Misplaced Pages

The outcome here was to undelete. Well, perhaps if this undeletion process had been mentioned at SFD, the outcome would have been different, since, with the one dissenting voice of SPUI, the vote was overwhelmingly to delete these the first time. One of them even had to be protected because SPUI sqaw fit to undelete it nine times despite overwhelming reasons why it should not be undeleted, most notably, that since "bike" can refer to either a bicycle of a motorbike, it was too ambiguous to use as an alternative name for cycling. Please, if you intend to over-ride a perfectly legitimate deletion process such as WP:SFD, at least have the common decency to announce that a vote to do such is in process at WP:SFD. Don't simply dundelete files without warning, since it is only natural that they will be re-deleted as re-creations of previously deleted items. Is it any surprise that they have been re-listed. They should be speedily and permanently deleted. Grutness...wha? 07:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The deletion page is never notified. Surely there is no reason to notify the improper place for these to be listed. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

1. The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy deletion endorsed, noted on the discussions subpage. 23:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Gojin Motors undeleted and relisted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gojin Motors (2nd nomination). 23:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Wikimongering: kept deleted. 23:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Infosecpedia: closure endorsed, without prejudice against relisting (also without mandating it from this discussion). 23:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Homespring: kept deleted. 23:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Various stub template redirects: numbers short of threshold to simply overturn and undelete, but not clear on how to relist. See note in debate still listed above. 23:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Interwise: speedily undeleted and listed on AfD.
8. Shpants - History merge up until 12-2-2005 with Three quarter pants and then delete Shpants. WhiteNight 08:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Gtplanet - Undeleted and relisted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gtplanet (2nd nomination). 21:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Halo.Bungie.Org - Undeleted and relisted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Halo.Bungie.Org (2nd nomination). 21:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Mariah Stanley - Original deletion endorsed; different recreation now up for AfD here. 21:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Template:User Capitalist - Though original speedy was not in error, template undeleted as useful. 17:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
13. OGTV2 - From Tha Hood to Hollywood - Original deletion endorsed. "Recreation" failed at AfD, article again deleted. 17:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
14. Shpants - non-standard resolution. See Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Shpants 07:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
15. Ayu Khandro - Original speedy deletion endorsed, different recreation made, recreation now under new AfD discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ayu Khandro. 17:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
16. The Gay Ghost, The Next Gay Ghost, and The Two Gay Ghosts - Kept deleted. 17:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
17. Fortune Lounge Group - Deletion endorsed; new recreation made during the debate without objection. 17:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
18. Webcest - Kept deleted. 17:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
19. Brian Peppers - recreated while under debate here, kept at new AfD. 17:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
20. Bradley (Codename: Kids Next Door) - Speedy restored as clear deletion mistake. 17:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Battle_of_Uhud - Speedy restored to an unvandalized version. 17:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
22. Cursing Sahaba is Kufr (Sunni doctrine) - Kept deleted, copyright violation. 17:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
23. Arthur Prieston - Kept deleted, with the caveat that undeletion may occur if copyright release is properly given. 17:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
24. James S. Putnam - Speedy deletion overturned; subsequently failed AfD, and was deleted. 17:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
25. 2011 Atlantic hurricane season - Kept deleted. 17:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Content review

