Wikipedia:Deletion review: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:57, 31 December 2005

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

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

Shortcut

WP:DELREVD

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review


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

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

The people there were arguing is was redundant, not un-notable... WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 08:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Our policy/decisions should not be bound by links from outside. Keep Deleted --Improv 08:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted - the article was not so IMPORTANT as ACTUAL. was. Kirils 08:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/Undelete New Info Mike 11:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
???? Uhm... is there an option for a cut and paste of deleted content to the Sep11 wiki? ALKIVAR™ 13:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An undeletion just long enough for it to be transwikied seems the proper thing to do. —Cryptic (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Endorse Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CommandN. Please don't list things here merely because you disagree with an AFD outcome. R adiant _>|< 18:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse/Keep deleted Nomination simply makes no actionable claims -- no evidence of process flaw or new information. Xoloz 19:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep Deleted. No new information. "I didn't get the chance to vote" is not a reason to re-run the AfD. android 79 19:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Radiant. I see nothing wrong with the outcome, as most of those "keeps" were from obvious meats. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 19:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia deletion policy (i.e. the article received more "Keep" votes than "Delete" votes [hardly a rough consensus]).

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 Wikipedia: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 ^{T | @ | C} 05:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Note that Brighting, Image:Bradjesnessc1.jpg, and Image:Bradjesnessc2.jpg were re-created as well. —Cryptic (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD is Wikipedia: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)[reply]
Keep Deleted valid AFD, most of the supports were annons that their vote didn't count. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2005-12-29

Template:Album infobox 2

TfD here: Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]

2005-12-28

Gojin Motors

AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gojin Motors

This was deleted as a "local business" when in fact its a major distributor in a large economy, as demonstrated by the media coverage. Kappa 19:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa's correct. This is not a "car dealership," in the normal meaning of that term -- it is a South Korea distributor. Nomination was demonstrably flawed, and Kappa's info (provided during the debate), was not sufficiently accounted for, although JIP tried his best. Without disrespect to JIP, Undelete and relist for a consensus in full consideration of Kappa's evidence. Xoloz 19:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I need to find some more links. Here's one which gives the creation of the company as part of the "main history of imported cars" in Korea. [1] Kappa 19:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete, AfD came to inappropriate conclusion. No need to relist. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article's full content was "Gojin Motors, a Korea's Automobile sales company, licenced by Audi and Volkswagen. It was established in 1998.", a see also section, an external link, and three stub templates. It says nothing to disprove ApolloBoy's initial judgement, doesn't even have two complete sentences, and is nearly a speedy for having little context. Writing a full stub there would have been less effort than bringing this review. —Cryptic (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It was deleted for the topic's alleged lack of notability, so I couldn't just recreate it. Kappa 20:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and relist - flawed AfD discussion failed to take notice of Kappa's evidence, additional evidence of notability has come to light since AfD discussion closed. --- Charles Stewart 19:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete, no need to relist. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Two reasons, for the record, that I really think this should be relisted: 1) Although Kappa's evidence convinced me, I always favor full hearings; 2)It will help the regular visitors at AfD (who might not visit DRV) to see that taking account of new evidence is a necessary part of the deletion process. Xoloz 00:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - A third reason is that AfD is a more permanent record than deletion review (it consists of spearate transcluded pages that are not deleted when the process is over). With the nice side-effect of fewer CSD G4's --- Charles Stewart 02:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist one of those rare cases that fall through the procedural cracks, as it were WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 00:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist I think Xoloz makes a good point about demonstrating the taking-into-account of new evidence and reconsideration of first judgment. The Literate Engineer 01:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2005-12-27

Wikimongering

AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimongering

This was speedied within a couple minutes of its listing at AFD - before anyone was able to vote on it. The AFD page was not closed until several minutes there after. Also, no reason was given in the deletion edit summaries for why this article was speedied. Later, a reason was given on the AFD page, and this referred to a discussion which had taken place on IRC. Now for all I know, this article may well have been deserving of a quick deletion, but I'm not happy with the proccess that occured here. I think if an article lands at AFD, the administrator should wait at least ten minutes or so to give people a chance to look at and vote on the article before speedy-deleting it. Also, a reason should always be immediately cited for why it was speedied. Blackcats 08:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also the related article Wikimongerer which was speedy-deleted at the same time and for the same alleged reasons

