Dobby & The House Elves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I do not believe this page should be deleted as it satisfies rule number 7 in the notability page which states a band is notable if it Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Dobby & The House Elves HAVE become the most prominent representative of a wizard rock in brisbane, they are also the youngest wizard rock duo. This page has also been accused of only referencing myspace, but they had 2 references that were interviews and another that was their EP, the references to myspace were for the articles pictures. Therefore this article should not have been deleted and the allowance of the re-creation of this article would be appreciated by many. Yolanda-evergeeen (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard rock? Really? ^Avruchtalk 00:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wizard rock. If I may "a notable style or of the local scene". Emphasis added to "or". Thus Harry and the Potters represent the Wizard Rock scene, and say Powderfinger represents Brisbane, but the guideline isn't supposed to provide for the de facto notability of the most prominent band of every genre in every city. Most prominent emo band in Kinshasa, most prominent techno DJ in Des Moines, etc. --JayHenry (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn most recent deletion and unsalt. The most recent deletion was by G4, which doesn't really apply. Although there was an AfD, which was closed in delete, it wasn't deleted because of the AfD, it was deleted (three times) through A7. Most recent version also passes A7, since notability is asserted. Sources aren't that hot, so unless it can be sourced it'll fail an AfD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, just actually looked at their MySpace. No way they're gonna' pass WP:N right now, and, judging by how popular they looked, probably shouldn't be here. Yet, at least. Change to endorse per WP:UCS since it'd never pass an AfD like that and good sources won't be found. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• But Dobby & The House Elves are ALSO The Youngest successfull Wizard rock duo. Which i believe is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yolanda-evergeeen (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite embarrassed to have this information at my fingertips, but I believe that the Hungarian Horntails are the youngest successful Wizard Rock duo. --JayHenry (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• the hungarian horntails are NOT a duo on there myspace it clearly states that there are 3 members , therefore dobby & The House Elves still remain the youngest wizard rock duo. how would I go about sourcing the article better?

• Overturn and send to AfD - G4 should not be used to overturn a speedy delete, A7 should not be used as there is a clear (if somewhat dubious) claim to their significance. I doubt the article will survive AfD on notability and verifability concerns, all articles must be based upon reliable sources, especially those concerning living people. Youngest, best, most prominent, etc. is no substitution for reliable sourcing. Guest9999 (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well the sources are all reliable...how would I improve them? what can I do to get them on wikipedia?

Yolanda x —Preceding Yolanda-evergeeen comment added by Yolanda-evergeeen (talk • contribs) 00:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion as CSD A7. The G4 deletion was incorrectly labelled, but every version of this article clearly meets the A7 criteria: it is an article about a band that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. --Stormie (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. "Dobby & the House elves are two House Elf cousins from brisbane trying to introduce Wizard rock into Australia." Splendid. If they succeed, they may become notable - but since they are apparently about twelve years old, that may take a bit of doing. Unless, of course, the claim that they are house elves can be substantiated from reliable independent sources, that would make them notable. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Operator Please If they were the first underage boy-and-girl house-elf duo trying to bring Wizard rock to Brisbane I'd say we have to overturn. But all-male underage house-elf Wizard rock duos are a dime a dozen in Brisbane. Endorse. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse deletion per Stormie JoshuaZ (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, why G4 was incorrectly used who knows, but still that's not really a good reason to overturn an otherwise obvious A7. RMHED (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• well you can do what you want...but i believe they are pretty relevant..especially in comparison to lots of the pointless stuff you have on here....

• Endorse deletion until reliable sources that assert the subject's notability are found. I have no objection to userfication of the article though, within reason. --Solumeiras (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama media controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I request that the AfD be reopened and the article restored on the grounds that the closing administrator misinterpreted policy and failed to fulfill his responsibility to personally evaluate the strength of argument in favor of his action.

I've had a colloquy with the administrator about this, [1] but he hasn't responded for 36 hours or so, so I think it may not be premature to ask for community input. The subject involves a current event and is receiving ongoing attention not mentioned in the article before its deletion ([2],[3],[4], and, I am sure, others) so I think the work done on this subject ought to be made available to Wikipedia's readers promptly if I am right that it ought to be available at all.

Argument:

1)WP:DRV"Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look." See [5]

2)WP:DRV"Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly..." Yamamoto_Ichiro explained that he closed the AfD as a "POV fork" on the grounds that a rough consensus of the participating editors had reached that conclusion (by my count only 5 of 21 editors "voted" "keep"), and that he could rely on the large disparity in the "vote" for the reliability of the conclusion and need not independently examine the strength of the arguments. Indeed, he wrote, "I don't really know which POV is being advocated myself nor I really care..."

3)WP:GD"Another volunteer (the "closing admin") will review the article, carefully read the AFD discussion, weigh all the facts, evidence and arguments presented and determine if consensus was reached on the fate of the article.<paragraph> The desired standard is rough consensus, not perfect consensus. Please also note that closing admins are expected and required to exercise their judgment in order to make sure that the decision complies with the spirit of all Wikipedia policy and with the project goal. A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached."

4)WP:PRACTICAL: "To [find actual consensus] you actually need to carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves (including any additional concerns that may have been raised along the way), the basis of objection of those who disagree... If you are volunteering to carry out an action on the basis of rough consensus, only this thorough approach is acceptable."(emphasis added)

Although the epithet "POV fork" was thrown about quite freely in the AfD I think it's perfectly clear that the deleted article was nothing of the sort (WP:CFORK: "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines...), that it fit instead all the criteria for WP:SUMMARY style (WP:SPINOUT: "Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others."), and that no coherent argument appealing to policy was made for its deletion. Irregardless, the closure was out of policy and, as the 'policy WP:CON says, "unacceptable" due to the closing admins failure to understand his responsibility to "carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves". And should be reversed. Andyvphil (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion There doesn't seem to be any deficiency of process here. There is no closing rationale, which would probably help in a situation like this, but the consensus did seem to weigh towards the deletion of the article (I'm including those that voted for merging its content). If its a notable facet of the campaign, then it should be included in the campaign article. There is no compelling reason that I can see to have a whole article on just this issue (like any campaign minutiae, it gets huge numbers of mentions way out of proportion to its actual long-term notability). Additionally there is no compelling reason to suggest that the result of the AfD was incorrect based on the arguments presented or the process involved. ^Avruchtalk 00:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yamamoto_Ichiro provided the equivalent of a closing rationale in my colloqy with him on his talk page [6], and I don't see how it "helps" since what it reveals is that he did not evaluate the arguments. As I noted above, the article complied with WP:SS and there was and is coverage of this material in the campaign article. Query: Did you examine the deleted article before reaching your decision that it should have been deleted? Andyvphil (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't, I looked over what you wrote above and the AfD in question. DRV truly is not AfDx2, even though it is often treated that way. I'll take a look at your link and see if the closing rationale provided there alters my decision on this. ^Avruchtalk 14:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Consensus on the AFD appears to be clear that the "controversy" in question (i.e. speculation on whether Barack Obama is a Muslim) is too minor, insignificant, and weakly founded to warrant a separate article. Not every assertion about a major figure requires spin-out, and giving an assertion like this which has few adherents a separate article may give the appearance of it being more significant than it is, violating the NPOV rules on "undue weight". Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"speculation on whether Barack Obama is a Muslim" is a truly eccentric idea that was not the subject, or "'controversy' in question", of the deleted article. Obama has actual connections and experience with Islam, and the controversy is over how this has been misrepresented in the press and by the Obama campaign and by others and over the appropriateness of mentioning the subject at all. This is a the subject of a wealth of RS. But... arguing the merits of the deletion when the text of the article is not available to refer to is not what is appropriate now. The closing admin admitted he found a consensus without following what I've shown above is policy. The AfD should be reopened and if some admin after a decent interval determines that the arguments for WP:WEIGHT have merit he can close it on that basis, hopefully with more than just a vague wave in the direction of the policy's neme, and I can then consider asking for a deletion review depending on the plausibility of his argument. But Yamamoto_Ichiro closed the AfD as "Delete POVFORK" without examining the strength of the arguments. Policy says this is not "acceptable". What part of "unacceptable" am I misunderstanding? Andyvphil (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Decided correctly.A coatrack of miscellaneous accusation in the media, all of them trivial. Particular notable controversies might be worth an article. DGG (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion, valid AFD. This is not AFD2. Nakon 18:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, I thought that was my point. I'm still the only one who seems interested in the fact that the act of closure was performed out of policy. It's looking a lot like AFD1, though, with policies and guidelines and essays being named (most recently "undue weight" and "coatrack") but not actually cited by anyone except me, perhaps because the actual text does not support the desired conclusion. Andyvphil (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Deletion This article was deleted on highly dubious grounds. The principle reason for deletion was that it was a content fork or POV fork of Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008; but neither claim was true, as it contained information which was not contained anywhere else (and is now no longer on Wikipedia). It was split off from the Obama presidential campaign article according to Summary Style, so to claim it was a fork of that article is unreasonable. The deleting admin also cited 'BLP issues'; but this article, at least as I last saw it, went to great lengths to explain that the rumours about Barack Obama were untrue, so I don't see what the issue was there.