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

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

History only undeletion

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

Decisions to be reviewed

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

Content review

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

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

History only undeletion

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

Decisions to be reviewed

Template loop detected: Template:Vfu mechanics

2006-01-03

Large number of userboxes deleted by Tony Sidaway

These deletions, mostly done with the explanation "Proselytising is not a defensible use of Misplaced Pages resources". --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 10:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and list on WP:TFD per proper procedure. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 10:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Use your brain. Ambi 10:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure where "use your brain" came from or who it was directed at, but while I hold no particular position (in fact perhaps not, I'm supporting Kelly in her RFC), procedure should be followed. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 10:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Strong Undelete Ambi, please refrain from Personal Attacks. karmafist 20:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on TFD - I'm not convinced many of those count as proselytizing as such. Some, maybe, but not all. --Agamemnon2 10:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Even if they are, users have wide latitude in their user space. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 10:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Not a CSD, and most definitely not uncontroversial. This is borderline trollish behavior. — Phil Welch Katefan's poll, which she herself considers ridiculous, as it's about whether we like the rock band Rush 10:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG Undelete - not again, the first 2 RfCs are already destroyed the community enough. Ian_ID:540053 10:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete pending discussion on Misplaced Pages:Proposed policy on userboxes. Also, nearly everyone discussing the issue on that page seems to agree that users should be allowed to place userbox code directly on their user pages even if the creation of the template would not be permissible, and deleting the templates and associated subpages of Misplaced Pages:Userboxes prevents users from substituting the code for userbox templates if they desire, and prevents the code from being listed on the userbox page. Also, as I have repeatedly argued, some of these userboxes can be very useful for locating people who have expertise on a given topic (for example, minority religions like Neopaganism.) Also, simply stating that one is a member of a particular religion does NOT constitute proselytism under any conceivable definition of the word. - AdelaMae 10:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add the same goes for political affilliations as he deleted political userboxes too. Saying you support a view is not the same as trying to convince others of that view. Therefore, 'proselytism' is not a valid argument for deletion in these cases either. Larix 11:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete -- and list on WP:TfD. - Longhair 10:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all. Does not meet any speedy deletion criteria, we are liberal with what goes on userpages and several users probably want to keep them outright, therefore this is not a time to invoke WP:IAR. Bring them to TFD if you must. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete with the understanding that Tony will list on TFD if he wishes Censoring the kind of userboxes that can be used, solely because of one admin's overly broad interpretation of WP:NOT is an indefencible use of IAR. Ingoolemo  10:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete all Larix 10:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all, as with Kelly Martin's mass deletion, this is totally inappropriate. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete. Any deletion should await results of the current discussion on the matter. Also, if anything is deleted, templates should be subst: on the pages on which they're used. - Mgm| 12:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, let's use civilized discussion instead of wheel warring. This deletion, under current circumstances, shows a serious lack of judgement and violates WP:POINT. Friday (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - I would prefer they had gone to TfD for deletion, but our absurd inclusionist 70% thesholds would result in them being kept. --Doc 14:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Um... "would be kept if this went to TFD/AFD/MFD/CFD" is hardly a reason to speedy delete. It is a reason to not delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete as per Friday, Sjakkalle, SPUI, others. Hamster Sandwich 14:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete for the reasons SPUI, Sjakkalle, Friday, etc... This mass deletion is very disruptive and not in the spirit of discussion and consensus. -- DS1953 14:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Unilateral, high-handed -- and probably necessary. Keep deleted. --Calton | Talk 15:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete WhiteNight 15:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all I'd call this mean-spirited. Xoloz 15:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all - yet another egregious (to use that most common of WP words), unilateral deletion of Userboxes, no doubt defended by a WP:IAR argument. Well, it is totally unacceptable. If Mr Sidaway thinks they should be deleted, let him follow the proper process at WP:TFD. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I think these templates need to be reviewed, and I think that Tony's actions here are a dangerous use of WP:IAR, but there is a serious point behind the deletion: namely the concern that a good number of these userboxes place Misplaced Pages at increased risk of abuse by POV warriors. I'm inclined towards undelete and list on TfD, excpet that I do not think that TfD is equipped to deal with this issue. What about put together an RfC and undelete? --- Charles Stewart 17:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - The point is, these templates are being reviewed at Misplaced Pages:Proposed policy on userboxes. Mass deletion of userboxes by Tony Sidaway was not necessary to spur discussion on this topic. Also, I find it difficult to understand how a template like Template:User religion interest, which states, "This user is interested in religion", could be misused by POV warriors. Tony Sidaway deleted this template with the summary that it was "proselytism." - AdelaMae 19:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• I meant a review of the complete collection of templates that Tony has deleted, not a review of userboxes in general. --- Charles Stewart 19:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. If someone can say in their userspace "Hi, my name is Timmy. I'm an Anglican!" I don't see why a template saying the same thing is not allowed (let alone warranting a speedy deletion). Tony loves to invoke WP:IAR, which is seldom a good thing to do. Probably never for someone with Tony's judgment. -R. fiend 17:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Two things: one, Tony does not often invoke IAR, and he is well aware of its dangers. Two, templates, like categories, give people who want to puch a POV agenda a convenient way of finding many people of a similar view, through the use of the Related Changes page; this is much more incovenient to do through searching. --- Charles Stewart 18:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Sidaway might not invoke IAR in a high ratio in proportion to his total edits, but he invokes it more than anyone I know, and I have yet to see an instance where he invoked it wisely. Xoloz 19:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. Many of those userboxes probably need to be deleted, but that should go via TFD. We don't have those deletion processes for nothing. Aecis 18:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. El_C 18:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete -- bad faith deletion by Tony, obviously controversial deletions should not be handled by speedy deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted not in harmony with our efforts to build a NPOV encyclopedia.--MONGO 20:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on TfD - I think Tony's deletion is in good faith, but in the absence of a known threat I don't think this kind of bending of due process is justified. I'm worried that TfD is not fitted to handle this dispute: one small thing we should do is list on a subpage since it is likely to get very high traffic. --- Charles Stewart 20:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I am shocked, shocked that Tony seems to be ignoring the deletion policy and inventing novel criteria for speedy deletion. Nandesuka 20:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete. While I understand why he did it, but it is the worst way to do it, under the current circumstances. Titoxd 20:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete. I don't like most of these userboxes any more than Tony does, but unilateral deletion is patently inappropriate. Frankly, I'm surprised that Tony would do this, given his tendency to oppose out-of-process deletions. —David Levy 20:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Mootstormfront

The AfD was closed out of process by Howcheng, after just 7 votes, including the primary editor— hardly enough input to provide consensus for such a marginal article. This promotional entry for a Web site/forum fails the basic criteria for Notability for a Web site— which none of the participants addressed in the AfD discussion. More critically, the site no longer even exists, nor is there a single reliable source which refers to it, which means there is no means to provide verifiable information— a fundamental requirement for any article. The Deletion process should be re-opened/re-listed, with a discussion of how this currently non-existent and non-verifiable site qualifies for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. —LeFlyman 08:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• To clarify: what I am referring to as "out of process" is the closure of an AfD started the night before Christmas Eve and closed the day after New Year's-- a holiday period when activity is naturally going to be at a low, so that very few editors who might have a disinterested opinion on the article would have the opportunity to comment/vote. A lack of interest and participation should not be a beneficial qualifer for encyclopedic inclusion. I was particularly concerned that none of the Misplaced Pages standards were considered in the decision on whether this was an appropriate article to keep, but that the initial votes were based on the claims that it "seems important" or was "well known" but without any proof of such claims. Are we really to the point where the AfD etiquette which states that, "If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, and clearly base your recommendations on the deletion policy" is meaningless? —LeFlyman 16:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Kept/endorse closure. First, the suggestion that howcheng's closure is out of order is erroneous. The debate ran for 10 days, twice the normal length, thanks to end-of-year lagtime. Secondly, you raised these points in the original debate, and they were unsuccessful. DRV is not the place to reargue a valid AfD. Xoloz 09:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - Don't think it was out of process closure, but I think your arguments are well-made. No verifiable sources and it doesn't look encyclopedic to me. FCYTravis 09:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure although it was, umm, poor. We shouldn't make a habit of prescribing relisting when there was no procedural error with the close. People hate relisting, and if it's done with a "Per discussion at WP:DRV" that lends some credibility that it mayn't deserve. If someone wants to nominate this again off their own bat, please drop me a note on my talk page so that I may participate, but this is outside the zone of DRV as far as I'm concerned. - brenneman 10:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and keep. Closed within process, nowhere near a consensus for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, although I am sympathetic to verifiability concerns. I've added this to my watchlist, let's take up verifiability issues on the talk page, and if we must remove unverifiable content, so be it. If we're left without enough for a proper article, maybe we can find some place to merge it into. Friday (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. LeFlyman is incorrect in his/her assertion that the discussion was closed out-of-process. By design, there is no minimum quorum for AFD discussions. Nor is it inappropriate for the article's editor to participate in the deletion discussion. However, LeFlyman does raise some valid concerns over verifiability. I have to objections to an independent relisting after a reasonable period. Rossami (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: As the closing admin, I certainly feel it was justified, but I'll abstain from voting. Like Xoloz says, the debate ran for twice the normal amount of time. I suppose I could have been more generous and closed it with a "no consensus" but I thought a 2/5 vote was pretty clear (yes, I know it's a not a vote). Please also note that a number of other AfD nominations during the holiday period generated plenty of discussion so IMHO arguing that low activity invalidates the closure is unjustified. howcheng {chat} 16:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, 7 votes is certainly enough, I've closed votes with much less than that. --Deathphoenix 19:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Back Door Sluts 9