This is an interesting case. I think that both these articles were obviously deletable as dicdefs and neologisms. The comments made at time of deletion allege that these pages were attack pages. Being an attack page is speedy-deletable; being a dicdef and/or a neologism is not. Personally, I fail to see any personal attacks in these pages. (This finding modified. See below.) They are reasonably neutral attempts to define a term. The only place that I could find an attack was at special:Undelete/talk:wikimongerer but even that was not a personal attack. The talk page might have been speedy-deletable as vandalism but that does not inherently poison the other pages.
In the aborted AFD discussion, FCYTravis cites an IRC conversation as justification for the decision to consider these as "attack" pages. I am extremely uncomfortable with that decision. IRC is not part of the regular deletion process. Use of IRC smacks of an attempt to make an end-run around the regular process. If an article is speedy-deletable, that decision must be patently obvious from the article alone. We deliberately wrote the speedy-deletion cases to be very narrow and so that the decision would be obvious to any admin. If the decision requires outside evidence, the evidence should be presented and weighed during an AFD decision. Based on the available evidence, I believe that the speedy-deletions were out-of-process. So where does that leave me?
I endorse the deletion decision but only because they were such obvious deletes that they have no chance of surviving an AFD decision (dicdef and neologism). My decision is made with strong prejudice against ever using IRC as a justification for deletion decisions in the future. Due process sometimes feels like bureaucracy but serves a purpose. It keeps us honest and ensures that the decisions are as fair and balanced as we can make them. Rossami (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rossami. In particular, while not-very-public information might be relevant to determining whether the purpose of a page is an attack or a hoax, it is very problematic to use this kind of information as the justification for a speedy. --- Charles Stewart 15:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
endorse and keep deleted While I think that using IRC evidence as grounds for a speedy is unusual, and not something I'd like to see done often, I'd prefer to assume good faith here. While there's no evidence that the admin was correct in speedying, there's no evidence that they were incorrect, either, and thus assuming good faith wins by default. Regarding the fate of the article, it should remain deleted on the grounds that, simply put, it would not survive an AFD under any circumstances. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - no problem with using IRC as a place to get a quick consensus of fellow editors or to find something out. Phil Sandifer 15:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/relist I'll go against the grain here as an expression of my strong distress at the use of IRC as a deletion debate forum. No valid AfD held, hence invalid deletion. Xoloz 15:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. This was a blatant attack page on a wikipedian and validly speedied. There is no point in letting these things hang about because someone sent them to AfD instead of tagging {d}. As for the IRC, no, IRC should never be a replacement for an AfD debate - but it is perfectly valid for an admin to get a second opinion on the validity of using a speedy (although it was unneccessary in this clear case).--Doc ^ask? 16:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rossami was unable to find evidence it was an attack, which Wikipedian is being attacked here? - Mgm|^(talk) 00:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're an admin. Look at the article]. See where that wikilink points. —Cryptic (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - If that's an attack page, it's a subtle one. I don't know that I'd get very upset if the worst that someone could say about me was that I have an "irritating habit". I'll admit, however, that I did overlook the link on the page. Interestingly, no such link or personal reference was on any version of the Wikimongerer article which was speedy-deleted (repeatedly) using the same justification. Rossami (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted thought it should be overturned, but then I looked closely and realized it was an attack against This user. Valid Speedy, and good call too! WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 00:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, egregious attack page. —Cryptic (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Per IRC" was to indicate that it was made known to me by the user in question, on IRC, that he had personal knowledge that the page was created by someone he knew as an attack page. I examined it, found it to have zero possible redeeming encyclopedic value, determined that it was a complete and utter protologism (zero Googles) and speedied it as something someone made up in school one day. My fault for not making that clearer in the deletion. FCYTravis 08:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - A6 G1 DicDef garbage. That said, the decision to delete should not have come from IRC (which is a very, very BAD thing), but from the page itself, and the reason should have been put on the AfD immediately. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, proper speedy, attack pages don't need to go to AfD. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as a common-sense speedy. However, an alleged off-wiki conversation is most certainly not an adequate explanation for a deletion. Friday (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, as it is an attack page. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
overtutn and relist This is not an attack pafe in any sensible meaning of that term, and does not come under any of the WP:CSD. Deletion was out of process. Wether this is at all likely to survive AfD is not relevnt to speedy decisions. DES ^(talk) 08:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infosecpedia

AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infosecpedia, closed 12/24.