This was a notable controversy about an extremely notable person, which received attention from the mainstream media as well as figures like John Stewart and John Kerry[7]; it deserves more than a couple of paragraphs in the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 article, which is what it has been reduced to.

It is true that there were considerably more people calling for deletion than a keep on this article, but AfD is not a vote; admins are supposed to decide on the relative merits of the articles involved, and in this case I believe those calling for a Keep had the considerably stronger arguments. Terraxos (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Terraxos contribution was actually a nomination for undeletion, as he was unaware of this discussion, which I have transferred here and taken the liberty of prefixing with an identification of his evident "vote". It is therefor not a response to my nomination or anything else written in response to my nomination. Andyvphil (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving my comments, I hadn't realised there already was a DRV open on this article. Terraxos (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, correct per policy and per process. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I made a substantive argument that the deletion was out of policy. Is there some reason you don't think I deserve the courtesy of more than airy dismissal? Andyvphil (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your "substantive argument" is arm-waving, whereas WP:BLP is policy. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-*sigh* Please quote something from BLP that this article violates. Andyvphil (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion re WP:BLP and WP:N. What controversy? Nothing on CNN. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on CNN? How about [8]("CNN debunks false report about Obama"), [9]("Obama confronts Muslim rumors"), [10] ("...the most pressure is on Barack Obama. He is aggressively shooting down rumors that he's Muslim, which could hurt him in this conservative Christian stronghold."), etc., etc. [11]("10,700 from cnn.com for Obama Muslim")? And please quote what part of BLP or N you are suggesting was violated by this article. Andyvphil (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • When I said nothing on CNN I didnt mean I had an exhaustive search, merely that I am watching the campaign extensively on CNN (for the first time ever) and I had seen nothing on it. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion was a WP:BLP, WP:COATRACK fork, closing admin made a correct close. Just because you disagree with the deletion doesn't mean you go directly to DRV. 131.94.55.96 (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What step did I omit? My nomination concerned itself solely with process, btw.Andyvphil (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn After reading the AfD and the article I get the disctinct impression 80% of the commenters didn't even bother to read the article (a woefully rampant problem, continuing in the DRV). Someone cries "COATRACK" and the moral panic bandwagon gets rolling (canvassing on the BLP noticeboard seems to have this effect these days). The article, at least the last version which I checked, is in fact quite unambiguous about Obama's religious affiliation and if anything, the media outlets had a reason to complain about the depiction if it weren't accurate. Fwiw, the AfD contains a somewhat merituous argument to merge into the campaign article based on the coverage of similar campaign events (Edwards' haircut), but that precludes deletion. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Renomination OK. I give up. This is the first DRV I've participated in and I didn't realize that the "instructions" were so bogus and that so few would be in the slightest degree concerned that the closing admin hadn't followed policy. Silly me. So, AfD2, then.

First, this is the article we're discussing. The categories have been stripped and there might have been some edits after I stored it and before it was deleted, but this is what we're talking about.

It is not a content fork, it is not a POV fork, it is not a BLP violation, it is not a coatrack, it is not a trivial subject. It collects and organizes what is known about a subject verifiably addressed by a great many RS and presents it in an NPOV fashion.

If anyone wants to actually contest any of these assertions instead of merely announcing their disagreement I will be happy to put their arguments to test.

For now, I will merely note that Google has a version which makes ten suggestions of what you might be looking for based on previous inquiries by others. If you go to [12] and type in "obama" the second, third and eighth suggestions are, as I write, "obama muslim", "obama religion" and "obama's religion". (The tenth, rather amazingly, was "obama wiki" a second ago, although that has changed to... no, there it is again.) The idea that there is room on Wikipedia for, as the DRV immediately above shows, Operator Please, but none for a comprehensive offering on the inquiry "Obama Muslim" is such a amazing assertion that... I'm at a loss for words. Except, that, no, "Rumors that Obama is or was a Muslim are false" is not an answer in the spirit of Wikipedia, where we are supposed to organize what RS have said and let our readers decide what the meaning is. Which is this case is, IMHO, more nuanced than "is" or "is not". Andyvphil (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. The AfD result was solid consensus to delete. --Linda (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"To [find actual consensus] you actually need to carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves..."(policy) Have you done this? What arguments did you find persuasive? Andyvphil (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - consensus isn't simple vote counts; the admin closed the AfD properly. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the two halves of your sentence contradict each other. The closing admin found there was a consensus that the article was a POV fork precisely by a simple vote count, saying he didn't know what POV was being expressed and that he didn't need to. Did you read any of the argument before weighing in? Andyvphil (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn trialsanderrors has summed up my thoughts on this. –Pomte 18:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - Those unfounded, scurrilous allegations do not deserve their own article, much less an article entitled "Controversy." There is no controversy - it's a bunch of patently false right-wing rumor-mongering. FCYTravis (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify: what scurrilous right-wing rumor is supported by this article? Andyvphil (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - valid AfD closure. The stylistic guideline WP:SUMMARY was never intended to facilitate an end run around content policies. Addhoc (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

..I intended it to be a place where people who had questions about rumors they had heard about Senator Obama's background could find reliable information, on both the facts and the rumors themselves. I think this is still a legitimate reason and I hope the article has been useful... Redddogg (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Try AGF, please. Anyway, please specify: what content policy is violated by this article? Andyvphil (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Dill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