Redirect to The Return of the Lord of the Rings to the Two Towers, a Southpark episode in which it plays a prominent role, improperly speedied several times. The deleting admin also blocked the editor that was creating the redirect. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, it's relevant to the article, and as long as we don't have an article for the real Back door sluts 9, might as well link it. Every kid who watches the show is going to google it anyhow for fun. a block seems misplaced. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 07:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

  Unblocked. My mistake. Everything is now clear. -- Longhair 07:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Full Bodying

• Undelete Full Bodying. This is a real act, which has been performed in films, and people should be able to learn about it. —the preceding unsigned comment is by DokkenDio (talk • contribs) 06:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, patent nonsense. —Cryptic (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I came out of a woman's vagina once, but I don't think it would be too plausible to get inside one such. -R. fiend 06:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Unbirth? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, and BJAODN the thing. Non-admins can see the contents of it in this page's history. Titoxd 06:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It was already there. —Cryptic (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, then just salt the Earth, then. :) Titoxd 06:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Obvious hoax. Thanks for the laugh, though! :) Xoloz 09:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and salt the earth with the tears I got when laughing after reading the history. --Deathphoenix 19:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Chris Jenny Harrison

• Undelete Chris Jenny Harrison. This is a real person and a real name and everything in the article is true. Chris Harrison is a real and well known person in this part of the world. You may not know him but Im sure a lot of people in other countries dont know who JFK or Gandhi are, I dont see you deleting them. —the preceding unsigned comment is by DokkenDio (talk • contribs) 06:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, attack page, no plausible claim of notability. —Cryptic (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Chris Jenny Harrison. It has just been brought to my attention that each administrator, or at least for sure "Natalinasmpf" is given their own pages on wikipedia. Why is it at all allowable for admins to post biographies, which are boring yet my dear friend Chris Jenny Harrison cannot be shared with the world, when his life is so exciting? This double standard seems unacceptable. How can this site call itself a fair/good site applying these double standards. You know who else applied these double standards men on women before the age of equal rights. It aint right.
• Comment - Anyone can have a user page. It's at User:Yournamehere. That's called userspace. Feel free to use it. Nobody is entitled to an *article* in *articlespace* about themselves. FCYTravis 09:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, see WP:BIO and note the difference between articles and userpages. - Mgm| 12:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, this is not even userfy material. "Born from the fiery lava of Mount Ookalawaiah on a small Hawaiin Island", indeed. User:Zoe| 17:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Attack page on a non-notable person. --Deathphoenix 19:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFC/KM

Speedy deleted many times, and now protected blank. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, POV redirect. User:Zoe| 04:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Phil Sandifer 04:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. How can a shortcut be POV? How does this hurt anything? The repeated deletion of this redirect is being perceived as an effort to stifle free expression on the userbox issue; whether true or not, that hurts our encyclopedia. -- SCZenz 04:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No it doesn't. The userbox issue would have to actually have something to do with the encyclopedia for this to hurt our encyclopedia. Phil Sandifer 04:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Pointless, but harmless. I fail to see what the fuss is about, unless it's a clever smokescreen to distract from something else. Strangely enough, everything we do here has something to do with writing an encyclopedia, or else I look forward to seeing the Misplaced Pages:Department of Fun nominated for deletion. Fo course, there's no telling which wrong version the wheel war will have left this in, but I see keep as a shortcut. You want a POV shortcut, how about WP:CUNT? - brenneman 04:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Gads, that's a bluelink? (I've been kind of waiting for WP:FUCK to go along with WP:FUC over the past few days, mind...) —Cryptic (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I about fell out of my chair when I saw that. And give it time, WP:FUCK will find a use eventually. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 15:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Inappropriate perhaps, but "Cunt" is hardly POV. - Mgm| 12:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Delted out of process. There is nothing in the WP:CSD nor the deletion policy that authorizes such a unilateral deletion. Since the RFC pointed to is a complaint about out-of-process and allegedly abusive deletions, this is an unforunate way to deal with this. Put it on RfD or MfD if you think it needs to go. DES 05:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• It was undeleted and listed on RFD half an hour ago. I'd've preferred it to have been undeleted, full stop, for now; now, everyone will be screaming about it over there. Ah well. —Cryptic (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Mike 06:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and keep until title becomes ambiguous. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:17, Jan. 3, 2006
• Undelete, no policy, procedure or guideline can justify the removal of this. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete, if Snowspinner felt this shortcut should have been removed, they could have gone through process like this since no policy or guideline covered it. However, he that this process, and thus got into a wheel war with me. Considering that the rfc(which is also about people ignoring any and all rules in a moment if they feel justified in doing so) was about the same thing, it's not surprising.
• The page this shortcut was linked to had hundreds of comments on it, people were going there often. There's no reason to delete this, and it serves a good purpose. I'm just disappointed at the state of Misplaced Pages since this is at DRV rather than WP:RFD since Snowspinner's initial actions were illegimate. karmafist 12:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - If there isn't a redirect policy which prohibits shortcuts that aid in the pillorying of a Misplaced Pages editor (whether that editor be Kelly Martin, Brazil4Linux, Marsden, or someone else entirely), there should be. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 13:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Like he said. --Calton | Talk 15:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete WhiteNight 15:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete The RfD is already running, and needs to run its course. Xoloz 16:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Nobody is saying anything about deleting the RfC, the discussion is over this redirect, which has been deleted by several admins now. User:Zoe| 17:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Zoe, read my original comment carefully. The R-f-D is already going... I said nothing about an any RfC, I referred to the ongoing Redirect for Deletion debate already started. Xoloz 20:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Good grief. This is such a blatent policy violation - "POV redirect" - ???!??? I saw this thing when I was on deletion patrol, snagged it - and then when I saw it again I thought "What the heck is going on here? Why on earth would an admin I usually admire (FCY) be deleting this completely harmless redirect?". It is silly - Zoe too! The only explanation that makes even remote sense is that there is some obvious favoritism (which, ironically, redirects to elitism). I wish you all a happy year and hope that this nonsense stops, it really is rediculous to the extreme!
• Keep deleted, there are no other redirects to individual RfCs, and this one is certainly unnecessary. --Deathphoenix 19:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment no other rfc has had over 100 people agree with the initial statement either. I'm also sending this over to WP:RFD since it was inappropriately deleted in the first place.karmafist 20:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Seigenthaler

