**{{user|Nertz}} was an account created at exactly the same time as the three above resumed editing — on 2nd June, and visited the AfD in short order. Just about the same shortness of order as the other three. As with Nigel Wick, this would usually lighten his weight considerably, but I strongly suspect this to be a further sockpuppet.
**{{user|Punt!}} is the creator of the article. This account, coincidentally, was ''also'' created on 2nd June, the same day it wrote the article, and does indeed share a penchant for exclamation marks with several of the others. I suspect a further sockpuppet.
*I would therefore suggest that all of these account be indefinitely blocked (they are not benign socks) and the puppet master can email an admin requesting his/her chosen one be unblocked. As to the deletion review, the article itself is borderline as is the company. It would be entirely reasonable to overturn the closure and delete. But I think, given the disruption the debate experienced, that '''overturn and relist''' is better. -] - ] 03:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


==== ] ==== ==== ] ====

Revision as of 03:10, 11 June 2006

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

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

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Content review

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.

  • none currently listed

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/History only undeletion

Decisions to be reviewed

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/Vfu mechanics

10 June 2006

Boring Business Systems

This was closed on June 8 as 'no consensus'. The discussion is here. There were 5 delete votes and 5 keep votes. The decision not to delete needs review, and a closer look at four of the five users who cast "keep" votes. FunkyChicken!, UncleFloyd, ConeyCyclone, and Nigel Wick appear to possibly be the same person using many different accounts. See the history of those usernames on past AfDs, especially the recent WWAC-TV that was deleted as a hoax. The article should either be relisted for further consensus, or deleted. 70.108.82.120 16:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The fifth keep vote from Nertz may be the same person too since it is a recently created account, shows the same fondness for exclamation points! as the other four, and expressed knowledge of the recent Jersey Shore Communciations/WWAC-TV hoax. 70.108.82.120 16:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Interesting. I smell socks as follows:
    • Nigel_Wick (talk · contribs) began editing a matter of hours prior to his comment in the AfD, which was his first such comment. Such participation would typically be given a light weight anyway, the following circumstantials notwithstanding;
    • ConeyCyclone (talk · contribs), UncleFloyd (talk · contribs) and FunkyChicken! (talk · contribs) show almost exactly the same gaps in editing. They all ceased editing in July (August for FunkyChicken!) of 2005, and only resumed in February 2006 — all on the 20th or 22nd. All three have a further near-simultaneous gap from that burst in February to the beginning of this month, 1/2 June, a matter of days before the AfD, when all again began editing at nearly the same time. All visited the AfD within their first few edits. I conclude that these are socks of one another, and that they should be dismissed. If people concur, I would also suggest indefinite blocks given their usage.
    • Nertz (talk · contribs) was an account created at exactly the same time as the three above resumed editing — on 2nd June, and visited the AfD in short order. Just about the same shortness of order as the other three. As with Nigel Wick, this would usually lighten his weight considerably, but I strongly suspect this to be a further sockpuppet.
    • Punt! (talk · contribs) is the creator of the article. This account, coincidentally, was also created on 2nd June, the same day it wrote the article, and does indeed share a penchant for exclamation marks with several of the others. I suspect a further sockpuppet.
  • I would therefore suggest that all of these account be indefinitely blocked (they are not benign socks) and the puppet master can email an admin requesting his/her chosen one be unblocked. As to the deletion review, the article itself is borderline as is the company. It would be entirely reasonable to overturn the closure and delete. But I think, given the disruption the debate experienced, that overturn and relist is better. -Splash - tk 03:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Major_programming_languages

I did not see the TfD discussion until after someone acted on it to remove the template from an article I watch. Looking through the discussion, it appears that the discussion had 11 delete votes, and 6 keep votes (FWIW, I would have voted "keep" if I had noticed it). It doesn't seem like deletion on a bare majority is the right closing action (no consensus would be more fitting). As far as I can see, all the votes on both sides were cast in good faith, by established editors, and accompanied by reasonable statements of reasons. So the conduct of the discussion seems eminently reasonable... it just doesn't seem to have been closed correctly. LotLE×talk 20:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Erik Möller

Was inappropriately speedied as recreation, which it wasn't. The originally AfD'd article (Erik Moeller) didn't mention that he was a published author, and the AfD was based on the idea that he's non-notable because the article just mentioned his temporary Wikimedia post. Thus the second article should go through AfD again. Margana 19:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

there are also two previous versions of Erik Möller that have been deleted previously, the first was a redirect and the second was very short. -- Kim van der Linde 19:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
There are about 4,000 copies of my book. It's a niche publication about wikis, weblogs and open source software. I don't think having written a single book with such a small run makes me a notable person.--Eloquence* 19:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh

Despite establishing the relevance of theSMSzone.com and its creator as a pioneer of SMS spoofing, the article was deleted without, in my opinion, due consideration of the arguments presented. Phanatical 08:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Undelete, Relist - I strongly object to the deletion. The article was deleted without taking into account the arguments posed in objection to the original deletion request. I profoundly believe the article deserves a place in our community as there are severe criminal impacts 'spoofed sms' pose to society. theSMSzone.com is also mentioned in the wiki entry for sms under Criminal Impact further increasing its notability. Ahmedsays 12:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • user's third edit to Misplaced Pages
    • Reminder: Deletion review is not the place to simply continue a closed AfD. It's not "Articles for Deletion, Round 2". Comment on only whether the discussion was concluded correctly. Don't rehash the same points that you have already mentioned in the AfD. Kimchi.sg 13:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's examine each "keep" argument from the AfD in detail:
    1. over 48000 relevant backlinks to theSMSzone can be found with the terms "theSMSzone.com" - blatant untruth, clicking on the provided link shows only "about 22" backlinks, and if you click to page 2, only 11 of these are unique.
    2. seems like this website pioneered SMS spoofing hence is a valuable asset to the WIKI community - no sources provided for this claim either within the AfD (and I daresay, in the article itself), therefore unverifiable.
    3. theSMSzone.com was the first website in the world that allowed users to define a "From" number. - yet another unsourced nugget.
    4. I see no reason why this entry should be deleted. Please use the keywords "spoofed sms" in google for clear evidence on the impact this startup had on text messaging. - seems this editor has not heard of Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines for websites. And a search for spoofed SMS theSMSzone shows 486 hits, none of which are to reliable sources. Only 42 of these are unique.
    5. MSN and Yahoo print a totally different picture - thousands of results. Doesnt look like 'corporate' spam to me. - to this editor it may not, to the rest of us, it does. The top hit on the MSN search is a PRweb press release, and the top Yahoo! search result is the site itself. Again not a good omen, no WP:WEB criteria are satisfied.
    6. Lastly, SMS spoofing is also listed as having a criminal impact on society in the wiki entry for SMS with the 'sms zone' pinpointed as the cause. - Misplaced Pages articles may not use other Misplaced Pages articles as sources, so if this one had to depend on the SMS article to live, then it really shouldn't have survived AfD.
    In summary, the closing admin was right to discount the weakly-reasoned "keep" votes, which made no mention of how the website or its founder satisfy WP:WEB and WP:BIO respectively. Consensus was correctly determined, with disregard to sheer number of votes. Keep deleted, no new information has surfaced to justify undeletion. (Link to Google cache version of the article: ) Kimchi.sg 13:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Kimchi. Postdlf 13:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep deleted per Kimchi's research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure as within administrator discretion. I note that a number of the participants in the deletion discussion have suspiciously short contribution histories. However I'll also note that a more detailed explanation by the closer would have been appropriate in this case. Rossami (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:OURS

This page was speedy-deleted out of process. It was nominated at MfD, then deleted by Sceptre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with edit sum CSD G4. (This is the criterion that refers to recreated material but there is no previously-deleted version.) Sceptre then closed the MfD with the notation The result of the debate was speedy delete, G5. Rgulerdem had created the idea and theres about half-a-dozen threads on the mailing list by Rg about WP:OURS, Raphael is just acting through proxy. G5 is the criterion that refers to pages created by banned users.

I have three distinct and independent objections to this deletion:

1) The nomination was made at MfD and therefore the page in question was not eligible for speedy. No matter what, we do not wish that admins ignore or bypass community consensus. The nomination was not allowed to stand for even a single day before this admin took pre-emptive action. At this point 2 users have asked the page be kept, 2 that it be deleted, and 1 has made a comment that appears to question the wisdom of deletion.

2) Neither speedy criterion applies to this page. It does not prima facie appear to be a re-creation; therefore it fails G4. It was not created by a banned user operating under a sock; it was created by another editor, one in good standing. It is irrelevant whether the content was inspired by or even written originally by the banned user; the page was not so written. We are not in a position to ban all the words that have been written by people we don't like. The actual page creator, Raphael1 (talk · contribs), stated that he did not simply copy the banned user's words from the mailing list; but even if so, that would fail to invoke G5.

3) I object strongly to admin control of the policy-making process. Adminship is not a party favor or membership in the executive club; admins are to implement policy, not to control it. Policy is the right and responsibility of every editor. Once a proposal has been made, it ought never be subject to deletion by the whim of a single admin. The page in question may be wise or unwise but we all have a right to debate it.

John Reid 05:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Relist per nom. Posts on a mailing list do not count as "creation" of a page - only its presence on Misplaced Pages servers count. Kimchi.sg 05:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. We've been through this. It's not worth having. NSLE (T+C) at 05:23 UTC (2006-06-10)
  • Relist, though Rapheal1 is anything but a user in good standing, judging by the number of disputes he's involved in. --tjstrf 05:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. This is a proposal for a system of admin - user relations proposed by a banned user, copied from the mailing list but with some parts missing (which may violate GFDL). The basic intent its to prevent admins from blocking POV pushers. The original draft from User:Rgulerdem stated in the last draft I saw on the list that we should abide by well-established policies and guidelines such as Misplaced Pages:Wikiethics - this was comprehensively rejected as an attempt to endorse censorship. Both Resid Gulerdem and Raphael Wegmann are keen to override the consensus on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy by removing or not displaying the images, I find it hard to see this as anything other than an attempt to introduce policy to allow them to override consensus and evade admin attention. The policy as written stands is likely to attract every POV pusher and problem editor; it is instruction creep and it is neither necessary nor welcome. Oh, and it's the work of a banned user while banned. Just zis Guy you know? 12:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, relist. The merits of this proposal a) do not exist, but b) are not substantive to here. At the moment, there was no process followed regarding this deletion, and it should run its course and be soundly rejected on its merits. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Divisive nonsense from a banned user. NoSeptember 13:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, a typo in the deletion summary isn't a reason to undelete a page. --Rory096 19:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist. I see no compelling reason for bypassing process in this case. --Ashenai 19:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I am disturbed by the process allegations on both sides of this debate. On balance, I do not think that a clear case can be made that this met any of the deliberately narrow criteria for speedy-deletion. Overturn speedy-deletion and reopen the deletion discussion (where, by the way, I am inclined to argue to keep the page - failed policy pages are tagged with {{rejected}} but kept so we can learn from them in the future). Rossami (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)

The original request for deletion review has been refactored due to length, for clarity, and to remove gaudy formatting. It can be viewed in its entirety here. Kimchi.sg 02:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Fellow Wikipedians, the article in question was Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis). There are plenty of materials out there already published that cover and make mention of the various facts I have laid out here. My opinion was what I believed you wanted and I gave it. For sources:

  1. Kubrick's "2001" by Leonard F. Wheat
  2. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker
  3. The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stephanie Schwam (Editor), Jay Cocks (Introduction)
  4. Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter (Foreword by Arthur C. Clarke)
  5. 2001 Filming the Future by Piers Bizony
  6. The Making of Kubrick's 2001 by Jerome Agel (its almost a bible to the film)
  7. the souvener progam to the movie
  8. the jewel of my collection, the April 1968 issue of LIFE magazine with its first pictorial preview of the film from beginning to end. It even showed the Star Child!
  9. and of course, Arthur C. Clarke's novels of 2001 and 2010

And in the end, Angr listed the film synopsis for deletion on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis). I chose to wait until the last day to cast my actual vote (though I did inset a comment or two). The final tally was Keep - 7 votes 47%, Delete - 4 votes 27%, Merge - 4 votes 27%

Only 4 out 15 people voted to DELETE the article. An equal number wanted the article merged (i.e. unsplit) with the original main article. But the majority voted TO KEEP THE ARTICLE! Administrator fuddlemark went against the majority in the discussion and declared “The result of the debate was delete.” This goes against any possible concept of fair play or policy that I can think of. The majority says ”KEEP” and this guy proclaims the result of the debate was delete?

I contest this action – it can not be allowed to stand. These people have spit into the faces of the various members of the Misplaced Pages community and defied the final decision. If everyone had come on and said Delete, I would have no problem with this. But the majority voted to Keep the article. The action of deleting the article is therefore a morally and ethically wrong action that must not be allowed to stand. The majority at the time said that the article should not have been deleted. On that basis, I ask for the action to be reversed. -- User:Jason Palpatine 02:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Relist. I'd like to see more discussion of the sources used to write the synopsis, and whether detailed description is a clear copyvio. The original AfD looks more like a no consensus to me (yes, I know, it's "not a vote".) I'm not sure whether to count the "merge" votes as keep votes ("keep the content") or delete votes ("delete the page"), but that's a secondary issue. Deltabeignet 05:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment. It was originally deleted as being original research, if you fixed that it should be fine. Also, might I remind you that AfD is not technically a vote. Personally, I would suggest rewriting the article in a substantially different manner, and if it gets deleted AGAIN, bringing it here. --tjstrf 05:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion (disclaimer - argued for delete in afd). The closing admin outlined his reasoning for coming to deletion as based on the arguements given, and not simple numbers, which is exactly what is supposed to happen. Afd is not a vote, and is based on weight of arguements, not weight of numbers. Regards, MartinRe 05:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. What is the main article for, if not a synopsis of the film? Work on that article instead. Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Regretfully endorse deletion. The article actually was rather well-done, and I do hope that this content survives elsewhere, but the level of detail makes this feel out of place on an encyclopedia, and similarly may make us vulnerable to claims of copyvio. A brief synopsis has its place on the article's entry -- a detailed separate-page synopsis does not have a place here -- when the synopsis is close to enough to recreate the film, something's not right here. I believe the decision was correct, and as for how it was reached, it's not unusual for people closing VfD to analyse the arguments as well as weigh the numbers. It's a judgement call. JasonP, if you want my help to find a better home than Misplaced Pages for this content (which you've put some time into, I notice), drop me a note on my talk page, and we'll figure something out. --Improv 14:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The big question, to my mind, is whether the article can be given inline references to make it crystal clear which facts come from which sources. I am also worried about how one could quickly check whether anything in the article is close to being a copyright violation. In my opinion there isn't really a bright line between where presenting, organizating, and synthesizing published sources leaves off, and original research/personal opinion begins. I am very troubled that the list of sources was not added until the last minute.
I'd like to ask User:Jason Palpatine these questons:
  • Are the books he cites physically in his possession?
  • If I had read and absorbed half a dozen books and then wrote an article this long from my personal knowledge, I estimate that it would take me many hours to locate the source in each book that justifies the major items in the essay. (And in the process I would expect to find that my memory had betrayed me several times). Is User:Jason Palpatine prepared to do this?
  • Does the material in this article truly come from the sources, or is it based on the editor's observations of watching the film itself? If so, how should this be cited? I've suggested several times that I would be happy considered a DVD to be a "published source" but that I'd like it to be cited by giving the exact published version of the DVD and identifying incidents in it by, say, number of minutes into the film.
If Jason Palpatine is prepared to rewrite the article in such a way that it is crystal clear that it is not his personal recollection from having watched the movie, is truly based on published sources, and does not involve more than fair use of published sources, I would vote to relist. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)



In reply from User:Jason Palpatine

A lot has been said before elsewhere. In reply to the points/questions raised above:

Question #1: Are the books User:Jason Palpatine cites physically in his possession?

  1. Kubrick's "2001" by Leonard F. Wheat -- is physically in my possession.
  2. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker -- Library copy (since returned)
  3. The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stephanie Schwam (Editor), Jay Cocks (Introduction) -- is physically in my possession.
  4. Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter (Foreword by Arthur C. Clarke) -- Library copy (since returned)
  5. 2001 Filming the Future by Piers Bizony -- is physically in my possession.
  6. The Making of Kubrick's 2001 by Jerome Agel (its almost a bible to the film) -- is physically in my possession.
  7. the souvenir program to the movie -- is physically in my possession.
  8. the jewel of my collection, the April 1968 issue of LIFE magazine with its first pictorial preview of the film from beginning to end. It even showed the Star Child! -- is (as the comment indicates) physically in my possession.
  9. and of course, Arthur C. Clarke's novels of 2001 and 2010 -- both are physically in my possession and read more than once.
    • In response to this question, I have ordered Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker and Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter today through www.amazon.com. Delivery estimate: June 19, 2006 - June 21, 2006

Question #2: If I had read and absorbed half a dozen books and then wrote an article this long from my personal knowledge, I estimate that it would take me many hours to locate the source in each book that justifies the major items in the essay. (And in the process I would expect to find that my memory had betrayed me several times). Is User:Jason Palpatine prepared to do this?

    • Utilizing copyrighted materials is not allowed here. I am required to use my own words regardless of source material. As I understand things here, except for a few quotations (which are in the article) direct copyright material inclusion is not allowed. I must use my own words. It is these two policies that are being used in conflict to support the outlandish claim that the article is original research.
    • I have noted before that I do not understand how to do citations in an article. I've been to the instructions page and it is beyond my understanding.
    • How much of references do I need to cite? A sentence-by-sentence referencing is just too much IMHO. Also, when claims were made of WP:OR, no justification other than the accusation itself was offered. There is nothing to prevent anyone here from looking up and checking the references listed.. I am willing to commit some time to it. However, I am not an administrator and have other considerations such as my job to consider.


Question #3: If Jason Palpatine is prepared to rewrite the article in such a way that it is crystal clear that it is not his personal recollection from having watched the movie, is truly based on published sources, and does not involve more than fair use of published sources, I would vote to relist. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

In May, the following tags were applied to the main article:

{{cleanupdate}}
{{split}}
According to User:Scm83x: ‘’”(readd {{splitlong}} , 111kb is huge... something has to be moved to a new article... perhaps the plot summary should be cut down...”’’
I branched that article off of the main article in response to this. It was the first part of the article to be split. A simplified synopsis was left in the main with
Main article: 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) .
In the main article.
If you check the history of the main article, much of the lengthy detailed synopsis that would become the article we are discussing here was already in place in the primary article before I entered the picture. I took concentrated interest in the article beginning with my edit of 20:15, 18 April 2006. Please look at the prior version of the primary article In other words, that ‘’original’’ article material was produced by other editors here.
The following editors all contributed to the article in the month ‘’before’’ I took a serious interest:
User:128.95.15.78, User:134.114.59.41, User:141.154.59.190, User:200.207.16.222, User:203.217.64.73, User:207.208.157.183, User:216.55.222.221, User:63.41.12.17, User:64.93.158.158, User:65.174.176.123, User:65.54.97.194, User:67.81.189.88, User:68.14.154.242, User:69.143.172.3, User:70.18.71.105, User:70.231.235.251, User:71.113.185.129, User:71.242.131.195, User:72.144.136.77, User:72.40.90.163, User:72.56.157.31, User:80.200.209.231, User:Allemannster, User:Ashmoo, User:Bwileyr m, User:CmdrObot, User:Comics, User:DanielLC, User:DavidH, User:Dayv, User:Deltabeignet, User:Duncancumming, User:Dysprosia, User:FunkyFly, User:Hetar, User:JRawle, User:Knife Knut, User:Larry V, User:LordofHavoc, User:Lottoextra, User:Lysowski, User:MarnetteD, User:MikeBriggs, User:Modemac, User:MotionRotaryTOAD, User:Pearle, User:Pegship, User:PurpleHaze, User:RedNovember, User:Riddle, User:RussBot, User:Seminumerical, User:Simninja, User:The Anome, User:The Singing Badger, User:Thefourdotelipsis, User:WAS
This was the work of many people, not just me. My primary intesnt was a major mistake which was over time corrected by other admins -- the inclusion of way too many pictures from the film. This matter was dealt with -- the number images was drastically reduced to what should have been considered an acceptable amount. However, some admins were not satified and cut back too much. I do not mind editing, but I absolutely oppose butchery and sterility. 2001 is a heavily visually structured event (check out the TMA-1 image in the Dialouge section of the main article). I considered more than the usual number of images in Wik policy to be necessary for the synopsis section/article to do justice to the film. The only answer I got was
"There is no such thing as too little when it comes to fair use. That is all. "
The sizing is also quoted. With the destruction of the article and its talk page, I can not cite the identity of the admin you posted the remark. I only know that it was not any of the admins who have posted here.

Question #4: What is the main article for, if not a synopsis of the film? Work on that article instead. Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried to do that with the Film Synopsis following the AfD implementation. The admins who were responsible for motioning the AfD of the Film Synopsis article reverted my edits as I made them:
13:51, 9 June 2006 Scm83x m (Reverted edits by Jason Palpatine (talk) to last version by Angr)
11:26, 9 June 2006 Angr (The result of the AFD was to delete the synopsis, not incorporate it back in here)
Given the intense opposition I am facing here, it's not likely to happen. (please check out my User page under the heading A question in response to recent events here)

Question #4: Does the material in this article truly come from the sources, or is it based on the editor's observations of watching the film itself? If so, how should this be cited? I've suggested several times that I would be happy considered a DVD to be a "published source" but that I'd like it to be cited by giving the exact published version of the DVD and identifying incidents in it by, say, number of minutes into the film.

I was unaware of the fact that the DVD would be considered a valid listing. Your proposal is interesting. 'MORE than interesting. If such an undertaking would be allowed I would gladly do it!

Question #5: The big question, to my mind, is whether the article can be given inline references to make it crystal clear which facts come from which sources. I am also worried about how one could quickly check whether anything in the article is close to being a copyright violation. In my opinion there isn't really a bright line between where presenting, organizating, and synthesizing published sources leaves off, and original research/personal opinion begins. I am very troubled that the list of sources was not added until the last minute.


Pasted from my talk page :

The article as it stands references no sources at all, so why didn't you include the full listing of your sources in the article, as required by WP:V? What I mean by secondary sources is outlined in WP:RS, but basically if the article is a film synopsis, then, by definition, it is based on the primary source. The question is then, who is doing the synopsis? If that synopsis is by a wikipedia editor, then it is original research. If the synopsis is done by someone else, then wikipedia could source that as a secondary source, but the article should then discuss the synopsis, but not the film itself. Thus, a synopsis of a film must fall into two categories, either secondary sources has summarized it, and the article reproduces it, which is a problem with copyright, or an editor has analyzed several synopses and summarized them, which is original research. Regards, MartinRe 19:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


The article is a sub-article branched off from the main article. The sources were/are listed in the main article. The branch off was done on account of the main being listed as too big and recommended for split. I thought the source info being there made listing them inappropriate. -- User:Jason Palpatine 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Hope this helps -- Jason Palpatine 23:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservative Underground

Fellow Wikipedians, the article in question was initially called for deletion by User:BenBurch who has a history of initiating edit wars & deletions on conservative pages such as Free Republic & White Rose Society. On January 17,2006 this proposed deletion was closed by User:Johnleemk, and the result of the debate was no consensus; keep. A second deletion debate was initiated on April 14, 2006 by User:Isotope23 and on April 20, 2006it was closed by admin User:(aeropagitica), resulting in a deletion. The Conservative Underground article had been vandalized countless times before it's deletion by the same people who voted for it's deletion. It is pretty obvious that these deletions are political motivated. Articles such as Democratic Underground, Free Republic, Protest Warrior, Vive le Canada, Progressive Bloggers, Blogging Tories, etc... are allowed to remain.--James Bond 00:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted. ad hominem fallacy, even supposing it were true ("BenBurch has a history..."; irrelevancy ("The...article had been vandalized countless times"); and begging the question ("It is pretty obvious..."): lots of rhetorical fallacies, there. About the only undisputedly true bit is "A second deletion debate ...result in a deletion", so let's leave it at that, absent any actual evidence of actual wrongdoing in the process or change in the subject. --Calton | Talk 01:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist. I have no problem with this page being relisted if they will follow the rules in doing so. BenBurch 01:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, as the article makes no claim to notability. Some of the articles mentioned as comparisons should probably go as well (Progressive Bloggers?). When will the consmoderals realize that their blogs, forums and websites are not encyclopedic? -- Kjkolb 03:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and get rid of the non-notable liberal organization/blogger/website articles as well. --tjstrf 05:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. AfDs are non-binding, and a previous decision can be revoked by a new AfD. Johnleemk | Talk 10:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, no evidence of significance. Just zis Guy you know? 12:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted. No assertion of notability was made in the article. It can be recreated if new better content and a legitimate claim of notability is made, as is true with many currently non-notable groups that may grow into notability. NoSeptember 12:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure of the second deletion debate. I find no process problems in that discussion nor do I find any evidence of bias. Rossami (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

08 June 2006

Joseph D. Campbell

This article was nominated for deletion, and was closed by User:9cds (not an admin, although going through RfA at the moment) as 'no consensus'. I think that was a poor call. The five people expressing the view that the article should be deleted made far better arguments - mainly about that annoying little fact that articles should be, you know, verifiable, and even if he was verifiable, he's not notable - than the three who thought it should be kept (including one weak keep, and one that said 'the sources will come organically', which is ridiculous). See the AfD for more details. I would have deleted this, and I recommend overturn the closure, and delete. Proto||type 11:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment The reason I closed as no consensus was because the only arguments I could see against deletion was "not sourced" or "The sources aren't good enough" - since the page already has some sources (even if they couldn't be verified by myself), I couldn't see any reason to delete. -- 9cds 11:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist on AfD I made the point in the AfD discussion that we should probably hold it off, and possibly redo the whole deal because the sources finally came to light only a day or so before the end of the process. Even if the sources are weak (and I never said they weren't), the first deletion votes were made under the assumption that pretty much no sources existed at all, which is unfair (and I'm usually fairly exclusionist regarding things like this). I would not be opposed to deleting it outright, but wouldn't prefer it. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 16:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist It's clear there wasn't much of a discussion on notability. The closing was premature. --Kchase02 T 17:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist and since it was closed no-consensus, this does not require DRV's permission. Septentrionalis 20:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete the concern about lack of notability and verifibility was unaddressed in my view, with nothing backing up notability claims, and limited sources (one of which was an letter to editor) for any possibly verification. No predujuce about re-creation if further sources backing notability claim are found, but also no reason to keep in the meantime for something that may or may not happen. Regards, MartinRe 05:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Church of Reality

(See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Church of reality.) --66.28.20.178 15:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Church of Reality website

The Church of Reality is a religion, based on what is tangible and real. Somehow, for some reason, its article (and even its talk page) was deleted, with little to no apparent reason. This is really no different from deleting an article on any other religion, which is unfair censorship. I'm asking whoever deleted it to either give a truly good reason as to why it should stay deleted, or undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.178.151 (talk • contribs) 06:59 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Heinen's

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Heinen's
  • Strong Overturn, Undelete. A top 100 Ohio business; clearly passes WP:CORP; was already cited on Supermarkets in the United States, therefore clearly notable (and meant to be given a wikipedia page); not to mention has MORE stores in its chain, has a HIGHER sales volume, occupies a LARGER region, and has MORE information supplied than many businesses that have ALREADY been given Misplaced Pages pages: Westborn Market, Woodman's Food Market, Strack and Van Til, Scolari's, Magruder's, Felpausch, and many more. AS CREATOR OF THE ARTICLE, I would also like to comment on my extremely upsetting experience in posting this article. I have already given all of these reasons NUMEROUS times in defense of my article, and I have proven in my previous posts that my article should be granted a Misplaced Pages page. It was speedily deleted without hardly any consideration or supplied reason except that more people had posted DELETE than had posted KEEP - a 1 vote majority in fact (yes 1 vote). NO OTHER REASONING was provided to account for its deletion! I spent a great deal of time describing the business and how it is definately influential and notable. My arguments it seems were not considered at all and were simply left out of the matter. My article was not biased, and it was not created as advertising. PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS ARTICLE as it clearly deserves a Misplaced Pages page. . If the article is undeleted, I WILL add to it. Bluebul1989 06:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In terms of pure numbers (standard disclaimer AfD is not a vote etc), the close was borderline, with 66% or 60% for deletion, depending on whether Bluebul1989's opinion is counted (as a new user who has so far only edited in relation to this article and is the sole editor to do so, the admin can choose to do so or not). That would often be closed as 'no consensus', defaulting to keep, but it is very much within the admin's discretion. However, in this case, I don't think the reasons to delete are that pressing. I don't believe that the article was created as self-promotion - if I had I would certainly endorse deletion. Bluebul claims to be a 16-year-old Ohian on WP:NEW and this is supported by a Google search for his username. Although I find the WP:CORP claim to notability dubious (the top 100 companies in every state of the USA being automatically notable sounds rather Americentric), DRV is not the place to debate that, and the other arguments for it being notable sound reasonable. Therefore, I suggest overturn as a no consensus and undelete without prejudice against a further AfD to gain a clearer consensus in a fortnight or so after Bluebul has improved it further. P.S. Bluebul, you don't need to shout. --Sam Blanning 13:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. A 66% delete vote is insufficient to delete, better to have no consensus'ed it and see what happens from there. THE KING 18:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • AfD is not a vote. 66% can be sufficient to delete if the reasoning to delete is compelling enough. In this case I think the reasoning isn't compelling enough, but this misconception needs to be challenged wherever it appears. --Sam Blanning 19:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn IMO, important enough for a reasonable article to be written. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted AfD is indeed not a vote, so by ONE VOTE doesn't matter, as its to be determined by community consensus. In this case, however, it is 5/2 if we throw out bluebul's and Laximus's comments as being too new at the time. 5 / 7 ≃ 0.714 {\displaystyle 5/7\simeq 0.714} . Aside from the raw numbers, you may want to read Rough consensus on the reasoning behind the supposed lack of counting. Many of the delete users all conceeding WP:CORP as being against it. One person believed in notability, another used a claim that there were already other non-WP:CORP-adhering on the page already, which could've been interpreted as admitting WP:CORP as well. I can see why the article was deleted, even if WP:CORP sets a very high bar. There was really nothing that wrong about the deletion. Sorry. Kevin_b_er 03:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a local supermarket chain. I shop there regularly. But it's not automatically notable for an international encyclopedia. There is not enough to say that will ever let this expand past the stub stage. And until they get a lot bigger or better known, there can't be. Endorse closure as within reasonable administrator discretion. By the way, I am unpersuaded by the argument that we must/should keep this article because we have not yet cleaned out other even less encyclopedic articles. We should be raising standards for the project, not racing to the lowest common denominator. Rossami (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn The people who marked delete did so before reason was provided as to why it was actually notable under WP:CORP and by no reasons were given contrasting the evidence put forth by blubul stating that it passes the second part for notability under WP:CORP (of which it only needs to pass one part). Laximus 05:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Question Can you be more specific about how the company meets WP:CORP? I'm looking at the AfD, and blubul's arguments, and I don't quite see it. Fan1967 05:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment "2. The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices, produced by well-known and independent publications, of important companies" (WP:CORP). According to this independent listing of top Ohio businesses between 2003 and 2004, , Heinen's was ranked within the top 100 both years. Bluebul1989 05:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • That criterion means indices like the Fortune 500. The index cited does not give a sales volume, and the ranking appears to be based solely on number of employees. 2,200 em ployees is a fair-sized chain, but I would question whether it is evidence per WP:CORP. What's needed are things like sales volume, whether publicly traded, nett value of the business, number of stores - objective measures of significance, in other words. A genuinely significant business will have more than a single source stating that it is significant, sop please provide the others. Just zis Guy you know? 07:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Also note that it ranks in the list of the top 100 private companies, most of which are so small they wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the top 100 if they were publicly held. Fan1967 13:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn The regional importance of this organization--given that it is privately owned--signals its importance for inclusion and notability. Irongargoyle 00:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Your comment confuses me. What facts lead you to believe that this business holds "regional importance"? And why would being privately owned increase that importance? As someone living in the region, I can attest that it's not significantly different from any other US grocery store chain. Rossami (talk)
  • Overturn, Undelete. It seems notable enough. TruthbringerToronto 02:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

BB Sinha

For clarity here is the article log.

This article was originally just a thin article that was nothing and was speedily deleted. Later the article was recreated, and I assisted in the overall betterment of the article. Again, the article was proposed for deletion, but on the grounds of a repost. However, Mike Rosoft restored the article stating, "Sufficiently different content from deleted material to warrant a new discussion/vote." The article remained standing and again was nominated for speedy in which I placed a hangon tag, another admin (I don't whom exactly, and I don't want to place names) agreed with the previous decision and stated that it was an entirely new article and deserved to stay up. Today, the article was deleted by Eskog for being a "repost." I am challenging this decision and request for undelete. The article is vastly stronger and signifies notability. Also, the repost decision was overturned before. It doesn't seem logical just to eliminate it for just that. Respectfully, Yanksox 05:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have already restored, as I was the speedying admin. I didn't notice that Mike Rosoft had already rejected the "repost" argument. (ESkog) 05:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Can someone close this, it's been speedily restored. also, drop me a note of the templates for closure on my Talk if you wouldn't mind. I'm sure it's here somewhere blindingly obvious, but I didn't see it... Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Mending Wall

This article was deleted by User:Royboycrashfan without any discussion. As far as I understand the deletion process, this is not wikipedia policy.

I am happy to resolve any copyvio problems. Tomandlu 11:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Restore, tentatively pending an explanation for this from Royboycrashfan—no explanation is obvious at the moment. I do not see what grounds there were for speedy deletion. There may be copyright issues, although I am not certain because the poem dates from 1915, but an article that old should not have been speedied without discussion. -- SCZenz 13:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

07 June 2006

Template:User Not in metric

This longstanding, tongue-in-cheek, satirical userbox was in line with other tongue-in-cheek, satirical user boxes. Administrator Tony Sidaway deleted this page citing its apparently inflammatory content. (See his talk page.) This userbox is clearly humorous and should not have been arbitrarily deleted like this. An example of this userbox is on my talk page. Nova SS 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering that you are the only person who has that userbox included on the userpage, does it really matter? I don't really think it's a T1 candidate, but the content was not really very useful either. I think the thing is OK to leave subst:ed on your userpage. Neutral. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cancer Bats

This article on a band was properly deleted as non-notable at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cancer Bats. However, I'm listing for reconsideration here in the light of subsequent developments that may alter that judgment, namely the release of an album under (what appears to be) a major label. The article's original author also claims the following additional facts (which I have not verified myself):

  • Released a sampler, an EP and an album
  • Album is sold in Sunrise Records and HMV
  • Video recieves rotation on MuchLoud (a show on MuchMusic)
  • Had an interview and played a live show on MTV Canada Live
  • Appeared on The Edge 102.1 (CFNY-FM) and the single was played at least once.
  • Played with bands such as The Bled, Protest The Hero, will play with NOFX and Silverstein summer of '06
  • Signed to same indie label as The Bled and Alexisonfire
  • Has toured across Canada and is already on tour again with destinations from Moncton NB to Vancouver BC

I am not voting at this time, just facilitating. Postdlf 23:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Overturn, undelete. Has anything new been presented? Not...really. The band has recently been featured in Canada's Exclaim! magazine, not small potatoes, as well as a feature on Canadian 106.7 FM. It's important to note that the band met WP:MUSIC guidelines BEFORE the AfD, and that was ignored. The prior meeting of the necessary guideline in the first AfD and further media mentions since then more than mean the deletion should be overturned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Undelete -- the evidence above seems to show sufficient notability. -- The Anome 12:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Strong Overturn, Undelete. The album is out, theyve made more public appearances and the tour scedule has been updated to include a cross country tour with some major bands. I was ignored during the first vote, please dont ignore me now. All claims can be verified on these websites: , , , and . They have met more than 1 of the notability claims. Avenged Evanfold 23:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak undelete playing on MTV Live (Canada) has to have some notability along with some magazine mentions. THe amazon link is not impressive, but ASIN B000FKOZLA is funny. What kind of viewship does MuchLoud/Music get? Our stub is not helpful. Kotepho 01:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cum On Her Face

Very popular porn site I really dont know why was it deleted. Luka Jačov 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong undelete - Luka Jačov 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong undelete - per Luka. --Pockey 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The article was speedied as an A7 (person or organization with no claim of notability). It's actually more of a website than an organization, and although I doubt it meets WP:WEB, that doesn't make it speediable. I don't think we're going to find any good independent reliable sources. Still, why not give it its day on AfD? Undelete and list at AfD. -GTBacchus 21:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • List on AfD if we must, but I really see no need for this article. It's just another porn site, of which there is surely no dearth, and I really can't imagine anybody actually coming to Misplaced Pages for information on it. Just zis Guy you know? 22:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and list on AfD per GTBacchus. Endorse Deletion per Sam Blanning (below) TheJC Contributions 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, no assertion of notability, proper A7. "Recognized worldwide" is, like "good chess player", not an assertion of notability. An assertion of notability is claiming to have won a significant chess tournament or "Best Cumshot Website of 2006" at the World Porn Awards. And don't bother relisting until someone turns up a reliable source to base an article on. --Sam Blanning 22:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak endorse per CSD A3 and WP:NOT a web directory. Did not actually say anything about the site that wouldn't be pretty obvious from the name. Permit recreation (subject to WP:WEB) if something encyclopedic can be written about the subject. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion until someone can evidence notability. per Sam Blanning. Bastique▼ voir 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong endorse per Sam Blanning clearly violates WP:NOT Whispering 00:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Ilmari; the article didn't inform beyond describing the practice that is the website's obvious subject matter. Though there's no reason why this shouldn't just be blandly listed, without elaboration, in a list article of porn sites somewhere. Something can be notable yet insubstantial, and so like the good information scientists we are we should ensure it gets incorporated into the proper place rather than trying to write a separate treatise on it. Postdlf 00:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

AlternC

An extension from Control panel (Web hosting) The administrator Zoe deleted this page on account of advertising, however I'm not affiliated with AlternC nor do I advise/condone its use, I am simply noting the control panel along with a list of many other noteworthy control panels. I am not advertising in any way, I believe it is a misunderstanding.

Manny 17:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • It was written as an ad, whatever your motivation. If you want to discuss what it is, when it was created, who uses it, and can document it, that's fine, I have no problem with a re-creation, but as it stood, all it did was to extoll its features. User:Zoe| 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for the clarification! Manny 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Tiffany Holiday

Short and Good article speedy deleted by User:Drini and User:Golbez, edit summaries were "csd nnbio" and "". There was no vote. Many many results on Google, has an IMDb and AFDb profiles and also pass Misplaced Pages:Notability (erotic actors) for having a recored of around 100 films --Haham hanuka 14:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Somehow, this ended up at page bottom today (June 7); not sure why it's dated earlier, but I have moved it for consideration. Xoloz 15:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Judging by the answers.com link, I think the fact the stub is short, and contains a poorly sourced negative claim, means it should not be restored. Instead, anybody who wishes, can create, a new original article, which clearly explains her notability, and which is well sourced. --Rob 16:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion; I do not see any claim of notability in the article. Removal of potential libel of a possibly non-notable person is a bonus. No prejudice about recreation at this point. - Liberatore(T) 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. As above, no claim of notability (one bit part in a real film, balance is the usual no-budget porn churned out at the rate of several a day by some "studios"). No reliable sources for any of the bio data (IAFD is not, unlike IMDB, a reliable source per WP:RS). Redux: dime-a-dozen porn "star". Take it to Wikiporn. Just zis Guy you know? 19:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Comment on process, not about content, this should be restored immediately as an improper speedy deletion. Holiday appears to be a more than notable enough actress for inclusion, we do not delete articles outright because they contain an unverified or unverifiable claim. Silensor 20:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Up to a point: process is there to guide us, policy is policy, and in the end there is no good reason to take up the community's time with debating articles which are functionally unverifiable. Deleting it does not prevent someone from coming along and creating a real article which makes some credible claim of notability and which is cited from reliable sources. WP:SNOW applies. Just zis Guy you know? 22:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Shane Cubis

This page has been continually deleted, because the initial article was created by the feature of the article himself, Shane Cubis. While the initial article may have been vanity or vandalism, he enlisted a group of his followers to create a real article in Misplaced Pages. His page has since been listed as a protected deleted pages, and his talk page is routinely deleted preventing a fair discussion of the deletion.