No explanation for deletion and unresponsive administrator DavidLDill (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The page was nothing but a link to David Dill's web page. Do you have something to replace it with? --Kbdank71 20:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• A link to your website should be on your userpage (User:DavidLDill) rather than in an encyclopedia article. Speedy deletion valid. Note the deleting admin has been inactive for almost a year. Hut 8.5 20:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Deletion is uncontroversial under A3 (though A1 and A7 probably apply as well). If the subject has been covered in reliable sources a recreation of the article with content would be acceptable but you should probably read WP:COI before you create it. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A link to a website should not be on a userpage if it's being used for advertising purposes. Corvus cornix_talk 00:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, I understand from this that the page had nothing except a link to my web page. But, at one time, there was what appeared to be a legitimate web page about me. Was the above analysis based on the log entry, or actually viewing the deleted page? If the page was actually a link to my page, could it be that the previous version of the page was edited to be a single link? I do not have a copy of the page -- someone else created it. DavidLDill (talk) 07:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the actual deleted page and there was nothing there but the link to your webpage. There was nothing there before that. Just the link. Speedy delete was valid. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all of the deleted edits. There were three: one added the link, the next one modified it, and the last one added a delete tag. There was nothing else. Maybe there was an article under a different title? --Kbdank71 14:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking. DavidLDill (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex (edit | [[Talk:User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The proposed deletion of this page was a subsequent result of the recently-closed DRV. The administrator's rationale for deletion was "CSD G4: Recreation of deleted material", which is inapplicable for CSD at the first point. According to our official policy concerning the appropriateness of userpage and user subpage, if a subpage is a copy of other page, decision of whether this type of content should be included must be made in WP:MFD to counsel community's opinions. Realizing this inaccurate action from admin Jayron32, I restored the page for further discussion occurring on ANI. Soon after my restoration of the page, another admin, User:Jzg, who seems to maintain antipathy towards the Adult-child sex article, claiming it "unacceptable, quickly reverted my revision regardless of WP:WW violation. It should be noted that the content being "PoV-fork" plays substantial role in Jzg's decision to perform unsuitable speedy deletion [13]. Thus I bring the incident here for community's decision on the problem. Cheers. @pple complain 15:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, since so many people alleged the result of the previous DRV as a reason for endorsement of this improper G4, it should be noted that Mackensen, who closed the DRV for Adult-child sex AFD, official stated on his talk page that Any of the folks in this category should be able to help you. in reply to User:Ssbohio's question, expressing his agreement with the article being userfied. @pple complain 05:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. Respectfully, that's a bit of a stretch. Mackensen did not express "his agreement with the article being userfied"... he indicated the content of the article can be made available, in response to this question from SSB: "Can I have the deleted article emailed to me or put in my userspace so I can put any useful content into other articles?". He didn't state whether or not he believes it should be accepted as a titled page maintained in user space. Maybe that's what he meant, but it's not what he wrote. If his opinion on this is important, perhaps it would be good to invite him to comment here; but it's inappropriate to infer what he might state from that informal talk page reply. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He agreed with the userfication of the article. That's very clear. SSB asked him "..or put in my userspace" and he offered no opposition and even indicated that admins could help SSB get the deleted material. SSB gave a clear question and Mackensen answered in a clear manner. That was what he meant, not what you thought. Yes, invite him to comment here if you wish. Any words recorded are appropriate for discussion, regardless of its situation. @pple complain 06:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what he meant, and I don't pretend to; I'm not interpreting his comment one way or the other. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. WP:CSD#G4 says "A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion", since the original article was deleted due to AfD, then the deletion endorsed by DRV, this is such a recreation and a valid G4 deletion. It being in userspace just puts it under another title, but G4 is clear that a recreation under any title is applicable. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 18:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion as it was a copy of a deleted page and I had given the user fair warning that if the DRV on the article was unsuccessful that I would speedy tag it so the user certainly had more than 24 hours to transfer the information off site. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Squeak, being a copy isn't the standard. G4 requires it to be a recreation. The draft existed before deletion of the article. Therefore, by plain, ordinary logic, the draft cannot be a recreation of the article. Aside from that, the criterion cited doesn't apply to userspace. The policy issues alone require this deletion to be reversed. --SSBohio 23:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. This is not a copy of the deleted Adult-child sex, but of a draft TlatoSMD was working on for that article. WP:CSD quite clearly says that content moved to user space is excluded from CSD G4. I appreciate that this draft might no longer be needed. However, Wikipedia:Editors matter and Tlato should be allowed to decide for himself what to do with this draft now that the deletion of Adult-child sex has been endorsed, which happened only very recently. If he doesn't need it, it can be deleted. If he wants to keep it around, for instance, to try to integrate some of the material into existing pages, or even just to preserve the references he's found, that would be a legitimate use. Mangojuice^talk 18:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me note that content forking is not a good reason to delete something in user space. We delete content forks because they represent a barrier to having all editors work together in order to keep things in balance. The same does not happen when one of the forks is in userspace, which is typically interpreted as for that one editor's use only. Mangojuice^talk 18:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We prohibit content forking to preserve WP:NPOV, not because they are a hindrance to collaborative editing. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NPOV applies to articles, not to user pages and subpages. Users are even allowed to directly express opinions, so long as they don't go too far. But in any case that would be an argument for MFD, not speedy deletion. Mangojuice^talk 19:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• People can use their userspace to give opinion on Wikipedia related topics, but not to post opinions about encyclopedic subjects that have been found by debate to be contrary to NPOV. I could make an essay about why I think a policy is good or bad, but not to espouse my beliefs about cannabis laws. If one is making an article in the userspace then that too needs to meet WP:NPOV. From WP:USER: "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content...". _(1 == 2)^Until 20:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:CFORK#Temporary subpages - this is a well-recognized exception to the POV fork issue. I think that calling this pro-pedophile advocacy is a valid reason for deletion, but on the surface here at least, Tlato is working on article-building. Don't you think that at least should be the outcome of a debate, rather than a speedy deletion issue? Mangojuice^talk 22:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion This article is an older version of an article that was deleted via AfD (deletion upheld at DRV). The deletion rationale was that the article was a POV content fork - relating to the title and content because all content was a rehash of content found in other articles. The series of debates has been very contentious and disruptive, and this version (and all versions in userspace) will continue to be a locus for this dispute. If TlatoSMD wants to work on a version, it should be provided to him so that he can do it offline. ^Avruchtalk 18:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • • • G4 requires the page to be a recreation. As you agree that the userpage existed prior to the deletion of the article, how can the userpage be a recreation? G4 doesn't apply to userspace, as well. --SSBohio 23:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per Avruch - on @pple's user page he has a notice indicating that he is prepared to undelete articles with a few exceptions. I suggest he considers adding pro-pedophilia advocacy to this list. Addhoc (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take that personally. I'm not advocating anything other than following our own policies. --SSBohio 23:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Per past precedent and community consensus on mainspace article topic. MBisanz ^talk 20:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:CSD#G4 absolutely applies to user space copies of former main space articles. On this subject, I decline to review the deleted copies of both pages to personally confirm that it is indeed a copy - but since nobody is disputing that it is a copy, then the answer should be clear. GRBerry 21:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:CSD#G4: This does not apply to content that has been moved to user space. --Kbdank71 21:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G4 doesn't automatically apply when a page has been userfied, but if the userfication is opposed by consensus than deletion is appropriate (we don't let people keep old or inappropriate articles around forever per WP:NOT#WEBHOST). Eluchil404 (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#WEBHOST doesn't apply here, given how quickly the article was deleted after the ACS DRV was closed. Mangojuice^talk 22:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To put myself on the record, the page we're discussing here is not a recreation of the article that was deleted, as G4 requires. It's an edited draft based on a previous version of the article, so it's not a copy. It existed before the deletion of the article, so it can't be a recreation either. Couple all that with the fact that G4 doesn't apply to drafts in userspace and there is no way that this deletion was policy-compliant. --SSBohio 23:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. The page was properly deleted per policy and consensus and it should stay deleted. The reasons have been well-stated in all the "endorse deletion" comments above so I won't duplicate them. --Tikilounge (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from deleting admin: A POV-fork does not magically become something else by moving to user space. Userfication is an appropriate response for a crap article on a good subject, but in this case the subject itself has been debated and found to fail policy. We have other articles on this subject, those articles are where changes should be pursued. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Was there some reason that conclusion couldn't have been reached as the result of an MfD? Mangojuice^talk 02:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. It's already been debated, there are other articles that cover the subject, and the title is only used in furtherance of POV-forking to promote a pro-pedophile POV, something that has caused serious problems on Wikipedia before now. It seems we're being asked to give the pro-pedophilia POV an infinite number of kicks at the can. No. Per very recent and very lengthy debate, the subject is unsuitable. Editors remanded to the existing articles, I believe was the closing DrV comment. Quite right. We do not need a POV fork, we don't need it in user space, and encouraging people to waste their time and other people's is silly. This is not an appropriate title, the subject is already adequately covered under more appropriate titles, those who dispute the appropriateness of those other titles will never be placated, that is not Wikipedia's problem. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - a consensus to delete the material was established both in the original AfD and the subsequent DRV. Whilst speedy delete criteria G4 states that it "does not apply to content that has been moved to user space", this exception can be interpretted to apply only when the material has been userfied independent of a deletion discussion. The exception is in a list of other exceptions which take place independent of a deletion discussion (such as speedy and proposed deletions). Guest9999 (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As Mangojuice mentioned, the page in question is not in fact a recreation of deleted material; it is something TlatoSMD had been working on since a while ago. It was meant for inclusion in the now deleted ACS article, but if the argument that ACS was a content fork has any merit at all, then it should be suitable material for other articles as well. Bikasuishin (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, missed that. Well since I can't check over either of the deleted pages to see what the content was when they were deleted I'll withdraw my comment. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong overturn. For the reasons below:

This claim by admin about "recreation" is patently false. This was no "recreation" after the fact, this sub-page in my private userspace was several weeks old when the official article was nominated for yet another AfD in an attempt to throw a magic eight-ball and game the system until it would eventually produce the answer they wanted. It was moved to my private userspace in order to save it from 3 people's constant vandalism crusade against several admins wherein they put the article to 15-20 polls for delete/merge/redirect where all in all 60 people had come to the conclusion that the article must stay. Still, nobody was able to do anything with the article because of constant bludgeoning of process by said 3 people, one of them having now been indefinitely blocked for it. That's why I moved its barebones to my userspace and intensively edited and enlarged it all by myself in order to reflect academic and scientific mainstream and consensus verified with abundant sourcing, as one of the most-sourced articles of all Wikipedia. The official article meanwhile never developed much because of constant bludgeoning, so these were hardly the same articles when the official article was steamrollered with one-liner name-calling and unsubstantiated claims what they were afraid of the article might one day develop into while the consensus was building up to 70 more people, established users and admins, to the original 60 wanting the undeveloped official article to stay with sophisticated reasonings and rationales, adding up to 130 people, that were ignored by both closing admins that were simply vote-counting. It's appaling how many people here think they can stand up against 130 established editors and admins with very good reasoning and call them all "pro-pedophile activists" in the face in a parroting fashion. I'd assert that if you can perfectly merge every single article proposed for merge alltogether into an alleged "POV fork", as was definitely the case here, the people making such "POV fork" claims either don't know what "POV fork" means, or they're just making things up without thinking much about what they're saying as long as it resembles "KILL WITH FIRE!"

However, exactly because official article and my sub-page were two things hardly resembling each other, those closing rationales couldn't even be extended to my sub-page if it would be an official article on Wikipedia. It's also the reason why simple parroting name-calling of "pro-pedophile advocacy", a term absent from both closing rationales, is entirely moot. It's for entirely unsubstantiated claims like these that POV and POV fork issues were applied to the official article, and neither NPOV nor any rules relating to "POV forks" are valid for personal userspace.

Furthermore, these recurring harassing deletions of my private userspace violate several of the policies the admin linked to: 1.: "This does not apply to content that has been moved to user space", 2.: "or deleted via proposed deletion". I repeat User:PeaceNT, even if my sub-page would have been "deleted materal", which it definitely wasn't, "CSD G4 is not, by any manner of means, applicable to user subpages" One of the reasons for that is consensus can change, that very one policy those 3 disruptive vandals had pointed to after each single one of the prior unsuccessful 15-20 polls for delete/merge/redirect, so if none of their user accounts was deleted for every single attempt of constant vandalism, I don't see why similar disruptive, policy-violating purging must now be repeatedly used against my private sub-page by some admins. Not to mention the deletions violate the policy mentioned at WP:MFD, User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.

Lastly, why care about somebody's userspace as long as it's free of personal attacks and actually Wikipedia-related? Userspaces are the least-accessed place of all Wikipedia after all. Trust me, this sub-page is neither meant to be authoritative in this form as of yet, nor is it anytime going back to be an official article without solid consensus, so there's really no threat inherent in the mere existence of any of my personal userpages to be unilaterally put up as an official article without any consensus. I'd suggest instead of disruptive edit warring, everyone ought follow what the template at its top says, "Please do not edit this page unless you created it, instead create your own." Such editing naturally includes tagging for any kind of deletion.

I conclude:

• It was wrong to constantly bludgeon the process and disruptively pull this article into an insane amount of unsuccessful polls, and constantly purge well-sourced academic material from the article without explanation or consensus, and edit war over this with a number of admins that placed official admin warnings against exactly that behavior and announced bans for it that never happened, against personal admins warnings, against official page protections placed by admins, and flame and insult those admins not subjecting to their aggression. It was also wrong to place this article up for yet another AfD after all that when block warnings against them increased in frequency due to their incorrigible behavior, another AfD that was entirely illegitimate and invalid to begin with because it used exactly the same nomination rationale as the first and the same arguments were exchanged as in the first. This applies to users SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Jack-A-Roe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Pol64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Pol has meanwhile been indefinitely blocked for it, yet the other two keep going in their behavior, especially Squeak, as can be witnessed in new AfDs, MfDs, and Deletion Reviews right here and now.

• It was wrong for two closing admins to ignore all known policies about consensus, a consensus that had established between 130 editors overtime that all were against deletion, in two AfDs, the second one entirely illegitimate and invalid to begin with, and an insanely high number of polls for delete/merge/redirect. These closing admins did so because of simple per-above partisan counting, name throwing, and unsubstantiated vague claims (that were sufficiently and fundamentally debunked by a large number of people, editors and admins alike, again and again and again), as the deletion party obviously had no other way of excusing their votes and behavior. This applies to admins User:Keilana and User:Mackensen.

• It was wrong to violate a number of policies and, by open, outright, blatant lying in excusing me of "recreating deleted material" allegedly after the fact of inherently wrong deletion, extend these entirely controversial and inherently wrong closure rationales to a private userpage that resembles nothing of the deleted official article. This applies to admins User:Jayron32 and Guy.