So, this article is about an online encyclopedia and handbook and wiki. It utterly fails WP:WEB by even the most liberal standards. It has accrued a grand total of 256 articles accross seven years. And in the AfD, an admin on Infosecpedia admitted "The site is not (IMO) notable enough to warrant an entry, and it's pretty much unmaintained now (have a look at recent changes -- pretty much all spam)." It has a claim to fame in that Jimbo had something to do with it at one point... but the site is dead, tiny, and unvisited. The problem occured, initially with my half-assed nomination - hell, quarter-assed. Needless to say, I should have put all the above into the nom, but I just put "NN website," which was 1) true, and 2) hideously inadequate. That wasn't the only AfD I phoned in that day, for which I have made ammends. Anyway, the AfD was also bogged down by a user that was voting more against me, then looking at the page itself, and my frustrations with that user. Throw in militant inclusionists ("It exists"!... angry sigh), it was a mess for which I take the blame, and something got lost: that this article does not meet our standards of inclusion by a long shot. There is nothing necessarily wrong with Titoxd's decision, and I am thus not asking for it to be overturned (deleted), but overturned (relisted), with a proper nomination, which, pending the discussion here, I will fill out myself. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is an extraordinarily compelling DRV nomination. Personally, I lean toward keeping the site, because it has an Interwiki link and it is conceivable it might appear here. I do think the article should be updated to mention the thing is moribund, of course. Mr Gustafson's mea culpa is appreciated, there is new information here, and the debate was not ideal. I endorse the closure without prejudice against immediate renom. I do think someone other than Mr. Gustafson should handle renominating, however, to avoid unneeded negative animus from the article's supporters. Xoloz 15:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Uphold AfD discussion - I sympathasise with Jeffrey's frustration, but the most cogent of the above facts did in fact come out in the AfD discussion. Had I participated in that AfD, I would have voted to redirect to List of wikis, where the site is mentioned. I'd be perfectly happy to see the site relisted for AfD, and I don't see why Jeffrey shouldn't try again: it was a no consensus, after all.--- Charles Stewart 18:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 23:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the closure without prejudice against immediate renom as per Xoloz above. - ulayiti (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (duh :P), but no problems against a renom, as Xoloz has indicated. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2005-12-26

The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy

This discussion has become very long. In order to improve the performance of the page and to reduce the incidence of edit-conflicts, this discussion has been moved to a sub-page. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy to read and participate in the discussion. Thank you. Rossami (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2005-12-25

Homespring

This was deleted about a year ago because the language was more or less dead. I have written a new, much faster, interpreter and a graphical debugger here. I have also improved the documentation to the point where I think it is usable. I believe that homespring is now more alive than most of the other esoteric languages that _do_ have pages so it would be nice to have it undeleted as a starting point for further edits/revisions. 203.173.0.180 00:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homespring

Keep deleted, rewriting the language does not change its lack of notability. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted per Zoe. Changes to the language are not convincing new evidence; only an increase in its notability, hopefully supported by sources, would be grounds for a new debate. Xoloz 05:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. R adiant _>|< 18:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted per wise Radiant. Xoloz 00:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete I see no reason why useful redirects should be deleted. Demi ^T/_C 01:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - (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)[reply]
- 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 ^T/_C 01:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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)~~~~[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. R adiant _>|< 10:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Overturn and Undelete as above. —Locke Cole 11:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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|^(talk) 12:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, this allegation of being out-of-process is incorrect; WP:NOT a bureaucracy. R adiant _>|< 10:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment - For the interested among you, there is an ongoing discussion about the issue of stub redirects and how to address them at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for deletion. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 17:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^(talk) 08:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Recently concluded~~
Shpants - History merge up until 12-2-2005 with Three quarter pants and then delete Shpants. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 08:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gtplanet - Undeleted and relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gtplanet (2nd nomination). 21:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Halo.Bungie.Org - Undeleted and relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halo.Bungie.Org (2nd nomination). 21:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Mariah Stanley - Original deletion endorsed; different recreation now up for AfD here. 21:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:User Capitalist - Though original speedy was not in error, template undeleted as useful. 17:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