Shane Cubis does not fail WP:Bio and thus never really qualified for WP:AfD. Just because the article started as vandalism or vanity, it does not take away from the fact an actual compliant article could be at this entry, Shane Cubis. At the very least there should have been a discussion on the talk page, and not a speedy deletion into Protected deleted pages. JustOneJake 11:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn Shane Cubis is a notable Australian journalist, being a major contributor to an important Australian media group, The Chaser. The Chaser has made itself an important part of Australia's culture, being read by politicians, mainstream journalists and ordinary Australians. Shane's weekly columns attract large amounts of reads and discussion. His work for People magazine, while not being as well known, has attracted large amounts of attention from mainstream Australia. JoshT 220.237.79.202 12:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy-deletion under case A7. The entire contents of the longest version of the article read "Shane Cubis (born 1980) is a writer, originally from Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. Shane's first article was a Teri Weigel porn review in the Tertangala, Wollongong University's student newspaper. Since then he's contributed to a variety of gaming magazines including Pyramid, Knights of the Dinner Table and the Silven Trumpeter. He currently has a weekly column in The Chaser and works for Australia's People Magazine." and one external link. Writers are part of a respected profession but are no more automatically notable than engineers or doctors of equivalent experience or standing. No assertion has been made that this writer is particularly significant or that he does qualify under our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. By the way, the deleted history shows that the only significant contributor to this page was user:Rubikcubis, supporting the assumption that this was an inappropriate autobiography. The user's subsequent edits to other pages do not insprire me to good faith. Rossami (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Rossami's excellent reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse indeed. Syrthiss 17:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, it's clear from Cubis's own website that he was the original author, and he's encouraging people to come here to recreate it and complain. User:Zoe| 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Endorse - per WP:VAIN. --JiFish(/Contrib) 18:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, and recommend that keen editors take the usual steps to moderate the inclusion of the subject's name and its variants in Misplaced Pages. There's is much outrage, followed by subterfuge, at the deletions. -Splash - tk 18:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion with thanks to Rossami for presenting a solid case. Just zis Guy you know? 19:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn: while the original article may be questionable as vanity, there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance and fame in the Australian political journalism / satire sphere that one of his fans should be allowed to create a page with information about him. The defacement of other pages with his name is consistent with the style of humour The_Chaser is famous for in Australia, not an indication that there is any lack of merit in the need for a "Shane Cubis" page on Misplaced Pages. "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is". Malthius 03:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC) User's first edit
    • there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance... Guy, since that's the very issue in question, you're begging the question. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Begging the question for effect though, since it seems that the vandalism or "meat puppetry" is more important here than the actual "issue in question" of whether Shane Cubis is worth of a bio page. Thanks for highlighting that for everyone. Malthius 10:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. No new information, and the old information was unconvincing to begin with. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn While no-one is denying that the original source of the article was Shane himself, that does not necessarily invalidate the merit of the article itself, and was more a function of the humour that has made him popular. Regardless of the American or British-centric knowledge of the original two administrators who deleted the article, their ignorance of the Australian media and in particular the satirical politcal area which is the expertise of the article subject in question does not mean it lacks significance. As an Australian, I guess I might equally wonder why something so incredibly minor and unimportant as a 3 year old racehorse such as Like_Now without even a particularly impressive record demands its own Misplaced Pages page, where a published journalist does not. U.Pseudonopoulos 09:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • User's only edit. User:Zoe| 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry. I was under the impression that this was a logical discussion and the weight of our argument would count for more than how many edits we had made to this website. Is this how all discussions are settled on Misplaced Pages? We simply get out our 'edit counts' and compare them, with the larger number winning? Perhaps we could both get out our wangs and compare those as well? Or do you want to try and actually add some value to the debate? Could you perhaps explain to me why Shane Cubis is less notable than the nag of a racehorse I have linked above? Is it simply because one is American and the other Australian, regardless of species? Are angsty teenagers with a lack of knowledge of other countries really fit to determine what adds to the grand sum of human knowledge? U.Pseudonopoulos 00:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Please see Misplaced Pages:Undeletion_policy#Suffrage. User:Zoe| 01:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Noted, and I can see the idea behind such in some cases, particularly where people are simply putting a vote without reasoning or detailed comment. I still hold that it has no relationship to the validity of the argument presented. "There are no strict rules for this, the admin closing a discussion is expected to use common sense", and in this case the only people voting without significant reasoning are the 'endorsers'. I find it irrelevant to the arguments that I and others have offered whether it is our only edits or not. The arguments should still be treated on the merit of what it presented itself. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • strong overturn Shane Cubis is notable within the fan base of The Chaser. He is a major columnist for the site and well respected author in a variety of other media. His other edits on Wiki have surely not affected his notability or his work as a writer/comedian. Gisellehobbs 10:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong overturn If for no other reason than his fellow journalists Chas_Licciardello, Chris_Taylor and Craig_Reucassel all have their own pages that provide just as much (or little, depending on how one is to view it) information about them. Is there any proof that these other journalists didn't write the articles themselves? Perhaps Shane Cubis is being punished for making a simple mistake - he wrote the article about himself in first person instead of third. Any of his fans would be happy to write the article to prevent it from remaining vanity if that is the main complaint, but he is certainly famous and/or popular enough to warrant an entry. Purpleorb (for clarity sake, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.177.2 (talk • contribs) )
    • This is an excellent point. Are all of these journalists significantly more notable than Cubis? He is also listed near Tim Brunero in The Chaser enterprise article, and the Brunero article has no more content or merit than the original Cubis article. If the Cubis article does not comeback, I purpose some of these other articles be removed for parity in this category. JustOneJake 03:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Rossami. — pd_THOR | 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion CSD A7 -- The Anome 13:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn Yes, Mr. Cubis may have originally written the article as a vanity piece for his article. That does not mean a compliant article could not be written. It is clear many people here are willing to write an article in the confines of Misplaced Pages policy. Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth, as he is drawing support from his article at The Chaser and his Antiwikipedia entry. As it stands now the page is protected deleted. Why not unprotect it and give someone a chance to write a compliant article? 63.225.118.147 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth. Is that a threat? User:Zoe| 20:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Based on the discussions on the forums at his article and the actions members of that forum have taken (silly vandalism to both here and the Wiktionary, I'd say that it's clearly a threat. Metros232 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Are you guys kidding? It’s no threat; it is an assessment of the facts. These people want a real article, and if there is a real article they will have less to complain about. Furthermore, do the actions of people unto Misplaced Pages affect the notability status of Cubis? Most of the discussion here is completely irrelevant to the facts. I am sure the guys at Britannica or Funk and Wagnalls never sat down and talked about their hate mail when deciding to include an entry. This man is at least as noteworthy as some of the other people on Misplaced Pages, and he deserves an article regardless of the actions of himself or others. 63.225.118.147 02:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Sounds notable enough. TruthbringerToronto 20:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Rossami. OhNoitsJamie 00:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion no verifiable notability proof presented. `'mikka (t) 00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Shane is one of only three weekly column writers for The Chaser. The Chaser is a very popular website in Australia, very much similar to The_Onion in terms of content and (local) popularity. It is important to note that, as a columnist, Shane writes articles which are put on the website under his own name. He is not writing anonymously, but offering his opinion under his name. As such, it is expected that people will want to find information about the author, so as to get background to form a view on the validity of his opinion. As such, I feel the author is notable and, as such, an appropriate page on the author should not be prevented from being created. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • keep/endorse deletion Attracting lots of sock puppets filled with meat, see the URL in the history]. People are being instructed how to go here JUST to request this overturned. This guy really is not notable, and the speedy is fine. Kevin_b_er 03:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Rossami. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This discussion doesn't make the Wikipedians look very good. What is the point of spending so much energy to exclude and defend against a bio entry for some guy who obviously has a following? It's not like the page was false, inflamatory, or libelous. If there were no other bio pages for minor notables the argument against allowing this guy would carry some weight, but clearly there are lots of such pages. For example, there are a dozen Chris Taylors, none of whom is particularly notable. 66.245.31.155 02:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Then please do some research and nominate those pages for deletion as well. We are striving for consistency but we must do so by raising the standards of the encyclopedia, not starting a race for the bottom. The fact that other inappropriate articles have not yet been cleaned up can not be a justification to fail to clean up this one. Rossami (talk)

Certainty principle

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle

Proponents say:

  • The certainty principle is a mathematical theorem. The proof is available for everybody.
  • It was officially published in the established peer-reviewed journal. It will not be published second time. The journal was registered in Russia, and this is Russian government who has to know about the journal, not Google.
  • Nobody has objections against scientific content of the papers. (Really no objections.)
  • If the theorem is true, its notability cannot be questioned, because it generalizes (not contradicts!) the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
  • The certainty principle is too young (1 year) to be known as widely as uncertainty principle.
  • The certainty principle is old enough to take it seriously. Links to it were put in WP almost year ago and a great amount of people have checked it, including highly qualified editors of the uncertainty principle.
  • The questoin of "reputability" of the journal is anyway subjective and should be discussed only if some specialists in the subject have objections against the certainty principle.

Opponents say:

  • We are not specialists in the subject, and cannot judge the principle from purely scientific point of view. But we want to protect WP from pseudo-science.
  • Google says that the certainty principle is not widely cited.
  • The journal, where the papers were published, is not "reputable", and can be considered as a self-publication.

What should we do in this situation? The conflict is going to become a war. Hryun 15:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Article exists under both Certainty principle and Certainty Principle in various forms. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle, which deleted this content as original research. I re-deleted this article because although this content was not identical, the original reason for deletion was unchanged. User:Hryun has claimed that the article is published in a Russian journal, but several physicist Wikipedians have looked for signs of this publication (or indeed the existence of the named journal) and found nothing; Hryun refuses to provide further details. You can see discussion of these issues, as well as more threats by User:Hryun, at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics#Certainty principle. -- SCZenz 15:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Taking off my admin hat, and putting on my WikiProject Physics hat, I would like to note that this issue has all the hallmarks of original research. A very pushy series of editors, most of them with very similar editing styles, have been pushing to have this subject mentioned in about 8-10 different physics articles. A discovery of the claimed magnitude would have many, many citations in places that would be very easy to find, and this does not. The only document that can be located by any of the usual methods—which are essentially universal for all physics publications worldwide, is the paper itself on the ArXiv and related servers—which are not peer-reviewed in any way. No publication information is given there. -- SCZenz 15:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • SCZenz, for what reason do you lie here? (1) The Certainty Principle article was created by Slicky. I am not Slicky neither in WP nor in the real life. Ask for user-checking, if you do not believe. I just re-created the article under proper name, Certainty principle. There was no cheating in it. (2) You did not ask for "further details" of the journal, you asked for information that can be seen in the Internet. Hryun 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Please be civil. I don't think you are Slicky, but I do strongly suspect you're editing under a couple of other usernames. I do not believe that there are any reputable physics journals with no information available on the internet, however—Russian journals are tracked in the same places as all the others. -- SCZenz
  • Keep deleted until the concept gets taken up by someone other than the original auther. We'll watch CiteBase. --Pjacobi 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. The AfD clearly labeled this material as original research and despite the requester's allusions no evidence to contradict this determination has been provided. The AfD should stand until citations to appropriate peer-reviewed sources are provided. --Allen3  16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse, keep deleted - Based on the information on hand, this is OR. If this is indeed a valid scientific theory, material will be peer reviewed and can be verified.. There should be no rush to have a wiki article on a subject (re "the material is too new to have been properly circulated" above); its not like we are going anywhere. Syrthiss 16:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure per WP:NOR. As Syrthiss says, we can afford to wait until this is independently sourced. Rossami (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, for reasons above. This does not presently return anything on CiteSeer or citebase. It's important to be sure that authors are not inserting their own, non-peer-reviewed work to Misplaced Pages, or it would quickly become a repository for anything unpublished and unpublishable. There is further the fact that, if this were really what it is claimed to be, that it would probably already have been picked up by some very well known, reputable and reliable publications. At that point, inclusion would be a no-brainer. -Splash - tk 17:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse, keep deleted. As far as I can tell, both the term "Certainty principle" and the concept are original research, as we define it. When the article is published — or even referenced — in a peer-reviewed journal, we can reconsider. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse - per above. Wait for it to be peer-reviewed by someone who knows. --JiFish(/Contrib) 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse. When the work becomes well-known and the author is hailed as the great theorist he claims to be then I'll happily enjoy contributing on a million articles about him and his great work. Until then it goes into the "makes very large claims that nobody in-the-know seems to take seriously" bin. I also don't appreciate "Hyun"'s threats about waging a "war" against Misplaced Pages if he doesn't get his article included. --Fastfission 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Two well-informed editors reviewed this and found it to be WP:OR, no evidence is provided to contradict this conclusion. No citations to reputable peer-reviewed journals, for example. Just zis Guy you know? 20:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion as per Jacobi. --Improv 21:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Mathematical deletion endorsement -- Drini 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion agreeing with everything said above. Hyun, it will only become a war if you make it so and do not accept WP process. You have stated that there is no consensus. I think the above is a very clear consensus. Nobody agrees with you. Please accept this until and if this principle is widely accepted and discussed in many reputable places. If this is as important as the claims made for it, it would have been discussed by now in "Nature", Scientific American", "New Scientist" and so on, along with references in "Reviews of Modern Physics" and similar journals. This is not yet WP material and may never be. --Bduke 02:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Are all of us who endorse this deletion going to receive the Uncertain Elephant Award as those of us who supported the original deletion, or indeed were in any way involved with it, did? --Bduke 04:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Bduke. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

06 June 2006

Big Brother 7 chronology

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Big Brother 7 Chronology

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

  • Overturn: At least have the page there until the series is over and the page can be condensed. --JDemail 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Why was the page deleted? Celestianpower says at the top of the page that the result of the debate was deleted. The results were: 6 for "delete"; 11 for "keep"; 1 for "weak keep" and 1 for "strong delete"!!! I think it's pretty obvious that more people want to keep the page than delete it!! Ellisjm 16:36 UTC 6 June 06
  • Endorse deletion. People who wanted the article deleted seem to have more grounds than those who wanted the article kept. — FireFox • 16:44, 06 June '06
  • Endorse deletion per FireFox. -- 9cds 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. Reasons given for deletion were in line with WP policies and guidelines; reasons given for keep were mostly "But I want to keep it" variety. Process was followed, deletion is valid. KillerChihuahua 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn for violation of process. I would have voted "delete", as this does look like non-notable TV cruft, but the result of the debate was no consensus. The keep voters may have been uninformed, but Misplaced Pages:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators allows only disregarding bad faith votes when establishing consensus, and few such are apparent here. I know of no policy that allows the closing administrator to determine consensus on the basis of which side they agree with. Sandstein 17:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The guidelines say that for example comments made in bad faith may be ignored. In general, the guidelines say admins should use their common sense to determine if a rough consensus exists and should try to remain as objective as possible — they don't provide strict rules for doing this, since no such rule can exists. (Anyway, it's not a "vote".) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and close as no consensus. Neither side had arguments that were all that compelling, and closer was not at all clear as to his/her rationale for the decision. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse- this was a reasonable decision. Possibly the DRV could have been avoided tho, if the closer had given more reasoning about why they closed the way they did. Friday (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, a level of detail far in excess of anything which could possibly be justified by any encyclopaedic purpose. BB7 is more than adequately covered in the main article. This is a fan blog and belongs on a fan site: it is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information.. Just zis Guy you know? 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: am I correcting in thinking that people think this article is necessary so that at the end of the show it can be reduced into something encyclopedic? That seems to be what was being said at the AfD, but I just want to verify that before making a decision. Metros232 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Endorse and keep deleted - Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. The closer based his decision of the strengh of the arguments, not the amount. I agree with User:Friday that the closer should have stated this more clearly. --JiFish(/Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn the result of the discussion was keep and not by a small margin. I completely agree with Ellisjm that the article was wrongly deleted.

-- JAB 20:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn and Undelete for being out-of-process. --Rob 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak endorse, closure seems to have been within acceptable bounds of discretion. Most of the arguments provided by either side in the debate were rather weak, but some of the arguments for deletion were slightly less weak that the arguments against it. I'm quite willing, however, to userfy the deleted content upon request (a possibility some of the participants in the original debate appear to have been unaware of). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It just makes more sense to have the page in the main Misplaced Pages area while it exists, because it still has the information that many people may find useful. If that ends up being the only other option, then it may end up happening. But I'm sure you can see what I'm trying to say. --JDemail 23:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy somewhere by all means but keep deleted per above. Metamagician3000 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist. I would rather delete this article but the discussion was at most a "no consensus", not a "delete". --Metropolitan90 02:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. AfD is not a vote, Misplaced Pages is not a free web host for TV blogs, no-one even attempted to argue that this information belonged in an encyclopaedia, process was correctly followed. If it doesn't belong on the main BB7 page then it doesn't belong anywhere. --Sam Blanning 09:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The things is, that's exactly the point - people do think it belongs on the main article page. But the people that think it belongs there don't want it to be anywhere else. They don't care about how big the main article could become with that information on it. --JDemail 11:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion--cj | talk 09:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure/deletion, administrator has the right—nay, the obligation—to evaluate the merit of the arguments in terms of the goal of the project. When such a decision is not obvious, however, it should be explained in detail. -- SCZenz 12:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per KillerChihuahua. What's the point in having an article just for it to be deleted in a few weeks time (i.e. 'keep until the end of the series'). This does not belong on Misplaced Pages. It is fancruft of the worst sort. The JPS 15:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist Closing admin pretty much ignored the entire AfD process, sending the message to everyone that he valued only his own input on the subject. That's not how AfD is supposed to work. --Hyperbole 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. A severely inadequate closure method, but the right decision nevertheless. This was plainly not encyclopedia material, being essentially a diary of some people traipsing around a building for a few weeks. -Splash - tk 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure as within reasonable admin discretion. However, close decisions like this deserve more than just "The decision was delete" in the closure of the discussion. This argument could largely have been avoided if the closing admin had taken the time to fully lay out his/her reasoning. Rossami (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - As the closing admin on this AfD, I apologise for any extra trouble this has caused. Clearly I should have put forward my reasoning in the summary/the decision field: "When closing this AfD, despite there being more "keep" votes than "delete", the strength of arguments from the delete camp seems much stronger. WP:NOT is policy and this seems a clear case of 'Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information', as many voters pointed out. Also, AfD is not a vote: vote counts aren't everything". Once again, I apologise and will learn for next time. Regards, — Celestianpower 18:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion - Strength of arguments needs to be balanced with number of arguers, and it seems reasonable to disregard input that lacks any reasoning. --Improv 04:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Remain Deleted The AfD itself was filled with people who were rabid fans on the show, with all their arguements being all the minute details(read: minor, incidental things) be left off of the television show's main page. Pages were being used to hold any info about show and daily summaries like it were a fan page. That's not what wikipedia is about. Kevin_b_er 04:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - Celestianpower made a completely correct decision. Proto||type 13:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: There seems to be a misunderstanding that WP:NOT requires deletion as the universal solution to all problems it lists. Many things wikipedia is not, are handled by editing, not deletion. Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy says: "Article needs a lot of improvement" is explicitly not a reason for deletion, but should be cleaned up. Now, once cleaned up (which in this case, could mean radical shrinkage) policy says that if there's not much left ("Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article") it should be handled by merging/redirecting. Nobody here has given an explanation as to why the article *must* be deleted. That is what problem can only be solved via deletion, as opposed to a merge/redirect (with a potential for de-merge if/when sufficient quantity/quality content exists). --Rob 07:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    It had already been "merged". . —Celestianpower 13:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:WikiPâques.png

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


Recently concluded

2006 June

  1. Okashina_Okashi - Decision of the original closer to relist at AfD is endorsed. 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  2. Dismal's Paradox - Relisted at AfD. 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  3. User:SPUI/jajaja - Nomination withdrawn. 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  4. List of political leaders widely regarded as totalitarian - Request for information answered. 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  5. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed. 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  6. Cultural references in Pokémon - Deletion endorsed. 16:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  7. Fluffy (The Lion King) - Deletion endorsed. 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  8. Kelly Roberti - Copyright issue resolved, restored. 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  9. Image:Pierre Janssen.jpg - Commons image, action impossible here. 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  10. Neanderthal theory of autism - Deletion endorsed. 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  11. Be bold, Be Bold - Overturn RfD and revert to WP:BOLD. 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  12. Jeff Lindsay - Deletion endorsed. 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  13. "State Debate Associations" - Deletion endorsed. 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  14. How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 - Deletion endorsed. 17:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  15. Kinston Indians - Deletion endorsed. 17:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  16. Misplaced Pages:SCAG - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  17. Image:Nuvola 64 apps important.png - undeletion impossible; deleted prior to 16 June 2006. 13:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  18. Sick Nick Mondo - Deletion endorsed for now, pending AfD outcome for related Nick Mondo; should that survive, this is a suitable redirect. 18:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
    Nick Mondo having survived AfD, this is restored as a redirect. 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. True Torah Jews - Deletion endorsed. 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  20. UCIP - Deletion endorsed. 18:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  21. Mending Wall - Keep endorsed. 11:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  22. Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) - Deletion endorsed. 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  23. TheSmartMarks.com - Deletion endorsed. 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  24. Dirt pudding - Transwiki and deletion endorsed. 17:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  25. Kirill Makharinsky - Deletion endorsed. 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  26. Armando Lloréns-Sar - History restored, maintained as redirect; merge issues are an editorial concern for article's talk page. 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  27. Hollywood Undead - Deletion endorsed. 17:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  28. Trexy - Closing administrator agreed to relist AFD. 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  29. Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak - No consensus closure endorsed. 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  30. Knox (animator) - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  31. Lightsaber combat - Keep closure endorsed. 18:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  32. Stone Trek - Deletion closure endorsed. 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  33. File:944 h.jpg - DRV closed, image in Commons jurisdiction. 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  34. Sadullah Khan - Undeleted, relisted. 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  35. Atromitos - Undeleted. 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  36. Walk To Emmaus - Deletion endorsed. 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  37. Misplaced Pages:Conservative notice board. Kept deleted. Strong endorsement. 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Review.
  38. Lost: The Journey - Relisted. 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  39. User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes and Template:User Gangster - Undeleted. 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  40. The Lost Boys (demogroup) - Relist. 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  41. Second War (Harry Potter) - Deletion endorsed. 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  42. IRCDig - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  43. Saryn Hooks - Undeleted and relisted at AfD. 17:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  44. Template:Major_programming_languages - template content restored 06:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) review
  45. Strategic Policy Consulting - Deletion endorsed. 16:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  46. Actuarial Outpost - Kept kept, mistaken nomination. 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  47. Image:WikiPâques.png - Uploaded to Commons, as suggested. 16:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  48. The Esplanade Mall - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 16:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  49. Sydney Ling - AfD result of "no consensus" endorsed. 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  50. Siberian language - Deletion endorsed. 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  51. Burlington Center Mall - Challenge of no consensus afd withdrawn. 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  52. Erik Möller - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  53. theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh - Deletions endorsed. 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  54. Misplaced Pages:OURS - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  55. 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) - Deletion endorsed. 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  56. Conservative Underground - Deletion endorsed. 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  57. Boring Business Systems - AfD reopened by acclamation. 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  58. Joseph D. Campbell - Previous AfD overturned, to be relisted at AfD. 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  59. Church of Reality - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  60. Heinen's - Result reversed by consensus, AfD now closed as "no consensus". 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  61. BB Sinha - Restored, listed at AfD. 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (deleted at AfD 20:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)) Review
  62. Mending Wall - Restored, listed at AfD, closed as keep, brought here again (above). 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  63. Cancer Bats - Restored, to be resubmitted to AfD in light of new evidence. 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  64. Cum On Her Face - Deletion endorsed. 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  65. AlternC - Deletion endorsed. 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  66. Tiffany Holiday - Deletion endorsed. 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  67. Shane Cubis - Deletion endorsed unanimously (excepting discounted anons/newbies.) 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  68. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  69. Big Brother 7 chronology - Deletion endorsed. Will userfy upon request. 15:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  70. Wikimedia Meta-Wiki - action reverted by the closer. AFD reopened. 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  71. The Adventures of Dr. McNinja - Consensus to permit userpage draft as new recreation, will be submitted to AfD. 17:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  72. Cory kennedy - Deletion endorsed. 17:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  73. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics - Kept deleted unanimously. 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  74. Yar - Deletion endorsed without prejudice to unrelated redirect now at title. 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  75. List of midnight movies - Content restored for merge and redirect. 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  76. AK Productions - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  77. FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together - Undeleted and sent to AfD. 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  78. List of tongue-twisters - Deletion endorsed in light of new Wikiquote transwiki. 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  79. User:Raphael1/Wikiethics - Deletion endorsed. 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  80. Roosters1908, Sydneyroosters1909, and Sydneyroosters1910 - Undeleted to be AfD'ed in light of new evidence. 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  81. National Hockey Leaque player lists - Restored speedily and AFD reopened. 08:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  82. User:AKMask/log - Restored (by a narrow margin) to be sent to MfD. 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  83. Male Unbifurcated Garment - Deletion endorsed (again -- Second DRV in two weeks.) 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  84. Penis banding - Deletion endorsed. 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  85. Template:User no notability - Deletion narrowly endorsed. (date unavailable, deletion review never archived) Permalink
  86. Syed Ahmed - deletion endorsed, redirected to The Apprentice (UK series 2) 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  87. Ho Shin Do - deletion endorsed without prejudice 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
  88. Israel News Agency - article content restored 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
  89. Delaware County Intermediate Unit - Deletion closure endorsed. 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  90. Steve Bellone - Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  91. Team NoA - Previous version restored, survived AfD as no consensus. 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  92. Springfield M21 - Restored as redirect with history. 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  93. The drips - Speedy deletion contested, overturned; sent to AfD. 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  94. Template:Voting icons - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  95. Ali Zafar - New NPOV recreation permitted. 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  96. Barbara Bauer, The Literary Agency Group and others - Bauer undeleted and kept at AfD; others kept deleted. 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  97. Scienter - deletion overturned. 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  98. Auto repair shop - original speedy deletion endorsed, without prejudice to now-existing distinct redirect at this title. 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  99. Misplaced Pages v search engines - deletion endorsed unanimously. 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  100. Pat Price - deletion overturned unanimously, no need to relist. 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  101. Talk:Brian Peppers - kept deleted. 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  102. The Juggernaut Bitch - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  103. South Coast League - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  104. Other side of the pillow - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  105. Joel Leyden - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  106. Sharting - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  107. User:Disavian/Userboxes/Green Energy - deletion endorsed, narrowly 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  108. Left-wing terrorism - article history restored 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  109. Stella Maris College Scout Group - deletion endorsed 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  110. List of Michael Savage neologisms - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  111. Superhorse - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  112. Exicornt - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  113. Image:Lock-icon.jpg - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  114. College Confidential - article content restored 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  115. Tim Dingle - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  116. Abstract People - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  117. Christian views of Hanukkah - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  118. Claught of a bird dairy products - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  119. LIP6 - continue from rewritten version 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  120. Hulk 2 - redirected to Hulk (film) for now 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  121. Xombie - article content restored 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  122. Possible wars between liberal democracies speedy-deletion undone by deleting admin. listed to AFD. 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  123. Gary Howell deletion endorsed. 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  124. New Sincerity - deletion endorsed. 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  125. Successful Praying - speedy deletion as copyvio endorsed. 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  126. Videohypertransference - user copy granted. deletion from articlespace endorsed. 20:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  127. Oz Categories 8 endorse, 5 overturn, deletion endorsed. 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Review

Userbox discussions

Archives

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

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

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

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

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Content review

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.

  • none currently listed

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/History only undeletion

Decisions to be reviewed

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/Vfu mechanics

10 June 2006

Boring Business Systems

This was closed on June 8 as 'no consensus'. The discussion is here. There were 5 delete votes and 5 keep votes. The decision not to delete needs review, and a closer look at four of the five users who cast "keep" votes. FunkyChicken!, UncleFloyd, ConeyCyclone, and Nigel Wick appear to possibly be the same person using many different accounts. See the history of those usernames on past AfDs, especially the recent WWAC-TV that was deleted as a hoax. The article should either be relisted for further consensus, or deleted. 70.108.82.120 16:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The fifth keep vote from Nertz may be the same person too since it is a recently created account, shows the same fondness for exclamation points! as the other four, and expressed knowledge of the recent Jersey Shore Communciations/WWAC-TV hoax. 70.108.82.120 16:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Interesting. I smell socks as follows:
    • Nigel_Wick (talk · contribs) began editing a matter of hours prior to his comment in the AfD, which was his first such comment. Such participation would typically be given a light weight anyway, the following circumstantials notwithstanding;
    • ConeyCyclone (talk · contribs), UncleFloyd (talk · contribs) and FunkyChicken! (talk · contribs) show almost exactly the same gaps in editing. They all ceased editing in July (August for FunkyChicken!) of 2005, and only resumed in February 2006 — all on the 20th or 22nd. All three have a further near-simultaneous gap from that burst in February to the beginning of this month, 1/2 June, a matter of days before the AfD, when all again began editing at nearly the same time. All visited the AfD within their first few edits. I conclude that these are socks of one another, and that they should be dismissed. If people concur, I would also suggest indefinite blocks given their usage.
    • Nertz (talk · contribs) was an account created at exactly the same time as the three above resumed editing — on 2nd June, and visited the AfD in short order. Just about the same shortness of order as the other three. As with Nigel Wick, this would usually lighten his weight considerably, but I strongly suspect this to be a further sockpuppet.
    • Punt! (talk · contribs) is the creator of the article. This account, coincidentally, was also created on 2nd June, the same day it wrote the article, and does indeed share a penchant for exclamation marks with several of the others. I suspect a further sockpuppet.
  • I would therefore suggest that all of these account be indefinitely blocked (they are not benign socks) and the puppet master can email an admin requesting his/her chosen one be unblocked. As to the deletion review, the article itself is borderline as is the company. It would be entirely reasonable to overturn the closure and delete. But I think, given the disruption the debate experienced, that overturn and relist is better. -Splash - tk 03:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Major_programming_languages

I did not see the TfD discussion until after someone acted on it to remove the template from an article I watch. Looking through the discussion, it appears that the discussion had 11 delete votes, and 6 keep votes (FWIW, I would have voted "keep" if I had noticed it). It doesn't seem like deletion on a bare majority is the right closing action (no consensus would be more fitting). As far as I can see, all the votes on both sides were cast in good faith, by established editors, and accompanied by reasonable statements of reasons. So the conduct of the discussion seems eminently reasonable... it just doesn't seem to have been closed correctly. LotLE×talk 20:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Erik Möller

Was inappropriately speedied as recreation, which it wasn't. The originally AfD'd article (Erik Moeller) didn't mention that he was a published author, and the AfD was based on the idea that he's non-notable because the article just mentioned his temporary Wikimedia post. Thus the second article should go through AfD again. Margana 19:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

there are also two previous versions of Erik Möller that have been deleted previously, the first was a redirect and the second was very short. -- Kim van der Linde 19:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
There are about 4,000 copies of my book. It's a niche publication about wikis, weblogs and open source software. I don't think having written a single book with such a small run makes me a notable person.--Eloquence* 19:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh

Despite establishing the relevance of theSMSzone.com and its creator as a pioneer of SMS spoofing, the article was deleted without, in my opinion, due consideration of the arguments presented. Phanatical 08:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Undelete, Relist - I strongly object to the deletion. The article was deleted without taking into account the arguments posed in objection to the original deletion request. I profoundly believe the article deserves a place in our community as there are severe criminal impacts 'spoofed sms' pose to society. theSMSzone.com is also mentioned in the wiki entry for sms under Criminal Impact further increasing its notability. Ahmedsays 12:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • user's third edit to Misplaced Pages
    • Reminder: Deletion review is not the place to simply continue a closed AfD. It's not "Articles for Deletion, Round 2". Comment on only whether the discussion was concluded correctly. Don't rehash the same points that you have already mentioned in the AfD. Kimchi.sg 13:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's examine each "keep" argument from the AfD in detail:
    1. over 48000 relevant backlinks to theSMSzone can be found with the terms "theSMSzone.com" - blatant untruth, clicking on the provided link shows only "about 22" backlinks, and if you click to page 2, only 11 of these are unique.
    2. seems like this website pioneered SMS spoofing hence is a valuable asset to the WIKI community - no sources provided for this claim either within the AfD (and I daresay, in the article itself), therefore unverifiable.
    3. theSMSzone.com was the first website in the world that allowed users to define a "From" number. - yet another unsourced nugget.
    4. I see no reason why this entry should be deleted. Please use the keywords "spoofed sms" in google for clear evidence on the impact this startup had on text messaging. - seems this editor has not heard of Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines for websites. And a search for spoofed SMS theSMSzone shows 486 hits, none of which are to reliable sources. Only 42 of these are unique.
    5. MSN and Yahoo print a totally different picture - thousands of results. Doesnt look like 'corporate' spam to me. - to this editor it may not, to the rest of us, it does. The top hit on the MSN search is a PRweb press release, and the top Yahoo! search result is the site itself. Again not a good omen, no WP:WEB criteria are satisfied.
    6. Lastly, SMS spoofing is also listed as having a criminal impact on society in the wiki entry for SMS with the 'sms zone' pinpointed as the cause. - Misplaced Pages articles may not use other Misplaced Pages articles as sources, so if this one had to depend on the SMS article to live, then it really shouldn't have survived AfD.
    In summary, the closing admin was right to discount the weakly-reasoned "keep" votes, which made no mention of how the website or its founder satisfy WP:WEB and WP:BIO respectively. Consensus was correctly determined, with disregard to sheer number of votes. Keep deleted, no new information has surfaced to justify undeletion. (Link to Google cache version of the article: ) Kimchi.sg 13:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Kimchi. Postdlf 13:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep deleted per Kimchi's research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure as within administrator discretion. I note that a number of the participants in the deletion discussion have suspiciously short contribution histories. However I'll also note that a more detailed explanation by the closer would have been appropriate in this case. Rossami (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:OURS

This page was speedy-deleted out of process. It was nominated at MfD, then deleted by Sceptre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with edit sum CSD G4. (This is the criterion that refers to recreated material but there is no previously-deleted version.) Sceptre then closed the MfD with the notation The result of the debate was speedy delete, G5. Rgulerdem had created the idea and theres about half-a-dozen threads on the mailing list by Rg about WP:OURS, Raphael is just acting through proxy. G5 is the criterion that refers to pages created by banned users.

I have three distinct and independent objections to this deletion:

1) The nomination was made at MfD and therefore the page in question was not eligible for speedy. No matter what, we do not wish that admins ignore or bypass community consensus. The nomination was not allowed to stand for even a single day before this admin took pre-emptive action. At this point 2 users have asked the page be kept, 2 that it be deleted, and 1 has made a comment that appears to question the wisdom of deletion.

2) Neither speedy criterion applies to this page. It does not prima facie appear to be a re-creation; therefore it fails G4. It was not created by a banned user operating under a sock; it was created by another editor, one in good standing. It is irrelevant whether the content was inspired by or even written originally by the banned user; the page was not so written. We are not in a position to ban all the words that have been written by people we don't like. The actual page creator, Raphael1 (talk · contribs), stated that he did not simply copy the banned user's words from the mailing list; but even if so, that would fail to invoke G5.

3) I object strongly to admin control of the policy-making process. Adminship is not a party favor or membership in the executive club; admins are to implement policy, not to control it. Policy is the right and responsibility of every editor. Once a proposal has been made, it ought never be subject to deletion by the whim of a single admin. The page in question may be wise or unwise but we all have a right to debate it.

John Reid 05:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Relist per nom. Posts on a mailing list do not count as "creation" of a page - only its presence on Misplaced Pages servers count. Kimchi.sg 05:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. We've been through this. It's not worth having. NSLE (T+C) at 05:23 UTC (2006-06-10)
  • Relist, though Rapheal1 is anything but a user in good standing, judging by the number of disputes he's involved in. --tjstrf 05:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. This is a proposal for a system of admin - user relations proposed by a banned user, copied from the mailing list but with some parts missing (which may violate GFDL). The basic intent its to prevent admins from blocking POV pushers. The original draft from User:Rgulerdem stated in the last draft I saw on the list that we should abide by well-established policies and guidelines such as Misplaced Pages:Wikiethics - this was comprehensively rejected as an attempt to endorse censorship. Both Resid Gulerdem and Raphael Wegmann are keen to override the consensus on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy by removing or not displaying the images, I find it hard to see this as anything other than an attempt to introduce policy to allow them to override consensus and evade admin attention. The policy as written stands is likely to attract every POV pusher and problem editor; it is instruction creep and it is neither necessary nor welcome. Oh, and it's the work of a banned user while banned. Just zis Guy you know? 12:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, relist. The merits of this proposal a) do not exist, but b) are not substantive to here. At the moment, there was no process followed regarding this deletion, and it should run its course and be soundly rejected on its merits. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Divisive nonsense from a banned user. NoSeptember 13:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, a typo in the deletion summary isn't a reason to undelete a page. --Rory096 19:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist. I see no compelling reason for bypassing process in this case. --Ashenai 19:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I am disturbed by the process allegations on both sides of this debate. On balance, I do not think that a clear case can be made that this met any of the deliberately narrow criteria for speedy-deletion. Overturn speedy-deletion and reopen the deletion discussion (where, by the way, I am inclined to argue to keep the page - failed policy pages are tagged with {{rejected}} but kept so we can learn from them in the future). Rossami (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)

The original request for deletion review has been refactored due to length, for clarity, and to remove gaudy formatting. It can be viewed in its entirety here. Kimchi.sg 02:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Fellow Wikipedians, the article in question was Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis). There are plenty of materials out there already published that cover and make mention of the various facts I have laid out here. My opinion was what I believed you wanted and I gave it. For sources:

  1. Kubrick's "2001" by Leonard F. Wheat
  2. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker
  3. The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stephanie Schwam (Editor), Jay Cocks (Introduction)
  4. Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter (Foreword by Arthur C. Clarke)
  5. 2001 Filming the Future by Piers Bizony
  6. The Making of Kubrick's 2001 by Jerome Agel (its almost a bible to the film)
  7. the souvener progam to the movie
  8. the jewel of my collection, the April 1968 issue of LIFE magazine with its first pictorial preview of the film from beginning to end. It even showed the Star Child!
  9. and of course, Arthur C. Clarke's novels of 2001 and 2010

And in the end, Angr listed the film synopsis for deletion on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis). I chose to wait until the last day to cast my actual vote (though I did inset a comment or two). The final tally was Keep - 7 votes 47%, Delete - 4 votes 27%, Merge - 4 votes 27%

Only 4 out 15 people voted to DELETE the article. An equal number wanted the article merged (i.e. unsplit) with the original main article. But the majority voted TO KEEP THE ARTICLE! Administrator fuddlemark went against the majority in the discussion and declared “The result of the debate was delete.” This goes against any possible concept of fair play or policy that I can think of. The majority says ”KEEP” and this guy proclaims the result of the debate was delete?

I contest this action – it can not be allowed to stand. These people have spit into the faces of the various members of the Misplaced Pages community and defied the final decision. If everyone had come on and said Delete, I would have no problem with this. But the majority voted to Keep the article. The action of deleting the article is therefore a morally and ethically wrong action that must not be allowed to stand. The majority at the time said that the article should not have been deleted. On that basis, I ask for the action to be reversed. -- User:Jason Palpatine 02:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Relist. I'd like to see more discussion of the sources used to write the synopsis, and whether detailed description is a clear copyvio. The original AfD looks more like a no consensus to me (yes, I know, it's "not a vote".) I'm not sure whether to count the "merge" votes as keep votes ("keep the content") or delete votes ("delete the page"), but that's a secondary issue. Deltabeignet 05:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment. It was originally deleted as being original research, if you fixed that it should be fine. Also, might I remind you that AfD is not technically a vote. Personally, I would suggest rewriting the article in a substantially different manner, and if it gets deleted AGAIN, bringing it here. --tjstrf 05:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion (disclaimer - argued for delete in afd). The closing admin outlined his reasoning for coming to deletion as based on the arguements given, and not simple numbers, which is exactly what is supposed to happen. Afd is not a vote, and is based on weight of arguements, not weight of numbers. Regards, MartinRe 05:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. What is the main article for, if not a synopsis of the film? Work on that article instead. Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Regretfully endorse deletion. The article actually was rather well-done, and I do hope that this content survives elsewhere, but the level of detail makes this feel out of place on an encyclopedia, and similarly may make us vulnerable to claims of copyvio. A brief synopsis has its place on the article's entry -- a detailed separate-page synopsis does not have a place here -- when the synopsis is close to enough to recreate the film, something's not right here. I believe the decision was correct, and as for how it was reached, it's not unusual for people closing VfD to analyse the arguments as well as weigh the numbers. It's a judgement call. JasonP, if you want my help to find a better home than Misplaced Pages for this content (which you've put some time into, I notice), drop me a note on my talk page, and we'll figure something out. --Improv 14:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The big question, to my mind, is whether the article can be given inline references to make it crystal clear which facts come from which sources. I am also worried about how one could quickly check whether anything in the article is close to being a copyright violation. In my opinion there isn't really a bright line between where presenting, organizating, and synthesizing published sources leaves off, and original research/personal opinion begins. I am very troubled that the list of sources was not added until the last minute.
I'd like to ask User:Jason Palpatine these questons:
  • Are the books he cites physically in his possession?
  • If I had read and absorbed half a dozen books and then wrote an article this long from my personal knowledge, I estimate that it would take me many hours to locate the source in each book that justifies the major items in the essay. (And in the process I would expect to find that my memory had betrayed me several times). Is User:Jason Palpatine prepared to do this?
  • Does the material in this article truly come from the sources, or is it based on the editor's observations of watching the film itself? If so, how should this be cited? I've suggested several times that I would be happy considered a DVD to be a "published source" but that I'd like it to be cited by giving the exact published version of the DVD and identifying incidents in it by, say, number of minutes into the film.
If Jason Palpatine is prepared to rewrite the article in such a way that it is crystal clear that it is not his personal recollection from having watched the movie, is truly based on published sources, and does not involve more than fair use of published sources, I would vote to relist. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)



In reply from User:Jason Palpatine

A lot has been said before elsewhere. In reply to the points/questions raised above:

Question #1: Are the books User:Jason Palpatine cites physically in his possession?

  1. Kubrick's "2001" by Leonard F. Wheat -- is physically in my possession.
  2. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker -- Library copy (since returned)
  3. The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stephanie Schwam (Editor), Jay Cocks (Introduction) -- is physically in my possession.
  4. Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter (Foreword by Arthur C. Clarke) -- Library copy (since returned)
  5. 2001 Filming the Future by Piers Bizony -- is physically in my possession.
  6. The Making of Kubrick's 2001 by Jerome Agel (its almost a bible to the film) -- is physically in my possession.
  7. the souvenir program to the movie -- is physically in my possession.
  8. the jewel of my collection, the April 1968 issue of LIFE magazine with its first pictorial preview of the film from beginning to end. It even showed the Star Child! -- is (as the comment indicates) physically in my possession.
  9. and of course, Arthur C. Clarke's novels of 2001 and 2010 -- both are physically in my possession and read more than once.
    • In response to this question, I have ordered Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker and Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter today through www.amazon.com. Delivery estimate: June 19, 2006 - June 21, 2006

Question #2: If I had read and absorbed half a dozen books and then wrote an article this long from my personal knowledge, I estimate that it would take me many hours to locate the source in each book that justifies the major items in the essay. (And in the process I would expect to find that my memory had betrayed me several times). Is User:Jason Palpatine prepared to do this?