All this builds up to an enormous wrong, and a number of wrongdoing admins ought to be held acocuntable for this, probably by removing their admin status until they will have proven they have reformed and can be trusted to follow established process, consensus, policy, logic, and civility. Failing to step in against the original wrongdoer behind all this and a number of other cases, SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), these admins did not simply let it happen, they actively supported all or part of this open, outright wrongdoing and uncivil, offensive name-calling, or tried to excuse it. This applies to User:Keilana, User:Mackensen, User:Jayron32, Guy and probaby many more. --TlatoSMD (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CLEAR OVERTURN - This is another simple case of the Crusade against particular editors. The page in question was not subject to speedy as TlatoSMD indicates (with painfully-referenced policy) above. That in itself should be enough to overturn this. THe page was not a copy, so even if someone were to assert as much, it would simply be an error of fact even if it did apply to userspace. This DRV (and the other above, from another userpage MfD-ed by the same Crusading user) both should have been reinstated long ago. That there is such delay speaks poorly of the processes in place here. VigilancePrime (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn While the original article appeared to be a POV fork, it is still possible that we might end up with a separate, actually NPOV article on this subject (indeed, most POV forks are slightly separate subjects that might one day have their own NPOV articles). Letting this stay in userspace for now seems ok as long as actual work to make it NPOV is done. All of that said, I don't understand why people when working on such things don't just keep copies saved on their computers and use preview in a sandbox to look at things. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn there was no consensus that this material could not be turned into an article, just a rather disputed consensus that the present article was was not acceptable. This should be allowed to remain a reasonable time so it can be worked on. DGG (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send to MFD. I don't like this, and will support its deletion if it goes to another deletion discussion; but it's been made entirely clear that WP:CSD#G4 does not apply to user space, therefore there was no justification for speedy deletion in this case. It should be undeleted and sent to WP:MFD, where it will almost certainly be deleted anyway; there's no need to pre-empt that discussion with an IAR speedy delete. Terraxos (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it gets undeleted I will send it to mfd myself and only tried db first because I believed it fit the criteria. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I would sum up the discussion so far as:

• Has everyone forgotten that we're here to write an encyclopedia? While there are pro-pedophile activists here (and I've spent my share of time countering their edits), neither our editors nor our readers are so intellectually compromised as to believe the pro-pedophile POV, which is why it's edited out of articles with regularity and alacrity. The page we're discussing here is a user subpage. It's not an article. It can be in such a sorry shape that it couldn't be an article, but it would still be a valid user subpage. Even the most gullible among us wouldn't mistake a user's private workspace for an encyclopedic article. We can all battle pedophiles, hunt witches, and chase communists as much as we want to elsewhere, but in here, we are collaborating to make the sum of human knowledge available to all humanity. Strident anti-pedophile polemicism (no matter how well-intentioned or how much I privately agree with it) has no place here. Judge editors by their edits, and only hold articles to encyclopedic standards. Heaven knows, there are plenty of articles to improve before going after non-articles. --SSBohio 00:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-article space is important too, and Tlato can easily keep this material off site (I would strongly siupport giving him access to the latest version of this page to take offsite if he has lost it). Thanks, SqueakBox 00:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The whole point of a wiki is collaboration. Keeping the draft offsite is the antithesis of a collaborative venture. I am fully appprised of your view on the subject. Did you really think that this deletion was the kind of uncontroversial move for which {{db}} was intended? Did you really think that deleting adult-child sex was so uncontroversial as to be done via proposed deletion? This user subpage should be undeleted and left for interested Wikipedians to collaborate on. --SSBohio 00:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I realize that you're completely serious (and that your observations are pretty accurate from what I remember of reading those discussions), your original comment gave me a very good laugh. Thank you. LaMenta3 (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's been a tremendous frustration for me to see rational discourse go out the window due to the passions engendered by this subject. If an editor asserts that the article is a POV fork (or that it isn't) but doesn't provide supporting facts, then all we have is their opinion, not an argument on either side. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a beauty contest. Earlier in this saga, MerkinsMum made me laugh when, responding to someone's assertion that child sexual abuse was the POV term, asked whether (by that logic) we should then change rape to surprise sex. After that, much of my WikiStress melted away, though it's come back as I've continued dealing with this stuff. --SSBohio 05:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Obvious and blatant misuse of G4. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endose deletion per Guy and Avruch. The article has caused continual trouble since it first appeared. This user-space version was even further afield into POV-fork fringe theories and advocacy than the mainspace version. There's no benefit to a page in user space that the community has soundly rejected with extensive discussion. As long as it exists, it will be a magnet for conflict and disruption. Nothing positive can result from restoring the page. Deletion was proper by process and consensus. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you demonstrate where that consensus was? There wasn't even consensus to delete the actual ACS page... that was a forced-issue by a few editors (one of which since got perma-banned for violent disruption and personal attacks!). This is a clear case of a misapplied policy and must be overturned. How can you debate the simple fact that, as has been noted above, the reason for deletion does not apply to the userspace in which the page existed? VigilancePrime (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, agree with deletion admin's judgment that the deleted article should not be userfied. It would be speedily deleted if put back into mainspace, clear pov and content-fork. Dreadstar † 03:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I can find no record of the admin who deleted the article expressing the view that it shouldn't be userfied. Can you give me a pointer to where such a statement exists? --SSBohio 23:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, deleting admin's reasoning appears to be sound, and would be G4ed if sent back to mainspace in this form. Article was a clear POV fork anyway, and there's no way this would possibly survive MFD if sent there. --Coredesat 05:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I really doubt you have grasped the situation and read TlatoSMD's long comment above. The material "would be G4ed if sent back to mainspace in this form", but regretfully it is not the article that was G4ed. G4 was intentionally misused as a criterion for userspace speedy delete, blatantly against WP:USER and CSD G4. Also, this is not "recreation of deleted material" because the subpage was created for pure editing development purpose long before both the AFD and DRV were progressed. I have to re-declare that this material is by no means "unacceptable" as many users here falsely stated, as there are a nearly equal numbers of editors supporting its inclusion on Wikipedia. @pple complain 06:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I said "sent back to mainspace in this form"; in other words, no matter where this ends up, if it were to be restored, it'd be deleted again. In this case, there's no real point in restoring this, especially given all the other problems. --Coredesat 10:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As the old saying goes, if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. Deleting this draft because of what would happen if it was moved to mainspace (without further editing) is nonsensical. Can we delete any page on that basis? I don't think User:Cordesat would survive as an article, either, for example. --SSBohio 23:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. POV-fork page with an agenda and already voted to be deleted in an AFD and re-confirmed to stay deleted in a deletion review so it should not be undeleted now. --Linda (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. How many times are we coming back to this? Deleting admin's rationale was sound, if it came back in its current state it would be G4'd straight away. Any sandboxing of this article should be done offline. Black Kite 23:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What might happen has never been the standard for a DRV. The deletion was cited as having been made per G4. G4 doesn't apply, both because this isn't a recreation of the deleted article, and because G4 excepts articles copied to userspace. If the deleting admin didn't even cite an applicable deletion rationale, how could such a rationale be sound? --SSBohio 23:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eufeeds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'm sorry if I'm making some mistakes but i can not understand the reasons why Eufeeds was deleted by the administrator.

Eufeeds is a rss aggregator as a lot of website that are mentioned on wikipidia. Is a very good tool for journalist and al people that want to be informed about the EU newspapers. If i making technical mistakes please contact me because i'm reading all your guide line but i'm not an native english speaker and it's possible i don't understand somethings. I apologize for this. Kugno (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There was nothing in the article which explained why Eufeeds was more notable or significant than any of the other millions of websites in the world. When creating articles about websites, it's important to clearly state why it is a significant website which justifies an encyclopedia article. Have a read of Wikipedia:Notability (web), and if you feel that Eufeeds meets the notability criteria described there, feel free to recreate the article, citing reliable sources to back up that claim of notability. --Stormie (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but permit re-creation there was nothing in the 2-sentence article to indicate why it was important. I'm fairly flexible here, but i too would have speedied. If you can, just add content and references and remake the article, just as Stormie suggests.DGG (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - lacked secondary sources, and claim to notability. No objection to recreation, provided secondary sources are included. Addhoc (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Poker Hall of Fame ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

A similar category (that I was unaware of when I created this category was deleted in CFD back in November. There were only a handful of !votes. The nominator tied the Poker Hall of Fame (which is reputatble) with the obscure European Poker Hall of Fame. The Nominator then used the rationale that it was a non-defining characteristic. I think if you looked up the winners, they consider it to one of the greatest honors in Poker. He also argued that "The American hall of fame is awarded by a single casino." Who owns/manages the HoF doesn't matter, what matters is if the HoF is recognized as such and is reputable. Everybody in the Poker world recognizes the Poker Hall of Fame, as the official Poker Hall of Fame---including ESPN Columnist Gary Wise who is critical of the HoF. The deleting editor rationalized the deletion with, none "are regularly called "Hall of Famer Doyle Brunson" (or whatever) on TV broadcasts." Er, yes they are. In fact, WHILE writing this DVR, I was watching the WPT event at Foxwood (aired 8-1-07), where they were talking about how Bradley Berman was the son of Poker Hall of Famer Lyle Berman---they didn't mention Lyle's 3 WSOP bracelets! Of the 35 inductees, there are only 12 that are still living and not all of them play tournament poker on a regular basis, thus he the admin probably simply hadn't seen any episodes where one of those 12 players made a final table. The HoF recognizes not just success at WSOP/WPT events, but also CASH games!