OGTV2 - From Tha Hood to Hollywood - Original deletion endorsed. "Recreation" failed at AfD, article again deleted. 17:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Shpants - non-standard resolution. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Shpants 07:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ayu Khandro - Original speedy deletion endorsed, different recreation made, recreation now under new AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayu Khandro. 17:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The Gay Ghost, The Next Gay Ghost, and The Two Gay Ghosts - Kept deleted. 17:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Fortune Lounge Group - Deletion endorsed; new recreation made during the debate without objection. 17:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Webcest - Kept deleted. 17:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Brian Peppers - recreated while under debate here, kept at new AfD. 17:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Bradley (Codename: Kids Next Door) - Speedy restored as clear deletion mistake. 17:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Battle_of_Uhud - Speedy restored to an unvandalized version. 17:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Cursing Sahaba is Kufr (Sunni doctrine) - Kept deleted, copyright violation. 17:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Arthur Prieston - Kept deleted, with the caveat that undeletion may occur if copyright release is properly given. 17:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

James S. Putnam - Speedy deletion overturned; subsequently failed AfD, and was deleted. 17:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

2011 Atlantic hurricane season - Kept deleted. 17:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Bankable star - Undeleted in light of a rewrite. Relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bankable star (2nd nomination) 13:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Harry Roper - Speedy deletion overturned. Listed for regular AFD process at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Roper. 11:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

SpongeBob SquarePants: Collapse! - Keep closure endorsed, without prejudice to renomination. 14:59, 24 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 Wikipedia talk:Administrators. Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.
~~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~~

Shortcut
WP:DELREVD
~~Instructions~~
~~Before listing a review request, please:~~
Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.

Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
~~Steps to list a new deletion review~~

If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead.

1.
Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:

{{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~

2.
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~

3.
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 May 19}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

4.
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:

If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 May 19}}</noinclude>

If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 May 19|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

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

Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or

List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or

Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or

Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.
~~Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:~~
*'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~

*'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~

*'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~

*'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~

*'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~

*'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~

*'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
~~Temporary undeletion~~
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
~~Closing reviews~~
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.
If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.

If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.
Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)
~~Speedy closes~~
Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion

Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.

Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).

Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".
~~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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
~~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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
The people there were arguing is was redundant, not un-notable... WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 08:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy/decisions should not be bound by links from outside. Keep Deleted --Improv 08:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleted - the article was not so IMPORTANT as ACTUAL. was. Kirils 08:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn/Undelete New Info Mike 11:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