    • Utilizing copyrighted materials is not allowed here. I am required to use my own words regardless of source material. As I understand things here, except for a few quotations (which are in the article) direct copyright material inclusion is not allowed. I must use my own words. It is these two policies that are being used in conflict to support the outlandish claim that the article is original research.
    • I have noted before that I do not understand how to do citations in an article. I've been to the instructions page and it is beyond my understanding.
    • How much of references do I need to cite? A sentence-by-sentence referencing is just too much IMHO. Also, when claims were made of WP:OR, no justification other than the accusation itself was offered. There is nothing to prevent anyone here from looking up and checking the references listed.. I am willing to commit some time to it. However, I am not an administrator and have other considerations such as my job to consider.


Question #3: If Jason Palpatine is prepared to rewrite the article in such a way that it is crystal clear that it is not his personal recollection from having watched the movie, is truly based on published sources, and does not involve more than fair use of published sources, I would vote to relist. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

In May, the following tags were applied to the main article:

{{cleanupdate}}
{{split}}
According to User:Scm83x: ‘’”(readd {{splitlong}} , 111kb is huge... something has to be moved to a new article... perhaps the plot summary should be cut down...”’’
I branched that article off of the main article in response to this. It was the first part of the article to be split. A simplified synopsis was left in the main with
Main article: 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) .
In the main article.
If you check the history of the main article, much of the lengthy detailed synopsis that would become the article we are discussing here was already in place in the primary article before I entered the picture. I took concentrated interest in the article beginning with my edit of 20:15, 18 April 2006. Please look at the prior version of the primary article In other words, that ‘’original’’ article material was produced by other editors here.
The following editors all contributed to the article in the month ‘’before’’ I took a serious interest:
User:128.95.15.78, User:134.114.59.41, User:141.154.59.190, User:200.207.16.222, User:203.217.64.73, User:207.208.157.183, User:216.55.222.221, User:63.41.12.17, User:64.93.158.158, User:65.174.176.123, User:65.54.97.194, User:67.81.189.88, User:68.14.154.242, User:69.143.172.3, User:70.18.71.105, User:70.231.235.251, User:71.113.185.129, User:71.242.131.195, User:72.144.136.77, User:72.40.90.163, User:72.56.157.31, User:80.200.209.231, User:Allemannster, User:Ashmoo, User:Bwileyr m, User:CmdrObot, User:Comics, User:DanielLC, User:DavidH, User:Dayv, User:Deltabeignet, User:Duncancumming, User:Dysprosia, User:FunkyFly, User:Hetar, User:JRawle, User:Knife Knut, User:Larry V, User:LordofHavoc, User:Lottoextra, User:Lysowski, User:MarnetteD, User:MikeBriggs, User:Modemac, User:MotionRotaryTOAD, User:Pearle, User:Pegship, User:PurpleHaze, User:RedNovember, User:Riddle, User:RussBot, User:Seminumerical, User:Simninja, User:The Anome, User:The Singing Badger, User:Thefourdotelipsis, User:WAS
This was the work of many people, not just me. My primary intesnt was a major mistake which was over time corrected by other admins -- the inclusion of way too many pictures from the film. This matter was dealt with -- the number images was drastically reduced to what should have been considered an acceptable amount. However, some admins were not satified and cut back too much. I do not mind editing, but I absolutely oppose butchery and sterility. 2001 is a heavily visually structured event (check out the TMA-1 image in the Dialouge section of the main article). I considered more than the usual number of images in Wik policy to be necessary for the synopsis section/article to do justice to the film. The only answer I got was
"There is no such thing as too little when it comes to fair use. That is all. "
The sizing is also quoted. With the destruction of the article and its talk page, I can not cite the identity of the admin you posted the remark. I only know that it was not any of the admins who have posted here.

Question #4: What is the main article for, if not a synopsis of the film? Work on that article instead. Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried to do that with the Film Synopsis following the AfD implementation. The admins who were responsible for motioning the AfD of the Film Synopsis article reverted my edits as I made them:
13:51, 9 June 2006 Scm83x m (Reverted edits by Jason Palpatine (talk) to last version by Angr)
11:26, 9 June 2006 Angr (The result of the AFD was to delete the synopsis, not incorporate it back in here)
Given the intense opposition I am facing here, it's not likely to happen. (please check out my User page under the heading A question in response to recent events here)

Question #4: Does the material in this article truly come from the sources, or is it based on the editor's observations of watching the film itself? If so, how should this be cited? I've suggested several times that I would be happy considered a DVD to be a "published source" but that I'd like it to be cited by giving the exact published version of the DVD and identifying incidents in it by, say, number of minutes into the film.

I was unaware of the fact that the DVD would be considered a valid listing. Your proposal is interesting. 'MORE than interesting. If such an undertaking would be allowed I would gladly do it!

Question #5: The big question, to my mind, is whether the article can be given inline references to make it crystal clear which facts come from which sources. I am also worried about how one could quickly check whether anything in the article is close to being a copyright violation. In my opinion there isn't really a bright line between where presenting, organizating, and synthesizing published sources leaves off, and original research/personal opinion begins. I am very troubled that the list of sources was not added until the last minute.


Pasted from my talk page :

The article as it stands references no sources at all, so why didn't you include the full listing of your sources in the article, as required by WP:V? What I mean by secondary sources is outlined in WP:RS, but basically if the article is a film synopsis, then, by definition, it is based on the primary source. The question is then, who is doing the synopsis? If that synopsis is by a wikipedia editor, then it is original research. If the synopsis is done by someone else, then wikipedia could source that as a secondary source, but the article should then discuss the synopsis, but not the film itself. Thus, a synopsis of a film must fall into two categories, either secondary sources has summarized it, and the article reproduces it, which is a problem with copyright, or an editor has analyzed several synopses and summarized them, which is original research. Regards, MartinRe 19:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


The article is a sub-article branched off from the main article. The sources were/are listed in the main article. The branch off was done on account of the main being listed as too big and recommended for split. I thought the source info being there made listing them inappropriate. -- User:Jason Palpatine 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Hope this helps -- Jason Palpatine 23:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservative Underground

Fellow Wikipedians, the article in question was initially called for deletion by User:BenBurch who has a history of initiating edit wars & deletions on conservative pages such as Free Republic & White Rose Society. On January 17,2006 this proposed deletion was closed by User:Johnleemk, and the result of the debate was no consensus; keep. A second deletion debate was initiated on April 14, 2006 by User:Isotope23 and on April 20, 2006it was closed by admin User:(aeropagitica), resulting in a deletion. The Conservative Underground article had been vandalized countless times before it's deletion by the same people who voted for it's deletion. It is pretty obvious that these deletions are political motivated. Articles such as Democratic Underground, Free Republic, Protest Warrior, Vive le Canada, Progressive Bloggers, Blogging Tories, etc... are allowed to remain.--James Bond 00:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted. ad hominem fallacy, even supposing it were true ("BenBurch has a history..."; irrelevancy ("The...article had been vandalized countless times"); and begging the question ("It is pretty obvious..."): lots of rhetorical fallacies, there. About the only undisputedly true bit is "A second deletion debate ...result in a deletion", so let's leave it at that, absent any actual evidence of actual wrongdoing in the process or change in the subject. --Calton | Talk 01:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist. I have no problem with this page being relisted if they will follow the rules in doing so. BenBurch 01:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, as the article makes no claim to notability. Some of the articles mentioned as comparisons should probably go as well (Progressive Bloggers?). When will the consmoderals realize that their blogs, forums and websites are not encyclopedic? -- Kjkolb 03:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and get rid of the non-notable liberal organization/blogger/website articles as well. --tjstrf 05:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. AfDs are non-binding, and a previous decision can be revoked by a new AfD. Johnleemk | Talk 10:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, no evidence of significance. Just zis Guy you know? 12:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted. No assertion of notability was made in the article. It can be recreated if new better content and a legitimate claim of notability is made, as is true with many currently non-notable groups that may grow into notability. NoSeptember 12:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure of the second deletion debate. I find no process problems in that discussion nor do I find any evidence of bias. Rossami (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

08 June 2006

Joseph D. Campbell

This article was nominated for deletion, and was closed by User:9cds (not an admin, although going through RfA at the moment) as 'no consensus'. I think that was a poor call. The five people expressing the view that the article should be deleted made far better arguments - mainly about that annoying little fact that articles should be, you know, verifiable, and even if he was verifiable, he's not notable - than the three who thought it should be kept (including one weak keep, and one that said 'the sources will come organically', which is ridiculous). See the AfD for more details. I would have deleted this, and I recommend overturn the closure, and delete. Proto||type 11:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment The reason I closed as no consensus was because the only arguments I could see against deletion was "not sourced" or "The sources aren't good enough" - since the page already has some sources (even if they couldn't be verified by myself), I couldn't see any reason to delete. -- 9cds 11:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist on AfD I made the point in the AfD discussion that we should probably hold it off, and possibly redo the whole deal because the sources finally came to light only a day or so before the end of the process. Even if the sources are weak (and I never said they weren't), the first deletion votes were made under the assumption that pretty much no sources existed at all, which is unfair (and I'm usually fairly exclusionist regarding things like this). I would not be opposed to deleting it outright, but wouldn't prefer it. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 16:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist It's clear there wasn't much of a discussion on notability. The closing was premature. --Kchase02 T 17:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist and since it was closed no-consensus, this does not require DRV's permission. Septentrionalis 20:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete the concern about lack of notability and verifibility was unaddressed in my view, with nothing backing up notability claims, and limited sources (one of which was an letter to editor) for any possibly verification. No predujuce about re-creation if further sources backing notability claim are found, but also no reason to keep in the meantime for something that may or may not happen. Regards, MartinRe 05:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Church of Reality

(See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Church of reality.) --66.28.20.178 15:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Church of Reality website

The Church of Reality is a religion, based on what is tangible and real. Somehow, for some reason, its article (and even its talk page) was deleted, with little to no apparent reason. This is really no different from deleting an article on any other religion, which is unfair censorship. I'm asking whoever deleted it to either give a truly good reason as to why it should stay deleted, or undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.178.151 (talk • contribs) 06:59 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Heinen's

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Heinen's
  • Strong Overturn, Undelete. A top 100 Ohio business; clearly passes WP:CORP; was already cited on Supermarkets in the United States, therefore clearly notable (and meant to be given a wikipedia page); not to mention has MORE stores in its chain, has a HIGHER sales volume, occupies a LARGER region, and has MORE information supplied than many businesses that have ALREADY been given Misplaced Pages pages: Westborn Market, Woodman's Food Market, Strack and Van Til, Scolari's, Magruder's, Felpausch, and many more. AS CREATOR OF THE ARTICLE, I would also like to comment on my extremely upsetting experience in posting this article. I have already given all of these reasons NUMEROUS times in defense of my article, and I have proven in my previous posts that my article should be granted a Misplaced Pages page. It was speedily deleted without hardly any consideration or supplied reason except that more people had posted DELETE than had posted KEEP - a 1 vote majority in fact (yes 1 vote). NO OTHER REASONING was provided to account for its deletion! I spent a great deal of time describing the business and how it is definately influential and notable. My arguments it seems were not considered at all and were simply left out of the matter. My article was not biased, and it was not created as advertising. PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS ARTICLE as it clearly deserves a Misplaced Pages page. . If the article is undeleted, I WILL add to it. Bluebul1989 06:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In terms of pure numbers (standard disclaimer AfD is not a vote etc), the close was borderline, with 66% or 60% for deletion, depending on whether Bluebul1989's opinion is counted (as a new user who has so far only edited in relation to this article and is the sole editor to do so, the admin can choose to do so or not). That would often be closed as 'no consensus', defaulting to keep, but it is very much within the admin's discretion. However, in this case, I don't think the reasons to delete are that pressing. I don't believe that the article was created as self-promotion - if I had I would certainly endorse deletion. Bluebul claims to be a 16-year-old Ohian on WP:NEW and this is supported by a Google search for his username. Although I find the WP:CORP claim to notability dubious (the top 100 companies in every state of the USA being automatically notable sounds rather Americentric), DRV is not the place to debate that, and the other arguments for it being notable sound reasonable. Therefore, I suggest overturn as a no consensus and undelete without prejudice against a further AfD to gain a clearer consensus in a fortnight or so after Bluebul has improved it further. P.S. Bluebul, you don't need to shout. --Sam Blanning 13:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. A 66% delete vote is insufficient to delete, better to have no consensus'ed it and see what happens from there. THE KING 18:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • AfD is not a vote. 66% can be sufficient to delete if the reasoning to delete is compelling enough. In this case I think the reasoning isn't compelling enough, but this misconception needs to be challenged wherever it appears. --Sam Blanning 19:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn IMO, important enough for a reasonable article to be written. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted AfD is indeed not a vote, so by ONE VOTE doesn't matter, as its to be determined by community consensus. In this case, however, it is 5/2 if we throw out bluebul's and Laximus's comments as being too new at the time. 5 / 7 ≃ 0.714 {\displaystyle 5/7\simeq 0.714} . Aside from the raw numbers, you may want to read Rough consensus on the reasoning behind the supposed lack of counting. Many of the delete users all conceeding WP:CORP as being against it. One person believed in notability, another used a claim that there were already other non-WP:CORP-adhering on the page already, which could've been interpreted as admitting WP:CORP as well. I can see why the article was deleted, even if WP:CORP sets a very high bar. There was really nothing that wrong about the deletion. Sorry. Kevin_b_er 03:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a local supermarket chain. I shop there regularly. But it's not automatically notable for an international encyclopedia. There is not enough to say that will ever let this expand past the stub stage. And until they get a lot bigger or better known, there can't be. Endorse closure as within reasonable administrator discretion. By the way, I am unpersuaded by the argument that we must/should keep this article because we have not yet cleaned out other even less encyclopedic articles. We should be raising standards for the project, not racing to the lowest common denominator. Rossami (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn The people who marked delete did so before reason was provided as to why it was actually notable under WP:CORP and by no reasons were given contrasting the evidence put forth by blubul stating that it passes the second part for notability under WP:CORP (of which it only needs to pass one part). Laximus 05:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Question Can you be more specific about how the company meets WP:CORP? I'm looking at the AfD, and blubul's arguments, and I don't quite see it. Fan1967 05:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment "2. The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices, produced by well-known and independent publications, of important companies" (WP:CORP). According to this independent listing of top Ohio businesses between 2003 and 2004, , Heinen's was ranked within the top 100 both years. Bluebul1989 05:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • That criterion means indices like the Fortune 500. The index cited does not give a sales volume, and the ranking appears to be based solely on number of employees. 2,200 em ployees is a fair-sized chain, but I would question whether it is evidence per WP:CORP. What's needed are things like sales volume, whether publicly traded, nett value of the business, number of stores - objective measures of significance, in other words. A genuinely significant business will have more than a single source stating that it is significant, sop please provide the others. Just zis Guy you know? 07:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Also note that it ranks in the list of the top 100 private companies, most of which are so small they wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the top 100 if they were publicly held. Fan1967 13:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn The regional importance of this organization--given that it is privately owned--signals its importance for inclusion and notability. Irongargoyle 00:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Your comment confuses me. What facts lead you to believe that this business holds "regional importance"? And why would being privately owned increase that importance? As someone living in the region, I can attest that it's not significantly different from any other US grocery store chain. Rossami (talk)
  • Overturn, Undelete. It seems notable enough. TruthbringerToronto 02:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

BB Sinha

For clarity here is the article log.

This article was originally just a thin article that was nothing and was speedily deleted. Later the article was recreated, and I assisted in the overall betterment of the article. Again, the article was proposed for deletion, but on the grounds of a repost. However, Mike Rosoft restored the article stating, "Sufficiently different content from deleted material to warrant a new discussion/vote." The article remained standing and again was nominated for speedy in which I placed a hangon tag, another admin (I don't whom exactly, and I don't want to place names) agreed with the previous decision and stated that it was an entirely new article and deserved to stay up. Today, the article was deleted by Eskog for being a "repost." I am challenging this decision and request for undelete. The article is vastly stronger and signifies notability. Also, the repost decision was overturned before. It doesn't seem logical just to eliminate it for just that. Respectfully, Yanksox 05:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have already restored, as I was the speedying admin. I didn't notice that Mike Rosoft had already rejected the "repost" argument. (ESkog) 05:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Can someone close this, it's been speedily restored. also, drop me a note of the templates for closure on my Talk if you wouldn't mind. I'm sure it's here somewhere blindingly obvious, but I didn't see it... Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Mending Wall

This article was deleted by User:Royboycrashfan without any discussion. As far as I understand the deletion process, this is not wikipedia policy.

I am happy to resolve any copyvio problems. Tomandlu 11:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Restore, tentatively pending an explanation for this from Royboycrashfan—no explanation is obvious at the moment. I do not see what grounds there were for speedy deletion. There may be copyright issues, although I am not certain because the poem dates from 1915, but an article that old should not have been speedied without discussion. -- SCZenz 13:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

07 June 2006

Template:User Not in metric

This longstanding, tongue-in-cheek, satirical userbox was in line with other tongue-in-cheek, satirical user boxes. Administrator Tony Sidaway deleted this page citing its apparently inflammatory content. (See his talk page.) This userbox is clearly humorous and should not have been arbitrarily deleted like this. An example of this userbox is on my talk page. Nova SS 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering that you are the only person who has that userbox included on the userpage, does it really matter? I don't really think it's a T1 candidate, but the content was not really very useful either. I think the thing is OK to leave subst:ed on your userpage. Neutral. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cancer Bats

This article on a band was properly deleted as non-notable at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cancer Bats. However, I'm listing for reconsideration here in the light of subsequent developments that may alter that judgment, namely the release of an album under (what appears to be) a major label. The article's original author also claims the following additional facts (which I have not verified myself):

  • Released a sampler, an EP and an album
  • Album is sold in Sunrise Records and HMV
  • Video recieves rotation on MuchLoud (a show on MuchMusic)
  • Had an interview and played a live show on MTV Canada Live
  • Appeared on The Edge 102.1 (CFNY-FM) and the single was played at least once.
  • Played with bands such as The Bled, Protest The Hero, will play with NOFX and Silverstein summer of '06
  • Signed to same indie label as The Bled and Alexisonfire
  • Has toured across Canada and is already on tour again with destinations from Moncton NB to Vancouver BC

I am not voting at this time, just facilitating. Postdlf 23:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Overturn, undelete. Has anything new been presented? Not...really. The band has recently been featured in Canada's Exclaim! magazine, not small potatoes, as well as a feature on Canadian 106.7 FM. It's important to note that the band met WP:MUSIC guidelines BEFORE the AfD, and that was ignored. The prior meeting of the necessary guideline in the first AfD and further media mentions since then more than mean the deletion should be overturned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Undelete -- the evidence above seems to show sufficient notability. -- The Anome 12:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Strong Overturn, Undelete. The album is out, theyve made more public appearances and the tour scedule has been updated to include a cross country tour with some major bands. I was ignored during the first vote, please dont ignore me now. All claims can be verified on these websites: , , , and . They have met more than 1 of the notability claims. Avenged Evanfold 23:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak undelete playing on MTV Live (Canada) has to have some notability along with some magazine mentions. THe amazon link is not impressive, but ASIN B000FKOZLA is funny. What kind of viewship does MuchLoud/Music get? Our stub is not helpful. Kotepho 01:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cum On Her Face

Very popular porn site I really dont know why was it deleted. Luka Jačov 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong undelete - Luka Jačov 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong undelete - per Luka. --Pockey 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The article was speedied as an A7 (person or organization with no claim of notability). It's actually more of a website than an organization, and although I doubt it meets WP:WEB, that doesn't make it speediable. I don't think we're going to find any good independent reliable sources. Still, why not give it its day on AfD? Undelete and list at AfD. -GTBacchus 21:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • List on AfD if we must, but I really see no need for this article. It's just another porn site, of which there is surely no dearth, and I really can't imagine anybody actually coming to Misplaced Pages for information on it. Just zis Guy you know? 22:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and list on AfD per GTBacchus. Endorse Deletion per Sam Blanning (below) TheJC Contributions 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, no assertion of notability, proper A7. "Recognized worldwide" is, like "good chess player", not an assertion of notability. An assertion of notability is claiming to have won a significant chess tournament or "Best Cumshot Website of 2006" at the World Porn Awards. And don't bother relisting until someone turns up a reliable source to base an article on. --Sam Blanning 22:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak endorse per CSD A3 and WP:NOT a web directory. Did not actually say anything about the site that wouldn't be pretty obvious from the name. Permit recreation (subject to WP:WEB) if something encyclopedic can be written about the subject. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion until someone can evidence notability. per Sam Blanning. Bastique▼ voir 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong endorse per Sam Blanning clearly violates WP:NOT Whispering 00:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Ilmari; the article didn't inform beyond describing the practice that is the website's obvious subject matter. Though there's no reason why this shouldn't just be blandly listed, without elaboration, in a list article of porn sites somewhere. Something can be notable yet insubstantial, and so like the good information scientists we are we should ensure it gets incorporated into the proper place rather than trying to write a separate treatise on it. Postdlf 00:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

AlternC

An extension from Control panel (Web hosting) The administrator Zoe deleted this page on account of advertising, however I'm not affiliated with AlternC nor do I advise/condone its use, I am simply noting the control panel along with a list of many other noteworthy control panels. I am not advertising in any way, I believe it is a misunderstanding.

Manny 17:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • It was written as an ad, whatever your motivation. If you want to discuss what it is, when it was created, who uses it, and can document it, that's fine, I have no problem with a re-creation, but as it stood, all it did was to extoll its features. User:Zoe| 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for the clarification! Manny 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Tiffany Holiday

Short and Good article speedy deleted by User:Drini and User:Golbez, edit summaries were "csd nnbio" and "". There was no vote. Many many results on Google, has an IMDb and AFDb profiles and also pass Misplaced Pages:Notability (erotic actors) for having a recored of around 100 films --Haham hanuka 14:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Somehow, this ended up at page bottom today (June 7); not sure why it's dated earlier, but I have moved it for consideration. Xoloz 15:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Judging by the answers.com link, I think the fact the stub is short, and contains a poorly sourced negative claim, means it should not be restored. Instead, anybody who wishes, can create, a new original article, which clearly explains her notability, and which is well sourced. --Rob 16:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion; I do not see any claim of notability in the article. Removal of potential libel of a possibly non-notable person is a bonus. No prejudice about recreation at this point. - Liberatore(T) 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. As above, no claim of notability (one bit part in a real film, balance is the usual no-budget porn churned out at the rate of several a day by some "studios"). No reliable sources for any of the bio data (IAFD is not, unlike IMDB, a reliable source per WP:RS). Redux: dime-a-dozen porn "star". Take it to Wikiporn. Just zis Guy you know? 19:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Comment on process, not about content, this should be restored immediately as an improper speedy deletion. Holiday appears to be a more than notable enough actress for inclusion, we do not delete articles outright because they contain an unverified or unverifiable claim. Silensor 20:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Up to a point: process is there to guide us, policy is policy, and in the end there is no good reason to take up the community's time with debating articles which are functionally unverifiable. Deleting it does not prevent someone from coming along and creating a real article which makes some credible claim of notability and which is cited from reliable sources. WP:SNOW applies. Just zis Guy you know? 22:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Shane Cubis

This page has been continually deleted, because the initial article was created by the feature of the article himself, Shane Cubis. While the initial article may have been vanity or vandalism, he enlisted a group of his followers to create a real article in Misplaced Pages. His page has since been listed as a protected deleted pages, and his talk page is routinely deleted preventing a fair discussion of the deletion.

Shane Cubis does not fail WP:Bio and thus never really qualified for WP:AfD. Just because the article started as vandalism or vanity, it does not take away from the fact an actual compliant article could be at this entry, Shane Cubis. At the very least there should have been a discussion on the talk page, and not a speedy deletion into Protected deleted pages. JustOneJake 11:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn Shane Cubis is a notable Australian journalist, being a major contributor to an important Australian media group, The Chaser. The Chaser has made itself an important part of Australia's culture, being read by politicians, mainstream journalists and ordinary Australians. Shane's weekly columns attract large amounts of reads and discussion. His work for People magazine, while not being as well known, has attracted large amounts of attention from mainstream Australia. JoshT 220.237.79.202 12:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy-deletion under case A7. The entire contents of the longest version of the article read "Shane Cubis (born 1980) is a writer, originally from Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. Shane's first article was a Teri Weigel porn review in the Tertangala, Wollongong University's student newspaper. Since then he's contributed to a variety of gaming magazines including Pyramid, Knights of the Dinner Table and the Silven Trumpeter. He currently has a weekly column in The Chaser and works for Australia's People Magazine." and one external link. Writers are part of a respected profession but are no more automatically notable than engineers or doctors of equivalent experience or standing. No assertion has been made that this writer is particularly significant or that he does qualify under our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. By the way, the deleted history shows that the only significant contributor to this page was user:Rubikcubis, supporting the assumption that this was an inappropriate autobiography. The user's subsequent edits to other pages do not insprire me to good faith. Rossami (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Rossami's excellent reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse indeed. Syrthiss 17:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, it's clear from Cubis's own website that he was the original author, and he's encouraging people to come here to recreate it and complain. User:Zoe| 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Endorse - per WP:VAIN. --JiFish(/Contrib) 18:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, and recommend that keen editors take the usual steps to moderate the inclusion of the subject's name and its variants in Misplaced Pages. There's is much outrage, followed by subterfuge, at the deletions. -Splash - tk 18:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion with thanks to Rossami for presenting a solid case. Just zis Guy you know? 19:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn: while the original article may be questionable as vanity, there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance and fame in the Australian political journalism / satire sphere that one of his fans should be allowed to create a page with information about him. The defacement of other pages with his name is consistent with the style of humour The_Chaser is famous for in Australia, not an indication that there is any lack of merit in the need for a "Shane Cubis" page on Misplaced Pages. "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is". Malthius 03:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC) User's first edit
    • there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance... Guy, since that's the very issue in question, you're begging the question. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Begging the question for effect though, since it seems that the vandalism or "meat puppetry" is more important here than the actual "issue in question" of whether Shane Cubis is worth of a bio page. Thanks for highlighting that for everyone. Malthius 10:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. No new information, and the old information was unconvincing to begin with. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn While no-one is denying that the original source of the article was Shane himself, that does not necessarily invalidate the merit of the article itself, and was more a function of the humour that has made him popular. Regardless of the American or British-centric knowledge of the original two administrators who deleted the article, their ignorance of the Australian media and in particular the satirical politcal area which is the expertise of the article subject in question does not mean it lacks significance. As an Australian, I guess I might equally wonder why something so incredibly minor and unimportant as a 3 year old racehorse such as Like_Now without even a particularly impressive record demands its own Misplaced Pages page, where a published journalist does not. U.Pseudonopoulos 09:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • User's only edit. User:Zoe| 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry. I was under the impression that this was a logical discussion and the weight of our argument would count for more than how many edits we had made to this website. Is this how all discussions are settled on Misplaced Pages? We simply get out our 'edit counts' and compare them, with the larger number winning? Perhaps we could both get out our wangs and compare those as well? Or do you want to try and actually add some value to the debate? Could you perhaps explain to me why Shane Cubis is less notable than the nag of a racehorse I have linked above? Is it simply because one is American and the other Australian, regardless of species? Are angsty teenagers with a lack of knowledge of other countries really fit to determine what adds to the grand sum of human knowledge? U.Pseudonopoulos 00:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Please see Misplaced Pages:Undeletion_policy#Suffrage. User:Zoe| 01:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Noted, and I can see the idea behind such in some cases, particularly where people are simply putting a vote without reasoning or detailed comment. I still hold that it has no relationship to the validity of the argument presented. "There are no strict rules for this, the admin closing a discussion is expected to use common sense", and in this case the only people voting without significant reasoning are the 'endorsers'. I find it irrelevant to the arguments that I and others have offered whether it is our only edits or not. The arguments should still be treated on the merit of what it presented itself. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • strong overturn Shane Cubis is notable within the fan base of The Chaser. He is a major columnist for the site and well respected author in a variety of other media. His other edits on Wiki have surely not affected his notability or his work as a writer/comedian. Gisellehobbs 10:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong overturn If for no other reason than his fellow journalists Chas_Licciardello, Chris_Taylor and Craig_Reucassel all have their own pages that provide just as much (or little, depending on how one is to view it) information about them. Is there any proof that these other journalists didn't write the articles themselves? Perhaps Shane Cubis is being punished for making a simple mistake - he wrote the article about himself in first person instead of third. Any of his fans would be happy to write the article to prevent it from remaining vanity if that is the main complaint, but he is certainly famous and/or popular enough to warrant an entry. Purpleorb (for clarity sake, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.177.2 (talk • contribs) )
    • This is an excellent point. Are all of these journalists significantly more notable than Cubis? He is also listed near Tim Brunero in The Chaser enterprise article, and the Brunero article has no more content or merit than the original Cubis article. If the Cubis article does not comeback, I purpose some of these other articles be removed for parity in this category. JustOneJake 03:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Rossami. — pd_THOR | 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion CSD A7 -- The Anome 13:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn Yes, Mr. Cubis may have originally written the article as a vanity piece for his article. That does not mean a compliant article could not be written. It is clear many people here are willing to write an article in the confines of Misplaced Pages policy. Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth, as he is drawing support from his article at The Chaser and his Antiwikipedia entry. As it stands now the page is protected deleted. Why not unprotect it and give someone a chance to write a compliant article? 63.225.118.147 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth. Is that a threat? User:Zoe| 20:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Based on the discussions on the forums at his article and the actions members of that forum have taken (silly vandalism to both here and the Wiktionary, I'd say that it's clearly a threat. Metros232 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Are you guys kidding? It’s no threat; it is an assessment of the facts. These people want a real article, and if there is a real article they will have less to complain about. Furthermore, do the actions of people unto Misplaced Pages affect the notability status of Cubis? Most of the discussion here is completely irrelevant to the facts. I am sure the guys at Britannica or Funk and Wagnalls never sat down and talked about their hate mail when deciding to include an entry. This man is at least as noteworthy as some of the other people on Misplaced Pages, and he deserves an article regardless of the actions of himself or others. 63.225.118.147 02:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Sounds notable enough. TruthbringerToronto 20:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Rossami. OhNoitsJamie 00:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion no verifiable notability proof presented. `'mikka (t) 00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Shane is one of only three weekly column writers for The Chaser. The Chaser is a very popular website in Australia, very much similar to The_Onion in terms of content and (local) popularity. It is important to note that, as a columnist, Shane writes articles which are put on the website under his own name. He is not writing anonymously, but offering his opinion under his name. As such, it is expected that people will want to find information about the author, so as to get background to form a view on the validity of his opinion. As such, I feel the author is notable and, as such, an appropriate page on the author should not be prevented from being created. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • keep/endorse deletion Attracting lots of sock puppets filled with meat, see the URL in the history]. People are being instructed how to go here JUST to request this overturned. This guy really is not notable, and the speedy is fine. Kevin_b_er 03:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Rossami. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This discussion doesn't make the Wikipedians look very good. What is the point of spending so much energy to exclude and defend against a bio entry for some guy who obviously has a following? It's not like the page was false, inflamatory, or libelous. If there were no other bio pages for minor notables the argument against allowing this guy would carry some weight, but clearly there are lots of such pages. For example, there are a dozen Chris Taylors, none of whom is particularly notable. 66.245.31.155 02:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Then please do some research and nominate those pages for deletion as well. We are striving for consistency but we must do so by raising the standards of the encyclopedia, not starting a race for the bottom. The fact that other inappropriate articles have not yet been cleaned up can not be a justification to fail to clean up this one. Rossami (talk)

Certainty principle

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle

Proponents say:

  • The certainty principle is a mathematical theorem. The proof is available for everybody.
  • It was officially published in the established peer-reviewed journal. It will not be published second time. The journal was registered in Russia, and this is Russian government who has to know about the journal, not Google.
  • Nobody has objections against scientific content of the papers. (Really no objections.)
  • If the theorem is true, its notability cannot be questioned, because it generalizes (not contradicts!) the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
  • The certainty principle is too young (1 year) to be known as widely as uncertainty principle.
  • The certainty principle is old enough to take it seriously. Links to it were put in WP almost year ago and a great amount of people have checked it, including highly qualified editors of the uncertainty principle.
  • The questoin of "reputability" of the journal is anyway subjective and should be discussed only if some specialists in the subject have objections against the certainty principle.

Opponents say:

  • We are not specialists in the subject, and cannot judge the principle from purely scientific point of view. But we want to protect WP from pseudo-science.
  • Google says that the certainty principle is not widely cited.
  • The journal, where the papers were published, is not "reputable", and can be considered as a self-publication.

What should we do in this situation? The conflict is going to become a war. Hryun 15:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Article exists under both Certainty principle and Certainty Principle in various forms. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle, which deleted this content as original research. I re-deleted this article because although this content was not identical, the original reason for deletion was unchanged. User:Hryun has claimed that the article is published in a Russian journal, but several physicist Wikipedians have looked for signs of this publication (or indeed the existence of the named journal) and found nothing; Hryun refuses to provide further details. You can see discussion of these issues, as well as more threats by User:Hryun, at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics#Certainty principle. -- SCZenz 15:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Taking off my admin hat, and putting on my WikiProject Physics hat, I would like to note that this issue has all the hallmarks of original research. A very pushy series of editors, most of them with very similar editing styles, have been pushing to have this subject mentioned in about 8-10 different physics articles. A discovery of the claimed magnitude would have many, many citations in places that would be very easy to find, and this does not. The only document that can be located by any of the usual methods—which are essentially universal for all physics publications worldwide, is the paper itself on the ArXiv and related servers—which are not peer-reviewed in any way. No publication information is given there. -- SCZenz 15:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • SCZenz, for what reason do you lie here? (1) The Certainty Principle article was created by Slicky. I am not Slicky neither in WP nor in the real life. Ask for user-checking, if you do not believe. I just re-created the article under proper name, Certainty principle. There was no cheating in it. (2) You did not ask for "further details" of the journal, you asked for information that can be seen in the Internet. Hryun 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Please be civil. I don't think you are Slicky, but I do strongly suspect you're editing under a couple of other usernames. I do not believe that there are any reputable physics journals with no information available on the internet, however—Russian journals are tracked in the same places as all the others. -- SCZenz
  • Keep deleted until the concept gets taken up by someone other than the original auther. We'll watch CiteBase. --Pjacobi 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. The AfD clearly labeled this material as original research and despite the requester's allusions no evidence to contradict this determination has been provided. The AfD should stand until citations to appropriate peer-reviewed sources are provided. --Allen3  16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse, keep deleted - Based on the information on hand, this is OR. If this is indeed a valid scientific theory, material will be peer reviewed and can be verified.. There should be no rush to have a wiki article on a subject (re "the material is too new to have been properly circulated" above); its not like we are going anywhere. Syrthiss 16:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure per WP:NOR. As Syrthiss says, we can afford to wait until this is independently sourced. Rossami (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, for reasons above. This does not presently return anything on CiteSeer or citebase. It's important to be sure that authors are not inserting their own, non-peer-reviewed work to Misplaced Pages, or it would quickly become a repository for anything unpublished and unpublishable. There is further the fact that, if this were really what it is claimed to be, that it would probably already have been picked up by some very well known, reputable and reliable publications. At that point, inclusion would be a no-brainer. -Splash - tk 17:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse, keep deleted. As far as I can tell, both the term "Certainty principle" and the concept are original research, as we define it. When the article is published — or even referenced — in a peer-reviewed journal, we can reconsider. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse - per above. Wait for it to be peer-reviewed by someone who knows. --JiFish(/Contrib) 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse. When the work becomes well-known and the author is hailed as the great theorist he claims to be then I'll happily enjoy contributing on a million articles about him and his great work. Until then it goes into the "makes very large claims that nobody in-the-know seems to take seriously" bin. I also don't appreciate "Hyun"'s threats about waging a "war" against Misplaced Pages if he doesn't get his article included. --Fastfission 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Two well-informed editors reviewed this and found it to be WP:OR, no evidence is provided to contradict this conclusion. No citations to reputable peer-reviewed journals, for example. Just zis Guy you know? 20:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion as per Jacobi. --Improv 21:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Mathematical deletion endorsement -- Drini 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion agreeing with everything said above. Hyun, it will only become a war if you make it so and do not accept WP process. You have stated that there is no consensus. I think the above is a very clear consensus. Nobody agrees with you. Please accept this until and if this principle is widely accepted and discussed in many reputable places. If this is as important as the claims made for it, it would have been discussed by now in "Nature", Scientific American", "New Scientist" and so on, along with references in "Reviews of Modern Physics" and similar journals. This is not yet WP material and may never be. --Bduke 02:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Are all of us who endorse this deletion going to receive the Uncertain Elephant Award as those of us who supported the original deletion, or indeed were in any way involved with it, did? --Bduke 04:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Bduke. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

06 June 2006

Big Brother 7 chronology

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Big Brother 7 Chronology

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

  • Overturn: At least have the page there until the series is over and the page can be condensed. --JDemail 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Why was the page deleted? Celestianpower says at the top of the page that the result of the debate was deleted. The results were: 6 for "delete"; 11 for "keep"; 1 for "weak keep" and 1 for "strong delete"!!! I think it's pretty obvious that more people want to keep the page than delete it!! Ellisjm 16:36 UTC 6 June 06
  • Endorse deletion. People who wanted the article deleted seem to have more grounds than those who wanted the article kept. — FireFox • 16:44, 06 June '06
  • Endorse deletion per FireFox. -- 9cds 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. Reasons given for deletion were in line with WP policies and guidelines; reasons given for keep were mostly "But I want to keep it" variety. Process was followed, deletion is valid. KillerChihuahua 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn for violation of process. I would have voted "delete", as this does look like non-notable TV cruft, but the result of the debate was no consensus. The keep voters may have been uninformed, but Misplaced Pages:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators allows only disregarding bad faith votes when establishing consensus, and few such are apparent here. I know of no policy that allows the closing administrator to determine consensus on the basis of which side they agree with. Sandstein 17:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The guidelines say that for example comments made in bad faith may be ignored. In general, the guidelines say admins should use their common sense to determine if a rough consensus exists and should try to remain as objective as possible — they don't provide strict rules for doing this, since no such rule can exists. (Anyway, it's not a "vote".) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and close as no consensus. Neither side had arguments that were all that compelling, and closer was not at all clear as to his/her rationale for the decision. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse- this was a reasonable decision. Possibly the DRV could have been avoided tho, if the closer had given more reasoning about why they closed the way they did. Friday (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, a level of detail far in excess of anything which could possibly be justified by any encyclopaedic purpose. BB7 is more than adequately covered in the main article. This is a fan blog and belongs on a fan site: it is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information.. Just zis Guy you know? 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: am I correcting in thinking that people think this article is necessary so that at the end of the show it can be reduced into something encyclopedic? That seems to be what was being said at the AfD, but I just want to verify that before making a decision. Metros232 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Endorse and keep deleted - Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. The closer based his decision of the strengh of the arguments, not the amount. I agree with User:Friday that the closer should have stated this more clearly. --JiFish(/Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn the result of the discussion was keep and not by a small margin. I completely agree with Ellisjm that the article was wrongly deleted.