• Doyle Brunson — Five Decades of Poker and Still Going Strong! Allyn Jaffrey Shulman by Allyn Jaffrey Shulman Cardplayer Magazine 2004 discusses Doyles HoF status.
• Video of 2005 Doyle Brunson's show "Doyles Room"] where he is honoring 2005 inductees Jack Binion and Crandell Addington
• Amarillo Slim's Official page has a list of all poker hall of famers.
• When Chip Reese recently died, Cardplayer magazine noted that he "was the youngest member to be inducted into the Poker Hall of Fame." (As did Pokerlisting.com, Rounder Magazine, About.com, and many other sources.
• Phil Helmuth, mentions his induction into the Hall of Fame in the second sentence of his official webpage.
• Barbara Enright said that she considered her induction into the Poker Hall of Fame as "a lifetime achievement honor" Balloonman (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject poker notified of this DVR

• Overturn. Immediate, obvious overturn as recent deletion was done without a CFD. There is no reason to even discuss it at this point as it is not approriate to just go and delete categories without any discussion. The previous CFD is unrelated to this action. 2005 (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion as valid G4. All the talk about things being done out of process has conveniently ignored the fact that instead of reviewing the CFD (which would have had a better outcome), the creator of the category simply recreated the page in defiance of the outcome. JuJube (talk) 08:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to WP:AGF. As I indicated above, when I created this category, I was unaware of the previous CFD. To say that I 'ignored the fact' and simply 'recreated the page in defiance' is NOT AFG--especially when I explicitly state otherwise. Plus, I am ultimately, contesting the ORIGINAL CFD, not the G4 Speedy.Balloonman (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one is "conveniently" forgetting anything. The deletion was totally inappropriate, and also rude to the work of good faith editors. Deleting categories just because you can can never be justified. Obviously anyone can revert these edits because they are rogue edits, but the editor should revert his deletions so others don't have to waste time on nonsense. If someone wants to do a CFD, they can. 2005 (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain. Relist. I closed the previous nomination, which included the much more obscure European hall of fame. The nominator makes fair criticisms of my closing arguments, enough that I see rationale for relisting this, and possibly renaming to Category:Poker Hall of Fame inductees. (However, Balloonman, you have absolutely no idea how many or which poker broadcasts I've watched. It's a bad idea to criticize someone's credentials when you're criticizing their arguments.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have credentials but you also made a foolish statement to justify a close that had virtually no support, or logic behind it. Doyle Brunson is often called "Hall of Famer Doyle Brunson" or something similar. Your lack of original research on this point led to a poor original research conclusion. If you think no one says Academy award winner Meryl Streep, then the fault is yours for making it a criteria. The point here though is there was no support for this deletion the first time(s) and absolutely no logical argument presented why there is a Baseball Hall of fame category, but not this one. The second deletion was simply a rogue act, but the original nomiation had no merit and certainly no consensus support. Given that, if the recent deleter doesn't revert his actions, Balloonman or anyone else can just recreate the category, but this is an unfortunate example of what happens both when a closer injects personal opinion that is uninformed, and when a rogue violates policy. 2005 (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the CFD that Mike closed? How can you say there wasn't consensus? --Kbdank71 02:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and I have my doubts you have since calling it a consensus is beyond silly. Three sections, a nominator, one opposing, one reluctant delete, and one single delete. Taking that as a mandate to delete is ridiculous. Calling it a consenus is nutty. There was virtually zero support for the nom, and it plainly should have been closed as such. More to the point, there is a Wikiproject involved in this category, which was not notified or given the opportunity to justify keeping the category (or renaming) it. Respecting the considerable work of other editors is just common decency, and not something to be made fun of. 2005 (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2005, you've done the impossible, you have me arguing the otherside... the original delete was based upon the consensus of the people who participated in it. While nobody from the poker community was alerted to the CFD (including the categories creator) there was consensus at the time. Consensus can change---especially when presented with new facts. And that's what I wish to do... defend the merits of overturning a CfD.Balloonman (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I attempted to reach out to 2005 on his talk page, requesting he modify his tone, but with little success. (Note: The user has deleted this discussion from his page.) Because of this attitude, I'm abstaining.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded in good faith to your comments, even though you choose to state you were being antagonistic about it. Changing your position because of that is just sad. I suggest you step back and think of what is best for the encyclopedia, and not act because you think your feelings are hurt. 2005 (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My feelings are fine. Nonetheless, I'm done with this conversation.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sidestepping all this slapfighting, the notion that there was "virtually no support" for the deletion is ludicrous. Admins are not required to take into consideration the opinions of people who don't participate. There is no possible way to gauge whether the level of participation in an XfD discussion is because people are unaware of it, people are aware of it and don't care, people are aware of it and don't comment because they agree with the stated opinions, or what. As for notifying the project, there is no requirement to do so and if a category is so important to the project then you'd think at least one member of the project would have the category on a watchlist. Otto4711 (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse of the G4, Endorse the original Nov 5 CFD. Closer, take your pick. The nomination here is for Category:Poker Hall of Fame, which was the G4 speedy, but the nominator states above that he is contesting the ORIGINAL CFD, not the G4 Speedy. [14] --Kbdank71 15:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Therein lies the crux of an issue. By the LETTER of the law, this wasn't a recreated category... by the spirit it was... IMHO, the deletion as G4 is valid (because otherwise we would end up parsing words and having people simply reword every category until one stuck.) Thus, I am contesting the original CFD.Balloonman (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Regardless of any of the political gobbledygook, this category makes sense to keep. Doyle Brunson is commonly referred to as a member of the Poker Hall of Fame. A quick Google search of "hall of fame doyle brunson" brings back thousands of results. Balloonman obviously acted in good faith, and assuming otherwise is contrary to the spirit of what we're supposed to be doing here: collaborating. Rray (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Process was followed here, although the creation was a good-faith mistake. The original CFD was thin on participation but valid. This is not a defining characteristic of poker players, as the original closer pointed out. Indeed, taking Rray's suggestion, I googled on "hall of famer doyle brunson" -wikipedia and got 45 hits, where as there were over 600,000 when I dropped the "hall of famer" part. It's an important and frequently noted trait, but not a defining characteristic. Mangojuice^talk 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try Hall of Fame (nobody uses the term "famer") and you will get over 85,200 hits on altavista and 13,000 on Google.Balloonman (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That gives 4 hits, only 2 in English. Check for yourself. It's important to have quotes around the search, or else it will return pages that merely include the words "hall", "fame", "doyle", "brunson" whether or not Doyle Brunson is specifically being described as a hall of fame player. Mangojuice^talk 03:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to use quotes, make sure that you separate key segments. EG "Hall of Fame" and "Doyle Brunson" should not be combined---otherwise it is looking for the exact phrase "Hall of fame doyle brunson." Even sources that are talking about Doyle Brunson in the Hall of Fame probably won't use that exact phrase. If you use "Hall of Fame" and "Doyle Brunson" Separated, we still get 11,600 hitsand over 86,000 on altavista.Balloonman (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC) (Side note---using the quotes actually INCREASED the hits on Altavista... how weird.)Balloonman (talk) 07:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all that includes a lot of irrelevant hits. On the first page of that search is a page that talks about Doyle Brunson and mentions the volleyball hall of fame elsewhere on the page. Second, it doesn't matter, 11600 is still tiny compared to 600K. And third, we should really be counting unique hits anyway. Compare the hit numbers you see with Doyle Brunson to famous baseball players and you'll see a significant difference in the ratios. Mangojuice^talk 14:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse both deletions as the original nominator and the speedy tagger. Original closing admin closed the original CFD correctly. However notable the hall might be (all this talk of Google hits speaks to the notability of the hall), the notability of a topic doesn't justify creating a category for it, or indeed every article on Wikipedia would be eligible for an eponymous category. Poker Hall of Fame has a complete list of the inductees. Otto4711 (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:NEUBanner.gif ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