Supposedly an "article that serves no purpose but to disparage its subject". In fact it is simply parody/satire - "This user helped Seigenthaler kill John F. Kennedy." --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted as attack. I'm all for humour, but humour that accuses an innocent person of capital murder doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. If the innocent person is puttin it on their user page, I see no problem. --maru (talk) Contribs 01:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per Starblind. As a parody, it is an attack on Seigenthaler (or at least the anti-WP moment his story inspired in the media.) Really, though, if it is a parody, it's a bad one, since I'm not sure what it means. This qualifies as confusion creep, imo, and I endorse deletion on that basis as well. Xoloz 01:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, it has no constructive use. I've protected it against recreation. -Splash 01:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete It's a user page, thats all there is to it. Mike 01:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It is a 'userpage' (note that it isn't; it's a template) that accuses Seigenthaler of killing Kennedy. That's not funny, as we have already learnt. -Splash 01:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - According to the deletion log the only content added to the page was by Maradubshinki, who deleted it. It therefore appears to be a valid CSD G7. --- Charles Stewart 01:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • He told me he undeleted and deleted it the final time to get the code. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

First, Chalst, I'd appreciate it if you get the name right- a simple "maru" is more than acceptable. Second, the template was speedied twice by other admins, for no valid reason, when it should have been put through TFD. SPUI is entirely correct- if you examine the deletion history, the third time was me undeleting it to copy it over to my user space, and then promptly redeleting it to await a VFU decision. --maru (talk) Contribs 03:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and list on TfD - It's a pretty tasteless and inadvisable joke, but it's clearly not an attack page. Let's put the issue up for proper discussion. --- Charles Stewart 04:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. No need to screw around with a tastless joke that obviously hurts the credibility of our project. -- SCZenz 04:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Since this template is only useful as a userbox, isn't it just as harmful to have people cut and pasting the text from Maru's user page as to have them make use of the template? Hence, if he speedy is valid for the template, then isn't it right to insist that Maru remove the userbox from his page? I find this to be too much, but I am interested in how far the argument goes to delete from such reasons as the need to uphold the credibility of the project. --- Charles Stewart 04:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting point, Mr. Stewart. The difference between the template, and user-supplied text in userspace, as I see it, is this: Users are generally given wide (though not total) freedom in their own space, in the spirit of freedom of expression. Most WPians understand this; and most casual viewers, familiar with the freedom of speech common in the English-speaking world, grasp it intuitively. A template, because it is circulated among the community in a pre-set form, is subject to greater oversight at TFD, and through CSD; it would be easier for the casual viewer to mistake it as representing WP's views, at least through tacit complicity. This isn't to say that "John Seigenthaler killed Kennedy" belongs on a userpage, either; that discussion, regarding libel at WP, is ongoing, and such a statement might be called a personal attack, under the circumstances. What is clear to me is that the case for CSDing the template is on firmer ground than the deletion of a userpage, for the aforementioned reasons of purview, institutional oversight, and inituitive understanding. Xoloz 09:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • But you voted to keep deleted because it is an attack. Attacks are just as unacceptable on user pages as on templates. If you really think that it is an attack, you should edit Maru's user page and remove the box. Or per your comment below, do you think it is really a violation of WP:CIV? --- Charles Stewart 18:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. We have brains for a reason. Ambi 10:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No personal attacks, please. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 10:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • He's right, you should apologize, saying, "I'm sorry, you're right, we don't have brains for a reason." Or is it, "I'm sorry, you're right, we have brains for no reason"? --Calton | Talk 15:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'd cite CIV instead of NPA. Point is, we know we have brains, to remind us is patronizing. To defend reminding us doesn't help. Note that I agree with you regarding this UB. Xoloz 16:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Slightly funny but libellous and a personal attack. David | Talk 10:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, is an attack against Seigenthaler and only marginally funny. - Mgm| 12:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, and nuke the version from maru's user page, too. --Calton | Talk 15:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This template is just trolling. Gamaliel 17:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, inappropriate in an article, and more inappropriate as a template. --Deathphoenix 19:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-01-01