-- JAB 20:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn and Undelete for being out-of-process. --Rob 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak endorse, closure seems to have been within acceptable bounds of discretion. Most of the arguments provided by either side in the debate were rather weak, but some of the arguments for deletion were slightly less weak that the arguments against it. I'm quite willing, however, to userfy the deleted content upon request (a possibility some of the participants in the original debate appear to have been unaware of). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It just makes more sense to have the page in the main Misplaced Pages area while it exists, because it still has the information that many people may find useful. If that ends up being the only other option, then it may end up happening. But I'm sure you can see what I'm trying to say. --JDemail 23:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy somewhere by all means but keep deleted per above. Metamagician3000 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist. I would rather delete this article but the discussion was at most a "no consensus", not a "delete". --Metropolitan90 02:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. AfD is not a vote, Misplaced Pages is not a free web host for TV blogs, no-one even attempted to argue that this information belonged in an encyclopaedia, process was correctly followed. If it doesn't belong on the main BB7 page then it doesn't belong anywhere. --Sam Blanning 09:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The things is, that's exactly the point - people do think it belongs on the main article page. But the people that think it belongs there don't want it to be anywhere else. They don't care about how big the main article could become with that information on it. --JDemail 11:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion--cj | talk 09:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure/deletion, administrator has the right—nay, the obligation—to evaluate the merit of the arguments in terms of the goal of the project. When such a decision is not obvious, however, it should be explained in detail. -- SCZenz 12:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per KillerChihuahua. What's the point in having an article just for it to be deleted in a few weeks time (i.e. 'keep until the end of the series'). This does not belong on Misplaced Pages. It is fancruft of the worst sort. The JPS 15:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist Closing admin pretty much ignored the entire AfD process, sending the message to everyone that he valued only his own input on the subject. That's not how AfD is supposed to work. --Hyperbole 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. A severely inadequate closure method, but the right decision nevertheless. This was plainly not encyclopedia material, being essentially a diary of some people traipsing around a building for a few weeks. -Splash - tk 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure as within reasonable admin discretion. However, close decisions like this deserve more than just "The decision was delete" in the closure of the discussion. This argument could largely have been avoided if the closing admin had taken the time to fully lay out his/her reasoning. Rossami (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - As the closing admin on this AfD, I apologise for any extra trouble this has caused. Clearly I should have put forward my reasoning in the summary/the decision field: "When closing this AfD, despite there being more "keep" votes than "delete", the strength of arguments from the delete camp seems much stronger. WP:NOT is policy and this seems a clear case of 'Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information', as many voters pointed out. Also, AfD is not a vote: vote counts aren't everything". Once again, I apologise and will learn for next time. Regards, — Celestianpower 18:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion - Strength of arguments needs to be balanced with number of arguers, and it seems reasonable to disregard input that lacks any reasoning. --Improv 04:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Remain Deleted The AfD itself was filled with people who were rabid fans on the show, with all their arguements being all the minute details(read: minor, incidental things) be left off of the television show's main page. Pages were being used to hold any info about show and daily summaries like it were a fan page. That's not what wikipedia is about. Kevin_b_er 04:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - Celestianpower made a completely correct decision. Proto||type 13:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: There seems to be a misunderstanding that WP:NOT requires deletion as the universal solution to all problems it lists. Many things wikipedia is not, are handled by editing, not deletion. Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy says: "Article needs a lot of improvement" is explicitly not a reason for deletion, but should be cleaned up. Now, once cleaned up (which in this case, could mean radical shrinkage) policy says that if there's not much left ("Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article") it should be handled by merging/redirecting. Nobody here has given an explanation as to why the article *must* be deleted. That is what problem can only be solved via deletion, as opposed to a merge/redirect (with a potential for de-merge if/when sufficient quantity/quality content exists). --Rob 07:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    It had already been "merged". . —Celestianpower 13:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:WikiPâques.png

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


Recently concluded

2006 June

  1. Okashina_Okashi - Decision of the original closer to relist at AfD is endorsed. 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  2. Dismal's Paradox - Relisted at AfD. 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  3. User:SPUI/jajaja - Nomination withdrawn. 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  4. List of political leaders widely regarded as totalitarian - Request for information answered. 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  5. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed. 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  6. Cultural references in Pokémon - Deletion endorsed. 16:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  7. Fluffy (The Lion King) - Deletion endorsed. 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  8. Kelly Roberti - Copyright issue resolved, restored. 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  9. Image:Pierre Janssen.jpg - Commons image, action impossible here. 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  10. Neanderthal theory of autism - Deletion endorsed. 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  11. Be bold, Be Bold - Overturn RfD and revert to WP:BOLD. 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  12. Jeff Lindsay - Deletion endorsed. 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  13. "State Debate Associations" - Deletion endorsed. 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  14. How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 - Deletion endorsed. 17:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  15. Kinston Indians - Deletion endorsed. 17:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  16. Misplaced Pages:SCAG - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  17. Image:Nuvola 64 apps important.png - undeletion impossible; deleted prior to 16 June 2006. 13:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  18. Sick Nick Mondo - Deletion endorsed for now, pending AfD outcome for related Nick Mondo; should that survive, this is a suitable redirect. 18:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
    Nick Mondo having survived AfD, this is restored as a redirect. 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. True Torah Jews - Deletion endorsed. 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  20. UCIP - Deletion endorsed. 18:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  21. Mending Wall - Keep endorsed. 11:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  22. Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) - Deletion endorsed. 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  23. TheSmartMarks.com - Deletion endorsed. 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  24. Dirt pudding - Transwiki and deletion endorsed. 17:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  25. Kirill Makharinsky - Deletion endorsed. 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  26. Armando Lloréns-Sar - History restored, maintained as redirect; merge issues are an editorial concern for article's talk page. 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  27. Hollywood Undead - Deletion endorsed. 17:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  28. Trexy - Closing administrator agreed to relist AFD. 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  29. Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak - No consensus closure endorsed. 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  30. Knox (animator) - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  31. Lightsaber combat - Keep closure endorsed. 18:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  32. Stone Trek - Deletion closure endorsed. 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  33. File:944 h.jpg - DRV closed, image in Commons jurisdiction. 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  34. Sadullah Khan - Undeleted, relisted. 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  35. Atromitos - Undeleted. 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  36. Walk To Emmaus - Deletion endorsed. 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  37. Misplaced Pages:Conservative notice board. Kept deleted. Strong endorsement. 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Review.
  38. Lost: The Journey - Relisted. 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  39. User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes and Template:User Gangster - Undeleted. 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  40. The Lost Boys (demogroup) - Relist. 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  41. Second War (Harry Potter) - Deletion endorsed. 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  42. IRCDig - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  43. Saryn Hooks - Undeleted and relisted at AfD. 17:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  44. Template:Major_programming_languages - template content restored 06:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) review
  45. Strategic Policy Consulting - Deletion endorsed. 16:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  46. Actuarial Outpost - Kept kept, mistaken nomination. 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  47. Image:WikiPâques.png - Uploaded to Commons, as suggested. 16:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  48. The Esplanade Mall - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 16:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  49. Sydney Ling - AfD result of "no consensus" endorsed. 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  50. Siberian language - Deletion endorsed. 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  51. Burlington Center Mall - Challenge of no consensus afd withdrawn. 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  52. Erik Möller - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  53. theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh - Deletions endorsed. 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  54. Misplaced Pages:OURS - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  55. 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) - Deletion endorsed. 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  56. Conservative Underground - Deletion endorsed. 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  57. Boring Business Systems - AfD reopened by acclamation. 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  58. Joseph D. Campbell - Previous AfD overturned, to be relisted at AfD. 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  59. Church of Reality - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  60. Heinen's - Result reversed by consensus, AfD now closed as "no consensus". 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  61. BB Sinha - Restored, listed at AfD. 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (deleted at AfD 20:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)) Review
  62. Mending Wall - Restored, listed at AfD, closed as keep, brought here again (above). 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  63. Cancer Bats - Restored, to be resubmitted to AfD in light of new evidence. 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  64. Cum On Her Face - Deletion endorsed. 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  65. AlternC - Deletion endorsed. 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  66. Tiffany Holiday - Deletion endorsed. 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  67. Shane Cubis - Deletion endorsed unanimously (excepting discounted anons/newbies.) 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  68. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  69. Big Brother 7 chronology - Deletion endorsed. Will userfy upon request. 15:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  70. Wikimedia Meta-Wiki - action reverted by the closer. AFD reopened. 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  71. The Adventures of Dr. McNinja - Consensus to permit userpage draft as new recreation, will be submitted to AfD. 17:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  72. Cory kennedy - Deletion endorsed. 17:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  73. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics - Kept deleted unanimously. 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  74. Yar - Deletion endorsed without prejudice to unrelated redirect now at title. 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  75. List of midnight movies - Content restored for merge and redirect. 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  76. AK Productions - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  77. FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together - Undeleted and sent to AfD. 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  78. List of tongue-twisters - Deletion endorsed in light of new Wikiquote transwiki. 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  79. User:Raphael1/Wikiethics - Deletion endorsed. 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  80. Roosters1908, Sydneyroosters1909, and Sydneyroosters1910 - Undeleted to be AfD'ed in light of new evidence. 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  81. National Hockey Leaque player lists - Restored speedily and AFD reopened. 08:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  82. User:AKMask/log - Restored (by a narrow margin) to be sent to MfD. 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  83. Male Unbifurcated Garment - Deletion endorsed (again -- Second DRV in two weeks.) 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  84. Penis banding - Deletion endorsed. 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  85. Template:User no notability - Deletion narrowly endorsed. (date unavailable, deletion review never archived) Permalink
  86. Syed Ahmed - deletion endorsed, redirected to The Apprentice (UK series 2) 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  87. Ho Shin Do - deletion endorsed without prejudice 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
  88. Israel News Agency - article content restored 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
  89. Delaware County Intermediate Unit - Deletion closure endorsed. 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  90. Steve Bellone - Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  91. Team NoA - Previous version restored, survived AfD as no consensus. 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  92. Springfield M21 - Restored as redirect with history. 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  93. The drips - Speedy deletion contested, overturned; sent to AfD. 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  94. Template:Voting icons - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  95. Ali Zafar - New NPOV recreation permitted. 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  96. Barbara Bauer, The Literary Agency Group and others - Bauer undeleted and kept at AfD; others kept deleted. 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  97. Scienter - deletion overturned. 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  98. Auto repair shop - original speedy deletion endorsed, without prejudice to now-existing distinct redirect at this title. 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  99. Misplaced Pages v search engines - deletion endorsed unanimously. 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  100. Pat Price - deletion overturned unanimously, no need to relist. 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  101. Talk:Brian Peppers - kept deleted. 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  102. The Juggernaut Bitch - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  103. South Coast League - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  104. Other side of the pillow - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  105. Joel Leyden - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  106. Sharting - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  107. User:Disavian/Userboxes/Green Energy - deletion endorsed, narrowly 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  108. Left-wing terrorism - article history restored 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  109. Stella Maris College Scout Group - deletion endorsed 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  110. List of Michael Savage neologisms - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  111. Superhorse - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  112. Exicornt - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  113. Image:Lock-icon.jpg - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  114. College Confidential - article content restored 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  115. Tim Dingle - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  116. Abstract People - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  117. Christian views of Hanukkah - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  118. Claught of a bird dairy products - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  119. LIP6 - continue from rewritten version 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  120. Hulk 2 - redirected to Hulk (film) for now 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  121. Xombie - article content restored 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  122. Possible wars between liberal democracies speedy-deletion undone by deleting admin. listed to AFD. 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  123. Gary Howell deletion endorsed. 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  124. New Sincerity - deletion endorsed. 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  125. Successful Praying - speedy deletion as copyvio endorsed. 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  126. Videohypertransference - user copy granted. deletion from articlespace endorsed. 20:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  127. Oz Categories 8 endorse, 5 overturn, deletion endorsed. 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Review

Userbox discussions

Archives

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.

  • none currently listed

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

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

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Content review

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.

  • none currently listed

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/History only undeletion

Decisions to be reviewed

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/Vfu mechanics

10 June 2006

Boring Business Systems

This was closed on June 8 as 'no consensus'. The discussion is here. There were 5 delete votes and 5 keep votes. The decision not to delete needs review, and a closer look at four of the five users who cast "keep" votes. FunkyChicken!, UncleFloyd, ConeyCyclone, and Nigel Wick appear to possibly be the same person using many different accounts. See the history of those usernames on past AfDs, especially the recent WWAC-TV that was deleted as a hoax. The article should either be relisted for further consensus, or deleted. 70.108.82.120 16:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The fifth keep vote from Nertz may be the same person too since it is a recently created account, shows the same fondness for exclamation points! as the other four, and expressed knowledge of the recent Jersey Shore Communciations/WWAC-TV hoax. 70.108.82.120 16:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Interesting. I smell socks as follows:
    • Nigel_Wick (talk · contribs) began editing a matter of hours prior to his comment in the AfD, which was his first such comment. Such participation would typically be given a light weight anyway, the following circumstantials notwithstanding;
    • ConeyCyclone (talk · contribs), UncleFloyd (talk · contribs) and FunkyChicken! (talk · contribs) show almost exactly the same gaps in editing. They all ceased editing in July (August for FunkyChicken!) of 2005, and only resumed in February 2006 — all on the 20th or 22nd. All three have a further near-simultaneous gap from that burst in February to the beginning of this month, 1/2 June, a matter of days before the AfD, when all again began editing at nearly the same time. All visited the AfD within their first few edits. I conclude that these are socks of one another, and that they should be dismissed. If people concur, I would also suggest indefinite blocks given their usage.
    • Nertz (talk · contribs) was an account created at exactly the same time as the three above resumed editing — on 2nd June, and visited the AfD in short order. Just about the same shortness of order as the other three. As with Nigel Wick, this would usually lighten his weight considerably, but I strongly suspect this to be a further sockpuppet.
    • Punt! (talk · contribs) is the creator of the article. This account, coincidentally, was also created on 2nd June, the same day it wrote the article, and does indeed share a penchant for exclamation marks with several of the others. I suspect a further sockpuppet.
  • I would therefore suggest that all of these account be indefinitely blocked (they are not benign socks) and the puppet master can email an admin requesting his/her chosen one be unblocked. As to the deletion review, the article itself is borderline as is the company. It would be entirely reasonable to overturn the closure and delete. But I think, given the disruption the debate experienced, that overturn and relist is better. -Splash - tk 03:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Major_programming_languages

I did not see the TfD discussion until after someone acted on it to remove the template from an article I watch. Looking through the discussion, it appears that the discussion had 11 delete votes, and 6 keep votes (FWIW, I would have voted "keep" if I had noticed it). It doesn't seem like deletion on a bare majority is the right closing action (no consensus would be more fitting). As far as I can see, all the votes on both sides were cast in good faith, by established editors, and accompanied by reasonable statements of reasons. So the conduct of the discussion seems eminently reasonable... it just doesn't seem to have been closed correctly. LotLE×talk 20:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Erik Möller

Was inappropriately speedied as recreation, which it wasn't. The originally AfD'd article (Erik Moeller) didn't mention that he was a published author, and the AfD was based on the idea that he's non-notable because the article just mentioned his temporary Wikimedia post. Thus the second article should go through AfD again. Margana 19:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

there are also two previous versions of Erik Möller that have been deleted previously, the first was a redirect and the second was very short. -- Kim van der Linde 19:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
There are about 4,000 copies of my book. It's a niche publication about wikis, weblogs and open source software. I don't think having written a single book with such a small run makes me a notable person.--Eloquence* 19:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh

Despite establishing the relevance of theSMSzone.com and its creator as a pioneer of SMS spoofing, the article was deleted without, in my opinion, due consideration of the arguments presented. Phanatical 08:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Undelete, Relist - I strongly object to the deletion. The article was deleted without taking into account the arguments posed in objection to the original deletion request. I profoundly believe the article deserves a place in our community as there are severe criminal impacts 'spoofed sms' pose to society. theSMSzone.com is also mentioned in the wiki entry for sms under Criminal Impact further increasing its notability. Ahmedsays 12:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • user's third edit to Misplaced Pages
    • Reminder: Deletion review is not the place to simply continue a closed AfD. It's not "Articles for Deletion, Round 2". Comment on only whether the discussion was concluded correctly. Don't rehash the same points that you have already mentioned in the AfD. Kimchi.sg 13:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's examine each "keep" argument from the AfD in detail:
    1. over 48000 relevant backlinks to theSMSzone can be found with the terms "theSMSzone.com" - blatant untruth, clicking on the provided link shows only "about 22" backlinks, and if you click to page 2, only 11 of these are unique.
    2. seems like this website pioneered SMS spoofing hence is a valuable asset to the WIKI community - no sources provided for this claim either within the AfD (and I daresay, in the article itself), therefore unverifiable.
    3. theSMSzone.com was the first website in the world that allowed users to define a "From" number. - yet another unsourced nugget.
    4. I see no reason why this entry should be deleted. Please use the keywords "spoofed sms" in google for clear evidence on the impact this startup had on text messaging. - seems this editor has not heard of Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines for websites. And a search for spoofed SMS theSMSzone shows 486 hits, none of which are to reliable sources. Only 42 of these are unique.
    5. MSN and Yahoo print a totally different picture - thousands of results. Doesnt look like 'corporate' spam to me. - to this editor it may not, to the rest of us, it does. The top hit on the MSN search is a PRweb press release, and the top Yahoo! search result is the site itself. Again not a good omen, no WP:WEB criteria are satisfied.
    6. Lastly, SMS spoofing is also listed as having a criminal impact on society in the wiki entry for SMS with the 'sms zone' pinpointed as the cause. - Misplaced Pages articles may not use other Misplaced Pages articles as sources, so if this one had to depend on the SMS article to live, then it really shouldn't have survived AfD.
    In summary, the closing admin was right to discount the weakly-reasoned "keep" votes, which made no mention of how the website or its founder satisfy WP:WEB and WP:BIO respectively. Consensus was correctly determined, with disregard to sheer number of votes. Keep deleted, no new information has surfaced to justify undeletion. (Link to Google cache version of the article: ) Kimchi.sg 13:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Kimchi. Postdlf 13:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep deleted per Kimchi's research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure as within administrator discretion. I note that a number of the participants in the deletion discussion have suspiciously short contribution histories. However I'll also note that a more detailed explanation by the closer would have been appropriate in this case. Rossami (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:OURS

This page was speedy-deleted out of process. It was nominated at MfD, then deleted by Sceptre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with edit sum CSD G4. (This is the criterion that refers to recreated material but there is no previously-deleted version.) Sceptre then closed the MfD with the notation The result of the debate was speedy delete, G5. Rgulerdem had created the idea and theres about half-a-dozen threads on the mailing list by Rg about WP:OURS, Raphael is just acting through proxy. G5 is the criterion that refers to pages created by banned users.

I have three distinct and independent objections to this deletion:

1) The nomination was made at MfD and therefore the page in question was not eligible for speedy. No matter what, we do not wish that admins ignore or bypass community consensus. The nomination was not allowed to stand for even a single day before this admin took pre-emptive action. At this point 2 users have asked the page be kept, 2 that it be deleted, and 1 has made a comment that appears to question the wisdom of deletion.

2) Neither speedy criterion applies to this page. It does not prima facie appear to be a re-creation; therefore it fails G4. It was not created by a banned user operating under a sock; it was created by another editor, one in good standing. It is irrelevant whether the content was inspired by or even written originally by the banned user; the page was not so written. We are not in a position to ban all the words that have been written by people we don't like. The actual page creator, Raphael1 (talk · contribs), stated that he did not simply copy the banned user's words from the mailing list; but even if so, that would fail to invoke G5.

3) I object strongly to admin control of the policy-making process. Adminship is not a party favor or membership in the executive club; admins are to implement policy, not to control it. Policy is the right and responsibility of every editor. Once a proposal has been made, it ought never be subject to deletion by the whim of a single admin. The page in question may be wise or unwise but we all have a right to debate it.

John Reid 05:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Relist per nom. Posts on a mailing list do not count as "creation" of a page - only its presence on Misplaced Pages servers count. Kimchi.sg 05:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. We've been through this. It's not worth having. NSLE (T+C) at 05:23 UTC (2006-06-10)
  • Relist, though Rapheal1 is anything but a user in good standing, judging by the number of disputes he's involved in. --tjstrf 05:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. This is a proposal for a system of admin - user relations proposed by a banned user, copied from the mailing list but with some parts missing (which may violate GFDL). The basic intent its to prevent admins from blocking POV pushers. The original draft from User:Rgulerdem stated in the last draft I saw on the list that we should abide by well-established policies and guidelines such as Misplaced Pages:Wikiethics - this was comprehensively rejected as an attempt to endorse censorship. Both Resid Gulerdem and Raphael Wegmann are keen to override the consensus on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy by removing or not displaying the images, I find it hard to see this as anything other than an attempt to introduce policy to allow them to override consensus and evade admin attention. The policy as written stands is likely to attract every POV pusher and problem editor; it is instruction creep and it is neither necessary nor welcome. Oh, and it's the work of a banned user while banned. Just zis Guy you know? 12:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, relist. The merits of this proposal a) do not exist, but b) are not substantive to here. At the moment, there was no process followed regarding this deletion, and it should run its course and be soundly rejected on its merits. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Divisive nonsense from a banned user. NoSeptember 13:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, a typo in the deletion summary isn't a reason to undelete a page. --Rory096 19:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist. I see no compelling reason for bypassing process in this case. --Ashenai 19:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I am disturbed by the process allegations on both sides of this debate. On balance, I do not think that a clear case can be made that this met any of the deliberately narrow criteria for speedy-deletion. Overturn speedy-deletion and reopen the deletion discussion (where, by the way, I am inclined to argue to keep the page - failed policy pages are tagged with {{rejected}} but kept so we can learn from them in the future). Rossami (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)

The original request for deletion review has been refactored due to length, for clarity, and to remove gaudy formatting. It can be viewed in its entirety here. Kimchi.sg 02:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Fellow Wikipedians, the article in question was Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis). There are plenty of materials out there already published that cover and make mention of the various facts I have laid out here. My opinion was what I believed you wanted and I gave it. For sources:

  1. Kubrick's "2001" by Leonard F. Wheat
  2. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker
  3. The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stephanie Schwam (Editor), Jay Cocks (Introduction)
  4. Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter (Foreword by Arthur C. Clarke)
  5. 2001 Filming the Future by Piers Bizony
  6. The Making of Kubrick's 2001 by Jerome Agel (its almost a bible to the film)
  7. the souvener progam to the movie
  8. the jewel of my collection, the April 1968 issue of LIFE magazine with its first pictorial preview of the film from beginning to end. It even showed the Star Child!
  9. and of course, Arthur C. Clarke's novels of 2001 and 2010

And in the end, Angr listed the film synopsis for deletion on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis). I chose to wait until the last day to cast my actual vote (though I did inset a comment or two). The final tally was Keep - 7 votes 47%, Delete - 4 votes 27%, Merge - 4 votes 27%

Only 4 out 15 people voted to DELETE the article. An equal number wanted the article merged (i.e. unsplit) with the original main article. But the majority voted TO KEEP THE ARTICLE! Administrator fuddlemark went against the majority in the discussion and declared “The result of the debate was delete.” This goes against any possible concept of fair play or policy that I can think of. The majority says ”KEEP” and this guy proclaims the result of the debate was delete?

I contest this action – it can not be allowed to stand. These people have spit into the faces of the various members of the Misplaced Pages community and defied the final decision. If everyone had come on and said Delete, I would have no problem with this. But the majority voted to Keep the article. The action of deleting the article is therefore a morally and ethically wrong action that must not be allowed to stand. The majority at the time said that the article should not have been deleted. On that basis, I ask for the action to be reversed. -- User:Jason Palpatine 02:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Relist. I'd like to see more discussion of the sources used to write the synopsis, and whether detailed description is a clear copyvio. The original AfD looks more like a no consensus to me (yes, I know, it's "not a vote".) I'm not sure whether to count the "merge" votes as keep votes ("keep the content") or delete votes ("delete the page"), but that's a secondary issue. Deltabeignet 05:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment. It was originally deleted as being original research, if you fixed that it should be fine. Also, might I remind you that AfD is not technically a vote. Personally, I would suggest rewriting the article in a substantially different manner, and if it gets deleted AGAIN, bringing it here. --tjstrf 05:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion (disclaimer - argued for delete in afd). The closing admin outlined his reasoning for coming to deletion as based on the arguements given, and not simple numbers, which is exactly what is supposed to happen. Afd is not a vote, and is based on weight of arguements, not weight of numbers. Regards, MartinRe 05:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. What is the main article for, if not a synopsis of the film? Work on that article instead. Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Regretfully endorse deletion. The article actually was rather well-done, and I do hope that this content survives elsewhere, but the level of detail makes this feel out of place on an encyclopedia, and similarly may make us vulnerable to claims of copyvio. A brief synopsis has its place on the article's entry -- a detailed separate-page synopsis does not have a place here -- when the synopsis is close to enough to recreate the film, something's not right here. I believe the decision was correct, and as for how it was reached, it's not unusual for people closing VfD to analyse the arguments as well as weigh the numbers. It's a judgement call. JasonP, if you want my help to find a better home than Misplaced Pages for this content (which you've put some time into, I notice), drop me a note on my talk page, and we'll figure something out. --Improv 14:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The big question, to my mind, is whether the article can be given inline references to make it crystal clear which facts come from which sources. I am also worried about how one could quickly check whether anything in the article is close to being a copyright violation. In my opinion there isn't really a bright line between where presenting, organizating, and synthesizing published sources leaves off, and original research/personal opinion begins. I am very troubled that the list of sources was not added until the last minute.
I'd like to ask User:Jason Palpatine these questons:
  • Are the books he cites physically in his possession?
  • If I had read and absorbed half a dozen books and then wrote an article this long from my personal knowledge, I estimate that it would take me many hours to locate the source in each book that justifies the major items in the essay. (And in the process I would expect to find that my memory had betrayed me several times). Is User:Jason Palpatine prepared to do this?
  • Does the material in this article truly come from the sources, or is it based on the editor's observations of watching the film itself? If so, how should this be cited? I've suggested several times that I would be happy considered a DVD to be a "published source" but that I'd like it to be cited by giving the exact published version of the DVD and identifying incidents in it by, say, number of minutes into the film.
If Jason Palpatine is prepared to rewrite the article in such a way that it is crystal clear that it is not his personal recollection from having watched the movie, is truly based on published sources, and does not involve more than fair use of published sources, I would vote to relist. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)



In reply from User:Jason Palpatine

A lot has been said before elsewhere. In reply to the points/questions raised above:

Question #1: Are the books User:Jason Palpatine cites physically in his possession?

  1. Kubrick's "2001" by Leonard F. Wheat -- is physically in my possession.
  2. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker -- Library copy (since returned)
  3. The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stephanie Schwam (Editor), Jay Cocks (Introduction) -- is physically in my possession.
  4. Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter (Foreword by Arthur C. Clarke) -- Library copy (since returned)
  5. 2001 Filming the Future by Piers Bizony -- is physically in my possession.
  6. The Making of Kubrick's 2001 by Jerome Agel (its almost a bible to the film) -- is physically in my possession.
  7. the souvenir program to the movie -- is physically in my possession.
  8. the jewel of my collection, the April 1968 issue of LIFE magazine with its first pictorial preview of the film from beginning to end. It even showed the Star Child! -- is (as the comment indicates) physically in my possession.
  9. and of course, Arthur C. Clarke's novels of 2001 and 2010 -- both are physically in my possession and read more than once.
    • In response to this question, I have ordered Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker and Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter today through www.amazon.com. Delivery estimate: June 19, 2006 - June 21, 2006

Question #2: If I had read and absorbed half a dozen books and then wrote an article this long from my personal knowledge, I estimate that it would take me many hours to locate the source in each book that justifies the major items in the essay. (And in the process I would expect to find that my memory had betrayed me several times). Is User:Jason Palpatine prepared to do this?

    • Utilizing copyrighted materials is not allowed here. I am required to use my own words regardless of source material. As I understand things here, except for a few quotations (which are in the article) direct copyright material inclusion is not allowed. I must use my own words. It is these two policies that are being used in conflict to support the outlandish claim that the article is original research.
    • I have noted before that I do not understand how to do citations in an article. I've been to the instructions page and it is beyond my understanding.
    • How much of references do I need to cite? A sentence-by-sentence referencing is just too much IMHO. Also, when claims were made of WP:OR, no justification other than the accusation itself was offered. There is nothing to prevent anyone here from looking up and checking the references listed.. I am willing to commit some time to it. However, I am not an administrator and have other considerations such as my job to consider.


Question #3: If Jason Palpatine is prepared to rewrite the article in such a way that it is crystal clear that it is not his personal recollection from having watched the movie, is truly based on published sources, and does not involve more than fair use of published sources, I would vote to relist. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

In May, the following tags were applied to the main article:

{{cleanupdate}}
{{split}}
According to User:Scm83x: ‘’”(readd {{splitlong}} , 111kb is huge... something has to be moved to a new article... perhaps the plot summary should be cut down...”’’
I branched that article off of the main article in response to this. It was the first part of the article to be split. A simplified synopsis was left in the main with
Main article: 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) .
In the main article.
If you check the history of the main article, much of the lengthy detailed synopsis that would become the article we are discussing here was already in place in the primary article before I entered the picture. I took concentrated interest in the article beginning with my edit of 20:15, 18 April 2006. Please look at the prior version of the primary article In other words, that ‘’original’’ article material was produced by other editors here.
The following editors all contributed to the article in the month ‘’before’’ I took a serious interest:
User:128.95.15.78, User:134.114.59.41, User:141.154.59.190, User:200.207.16.222, User:203.217.64.73, User:207.208.157.183, User:216.55.222.221, User:63.41.12.17, User:64.93.158.158, User:65.174.176.123, User:65.54.97.194, User:67.81.189.88, User:68.14.154.242, User:69.143.172.3, User:70.18.71.105, User:70.231.235.251, User:71.113.185.129, User:71.242.131.195, User:72.144.136.77, User:72.40.90.163, User:72.56.157.31, User:80.200.209.231, User:Allemannster, User:Ashmoo, User:Bwileyr m, User:CmdrObot, User:Comics, User:DanielLC, User:DavidH, User:Dayv, User:Deltabeignet, User:Duncancumming, User:Dysprosia, User:FunkyFly, User:Hetar, User:JRawle, User:Knife Knut, User:Larry V, User:LordofHavoc, User:Lottoextra, User:Lysowski, User:MarnetteD, User:MikeBriggs, User:Modemac, User:MotionRotaryTOAD, User:Pearle, User:Pegship, User:PurpleHaze, User:RedNovember, User:Riddle, User:RussBot, User:Seminumerical, User:Simninja, User:The Anome, User:The Singing Badger, User:Thefourdotelipsis, User:WAS
This was the work of many people, not just me. My primary intesnt was a major mistake which was over time corrected by other admins -- the inclusion of way too many pictures from the film. This matter was dealt with -- the number images was drastically reduced to what should have been considered an acceptable amount. However, some admins were not satified and cut back too much. I do not mind editing, but I absolutely oppose butchery and sterility. 2001 is a heavily visually structured event (check out the TMA-1 image in the Dialouge section of the main article). I considered more than the usual number of images in Wik policy to be necessary for the synopsis section/article to do justice to the film. The only answer I got was
"There is no such thing as too little when it comes to fair use. That is all. "
The sizing is also quoted. With the destruction of the article and its talk page, I can not cite the identity of the admin you posted the remark. I only know that it was not any of the admins who have posted here.

Question #4: What is the main article for, if not a synopsis of the film? Work on that article instead. Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried to do that with the Film Synopsis following the AfD implementation. The admins who were responsible for motioning the AfD of the Film Synopsis article reverted my edits as I made them:
13:51, 9 June 2006 Scm83x m (Reverted edits by Jason Palpatine (talk) to last version by Angr)
11:26, 9 June 2006 Angr (The result of the AFD was to delete the synopsis, not incorporate it back in here)
Given the intense opposition I am facing here, it's not likely to happen. (please check out my User page under the heading A question in response to recent events here)

Question #4: Does the material in this article truly come from the sources, or is it based on the editor's observations of watching the film itself? If so, how should this be cited? I've suggested several times that I would be happy considered a DVD to be a "published source" but that I'd like it to be cited by giving the exact published version of the DVD and identifying incidents in it by, say, number of minutes into the film.

I was unaware of the fact that the DVD would be considered a valid listing. Your proposal is interesting. 'MORE than interesting. If such an undertaking would be allowed I would gladly do it!

Question #5: The big question, to my mind, is whether the article can be given inline references to make it crystal clear which facts come from which sources. I am also worried about how one could quickly check whether anything in the article is close to being a copyright violation. In my opinion there isn't really a bright line between where presenting, organizating, and synthesizing published sources leaves off, and original research/personal opinion begins. I am very troubled that the list of sources was not added until the last minute.


Pasted from my talk page :

The article as it stands references no sources at all, so why didn't you include the full listing of your sources in the article, as required by WP:V? What I mean by secondary sources is outlined in WP:RS, but basically if the article is a film synopsis, then, by definition, it is based on the primary source. The question is then, who is doing the synopsis? If that synopsis is by a wikipedia editor, then it is original research. If the synopsis is done by someone else, then wikipedia could source that as a secondary source, but the article should then discuss the synopsis, but not the film itself. Thus, a synopsis of a film must fall into two categories, either secondary sources has summarized it, and the article reproduces it, which is a problem with copyright, or an editor has analyzed several synopses and summarized them, which is original research. Regards, MartinRe 19:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


The article is a sub-article branched off from the main article. The sources were/are listed in the main article. The branch off was done on account of the main being listed as too big and recommended for split. I thought the source info being there made listing them inappropriate. -- User:Jason Palpatine 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Hope this helps -- Jason Palpatine 23:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservative Underground

Fellow Wikipedians, the article in question was initially called for deletion by User:BenBurch who has a history of initiating edit wars & deletions on conservative pages such as Free Republic & White Rose Society. On January 17,2006 this proposed deletion was closed by User:Johnleemk, and the result of the debate was no consensus; keep. A second deletion debate was initiated on April 14, 2006 by User:Isotope23 and on April 20, 2006it was closed by admin User:(aeropagitica), resulting in a deletion. The Conservative Underground article had been vandalized countless times before it's deletion by the same people who voted for it's deletion. It is pretty obvious that these deletions are political motivated. Articles such as Democratic Underground, Free Republic, Protest Warrior, Vive le Canada, Progressive Bloggers, Blogging Tories, etc... are allowed to remain.--James Bond 00:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted. ad hominem fallacy, even supposing it were true ("BenBurch has a history..."; irrelevancy ("The...article had been vandalized countless times"); and begging the question ("It is pretty obvious..."): lots of rhetorical fallacies, there. About the only undisputedly true bit is "A second deletion debate ...result in a deletion", so let's leave it at that, absent any actual evidence of actual wrongdoing in the process or change in the subject. --Calton | Talk 01:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist. I have no problem with this page being relisted if they will follow the rules in doing so. BenBurch 01:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, as the article makes no claim to notability. Some of the articles mentioned as comparisons should probably go as well (Progressive Bloggers?). When will the consmoderals realize that their blogs, forums and websites are not encyclopedic? -- Kjkolb 03:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and get rid of the non-notable liberal organization/blogger/website articles as well. --tjstrf 05:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. AfDs are non-binding, and a previous decision can be revoked by a new AfD. Johnleemk | Talk 10:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, no evidence of significance. Just zis Guy you know? 12:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted. No assertion of notability was made in the article. It can be recreated if new better content and a legitimate claim of notability is made, as is true with many currently non-notable groups that may grow into notability. NoSeptember 12:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure of the second deletion debate. I find no process problems in that discussion nor do I find any evidence of bias. Rossami (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

08 June 2006

Joseph D. Campbell

This article was nominated for deletion, and was closed by User:9cds (not an admin, although going through RfA at the moment) as 'no consensus'. I think that was a poor call. The five people expressing the view that the article should be deleted made far better arguments - mainly about that annoying little fact that articles should be, you know, verifiable, and even if he was verifiable, he's not notable - than the three who thought it should be kept (including one weak keep, and one that said 'the sources will come organically', which is ridiculous). See the AfD for more details. I would have deleted this, and I recommend overturn the closure, and delete. Proto||type 11:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment The reason I closed as no consensus was because the only arguments I could see against deletion was "not sourced" or "The sources aren't good enough" - since the page already has some sources (even if they couldn't be verified by myself), I couldn't see any reason to delete. -- 9cds 11:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist on AfD I made the point in the AfD discussion that we should probably hold it off, and possibly redo the whole deal because the sources finally came to light only a day or so before the end of the process. Even if the sources are weak (and I never said they weren't), the first deletion votes were made under the assumption that pretty much no sources existed at all, which is unfair (and I'm usually fairly exclusionist regarding things like this). I would not be opposed to deleting it outright, but wouldn't prefer it. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 16:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist It's clear there wasn't much of a discussion on notability. The closing was premature. --Kchase02 T 17:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist and since it was closed no-consensus, this does not require DRV's permission. Septentrionalis 20:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete the concern about lack of notability and verifibility was unaddressed in my view, with nothing backing up notability claims, and limited sources (one of which was an letter to editor) for any possibly verification. No predujuce about re-creation if further sources backing notability claim are found, but also no reason to keep in the meantime for something that may or may not happen. Regards, MartinRe 05:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Church of Reality

(See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Church of reality.) --66.28.20.178 15:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Church of Reality website

The Church of Reality is a religion, based on what is tangible and real. Somehow, for some reason, its article (and even its talk page) was deleted, with little to no apparent reason. This is really no different from deleting an article on any other religion, which is unfair censorship. I'm asking whoever deleted it to either give a truly good reason as to why it should stay deleted, or undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.178.151 (talk • contribs) 06:59 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Heinen's

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Heinen's
  • Strong Overturn, Undelete. A top 100 Ohio business; clearly passes WP:CORP; was already cited on Supermarkets in the United States, therefore clearly notable (and meant to be given a wikipedia page); not to mention has MORE stores in its chain, has a HIGHER sales volume, occupies a LARGER region, and has MORE information supplied than many businesses that have ALREADY been given Misplaced Pages pages: Westborn Market, Woodman's Food Market, Strack and Van Til, Scolari's, Magruder's, Felpausch, and many more. AS CREATOR OF THE ARTICLE, I would also like to comment on my extremely upsetting experience in posting this article. I have already given all of these reasons NUMEROUS times in defense of my article, and I have proven in my previous posts that my article should be granted a Misplaced Pages page. It was speedily deleted without hardly any consideration or supplied reason except that more people had posted DELETE than had posted KEEP - a 1 vote majority in fact (yes 1 vote). NO OTHER REASONING was provided to account for its deletion! I spent a great deal of time describing the business and how it is definately influential and notable. My arguments it seems were not considered at all and were simply left out of the matter. My article was not biased, and it was not created as advertising. PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS ARTICLE as it clearly deserves a Misplaced Pages page. . If the article is undeleted, I WILL add to it. Bluebul1989 06:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In terms of pure numbers (standard disclaimer AfD is not a vote etc), the close was borderline, with 66% or 60% for deletion, depending on whether Bluebul1989's opinion is counted (as a new user who has so far only edited in relation to this article and is the sole editor to do so, the admin can choose to do so or not). That would often be closed as 'no consensus', defaulting to keep, but it is very much within the admin's discretion. However, in this case, I don't think the reasons to delete are that pressing. I don't believe that the article was created as self-promotion - if I had I would certainly endorse deletion. Bluebul claims to be a 16-year-old Ohian on WP:NEW and this is supported by a Google search for his username. Although I find the WP:CORP claim to notability dubious (the top 100 companies in every state of the USA being automatically notable sounds rather Americentric), DRV is not the place to debate that, and the other arguments for it being notable sound reasonable. Therefore, I suggest overturn as a no consensus and undelete without prejudice against a further AfD to gain a clearer consensus in a fortnight or so after Bluebul has improved it further. P.S. Bluebul, you don't need to shout. --Sam Blanning 13:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. A 66% delete vote is insufficient to delete, better to have no consensus'ed it and see what happens from there. THE KING 18:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • AfD is not a vote. 66% can be sufficient to delete if the reasoning to delete is compelling enough. In this case I think the reasoning isn't compelling enough, but this misconception needs to be challenged wherever it appears. --Sam Blanning 19:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn IMO, important enough for a reasonable article to be written. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted AfD is indeed not a vote, so by ONE VOTE doesn't matter, as its to be determined by community consensus. In this case, however, it is 5/2 if we throw out bluebul's and Laximus's comments as being too new at the time. 5 / 7 ≃ 0.714 {\displaystyle 5/7\simeq 0.714} . Aside from the raw numbers, you may want to read Rough consensus on the reasoning behind the supposed lack of counting. Many of the delete users all conceeding WP:CORP as being against it. One person believed in notability, another used a claim that there were already other non-WP:CORP-adhering on the page already, which could've been interpreted as admitting WP:CORP as well. I can see why the article was deleted, even if WP:CORP sets a very high bar. There was really nothing that wrong about the deletion. Sorry. Kevin_b_er 03:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a local supermarket chain. I shop there regularly. But it's not automatically notable for an international encyclopedia. There is not enough to say that will ever let this expand past the stub stage. And until they get a lot bigger or better known, there can't be. Endorse closure as within reasonable administrator discretion. By the way, I am unpersuaded by the argument that we must/should keep this article because we have not yet cleaned out other even less encyclopedic articles. We should be raising standards for the project, not racing to the lowest common denominator. Rossami (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn The people who marked delete did so before reason was provided as to why it was actually notable under WP:CORP and by no reasons were given contrasting the evidence put forth by blubul stating that it passes the second part for notability under WP:CORP (of which it only needs to pass one part). Laximus 05:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Question Can you be more specific about how the company meets WP:CORP? I'm looking at the AfD, and blubul's arguments, and I don't quite see it. Fan1967 05:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment "2. The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices, produced by well-known and independent publications, of important companies" (WP:CORP). According to this independent listing of top Ohio businesses between 2003 and 2004, , Heinen's was ranked within the top 100 both years. Bluebul1989 05:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • That criterion means indices like the Fortune 500. The index cited does not give a sales volume, and the ranking appears to be based solely on number of employees. 2,200 em ployees is a fair-sized chain, but I would question whether it is evidence per WP:CORP. What's needed are things like sales volume, whether publicly traded, nett value of the business, number of stores - objective measures of significance, in other words. A genuinely significant business will have more than a single source stating that it is significant, sop please provide the others. Just zis Guy you know? 07:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Also note that it ranks in the list of the top 100 private companies, most of which are so small they wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the top 100 if they were publicly held. Fan1967 13:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn The regional importance of this organization--given that it is privately owned--signals its importance for inclusion and notability. Irongargoyle 00:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Your comment confuses me. What facts lead you to believe that this business holds "regional importance"? And why would being privately owned increase that importance? As someone living in the region, I can attest that it's not significantly different from any other US grocery store chain. Rossami (talk)
  • Overturn, Undelete. It seems notable enough. TruthbringerToronto 02:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

BB Sinha

For clarity here is the article log.

This article was originally just a thin article that was nothing and was speedily deleted. Later the article was recreated, and I assisted in the overall betterment of the article. Again, the article was proposed for deletion, but on the grounds of a repost. However, Mike Rosoft restored the article stating, "Sufficiently different content from deleted material to warrant a new discussion/vote." The article remained standing and again was nominated for speedy in which I placed a hangon tag, another admin (I don't whom exactly, and I don't want to place names) agreed with the previous decision and stated that it was an entirely new article and deserved to stay up. Today, the article was deleted by Eskog for being a "repost." I am challenging this decision and request for undelete. The article is vastly stronger and signifies notability. Also, the repost decision was overturned before. It doesn't seem logical just to eliminate it for just that. Respectfully, Yanksox 05:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have already restored, as I was the speedying admin. I didn't notice that Mike Rosoft had already rejected the "repost" argument. (ESkog) 05:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Can someone close this, it's been speedily restored. also, drop me a note of the templates for closure on my Talk if you wouldn't mind. I'm sure it's here somewhere blindingly obvious, but I didn't see it... Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Mending Wall

This article was deleted by User:Royboycrashfan without any discussion. As far as I understand the deletion process, this is not wikipedia policy.