"Bad justification" is explicitly not a reason for speedy; I6 says "missing" and specifically says "disputed" is not a reason for speedy. In any case, I'd like to try and produce a better justification. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 06:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This was an entirely proper I7 deletion. "Non-free images or media that fail any part of the non-free content criteria" - this image failed the non-free content criteria as it did not have a fair use rationale. The uploader was notified and it was tagged for the necessary 7 days. However, the uploader, User:Sauve.d, has not been active on Wikipedia for some years now, and as this is a perfectly clear-cut fair use case, I have restored it and added the necessary Fair Use Rationale. --Stormie (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:VigilancePrime/Doc:SqueakBox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|MfD)

MfD inappropriately closed same-day. Almost entirety of DELETE comments centered on accusing KEEP "voters" of being pedophiles. No policies were violated in the page. The closing comment re: RFC beg the question of the necessity of this page (because right now, with page deleted, the "evidence" for the RFC is no longer easily accesible). Clear consensus was to keep, even speedy keep. Appears to be a case of admin jumping the gun in favor of personal desire (true or not, the same-day-deletion contrary to consensus seems to give little other reading). VigilancePrime (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong overturn Not one single admin of those posting in the MfD considered the deleted piece an attack site, in fact one (User:Bduke) even said that the nomination itself was a hostile attack, and two others (User:SGGH and User:12 Noon) voted for speedy keep due to bad faith nomination and conflict of interest of nominator which according to policy automatically :rendered the nomination invalid. This was not an attack site, even though it recorded severe uncivil attacks constantly made by the nominator. Those people voting for delete could only voice their reasoning by severe flaming and personal insults, which in fact were their only reasons they were able to provide. Such a quick closure conflicting with most posts, the more balanced reasonings made by those without conflicts of interest, and the policy regarding conflict of interest nominations is very suspicious and questionable. --TlatoSMD (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had to fix the link syntax, those links had actually been pointing nowhere. --TlatoSMD (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly endorse closure, which user VP also seems happy with. I am not sure why tlato would oppose the closure of such an attack page, assuming, as I do, good faith. Simply we dont need such spaces and therefore the closure was correct. Nothing controversial here and no reason to drv, especially givent ehg canvassing, and hey Tlato cnavasses too, see the ACS afd. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn/relist-This page did not meet any criteria for speedy deletion. The allegations that it was an attack page are quite simply false, based on at best a misunderstanding of the relevant polices. The page consisted of nothing more than quotations, supported by diffs no less. Failing that, there was no justifiable cause for an early closure.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, for exactly the same reasons as Fyre2387. Also, nay to consensus-busting premature admin decisions that make a mockery out of what is already a madhouse. GrooV (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong overturn and an admonishment of closing admin is in order. This closure was patently ridiculous, and I am surprised it wasn't overturned by another admin on the spot instead of coming down to a DRV. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 04:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. On their own talkpage, the closing admin has now stated that the main reason to close as delete was the amount of drama that surfaced from the mere MfD within such a short time. I'd like to point out that it's merely the drama Squeak and other people behaving like him, that is the the other two delete voters I named above, commonly engage in wherever I see them. Even just the MfD and this Review alone should be evidence enough for that. The deleted piece was exclusively made to keep track of and evidence especially Squeak's instrumental role in this and take that evidence to admin intervention. --TlatoSMD (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn A well-intentioned deletion, but an overreaching conclusion, according to my review of the closure and of conversations on the closing admin's talk page. The deleted page itself collected and indexed what Squeakbox had actually written here, and was not, by my understanding of the term, an attack page. Consensus to delete had not developed at the time of closure. A Wikipedian should be able to cross-reference and organize information such as this, for example in preparation for participating in an RFC, arbitration, or other circumstance. If the creator's conduct with regard to this page becomes problematic, then an RFC can be filed. Let's afford this page the traditionally wide latitude given to items in userspace. --SSBohio 05:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion of attack page. The closing admin made the correct decision. VigilancePrime's publicly visible page accused Squeakbox of personal attacks and other serious offenses in the text and in the section headings, but without taking the accusations to a proper forum. He claimed he was doing that to format diffs for a planned "admin intervention" request. If that is really his purpose, he can easily do so off-wiki in a text document. When he's ready with his case, he can file an RFC/U or AN/I report. Maintained on-wiki without engaging in due process, it was an attack page that served no purpose other than to further inflame an already tense situation. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. i\It qualified as a speedy delete. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, laundry lists of grudges are not an acceptable use of userspace. Feel free to work up an RfC using the relevant templates if you wish, but note that the spotlight in such cases will inevitably shine equally brightly on all concerned. Guy (Help!) 14:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I think that you are misundertanding the policy of speedy deletion. This is not an attack page, as it is not predominantly subjective. These are links which speak for themselves, no? Karla Lindstrom 16:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion There are ways to do certain things - if you want to address a pattern of conduct, use an RfC or make a request for arbitration. Laundry lists of subjectively 'bad actions' of one user are attack pages and deleted appropriately, per long-standing custom and policy. Further - the dispute between these editors has tracked through two AfDs, two MfDs and three DRVs. You guys need to leave eachother alone and find something constructive to do with your time here. Continuous disruption on this level will lead to an ArbCom case and ultimately sanctions for all involved. ^Avruchtalk 17:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I wouldn't mind if somebody would take these things to ArbCom. It's a one-man disruptive vandalism crusade. Squeak started every single AfD, MfD, and speedy delete tagging, getting more than a hundred, maybe even two-hundred people busy and at each other's throats with his disruptive crusades just within the last two weeks. I have nothing to fear in an ArbCom case, and nor has anybody else trying to stand up against him. However in order to lead any ArbCom case efficiently, we need exactly that testifying evidence Squeak himself is purging in this one VP vs. Squeak case. --TlatoSMD (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Carribbean made a gross error in judgement in closing the debate after such a short amount of time. MFD would have led to the right conclusion, now that this DRV has gotten started we have no alternative but to have that same debate here, which will be less productive because half the people will be focussing on process abuses. Karla explains very succinctly why this is not a speedy-deletable attack page (plus, all the nasty words are quotes). In other words, this deletion escalated things. Ok, so why am I endorsing deletion? Because per Guy and Avruch, and lots and lots of precedents, this is not appropriate even in user space, unless it's intended to be part of an WP:RFC or an WP:RFAR. Vigilance hasn't even claimed this was the purpose. I am okay with relisting, but would prefer that the decision gets made here in DRV. Mangojuice^talk 18:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - dispute resolution should be used, instead of soap boxing. Addhoc (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Concur with reasons listed by Addhoc and Guy. --Tikilounge (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS A D.R.V.