???? Uhm... is there an option for a cut and paste of deleted content to the Sep11 wiki? ALKIVAR™ 13:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An undeletion just long enough for it to be transwikied seems the proper thing to do. —Cryptic (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
~~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)[reply]
Endorse Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CommandN. Please don't list things here merely because you disagree with an AFD outcome. R adiant _>|< 18:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse/Keep deleted Nomination simply makes no actionable claims -- no evidence of process flaw or new information. Xoloz 19:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep Deleted. No new information. "I didn't get the chance to vote" is not a reason to re-run the AfD. android 79 19:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Radiant. I see nothing wrong with the outcome, as most of those "keeps" were from obvious meats. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 19:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~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 Wikipedia deletion policy (i.e. the article received more "Keep" votes than "Delete" votes [hardly a rough consensus]).
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 Wikipedia: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 ^{T | @ | C} 05:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Note that Brighting, Image:Bradjesnessc1.jpg, and Image:Bradjesnessc2.jpg were re-created as well. —Cryptic (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD is Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Keep Deleted valid AFD, most of the supports were annons that their vote didn't count. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~2005-12-29~~
~~Template:Album infobox 2~~
~~TfD here: Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. R adiant _>|< 01:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
~~2005-12-28~~
~~Gojin Motors~~
~~AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gojin Motors~~
~~This was deleted as a "local business" when in fact its a major distributor in a large economy, as demonstrated by the media coverage. Kappa 19:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Kappa's correct. This is not a "car dealership," in the normal meaning of that term -- it is a South Korea distributor. Nomination was demonstrably flawed, and Kappa's info (provided during the debate), was not sufficiently accounted for, although JIP tried his best. Without disrespect to JIP, Undelete and relist for a consensus in full consideration of Kappa's evidence. Xoloz 19:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I need to find some more links. Here's one which gives the creation of the company as part of the "main history of imported cars" in Korea. [2] Kappa 19:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete, AfD came to inappropriate conclusion. No need to relist. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article's full content was "Gojin Motors, a Korea's Automobile sales company, licenced by Audi and Volkswagen. It was established in 1998.", a see also section, an external link, and three stub templates. It says nothing to disprove ApolloBoy's initial judgement, doesn't even have two complete sentences, and is nearly a speedy for having little context. Writing a full stub there would have been less effort than bringing this review. —Cryptic (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted for the topic's alleged lack of notability, so I couldn't just recreate it. Kappa 20:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete and relist - flawed AfD discussion failed to take notice of Kappa's evidence, additional evidence of notability has come to light since AfD discussion closed. --- Charles Stewart 19:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete, no need to relist. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Two reasons, for the record, that I really think this should be relisted: 1) Although Kappa's evidence convinced me, I always favor full hearings; 2)It will help the regular visitors at AfD (who might not visit DRV) to see that taking account of new evidence is a necessary part of the deletion process. Xoloz 00:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A third reason is that AfD is a more permanent record than deletion review (it consists of spearate transcluded pages that are not deleted when the process is over). With the nice side-effect of fewer CSD G4's --- Charles Stewart 02:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist one of those rare cases that fall through the procedural cracks, as it were WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 00:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist I think Xoloz makes a good point about demonstrating the taking-into-account of new evidence and reconsideration of first judgment. The Literate Engineer 01:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~2005-12-27~~
~~Wikimongering~~
~~AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimongering~~
This was speedied within a couple minutes of its listing at AFD - before anyone was able to vote on it. The AFD page was not closed until several minutes there after. Also, no reason was given in the deletion edit summaries for why this article was speedied. Later, a reason was given on the AFD page, and this referred to a discussion which had taken place on IRC. Now for all I know, this article may well have been deserving of a quick deletion, but I'm not happy with the proccess that occured here. I think if an article lands at AFD, the administrator should wait at least ten minutes or so to give people a chance to look at and vote on the article before speedy-deleting it. Also, a reason should always be immediately cited for why it was speedied. Blackcats 08:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~See also the related article Wikimongerer which was speedy-deleted at the same time and for the same alleged reasons~~
This is an interesting case. I think that both these articles were obviously deletable as dicdefs and neologisms. The comments made at time of deletion allege that these pages were attack pages. Being an attack page is speedy-deletable; being a dicdef and/or a neologism is not. Personally, I fail to see any personal attacks in these pages. (This finding modified. See below.) They are reasonably neutral attempts to define a term. The only place that I could find an attack was at special:Undelete/talk:wikimongerer but even that was not a personal attack. The talk page might have been speedy-deletable as vandalism but that does not inherently poison the other pages.
In the aborted AFD discussion, FCYTravis cites an IRC conversation as justification for the decision to consider these as "attack" pages. I am extremely uncomfortable with that decision. IRC is not part of the regular deletion process. Use of IRC smacks of an attempt to make an end-run around the regular process. If an article is speedy-deletable, that decision must be patently obvious from the article alone. We deliberately wrote the speedy-deletion cases to be very narrow and so that the decision would be obvious to any admin. If the decision requires outside evidence, the evidence should be presented and weighed during an AFD decision. Based on the available evidence, I believe that the speedy-deletions were out-of-process. So where does that leave me?
I endorse the deletion decision but only because they were such obvious deletes that they have no chance of surviving an AFD decision (dicdef and neologism). My decision is made with strong prejudice against ever using IRC as a justification for deletion decisions in the future. Due process sometimes feels like bureaucracy but serves a purpose. It keeps us honest and ensures that the decisions are as fair and balanced as we can make them. Rossami (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rossami. In particular, while not-very-public information might be relevant to determining whether the purpose of a page is an attack or a hoax, it is very problematic to use this kind of information as the justification for a speedy. --- Charles Stewart 15:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

endorse and keep deleted While I think that using IRC evidence as grounds for a speedy is unusual, and not something I'd like to see done often, I'd prefer to assume good faith here. While there's no evidence that the admin was correct in speedying, there's no evidence that they were incorrect, either, and thus assuming good faith wins by default. Regarding the fate of the article, it should remain deleted on the grounds that, simply put, it would not survive an AFD under any circumstances. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted - no problem with using IRC as a place to get a quick consensus of fellow editors or to find something out. Phil Sandifer 15:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn/relist I'll go against the grain here as an expression of my strong distress at the use of IRC as a deletion debate forum. No valid AfD held, hence invalid deletion. Xoloz 15:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. This was a blatant attack page on a wikipedian and validly speedied. There is no point in letting these things hang about because someone sent them to AfD instead of tagging {d}. As for the IRC, no, IRC should never be a replacement for an AfD debate - but it is perfectly valid for an admin to get a second opinion on the validity of using a speedy (although it was unneccessary in this clear case).--Doc ^ask? 16:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rossami was unable to find evidence it was an attack, which Wikipedian is being attacked here? - Mgm|^(talk) 00:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're an admin. Look at the article]. See where that wikilink points. —Cryptic (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If that's an attack page, it's a subtle one. I don't know that I'd get very upset if the worst that someone could say about me was that I have an "irritating habit". I'll admit, however, that I did overlook the link on the page. Interestingly, no such link or personal reference was on any version of the Wikimongerer article which was speedy-deleted (repeatedly) using the same justification. Rossami (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleted thought it should be overturned, but then I looked closely and realized it was an attack against This user. Valid Speedy, and good call too! WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 00:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted, egregious attack page. —Cryptic (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Per IRC" was to indicate that it was made known to me by the user in question, on IRC, that he had personal knowledge that the page was created by someone he knew as an attack page. I examined it, found it to have zero possible redeeming encyclopedic value, determined that it was a complete and utter protologism (zero Googles) and speedied it as something someone made up in school one day. My fault for not making that clearer in the deletion. FCYTravis 08:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted - A6 G1 DicDef garbage. That said, the decision to delete should not have come from IRC (which is a very, very BAD thing), but from the page itself, and the reason should have been put on the AfD immediately. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted, proper speedy, attack pages don't need to go to AfD. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as a common-sense speedy. However, an alleged off-wiki conversation is most certainly not an adequate explanation for a deletion. Friday (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted, as it is an attack page. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

overtutn and relist This is not an attack pafe in any sensible meaning of that term, and does not come under any of the WP:CSD. Deletion was out of process. Wether this is at all likely to survive AfD is not relevnt to speedy decisions. DES ^(talk) 08:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Infosecpedia~~
~~AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infosecpedia, closed 12/24.~~
So, this article is about an online encyclopedia and handbook and wiki. It utterly fails WP:WEB by even the most liberal standards. It has accrued a grand total of 256 articles accross seven years. And in the AfD, an admin on Infosecpedia admitted "The site is not (IMO) notable enough to warrant an entry, and it's pretty much unmaintained now (have a look at recent changes -- pretty much all spam)." It has a claim to fame in that Jimbo had something to do with it at one point... but the site is dead, tiny, and unvisited. The problem occured, initially with my half-assed nomination - hell, quarter-assed. Needless to say, I should have put all the above into the nom, but I just put "NN website," which was 1) true, and 2) hideously inadequate. That wasn't the only AfD I phoned in that day, for which I have made ammends. Anyway, the AfD was also bogged down by a user that was voting more against me, then looking at the page itself, and my frustrations with that user. Throw in militant inclusionists ("It exists"!... angry sigh), it was a mess for which I take the blame, and something got lost: that this article does not meet our standards of inclusion by a long shot. There is nothing necessarily wrong with Titoxd's decision, and I am thus not asking for it to be overturned (deleted), but overturned (relisted), with a proper nomination, which, pending the discussion here, I will fill out myself. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is an extraordinarily compelling DRV nomination. Personally, I lean toward keeping the site, because it has an Interwiki link and it is conceivable it might appear here. I do think the article should be updated to mention the thing is moribund, of course. Mr Gustafson's mea culpa is appreciated, there is new information here, and the debate was not ideal. I endorse the closure without prejudice against immediate renom. I do think someone other than Mr. Gustafson should handle renominating, however, to avoid unneeded negative animus from the article's supporters. Xoloz 15:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uphold AfD discussion - I sympathasise with Jeffrey's frustration, but the most cogent of the above facts did in fact come out in the AfD discussion. Had I participated in that AfD, I would have voted to redirect to List of wikis, where the site is mentioned. I'd be perfectly happy to see the site relisted for AfD, and I don't see why Jeffrey shouldn't try again: it was a no consensus, after all.--- Charles Stewart 18:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 23:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the closure without prejudice against immediate renom as per Xoloz above. - ulayiti (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure (duh :P), but no problems against a renom, as Xoloz has indicated. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~2005-12-26~~
~~The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy~~
This discussion has become very long. In order to improve the performance of the page and to reduce the incidence of edit-conflicts, this discussion has been moved to a sub-page. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy to read and participate in the discussion. Thank you. Rossami (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~2005-12-25~~
~~Homespring~~
This was deleted about a year ago because the language was more or less dead. I have written a new, much faster, interpreter and a graphical debugger here. I have also improved the documentation to the point where I think it is usable. I believe that homespring is now more alive than most of the other esoteric languages that _do_ have pages so it would be nice to have it undeleted as a starting point for further edits/revisions. 203.173.0.180 00:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homespring~~
Keep deleted, rewriting the language does not change its lack of notability. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleted per Zoe. Changes to the language are not convincing new evidence; only an increase in its notability, hopefully supported by sources, would be grounds for a new debate. Xoloz 05:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~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)[reply]
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. R adiant _>|< 18:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleted per wise Radiant. Xoloz 00:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete I see no reason why useful redirects should be deleted. Demi ^T/_C 01:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]

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 ^T/_C 01:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)~~~~[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. R adiant _>|< 10:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Overturn and Undelete as above. —Locke Cole 11:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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|^(talk) 12:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, this allegation of being out-of-process is incorrect; WP:NOT a bureaucracy. R adiant _>|< 10:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment - For the interested among you, there is an ongoing discussion about the issue of stub redirects and how to address them at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for deletion. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 17:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^(talk) 08:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Recently concluded~~
Shpants - History merge up until 12-2-2005 with Three quarter pants and then delete Shpants. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 08:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gtplanet - Undeleted and relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gtplanet (2nd nomination). 21:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Halo.Bungie.Org - Undeleted and relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halo.Bungie.Org (2nd nomination). 21:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Mariah Stanley - Original deletion endorsed; different recreation now up for AfD here. 21:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:User Capitalist - Though original speedy was not in error, template undeleted as useful. 17:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

OGTV2 - From Tha Hood to Hollywood - Original deletion endorsed. "Recreation" failed at AfD, article again deleted. 17:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Shpants - non-standard resolution. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Shpants 07:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ayu Khandro - Original speedy deletion endorsed, different recreation made, recreation now under new AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayu Khandro. 17:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The Gay Ghost, The Next Gay Ghost, and The Two Gay Ghosts - Kept deleted. 17:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Fortune Lounge Group - Deletion endorsed; new recreation made during the debate without objection. 17:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Webcest - Kept deleted. 17:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Brian Peppers - recreated while under debate here, kept at new AfD. 17:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Bradley (Codename: Kids Next Door) - Speedy restored as clear deletion mistake. 17:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Battle_of_Uhud - Speedy restored to an unvandalized version. 17:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Cursing Sahaba is Kufr (Sunni doctrine) - Kept deleted, copyright violation. 17:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Arthur Prieston - Kept deleted, with the caveat that undeletion may occur if copyright release is properly given. 17:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

James S. Putnam - Speedy deletion overturned; subsequently failed AfD, and was deleted. 17:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

2011 Atlantic hurricane season - Kept deleted. 17:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Bankable star - Undeleted in light of a rewrite. Relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bankable star (2nd nomination) 13:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Harry Roper - Speedy deletion overturned. Listed for regular AFD process at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Roper. 11:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

SpongeBob SquarePants: Collapse! - Keep closure endorsed, without prejudice to renomination. 14:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 *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. [[User:Firebug|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. --[[User:W.marsh|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. [[User:Xoloz|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. --[[User:W.marsh|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. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 18:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 ====[[Timeline for missing persons following the September 11, 2001 Attacks]] ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/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
@@ Line 38: / Line 40: @@
 This printed article is kept in the world's academic libraries and a broken Wikipedia link gives an extremely unprofessional impression. For verification, I can email the article to anyone who provides me with their email address on [[user talk:AxelBoldt|my talk page]]. [[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]] 08:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 *The people there were arguing is was redundant, not un-notable... <small>[[User:RN|WhiteNight]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 08:22, 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. [[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]] 18:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 *Our policy/decisions should not be bound by links from outside. '''Keep Deleted''' --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 08:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 *'''Keep Deleted''' - the article was not so IMPORTANT as ACTUAL. was. [[User:Kirils|Kirils]] 08:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)