I am happy to resolve any copyvio problems. Tomandlu 11:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Restore, tentatively pending an explanation for this from Royboycrashfan—no explanation is obvious at the moment. I do not see what grounds there were for speedy deletion. There may be copyright issues, although I am not certain because the poem dates from 1915, but an article that old should not have been speedied without discussion. -- SCZenz 13:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

07 June 2006

Template:User Not in metric

This longstanding, tongue-in-cheek, satirical userbox was in line with other tongue-in-cheek, satirical user boxes. Administrator Tony Sidaway deleted this page citing its apparently inflammatory content. (See his talk page.) This userbox is clearly humorous and should not have been arbitrarily deleted like this. An example of this userbox is on my talk page. Nova SS 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering that you are the only person who has that userbox included on the userpage, does it really matter? I don't really think it's a T1 candidate, but the content was not really very useful either. I think the thing is OK to leave subst:ed on your userpage. Neutral. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cancer Bats

This article on a band was properly deleted as non-notable at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cancer Bats. However, I'm listing for reconsideration here in the light of subsequent developments that may alter that judgment, namely the release of an album under (what appears to be) a major label. The article's original author also claims the following additional facts (which I have not verified myself):

  • Released a sampler, an EP and an album
  • Album is sold in Sunrise Records and HMV
  • Video recieves rotation on MuchLoud (a show on MuchMusic)
  • Had an interview and played a live show on MTV Canada Live
  • Appeared on The Edge 102.1 (CFNY-FM) and the single was played at least once.
  • Played with bands such as The Bled, Protest The Hero, will play with NOFX and Silverstein summer of '06
  • Signed to same indie label as The Bled and Alexisonfire
  • Has toured across Canada and is already on tour again with destinations from Moncton NB to Vancouver BC

I am not voting at this time, just facilitating. Postdlf 23:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Overturn, undelete. Has anything new been presented? Not...really. The band has recently been featured in Canada's Exclaim! magazine, not small potatoes, as well as a feature on Canadian 106.7 FM. It's important to note that the band met WP:MUSIC guidelines BEFORE the AfD, and that was ignored. The prior meeting of the necessary guideline in the first AfD and further media mentions since then more than mean the deletion should be overturned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Undelete -- the evidence above seems to show sufficient notability. -- The Anome 12:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Strong Overturn, Undelete. The album is out, theyve made more public appearances and the tour scedule has been updated to include a cross country tour with some major bands. I was ignored during the first vote, please dont ignore me now. All claims can be verified on these websites: , , , and . They have met more than 1 of the notability claims. Avenged Evanfold 23:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak undelete playing on MTV Live (Canada) has to have some notability along with some magazine mentions. THe amazon link is not impressive, but ASIN B000FKOZLA is funny. What kind of viewship does MuchLoud/Music get? Our stub is not helpful. Kotepho 01:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cum On Her Face

Very popular porn site I really dont know why was it deleted. Luka Jačov 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong undelete - Luka Jačov 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong undelete - per Luka. --Pockey 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The article was speedied as an A7 (person or organization with no claim of notability). It's actually more of a website than an organization, and although I doubt it meets WP:WEB, that doesn't make it speediable. I don't think we're going to find any good independent reliable sources. Still, why not give it its day on AfD? Undelete and list at AfD. -GTBacchus 21:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • List on AfD if we must, but I really see no need for this article. It's just another porn site, of which there is surely no dearth, and I really can't imagine anybody actually coming to Misplaced Pages for information on it. Just zis Guy you know? 22:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and list on AfD per GTBacchus. Endorse Deletion per Sam Blanning (below) TheJC Contributions 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, no assertion of notability, proper A7. "Recognized worldwide" is, like "good chess player", not an assertion of notability. An assertion of notability is claiming to have won a significant chess tournament or "Best Cumshot Website of 2006" at the World Porn Awards. And don't bother relisting until someone turns up a reliable source to base an article on. --Sam Blanning 22:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak endorse per CSD A3 and WP:NOT a web directory. Did not actually say anything about the site that wouldn't be pretty obvious from the name. Permit recreation (subject to WP:WEB) if something encyclopedic can be written about the subject. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion until someone can evidence notability. per Sam Blanning. Bastique▼ voir 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong endorse per Sam Blanning clearly violates WP:NOT Whispering 00:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Ilmari; the article didn't inform beyond describing the practice that is the website's obvious subject matter. Though there's no reason why this shouldn't just be blandly listed, without elaboration, in a list article of porn sites somewhere. Something can be notable yet insubstantial, and so like the good information scientists we are we should ensure it gets incorporated into the proper place rather than trying to write a separate treatise on it. Postdlf 00:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

AlternC

An extension from Control panel (Web hosting) The administrator Zoe deleted this page on account of advertising, however I'm not affiliated with AlternC nor do I advise/condone its use, I am simply noting the control panel along with a list of many other noteworthy control panels. I am not advertising in any way, I believe it is a misunderstanding.

Manny 17:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • It was written as an ad, whatever your motivation. If you want to discuss what it is, when it was created, who uses it, and can document it, that's fine, I have no problem with a re-creation, but as it stood, all it did was to extoll its features. User:Zoe| 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for the clarification! Manny 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Tiffany Holiday

Short and Good article speedy deleted by User:Drini and User:Golbez, edit summaries were "csd nnbio" and "". There was no vote. Many many results on Google, has an IMDb and AFDb profiles and also pass Misplaced Pages:Notability (erotic actors) for having a recored of around 100 films --Haham hanuka 14:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Somehow, this ended up at page bottom today (June 7); not sure why it's dated earlier, but I have moved it for consideration. Xoloz 15:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Judging by the answers.com link, I think the fact the stub is short, and contains a poorly sourced negative claim, means it should not be restored. Instead, anybody who wishes, can create, a new original article, which clearly explains her notability, and which is well sourced. --Rob 16:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion; I do not see any claim of notability in the article. Removal of potential libel of a possibly non-notable person is a bonus. No prejudice about recreation at this point. - Liberatore(T) 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. As above, no claim of notability (one bit part in a real film, balance is the usual no-budget porn churned out at the rate of several a day by some "studios"). No reliable sources for any of the bio data (IAFD is not, unlike IMDB, a reliable source per WP:RS). Redux: dime-a-dozen porn "star". Take it to Wikiporn. Just zis Guy you know? 19:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Comment on process, not about content, this should be restored immediately as an improper speedy deletion. Holiday appears to be a more than notable enough actress for inclusion, we do not delete articles outright because they contain an unverified or unverifiable claim. Silensor 20:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Up to a point: process is there to guide us, policy is policy, and in the end there is no good reason to take up the community's time with debating articles which are functionally unverifiable. Deleting it does not prevent someone from coming along and creating a real article which makes some credible claim of notability and which is cited from reliable sources. WP:SNOW applies. Just zis Guy you know? 22:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Shane Cubis

This page has been continually deleted, because the initial article was created by the feature of the article himself, Shane Cubis. While the initial article may have been vanity or vandalism, he enlisted a group of his followers to create a real article in Misplaced Pages. His page has since been listed as a protected deleted pages, and his talk page is routinely deleted preventing a fair discussion of the deletion.

Shane Cubis does not fail WP:Bio and thus never really qualified for WP:AfD. Just because the article started as vandalism or vanity, it does not take away from the fact an actual compliant article could be at this entry, Shane Cubis. At the very least there should have been a discussion on the talk page, and not a speedy deletion into Protected deleted pages. JustOneJake 11:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn Shane Cubis is a notable Australian journalist, being a major contributor to an important Australian media group, The Chaser. The Chaser has made itself an important part of Australia's culture, being read by politicians, mainstream journalists and ordinary Australians. Shane's weekly columns attract large amounts of reads and discussion. His work for People magazine, while not being as well known, has attracted large amounts of attention from mainstream Australia. JoshT 220.237.79.202 12:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy-deletion under case A7. The entire contents of the longest version of the article read "Shane Cubis (born 1980) is a writer, originally from Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. Shane's first article was a Teri Weigel porn review in the Tertangala, Wollongong University's student newspaper. Since then he's contributed to a variety of gaming magazines including Pyramid, Knights of the Dinner Table and the Silven Trumpeter. He currently has a weekly column in The Chaser and works for Australia's People Magazine." and one external link. Writers are part of a respected profession but are no more automatically notable than engineers or doctors of equivalent experience or standing. No assertion has been made that this writer is particularly significant or that he does qualify under our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. By the way, the deleted history shows that the only significant contributor to this page was user:Rubikcubis, supporting the assumption that this was an inappropriate autobiography. The user's subsequent edits to other pages do not insprire me to good faith. Rossami (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Rossami's excellent reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse indeed. Syrthiss 17:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, it's clear from Cubis's own website that he was the original author, and he's encouraging people to come here to recreate it and complain. User:Zoe| 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Endorse - per WP:VAIN. --JiFish(/Contrib) 18:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, and recommend that keen editors take the usual steps to moderate the inclusion of the subject's name and its variants in Misplaced Pages. There's is much outrage, followed by subterfuge, at the deletions. -Splash - tk 18:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion with thanks to Rossami for presenting a solid case. Just zis Guy you know? 19:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn: while the original article may be questionable as vanity, there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance and fame in the Australian political journalism / satire sphere that one of his fans should be allowed to create a page with information about him. The defacement of other pages with his name is consistent with the style of humour The_Chaser is famous for in Australia, not an indication that there is any lack of merit in the need for a "Shane Cubis" page on Misplaced Pages. "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is". Malthius 03:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC) User's first edit
    • there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance... Guy, since that's the very issue in question, you're begging the question. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Begging the question for effect though, since it seems that the vandalism or "meat puppetry" is more important here than the actual "issue in question" of whether Shane Cubis is worth of a bio page. Thanks for highlighting that for everyone. Malthius 10:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. No new information, and the old information was unconvincing to begin with. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn While no-one is denying that the original source of the article was Shane himself, that does not necessarily invalidate the merit of the article itself, and was more a function of the humour that has made him popular. Regardless of the American or British-centric knowledge of the original two administrators who deleted the article, their ignorance of the Australian media and in particular the satirical politcal area which is the expertise of the article subject in question does not mean it lacks significance. As an Australian, I guess I might equally wonder why something so incredibly minor and unimportant as a 3 year old racehorse such as Like_Now without even a particularly impressive record demands its own Misplaced Pages page, where a published journalist does not. U.Pseudonopoulos 09:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • User's only edit. User:Zoe| 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry. I was under the impression that this was a logical discussion and the weight of our argument would count for more than how many edits we had made to this website. Is this how all discussions are settled on Misplaced Pages? We simply get out our 'edit counts' and compare them, with the larger number winning? Perhaps we could both get out our wangs and compare those as well? Or do you want to try and actually add some value to the debate? Could you perhaps explain to me why Shane Cubis is less notable than the nag of a racehorse I have linked above? Is it simply because one is American and the other Australian, regardless of species? Are angsty teenagers with a lack of knowledge of other countries really fit to determine what adds to the grand sum of human knowledge? U.Pseudonopoulos 00:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Please see Misplaced Pages:Undeletion_policy#Suffrage. User:Zoe| 01:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Noted, and I can see the idea behind such in some cases, particularly where people are simply putting a vote without reasoning or detailed comment. I still hold that it has no relationship to the validity of the argument presented. "There are no strict rules for this, the admin closing a discussion is expected to use common sense", and in this case the only people voting without significant reasoning are the 'endorsers'. I find it irrelevant to the arguments that I and others have offered whether it is our only edits or not. The arguments should still be treated on the merit of what it presented itself. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • strong overturn Shane Cubis is notable within the fan base of The Chaser. He is a major columnist for the site and well respected author in a variety of other media. His other edits on Wiki have surely not affected his notability or his work as a writer/comedian. Gisellehobbs 10:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong overturn If for no other reason than his fellow journalists Chas_Licciardello, Chris_Taylor and Craig_Reucassel all have their own pages that provide just as much (or little, depending on how one is to view it) information about them. Is there any proof that these other journalists didn't write the articles themselves? Perhaps Shane Cubis is being punished for making a simple mistake - he wrote the article about himself in first person instead of third. Any of his fans would be happy to write the article to prevent it from remaining vanity if that is the main complaint, but he is certainly famous and/or popular enough to warrant an entry. Purpleorb (for clarity sake, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.177.2 (talk • contribs) )
    • This is an excellent point. Are all of these journalists significantly more notable than Cubis? He is also listed near Tim Brunero in The Chaser enterprise article, and the Brunero article has no more content or merit than the original Cubis article. If the Cubis article does not comeback, I purpose some of these other articles be removed for parity in this category. JustOneJake 03:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Rossami. — pd_THOR | 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion CSD A7 -- The Anome 13:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn Yes, Mr. Cubis may have originally written the article as a vanity piece for his article. That does not mean a compliant article could not be written. It is clear many people here are willing to write an article in the confines of Misplaced Pages policy. Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth, as he is drawing support from his article at The Chaser and his Antiwikipedia entry. As it stands now the page is protected deleted. Why not unprotect it and give someone a chance to write a compliant article? 63.225.118.147 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth. Is that a threat? User:Zoe| 20:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Based on the discussions on the forums at his article and the actions members of that forum have taken (silly vandalism to both here and the Wiktionary, I'd say that it's clearly a threat. Metros232 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Are you guys kidding? It’s no threat; it is an assessment of the facts. These people want a real article, and if there is a real article they will have less to complain about. Furthermore, do the actions of people unto Misplaced Pages affect the notability status of Cubis? Most of the discussion here is completely irrelevant to the facts. I am sure the guys at Britannica or Funk and Wagnalls never sat down and talked about their hate mail when deciding to include an entry. This man is at least as noteworthy as some of the other people on Misplaced Pages, and he deserves an article regardless of the actions of himself or others. 63.225.118.147 02:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Sounds notable enough. TruthbringerToronto 20:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Rossami. OhNoitsJamie 00:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion no verifiable notability proof presented. `'mikka (t) 00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Shane is one of only three weekly column writers for The Chaser. The Chaser is a very popular website in Australia, very much similar to The_Onion in terms of content and (local) popularity. It is important to note that, as a columnist, Shane writes articles which are put on the website under his own name. He is not writing anonymously, but offering his opinion under his name. As such, it is expected that people will want to find information about the author, so as to get background to form a view on the validity of his opinion. As such, I feel the author is notable and, as such, an appropriate page on the author should not be prevented from being created. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • keep/endorse deletion Attracting lots of sock puppets filled with meat, see the URL in the history]. People are being instructed how to go here JUST to request this overturned. This guy really is not notable, and the speedy is fine. Kevin_b_er 03:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Rossami. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This discussion doesn't make the Wikipedians look very good. What is the point of spending so much energy to exclude and defend against a bio entry for some guy who obviously has a following? It's not like the page was false, inflamatory, or libelous. If there were no other bio pages for minor notables the argument against allowing this guy would carry some weight, but clearly there are lots of such pages. For example, there are a dozen Chris Taylors, none of whom is particularly notable. 66.245.31.155 02:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Then please do some research and nominate those pages for deletion as well. We are striving for consistency but we must do so by raising the standards of the encyclopedia, not starting a race for the bottom. The fact that other inappropriate articles have not yet been cleaned up can not be a justification to fail to clean up this one. Rossami (talk)

Certainty principle

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle

Proponents say:

  • The certainty principle is a mathematical theorem. The proof is available for everybody.
  • It was officially published in the established peer-reviewed journal. It will not be published second time. The journal was registered in Russia, and this is Russian government who has to know about the journal, not Google.
  • Nobody has objections against scientific content of the papers. (Really no objections.)
  • If the theorem is true, its notability cannot be questioned, because it generalizes (not contradicts!) the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
  • The certainty principle is too young (1 year) to be known as widely as uncertainty principle.
  • The certainty principle is old enough to take it seriously. Links to it were put in WP almost year ago and a great amount of people have checked it, including highly qualified editors of the uncertainty principle.
  • The questoin of "reputability" of the journal is anyway subjective and should be discussed only if some specialists in the subject have objections against the certainty principle.

Opponents say:

  • We are not specialists in the subject, and cannot judge the principle from purely scientific point of view. But we want to protect WP from pseudo-science.
  • Google says that the certainty principle is not widely cited.
  • The journal, where the papers were published, is not "reputable", and can be considered as a self-publication.

What should we do in this situation? The conflict is going to become a war. Hryun 15:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Article exists under both Certainty principle and Certainty Principle in various forms. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle, which deleted this content as original research. I re-deleted this article because although this content was not identical, the original reason for deletion was unchanged. User:Hryun has claimed that the article is published in a Russian journal, but several physicist Wikipedians have looked for signs of this publication (or indeed the existence of the named journal) and found nothing; Hryun refuses to provide further details. You can see discussion of these issues, as well as more threats by User:Hryun, at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics#Certainty principle. -- SCZenz 15:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Taking off my admin hat, and putting on my WikiProject Physics hat, I would like to note that this issue has all the hallmarks of original research. A very pushy series of editors, most of them with very similar editing styles, have been pushing to have this subject mentioned in about 8-10 different physics articles. A discovery of the claimed magnitude would have many, many citations in places that would be very easy to find, and this does not. The only document that can be located by any of the usual methods—which are essentially universal for all physics publications worldwide, is the paper itself on the ArXiv and related servers—which are not peer-reviewed in any way. No publication information is given there. -- SCZenz 15:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • SCZenz, for what reason do you lie here? (1) The Certainty Principle article was created by Slicky. I am not Slicky neither in WP nor in the real life. Ask for user-checking, if you do not believe. I just re-created the article under proper name, Certainty principle. There was no cheating in it. (2) You did not ask for "further details" of the journal, you asked for information that can be seen in the Internet. Hryun 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Please be civil. I don't think you are Slicky, but I do strongly suspect you're editing under a couple of other usernames. I do not believe that there are any reputable physics journals with no information available on the internet, however—Russian journals are tracked in the same places as all the others. -- SCZenz
  • Keep deleted until the concept gets taken up by someone other than the original auther. We'll watch CiteBase. --Pjacobi 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. The AfD clearly labeled this material as original research and despite the requester's allusions no evidence to contradict this determination has been provided. The AfD should stand until citations to appropriate peer-reviewed sources are provided. --Allen3  16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse, keep deleted - Based on the information on hand, this is OR. If this is indeed a valid scientific theory, material will be peer reviewed and can be verified.. There should be no rush to have a wiki article on a subject (re "the material is too new to have been properly circulated" above); its not like we are going anywhere. Syrthiss 16:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure per WP:NOR. As Syrthiss says, we can afford to wait until this is independently sourced. Rossami (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, for reasons above. This does not presently return anything on CiteSeer or citebase. It's important to be sure that authors are not inserting their own, non-peer-reviewed work to Misplaced Pages, or it would quickly become a repository for anything unpublished and unpublishable. There is further the fact that, if this were really what it is claimed to be, that it would probably already have been picked up by some very well known, reputable and reliable publications. At that point, inclusion would be a no-brainer. -Splash - tk 17:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse, keep deleted. As far as I can tell, both the term "Certainty principle" and the concept are original research, as we define it. When the article is published — or even referenced — in a peer-reviewed journal, we can reconsider. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse - per above. Wait for it to be peer-reviewed by someone who knows. --JiFish(/Contrib) 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse. When the work becomes well-known and the author is hailed as the great theorist he claims to be then I'll happily enjoy contributing on a million articles about him and his great work. Until then it goes into the "makes very large claims that nobody in-the-know seems to take seriously" bin. I also don't appreciate "Hyun"'s threats about waging a "war" against Misplaced Pages if he doesn't get his article included. --Fastfission 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Two well-informed editors reviewed this and found it to be WP:OR, no evidence is provided to contradict this conclusion. No citations to reputable peer-reviewed journals, for example. Just zis Guy you know? 20:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion as per Jacobi. --Improv 21:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Mathematical deletion endorsement -- Drini 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion agreeing with everything said above. Hyun, it will only become a war if you make it so and do not accept WP process. You have stated that there is no consensus. I think the above is a very clear consensus. Nobody agrees with you. Please accept this until and if this principle is widely accepted and discussed in many reputable places. If this is as important as the claims made for it, it would have been discussed by now in "Nature", Scientific American", "New Scientist" and so on, along with references in "Reviews of Modern Physics" and similar journals. This is not yet WP material and may never be. --Bduke 02:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Are all of us who endorse this deletion going to receive the Uncertain Elephant Award as those of us who supported the original deletion, or indeed were in any way involved with it, did? --Bduke 04:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Bduke. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

06 June 2006

Big Brother 7 chronology

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Big Brother 7 Chronology

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

  • Overturn: At least have the page there until the series is over and the page can be condensed. --JDemail 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Why was the page deleted? Celestianpower says at the top of the page that the result of the debate was deleted. The results were: 6 for "delete"; 11 for "keep"; 1 for "weak keep" and 1 for "strong delete"!!! I think it's pretty obvious that more people want to keep the page than delete it!! Ellisjm 16:36 UTC 6 June 06
  • Endorse deletion. People who wanted the article deleted seem to have more grounds than those who wanted the article kept. — FireFox • 16:44, 06 June '06
  • Endorse deletion per FireFox. -- 9cds 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. Reasons given for deletion were in line with WP policies and guidelines; reasons given for keep were mostly "But I want to keep it" variety. Process was followed, deletion is valid. KillerChihuahua 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn for violation of process. I would have voted "delete", as this does look like non-notable TV cruft, but the result of the debate was no consensus. The keep voters may have been uninformed, but Misplaced Pages:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators allows only disregarding bad faith votes when establishing consensus, and few such are apparent here. I know of no policy that allows the closing administrator to determine consensus on the basis of which side they agree with. Sandstein 17:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The guidelines say that for example comments made in bad faith may be ignored. In general, the guidelines say admins should use their common sense to determine if a rough consensus exists and should try to remain as objective as possible — they don't provide strict rules for doing this, since no such rule can exists. (Anyway, it's not a "vote".) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and close as no consensus. Neither side had arguments that were all that compelling, and closer was not at all clear as to his/her rationale for the decision. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse- this was a reasonable decision. Possibly the DRV could have been avoided tho, if the closer had given more reasoning about why they closed the way they did. Friday (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, a level of detail far in excess of anything which could possibly be justified by any encyclopaedic purpose. BB7 is more than adequately covered in the main article. This is a fan blog and belongs on a fan site: it is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information.. Just zis Guy you know? 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: am I correcting in thinking that people think this article is necessary so that at the end of the show it can be reduced into something encyclopedic? That seems to be what was being said at the AfD, but I just want to verify that before making a decision. Metros232 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Endorse and keep deleted - Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. The closer based his decision of the strengh of the arguments, not the amount. I agree with User:Friday that the closer should have stated this more clearly. --JiFish(/Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn the result of the discussion was keep and not by a small margin. I completely agree with Ellisjm that the article was wrongly deleted.

-- JAB 20:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn and Undelete for being out-of-process. --Rob 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak endorse, closure seems to have been within acceptable bounds of discretion. Most of the arguments provided by either side in the debate were rather weak, but some of the arguments for deletion were slightly less weak that the arguments against it. I'm quite willing, however, to userfy the deleted content upon request (a possibility some of the participants in the original debate appear to have been unaware of). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It just makes more sense to have the page in the main Misplaced Pages area while it exists, because it still has the information that many people may find useful. If that ends up being the only other option, then it may end up happening. But I'm sure you can see what I'm trying to say. --JDemail 23:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy somewhere by all means but keep deleted per above. Metamagician3000 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist. I would rather delete this article but the discussion was at most a "no consensus", not a "delete". --Metropolitan90 02:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. AfD is not a vote, Misplaced Pages is not a free web host for TV blogs, no-one even attempted to argue that this information belonged in an encyclopaedia, process was correctly followed. If it doesn't belong on the main BB7 page then it doesn't belong anywhere. --Sam Blanning 09:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The things is, that's exactly the point - people do think it belongs on the main article page. But the people that think it belongs there don't want it to be anywhere else. They don't care about how big the main article could become with that information on it. --JDemail 11:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion--cj | talk 09:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure/deletion, administrator has the right—nay, the obligation—to evaluate the merit of the arguments in terms of the goal of the project. When such a decision is not obvious, however, it should be explained in detail. -- SCZenz 12:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per KillerChihuahua. What's the point in having an article just for it to be deleted in a few weeks time (i.e. 'keep until the end of the series'). This does not belong on Misplaced Pages. It is fancruft of the worst sort. The JPS 15:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist Closing admin pretty much ignored the entire AfD process, sending the message to everyone that he valued only his own input on the subject. That's not how AfD is supposed to work. --Hyperbole 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. A severely inadequate closure method, but the right decision nevertheless. This was plainly not encyclopedia material, being essentially a diary of some people traipsing around a building for a few weeks. -Splash - tk 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure as within reasonable admin discretion. However, close decisions like this deserve more than just "The decision was delete" in the closure of the discussion. This argument could largely have been avoided if the closing admin had taken the time to fully lay out his/her reasoning. Rossami (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - As the closing admin on this AfD, I apologise for any extra trouble this has caused. Clearly I should have put forward my reasoning in the summary/the decision field: "When closing this AfD, despite there being more "keep" votes than "delete", the strength of arguments from the delete camp seems much stronger. WP:NOT is policy and this seems a clear case of 'Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information', as many voters pointed out. Also, AfD is not a vote: vote counts aren't everything". Once again, I apologise and will learn for next time. Regards, — Celestianpower 18:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion - Strength of arguments needs to be balanced with number of arguers, and it seems reasonable to disregard input that lacks any reasoning. --Improv 04:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Remain Deleted The AfD itself was filled with people who were rabid fans on the show, with all their arguements being all the minute details(read: minor, incidental things) be left off of the television show's main page. Pages were being used to hold any info about show and daily summaries like it were a fan page. That's not what wikipedia is about. Kevin_b_er 04:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - Celestianpower made a completely correct decision. Proto||type 13:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: There seems to be a misunderstanding that WP:NOT requires deletion as the universal solution to all problems it lists. Many things wikipedia is not, are handled by editing, not deletion. Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy says: "Article needs a lot of improvement" is explicitly not a reason for deletion, but should be cleaned up. Now, once cleaned up (which in this case, could mean radical shrinkage) policy says that if there's not much left ("Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article") it should be handled by merging/redirecting. Nobody here has given an explanation as to why the article *must* be deleted. That is what problem can only be solved via deletion, as opposed to a merge/redirect (with a potential for de-merge if/when sufficient quantity/quality content exists). --Rob 07:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    It had already been "merged". . —Celestianpower 13:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:WikiPâques.png

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


Recently concluded

2006 June

  1. Okashina_Okashi - Decision of the original closer to relist at AfD is endorsed. 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  2. Dismal's Paradox - Relisted at AfD. 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  3. User:SPUI/jajaja - Nomination withdrawn. 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  4. List of political leaders widely regarded as totalitarian - Request for information answered. 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  5. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed. 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  6. Cultural references in Pokémon - Deletion endorsed. 16:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  7. Fluffy (The Lion King) - Deletion endorsed. 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  8. Kelly Roberti - Copyright issue resolved, restored. 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  9. Image:Pierre Janssen.jpg - Commons image, action impossible here. 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  10. Neanderthal theory of autism - Deletion endorsed. 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  11. Be bold, Be Bold - Overturn RfD and revert to WP:BOLD. 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  12. Jeff Lindsay - Deletion endorsed. 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  13. "State Debate Associations" - Deletion endorsed. 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  14. How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 - Deletion endorsed. 17:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  15. Kinston Indians - Deletion endorsed. 17:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  16. Misplaced Pages:SCAG - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  17. Image:Nuvola 64 apps important.png - undeletion impossible; deleted prior to 16 June 2006. 13:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  18. Sick Nick Mondo - Deletion endorsed for now, pending AfD outcome for related Nick Mondo; should that survive, this is a suitable redirect. 18:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
    Nick Mondo having survived AfD, this is restored as a redirect. 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. True Torah Jews - Deletion endorsed. 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  20. UCIP - Deletion endorsed. 18:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  21. Mending Wall - Keep endorsed. 11:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  22. Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) - Deletion endorsed. 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  23. TheSmartMarks.com - Deletion endorsed. 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  24. Dirt pudding - Transwiki and deletion endorsed. 17:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  25. Kirill Makharinsky - Deletion endorsed. 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  26. Armando Lloréns-Sar - History restored, maintained as redirect; merge issues are an editorial concern for article's talk page. 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  27. Hollywood Undead - Deletion endorsed. 17:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  28. Trexy - Closing administrator agreed to relist AFD. 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  29. Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak - No consensus closure endorsed. 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  30. Knox (animator) - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  31. Lightsaber combat - Keep closure endorsed. 18:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  32. Stone Trek - Deletion closure endorsed. 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  33. File:944 h.jpg - DRV closed, image in Commons jurisdiction. 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  34. Sadullah Khan - Undeleted, relisted. 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  35. Atromitos - Undeleted. 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  36. Walk To Emmaus - Deletion endorsed. 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  37. Misplaced Pages:Conservative notice board. Kept deleted. Strong endorsement. 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Review.
  38. Lost: The Journey - Relisted. 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  39. User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes and Template:User Gangster - Undeleted. 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  40. The Lost Boys (demogroup) - Relist. 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  41. Second War (Harry Potter) - Deletion endorsed. 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  42. IRCDig - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  43. Saryn Hooks - Undeleted and relisted at AfD. 17:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  44. Template:Major_programming_languages - template content restored 06:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) review
  45. Strategic Policy Consulting - Deletion endorsed. 16:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  46. Actuarial Outpost - Kept kept, mistaken nomination. 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  47. Image:WikiPâques.png - Uploaded to Commons, as suggested. 16:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  48. The Esplanade Mall - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 16:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  49. Sydney Ling - AfD result of "no consensus" endorsed. 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  50. Siberian language - Deletion endorsed. 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  51. Burlington Center Mall - Challenge of no consensus afd withdrawn. 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  52. Erik Möller - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  53. theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh - Deletions endorsed. 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  54. Misplaced Pages:OURS - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  55. 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) - Deletion endorsed. 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  56. Conservative Underground - Deletion endorsed. 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  57. Boring Business Systems - AfD reopened by acclamation. 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  58. Joseph D. Campbell - Previous AfD overturned, to be relisted at AfD. 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  59. Church of Reality - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  60. Heinen's - Result reversed by consensus, AfD now closed as "no consensus". 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  61. BB Sinha - Restored, listed at AfD. 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (deleted at AfD 20:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)) Review
  62. Mending Wall - Restored, listed at AfD, closed as keep, brought here again (above). 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  63. Cancer Bats - Restored, to be resubmitted to AfD in light of new evidence. 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  64. Cum On Her Face - Deletion endorsed. 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  65. AlternC - Deletion endorsed. 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  66. Tiffany Holiday - Deletion endorsed. 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  67. Shane Cubis - Deletion endorsed unanimously (excepting discounted anons/newbies.) 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  68. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  69. Big Brother 7 chronology - Deletion endorsed. Will userfy upon request. 15:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  70. Wikimedia Meta-Wiki - action reverted by the closer. AFD reopened. 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  71. The Adventures of Dr. McNinja - Consensus to permit userpage draft as new recreation, will be submitted to AfD. 17:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  72. Cory kennedy - Deletion endorsed. 17:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  73. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics - Kept deleted unanimously. 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  74. Yar - Deletion endorsed without prejudice to unrelated redirect now at title. 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  75. List of midnight movies - Content restored for merge and redirect. 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  76. AK Productions - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  77. FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together - Undeleted and sent to AfD. 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  78. List of tongue-twisters - Deletion endorsed in light of new Wikiquote transwiki. 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  79. User:Raphael1/Wikiethics - Deletion endorsed. 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  80. Roosters1908, Sydneyroosters1909, and Sydneyroosters1910 - Undeleted to be AfD'ed in light of new evidence. 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  81. National Hockey Leaque player lists - Restored speedily and AFD reopened. 08:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  82. User:AKMask/log - Restored (by a narrow margin) to be sent to MfD. 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  83. Male Unbifurcated Garment - Deletion endorsed (again -- Second DRV in two weeks.) 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  84. Penis banding - Deletion endorsed. 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  85. Template:User no notability - Deletion narrowly endorsed. (date unavailable, deletion review never archived) Permalink
  86. Syed Ahmed - deletion endorsed, redirected to The Apprentice (UK series 2) 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  87. Ho Shin Do - deletion endorsed without prejudice 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
  88. Israel News Agency - article content restored 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
  89. Delaware County Intermediate Unit - Deletion closure endorsed. 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  90. Steve Bellone - Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  91. Team NoA - Previous version restored, survived AfD as no consensus. 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  92. Springfield M21 - Restored as redirect with history. 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  93. The drips - Speedy deletion contested, overturned; sent to AfD. 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  94. Template:Voting icons - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  95. Ali Zafar - New NPOV recreation permitted. 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  96. Barbara Bauer, The Literary Agency Group and others - Bauer undeleted and kept at AfD; others kept deleted. 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  97. Scienter - deletion overturned. 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  98. Auto repair shop - original speedy deletion endorsed, without prejudice to now-existing distinct redirect at this title. 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  99. Misplaced Pages v search engines - deletion endorsed unanimously. 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  100. Pat Price - deletion overturned unanimously, no need to relist. 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  101. Talk:Brian Peppers - kept deleted. 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  102. The Juggernaut Bitch - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  103. South Coast League - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  104. Other side of the pillow - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  105. Joel Leyden - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  106. Sharting - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  107. User:Disavian/Userboxes/Green Energy - deletion endorsed, narrowly 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  108. Left-wing terrorism - article history restored 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  109. Stella Maris College Scout Group - deletion endorsed 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  110. List of Michael Savage neologisms - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  111. Superhorse - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  112. Exicornt - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  113. Image:Lock-icon.jpg - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  114. College Confidential - article content restored 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  115. Tim Dingle - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  116. Abstract People - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  117. Christian views of Hanukkah - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  118. Claught of a bird dairy products - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  119. LIP6 - continue from rewritten version 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  120. Hulk 2 - redirected to Hulk (film) for now 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  121. Xombie - article content restored 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  122. Possible wars between liberal democracies speedy-deletion undone by deleting admin. listed to AFD. 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  123. Gary Howell deletion endorsed. 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  124. New Sincerity - deletion endorsed. 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  125. Successful Praying - speedy deletion as copyvio endorsed. 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  126. Videohypertransference - user copy granted. deletion from articlespace endorsed. 20:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  127. Oz Categories 8 endorse, 5 overturn, deletion endorsed. 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Review

Userbox discussions

Archives

Decisions to be reviewed

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

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

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Content review

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.

  • none currently listed

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/History only undeletion

Decisions to be reviewed

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/Vfu mechanics

10 June 2006

Boring Business Systems

This was closed on June 8 as 'no consensus'. The discussion is here. There were 5 delete votes and 5 keep votes. The decision not to delete needs review, and a closer look at four of the five users who cast "keep" votes. FunkyChicken!, UncleFloyd, ConeyCyclone, and Nigel Wick appear to possibly be the same person using many different accounts. See the history of those usernames on past AfDs, especially the recent WWAC-TV that was deleted as a hoax. The article should either be relisted for further consensus, or deleted. 70.108.82.120 16:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The fifth keep vote from Nertz may be the same person too since it is a recently created account, shows the same fondness for exclamation points! as the other four, and expressed knowledge of the recent Jersey Shore Communciations/WWAC-TV hoax. 70.108.82.120 16:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Interesting. I smell socks as follows:
    • Nigel_Wick (talk · contribs) began editing a matter of hours prior to his comment in the AfD, which was his first such comment. Such participation would typically be given a light weight anyway, the following circumstantials notwithstanding;
    • ConeyCyclone (talk · contribs), UncleFloyd (talk · contribs) and FunkyChicken! (talk · contribs) show almost exactly the same gaps in editing. They all ceased editing in July (August for FunkyChicken!) of 2005, and only resumed in February 2006 — all on the 20th or 22nd. All three have a further near-simultaneous gap from that burst in February to the beginning of this month, 1/2 June, a matter of days before the AfD, when all again began editing at nearly the same time. All visited the AfD within their first few edits. I conclude that these are socks of one another, and that they should be dismissed. If people concur, I would also suggest indefinite blocks given their usage.
    • Nertz (talk · contribs) was an account created at exactly the same time as the three above resumed editing — on 2nd June, and visited the AfD in short order. Just about the same shortness of order as the other three. As with Nigel Wick, this would usually lighten his weight considerably, but I strongly suspect this to be a further sockpuppet.
    • Punt! (talk · contribs) is the creator of the article. This account, coincidentally, was also created on 2nd June, the same day it wrote the article, and does indeed share a penchant for exclamation marks with several of the others. I suspect a further sockpuppet.
  • I would therefore suggest that all of these account be indefinitely blocked (they are not benign socks) and the puppet master can email an admin requesting his/her chosen one be unblocked. As to the deletion review, the article itself is borderline as is the company. It would be entirely reasonable to overturn the closure and delete. But I think, given the disruption the debate experienced, that overturn and relist is better. -Splash - tk 03:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Major_programming_languages

I did not see the TfD discussion until after someone acted on it to remove the template from an article I watch. Looking through the discussion, it appears that the discussion had 11 delete votes, and 6 keep votes (FWIW, I would have voted "keep" if I had noticed it). It doesn't seem like deletion on a bare majority is the right closing action (no consensus would be more fitting). As far as I can see, all the votes on both sides were cast in good faith, by established editors, and accompanied by reasonable statements of reasons. So the conduct of the discussion seems eminently reasonable... it just doesn't seem to have been closed correctly. LotLE×talk 20:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Erik Möller

Was inappropriately speedied as recreation, which it wasn't. The originally AfD'd article (Erik Moeller) didn't mention that he was a published author, and the AfD was based on the idea that he's non-notable because the article just mentioned his temporary Wikimedia post. Thus the second article should go through AfD again. Margana 19:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

there are also two previous versions of Erik Möller that have been deleted previously, the first was a redirect and the second was very short. -- Kim van der Linde 19:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
There are about 4,000 copies of my book. It's a niche publication about wikis, weblogs and open source software. I don't think having written a single book with such a small run makes me a notable person.--Eloquence* 19:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh

Despite establishing the relevance of theSMSzone.com and its creator as a pioneer of SMS spoofing, the article was deleted without, in my opinion, due consideration of the arguments presented. Phanatical 08:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Undelete, Relist - I strongly object to the deletion. The article was deleted without taking into account the arguments posed in objection to the original deletion request. I profoundly believe the article deserves a place in our community as there are severe criminal impacts 'spoofed sms' pose to society. theSMSzone.com is also mentioned in the wiki entry for sms under Criminal Impact further increasing its notability. Ahmedsays 12:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • user's third edit to Misplaced Pages
    • Reminder: Deletion review is not the place to simply continue a closed AfD. It's not "Articles for Deletion, Round 2". Comment on only whether the discussion was concluded correctly. Don't rehash the same points that you have already mentioned in the AfD. Kimchi.sg 13:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's examine each "keep" argument from the AfD in detail:
    1. over 48000 relevant backlinks to theSMSzone can be found with the terms "theSMSzone.com" - blatant untruth, clicking on the provided link shows only "about 22" backlinks, and if you click to page 2, only 11 of these are unique.
    2. seems like this website pioneered SMS spoofing hence is a valuable asset to the WIKI community - no sources provided for this claim either within the AfD (and I daresay, in the article itself), therefore unverifiable.
    3. theSMSzone.com was the first website in the world that allowed users to define a "From" number. - yet another unsourced nugget.
    4. I see no reason why this entry should be deleted. Please use the keywords "spoofed sms" in google for clear evidence on the impact this startup had on text messaging. - seems this editor has not heard of Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines for websites. And a search for spoofed SMS theSMSzone shows 486 hits, none of which are to reliable sources. Only 42 of these are unique.
    5. MSN and Yahoo print a totally different picture - thousands of results. Doesnt look like 'corporate' spam to me. - to this editor it may not, to the rest of us, it does. The top hit on the MSN search is a PRweb press release, and the top Yahoo! search result is the site itself. Again not a good omen, no WP:WEB criteria are satisfied.
    6. Lastly, SMS spoofing is also listed as having a criminal impact on society in the wiki entry for SMS with the 'sms zone' pinpointed as the cause. - Misplaced Pages articles may not use other Misplaced Pages articles as sources, so if this one had to depend on the SMS article to live, then it really shouldn't have survived AfD.
    In summary, the closing admin was right to discount the weakly-reasoned "keep" votes, which made no mention of how the website or its founder satisfy WP:WEB and WP:BIO respectively. Consensus was correctly determined, with disregard to sheer number of votes. Keep deleted, no new information has surfaced to justify undeletion. (Link to Google cache version of the article: ) Kimchi.sg 13:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Kimchi. Postdlf 13:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep deleted per Kimchi's research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure as within administrator discretion. I note that a number of the participants in the deletion discussion have suspiciously short contribution histories. However I'll also note that a more detailed explanation by the closer would have been appropriate in this case. Rossami (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:OURS

This page was speedy-deleted out of process. It was nominated at MfD, then deleted by Sceptre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with edit sum CSD G4. (This is the criterion that refers to recreated material but there is no previously-deleted version.) Sceptre then closed the MfD with the notation The result of the debate was speedy delete, G5. Rgulerdem had created the idea and theres about half-a-dozen threads on the mailing list by Rg about WP:OURS, Raphael is just acting through proxy. G5 is the criterion that refers to pages created by banned users.

I have three distinct and independent objections to this deletion:

1) The nomination was made at MfD and therefore the page in question was not eligible for speedy. No matter what, we do not wish that admins ignore or bypass community consensus. The nomination was not allowed to stand for even a single day before this admin took pre-emptive action. At this point 2 users have asked the page be kept, 2 that it be deleted, and 1 has made a comment that appears to question the wisdom of deletion.

2) Neither speedy criterion applies to this page. It does not prima facie appear to be a re-creation; therefore it fails G4. It was not created by a banned user operating under a sock; it was created by another editor, one in good standing. It is irrelevant whether the content was inspired by or even written originally by the banned user; the page was not so written. We are not in a position to ban all the words that have been written by people we don't like. The actual page creator, Raphael1 (talk · contribs), stated that he did not simply copy the banned user's words from the mailing list; but even if so, that would fail to invoke G5.

3) I object strongly to admin control of the policy-making process. Adminship is not a party favor or membership in the executive club; admins are to implement policy, not to control it. Policy is the right and responsibility of every editor. Once a proposal has been made, it ought never be subject to deletion by the whim of a single admin. The page in question may be wise or unwise but we all have a right to debate it.