The debate above seems to say that the page should have been deleted, but that's the MfD discussion. The point was recently stated, "Carribbean made a gross error in judgement in closing the debate after such a short amount of time". That is the issue here. The MfD was irresponsibly and illegitimately closed speedily. Now some people are commenting on the page contents, which have been deleted; how can you comment on something that is gone?

The simple fact is that the process was grossly circumvented. I am more than willing to comment in the actual MfD (Something that I had not done because the discussion was closed the same day it was opened). That any admin would back this closing speaks to the greater problems of process and the lack thereof.

Please immediately undo this highly premature closing and, if necessary, reopen the MfD. VigilancePrime (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amused how you quoted me and then failed to read my next sentence. The debate is happening here, whether we like it or not. You might as well comment on the page, not just the process. Mangojuice^talk 14:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion I don't see why a page documenting why someone is bad, but not actually calling for action (RFC, RFAR, etc) is ever permissible. Seems sorta like a vague way around WP:NPA. MBisanz ^talk 03:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT - MB, that's the problem. You're judging the page, which is deleted. And because of that, you are misjudging it. It was not a list of why someone was bad. It was links to diffs and quoted text from those diffs. But that's not the point. The point is that the MfD was closed inappropriately. Same-day for a non-speedy deletion. An admin removed the speedy tag originally, and then another hyper-zealous admin (who's good faith I accept) deleted it speed anyway. Quite simply, the deletion discussion was not allowed to play out as per Wikipedia guidelines. Are we now saying that we are not bound to follow our own rules? VigilancePrime (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What failed to follow the rules was your page, VP, by any stretch of the imagination. So I fail to see why you then accuse others of breaking the rules. This was yet another (ie far from the first)bad faith user of his user space by VP. Our rules are designed to let users have a nice time here while they work voluntarily and pages like this and your othwr user attack pages (eg your user space at times such as labelling certain admins vandals etc) clearly weere designed to harrass other volunteers whom you don't like. The number of policies you have broken in the process is numerous, civil and AGF being the most obvious. Your putting some of the deleted information on your user pages within minutes of this page being deleted indicates, IMHO, your actual contempt for our policies. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, Squeak, you are bending the truth to suit your twisted perceptions. The page was not an attack page, unless of course you attack yourself (since all it ever did was quote your own statements). I have a long history prior to running in to you and since running in to you of editing a variety of articles, while you seem to stick to PAW-pushing. You are the master of abusing the processes, and to accuse anyone else of such, for you, is utterly laughable. Unlike you, I will prove my points and I will use policy to back my points up, whereas you have constantly made accusations and when called on them state that you don't need to prove it. Your delusional attitude is as transparent as a cloudless summer sky. I don't know if you actually believe the obvious mistruths you constantly write or not, and that's what concerns me most. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC) And as for a nice time, I was having a nice time recently, staying away from the articles you clearly own, until you started stalking my edits again and putting everything you could think of up for deletion. Why can you not disengage as I have attempted multiple times?[reply]

Twisted is yet another personal attack. Please desist from making more personal attacks. Claiming I am a PAW SPA is not an impressive argument as it is demonstrably false and being so is yet another personal attack. How are you going to prover I am a PAW SPA? You are not of course. Now please drop your grudge against me for oppposing yopur girllover article and go and edit the encyclopedia while letting me do so. Your attacks are taking up enormous amounts of time and energy. And how are you going to prove you stayed away from me but oh, you just happened to make this attack page against me while "staying away from me"04:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)04:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by SqueakBox (talk • contribs)

Here we go. Twisting my words.

I never said SPA. You said it. I said "you seem to stick to PAW-pushing". True statement. Not exclusively, but your range of late seems pretty narrow. When have I EVER accused ANYONE of being a SPA? (And for that matter, what's realy wrong with an SPA in the right context/usage?)

You keep coming back to the girllover article as a sideways insult. You have no idea, do you? That issue was long put to rest and yet you still harrass and attack me and others. That's your only defense, that we (all?) have a grudge about that article? I'm not sure if that's silliyness or stupidity. I would hope silliness.

Unlike you, I will prove my statements. Contrib history with no PAW-related articles since 18 Jan (and that was a AfD only), more than 300 edits. Prior to this warning (which an admin later told me I should have done), my only edits to your talk page were here (error fix) and here, where I was saying that you were correct in a dispute with another user. I have stayed away from your user talk page otherwise since 18 Jan as your page's history will demonstrate. Unfortunately, you cannot seem to stay away from my talk page.

Any other questions? VigilancePrime (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(CMT) I don't think I used the word "list", I used "documenting" to be purposly broad in describing a page that's main purpose to describe through the presentation of information why a user is not a good user. Considering all the forums we have to do this (AN, RFC, RFAR, I could go on) the purpose of this page appears to have been an attack page targeted at a living person, which by my personal judgment is a valid reason for a speedy deletion. And we do follow rules, and rules have orders of rank, and I'd say the rules against attack pages tend in most cases to outweigh other rules requiring notification and/or discussion. I think the recent handling of the Wikimedia CFO story evidences that. Also, as to the idea that the page merely was presenting Squeak's own words, I tend to think of WP:SYNTHESIS. At some point the detailed organization of spread out, disparate facts, creates new information. Best thing I can think of is ARBCOMs such as the recent IRC one, where users presented detailed fact-patterns using complex compilation of data. I doubt anyone would say a 50 MB log file is the same as a detailed chart of 20 diffs with quotations from them? MBisanz ^talk 04:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The MfD consensus was exceedingly clear that the page was not an attack page. Now nobody will ever know. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MBisanz, I'm trying to wrap my head around your astounding defiance of logic. According to your rambling, all ArbCom and RfM cases would qualify as personal attacks and should therefore never be opened, and be immediately speedy deleted if they are. This thing was in the process of being built up to the sizes you mention when it got speedy deleted by the accused Squeak himself. --TlatoSMD (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLAN

• SqueakBox - Here's a question. If I drop this DRV entirely and leave it deleted (regardless of the process abuse that will have been allowed), will you desist in following me around, and thus leave me alone? The only place your nick appears now as far as I can tell is on my user talk page, where you have put it many, many times. Let me know. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do not follow you around. If you drop the DRV and don't me mention me on your user space then I am, of course, happy to live and let live and to collaborate over articles relating to PAW. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squeak, that's denial. How are we getting anywhere if you're getting all testifying evidence against you speedy deleted and refuse to ever back up any of your obviously delirious flaming accusations and insults? Yes, delirious, I have seen it more than one time that you accuse entirely uninvolved other editors of your very own misdemeanors, one of the most recent cases was when you accused VP of "harassing and abusing" Zapatancas while Zapatancas's own talkpage testifies it was you, with links provided on that talkpage to the fact that you were blocked for one month for it, then another month because of sock puppetry to evade the ban placed upon you by ArbCom. --TlatoSMD (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. I drop this DRV issue (any admin, go ahead and close as nom removed). I doubt I'll collaborate on any article you so vehemently assert ownership of through your actions (having driven a few users away) as the PAW ones. I'm weary of the live and let live statement, but in good faith take it at face value (as I have before, only to be disappointed). Have a great life. And take a breath now and then. There's so much more than all the fighting and attacking that's been going on of late (including the crusades of AfD, MfD, etc.). VigilancePrime (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC) :-)[reply]