Template:Help Wikiboxes

Deleted out of process, this was in no way a personal attack, as claimed in the deletions. This was deleted while discussion at WP:TFD was in progress. Undelete and allow the TfD to continue normally. DES 12:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Proper speedy under A6 attack pages. David | Talk 12:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted RFC-box stuffing should be as vigorously opposed as AFD-ballot-box stuffing, and for precisely the same reasons. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 13:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per David and EU. ] 13:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This template was deleted per CSD A6, under which it clearly falls. Circumventing the RfC process in this manner is not helpful and, as Extreme Unction said, should be vigorously opposed. Movementarian 13:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse/Keep deleted As much as I support the underlying RFC, campaigning via templates is very bad form. Xoloz 17:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment technically A6 only applies to articles (it really should be a general criteria...). At any rate, earlier versions were A6 material, the last one I guess is sort of a judgement call, as it were. WhiteNight 17:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Request for clarification: From a brief sampling of the deleted versions, I am not seeing the personal attack. Could someone familiar with this controversy please explain it to the rest of us? Perhaps by providing links to the relevant discussions or evidence? I ask because even if certain versions were hostile, the normal corrective action is to fix it. The very existence of the page and pretty much every non-trivial edit would have to be a personal attack in order to qualify for that particular speedy-delete criterion. I will withhold judgment for now but at first glance, this does not appear to have qualified as a speedy-attack. Rossami (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Articles which serve no purpose but to disparage their subject" Since the earlier versions mentioned the name of the deletor it was basically trying to disparage the subject. The later versions without the names are a very shaky case though and probably NOT a technically valid speedy. WhiteNight 17:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Disagree - a template used to stack a discussion is disruptive and should be speedied. --Doc 18:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm just saying that our current criterion doesn't appear to technically cover it. I'm not so sure myself that speedying it creates less controversy then the normal TfD way. WhiteNight 18:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Some relevant links: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Userboxes&action=history, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Userboxes&action=history, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Cryptic, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 3. More prose later, when I have more than a minute or so free in a row. —Cryptic (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Over my dead, broken, and de-adminned body will this be undeleted. Phil Sandifer 18:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and let the TfD run its course - This would qualify under Tony Sidaway's proposed CSD criterion, but it clearly does not and never will fit any CSD An criterion as it is not an article. Note on sources: I've based this opinion on Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion#Template:Help Wikiboxes, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 3 and the deletion log. I miss Special:Undelete... --- Charles Stewart 18:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I should say that my undelete vote is based on the understanding that the page is intended for vote-stacking purposes and is not explicitly an attack page. If the claim that it is a real attack page is substantiated, then I think I would change this vote. --- Charles Stewart 19:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The template was an attack and RFC stacking by template is a Bad Thing. Making an attack in template space is not an acceptable way to avoid speedy deletion of an attack page. Kelly Martin should have discussed her plans further, but this template isn't the best way to approach that problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as an attack. If the RfCs have merit, they can stand on their own, and promoting them in this way just makes the associated RFCs look bad. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete; not a personal attack. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse/Keep deleted Troll food. --Calton | Talk 06:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - Rather interesting that the original reasoning behind some of the userbox deletions was the rallying of voting blocs. "Oh no," they said, "that's never happened and never will"...and here they are, slapping templates about...campaigning over a request for comment. Bloody disgraceful. Rob Church 10:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Ambi 10:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Asking people to reply to RFCs is fine, but using an general template to do so isn't. Move to Project or userspace and edit out the word unilateral. Let the user who receives the message make up their mind for themselves. - Mgm| 12:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, proper speedy, clearly not appropriate as an attempt to pileon to KM's RfC. --Deathphoenix 19:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

2005-12-31

Category:Moneyball (CfD Discussion)

I think this deletion should be reviewed because, it seems like, no "baseball people" saw the deletion discussion to make the obvious counter-argument, and the category was deleted on bad evidence. I think this is wrong, and at least the CfD should be re-listed with an informed counter-argument to see what happens.

Moneyball is much more than just some book (a claim the CfD discussion never challenged), the book just gave name to and popularized among the masses a movement that had been brewing for years. Developed by Bill James and first truly implimented by Billy Beane at Oakland, the philosophy is the most controversial topic in baseball (other than steroids) in the past 10 years, and has changed the way nearly everyone thinks about the basic statistics of baseball (which is big, considering baseball is a game of statistics). So it's not just one of many baseball books published every year... it's the most important baseball book published in the past 20 years, and a major topic in baseball even had the book never been written.

The articles on people involved and the basic concepts (on base percentage, On-base plus slugging, sabermetrics, etc.) seem to be improved by being listed in the category, it lets someone interested in moneyball easilly find other related articles. I'm sorry I missed the CfD and couldn't present this argument there... I guess all us baseball geeks take winter off like the players. --W.marsh 16:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• If you want to use it for a broader topic than just issues mentioned in the book, why not make Category:Sabermetrics? That would cover the issues involved. Firebug 17:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Sabermetrics is just the statistics, moneyball involves the people who use them, oppose them, etc. which is a big issue in baseball today. For example, you couldn't really put Billy Beane and other people in Category:Sabermetrics. I'll consider creating the category though, it would be useful for the statistics. --W.marsh 17:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, but "moneyball" (as a descriptor) isn't NPOV, is it? I mean, I usually hear the term in the context of the phrase, "f-ckin' moneyball." Of course, I'm a Royals fan -- yes we do exist. :) Anyway, Sabermetrics seems more objective to me. Xoloz 18:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
      • That's an interesting point... but it's not exactly POV to say someone or something is associated with moneyball, as long as that's well documented. The category also applies to well-known critics of moneyball, like Joe Morgan. I really don't see the POV here... it's well documented which people and topics associated with moneyball... it's just moneyball itself that is controversial. Some people think moneyball is bad, some think it's good... the same could be said of many categories we have. --W.marsh 18:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh sure... it's just that I don't know anyone who uses moneyball positively, who says, "Wow, isn't moneyball great!" Like I said, this could just be my bias -- but I wonder if "moneyball" isn't like "anti-choice" or "pro-murder" as applied in abortion debates -- exclusively a pejorative. Anyway, undelete and relist, this merits full discussion at a new debate. Substantial new, previously-unaddressed points have been raised. Xoloz 18:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete, reason for deletion contradicted by information here. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete Moneyball is IMO an incredibly important book, with implications for business managers outside of baseball: there is real value in employees that other organizations shun because they don't fit a cookie-cutter mold. I am only a casual fan of baseball & am really not interested in sabremetrics, but I think the concept has broad application. Billbrock 23:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC) Comment: oops, I misread. Didn't realize this was a category deletion, to which I have no objection. Billbrock 01:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist on CfD, see if there are more discussions this time around. --Deathphoenix 18:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Timeline for missing persons following the September 11, 2001 Attacks (AFD discussion)

This article should be undeleted because of significant new information that was not considered at discussion: the article was important enough to have been cited in the peer-reviewed article

Edkins, Jenny. The rush to memory and the rhetoric of war. Journal of Political & Military Sociology; Winter 2003, Vol. 31(2), p. 231-250

This printed article is kept in the world's academic libraries and a broken Misplaced Pages link gives an extremely unprofessional impression. For verification, I can email the article to anyone who provides me with their email address on my talk page. AxelBoldt 08:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• The people there were arguing is was redundant, not un-notable... WhiteNight 08:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Our policy/decisions should not be bound by links from outside. Keep Deleted --Improv 08:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The original nominator gave as main reason for deletion "I'm sure that would have been useful somewhere. Now it's just outdated statistics.", implying that it is not useful anymore. Newly discovered information disproves this. Old statistics are useful for historians. AxelBoldt 18:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - the article was not so IMPORTANT as ACTUAL. was. Kirils 08:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn/Undelete New Info Mike 11:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Temp Undelete for Transwiki Uhm... is there an option for a cut and paste of deleted content to the Sep11 wiki? yes it appears there is.  ALKIVAR™ 13:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• An undeletion just long enough for it to be transwikied seems the proper thing to do. —Cryptic (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Temp Undelete for Transwiki per Cryptic and Alkivar. I'm not sure why that wasn't done in the first instance. Xoloz 16:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Probably because the post-vfd transwiki queue wasn't being maintained at the time, and had an enormous, six-month-long backlog. —Cryptic (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Temp Undelete for Transwiki per Cryptic Billbrock 23:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Temp undelete and transwiki, statistical data belongs on WikiSource. - Mgm| 14:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Temp undelete and transwiki. Ashibaka tock 03:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

2005-12-30

CommandN

CommandN has been deleted I wish for it do be appealed as it is a popular VidCast and just because the people who decided may not of known about it, it has many fans and should be reinstated. Mike 18:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/CommandN. Please don't list things here merely because you disagree with an AFD outcome. Radiant_>|< 18:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse/Keep deleted Nomination simply makes no actionable claims -- no evidence of process flaw or new information. Xoloz 19:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment It is a well liked and popular podcast/vidcast hosted by a tv personality and is highly rated. It should not of been removed especially by people who dont know enough about the subject. Mike 19:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Afd was proper; all evidence provided was considered, and deletes outnumber valid keeps by about four to one. No compelling reason to overturn it has been provided. Do you have any new, third-party evidence of this podcast's notability from reliable sources, or are you just going to offer unsubstantiated opinions like the (sock|meat)puppets infesting the original discussion? —Cryptic (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I never got a chance to vote as it is hard to find these things and I'm sure if it was easier to find it more people would. I have added that its a popular show and there for should not have been deleted unless you can provide information on why it should NOT be deleted I think it should be overturned. Mike 19:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. No new information. "I didn't get the chance to vote" is not a reason to re-run the AfD. android79 19:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse per Radiant. I see nothing wrong with the outcome, as most of those "keeps" were from obvious meats. WhiteNight 19:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD. --Deathphoenix 18:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Gang stalking (AFD discussion)

The re-creation was a significant improvement over the anecdotal original, which in spite of its obvious flaws, was deleted wholesale and done so in violation of Misplaced Pages deletion policy (i.e. the article received more "Keep" votes than "Delete" votes ).

A review of the re-creation will illuminate verifiable facts about an emerging and well-documented Web-based phenomenon.

In any event, wholesale deletion is a disproportionate (and likely visceral) response. Editing, expansion, or qualification through discussion is always an option. I realize we're not dealing with the atomic weight of plutonium, but as a cultural (or social psychological) phenomenon, there are a range of ways to present the info accurately.

--Tai Streets

• Comment Jimbo himself deleted this article just a couple of days ago... the actual page is at Gang stalking (the user is referring to a redirect, not the actual page), and the afd debate is at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Gang_stalking. Looks like sock/meat puppets gone wild there, but I havn't checked them out yet thuroughly, and I feel sorry for the people who have to :\... WhiteNight 05:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• This is the version deleted by afd. This is the most recent. They seem sufficiently similar to me to be a proper G4; barring formatting changes and section being moved around, I can find almost no differences. Endorse deletion and, given that it was re-created three times in barely a day since its afd, continued protection against re-creation. —Cryptic (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that Brighting, Image:Bradjesnessc1.jpg, and Image:Bradjesnessc2.jpg were re-created as well. —Cryptic (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• The AfD is Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking. The keep "votes" were largely anon IPs, the discounting of which is well within closer's discretion. Few established WPians voted to keep the article, as compared to the many who viewed its deletion favorably. Nomination does not offer compelling new information regarding the article. Keep Deleted/Endorse closure. Xoloz 05:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted valid AFD, most of the supports were annons that their vote didn't count. --Jaranda 07:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endore closure / keep deleted Very messy AfD, but closer made the correct decision. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Relist gang stalking, with a warning to the contributor not to stuff the ballot box again. Even if the contributor has a POV, he did provide references. One article should be sufficient to cover the subject. Gazpacho 03:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Please note that almost exactly the same article content (with a few minor wording changes) is already currently being discussed on AFD, since it was also created as Sci.psychology.psychotherapy (AfD discussion) by Tai Streets (talk · contribs). This content has also been added to a whole slew of separate articles by this same author (who appears to be one and the same as 67.129.121.254 (talk · contribs), 172.149.8.228 (talk · contribs), and Wyatt Ehrenfels (talk · contribs)) including:
  • Cyberstalking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Stalking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Harassment by computer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Privacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Group psychological abuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Bully (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Chilling effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Gang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Google (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Cyber-terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Cyber bullying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Even if editors wish this relisted, one active AFD discussion is enough. Uncle G 06:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I notice Gang-stalking has been recreated today. Tearlach 13:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it and salted the earth. android79 13:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion and salting the earth. --Deathphoenix 18:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