John Reid 05:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Relist per nom. Posts on a mailing list do not count as "creation" of a page - only its presence on Misplaced Pages servers count. Kimchi.sg 05:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. We've been through this. It's not worth having. NSLE (T+C) at 05:23 UTC (2006-06-10)
  • Relist, though Rapheal1 is anything but a user in good standing, judging by the number of disputes he's involved in. --tjstrf 05:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. This is a proposal for a system of admin - user relations proposed by a banned user, copied from the mailing list but with some parts missing (which may violate GFDL). The basic intent its to prevent admins from blocking POV pushers. The original draft from User:Rgulerdem stated in the last draft I saw on the list that we should abide by well-established policies and guidelines such as Misplaced Pages:Wikiethics - this was comprehensively rejected as an attempt to endorse censorship. Both Resid Gulerdem and Raphael Wegmann are keen to override the consensus on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy by removing or not displaying the images, I find it hard to see this as anything other than an attempt to introduce policy to allow them to override consensus and evade admin attention. The policy as written stands is likely to attract every POV pusher and problem editor; it is instruction creep and it is neither necessary nor welcome. Oh, and it's the work of a banned user while banned. Just zis Guy you know? 12:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, relist. The merits of this proposal a) do not exist, but b) are not substantive to here. At the moment, there was no process followed regarding this deletion, and it should run its course and be soundly rejected on its merits. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Divisive nonsense from a banned user. NoSeptember 13:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, a typo in the deletion summary isn't a reason to undelete a page. --Rory096 19:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist. I see no compelling reason for bypassing process in this case. --Ashenai 19:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I am disturbed by the process allegations on both sides of this debate. On balance, I do not think that a clear case can be made that this met any of the deliberately narrow criteria for speedy-deletion. Overturn speedy-deletion and reopen the deletion discussion (where, by the way, I am inclined to argue to keep the page - failed policy pages are tagged with {{rejected}} but kept so we can learn from them in the future). Rossami (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)

The original request for deletion review has been refactored due to length, for clarity, and to remove gaudy formatting. It can be viewed in its entirety here. Kimchi.sg 02:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Fellow Wikipedians, the article in question was Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis). There are plenty of materials out there already published that cover and make mention of the various facts I have laid out here. My opinion was what I believed you wanted and I gave it. For sources:

  1. Kubrick's "2001" by Leonard F. Wheat
  2. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker
  3. The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stephanie Schwam (Editor), Jay Cocks (Introduction)
  4. Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter (Foreword by Arthur C. Clarke)
  5. 2001 Filming the Future by Piers Bizony
  6. The Making of Kubrick's 2001 by Jerome Agel (its almost a bible to the film)
  7. the souvener progam to the movie
  8. the jewel of my collection, the April 1968 issue of LIFE magazine with its first pictorial preview of the film from beginning to end. It even showed the Star Child!
  9. and of course, Arthur C. Clarke's novels of 2001 and 2010

And in the end, Angr listed the film synopsis for deletion on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis). I chose to wait until the last day to cast my actual vote (though I did inset a comment or two). The final tally was Keep - 7 votes 47%, Delete - 4 votes 27%, Merge - 4 votes 27%

Only 4 out 15 people voted to DELETE the article. An equal number wanted the article merged (i.e. unsplit) with the original main article. But the majority voted TO KEEP THE ARTICLE! Administrator fuddlemark went against the majority in the discussion and declared “The result of the debate was delete.” This goes against any possible concept of fair play or policy that I can think of. The majority says ”KEEP” and this guy proclaims the result of the debate was delete?

I contest this action – it can not be allowed to stand. These people have spit into the faces of the various members of the Misplaced Pages community and defied the final decision. If everyone had come on and said Delete, I would have no problem with this. But the majority voted to Keep the article. The action of deleting the article is therefore a morally and ethically wrong action that must not be allowed to stand. The majority at the time said that the article should not have been deleted. On that basis, I ask for the action to be reversed. -- User:Jason Palpatine 02:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Relist. I'd like to see more discussion of the sources used to write the synopsis, and whether detailed description is a clear copyvio. The original AfD looks more like a no consensus to me (yes, I know, it's "not a vote".) I'm not sure whether to count the "merge" votes as keep votes ("keep the content") or delete votes ("delete the page"), but that's a secondary issue. Deltabeignet 05:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment. It was originally deleted as being original research, if you fixed that it should be fine. Also, might I remind you that AfD is not technically a vote. Personally, I would suggest rewriting the article in a substantially different manner, and if it gets deleted AGAIN, bringing it here. --tjstrf 05:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion (disclaimer - argued for delete in afd). The closing admin outlined his reasoning for coming to deletion as based on the arguements given, and not simple numbers, which is exactly what is supposed to happen. Afd is not a vote, and is based on weight of arguements, not weight of numbers. Regards, MartinRe 05:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. What is the main article for, if not a synopsis of the film? Work on that article instead. Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Regretfully endorse deletion. The article actually was rather well-done, and I do hope that this content survives elsewhere, but the level of detail makes this feel out of place on an encyclopedia, and similarly may make us vulnerable to claims of copyvio. A brief synopsis has its place on the article's entry -- a detailed separate-page synopsis does not have a place here -- when the synopsis is close to enough to recreate the film, something's not right here. I believe the decision was correct, and as for how it was reached, it's not unusual for people closing VfD to analyse the arguments as well as weigh the numbers. It's a judgement call. JasonP, if you want my help to find a better home than Misplaced Pages for this content (which you've put some time into, I notice), drop me a note on my talk page, and we'll figure something out. --Improv 14:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The big question, to my mind, is whether the article can be given inline references to make it crystal clear which facts come from which sources. I am also worried about how one could quickly check whether anything in the article is close to being a copyright violation. In my opinion there isn't really a bright line between where presenting, organizating, and synthesizing published sources leaves off, and original research/personal opinion begins. I am very troubled that the list of sources was not added until the last minute.
I'd like to ask User:Jason Palpatine these questons:
  • Are the books he cites physically in his possession?
  • If I had read and absorbed half a dozen books and then wrote an article this long from my personal knowledge, I estimate that it would take me many hours to locate the source in each book that justifies the major items in the essay. (And in the process I would expect to find that my memory had betrayed me several times). Is User:Jason Palpatine prepared to do this?
  • Does the material in this article truly come from the sources, or is it based on the editor's observations of watching the film itself? If so, how should this be cited? I've suggested several times that I would be happy considered a DVD to be a "published source" but that I'd like it to be cited by giving the exact published version of the DVD and identifying incidents in it by, say, number of minutes into the film.
If Jason Palpatine is prepared to rewrite the article in such a way that it is crystal clear that it is not his personal recollection from having watched the movie, is truly based on published sources, and does not involve more than fair use of published sources, I would vote to relist. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)



In reply from User:Jason Palpatine

A lot has been said before elsewhere. In reply to the points/questions raised above:

Question #1: Are the books User:Jason Palpatine cites physically in his possession?

  1. Kubrick's "2001" by Leonard F. Wheat -- is physically in my possession.
  2. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker -- Library copy (since returned)
  3. The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stephanie Schwam (Editor), Jay Cocks (Introduction) -- is physically in my possession.
  4. Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter (Foreword by Arthur C. Clarke) -- Library copy (since returned)
  5. 2001 Filming the Future by Piers Bizony -- is physically in my possession.
  6. The Making of Kubrick's 2001 by Jerome Agel (its almost a bible to the film) -- is physically in my possession.
  7. the souvenir program to the movie -- is physically in my possession.
  8. the jewel of my collection, the April 1968 issue of LIFE magazine with its first pictorial preview of the film from beginning to end. It even showed the Star Child! -- is (as the comment indicates) physically in my possession.
  9. and of course, Arthur C. Clarke's novels of 2001 and 2010 -- both are physically in my possession and read more than once.
    • In response to this question, I have ordered Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker and Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter today through www.amazon.com. Delivery estimate: June 19, 2006 - June 21, 2006

Question #2: If I had read and absorbed half a dozen books and then wrote an article this long from my personal knowledge, I estimate that it would take me many hours to locate the source in each book that justifies the major items in the essay. (And in the process I would expect to find that my memory had betrayed me several times). Is User:Jason Palpatine prepared to do this?

    • Utilizing copyrighted materials is not allowed here. I am required to use my own words regardless of source material. As I understand things here, except for a few quotations (which are in the article) direct copyright material inclusion is not allowed. I must use my own words. It is these two policies that are being used in conflict to support the outlandish claim that the article is original research.
    • I have noted before that I do not understand how to do citations in an article. I've been to the instructions page and it is beyond my understanding.
    • How much of references do I need to cite? A sentence-by-sentence referencing is just too much IMHO. Also, when claims were made of WP:OR, no justification other than the accusation itself was offered. There is nothing to prevent anyone here from looking up and checking the references listed.. I am willing to commit some time to it. However, I am not an administrator and have other considerations such as my job to consider.


Question #3: If Jason Palpatine is prepared to rewrite the article in such a way that it is crystal clear that it is not his personal recollection from having watched the movie, is truly based on published sources, and does not involve more than fair use of published sources, I would vote to relist. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

In May, the following tags were applied to the main article:

{{cleanupdate}}
{{split}}
According to User:Scm83x: ‘’”(readd {{splitlong}} , 111kb is huge... something has to be moved to a new article... perhaps the plot summary should be cut down...”’’
I branched that article off of the main article in response to this. It was the first part of the article to be split. A simplified synopsis was left in the main with
Main article: 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) .
In the main article.
If you check the history of the main article, much of the lengthy detailed synopsis that would become the article we are discussing here was already in place in the primary article before I entered the picture. I took concentrated interest in the article beginning with my edit of 20:15, 18 April 2006. Please look at the prior version of the primary article In other words, that ‘’original’’ article material was produced by other editors here.
The following editors all contributed to the article in the month ‘’before’’ I took a serious interest:
User:128.95.15.78, User:134.114.59.41, User:141.154.59.190, User:200.207.16.222, User:203.217.64.73, User:207.208.157.183, User:216.55.222.221, User:63.41.12.17, User:64.93.158.158, User:65.174.176.123, User:65.54.97.194, User:67.81.189.88, User:68.14.154.242, User:69.143.172.3, User:70.18.71.105, User:70.231.235.251, User:71.113.185.129, User:71.242.131.195, User:72.144.136.77, User:72.40.90.163, User:72.56.157.31, User:80.200.209.231, User:Allemannster, User:Ashmoo, User:Bwileyr m, User:CmdrObot, User:Comics, User:DanielLC, User:DavidH, User:Dayv, User:Deltabeignet, User:Duncancumming, User:Dysprosia, User:FunkyFly, User:Hetar, User:JRawle, User:Knife Knut, User:Larry V, User:LordofHavoc, User:Lottoextra, User:Lysowski, User:MarnetteD, User:MikeBriggs, User:Modemac, User:MotionRotaryTOAD, User:Pearle, User:Pegship, User:PurpleHaze, User:RedNovember, User:Riddle, User:RussBot, User:Seminumerical, User:Simninja, User:The Anome, User:The Singing Badger, User:Thefourdotelipsis, User:WAS
This was the work of many people, not just me. My primary intesnt was a major mistake which was over time corrected by other admins -- the inclusion of way too many pictures from the film. This matter was dealt with -- the number images was drastically reduced to what should have been considered an acceptable amount. However, some admins were not satified and cut back too much. I do not mind editing, but I absolutely oppose butchery and sterility. 2001 is a heavily visually structured event (check out the TMA-1 image in the Dialouge section of the main article). I considered more than the usual number of images in Wik policy to be necessary for the synopsis section/article to do justice to the film. The only answer I got was
"There is no such thing as too little when it comes to fair use. That is all. "
The sizing is also quoted. With the destruction of the article and its talk page, I can not cite the identity of the admin you posted the remark. I only know that it was not any of the admins who have posted here.

Question #4: What is the main article for, if not a synopsis of the film? Work on that article instead. Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried to do that with the Film Synopsis following the AfD implementation. The admins who were responsible for motioning the AfD of the Film Synopsis article reverted my edits as I made them:
13:51, 9 June 2006 Scm83x m (Reverted edits by Jason Palpatine (talk) to last version by Angr)
11:26, 9 June 2006 Angr (The result of the AFD was to delete the synopsis, not incorporate it back in here)
Given the intense opposition I am facing here, it's not likely to happen. (please check out my User page under the heading A question in response to recent events here)

Question #4: Does the material in this article truly come from the sources, or is it based on the editor's observations of watching the film itself? If so, how should this be cited? I've suggested several times that I would be happy considered a DVD to be a "published source" but that I'd like it to be cited by giving the exact published version of the DVD and identifying incidents in it by, say, number of minutes into the film.

I was unaware of the fact that the DVD would be considered a valid listing. Your proposal is interesting. 'MORE than interesting. If such an undertaking would be allowed I would gladly do it!

Question #5: The big question, to my mind, is whether the article can be given inline references to make it crystal clear which facts come from which sources. I am also worried about how one could quickly check whether anything in the article is close to being a copyright violation. In my opinion there isn't really a bright line between where presenting, organizating, and synthesizing published sources leaves off, and original research/personal opinion begins. I am very troubled that the list of sources was not added until the last minute.


Pasted from my talk page :

The article as it stands references no sources at all, so why didn't you include the full listing of your sources in the article, as required by WP:V? What I mean by secondary sources is outlined in WP:RS, but basically if the article is a film synopsis, then, by definition, it is based on the primary source. The question is then, who is doing the synopsis? If that synopsis is by a wikipedia editor, then it is original research. If the synopsis is done by someone else, then wikipedia could source that as a secondary source, but the article should then discuss the synopsis, but not the film itself. Thus, a synopsis of a film must fall into two categories, either secondary sources has summarized it, and the article reproduces it, which is a problem with copyright, or an editor has analyzed several synopses and summarized them, which is original research. Regards, MartinRe 19:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


The article is a sub-article branched off from the main article. The sources were/are listed in the main article. The branch off was done on account of the main being listed as too big and recommended for split. I thought the source info being there made listing them inappropriate. -- User:Jason Palpatine 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Hope this helps -- Jason Palpatine 23:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservative Underground

Fellow Wikipedians, the article in question was initially called for deletion by User:BenBurch who has a history of initiating edit wars & deletions on conservative pages such as Free Republic & White Rose Society. On January 17,2006 this proposed deletion was closed by User:Johnleemk, and the result of the debate was no consensus; keep. A second deletion debate was initiated on April 14, 2006 by User:Isotope23 and on April 20, 2006it was closed by admin User:(aeropagitica), resulting in a deletion. The Conservative Underground article had been vandalized countless times before it's deletion by the same people who voted for it's deletion. It is pretty obvious that these deletions are political motivated. Articles such as Democratic Underground, Free Republic, Protest Warrior, Vive le Canada, Progressive Bloggers, Blogging Tories, etc... are allowed to remain.--James Bond 00:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted. ad hominem fallacy, even supposing it were true ("BenBurch has a history..."; irrelevancy ("The...article had been vandalized countless times"); and begging the question ("It is pretty obvious..."): lots of rhetorical fallacies, there. About the only undisputedly true bit is "A second deletion debate ...result in a deletion", so let's leave it at that, absent any actual evidence of actual wrongdoing in the process or change in the subject. --Calton | Talk 01:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist. I have no problem with this page being relisted if they will follow the rules in doing so. BenBurch 01:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, as the article makes no claim to notability. Some of the articles mentioned as comparisons should probably go as well (Progressive Bloggers?). When will the consmoderals realize that their blogs, forums and websites are not encyclopedic? -- Kjkolb 03:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and get rid of the non-notable liberal organization/blogger/website articles as well. --tjstrf 05:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. AfDs are non-binding, and a previous decision can be revoked by a new AfD. Johnleemk | Talk 10:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, no evidence of significance. Just zis Guy you know? 12:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted. No assertion of notability was made in the article. It can be recreated if new better content and a legitimate claim of notability is made, as is true with many currently non-notable groups that may grow into notability. NoSeptember 12:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure of the second deletion debate. I find no process problems in that discussion nor do I find any evidence of bias. Rossami (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

08 June 2006

Joseph D. Campbell

This article was nominated for deletion, and was closed by User:9cds (not an admin, although going through RfA at the moment) as 'no consensus'. I think that was a poor call. The five people expressing the view that the article should be deleted made far better arguments - mainly about that annoying little fact that articles should be, you know, verifiable, and even if he was verifiable, he's not notable - than the three who thought it should be kept (including one weak keep, and one that said 'the sources will come organically', which is ridiculous). See the AfD for more details. I would have deleted this, and I recommend overturn the closure, and delete. Proto||type 11:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment The reason I closed as no consensus was because the only arguments I could see against deletion was "not sourced" or "The sources aren't good enough" - since the page already has some sources (even if they couldn't be verified by myself), I couldn't see any reason to delete. -- 9cds 11:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist on AfD I made the point in the AfD discussion that we should probably hold it off, and possibly redo the whole deal because the sources finally came to light only a day or so before the end of the process. Even if the sources are weak (and I never said they weren't), the first deletion votes were made under the assumption that pretty much no sources existed at all, which is unfair (and I'm usually fairly exclusionist regarding things like this). I would not be opposed to deleting it outright, but wouldn't prefer it. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 16:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist It's clear there wasn't much of a discussion on notability. The closing was premature. --Kchase02 T 17:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist and since it was closed no-consensus, this does not require DRV's permission. Septentrionalis 20:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete the concern about lack of notability and verifibility was unaddressed in my view, with nothing backing up notability claims, and limited sources (one of which was an letter to editor) for any possibly verification. No predujuce about re-creation if further sources backing notability claim are found, but also no reason to keep in the meantime for something that may or may not happen. Regards, MartinRe 05:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Church of Reality

(See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Church of reality.) --66.28.20.178 15:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Church of Reality website

The Church of Reality is a religion, based on what is tangible and real. Somehow, for some reason, its article (and even its talk page) was deleted, with little to no apparent reason. This is really no different from deleting an article on any other religion, which is unfair censorship. I'm asking whoever deleted it to either give a truly good reason as to why it should stay deleted, or undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.178.151 (talk • contribs) 06:59 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Heinen's

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Heinen's
  • Strong Overturn, Undelete. A top 100 Ohio business; clearly passes WP:CORP; was already cited on Supermarkets in the United States, therefore clearly notable (and meant to be given a wikipedia page); not to mention has MORE stores in its chain, has a HIGHER sales volume, occupies a LARGER region, and has MORE information supplied than many businesses that have ALREADY been given Misplaced Pages pages: Westborn Market, Woodman's Food Market, Strack and Van Til, Scolari's, Magruder's, Felpausch, and many more. AS CREATOR OF THE ARTICLE, I would also like to comment on my extremely upsetting experience in posting this article. I have already given all of these reasons NUMEROUS times in defense of my article, and I have proven in my previous posts that my article should be granted a Misplaced Pages page. It was speedily deleted without hardly any consideration or supplied reason except that more people had posted DELETE than had posted KEEP - a 1 vote majority in fact (yes 1 vote). NO OTHER REASONING was provided to account for its deletion! I spent a great deal of time describing the business and how it is definately influential and notable. My arguments it seems were not considered at all and were simply left out of the matter. My article was not biased, and it was not created as advertising. PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS ARTICLE as it clearly deserves a Misplaced Pages page. . If the article is undeleted, I WILL add to it. Bluebul1989 06:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In terms of pure numbers (standard disclaimer AfD is not a vote etc), the close was borderline, with 66% or 60% for deletion, depending on whether Bluebul1989's opinion is counted (as a new user who has so far only edited in relation to this article and is the sole editor to do so, the admin can choose to do so or not). That would often be closed as 'no consensus', defaulting to keep, but it is very much within the admin's discretion. However, in this case, I don't think the reasons to delete are that pressing. I don't believe that the article was created as self-promotion - if I had I would certainly endorse deletion. Bluebul claims to be a 16-year-old Ohian on WP:NEW and this is supported by a Google search for his username. Although I find the WP:CORP claim to notability dubious (the top 100 companies in every state of the USA being automatically notable sounds rather Americentric), DRV is not the place to debate that, and the other arguments for it being notable sound reasonable. Therefore, I suggest overturn as a no consensus and undelete without prejudice against a further AfD to gain a clearer consensus in a fortnight or so after Bluebul has improved it further. P.S. Bluebul, you don't need to shout. --Sam Blanning 13:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. A 66% delete vote is insufficient to delete, better to have no consensus'ed it and see what happens from there. THE KING 18:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • AfD is not a vote. 66% can be sufficient to delete if the reasoning to delete is compelling enough. In this case I think the reasoning isn't compelling enough, but this misconception needs to be challenged wherever it appears. --Sam Blanning 19:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn IMO, important enough for a reasonable article to be written. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted AfD is indeed not a vote, so by ONE VOTE doesn't matter, as its to be determined by community consensus. In this case, however, it is 5/2 if we throw out bluebul's and Laximus's comments as being too new at the time. 5 / 7 ≃ 0.714 {\displaystyle 5/7\simeq 0.714} . Aside from the raw numbers, you may want to read Rough consensus on the reasoning behind the supposed lack of counting. Many of the delete users all conceeding WP:CORP as being against it. One person believed in notability, another used a claim that there were already other non-WP:CORP-adhering on the page already, which could've been interpreted as admitting WP:CORP as well. I can see why the article was deleted, even if WP:CORP sets a very high bar. There was really nothing that wrong about the deletion. Sorry. Kevin_b_er 03:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a local supermarket chain. I shop there regularly. But it's not automatically notable for an international encyclopedia. There is not enough to say that will ever let this expand past the stub stage. And until they get a lot bigger or better known, there can't be. Endorse closure as within reasonable administrator discretion. By the way, I am unpersuaded by the argument that we must/should keep this article because we have not yet cleaned out other even less encyclopedic articles. We should be raising standards for the project, not racing to the lowest common denominator. Rossami (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn The people who marked delete did so before reason was provided as to why it was actually notable under WP:CORP and by no reasons were given contrasting the evidence put forth by blubul stating that it passes the second part for notability under WP:CORP (of which it only needs to pass one part). Laximus 05:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Question Can you be more specific about how the company meets WP:CORP? I'm looking at the AfD, and blubul's arguments, and I don't quite see it. Fan1967 05:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment "2. The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices, produced by well-known and independent publications, of important companies" (WP:CORP). According to this independent listing of top Ohio businesses between 2003 and 2004, , Heinen's was ranked within the top 100 both years. Bluebul1989 05:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • That criterion means indices like the Fortune 500. The index cited does not give a sales volume, and the ranking appears to be based solely on number of employees. 2,200 em ployees is a fair-sized chain, but I would question whether it is evidence per WP:CORP. What's needed are things like sales volume, whether publicly traded, nett value of the business, number of stores - objective measures of significance, in other words. A genuinely significant business will have more than a single source stating that it is significant, sop please provide the others. Just zis Guy you know? 07:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Also note that it ranks in the list of the top 100 private companies, most of which are so small they wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the top 100 if they were publicly held. Fan1967 13:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn The regional importance of this organization--given that it is privately owned--signals its importance for inclusion and notability. Irongargoyle 00:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Your comment confuses me. What facts lead you to believe that this business holds "regional importance"? And why would being privately owned increase that importance? As someone living in the region, I can attest that it's not significantly different from any other US grocery store chain. Rossami (talk)
  • Overturn, Undelete. It seems notable enough. TruthbringerToronto 02:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

BB Sinha

For clarity here is the article log.

This article was originally just a thin article that was nothing and was speedily deleted. Later the article was recreated, and I assisted in the overall betterment of the article. Again, the article was proposed for deletion, but on the grounds of a repost. However, Mike Rosoft restored the article stating, "Sufficiently different content from deleted material to warrant a new discussion/vote." The article remained standing and again was nominated for speedy in which I placed a hangon tag, another admin (I don't whom exactly, and I don't want to place names) agreed with the previous decision and stated that it was an entirely new article and deserved to stay up. Today, the article was deleted by Eskog for being a "repost." I am challenging this decision and request for undelete. The article is vastly stronger and signifies notability. Also, the repost decision was overturned before. It doesn't seem logical just to eliminate it for just that. Respectfully, Yanksox 05:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have already restored, as I was the speedying admin. I didn't notice that Mike Rosoft had already rejected the "repost" argument. (ESkog) 05:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Can someone close this, it's been speedily restored. also, drop me a note of the templates for closure on my Talk if you wouldn't mind. I'm sure it's here somewhere blindingly obvious, but I didn't see it... Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Mending Wall

This article was deleted by User:Royboycrashfan without any discussion. As far as I understand the deletion process, this is not wikipedia policy.

I am happy to resolve any copyvio problems. Tomandlu 11:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Restore, tentatively pending an explanation for this from Royboycrashfan—no explanation is obvious at the moment. I do not see what grounds there were for speedy deletion. There may be copyright issues, although I am not certain because the poem dates from 1915, but an article that old should not have been speedied without discussion. -- SCZenz 13:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

07 June 2006

Template:User Not in metric

This longstanding, tongue-in-cheek, satirical userbox was in line with other tongue-in-cheek, satirical user boxes. Administrator Tony Sidaway deleted this page citing its apparently inflammatory content. (See his talk page.) This userbox is clearly humorous and should not have been arbitrarily deleted like this. An example of this userbox is on my talk page. Nova SS 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering that you are the only person who has that userbox included on the userpage, does it really matter? I don't really think it's a T1 candidate, but the content was not really very useful either. I think the thing is OK to leave subst:ed on your userpage. Neutral. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cancer Bats

This article on a band was properly deleted as non-notable at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cancer Bats. However, I'm listing for reconsideration here in the light of subsequent developments that may alter that judgment, namely the release of an album under (what appears to be) a major label. The article's original author also claims the following additional facts (which I have not verified myself):

  • Released a sampler, an EP and an album
  • Album is sold in Sunrise Records and HMV
  • Video recieves rotation on MuchLoud (a show on MuchMusic)
  • Had an interview and played a live show on MTV Canada Live
  • Appeared on The Edge 102.1 (CFNY-FM) and the single was played at least once.
  • Played with bands such as The Bled, Protest The Hero, will play with NOFX and Silverstein summer of '06
  • Signed to same indie label as The Bled and Alexisonfire
  • Has toured across Canada and is already on tour again with destinations from Moncton NB to Vancouver BC

I am not voting at this time, just facilitating. Postdlf 23:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Overturn, undelete. Has anything new been presented? Not...really. The band has recently been featured in Canada's Exclaim! magazine, not small potatoes, as well as a feature on Canadian 106.7 FM. It's important to note that the band met WP:MUSIC guidelines BEFORE the AfD, and that was ignored. The prior meeting of the necessary guideline in the first AfD and further media mentions since then more than mean the deletion should be overturned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Undelete -- the evidence above seems to show sufficient notability. -- The Anome 12:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Strong Overturn, Undelete. The album is out, theyve made more public appearances and the tour scedule has been updated to include a cross country tour with some major bands. I was ignored during the first vote, please dont ignore me now. All claims can be verified on these websites: , , , and . They have met more than 1 of the notability claims. Avenged Evanfold 23:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak undelete playing on MTV Live (Canada) has to have some notability along with some magazine mentions. THe amazon link is not impressive, but ASIN B000FKOZLA is funny. What kind of viewship does MuchLoud/Music get? Our stub is not helpful. Kotepho 01:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cum On Her Face

Very popular porn site I really dont know why was it deleted. Luka Jačov 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong undelete - Luka Jačov 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong undelete - per Luka. --Pockey 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The article was speedied as an A7 (person or organization with no claim of notability). It's actually more of a website than an organization, and although I doubt it meets WP:WEB, that doesn't make it speediable. I don't think we're going to find any good independent reliable sources. Still, why not give it its day on AfD? Undelete and list at AfD. -GTBacchus 21:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • List on AfD if we must, but I really see no need for this article. It's just another porn site, of which there is surely no dearth, and I really can't imagine anybody actually coming to Misplaced Pages for information on it. Just zis Guy you know? 22:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and list on AfD per GTBacchus. Endorse Deletion per Sam Blanning (below) TheJC Contributions 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, no assertion of notability, proper A7. "Recognized worldwide" is, like "good chess player", not an assertion of notability. An assertion of notability is claiming to have won a significant chess tournament or "Best Cumshot Website of 2006" at the World Porn Awards. And don't bother relisting until someone turns up a reliable source to base an article on. --Sam Blanning 22:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak endorse per CSD A3 and WP:NOT a web directory. Did not actually say anything about the site that wouldn't be pretty obvious from the name. Permit recreation (subject to WP:WEB) if something encyclopedic can be written about the subject. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion until someone can evidence notability. per Sam Blanning. Bastique▼ voir 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong endorse per Sam Blanning clearly violates WP:NOT Whispering 00:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Ilmari; the article didn't inform beyond describing the practice that is the website's obvious subject matter. Though there's no reason why this shouldn't just be blandly listed, without elaboration, in a list article of porn sites somewhere. Something can be notable yet insubstantial, and so like the good information scientists we are we should ensure it gets incorporated into the proper place rather than trying to write a separate treatise on it. Postdlf 00:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

AlternC

An extension from Control panel (Web hosting) The administrator Zoe deleted this page on account of advertising, however I'm not affiliated with AlternC nor do I advise/condone its use, I am simply noting the control panel along with a list of many other noteworthy control panels. I am not advertising in any way, I believe it is a misunderstanding.

Manny 17:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • It was written as an ad, whatever your motivation. If you want to discuss what it is, when it was created, who uses it, and can document it, that's fine, I have no problem with a re-creation, but as it stood, all it did was to extoll its features. User:Zoe| 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for the clarification! Manny 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Tiffany Holiday

Short and Good article speedy deleted by User:Drini and User:Golbez, edit summaries were "csd nnbio" and "". There was no vote. Many many results on Google, has an IMDb and AFDb profiles and also pass Misplaced Pages:Notability (erotic actors) for having a recored of around 100 films --Haham hanuka 14:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Somehow, this ended up at page bottom today (June 7); not sure why it's dated earlier, but I have moved it for consideration. Xoloz 15:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Judging by the answers.com link, I think the fact the stub is short, and contains a poorly sourced negative claim, means it should not be restored. Instead, anybody who wishes, can create, a new original article, which clearly explains her notability, and which is well sourced. --Rob 16:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion; I do not see any claim of notability in the article. Removal of potential libel of a possibly non-notable person is a bonus. No prejudice about recreation at this point. - Liberatore(T) 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. As above, no claim of notability (one bit part in a real film, balance is the usual no-budget porn churned out at the rate of several a day by some "studios"). No reliable sources for any of the bio data (IAFD is not, unlike IMDB, a reliable source per WP:RS). Redux: dime-a-dozen porn "star". Take it to Wikiporn. Just zis Guy you know? 19:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Comment on process, not about content, this should be restored immediately as an improper speedy deletion. Holiday appears to be a more than notable enough actress for inclusion, we do not delete articles outright because they contain an unverified or unverifiable claim. Silensor 20:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Up to a point: process is there to guide us, policy is policy, and in the end there is no good reason to take up the community's time with debating articles which are functionally unverifiable. Deleting it does not prevent someone from coming along and creating a real article which makes some credible claim of notability and which is cited from reliable sources. WP:SNOW applies. Just zis Guy you know? 22:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Shane Cubis

This page has been continually deleted, because the initial article was created by the feature of the article himself, Shane Cubis. While the initial article may have been vanity or vandalism, he enlisted a group of his followers to create a real article in Misplaced Pages. His page has since been listed as a protected deleted pages, and his talk page is routinely deleted preventing a fair discussion of the deletion.

Shane Cubis does not fail WP:Bio and thus never really qualified for WP:AfD. Just because the article started as vandalism or vanity, it does not take away from the fact an actual compliant article could be at this entry, Shane Cubis. At the very least there should have been a discussion on the talk page, and not a speedy deletion into Protected deleted pages. JustOneJake 11:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn Shane Cubis is a notable Australian journalist, being a major contributor to an important Australian media group, The Chaser. The Chaser has made itself an important part of Australia's culture, being read by politicians, mainstream journalists and ordinary Australians. Shane's weekly columns attract large amounts of reads and discussion. His work for People magazine, while not being as well known, has attracted large amounts of attention from mainstream Australia. JoshT 220.237.79.202 12:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy-deletion under case A7. The entire contents of the longest version of the article read "Shane Cubis (born 1980) is a writer, originally from Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. Shane's first article was a Teri Weigel porn review in the Tertangala, Wollongong University's student newspaper. Since then he's contributed to a variety of gaming magazines including Pyramid, Knights of the Dinner Table and the Silven Trumpeter. He currently has a weekly column in The Chaser and works for Australia's People Magazine." and one external link. Writers are part of a respected profession but are no more automatically notable than engineers or doctors of equivalent experience or standing. No assertion has been made that this writer is particularly significant or that he does qualify under our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. By the way, the deleted history shows that the only significant contributor to this page was user:Rubikcubis, supporting the assumption that this was an inappropriate autobiography. The user's subsequent edits to other pages do not insprire me to good faith. Rossami (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Rossami's excellent reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse indeed. Syrthiss 17:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, it's clear from Cubis's own website that he was the original author, and he's encouraging people to come here to recreate it and complain. User:Zoe| 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Endorse - per WP:VAIN. --JiFish(/Contrib) 18:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, and recommend that keen editors take the usual steps to moderate the inclusion of the subject's name and its variants in Misplaced Pages. There's is much outrage, followed by subterfuge, at the deletions. -Splash - tk 18:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion with thanks to Rossami for presenting a solid case. Just zis Guy you know? 19:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn: while the original article may be questionable as vanity, there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance and fame in the Australian political journalism / satire sphere that one of his fans should be allowed to create a page with information about him. The defacement of other pages with his name is consistent with the style of humour The_Chaser is famous for in Australia, not an indication that there is any lack of merit in the need for a "Shane Cubis" page on Misplaced Pages. "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is". Malthius 03:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC) User's first edit
    • there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance... Guy, since that's the very issue in question, you're begging the question. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Begging the question for effect though, since it seems that the vandalism or "meat puppetry" is more important here than the actual "issue in question" of whether Shane Cubis is worth of a bio page. Thanks for highlighting that for everyone. Malthius 10:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. No new information, and the old information was unconvincing to begin with. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn While no-one is denying that the original source of the article was Shane himself, that does not necessarily invalidate the merit of the article itself, and was more a function of the humour that has made him popular. Regardless of the American or British-centric knowledge of the original two administrators who deleted the article, their ignorance of the Australian media and in particular the satirical politcal area which is the expertise of the article subject in question does not mean it lacks significance. As an Australian, I guess I might equally wonder why something so incredibly minor and unimportant as a 3 year old racehorse such as Like_Now without even a particularly impressive record demands its own Misplaced Pages page, where a published journalist does not. U.Pseudonopoulos 09:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • User's only edit. User:Zoe| 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry. I was under the impression that this was a logical discussion and the weight of our argument would count for more than how many edits we had made to this website. Is this how all discussions are settled on Misplaced Pages? We simply get out our 'edit counts' and compare them, with the larger number winning? Perhaps we could both get out our wangs and compare those as well? Or do you want to try and actually add some value to the debate? Could you perhaps explain to me why Shane Cubis is less notable than the nag of a racehorse I have linked above? Is it simply because one is American and the other Australian, regardless of species? Are angsty teenagers with a lack of knowledge of other countries really fit to determine what adds to the grand sum of human knowledge? U.Pseudonopoulos 00:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Please see Misplaced Pages:Undeletion_policy#Suffrage. User:Zoe| 01:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Noted, and I can see the idea behind such in some cases, particularly where people are simply putting a vote without reasoning or detailed comment. I still hold that it has no relationship to the validity of the argument presented. "There are no strict rules for this, the admin closing a discussion is expected to use common sense", and in this case the only people voting without significant reasoning are the 'endorsers'. I find it irrelevant to the arguments that I and others have offered whether it is our only edits or not. The arguments should still be treated on the merit of what it presented itself. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • strong overturn Shane Cubis is notable within the fan base of The Chaser. He is a major columnist for the site and well respected author in a variety of other media. His other edits on Wiki have surely not affected his notability or his work as a writer/comedian. Gisellehobbs 10:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong overturn If for no other reason than his fellow journalists Chas_Licciardello, Chris_Taylor and Craig_Reucassel all have their own pages that provide just as much (or little, depending on how one is to view it) information about them. Is there any proof that these other journalists didn't write the articles themselves? Perhaps Shane Cubis is being punished for making a simple mistake - he wrote the article about himself in first person instead of third. Any of his fans would be happy to write the article to prevent it from remaining vanity if that is the main complaint, but he is certainly famous and/or popular enough to warrant an entry. Purpleorb (for clarity sake, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.177.2 (talk • contribs) )
    • This is an excellent point. Are all of these journalists significantly more notable than Cubis? He is also listed near Tim Brunero in The Chaser enterprise article, and the Brunero article has no more content or merit than the original Cubis article. If the Cubis article does not comeback, I purpose some of these other articles be removed for parity in this category. JustOneJake 03:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Rossami. — pd_THOR | 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion CSD A7 -- The Anome 13:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn Yes, Mr. Cubis may have originally written the article as a vanity piece for his article. That does not mean a compliant article could not be written. It is clear many people here are willing to write an article in the confines of Misplaced Pages policy. Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth, as he is drawing support from his article at The Chaser and his Antiwikipedia entry. As it stands now the page is protected deleted. Why not unprotect it and give someone a chance to write a compliant article? 63.225.118.147 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth. Is that a threat? User:Zoe| 20:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Based on the discussions on the forums at his article and the actions members of that forum have taken (silly vandalism to both here and the Wiktionary, I'd say that it's clearly a threat. Metros232 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Are you guys kidding? It’s no threat; it is an assessment of the facts. These people want a real article, and if there is a real article they will have less to complain about. Furthermore, do the actions of people unto Misplaced Pages affect the notability status of Cubis? Most of the discussion here is completely irrelevant to the facts. I am sure the guys at Britannica or Funk and Wagnalls never sat down and talked about their hate mail when deciding to include an entry. This man is at least as noteworthy as some of the other people on Misplaced Pages, and he deserves an article regardless of the actions of himself or others. 63.225.118.147 02:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Sounds notable enough. TruthbringerToronto 20:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Rossami. OhNoitsJamie 00:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion no verifiable notability proof presented. `'mikka (t) 00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Shane is one of only three weekly column writers for The Chaser. The Chaser is a very popular website in Australia, very much similar to The_Onion in terms of content and (local) popularity. It is important to note that, as a columnist, Shane writes articles which are put on the website under his own name. He is not writing anonymously, but offering his opinion under his name. As such, it is expected that people will want to find information about the author, so as to get background to form a view on the validity of his opinion. As such, I feel the author is notable and, as such, an appropriate page on the author should not be prevented from being created. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • keep/endorse deletion Attracting lots of sock puppets filled with meat, see the URL in the history]. People are being instructed how to go here JUST to request this overturned. This guy really is not notable, and the speedy is fine. Kevin_b_er 03:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Rossami. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This discussion doesn't make the Wikipedians look very good. What is the point of spending so much energy to exclude and defend against a bio entry for some guy who obviously has a following? It's not like the page was false, inflamatory, or libelous. If there were no other bio pages for minor notables the argument against allowing this guy would carry some weight, but clearly there are lots of such pages. For example, there are a dozen Chris Taylors, none of whom is particularly notable. 66.245.31.155 02:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Then please do some research and nominate those pages for deletion as well. We are striving for consistency but we must do so by raising the standards of the encyclopedia, not starting a race for the bottom. The fact that other inappropriate articles have not yet been cleaned up can not be a justification to fail to clean up this one. Rossami (talk)

Certainty principle

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle

Proponents say:

  • The certainty principle is a mathematical theorem. The proof is available for everybody.
  • It was officially published in the established peer-reviewed journal. It will not be published second time. The journal was registered in Russia, and this is Russian government who has to know about the journal, not Google.
  • Nobody has objections against scientific content of the papers. (Really no objections.)
  • If the theorem is true, its notability cannot be questioned, because it generalizes (not contradicts!) the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
  • The certainty principle is too young (1 year) to be known as widely as uncertainty principle.
  • The certainty principle is old enough to take it seriously. Links to it were put in WP almost year ago and a great amount of people have checked it, including highly qualified editors of the uncertainty principle.
  • The questoin of "reputability" of the journal is anyway subjective and should be discussed only if some specialists in the subject have objections against the certainty principle.

Opponents say:

  • We are not specialists in the subject, and cannot judge the principle from purely scientific point of view. But we want to protect WP from pseudo-science.
  • Google says that the certainty principle is not widely cited.
  • The journal, where the papers were published, is not "reputable", and can be considered as a self-publication.

What should we do in this situation? The conflict is going to become a war. Hryun 15:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Article exists under both Certainty principle and Certainty Principle in various forms. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle, which deleted this content as original research. I re-deleted this article because although this content was not identical, the original reason for deletion was unchanged. User:Hryun has claimed that the article is published in a Russian journal, but several physicist Wikipedians have looked for signs of this publication (or indeed the existence of the named journal) and found nothing; Hryun refuses to provide further details. You can see discussion of these issues, as well as more threats by User:Hryun, at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics#Certainty principle. -- SCZenz 15:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Taking off my admin hat, and putting on my WikiProject Physics hat, I would like to note that this issue has all the hallmarks of original research. A very pushy series of editors, most of them with very similar editing styles, have been pushing to have this subject mentioned in about 8-10 different physics articles. A discovery of the claimed magnitude would have many, many citations in places that would be very easy to find, and this does not. The only document that can be located by any of the usual methods—which are essentially universal for all physics publications worldwide, is the paper itself on the ArXiv and related servers—which are not peer-reviewed in any way. No publication information is given there. -- SCZenz 15:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • SCZenz, for what reason do you lie here? (1) The Certainty Principle article was created by Slicky. I am not Slicky neither in WP nor in the real life. Ask for user-checking, if you do not believe. I just re-created the article under proper name, Certainty principle. There was no cheating in it. (2) You did not ask for "further details" of the journal, you asked for information that can be seen in the Internet. Hryun 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Please be civil. I don't think you are Slicky, but I do strongly suspect you're editing under a couple of other usernames. I do not believe that there are any reputable physics journals with no information available on the internet, however—Russian journals are tracked in the same places as all the others. -- SCZenz
  • Keep deleted until the concept gets taken up by someone other than the original auther. We'll watch CiteBase. --Pjacobi 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. The AfD clearly labeled this material as original research and despite the requester's allusions no evidence to contradict this determination has been provided. The AfD should stand until citations to appropriate peer-reviewed sources are provided. --Allen3  16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse, keep deleted - Based on the information on hand, this is OR. If this is indeed a valid scientific theory, material will be peer reviewed and can be verified.. There should be no rush to have a wiki article on a subject (re "the material is too new to have been properly circulated" above); its not like we are going anywhere. Syrthiss 16:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure per WP:NOR. As Syrthiss says, we can afford to wait until this is independently sourced. Rossami (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, for reasons above. This does not presently return anything on CiteSeer or citebase. It's important to be sure that authors are not inserting their own, non-peer-reviewed work to Misplaced Pages, or it would quickly become a repository for anything unpublished and unpublishable. There is further the fact that, if this were really what it is claimed to be, that it would probably already have been picked up by some very well known, reputable and reliable publications. At that point, inclusion would be a no-brainer. -Splash - tk 17:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse, keep deleted. As far as I can tell, both the term "Certainty principle" and the concept are original research, as we define it. When the article is published — or even referenced — in a peer-reviewed journal, we can reconsider. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse - per above. Wait for it to be peer-reviewed by someone who knows. --JiFish(/Contrib) 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse. When the work becomes well-known and the author is hailed as the great theorist he claims to be then I'll happily enjoy contributing on a million articles about him and his great work. Until then it goes into the "makes very large claims that nobody in-the-know seems to take seriously" bin. I also don't appreciate "Hyun"'s threats about waging a "war" against Misplaced Pages if he doesn't get his article included. --Fastfission 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Two well-informed editors reviewed this and found it to be WP:OR, no evidence is provided to contradict this conclusion. No citations to reputable peer-reviewed journals, for example. Just zis Guy you know? 20:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion as per Jacobi. --Improv 21:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Mathematical deletion endorsement -- Drini 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion agreeing with everything said above. Hyun, it will only become a war if you make it so and do not accept WP process. You have stated that there is no consensus. I think the above is a very clear consensus. Nobody agrees with you. Please accept this until and if this principle is widely accepted and discussed in many reputable places. If this is as important as the claims made for it, it would have been discussed by now in "Nature", Scientific American", "New Scientist" and so on, along with references in "Reviews of Modern Physics" and similar journals. This is not yet WP material and may never be. --Bduke 02:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Are all of us who endorse this deletion going to receive the Uncertain Elephant Award as those of us who supported the original deletion, or indeed were in any way involved with it, did? --Bduke 04:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Bduke. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

06 June 2006

Big Brother 7 chronology

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Big Brother 7 Chronology

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

  • Overturn: At least have the page there until the series is over and the page can be condensed. --JDemail 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Why was the page deleted? Celestianpower says at the top of the page that the result of the debate was deleted. The results were: 6 for "delete"; 11 for "keep"; 1 for "weak keep" and 1 for "strong delete"!!! I think it's pretty obvious that more people want to keep the page than delete it!! Ellisjm 16:36 UTC 6 June 06
  • Endorse deletion. People who wanted the article deleted seem to have more grounds than those who wanted the article kept. — FireFox • 16:44, 06 June '06
  • Endorse deletion per FireFox. -- 9cds 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. Reasons given for deletion were in line with WP policies and guidelines; reasons given for keep were mostly "But I want to keep it" variety. Process was followed, deletion is valid. KillerChihuahua 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn for violation of process. I would have voted "delete", as this does look like non-notable TV cruft, but the result of the debate was no consensus. The keep voters may have been uninformed, but Misplaced Pages:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators allows only disregarding bad faith votes when establishing consensus, and few such are apparent here. I know of no policy that allows the closing administrator to determine consensus on the basis of which side they agree with. Sandstein 17:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The guidelines say that for example comments made in bad faith may be ignored. In general, the guidelines say admins should use their common sense to determine if a rough consensus exists and should try to remain as objective as possible — they don't provide strict rules for doing this, since no such rule can exists. (Anyway, it's not a "vote".) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and close as no consensus. Neither side had arguments that were all that compelling, and closer was not at all clear as to his/her rationale for the decision. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse- this was a reasonable decision. Possibly the DRV could have been avoided tho, if the closer had given more reasoning about why they closed the way they did. Friday (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, a level of detail far in excess of anything which could possibly be justified by any encyclopaedic purpose. BB7 is more than adequately covered in the main article. This is a fan blog and belongs on a fan site: it is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information.. Just zis Guy you know? 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: am I correcting in thinking that people think this article is necessary so that at the end of the show it can be reduced into something encyclopedic? That seems to be what was being said at the AfD, but I just want to verify that before making a decision. Metros232 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Endorse and keep deleted - Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. The closer based his decision of the strengh of the arguments, not the amount. I agree with User:Friday that the closer should have stated this more clearly. --JiFish(/Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn the result of the discussion was keep and not by a small margin. I completely agree with Ellisjm that the article was wrongly deleted.

-- JAB 20:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn and Undelete for being out-of-process. --Rob 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak endorse, closure seems to have been within acceptable bounds of discretion. Most of the arguments provided by either side in the debate were rather weak, but some of the arguments for deletion were slightly less weak that the arguments against it. I'm quite willing, however, to userfy the deleted content upon request (a possibility some of the participants in the original debate appear to have been unaware of). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It just makes more sense to have the page in the main Misplaced Pages area while it exists, because it still has the information that many people may find useful. If that ends up being the only other option, then it may end up happening. But I'm sure you can see what I'm trying to say. --JDemail 23:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy somewhere by all means but keep deleted per above. Metamagician3000 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist. I would rather delete this article but the discussion was at most a "no consensus", not a "delete". --Metropolitan90 02:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. AfD is not a vote, Misplaced Pages is not a free web host for TV blogs, no-one even attempted to argue that this information belonged in an encyclopaedia, process was correctly followed. If it doesn't belong on the main BB7 page then it doesn't belong anywhere. --Sam Blanning 09:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The things is, that's exactly the point - people do think it belongs on the main article page. But the people that think it belongs there don't want it to be anywhere else. They don't care about how big the main article could become with that information on it. --JDemail 11:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion--cj | talk 09:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure/deletion, administrator has the right—nay, the obligation—to evaluate the merit of the arguments in terms of the goal of the project. When such a decision is not obvious, however, it should be explained in detail. -- SCZenz 12:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per KillerChihuahua. What's the point in having an article just for it to be deleted in a few weeks time (i.e. 'keep until the end of the series'). This does not belong on Misplaced Pages. It is fancruft of the worst sort. The JPS 15:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist Closing admin pretty much ignored the entire AfD process, sending the message to everyone that he valued only his own input on the subject. That's not how AfD is supposed to work. --Hyperbole 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. A severely inadequate closure method, but the right decision nevertheless. This was plainly not encyclopedia material, being essentially a diary of some people traipsing around a building for a few weeks. -Splash - tk 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure as within reasonable admin discretion. However, close decisions like this deserve more than just "The decision was delete" in the closure of the discussion. This argument could largely have been avoided if the closing admin had taken the time to fully lay out his/her reasoning. Rossami (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - As the closing admin on this AfD, I apologise for any extra trouble this has caused. Clearly I should have put forward my reasoning in the summary/the decision field: "When closing this AfD, despite there being more "keep" votes than "delete", the strength of arguments from the delete camp seems much stronger. WP:NOT is policy and this seems a clear case of 'Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information', as many voters pointed out. Also, AfD is not a vote: vote counts aren't everything". Once again, I apologise and will learn for next time. Regards, — Celestianpower 18:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion - Strength of arguments needs to be balanced with number of arguers, and it seems reasonable to disregard input that lacks any reasoning. --Improv 04:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Remain Deleted The AfD itself was filled with people who were rabid fans on the show, with all their arguements being all the minute details(read: minor, incidental things) be left off of the television show's main page. Pages were being used to hold any info about show and daily summaries like it were a fan page. That's not what wikipedia is about. Kevin_b_er 04:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - Celestianpower made a completely correct decision. Proto||type 13:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: There seems to be a misunderstanding that WP:NOT requires deletion as the universal solution to all problems it lists. Many things wikipedia is not, are handled by editing, not deletion. Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy says: "Article needs a lot of improvement" is explicitly not a reason for deletion, but should be cleaned up. Now, once cleaned up (which in this case, could mean radical shrinkage) policy says that if there's not much left ("Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article") it should be handled by merging/redirecting. Nobody here has given an explanation as to why the article *must* be deleted. That is what problem can only be solved via deletion, as opposed to a merge/redirect (with a potential for de-merge if/when sufficient quantity/quality content exists). --Rob 07:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    It had already been "merged". . —Celestianpower 13:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:WikiPâques.png

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


Recently concluded

2006 June

  1. Okashina_Okashi - Decision of the original closer to relist at AfD is endorsed. 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  2. Dismal's Paradox - Relisted at AfD. 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  3. User:SPUI/jajaja - Nomination withdrawn. 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  4. List of political leaders widely regarded as totalitarian - Request for information answered. 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  5. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed. 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  6. Cultural references in Pokémon - Deletion endorsed. 16:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  7. Fluffy (The Lion King) - Deletion endorsed. 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  8. Kelly Roberti - Copyright issue resolved, restored. 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  9. Image:Pierre Janssen.jpg - Commons image, action impossible here. 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  10. Neanderthal theory of autism - Deletion endorsed. 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  11. Be bold, Be Bold - Overturn RfD and revert to WP:BOLD. 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  12. Jeff Lindsay - Deletion endorsed. 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  13. "State Debate Associations" - Deletion endorsed. 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  14. How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 - Deletion endorsed. 17:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  15. Kinston Indians - Deletion endorsed. 17:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  16. Misplaced Pages:SCAG - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  17. Image:Nuvola 64 apps important.png - undeletion impossible; deleted prior to 16 June 2006. 13:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  18. Sick Nick Mondo - Deletion endorsed for now, pending AfD outcome for related Nick Mondo; should that survive, this is a suitable redirect. 18:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
    Nick Mondo having survived AfD, this is restored as a redirect. 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. True Torah Jews - Deletion endorsed. 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  20. UCIP - Deletion endorsed. 18:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  21. Mending Wall - Keep endorsed. 11:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  22. Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) - Deletion endorsed. 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  23. TheSmartMarks.com - Deletion endorsed. 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  24. Dirt pudding - Transwiki and deletion endorsed. 17:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  25. Kirill Makharinsky - Deletion endorsed. 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  26. Armando Lloréns-Sar - History restored, maintained as redirect; merge issues are an editorial concern for article's talk page. 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  27. Hollywood Undead - Deletion endorsed. 17:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  28. Trexy - Closing administrator agreed to relist AFD. 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  29. Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak - No consensus closure endorsed. 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  30. Knox (animator) - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  31. Lightsaber combat - Keep closure endorsed. 18:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  32. Stone Trek - Deletion closure endorsed. 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  33. File:944 h.jpg - DRV closed, image in Commons jurisdiction. 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  34. Sadullah Khan - Undeleted, relisted. 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  35. Atromitos - Undeleted. 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  36. Walk To Emmaus - Deletion endorsed. 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  37. Misplaced Pages:Conservative notice board. Kept deleted. Strong endorsement. 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Review.
  38. Lost: The Journey - Relisted. 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  39. User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes and Template:User Gangster - Undeleted. 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  40. The Lost Boys (demogroup) - Relist. 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  41. Second War (Harry Potter) - Deletion endorsed. 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  42. IRCDig - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  43. Saryn Hooks - Undeleted and relisted at AfD. 17:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  44. Template:Major_programming_languages - template content restored 06:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) review
  45. Strategic Policy Consulting - Deletion endorsed. 16:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  46. Actuarial Outpost - Kept kept, mistaken nomination. 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  47. Image:WikiPâques.png - Uploaded to Commons, as suggested. 16:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  48. The Esplanade Mall - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 16:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  49. Sydney Ling - AfD result of "no consensus" endorsed. 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  50. Siberian language - Deletion endorsed. 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  51. Burlington Center Mall - Challenge of no consensus afd withdrawn. 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  52. Erik Möller - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  53. theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh - Deletions endorsed. 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  54. Misplaced Pages:OURS - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  55. 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) - Deletion endorsed. 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  56. Conservative Underground - Deletion endorsed. 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  57. Boring Business Systems - AfD reopened by acclamation. 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  58. Joseph D. Campbell - Previous AfD overturned, to be relisted at AfD. 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  59. Church of Reality - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  60. Heinen's - Result reversed by consensus, AfD now closed as "no consensus". 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  61. BB Sinha - Restored, listed at AfD. 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (deleted at AfD 20:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)) Review
  62. Mending Wall - Restored, listed at AfD, closed as keep, brought here again (above). 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  63. Cancer Bats - Restored, to be resubmitted to AfD in light of new evidence. 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  64. Cum On Her Face - Deletion endorsed. 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  65. AlternC - Deletion endorsed. 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  66. Tiffany Holiday - Deletion endorsed. 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  67. Shane Cubis - Deletion endorsed unanimously (excepting discounted anons/newbies.) 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  68. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  69. Big Brother 7 chronology - Deletion endorsed. Will userfy upon request. 15:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  70. Wikimedia Meta-Wiki - action reverted by the closer. AFD reopened. 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  71. The Adventures of Dr. McNinja - Consensus to permit userpage draft as new recreation, will be submitted to AfD. 17:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  72. Cory kennedy - Deletion endorsed. 17:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  73. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics - Kept deleted unanimously. 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  74. Yar - Deletion endorsed without prejudice to unrelated redirect now at title. 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  75. List of midnight movies - Content restored for merge and redirect. 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  76. AK Productions - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  77. FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together - Undeleted and sent to AfD. 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  78. List of tongue-twisters - Deletion endorsed in light of new Wikiquote transwiki. 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  79. User:Raphael1/Wikiethics - Deletion endorsed. 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  80. Roosters1908, Sydneyroosters1909, and Sydneyroosters1910 - Undeleted to be AfD'ed in light of new evidence. 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  81. National Hockey Leaque player lists - Restored speedily and AFD reopened. 08:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  82. User:AKMask/log - Restored (by a narrow margin) to be sent to MfD. 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  83. Male Unbifurcated Garment - Deletion endorsed (again -- Second DRV in two weeks.) 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  84. Penis banding - Deletion endorsed. 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  85. Template:User no notability - Deletion narrowly endorsed. (date unavailable, deletion review never archived) Permalink
  86. Syed Ahmed - deletion endorsed, redirected to The Apprentice (UK series 2) 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  87. Ho Shin Do - deletion endorsed without prejudice 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
  88. Israel News Agency - article content restored 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
  89. Delaware County Intermediate Unit - Deletion closure endorsed. 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  90. Steve Bellone - Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  91. Team NoA - Previous version restored, survived AfD as no consensus. 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  92. Springfield M21 - Restored as redirect with history. 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  93. The drips - Speedy deletion contested, overturned; sent to AfD. 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  94. Template:Voting icons - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  95. Ali Zafar - New NPOV recreation permitted. 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  96. Barbara Bauer, The Literary Agency Group and others - Bauer undeleted and kept at AfD; others kept deleted. 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  97. Scienter - deletion overturned. 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  98. Auto repair shop - original speedy deletion endorsed, without prejudice to now-existing distinct redirect at this title. 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  99. Misplaced Pages v search engines - deletion endorsed unanimously. 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  100. Pat Price - deletion overturned unanimously, no need to relist. 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  101. Talk:Brian Peppers - kept deleted. 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  102. The Juggernaut Bitch - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  103. South Coast League - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  104. Other side of the pillow - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  105. Joel Leyden - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  106. Sharting - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  107. User:Disavian/Userboxes/Green Energy - deletion endorsed, narrowly 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  108. Left-wing terrorism - article history restored 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  109. Stella Maris College Scout Group - deletion endorsed 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  110. List of Michael Savage neologisms - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  111. Superhorse - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  112. Exicornt - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  113. Image:Lock-icon.jpg - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  114. College Confidential - article content restored 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  115. Tim Dingle - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  116. Abstract People - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  117. Christian views of Hanukkah - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  118. Claught of a bird dairy products - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  119. LIP6 - continue from rewritten version 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  120. Hulk 2 - redirected to Hulk (film) for now 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  121. Xombie - article content restored 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  122. Possible wars between liberal democracies speedy-deletion undone by deleting admin. listed to AFD. 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  123. Gary Howell deletion endorsed. 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  124. New Sincerity - deletion endorsed. 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  125. Successful Praying - speedy deletion as copyvio endorsed. 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  126. Videohypertransference - user copy granted. deletion from articlespace endorsed. 20:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  127. Oz Categories 8 endorse, 5 overturn, deletion endorsed. 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Review

Userbox discussions

Archives

10 June 2006

Boring Business Systems

This was closed on June 8 as 'no consensus'. The discussion is here. There were 5 delete votes and 5 keep votes. The decision not to delete needs review, and a closer look at four of the five users who cast "keep" votes. FunkyChicken!, UncleFloyd, ConeyCyclone, and Nigel Wick appear to possibly be the same person using many different accounts. See the history of those usernames on past AfDs, especially the recent WWAC-TV that was deleted as a hoax. The article should either be relisted for further consensus, or deleted. 70.108.82.120 16:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The fifth keep vote from Nertz may be the same person too since it is a recently created account, shows the same fondness for exclamation points! as the other four, and expressed knowledge of the recent Jersey Shore Communciations/WWAC-TV hoax. 70.108.82.120 16:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Interesting. I smell socks as follows:
    • Nigel_Wick (talk · contribs) began editing a matter of hours prior to his comment in the AfD, which was his first such comment. Such participation would typically be given a light weight anyway, the following circumstantials notwithstanding;
    • ConeyCyclone (talk · contribs), UncleFloyd (talk · contribs) and FunkyChicken! (talk · contribs) show almost exactly the same gaps in editing. They all ceased editing in July (August for FunkyChicken!) of 2005, and only resumed in February 2006 — all on the 20th or 22nd. All three have a further near-simultaneous gap from that burst in February to the beginning of this month, 1/2 June, a matter of days before the AfD, when all again began editing at nearly the same time. All visited the AfD within their first few edits. I conclude that these are socks of one another, and that they should be dismissed. If people concur, I would also suggest indefinite blocks given their usage.
    • Nertz (talk · contribs) was an account created at exactly the same time as the three above resumed editing — on 2nd June, and visited the AfD in short order. Just about the same shortness of order as the other three. As with Nigel Wick, this would usually lighten his weight considerably, but I strongly suspect this to be a further sockpuppet.
    • Punt! (talk · contribs) is the creator of the article. This account, coincidentally, was also created on 2nd June, the same day it wrote the article, and does indeed share a penchant for exclamation marks with several of the others. I suspect a further sockpuppet.
  • I would therefore suggest that all of these account be indefinitely blocked (they are not benign socks) and the puppet master can email an admin requesting his/her chosen one be unblocked. As to the deletion review, the article itself is borderline as is the company. It would be entirely reasonable to overturn the closure and delete. But I think, given the disruption the debate experienced, that overturn and relist is better. -Splash - tk 03:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Major_programming_languages

I did not see the TfD discussion until after someone acted on it to remove the template from an article I watch. Looking through the discussion, it appears that the discussion had 11 delete votes, and 6 keep votes (FWIW, I would have voted "keep" if I had noticed it). It doesn't seem like deletion on a bare majority is the right closing action (no consensus would be more fitting). As far as I can see, all the votes on both sides were cast in good faith, by established editors, and accompanied by reasonable statements of reasons. So the conduct of the discussion seems eminently reasonable... it just doesn't seem to have been closed correctly. LotLE×talk 20:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Erik Möller

Was inappropriately speedied as recreation, which it wasn't. The originally AfD'd article (Erik Moeller) didn't mention that he was a published author, and the AfD was based on the idea that he's non-notable because the article just mentioned his temporary Wikimedia post. Thus the second article should go through AfD again. Margana 19:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

there are also two previous versions of Erik Möller that have been deleted previously, the first was a redirect and the second was very short. -- Kim van der Linde 19:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
There are about 4,000 copies of my book. It's a niche publication about wikis, weblogs and open source software. I don't think having written a single book with such a small run makes me a notable person.--Eloquence* 19:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh

Despite establishing the relevance of theSMSzone.com and its creator as a pioneer of SMS spoofing, the article was deleted without, in my opinion, due consideration of the arguments presented. Phanatical 08:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Undelete, Relist - I strongly object to the deletion. The article was deleted without taking into account the arguments posed in objection to the original deletion request. I profoundly believe the article deserves a place in our community as there are severe criminal impacts 'spoofed sms' pose to society. theSMSzone.com is also mentioned in the wiki entry for sms under Criminal Impact further increasing its notability. Ahmedsays 12:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • user's third edit to Misplaced Pages
    • Reminder: Deletion review is not the place to simply continue a closed AfD. It's not "Articles for Deletion, Round 2". Comment on only whether the discussion was concluded correctly. Don't rehash the same points that you have already mentioned in the AfD. Kimchi.sg 13:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's examine each "keep" argument from the AfD in detail:
    1. over 48000 relevant backlinks to theSMSzone can be found with the terms "theSMSzone.com" - blatant untruth, clicking on the provided link shows only "about 22" backlinks, and if you click to page 2, only 11 of these are unique.
    2. seems like this website pioneered SMS spoofing hence is a valuable asset to the WIKI community - no sources provided for this claim either within the AfD (and I daresay, in the article itself), therefore unverifiable.
    3. theSMSzone.com was the first website in the world that allowed users to define a "From" number. - yet another unsourced nugget.
    4. I see no reason why this entry should be deleted. Please use the keywords "spoofed sms" in google for clear evidence on the impact this startup had on text messaging. - seems this editor has not heard of Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines for websites. And a search for spoofed SMS theSMSzone shows 486 hits, none of which are to reliable sources. Only 42 of these are unique.
    5. MSN and Yahoo print a totally different picture - thousands of results. Doesnt look like 'corporate' spam to me. - to this editor it may not, to the rest of us, it does. The top hit on the MSN search is a PRweb press release, and the top Yahoo! search result is the site itself. Again not a good omen, no WP:WEB criteria are satisfied.
    6. Lastly, SMS spoofing is also listed as having a criminal impact on society in the wiki entry for SMS with the 'sms zone' pinpointed as the cause. - Misplaced Pages articles may not use other Misplaced Pages articles as sources, so if this one had to depend on the SMS article to live, then it really shouldn't have survived AfD.
    In summary, the closing admin was right to discount the weakly-reasoned "keep" votes, which made no mention of how the website or its founder satisfy WP:WEB and WP:BIO respectively. Consensus was correctly determined, with disregard to sheer number of votes. Keep deleted, no new information has surfaced to justify undeletion. (Link to Google cache version of the article: ) Kimchi.sg 13:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Kimchi. Postdlf 13:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep deleted per Kimchi's research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure as within administrator discretion. I note that a number of the participants in the deletion discussion have suspiciously short contribution histories. However I'll also note that a more detailed explanation by the closer would have been appropriate in this case. Rossami (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:OURS

This page was speedy-deleted out of process. It was nominated at MfD, then deleted by Sceptre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with edit sum CSD G4. (This is the criterion that refers to recreated material but there is no previously-deleted version.) Sceptre then closed the MfD with the notation The result of the debate was speedy delete, G5. Rgulerdem had created the idea and theres about half-a-dozen threads on the mailing list by Rg about WP:OURS, Raphael is just acting through proxy. G5 is the criterion that refers to pages created by banned users.

I have three distinct and independent objections to this deletion:

1) The nomination was made at MfD and therefore the page in question was not eligible for speedy. No matter what, we do not wish that admins ignore or bypass community consensus. The nomination was not allowed to stand for even a single day before this admin took pre-emptive action. At this point 2 users have asked the page be kept, 2 that it be deleted, and 1 has made a comment that appears to question the wisdom of deletion.

2) Neither speedy criterion applies to this page. It does not prima facie appear to be a re-creation; therefore it fails G4. It was not created by a banned user operating under a sock; it was created by another editor, one in good standing. It is irrelevant whether the content was inspired by or even written originally by the banned user; the page was not so written. We are not in a position to ban all the words that have been written by people we don't like. The actual page creator, Raphael1 (talk · contribs), stated that he did not simply copy the banned user's words from the mailing list; but even if so, that would fail to invoke G5.

3) I object strongly to admin control of the policy-making process. Adminship is not a party favor or membership in the executive club; admins are to implement policy, not to control it. Policy is the right and responsibility of every editor. Once a proposal has been made, it ought never be subject to deletion by the whim of a single admin. The page in question may be wise or unwise but we all have a right to debate it.

John Reid 05:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Relist per nom. Posts on a mailing list do not count as "creation" of a page - only its presence on Misplaced Pages servers count. Kimchi.sg 05:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. We've been through this. It's not worth having. NSLE (T+C) at 05:23 UTC (2006-06-10)
  • Relist, though Rapheal1 is anything but a user in good standing, judging by the number of disputes he's involved in. --tjstrf 05:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. This is a proposal for a system of admin - user relations proposed by a banned user, copied from the mailing list but with some parts missing (which may violate GFDL). The basic intent its to prevent admins from blocking POV pushers. The original draft from User:Rgulerdem stated in the last draft I saw on the list that we should abide by well-established policies and guidelines such as Misplaced Pages:Wikiethics - this was comprehensively rejected as an attempt to endorse censorship. Both Resid Gulerdem and Raphael Wegmann are keen to override the consensus on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy by removing or not displaying the images, I find it hard to see this as anything other than an attempt to introduce policy to allow them to override consensus and evade admin attention. The policy as written stands is likely to attract every POV pusher and problem editor; it is instruction creep and it is neither necessary nor welcome. Oh, and it's the work of a banned user while banned. Just zis Guy you know? 12:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, relist. The merits of this proposal a) do not exist, but b) are not substantive to here. At the moment, there was no process followed regarding this deletion, and it should run its course and be soundly rejected on its merits. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Divisive nonsense from a banned user. NoSeptember 13:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, a typo in the deletion summary isn't a reason to undelete a page. --Rory096 19:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist. I see no compelling reason for bypassing process in this case. --Ashenai 19:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I am disturbed by the process allegations on both sides of this debate. On balance, I do not think that a clear case can be made that this met any of the deliberately narrow criteria for speedy-deletion. Overturn speedy-deletion and reopen the deletion discussion (where, by the way, I am inclined to argue to keep the page - failed policy pages are tagged with {{rejected}} but kept so we can learn from them in the future). Rossami (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)

The original request for deletion review has been refactored due to length, for clarity, and to remove gaudy formatting. It can be viewed in its entirety here. Kimchi.sg 02:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Fellow Wikipedians, the article in question was Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis). There are plenty of materials out there already published that cover and make mention of the various facts I have laid out here. My opinion was what I believed you wanted and I gave it. For sources:

  1. Kubrick's "2001" by Leonard F. Wheat
  2. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker
  3. The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stephanie Schwam (Editor), Jay Cocks (Introduction)
  4. Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter (Foreword by Arthur C. Clarke)
  5. 2001 Filming the Future by Piers Bizony
  6. The Making of Kubrick's 2001 by Jerome Agel (its almost a bible to the film)
  7. the souvener progam to the movie
  8. the jewel of my collection, the April 1968 issue of LIFE magazine with its first pictorial preview of the film from beginning to end. It even showed the Star Child!
  9. and of course, Arthur C. Clarke's novels of 2001 and 2010

And in the end, Angr listed the film synopsis for deletion on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis). I chose to wait until the last day to cast my actual vote (though I did inset a comment or two). The final tally was Keep - 7 votes 47%, Delete - 4 votes 27%, Merge - 4 votes 27%

Only 4 out 15 people voted to DELETE the article. An equal number wanted the article merged (i.e. unsplit) with the original main article. But the majority voted TO KEEP THE ARTICLE! Administrator fuddlemark went against the majority in the discussion and declared “The result of the debate was delete.” This goes against any possible concept of fair play or policy that I can think of. The majority says ”KEEP” and this guy proclaims the result of the debate was delete?

I contest this action – it can not be allowed to stand. These people have spit into the faces of the various members of the Misplaced Pages community and defied the final decision. If everyone had come on and said Delete, I would have no problem with this. But the majority voted to Keep the article. The action of deleting the article is therefore a morally and ethically wrong action that must not be allowed to stand. The majority at the time said that the article should not have been deleted. On that basis, I ask for the action to be reversed. -- User:Jason Palpatine 02:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Relist. I'd like to see more discussion of the sources used to write the synopsis, and whether detailed description is a clear copyvio. The original AfD looks more like a no consensus to me (yes, I know, it's "not a vote".) I'm not sure whether to count the "merge" votes as keep votes ("keep the content") or delete votes ("delete the page"), but that's a secondary issue. Deltabeignet 05:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment. It was originally deleted as being original research, if you fixed that it should be fine. Also, might I remind you that AfD is not technically a vote. Personally, I would suggest rewriting the article in a substantially different manner, and if it gets deleted AGAIN, bringing it here. --tjstrf 05:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion (disclaimer - argued for delete in afd). The closing admin outlined his reasoning for coming to deletion as based on the arguements given, and not simple numbers, which is exactly what is supposed to happen. Afd is not a vote, and is based on weight of arguements, not weight of numbers. Regards, MartinRe 05:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. What is the main article for, if not a synopsis of the film? Work on that article instead. Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Regretfully endorse deletion. The article actually was rather well-done, and I do hope that this content survives elsewhere, but the level of detail makes this feel out of place on an encyclopedia, and similarly may make us vulnerable to claims of copyvio. A brief synopsis has its place on the article's entry -- a detailed separate-page synopsis does not have a place here -- when the synopsis is close to enough to recreate the film, something's not right here. I believe the decision was correct, and as for how it was reached, it's not unusual for people closing VfD to analyse the arguments as well as weigh the numbers. It's a judgement call. JasonP, if you want my help to find a better home than Misplaced Pages for this content (which you've put some time into, I notice), drop me a note on my talk page, and we'll figure something out. --Improv 14:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The big question, to my mind, is whether the article can be given inline references to make it crystal clear which facts come from which sources. I am also worried about how one could quickly check whether anything in the article is close to being a copyright violation. In my opinion there isn't really a bright line between where presenting, organizating, and synthesizing published sources leaves off, and original research/personal opinion begins. I am very troubled that the list of sources was not added until the last minute.
I'd like to ask User:Jason Palpatine these questons:
  • Are the books he cites physically in his possession?
  • If I had read and absorbed half a dozen books and then wrote an article this long from my personal knowledge, I estimate that it would take me many hours to locate the source in each book that justifies the major items in the essay. (And in the process I would expect to find that my memory had betrayed me several times). Is User:Jason Palpatine prepared to do this?
  • Does the material in this article truly come from the sources, or is it based on the editor's observations of watching the film itself? If so, how should this be cited? I've suggested several times that I would be happy considered a DVD to be a "published source" but that I'd like it to be cited by giving the exact published version of the DVD and identifying incidents in it by, say, number of minutes into the film.
If Jason Palpatine is prepared to rewrite the article in such a way that it is crystal clear that it is not his personal recollection from having watched the movie, is truly based on published sources, and does not involve more than fair use of published sources, I would vote to relist. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)



In reply from User:Jason Palpatine

A lot has been said before elsewhere. In reply to the points/questions raised above:

Question #1: Are the books User:Jason Palpatine cites physically in his possession?

  1. Kubrick's "2001" by Leonard F. Wheat -- is physically in my possession.
  2. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker -- Library copy (since returned)
  3. The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stephanie Schwam (Editor), Jay Cocks (Introduction) -- is physically in my possession.
  4. Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter (Foreword by Arthur C. Clarke) -- Library copy (since returned)
  5. 2001 Filming the Future by Piers Bizony -- is physically in my possession.
  6. The Making of Kubrick's 2001 by Jerome Agel (its almost a bible to the film) -- is physically in my possession.
  7. the souvenir program to the movie -- is physically in my possession.
  8. the jewel of my collection, the April 1968 issue of LIFE magazine with its first pictorial preview of the film from beginning to end. It even showed the Star Child! -- is (as the comment indicates) physically in my possession.
  9. and of course, Arthur C. Clarke's novels of 2001 and 2010 -- both are physically in my possession and read more than once.
    • In response to this question, I have ordered Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker and Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter today through www.amazon.com. Delivery estimate: June 19, 2006 - June 21, 2006

Question #2: If I had read and absorbed half a dozen books and then wrote an article this long from my personal knowledge, I estimate that it would take me many hours to locate the source in each book that justifies the major items in the essay. (And in the process I would expect to find that my memory had betrayed me several times). Is User:Jason Palpatine prepared to do this?

    • Utilizing copyrighted materials is not allowed here. I am required to use my own words regardless of source material. As I understand things here, except for a few quotations (which are in the article) direct copyright material inclusion is not allowed. I must use my own words. It is these two policies that are being used in conflict to support the outlandish claim that the article is original research.
    • I have noted before that I do not understand how to do citations in an article. I've been to the instructions page and it is beyond my understanding.
    • How much of references do I need to cite? A sentence-by-sentence referencing is just too much IMHO. Also, when claims were made of WP:OR, no justification other than the accusation itself was offered. There is nothing to prevent anyone here from looking up and checking the references listed.. I am willing to commit some time to it. However, I am not an administrator and have other considerations such as my job to consider.


Question #3: If Jason Palpatine is prepared to rewrite the article in such a way that it is crystal clear that it is not his personal recollection from having watched the movie, is truly based on published sources, and does not involve more than fair use of published sources, I would vote to relist. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

In May, the following tags were applied to the main article:

{{cleanupdate}}
{{split}}
According to User:Scm83x: ‘’”(readd {{splitlong}} , 111kb is huge... something has to be moved to a new article... perhaps the plot summary should be cut down...”’’
I branched that article off of the main article in response to this. It was the first part of the article to be split. A simplified synopsis was left in the main with
Main article: 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) .
In the main article.
If you check the history of the main article, much of the lengthy detailed synopsis that would become the article we are discussing here was already in place in the primary article before I entered the picture. I took concentrated interest in the article beginning with my edit of 20:15, 18 April 2006. Please look at the prior version of the primary article In other words, that ‘’original’’ article material was produced by other editors here.
The following editors all contributed to the article in the month ‘’before’’ I took a serious interest:
User:128.95.15.78, User:134.114.59.41, User:141.154.59.190, User:200.207.16.222, User:203.217.64.73, User:207.208.157.183, User:216.55.222.221, User:63.41.12.17, User:64.93.158.158, User:65.174.176.123, User:65.54.97.194, User:67.81.189.88, User:68.14.154.242, User:69.143.172.3, User:70.18.71.105, User:70.231.235.251, User:71.113.185.129, User:71.242.131.195, User:72.144.136.77, User:72.40.90.163, User:72.56.157.31, User:80.200.209.231, User:Allemannster, User:Ashmoo, User:Bwileyr m, User:CmdrObot, User:Comics, User:DanielLC, User:DavidH, User:Dayv, User:Deltabeignet, User:Duncancumming, User:Dysprosia, User:FunkyFly, User:Hetar, User:JRawle, User:Knife Knut, User:Larry V, User:LordofHavoc, User:Lottoextra, User:Lysowski, User:MarnetteD, User:MikeBriggs, User:Modemac, User:MotionRotaryTOAD, User:Pearle, User:Pegship, User:PurpleHaze, User:RedNovember, User:Riddle, User:RussBot, User:Seminumerical, User:Simninja, User:The Anome, User:The Singing Badger, User:Thefourdotelipsis, User:WAS
This was the work of many people, not just me. My primary intesnt was a major mistake which was over time corrected by other admins -- the inclusion of way too many pictures from the film. This matter was dealt with -- the number images was drastically reduced to what should have been considered an acceptable amount. However, some admins were not satified and cut back too much. I do not mind editing, but I absolutely oppose butchery and sterility. 2001 is a heavily visually structured event (check out the TMA-1 image in the Dialouge section of the main article). I considered more than the usual number of images in Wik policy to be necessary for the synopsis section/article to do justice to the film. The only answer I got was
"There is no such thing as too little when it comes to fair use. That is all. "
The sizing is also quoted. With the destruction of the article and its talk page, I can not cite the identity of the admin you posted the remark. I only know that it was not any of the admins who have posted here.

Question #4: What is the main article for, if not a synopsis of the film? Work on that article instead. Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried to do that with the Film Synopsis following the AfD implementation. The admins who were responsible for motioning the AfD of the Film Synopsis article reverted my edits as I made them:
13:51, 9 June 2006 Scm83x m (Reverted edits by Jason Palpatine (talk) to last version by Angr)
11:26, 9 June 2006 Angr (The result of the AFD was to delete the synopsis, not incorporate it back in here)
Given the intense opposition I am facing here, it's not likely to happen. (please check out my User page under the heading A question in response to recent events here)

Question #4: Does the material in this article truly come from the sources, or is it based on the editor's observations of watching the film itself? If so, how should this be cited? I've suggested several times that I would be happy considered a DVD to be a "published source" but that I'd like it to be cited by giving the exact published version of the DVD and identifying incidents in it by, say, number of minutes into the film.

I was unaware of the fact that the DVD would be considered a valid listing. Your proposal is interesting. 'MORE than interesting. If such an undertaking would be allowed I would gladly do it!

Question #5: The big question, to my mind, is whether the article can be given inline references to make it crystal clear which facts come from which sources. I am also worried about how one could quickly check whether anything in the article is close to being a copyright violation. In my opinion there isn't really a bright line between where presenting, organizating, and synthesizing published sources leaves off, and original research/personal opinion begins. I am very troubled that the list of sources was not added until the last minute.