2005-12-29

Template:Album infobox 2

TfD here: Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/December 2005#Template:Album_infobox_2

Review so what happened to this whilst most of us were not watching over the holidays, there was no clear concensus so how was this to be a remove authority. There were issues with the clicking on the image but they had been solved. I cannot believe that such creativity should be stamped upon also I don't believe if we are able to use an image we fall foul if we are an image in such an innocuous way. Most of all what is the point of these votes is they are ridden roughshod over!

Clearer guidance should be given if this really is a fair use problem, I fail to see the reason for its use (the fair use arguement) here. If we are able to use the image to illustrate the album, we are able to use the image to illustrate the album, period.

In the forking point, surely the aim of the those working on the version was to make the "smarter" form, the new standard, (i.e. not forked). Perhaps this was not gone about the best way, but there it is.

Overriding these concerns, where is the adjudiction summary, and/or final reason given for the action taken. Please can people be a little more considerate of the effort people are putting in to create this resource. If the decision is to stand please do the 'losing' opinion the courtesy of a polite statement. Kevinalewis 09:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Overturn/Undelete, this TfD closed with 22 delete to 21 keep which is, in my opinion, too close to consider a consensus (further, one of the deletes didn't sign their vote). —Locke Cole • t • c 15:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn/relist On examining the TfD, I do see the defects complained of. Lack of closing rationale, closeness of the tallies, uncertainty over the fair argument. I would endorse the closure if I were convinced regarding lack of a fair use claim; however, album covers are intended for display, and uses that promote the album are generally permissible (and highly unlikely to generate an infringement claim in the first instance.) Decision is too muddled to stand as is. Xoloz 16:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - TfD is not a vote - less so than other pages, really, because of the relative lack of traffic and the high degree to which people want every stupid template but their own deleted - it has long been run on a system of "Read through the argument and make a call about which side gives the most persuasive reasons." I am thusly persuaded that an increase in the use of fair use images and the desire for a universal style of album infoboxes is a persuasive reason. Phil Sandifer 16:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a universal style, and this template follows it (hence why a simple redirect is all it took to change things; the parameters are identical, this template simply adds a few additional parameters). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Unredirect, closure in error, and per Phil as well, most persuasive arguments were to keep -- or rather, no persuasive argument was made to delete, which amounts to the same thing. While I would support dropping fair use images entirely, if we accept fair use as a rationale it certainly applies to these images. Template forking is not a problem; editors are perfectly capable of choosing among a variety of similar but slighly different templates. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse. TFD is not supposed to be a vote. Most 'keep' voters just joined the pileon and didn't specify a reason. The 'delete' voters had two solid arguments that nobody had a meaningful rebuttal to. 1) It is a fork. If you don't like a template, edit it, do not fork. And 2) It breaks fair use. There are legal problems with the way this template uses images. Legal concerns trump consensus. Radiant_>|< 01:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Most keep votes were agreeing with the disagreement over fair-use. Just because they chose not to comment doesn't immediately invalidate their voice; I take such votes as indicating that everything said up till their vote already addressed their points better than they could. As for forking, it's fully compatible with {{Album infobox}} (hence why a simple redirect was even possible as a stop-gap solution). And legal concerns do not trump consensus if there's no consensus about the legal concerns. That's circular logic. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Legal concerns would trump consensus if the consensus were openly defiant or ignorant of copyright law. However, although I am no IP expert, I take the informed view that fair use applies here. The image (at low resolution) is used only to direct the searcher to an encyclopedic article about the album. If anything, this innocently promotes the album; the character of the use is, in this case, so intermingled with the public commentary permitted under the fair use doctrine that I cannot imagine an infringement action being brought, or succeeding. This case is easily distinguished from claims of fair use on user-pages, which claims are asinine. Xoloz 05:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse. Fork templates cause a lot of headaches.. we made the right decision. Rhobite 00:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse per Rhobite, Radiant. There's also an overwhelming preference/consensus demonstrated by the people who create album articles, better than 10:1. Monicasdude 04:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, we should stop bloody gathering consensuses, then, if nobody's willing to abide by them. That would also solve a lot of the vandalism problems (makes note to suggest rigid hierarchy model sometime)--Agamemnon2 10:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

2005-12-22

Various stub template redirects

These were all listed on WP:SFD, despite WP:RFD being the palce to go for redirects. The SFD people in general dislike redirects that may be useful but do not follow their conventions. (Furthermore, the ensuing redirect is deleted by default when a stub template is moved, also in defiance of common sense.)

Note: I would just re-create these, as I don't need anything actually undeleted, but they would just be speedied again and eventually protected blank. (Edit: I have re-created them, so we can see the idiocy in action.)

This is a very incomplete list of these redirects.

• {{Bike-stub}} → {{Cycling-stub}} (protected blank!)
• {{NYCS stub}} → {{NYCS-stub}}
• {{Us-rail-stub}} → {{US-rail-stub}}
• {{US-street-stub}} → {{US-road-stub}}
• {{Musicbio-stub}} → {{Music-bio-stub}}

Finally, I do not believe these give any increased server load, unlike meta-templates, due to being redirects. If you click edit on a page that uses a template redirect, only the actual name shows up below the edit box. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 16:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, for the good reasons explained on WP:SFD. This is part of a campaign by SPUI against WP:SFD as a whole, apparently because his opinion is in the minority there. See also his recent attempt to delete the entire process. Radiant_>|< 18:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per wise Radiant. Xoloz 00:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete I see no reason why useful redirects should be deleted. Demi /_C 01:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, validly deleted in process. Just use plain {{stub}} if you don't like being forced into typing evil CamelCase names. —Cryptic (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I do use plain {{stub}}, but it would be nice if I could use the "proper" stub template. I have been accused of disruption - by an admin - for using {{stub}}. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • (I'm not sure how I missed that humongous link in your sig until after I posted the above.) —Cryptic (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't understand. Are you saying it's more important to keep these redirects deleted for the sake of consistency than to have properly-categorized and notified stubs? Demi /_C 01:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • No, I'm saying that since the stubsorters enjoy making it so hard for normal people to do it, we should just let them happily sort away on their own. —Cryptic (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I'll second that. Stubsorting is a thankless job, and the strange gnomes fine users :) who accomplish it should have some deference for expertise and effort -- I just use "stub," and I don't mind at all. Xoloz 13:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. These were deleted out of process, since redirects are supposed to be deleted on WP:RFD, and the decisions are thus not valid. I don't see the point of making things difficult just for the hell of it. - ulayiti (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, and by the way, the person of the nominator is not a valid reason to vote against a nomination. - ulayiti (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This is simply wrong. You might as well state that templates and categories should always be deleted on TFD and CFD respectively. SFD was created to deal with stub issues and that apparently includes redirects. Radiant_>|< 10:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
      • SFD was created so that stub categories and stub templates could be deleted within the same process, so that there wouldn't be cases where only one or the other was deleted. This mandate applies to redirects only so far as the redirects point to templates or categories that are voted to be deleted anyway. Misplaced Pages:Redirect explicitly says that users should avoid deleting redirects if they help in accidental linking and/or are found useful by someone. - ulayiti (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Of course, now categories can now be speedied if they were populated solely by a template, so most of the justification for WP:SFD has been obviated anyway. —Cryptic (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Here we go with the re-deletions, once again out of process:

  23:31, 23 December 2005 Grutness deleted "Template:Us-rail-stub" (speedy deletion of formerly deleted re-creation by User:SPUI)

• --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Also note that a lot of these redirects have been recreated- and according to the above I suspect they were deleted. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete as above. —Locke Cole 11:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete per ulayiti. Not only were they deleted out of process. It's just plain nonsensical to make it harder to find the correct stub template. Logical redirects should stand to make stub sorting easier. - Mgm| 12:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • As stated above, this allegation of being out-of-process is incorrect; WP:NOT a bureaucracy. Radiant_>|< 10:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Also WP:NOT an anarchy. If you can have redirects deleted in various places and with various criteria for deletion, you've got a problem on your hands. —Locke Cole 11:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete. I can't see why anyone could be bothered by variations with and without a hyphen. It doesn't have to be just one and only one version. -- Eddie
• Undelete. Obvious error by the deletion process here; harmless redirects should not be deleted. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete And speedy-keep stub template redirects that differ only in capitalization, spacing, or hyphenation, and anything else that might help non-experts sort stubs. Too many times I've inadvertantly left a red link at the bottom of a stub page due to unexpected and/or inconsistant naming conventions. I typically give up after clicking the preview button 3 times and not finding a valid stub type. Shouldn't the stub folks want it to be easier for others to help them? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 11:14, Dec. 26, 2005
• Overturn and undelete. This is the sort of situation in which I ordinarily would be arguing against the bureaucracy of blindly following "process," even when it defies common sense. In this case, however, the deletions were out-of-process; redirects fall under the jurisdiction of RfD, and there's absolutely no logical reason why the deletion of stub redirects should be handled at SfD (notwithstanding their instructions). As for the issue of common sense, I can't imagine why anyone would want to eliminate these harmless/useful redirects. Just last week, I couldn't remember what the naming convention was, and I didn't guess the correct spelling of a stub template ({{music-stub}}) until my third try. At the time, it occurred to me that redirects from the other obvious names ({{musicstub}} and {{music stub}}) would have been handy. I find it very difficult to believe that the regular stub-sorters would actually want to make it more difficult for "outsiders" to help, but I'm struggling to find another explanation for these deletions. —David Levy 16:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - For the interested among you, there is an ongoing discussion about the issue of stub redirects and how to address them at Misplaced Pages talk:Redirects for deletion. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 17:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete for those who still wish to use them. I must say I'm surprised that the Depredations of the Evil Stub Cabal are finally starting to generate some real backlash, even though I'm sure these would all just be deleted again if relisted at WP:SFD. Regardless, I know I'm through with jumping through arbitrary hoops and will still just be using plain {{stub}}; the whole stubsorting project is just a crutch to tide us over until meta:Category math is a reality. —Cryptic (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse decision (keep all deleted). IMO SFD is ther proper place for dealing with stub template redirects, just as TfD normaly deals with ordinarly template redirects. This is actually more important, because use of redirs that do not follow standard stub naming conventiosn (which have consensus support) makes it harder for to see and use those conventions, and damges the project as a whole. The appropriateness or otherwise of stub template redirs is thus best addressed by SfD, not RfD. DES 08:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• In terms of closing this, the numbers fall just short of a 3/4 threshold to undelete them outright. So I'm suppose to undelete and relist them on the relevant process. However, it is entirely unclear where I should relist them, that being the core of the problem. I see that two of them have been recreated and not challenged; that lends weight to the undeletion argument. Since DRV is not the place to determine policy, I'm going to undelete them and leave the relisting to those thrashing out the policy on where that relisting should take place. -Splash 23:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • And they've already been speedy deleted - what the fuck? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Argh, not again. Undelete and relist on RFD. Titoxd 05:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I've undeleted their history. Someone who actually wants them deleted can list them on WP:RFD. —Cryptic (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
      • They've been listed on SFD again :\ --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Which is where they should be listed. RfD is for article redirects, SfD is for stub redirects. And the last time I checked, these five were stub redirects. Aecis 18:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
          • But that is the entire controversy-whether to nominate them at RFD or SFD. Titoxd 21:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)