Pasted from my talk page :

The article as it stands references no sources at all, so why didn't you include the full listing of your sources in the article, as required by WP:V? What I mean by secondary sources is outlined in WP:RS, but basically if the article is a film synopsis, then, by definition, it is based on the primary source. The question is then, who is doing the synopsis? If that synopsis is by a wikipedia editor, then it is original research. If the synopsis is done by someone else, then wikipedia could source that as a secondary source, but the article should then discuss the synopsis, but not the film itself. Thus, a synopsis of a film must fall into two categories, either secondary sources has summarized it, and the article reproduces it, which is a problem with copyright, or an editor has analyzed several synopses and summarized them, which is original research. Regards, MartinRe 19:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


The article is a sub-article branched off from the main article. The sources were/are listed in the main article. The branch off was done on account of the main being listed as too big and recommended for split. I thought the source info being there made listing them inappropriate. -- User:Jason Palpatine 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Hope this helps -- Jason Palpatine 23:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservative Underground

Fellow Wikipedians, the article in question was initially called for deletion by User:BenBurch who has a history of initiating edit wars & deletions on conservative pages such as Free Republic & White Rose Society. On January 17,2006 this proposed deletion was closed by User:Johnleemk, and the result of the debate was no consensus; keep. A second deletion debate was initiated on April 14, 2006 by User:Isotope23 and on April 20, 2006it was closed by admin User:(aeropagitica), resulting in a deletion. The Conservative Underground article had been vandalized countless times before it's deletion by the same people who voted for it's deletion. It is pretty obvious that these deletions are political motivated. Articles such as Democratic Underground, Free Republic, Protest Warrior, Vive le Canada, Progressive Bloggers, Blogging Tories, etc... are allowed to remain.--James Bond 00:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted. ad hominem fallacy, even supposing it were true ("BenBurch has a history..."; irrelevancy ("The...article had been vandalized countless times"); and begging the question ("It is pretty obvious..."): lots of rhetorical fallacies, there. About the only undisputedly true bit is "A second deletion debate ...result in a deletion", so let's leave it at that, absent any actual evidence of actual wrongdoing in the process or change in the subject. --Calton | Talk 01:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist. I have no problem with this page being relisted if they will follow the rules in doing so. BenBurch 01:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, as the article makes no claim to notability. Some of the articles mentioned as comparisons should probably go as well (Progressive Bloggers?). When will the consmoderals realize that their blogs, forums and websites are not encyclopedic? -- Kjkolb 03:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and get rid of the non-notable liberal organization/blogger/website articles as well. --tjstrf 05:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. AfDs are non-binding, and a previous decision can be revoked by a new AfD. Johnleemk | Talk 10:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, no evidence of significance. Just zis Guy you know? 12:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted. No assertion of notability was made in the article. It can be recreated if new better content and a legitimate claim of notability is made, as is true with many currently non-notable groups that may grow into notability. NoSeptember 12:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure of the second deletion debate. I find no process problems in that discussion nor do I find any evidence of bias. Rossami (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

08 June 2006

Joseph D. Campbell

This article was nominated for deletion, and was closed by User:9cds (not an admin, although going through RfA at the moment) as 'no consensus'. I think that was a poor call. The five people expressing the view that the article should be deleted made far better arguments - mainly about that annoying little fact that articles should be, you know, verifiable, and even if he was verifiable, he's not notable - than the three who thought it should be kept (including one weak keep, and one that said 'the sources will come organically', which is ridiculous). See the AfD for more details. I would have deleted this, and I recommend overturn the closure, and delete. Proto||type 11:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment The reason I closed as no consensus was because the only arguments I could see against deletion was "not sourced" or "The sources aren't good enough" - since the page already has some sources (even if they couldn't be verified by myself), I couldn't see any reason to delete. -- 9cds 11:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist on AfD I made the point in the AfD discussion that we should probably hold it off, and possibly redo the whole deal because the sources finally came to light only a day or so before the end of the process. Even if the sources are weak (and I never said they weren't), the first deletion votes were made under the assumption that pretty much no sources existed at all, which is unfair (and I'm usually fairly exclusionist regarding things like this). I would not be opposed to deleting it outright, but wouldn't prefer it. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 16:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist It's clear there wasn't much of a discussion on notability. The closing was premature. --Kchase02 T 17:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist and since it was closed no-consensus, this does not require DRV's permission. Septentrionalis 20:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete the concern about lack of notability and verifibility was unaddressed in my view, with nothing backing up notability claims, and limited sources (one of which was an letter to editor) for any possibly verification. No predujuce about re-creation if further sources backing notability claim are found, but also no reason to keep in the meantime for something that may or may not happen. Regards, MartinRe 05:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Church of Reality

(See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Church of reality.) --66.28.20.178 15:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Church of Reality website

The Church of Reality is a religion, based on what is tangible and real. Somehow, for some reason, its article (and even its talk page) was deleted, with little to no apparent reason. This is really no different from deleting an article on any other religion, which is unfair censorship. I'm asking whoever deleted it to either give a truly good reason as to why it should stay deleted, or undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.178.151 (talk • contribs) 06:59 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Heinen's

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Heinen's
  • Strong Overturn, Undelete. A top 100 Ohio business; clearly passes WP:CORP; was already cited on Supermarkets in the United States, therefore clearly notable (and meant to be given a wikipedia page); not to mention has MORE stores in its chain, has a HIGHER sales volume, occupies a LARGER region, and has MORE information supplied than many businesses that have ALREADY been given Misplaced Pages pages: Westborn Market, Woodman's Food Market, Strack and Van Til, Scolari's, Magruder's, Felpausch, and many more. AS CREATOR OF THE ARTICLE, I would also like to comment on my extremely upsetting experience in posting this article. I have already given all of these reasons NUMEROUS times in defense of my article, and I have proven in my previous posts that my article should be granted a Misplaced Pages page. It was speedily deleted without hardly any consideration or supplied reason except that more people had posted DELETE than had posted KEEP - a 1 vote majority in fact (yes 1 vote). NO OTHER REASONING was provided to account for its deletion! I spent a great deal of time describing the business and how it is definately influential and notable. My arguments it seems were not considered at all and were simply left out of the matter. My article was not biased, and it was not created as advertising. PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS ARTICLE as it clearly deserves a Misplaced Pages page. . If the article is undeleted, I WILL add to it. Bluebul1989 06:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In terms of pure numbers (standard disclaimer AfD is not a vote etc), the close was borderline, with 66% or 60% for deletion, depending on whether Bluebul1989's opinion is counted (as a new user who has so far only edited in relation to this article and is the sole editor to do so, the admin can choose to do so or not). That would often be closed as 'no consensus', defaulting to keep, but it is very much within the admin's discretion. However, in this case, I don't think the reasons to delete are that pressing. I don't believe that the article was created as self-promotion - if I had I would certainly endorse deletion. Bluebul claims to be a 16-year-old Ohian on WP:NEW and this is supported by a Google search for his username. Although I find the WP:CORP claim to notability dubious (the top 100 companies in every state of the USA being automatically notable sounds rather Americentric), DRV is not the place to debate that, and the other arguments for it being notable sound reasonable. Therefore, I suggest overturn as a no consensus and undelete without prejudice against a further AfD to gain a clearer consensus in a fortnight or so after Bluebul has improved it further. P.S. Bluebul, you don't need to shout. --Sam Blanning 13:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. A 66% delete vote is insufficient to delete, better to have no consensus'ed it and see what happens from there. THE KING 18:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • AfD is not a vote. 66% can be sufficient to delete if the reasoning to delete is compelling enough. In this case I think the reasoning isn't compelling enough, but this misconception needs to be challenged wherever it appears. --Sam Blanning 19:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn IMO, important enough for a reasonable article to be written. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted AfD is indeed not a vote, so by ONE VOTE doesn't matter, as its to be determined by community consensus. In this case, however, it is 5/2 if we throw out bluebul's and Laximus's comments as being too new at the time. 5 / 7 ≃ 0.714 {\displaystyle 5/7\simeq 0.714} . Aside from the raw numbers, you may want to read Rough consensus on the reasoning behind the supposed lack of counting. Many of the delete users all conceeding WP:CORP as being against it. One person believed in notability, another used a claim that there were already other non-WP:CORP-adhering on the page already, which could've been interpreted as admitting WP:CORP as well. I can see why the article was deleted, even if WP:CORP sets a very high bar. There was really nothing that wrong about the deletion. Sorry. Kevin_b_er 03:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a local supermarket chain. I shop there regularly. But it's not automatically notable for an international encyclopedia. There is not enough to say that will ever let this expand past the stub stage. And until they get a lot bigger or better known, there can't be. Endorse closure as within reasonable administrator discretion. By the way, I am unpersuaded by the argument that we must/should keep this article because we have not yet cleaned out other even less encyclopedic articles. We should be raising standards for the project, not racing to the lowest common denominator. Rossami (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn The people who marked delete did so before reason was provided as to why it was actually notable under WP:CORP and by no reasons were given contrasting the evidence put forth by blubul stating that it passes the second part for notability under WP:CORP (of which it only needs to pass one part). Laximus 05:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Question Can you be more specific about how the company meets WP:CORP? I'm looking at the AfD, and blubul's arguments, and I don't quite see it. Fan1967 05:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment "2. The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices, produced by well-known and independent publications, of important companies" (WP:CORP). According to this independent listing of top Ohio businesses between 2003 and 2004, , Heinen's was ranked within the top 100 both years. Bluebul1989 05:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • That criterion means indices like the Fortune 500. The index cited does not give a sales volume, and the ranking appears to be based solely on number of employees. 2,200 em ployees is a fair-sized chain, but I would question whether it is evidence per WP:CORP. What's needed are things like sales volume, whether publicly traded, nett value of the business, number of stores - objective measures of significance, in other words. A genuinely significant business will have more than a single source stating that it is significant, sop please provide the others. Just zis Guy you know? 07:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Also note that it ranks in the list of the top 100 private companies, most of which are so small they wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the top 100 if they were publicly held. Fan1967 13:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn The regional importance of this organization--given that it is privately owned--signals its importance for inclusion and notability. Irongargoyle 00:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Your comment confuses me. What facts lead you to believe that this business holds "regional importance"? And why would being privately owned increase that importance? As someone living in the region, I can attest that it's not significantly different from any other US grocery store chain. Rossami (talk)
  • Overturn, Undelete. It seems notable enough. TruthbringerToronto 02:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

BB Sinha

For clarity here is the article log.

This article was originally just a thin article that was nothing and was speedily deleted. Later the article was recreated, and I assisted in the overall betterment of the article. Again, the article was proposed for deletion, but on the grounds of a repost. However, Mike Rosoft restored the article stating, "Sufficiently different content from deleted material to warrant a new discussion/vote." The article remained standing and again was nominated for speedy in which I placed a hangon tag, another admin (I don't whom exactly, and I don't want to place names) agreed with the previous decision and stated that it was an entirely new article and deserved to stay up. Today, the article was deleted by Eskog for being a "repost." I am challenging this decision and request for undelete. The article is vastly stronger and signifies notability. Also, the repost decision was overturned before. It doesn't seem logical just to eliminate it for just that. Respectfully, Yanksox 05:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have already restored, as I was the speedying admin. I didn't notice that Mike Rosoft had already rejected the "repost" argument. (ESkog) 05:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Can someone close this, it's been speedily restored. also, drop me a note of the templates for closure on my Talk if you wouldn't mind. I'm sure it's here somewhere blindingly obvious, but I didn't see it... Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Mending Wall

This article was deleted by User:Royboycrashfan without any discussion. As far as I understand the deletion process, this is not wikipedia policy.

I am happy to resolve any copyvio problems. Tomandlu 11:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Restore, tentatively pending an explanation for this from Royboycrashfan—no explanation is obvious at the moment. I do not see what grounds there were for speedy deletion. There may be copyright issues, although I am not certain because the poem dates from 1915, but an article that old should not have been speedied without discussion. -- SCZenz 13:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

07 June 2006

Template:User Not in metric

This longstanding, tongue-in-cheek, satirical userbox was in line with other tongue-in-cheek, satirical user boxes. Administrator Tony Sidaway deleted this page citing its apparently inflammatory content. (See his talk page.) This userbox is clearly humorous and should not have been arbitrarily deleted like this. An example of this userbox is on my talk page. Nova SS 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering that you are the only person who has that userbox included on the userpage, does it really matter? I don't really think it's a T1 candidate, but the content was not really very useful either. I think the thing is OK to leave subst:ed on your userpage. Neutral. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cancer Bats

This article on a band was properly deleted as non-notable at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cancer Bats. However, I'm listing for reconsideration here in the light of subsequent developments that may alter that judgment, namely the release of an album under (what appears to be) a major label. The article's original author also claims the following additional facts (which I have not verified myself):

  • Released a sampler, an EP and an album
  • Album is sold in Sunrise Records and HMV
  • Video recieves rotation on MuchLoud (a show on MuchMusic)
  • Had an interview and played a live show on MTV Canada Live
  • Appeared on The Edge 102.1 (CFNY-FM) and the single was played at least once.
  • Played with bands such as The Bled, Protest The Hero, will play with NOFX and Silverstein summer of '06
  • Signed to same indie label as The Bled and Alexisonfire
  • Has toured across Canada and is already on tour again with destinations from Moncton NB to Vancouver BC

I am not voting at this time, just facilitating. Postdlf 23:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Overturn, undelete. Has anything new been presented? Not...really. The band has recently been featured in Canada's Exclaim! magazine, not small potatoes, as well as a feature on Canadian 106.7 FM. It's important to note that the band met WP:MUSIC guidelines BEFORE the AfD, and that was ignored. The prior meeting of the necessary guideline in the first AfD and further media mentions since then more than mean the deletion should be overturned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Undelete -- the evidence above seems to show sufficient notability. -- The Anome 12:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Strong Overturn, Undelete. The album is out, theyve made more public appearances and the tour scedule has been updated to include a cross country tour with some major bands. I was ignored during the first vote, please dont ignore me now. All claims can be verified on these websites: , , , and . They have met more than 1 of the notability claims. Avenged Evanfold 23:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak undelete playing on MTV Live (Canada) has to have some notability along with some magazine mentions. THe amazon link is not impressive, but ASIN B000FKOZLA is funny. What kind of viewship does MuchLoud/Music get? Our stub is not helpful. Kotepho 01:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cum On Her Face

Very popular porn site I really dont know why was it deleted. Luka Jačov 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong undelete - Luka Jačov 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong undelete - per Luka. --Pockey 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The article was speedied as an A7 (person or organization with no claim of notability). It's actually more of a website than an organization, and although I doubt it meets WP:WEB, that doesn't make it speediable. I don't think we're going to find any good independent reliable sources. Still, why not give it its day on AfD? Undelete and list at AfD. -GTBacchus 21:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • List on AfD if we must, but I really see no need for this article. It's just another porn site, of which there is surely no dearth, and I really can't imagine anybody actually coming to Misplaced Pages for information on it. Just zis Guy you know? 22:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and list on AfD per GTBacchus. Endorse Deletion per Sam Blanning (below) TheJC Contributions 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, no assertion of notability, proper A7. "Recognized worldwide" is, like "good chess player", not an assertion of notability. An assertion of notability is claiming to have won a significant chess tournament or "Best Cumshot Website of 2006" at the World Porn Awards. And don't bother relisting until someone turns up a reliable source to base an article on. --Sam Blanning 22:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak endorse per CSD A3 and WP:NOT a web directory. Did not actually say anything about the site that wouldn't be pretty obvious from the name. Permit recreation (subject to WP:WEB) if something encyclopedic can be written about the subject. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion until someone can evidence notability. per Sam Blanning. Bastique▼ voir 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong endorse per Sam Blanning clearly violates WP:NOT Whispering 00:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Ilmari; the article didn't inform beyond describing the practice that is the website's obvious subject matter. Though there's no reason why this shouldn't just be blandly listed, without elaboration, in a list article of porn sites somewhere. Something can be notable yet insubstantial, and so like the good information scientists we are we should ensure it gets incorporated into the proper place rather than trying to write a separate treatise on it. Postdlf 00:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

AlternC

An extension from Control panel (Web hosting) The administrator Zoe deleted this page on account of advertising, however I'm not affiliated with AlternC nor do I advise/condone its use, I am simply noting the control panel along with a list of many other noteworthy control panels. I am not advertising in any way, I believe it is a misunderstanding.

Manny 17:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • It was written as an ad, whatever your motivation. If you want to discuss what it is, when it was created, who uses it, and can document it, that's fine, I have no problem with a re-creation, but as it stood, all it did was to extoll its features. User:Zoe| 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for the clarification! Manny 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Tiffany Holiday

Short and Good article speedy deleted by User:Drini and User:Golbez, edit summaries were "csd nnbio" and "". There was no vote. Many many results on Google, has an IMDb and AFDb profiles and also pass Misplaced Pages:Notability (erotic actors) for having a recored of around 100 films --Haham hanuka 14:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Somehow, this ended up at page bottom today (June 7); not sure why it's dated earlier, but I have moved it for consideration. Xoloz 15:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Judging by the answers.com link, I think the fact the stub is short, and contains a poorly sourced negative claim, means it should not be restored. Instead, anybody who wishes, can create, a new original article, which clearly explains her notability, and which is well sourced. --Rob 16:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion; I do not see any claim of notability in the article. Removal of potential libel of a possibly non-notable person is a bonus. No prejudice about recreation at this point. - Liberatore(T) 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. As above, no claim of notability (one bit part in a real film, balance is the usual no-budget porn churned out at the rate of several a day by some "studios"). No reliable sources for any of the bio data (IAFD is not, unlike IMDB, a reliable source per WP:RS). Redux: dime-a-dozen porn "star". Take it to Wikiporn. Just zis Guy you know? 19:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Comment on process, not about content, this should be restored immediately as an improper speedy deletion. Holiday appears to be a more than notable enough actress for inclusion, we do not delete articles outright because they contain an unverified or unverifiable claim. Silensor 20:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Up to a point: process is there to guide us, policy is policy, and in the end there is no good reason to take up the community's time with debating articles which are functionally unverifiable. Deleting it does not prevent someone from coming along and creating a real article which makes some credible claim of notability and which is cited from reliable sources. WP:SNOW applies. Just zis Guy you know? 22:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Shane Cubis

This page has been continually deleted, because the initial article was created by the feature of the article himself, Shane Cubis. While the initial article may have been vanity or vandalism, he enlisted a group of his followers to create a real article in Misplaced Pages. His page has since been listed as a protected deleted pages, and his talk page is routinely deleted preventing a fair discussion of the deletion.

Shane Cubis does not fail WP:Bio and thus never really qualified for WP:AfD. Just because the article started as vandalism or vanity, it does not take away from the fact an actual compliant article could be at this entry, Shane Cubis. At the very least there should have been a discussion on the talk page, and not a speedy deletion into Protected deleted pages. JustOneJake 11:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn Shane Cubis is a notable Australian journalist, being a major contributor to an important Australian media group, The Chaser. The Chaser has made itself an important part of Australia's culture, being read by politicians, mainstream journalists and ordinary Australians. Shane's weekly columns attract large amounts of reads and discussion. His work for People magazine, while not being as well known, has attracted large amounts of attention from mainstream Australia. JoshT 220.237.79.202 12:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy-deletion under case A7. The entire contents of the longest version of the article read "Shane Cubis (born 1980) is a writer, originally from Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. Shane's first article was a Teri Weigel porn review in the Tertangala, Wollongong University's student newspaper. Since then he's contributed to a variety of gaming magazines including Pyramid, Knights of the Dinner Table and the Silven Trumpeter. He currently has a weekly column in The Chaser and works for Australia's People Magazine." and one external link. Writers are part of a respected profession but are no more automatically notable than engineers or doctors of equivalent experience or standing. No assertion has been made that this writer is particularly significant or that he does qualify under our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. By the way, the deleted history shows that the only significant contributor to this page was user:Rubikcubis, supporting the assumption that this was an inappropriate autobiography. The user's subsequent edits to other pages do not insprire me to good faith. Rossami (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Rossami's excellent reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse indeed. Syrthiss 17:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, it's clear from Cubis's own website that he was the original author, and he's encouraging people to come here to recreate it and complain. User:Zoe| 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Endorse - per WP:VAIN. --JiFish(/Contrib) 18:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, and recommend that keen editors take the usual steps to moderate the inclusion of the subject's name and its variants in Misplaced Pages. There's is much outrage, followed by subterfuge, at the deletions. -Splash - tk 18:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion with thanks to Rossami for presenting a solid case. Just zis Guy you know? 19:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn: while the original article may be questionable as vanity, there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance and fame in the Australian political journalism / satire sphere that one of his fans should be allowed to create a page with information about him. The defacement of other pages with his name is consistent with the style of humour The_Chaser is famous for in Australia, not an indication that there is any lack of merit in the need for a "Shane Cubis" page on Misplaced Pages. "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is". Malthius 03:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC) User's first edit
    • there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance... Guy, since that's the very issue in question, you're begging the question. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Begging the question for effect though, since it seems that the vandalism or "meat puppetry" is more important here than the actual "issue in question" of whether Shane Cubis is worth of a bio page. Thanks for highlighting that for everyone. Malthius 10:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. No new information, and the old information was unconvincing to begin with. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn While no-one is denying that the original source of the article was Shane himself, that does not necessarily invalidate the merit of the article itself, and was more a function of the humour that has made him popular. Regardless of the American or British-centric knowledge of the original two administrators who deleted the article, their ignorance of the Australian media and in particular the satirical politcal area which is the expertise of the article subject in question does not mean it lacks significance. As an Australian, I guess I might equally wonder why something so incredibly minor and unimportant as a 3 year old racehorse such as Like_Now without even a particularly impressive record demands its own Misplaced Pages page, where a published journalist does not. U.Pseudonopoulos 09:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • User's only edit. User:Zoe| 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry. I was under the impression that this was a logical discussion and the weight of our argument would count for more than how many edits we had made to this website. Is this how all discussions are settled on Misplaced Pages? We simply get out our 'edit counts' and compare them, with the larger number winning? Perhaps we could both get out our wangs and compare those as well? Or do you want to try and actually add some value to the debate? Could you perhaps explain to me why Shane Cubis is less notable than the nag of a racehorse I have linked above? Is it simply because one is American and the other Australian, regardless of species? Are angsty teenagers with a lack of knowledge of other countries really fit to determine what adds to the grand sum of human knowledge? U.Pseudonopoulos 00:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Please see Misplaced Pages:Undeletion_policy#Suffrage. User:Zoe| 01:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Noted, and I can see the idea behind such in some cases, particularly where people are simply putting a vote without reasoning or detailed comment. I still hold that it has no relationship to the validity of the argument presented. "There are no strict rules for this, the admin closing a discussion is expected to use common sense", and in this case the only people voting without significant reasoning are the 'endorsers'. I find it irrelevant to the arguments that I and others have offered whether it is our only edits or not. The arguments should still be treated on the merit of what it presented itself. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • strong overturn Shane Cubis is notable within the fan base of The Chaser. He is a major columnist for the site and well respected author in a variety of other media. His other edits on Wiki have surely not affected his notability or his work as a writer/comedian. Gisellehobbs 10:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong overturn If for no other reason than his fellow journalists Chas_Licciardello, Chris_Taylor and Craig_Reucassel all have their own pages that provide just as much (or little, depending on how one is to view it) information about them. Is there any proof that these other journalists didn't write the articles themselves? Perhaps Shane Cubis is being punished for making a simple mistake - he wrote the article about himself in first person instead of third. Any of his fans would be happy to write the article to prevent it from remaining vanity if that is the main complaint, but he is certainly famous and/or popular enough to warrant an entry. Purpleorb (for clarity sake, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.177.2 (talk • contribs) )
    • This is an excellent point. Are all of these journalists significantly more notable than Cubis? He is also listed near Tim Brunero in The Chaser enterprise article, and the Brunero article has no more content or merit than the original Cubis article. If the Cubis article does not comeback, I purpose some of these other articles be removed for parity in this category. JustOneJake 03:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Rossami. — pd_THOR | 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion CSD A7 -- The Anome 13:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn Yes, Mr. Cubis may have originally written the article as a vanity piece for his article. That does not mean a compliant article could not be written. It is clear many people here are willing to write an article in the confines of Misplaced Pages policy. Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth, as he is drawing support from his article at The Chaser and his Antiwikipedia entry. As it stands now the page is protected deleted. Why not unprotect it and give someone a chance to write a compliant article? 63.225.118.147 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth. Is that a threat? User:Zoe| 20:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Based on the discussions on the forums at his article and the actions members of that forum have taken (silly vandalism to both here and the Wiktionary, I'd say that it's clearly a threat. Metros232 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Are you guys kidding? It’s no threat; it is an assessment of the facts. These people want a real article, and if there is a real article they will have less to complain about. Furthermore, do the actions of people unto Misplaced Pages affect the notability status of Cubis? Most of the discussion here is completely irrelevant to the facts. I am sure the guys at Britannica or Funk and Wagnalls never sat down and talked about their hate mail when deciding to include an entry. This man is at least as noteworthy as some of the other people on Misplaced Pages, and he deserves an article regardless of the actions of himself or others. 63.225.118.147 02:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Sounds notable enough. TruthbringerToronto 20:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Rossami. OhNoitsJamie 00:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion no verifiable notability proof presented. `'mikka (t) 00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Shane is one of only three weekly column writers for The Chaser. The Chaser is a very popular website in Australia, very much similar to The_Onion in terms of content and (local) popularity. It is important to note that, as a columnist, Shane writes articles which are put on the website under his own name. He is not writing anonymously, but offering his opinion under his name. As such, it is expected that people will want to find information about the author, so as to get background to form a view on the validity of his opinion. As such, I feel the author is notable and, as such, an appropriate page on the author should not be prevented from being created. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • keep/endorse deletion Attracting lots of sock puppets filled with meat, see the URL in the history]. People are being instructed how to go here JUST to request this overturned. This guy really is not notable, and the speedy is fine. Kevin_b_er 03:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Rossami. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This discussion doesn't make the Wikipedians look very good. What is the point of spending so much energy to exclude and defend against a bio entry for some guy who obviously has a following? It's not like the page was false, inflamatory, or libelous. If there were no other bio pages for minor notables the argument against allowing this guy would carry some weight, but clearly there are lots of such pages. For example, there are a dozen Chris Taylors, none of whom is particularly notable. 66.245.31.155 02:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Then please do some research and nominate those pages for deletion as well. We are striving for consistency but we must do so by raising the standards of the encyclopedia, not starting a race for the bottom. The fact that other inappropriate articles have not yet been cleaned up can not be a justification to fail to clean up this one. Rossami (talk)

Certainty principle

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle

Proponents say:

  • The certainty principle is a mathematical theorem. The proof is available for everybody.
  • It was officially published in the established peer-reviewed journal. It will not be published second time. The journal was registered in Russia, and this is Russian government who has to know about the journal, not Google.
  • Nobody has objections against scientific content of the papers. (Really no objections.)
  • If the theorem is true, its notability cannot be questioned, because it generalizes (not contradicts!) the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
  • The certainty principle is too young (1 year) to be known as widely as uncertainty principle.
  • The certainty principle is old enough to take it seriously. Links to it were put in WP almost year ago and a great amount of people have checked it, including highly qualified editors of the uncertainty principle.
  • The questoin of "reputability" of the journal is anyway subjective and should be discussed only if some specialists in the subject have objections against the certainty principle.

Opponents say:

  • We are not specialists in the subject, and cannot judge the principle from purely scientific point of view. But we want to protect WP from pseudo-science.
  • Google says that the certainty principle is not widely cited.
  • The journal, where the papers were published, is not "reputable", and can be considered as a self-publication.

What should we do in this situation? The conflict is going to become a war. Hryun 15:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Article exists under both Certainty principle and Certainty Principle in various forms. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle, which deleted this content as original research. I re-deleted this article because although this content was not identical, the original reason for deletion was unchanged. User:Hryun has claimed that the article is published in a Russian journal, but several physicist Wikipedians have looked for signs of this publication (or indeed the existence of the named journal) and found nothing; Hryun refuses to provide further details. You can see discussion of these issues, as well as more threats by User:Hryun, at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics#Certainty principle. -- SCZenz 15:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Taking off my admin hat, and putting on my WikiProject Physics hat, I would like to note that this issue has all the hallmarks of original research. A very pushy series of editors, most of them with very similar editing styles, have been pushing to have this subject mentioned in about 8-10 different physics articles. A discovery of the claimed magnitude would have many, many citations in places that would be very easy to find, and this does not. The only document that can be located by any of the usual methods—which are essentially universal for all physics publications worldwide, is the paper itself on the ArXiv and related servers—which are not peer-reviewed in any way. No publication information is given there. -- SCZenz 15:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • SCZenz, for what reason do you lie here? (1) The Certainty Principle article was created by Slicky. I am not Slicky neither in WP nor in the real life. Ask for user-checking, if you do not believe. I just re-created the article under proper name, Certainty principle. There was no cheating in it. (2) You did not ask for "further details" of the journal, you asked for information that can be seen in the Internet. Hryun 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Please be civil. I don't think you are Slicky, but I do strongly suspect you're editing under a couple of other usernames. I do not believe that there are any reputable physics journals with no information available on the internet, however—Russian journals are tracked in the same places as all the others. -- SCZenz
  • Keep deleted until the concept gets taken up by someone other than the original auther. We'll watch CiteBase. --Pjacobi 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. The AfD clearly labeled this material as original research and despite the requester's allusions no evidence to contradict this determination has been provided. The AfD should stand until citations to appropriate peer-reviewed sources are provided. --Allen3  16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse, keep deleted - Based on the information on hand, this is OR. If this is indeed a valid scientific theory, material will be peer reviewed and can be verified.. There should be no rush to have a wiki article on a subject (re "the material is too new to have been properly circulated" above); its not like we are going anywhere. Syrthiss 16:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure per WP:NOR. As Syrthiss says, we can afford to wait until this is independently sourced. Rossami (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, for reasons above. This does not presently return anything on CiteSeer or citebase. It's important to be sure that authors are not inserting their own, non-peer-reviewed work to Misplaced Pages, or it would quickly become a repository for anything unpublished and unpublishable. There is further the fact that, if this were really what it is claimed to be, that it would probably already have been picked up by some very well known, reputable and reliable publications. At that point, inclusion would be a no-brainer. -Splash - tk 17:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse, keep deleted. As far as I can tell, both the term "Certainty principle" and the concept are original research, as we define it. When the article is published — or even referenced — in a peer-reviewed journal, we can reconsider. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse - per above. Wait for it to be peer-reviewed by someone who knows. --JiFish(/Contrib) 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse. When the work becomes well-known and the author is hailed as the great theorist he claims to be then I'll happily enjoy contributing on a million articles about him and his great work. Until then it goes into the "makes very large claims that nobody in-the-know seems to take seriously" bin. I also don't appreciate "Hyun"'s threats about waging a "war" against Misplaced Pages if he doesn't get his article included. --Fastfission 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Two well-informed editors reviewed this and found it to be WP:OR, no evidence is provided to contradict this conclusion. No citations to reputable peer-reviewed journals, for example. Just zis Guy you know? 20:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion as per Jacobi. --Improv 21:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Mathematical deletion endorsement -- Drini 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion agreeing with everything said above. Hyun, it will only become a war if you make it so and do not accept WP process. You have stated that there is no consensus. I think the above is a very clear consensus. Nobody agrees with you. Please accept this until and if this principle is widely accepted and discussed in many reputable places. If this is as important as the claims made for it, it would have been discussed by now in "Nature", Scientific American", "New Scientist" and so on, along with references in "Reviews of Modern Physics" and similar journals. This is not yet WP material and may never be. --Bduke 02:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Are all of us who endorse this deletion going to receive the Uncertain Elephant Award as those of us who supported the original deletion, or indeed were in any way involved with it, did? --Bduke 04:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Bduke. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

06 June 2006

Big Brother 7 chronology

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Big Brother 7 Chronology

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

  • Overturn: At least have the page there until the series is over and the page can be condensed. --JDemail 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Why was the page deleted? Celestianpower says at the top of the page that the result of the debate was deleted. The results were: 6 for "delete"; 11 for "keep"; 1 for "weak keep" and 1 for "strong delete"!!! I think it's pretty obvious that more people want to keep the page than delete it!! Ellisjm 16:36 UTC 6 June 06
  • Endorse deletion. People who wanted the article deleted seem to have more grounds than those who wanted the article kept. — FireFox • 16:44, 06 June '06
  • Endorse deletion per FireFox. -- 9cds 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. Reasons given for deletion were in line with WP policies and guidelines; reasons given for keep were mostly "But I want to keep it" variety. Process was followed, deletion is valid. KillerChihuahua 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn for violation of process. I would have voted "delete", as this does look like non-notable TV cruft, but the result of the debate was no consensus. The keep voters may have been uninformed, but Misplaced Pages:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators allows only disregarding bad faith votes when establishing consensus, and few such are apparent here. I know of no policy that allows the closing administrator to determine consensus on the basis of which side they agree with. Sandstein 17:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The guidelines say that for example comments made in bad faith may be ignored. In general, the guidelines say admins should use their common sense to determine if a rough consensus exists and should try to remain as objective as possible — they don't provide strict rules for doing this, since no such rule can exists. (Anyway, it's not a "vote".) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and close as no consensus. Neither side had arguments that were all that compelling, and closer was not at all clear as to his/her rationale for the decision. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse- this was a reasonable decision. Possibly the DRV could have been avoided tho, if the closer had given more reasoning about why they closed the way they did. Friday (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, a level of detail far in excess of anything which could possibly be justified by any encyclopaedic purpose. BB7 is more than adequately covered in the main article. This is a fan blog and belongs on a fan site: it is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information.. Just zis Guy you know? 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: am I correcting in thinking that people think this article is necessary so that at the end of the show it can be reduced into something encyclopedic? That seems to be what was being said at the AfD, but I just want to verify that before making a decision. Metros232 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Endorse and keep deleted - Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. The closer based his decision of the strengh of the arguments, not the amount. I agree with User:Friday that the closer should have stated this more clearly. --JiFish(/Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn the result of the discussion was keep and not by a small margin. I completely agree with Ellisjm that the article was wrongly deleted.

-- JAB 20:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn and Undelete for being out-of-process. --Rob 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak endorse, closure seems to have been within acceptable bounds of discretion. Most of the arguments provided by either side in the debate were rather weak, but some of the arguments for deletion were slightly less weak that the arguments against it. I'm quite willing, however, to userfy the deleted content upon request (a possibility some of the participants in the original debate appear to have been unaware of). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It just makes more sense to have the page in the main Misplaced Pages area while it exists, because it still has the information that many people may find useful. If that ends up being the only other option, then it may end up happening. But I'm sure you can see what I'm trying to say. --JDemail 23:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy somewhere by all means but keep deleted per above. Metamagician3000 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist. I would rather delete this article but the discussion was at most a "no consensus", not a "delete". --Metropolitan90 02:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. AfD is not a vote, Misplaced Pages is not a free web host for TV blogs, no-one even attempted to argue that this information belonged in an encyclopaedia, process was correctly followed. If it doesn't belong on the main BB7 page then it doesn't belong anywhere. --Sam Blanning 09:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The things is, that's exactly the point - people do think it belongs on the main article page. But the people that think it belongs there don't want it to be anywhere else. They don't care about how big the main article could become with that information on it. --JDemail 11:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion--cj | talk 09:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure/deletion, administrator has the right—nay, the obligation—to evaluate the merit of the arguments in terms of the goal of the project. When such a decision is not obvious, however, it should be explained in detail. -- SCZenz 12:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per KillerChihuahua. What's the point in having an article just for it to be deleted in a few weeks time (i.e. 'keep until the end of the series'). This does not belong on Misplaced Pages. It is fancruft of the worst sort. The JPS 15:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist Closing admin pretty much ignored the entire AfD process, sending the message to everyone that he valued only his own input on the subject. That's not how AfD is supposed to work. --Hyperbole 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. A severely inadequate closure method, but the right decision nevertheless. This was plainly not encyclopedia material, being essentially a diary of some people traipsing around a building for a few weeks. -Splash - tk 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure as within reasonable admin discretion. However, close decisions like this deserve more than just "The decision was delete" in the closure of the discussion. This argument could largely have been avoided if the closing admin had taken the time to fully lay out his/her reasoning. Rossami (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - As the closing admin on this AfD, I apologise for any extra trouble this has caused. Clearly I should have put forward my reasoning in the summary/the decision field: "When closing this AfD, despite there being more "keep" votes than "delete", the strength of arguments from the delete camp seems much stronger. WP:NOT is policy and this seems a clear case of 'Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information', as many voters pointed out. Also, AfD is not a vote: vote counts aren't everything". Once again, I apologise and will learn for next time. Regards, — Celestianpower 18:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion - Strength of arguments needs to be balanced with number of arguers, and it seems reasonable to disregard input that lacks any reasoning. --Improv 04:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Remain Deleted The AfD itself was filled with people who were rabid fans on the show, with all their arguements being all the minute details(read: minor, incidental things) be left off of the television show's main page. Pages were being used to hold any info about show and daily summaries like it were a fan page. That's not what wikipedia is about. Kevin_b_er 04:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - Celestianpower made a completely correct decision. Proto||type 13:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: There seems to be a misunderstanding that WP:NOT requires deletion as the universal solution to all problems it lists. Many things wikipedia is not, are handled by editing, not deletion. Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy says: "Article needs a lot of improvement" is explicitly not a reason for deletion, but should be cleaned up. Now, once cleaned up (which in this case, could mean radical shrinkage) policy says that if there's not much left ("Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article") it should be handled by merging/redirecting. Nobody here has given an explanation as to why the article *must* be deleted. That is what problem can only be solved via deletion, as opposed to a merge/redirect (with a potential for de-merge if/when sufficient quantity/quality content exists). --Rob 07:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    It had already been "merged". . —Celestianpower 13:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:WikiPâques.png

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


Recently concluded

2006 June

  1. Okashina_Okashi - Decision of the original closer to relist at AfD is endorsed. 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  2. Dismal's Paradox - Relisted at AfD. 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  3. User:SPUI/jajaja - Nomination withdrawn. 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  4. List of political leaders widely regarded as totalitarian - Request for information answered. 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  5. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed. 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  6. Cultural references in Pokémon - Deletion endorsed. 16:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  7. Fluffy (The Lion King) - Deletion endorsed. 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  8. Kelly Roberti - Copyright issue resolved, restored. 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  9. Image:Pierre Janssen.jpg - Commons image, action impossible here. 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  10. Neanderthal theory of autism - Deletion endorsed. 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  11. Be bold, Be Bold - Overturn RfD and revert to WP:BOLD. 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  12. Jeff Lindsay - Deletion endorsed. 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  13. "State Debate Associations" - Deletion endorsed. 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  14. How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 - Deletion endorsed. 17:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  15. Kinston Indians - Deletion endorsed. 17:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  16. Misplaced Pages:SCAG - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  17. Image:Nuvola 64 apps important.png - undeletion impossible; deleted prior to 16 June 2006. 13:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  18. Sick Nick Mondo - Deletion endorsed for now, pending AfD outcome for related Nick Mondo; should that survive, this is a suitable redirect. 18:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
    Nick Mondo having survived AfD, this is restored as a redirect. 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. True Torah Jews - Deletion endorsed. 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  20. UCIP - Deletion endorsed. 18:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  21. Mending Wall - Keep endorsed. 11:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  22. Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) - Deletion endorsed. 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  23. TheSmartMarks.com - Deletion endorsed. 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  24. Dirt pudding - Transwiki and deletion endorsed. 17:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  25. Kirill Makharinsky - Deletion endorsed. 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  26. Armando Lloréns-Sar - History restored, maintained as redirect; merge issues are an editorial concern for article's talk page. 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  27. Hollywood Undead - Deletion endorsed. 17:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  28. Trexy - Closing administrator agreed to relist AFD. 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  29. Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak - No consensus closure endorsed. 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  30. Knox (animator) - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  31. Lightsaber combat - Keep closure endorsed. 18:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  32. Stone Trek - Deletion closure endorsed. 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  33. File:944 h.jpg - DRV closed, image in Commons jurisdiction. 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  34. Sadullah Khan - Undeleted, relisted. 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  35. Atromitos - Undeleted. 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  36. Walk To Emmaus - Deletion endorsed. 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  37. Misplaced Pages:Conservative notice board. Kept deleted. Strong endorsement. 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Review.
  38. Lost: The Journey - Relisted. 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  39. User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes and Template:User Gangster - Undeleted. 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  40. The Lost Boys (demogroup) - Relist. 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  41. Second War (Harry Potter) - Deletion endorsed. 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  42. IRCDig - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  43. Saryn Hooks - Undeleted and relisted at AfD. 17:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  44. Template:Major_programming_languages - template content restored 06:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) review
  45. Strategic Policy Consulting - Deletion endorsed. 16:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  46. Actuarial Outpost - Kept kept, mistaken nomination. 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  47. Image:WikiPâques.png - Uploaded to Commons, as suggested. 16:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  48. The Esplanade Mall - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 16:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  49. Sydney Ling - AfD result of "no consensus" endorsed. 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  50. Siberian language - Deletion endorsed. 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  51. Burlington Center Mall - Challenge of no consensus afd withdrawn. 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  52. Erik Möller - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  53. theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh - Deletions endorsed. 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  54. Misplaced Pages:OURS - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  55. 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) - Deletion endorsed. 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  56. Conservative Underground - Deletion endorsed. 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  57. Boring Business Systems - AfD reopened by acclamation. 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  58. Joseph D. Campbell - Previous AfD overturned, to be relisted at AfD. 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  59. Church of Reality - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  60. Heinen's - Result reversed by consensus, AfD now closed as "no consensus". 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  61. BB Sinha - Restored, listed at AfD. 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (deleted at AfD 20:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)) Review
  62. Mending Wall - Restored, listed at AfD, closed as keep, brought here again (above). 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  63. Cancer Bats - Restored, to be resubmitted to AfD in light of new evidence. 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  64. Cum On Her Face - Deletion endorsed. 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  65. AlternC - Deletion endorsed. 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  66. Tiffany Holiday - Deletion endorsed. 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  67. Shane Cubis - Deletion endorsed unanimously (excepting discounted anons/newbies.) 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  68. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  69. Big Brother 7 chronology - Deletion endorsed. Will userfy upon request. 15:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  70. Wikimedia Meta-Wiki - action reverted by the closer. AFD reopened. 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  71. The Adventures of Dr. McNinja - Consensus to permit userpage draft as new recreation, will be submitted to AfD. 17:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  72. Cory kennedy - Deletion endorsed. 17:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  73. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics - Kept deleted unanimously. 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  74. Yar - Deletion endorsed without prejudice to unrelated redirect now at title. 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  75. List of midnight movies - Content restored for merge and redirect. 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  76. AK Productions - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  77. FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together - Undeleted and sent to AfD. 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  78. List of tongue-twisters - Deletion endorsed in light of new Wikiquote transwiki. 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  79. User:Raphael1/Wikiethics - Deletion endorsed. 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  80. Roosters1908, Sydneyroosters1909, and Sydneyroosters1910 - Undeleted to be AfD'ed in light of new evidence. 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  81. National Hockey Leaque player lists - Restored speedily and AFD reopened. 08:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  82. User:AKMask/log - Restored (by a narrow margin) to be sent to MfD. 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  83. Male Unbifurcated Garment - Deletion endorsed (again -- Second DRV in two weeks.) 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  84. Penis banding - Deletion endorsed. 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  85. Template:User no notability - Deletion narrowly endorsed. (date unavailable, deletion review never archived) Permalink
  86. Syed Ahmed - deletion endorsed, redirected to The Apprentice (UK series 2) 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  87. Ho Shin Do - deletion endorsed without prejudice 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
  88. Israel News Agency - article content restored 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
  89. Delaware County Intermediate Unit - Deletion closure endorsed. 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  90. Steve Bellone - Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  91. Team NoA - Previous version restored, survived AfD as no consensus. 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  92. Springfield M21 - Restored as redirect with history. 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  93. The drips - Speedy deletion contested, overturned; sent to AfD. 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  94. Template:Voting icons - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  95. Ali Zafar - New NPOV recreation permitted. 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  96. Barbara Bauer, The Literary Agency Group and others - Bauer undeleted and kept at AfD; others kept deleted. 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  97. Scienter - deletion overturned. 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  98. Auto repair shop - original speedy deletion endorsed, without prejudice to now-existing distinct redirect at this title. 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  99. Misplaced Pages v search engines - deletion endorsed unanimously. 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  100. Pat Price - deletion overturned unanimously, no need to relist. 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  101. Talk:Brian Peppers - kept deleted. 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  102. The Juggernaut Bitch - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  103. South Coast League - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  104. Other side of the pillow - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  105. Joel Leyden - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  106. Sharting - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  107. User:Disavian/Userboxes/Green Energy - deletion endorsed, narrowly 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  108. Left-wing terrorism - article history restored 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  109. Stella Maris College Scout Group - deletion endorsed 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  110. List of Michael Savage neologisms - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  111. Superhorse - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  112. Exicornt - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  113. Image:Lock-icon.jpg - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  114. College Confidential - article content restored 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  115. Tim Dingle - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  116. Abstract People - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  117. Christian views of Hanukkah - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  118. Claught of a bird dairy products - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  119. LIP6 - continue from rewritten version 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  120. Hulk 2 - redirected to Hulk (film) for now 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  121. Xombie - article content restored 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  122. Possible wars between liberal democracies speedy-deletion undone by deleting admin. listed to AFD. 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  123. Gary Howell deletion endorsed. 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  124. New Sincerity - deletion endorsed. 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  125. Successful Praying - speedy deletion as copyvio endorsed. 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  126. Videohypertransference - user copy granted. deletion from articlespace endorsed. 20:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  127. Oz Categories 8 endorse, 5 overturn, deletion endorsed. 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Review

Userbox discussions

Archives

Categories: