Administrator instructions

Skip to: Active discussions | Recent discussions | Archive

Wikipedia editors may find articles, images, or other pages that they believe should be deleted, and raise these concerns in various deletion forums. Administrators determine consensus and examine policy to determine if there is sufficient justification for their removal from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted. If, however, the new stub is also deleted, you may list it here for a discussion. If you are proposing that an existing page be reconsidered for deletion, please place the template {{Delrev}} on that page to inform editors who may wish to join the discussion here (administrators may replace with {{TempUndelete}} where appropriate).

Before posting a deletion review request, please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

What is this page for?

Please consider the options below, and then follow instructions to add your request to the main part of the page.

Principal purpose — challenging deletion debates

This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. This page exists to correct closure errors in the deletion process and speedy deletions, both of which may also involve reviewing content in some cases. Purely procedural errors may be substantive and result in an overturn (such as failing to tag a page for its XfD discussion) or irrelevant (such as closing 1 minute early).

The main purpose of the page is to review the outcome of deletion discussions, as described above. There are some ancillary cases where editors wish to have pages restored. These are also handled in main part of the page — please consider the usual reasons below and state clearly the basis for your request.

Temporary review

Request this if you want to use the content elsewhere (such as in other articles), you suspect the article has been wrongly deleted but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted, or if the full article history is needed to complete a transwiki properly. Please state whether you would like:

1. The article temporarily restored for all to examine during a review.
2. The article restored to your userspace so you can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion.
3. The source of the article emailed to you to review 'off-Wiki'.

Only uncontroversial revisions will be restored. Content that is moved back to the encyclopedia without being improved may be subject to speedy deletion, and content held in userspace without evidence of intent to work on it may also be nominated for deletion.

History-only undeletion

Request this to have the history of a deleted article restored behind a new, improved version of the article. The old, deleted revisions will sit harmlessly in the history of the page. 'History-only' undeletions can be performed without needing extended discussion on this page.

Contesting 'proposed deletions'

Request this if the article was dealt with as a 'proposed deletion'. A 'PROD'-deleted article can be restored by any admin upon reasonable request. Such an article may still be deleted at articles for deletion or under the criteria for speedy deletion.

Administrators restoring deleted articles should also restore the associated talk page if it exists and place {{oldprod}} on it. {{ProdContested}} (shortcut {{subst:PC|articlename}}) is available for notifying the original nominator that the article has been restored.

How do I do all this?

All requests go in the main part of the page below. Please state clearly your reason for requesting undeletion. If you want to review the debate or the cause of deletion, then these ancillary options are not appropriate, and you should request a full review.

Under no circumstances will revisions that are copyright violations, libelous or contain otherwise prohibited content be restored.

Instructions

Before listing a review request:

1. discuss the matter with the deleting administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See #What is this page for? (above).
2. please 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.

Commenting in a deletion review

In the deletion review discussion, users should opt to:

• 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.

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.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least five days. After five days, an administrator will determine if a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Wikipedia:Deletion review discussions. 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.

Steps to list a new deletion review

Before listing a review request, please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision) as this could resolve the matter faster. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page.

Active discussions

2 December 2008

1 December 2008

MyAnimeList

MyAnimeList (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Requesting a history undeletion. Previously requested history-only undelete seems to be unfulfilled. Request was made a few months ago, but since a COI tag has been posted, the edit history of this article before its deletion is now very relevant Kei-clone (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• You just want the edits deleted in this afd to be restored? Protonk (talk) 07:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • edits made before the afd resulted in its deletion, correct Kei-clone (talk) 07:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Done. Protonk (talk) 07:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Hmm...did I miss something or did I ask for the wrong thing? I don't see any changes in the History of the article =\ Kei-clone (talk) 07:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Steve Dillard

Steve Dillard (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Premature. Not sufficient discussion. The AfD should have been re-listed to attract additional eyeballs and discussion ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I received this note on my talk page from Sladillard (talk · contribs): Thanks for deleting my bio from Wikipedia; and I mean that sincerely. I agree that I am not in any way noteworthy enough to warrant my own wikipedia bio. Keep up the good work! Steve Dillard. In addition, Walshga (talk · contribs) laid out the case for deletion pretty well at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Dillard, and ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) agrees. As this is a case where the subject is lacking significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, I think we should respect the subject's wishes in this matter. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• AFD has no quorum and this was listed for 5 days. What exactly is the failure of process here? Endorse Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Cost per Day (closed)

Apocrypha_Discordia (closed)

Category:United States Senate candidates & Category:United States House of Representatives candidates

Category:United States Senate candidates (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache)

Category:United States House of Representatives candidates (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache)

These two categories were deleted today based on a CFD from early 2007 - presumably after the 2006 elections were all squared away. There were very few articles about failed candidates which merited survival, so those articles probably were AFD'd and the categories were no longer needed. But as the 2008 election cycle approached, the categories were both created and well used. And now that the 2008 elections are over, there are several articles this time which will survive deletion. So the categories should survive, too. Frankly, I think a CFD discussion could have been merited instead of the speedily deletion today. In fact, there was a related CFR discussion which mentioned the Reps category here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 14.}} —Markles 00:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion of both categories. A good example of overcaterization. The original debate was here, they were not deleted because of lack of articles but actually the opposite reason. Garion96 (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of both; do not re-create. I'm also not convinced that the rationale for deletion that Markles sets out is the one that the participants of the deletion discussions based their opinion on. It's certainly not the rationale that was given for deletion by the nominator. The rationale for deletion was the large number of articles that could potentially be added to these categories, "swelling the category beyond any possible hope of usefulness". Others commented that nominees are often obscure and/or their notability usually does not stem from being a candidate. I think the latter point is the clincher for me. It is unlikely that a person with an article in WP will have that article primarily because of their failed candidacy for one of these positions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Good Olfactory said everything I want to say. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse per GO. --Kbdank71 16:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Removed extra header. lifebaka++ 16:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn because of the invalid and inconsistent criteria used. It is being simultaneously argued that too few people will fit into the categories, and simultaneously that the categories will be swollen beyond the point of usefulness. I do not see how both can possibly be true. But neither are correct: Addduming this is limited to failed candidates, then , given a two party system, the number of candidates running is not much more than the number of candidates elected. And there is a trend is recent AfDs to consider a major party candidate for a nataional office to be notable--I think almost all of them would be able to find sources for this is thoroughly investigated --consensus seems to be changing in that direction,. If so, we could easily handle it. There is no such thing as too large a category,because it is always possible to subdivide it. After all we have Category:Members of the United States Congress -- divided, reasonably enough, by states. The category is grossly underpopulated, but if we got them all historically, as we should, it could be divided chronologically. DGG (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

  Just curious, where did someone state that too few people will fit in the category? The only one who mentioned that reason was the editor who started this review. Since he thought, mistakingly, that this was the reason the categories were deleted in the first place. Garion96 (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn The most current discussion of the latter category at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_14#Category:United_States_House_of_Representatives_election_candidates, just under two weeks ago resulted in a conclusion of Merge. The preceding CfD from February 2007 is now in an invalid justification to delete the category. Alansohn (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn per DGG and Alansohn. John254 04:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Universal Century technology

List of Universal Century technology (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The closing admin ignored the on going discussion and used his/her own view on the topic to close the AfD process. The admin also listed a secondary sources as primary based on lack of knowledge on the topic and possibly ABF on keepers. Extra sources are now also listed in talk page of AfD MythSearcher^talk 10:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "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". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 12:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The admin was invited by User:Jtrainor to discuss, but continued to use same arguments as the closing of the AfD which is not looking for consensus but deleting the page with his/her own subjective reasoning on the subject. With the admin missing in the discussion after quite some people popped out to point out the problem of the deletion reasoning, the admin stopped replying. While it might take time to reply, the admin's closing reason of the AfD is very problematic and further action should be applied. MythSearcher^talk 13:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Endorse deletion. I can see no failure to follow the deletion process; the closing admin wrote a well-thought out rationale and explained his reasoning on the AFD talk page, and the outcome, while close, was within acceptable parameters. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
      • His/her reasoning should come from the consensus of the AfD discussion, where the reasoning of the closing admin is more of his/her own view. MythSearcher^talk 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
        • There would be no AFD closes if people didn't consider all the arguments, as I have. I'm not sure why you're accusing me of assuming bad faith against keep voters; simply put, I reviewed their side, didn't find it to be strong enough, and closed appropriately. As I've said on the talk page, I'm supposed to use discretion to close something that is contested. You're right, everyone interprets consensus differently; another administrator may have chosen to keep the article. Anyways, blindly closing an AFD isn't possible as there's no way to do so (AFD isn't a vote, after all). Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 23:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse The AfD argument was mostly about how an article about a fictional universe could be notable enough for Wikipedia, taking WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR into account. Some editors thought that the coverage recieved was enough for the article to pass WP:N while others (including myself) believed the sources to be too-closely aligned with the subject. An administrative judgement call had to be made and the closing admin even left a message on the talk page explaining his rationale for deletion per the general notability guidelines saying the coverage wasn't significant enough. This is why we have administrators close AfDs, and not bots. Just because the admin ignored User:Mythsearcher's order to interprete the guidelines the same as s/he does doesn't mean the closure was inappropriate. Themfromspace (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • For sources, as long as they are secondary, we should use the most authoritative sources, thus the best sources used should be focused on the topic instead of some remote sources that is not covering the topic in detail. This has happened in multiple AfD already, the number of sources are never enough, and the sources are either insignificant, not notable or too-closely aligned with the subject, which covers everything if you combine them all, you can use the same arguments on ANY article with 5 sources or less(or 10 sources or less) to support a delete. You are saying a physics book as a source to support a physics phenominant is too closely aligned with the subject so that the source does not count, or a science magazine is not specified in physics thus that source is not notable, etc. I am sorry, but this process is all YOUR game, with YOUR presumptions and never listen to who ACTUALLY got hold of the source and has more knowledge on the topic. I can fully understand why wikipedia does not work now, thank you, any source could be challenged by anyone with your arguments. MythSearcher^talk 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
    • There comes a point when a source may be too closely aligned to its subject. Most everybody would agree that a person would not be notable enough for inclusion if the only source found was his autobiography. Would he be if his mother wrote about him in her autobiography? Probably not. Or if his best friend wrote about him? Or his teacher because he was a good student? What if someone was sexually attracted to the guy and wrote about him because of that? You see, the closest relations to an article oftentimes are biased because of how close they really are. A magazine that specializes in the world of Gundam is a special-interest publication published for and by those who are interested in trivial aspects of the subject which are far too dense to be included in an encyclopedia. The best-friend of John X would have very useful material about him but that source alone wouldn't justify inclusion. Similiarly, magazines devoted to Gundum contain good information about the subject but they don't prove notability unless they are substantially marketed and read outside the gundum fanbase. Themfromspace (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• (e.c.) Endorse deletion, but MoP's closure rationale could have been a lot better. Here's my analysis. First of all, the "count" is 9 to 6 in favor of deletion. (10 to 6 if you count MoP; normally one woudn't but it was asserted that the closer should have added his opinion rather than closed the debate...) In my view, that's a substantial supermajority. This counts the "transwiki" comments as delete opinions, because they amount to the same result for Wikipedia; it also counts the IP editor who argued for transwiki. It also, however, counts MalikCarr's very marginal comment. So the weight of consensus substantially favors deletion. Count is not the only factor, but other factors also favor deletion as an outcome. For one thing, only one narrow claim of the deletion arguments was substantially refuted, and that was the assertion that the magazines represent primary sources. There was contention about that; personally, I disagree -- magazines are by definition secondary sources. But it's somewhat irrelevant because the bigger point is that the deletion argument was that the sources do not establish notability; whether these sources were secondary or primary doesn't affect whether they were really independent, whether they had substantial coverage, whether they presented an out-of-universe perspective, et cetera. Furthermore, even if the introductory material in the article established that the technology of Universal Century is notable, it doesn't do anything to justify a list of such technologies (this was the point DGG was trying to argue but I think his argument was rebutted by Jay32183 -- basically, notability is not inherited.) Finally, as to the merits of the arguments about the quality of sources, fan-related magazines are clearly less independent than we should normally look for. MoP's point, though not part of the debate, is well-taken -- if fan-generated content can become part of the universe canon, how reliable can that content be -- basically, they could make things up and have it become true. So on balance, there would have been little to argue with here if MoP had simply said "the outcome was delete" or stuck to pre-existing arguments. Mangojuice^talk 15:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is NOT a vote, and if you want notability of the topic, check out the extra source I have listed in the AfD talk page, do NOT tell me 5 sources with 1 using this as a title and claims that it inspired several real-lilfe research is not notable. The so call fan-generated content is not the concern here, the concern is that the source itself is secondary AND about the topic while reflecting the fictional technologies relation with real world technologies. MythSearcher^talk 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
    • "AfD is not a vote" doesn't mean we should ignore the weight of community opinion. On the contrary, it should decide most issues, so long as there was substantive discussion and policy is followed. Second, I didn't take it from your request that you were asking for the decision to delete to be reconsidered in light of new sources. If that's what you're saying, then, (1) isn't this kind of soon after the debate, and (2) I can't read Japanese and you haven't even claimed any specific information to be contained in those sources. A quick google books search came up with over a hundred hits for Gundam Universal Century; obviously there's plenty of material written about Gundam. But the structure of the Gundam articles here is just awful: Universal Century for instance, is practically devoid of information, other than links to extremely specific topics. We have dozens of summary articles on Gundam topics. "List of technology" seems redundant to some of the ones we still have, like List of Gundam Universal Century mobile units and the two other mobile units lists in {{gundam}}. Mangojuice^talk 20:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn Yes, I was arguing, among other things, that since the series is very highly notable then the major components of it share or contribute in a major way to the notability. I don't regard this a inherited notability, which I think should be kept where it belongs--for literal relatives, or for minor association. The technology here is basically an article about probably the key and characteristic and defining element of the setting, and a feature for which this series is as least as well known as the characters. Of course, all this could principle be covered in the main article, but there is so much material here that it would overbalance it, and thus a split is justified. DGG (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• overturn DGG makes a good argument. But note also that no compelling explanation for why the magazine articles were primary sources was provided. That substantially weakens the argument for deletion and was not adequately addressed. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn As stated, no compelling argument for why the magazine articles are primary sources was provided. Indeed, the ONLY such argument that was put forth is that "the magazines are primary sources because they have Gundam in their names", which is clearly ridiculous. Jtrainor (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is this 'clearly ridiculous'? What's the reasoning concerning a magazine with strong affiliations with a subject publishing something about the subject not being primary? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 04:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Mere dedication of content to a particular subject does not imply "strong affiliations" with the same, any more than Wikipedia Review's nearly exclusive discussion of Wikipedia implies that they are strongly affiliated with us. While Wikipedia Review itself isn't a reliable source, this status derives from their message board format and lack of editorial control -- certainly not because they are regarded as shills for the Wikimedia Foundation. John254 04:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn per DGG, JoshuaZ, and Jtrainor: specialist sources are not, ipso facto, either primary or unreliable. John254 04:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn I agree that there was no real explanation given as to why independent (ie not owned by Bandai/Sunrise) magazines are to be considered "primary sources". Also, reading through the AfD I failed to see a consensus of any kind. — Red XIV ^(talk) 07:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment To be very clear: WP:N (as a result of WP:BURDEN) demands independent sources: meaning that we shouldn't base an article on material provided by people involved with the subject. For fiction this means the obvious sources: "primary" ones (the Gundam games, manga and television shows) and it means captive "sources" ('Zines owned by the production company or sources which otherwise have a financial (or other) incentive to cover their own material. At the most basic, this means we don't source articles to ad copy. For most cases, this means we don't rely on Nintendo's blog to tell us about some new gadget. This does not mean that specialty sources such as niche magazines, websites or shows which meet WP:RS are to be rejected as "too parochial". I haven't looked at the magazines myself but if they aren't owned by the company that makes Gundam and they have (1) a reputation for fact checking, (2) editorial control, and (3) accountability for authorship, we should consider them perfectly acceptable. Protonk (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

30 November 2008

Template:Internet_memes

Template:Internet_memes (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache)

Comments at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_November_14#Template:Internet_memes were "no consensus" at best, certainly not "Delete." Inappropriate language and POV displayed by closing editor. Badagnani (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn. I took at look at this while it was up for deletion, and it certainly is horrible and I concur with the closer's comments. However, the consensus was fairly strong for a keep so that's what should have happened. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 23:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse nominator's closure, which was a valid application of WP:IAR. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Nominator did not consider the option of splitting the template in multiple smaller ones with better defined inclusion guidelines. IAR does not apply when the closing admin appears to be biased. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn- There was no clear consensus to delete, and closing admin showed clear bias with the closing statement, comparable to the close of List of bow tie wearers. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Weak overturn to no consensus. There did not appear to be a consensus to delete and some of the reasons given for deletion could easily be solved by editing. Also, what are templates "for"? Protonk (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn per Protonk. That's exactly right -- the closer's rationale is the kind of thing that should be addressed by editing, not by deletion, especially against consensus. Mangojuice^talk 15:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Closing administrator statement. Navboxes are tricky subjects. It can be difficult to evaluate whether or not navboxes are appropriate for articles, but in this case, I would submit that it is clear this navbox is inappropriate and outside the regular boundaries of what we expect to do with templates. There are at least three dimensions of this template which are not suitable for the template namespace. The first of these is that the template does not link together salient articles which have some sort of intrinsic relationship. Navboxes are used for this type of navigation. This is why a navbox for a List of US presidents is appropriate, or a list of successive office-holders of any office or similar, or even a navigation between albums produced by a band. One preceded another, another followed; there is a sequence. A navbox of legislatures of states would also be appropriate under this criterion, there is a salient, concrete, categorical continuity between the items, which is absent from the template being discussed here. The second of these is that the definition of the term being used for this navbox, "internet meme" excludes the possibility of categorical distinction between its elements. There is no intrinsic relationship between emoticon, rickroll, and dancing baby. There is no upward limit to the number of things which may be categorized under the distinction of "internet meme", nor are there any hard criteria for inclusion. The implications of these can be seen in a future iteration of the template which is subject to edit wars by editors attempting to push a borderline-notable phenomenon into undeserved legitimacy by inclusion in a template, and as there is no upward bound on the size of the template, it could conceivably (and arguably already has) become too large for easy inclusion on pages and become too vast and unwieldy to be used for any sort of useful navigation, therefore defeating its own purpose. Thirdly, there is already a list of internet memes, which obviates the need for this template. In my closing I did not imply that no possible templates could be forged from this list, however, I strongly asserted that this particular template is inconsistent with template guidelines in accordance with its original nomination. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 17:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Examples of deletion of similar templates may be found at:

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_31#Template:Culture_of_China

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_26#Template:Seconds_From_Disaster

Resulting Deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 13

I hope these are helpful, or at least help to demonstrate, some of the points I lay out above. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 17:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The lengthy explanation above somehow fails to address the issue, or show any acknowledgement or compunction for what what was (and what the community clearly views, whether or not the template was any good to begin with) as an inappropriate close. That is the most disturbing thing about this entire situation. Admins absolutely must adhere to our own rules, guidelines, and principles for our community to have any sense of fairness. Badagnani (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn - no reason to override consensus. (I'd vote for delete though). SYSS Mouse (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. No amount of "editing" is going to resolve the inherent problems with this template. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've got no idea exactly whether or not to !vote to overturn here, but either way it seems like the best course forward is to split up the template into a bunch of different ones, such as {{YouTube celebrities}}, {{4chan culture}}, and whatever others are needed. To that end, I will be happy to usefy the most recent version of the template to anyone who asks in good faith, so that proceedings here won't hold up work unnecessarily. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

  I'm not really interested in work myself, but I would certainly endorse such a solution. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 03:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

David R. Hawkins

David R. Hawkins (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Unjustified deletion of article due to objections made by the article's subject.

David R. Hawkins is a psychiatrist and New Age theorist based in Sedona, Arizona who has built up a sizable international following. Hawkins is a highly controversial figure who has attracted significant criticism from both scientific skeptics and from others within the New Age movement itself. A summary of Hawkins claims are that reason and critical thought (or any “vain opinions”) are of no use to humankind with regard to establishing spiritual, religious, philosophical or political truths and that instead absolute objective truth can only be determined by using applied kinesiology, or AK for short. AK is widely regarded by mainstream scientists as a pseudoscience and quackery which has repeatedly failed to produce results better than random guessing during double-blind trials. Additionally, two of the leading practitioners of AK, Eric Pierotti and John Diamond, do not believe that AK can be used in this manner and have heavily criticised Hawkins. Some critics have suggested that Hawkins might qualify as a cult leader (or least have cultish tendencies), such as the renowned New England Institute of Religious Research and his own former colleague Peter A. Olsson. Until July 2007, there was a large, well sourced, neutral and informative article on him here at Wikipedia at David R. Hawkins. I am not aware of any debate as to whether Hawkins warrants a Wiki article and clearly he is indeed worthy of one given his considerable profile and following, I don’t think notability was ever an issue. However his article was deleted in July 2007, seemingly (as far as I can ascertain) without any discussion by a moderator tired of dealing with attacks from Hawkins' followers and legal threats from the man himself (there may have been discussion on the article talk page but this has since been deleted as well so I can’t tell). Hawkins has a history of intolerance to legitimate criticism and also of threatening legal action against his critics (or anyone publicising the views of his critics), usually on spurious grounds. One successful example of Hawkins using legal threats is in the case of the aforementioned New England Institute for Religious Research which removed its criticisms of Hawkins from their webpage after he threatened to sue – apparently they spend most of their money on helping victims of cults and don’t have the finances to “defend freedom of speech”. It appears that Hawkins threatened Wikipedia with legal action on the grounds of copyright violation. The moderator in question, apparently “tired” of the arguments and threats, then deleted the article. To my mind this deletion was totally unjustified and was simply giving in to largely baseless threats and bullying intended to silence legitimate free speech. (Hawkins himself has apparently said that his problem with his Wiki article was actually that it gave links to Robert Todd Carroll’s criticisms of him, which merely pointed out that AK fails scientific tests and that he earned his PhD at the unaccredited diploma mill Columbia Pacific University, both of which are verifiable facts and not in any way shape or form libellous). If copyright violation was an issue (which is a dubious suggestion in itself from what I can gather), then it should have been a relatively simple matter to remove any and all direct quotes from Hawkins’ own books, CD’s etc, which should surely remove the problem (and Hawkins’ supposed justification for his threats). There is no issue of libel – there was nothing remotely libellous in the article as far as I can see, the statements about the Religious Research institute merely pointed out that they had applied a well-known cult leader psychological profile test to him with no mention of whether they actually concluded that he was exhibiting tendencies of a cult leader and this could have been removed (without removing the whole article) if deemed defamatory (which I seriously doubt it would be under US law), and the statements about Columbia Pacific University and the legitimacy of Hawkins’ claimed Danish “knighthood” are simply verifiable facts (to my knowledge, Hawkins didn’t actually bother to claim the article was in any way libellous anyway). If Hawkins objects to Wikipedia pointing out that science appears to demonstrate that AK doesn’t work or that he got his PhD from a diploma mill that has been shut down, then that’s his problem. It doesn’t mean the article should be deleted, it should be there as a neutral source of information about Hawkins for people curious to learn more about him. It is one thing to remove articles copied from other sources or remove libellous material, but for Wikipedia to give into spurious threats made by a self-confessed opponent of free speech (“we don’t need freedom of speech, we need freedom from speech” apparently) who is seemingly determined to remove any or all legitimate criticism of himself where possible is extremely sad. The author of The Skeptics Dictionary, the aforementioned Robert Todd Carroll, has himself written on the subject of Wikipedia’s deletion of Hawkins’ article and sees it in much the same terms. I would like to propose that Wikipedia users seriously reconsider and hopefully overturn the decision to delete Hawkins’ article and restore it, if necessary with any material directly taken from his own works removed and any other appropriate editing done to ensure that the article contains no material that conflicts with copyright violation or BLP issues. This is what should have been done originally, rather than simply deleting the whole article to placate Hawkins and his fundamentalist disciples. Wikipedia cannot be sued by Hawkins for simply stating verifiable, sourced facts that he decides he disapproves of.

The original article is mirrored [here|http://domainhelp.search.com/reference/David_R._Hawkins#_note-80. Further information about Hawkins, his history of trying to silence his critics and the deletion of his Wikipedia page can be found here: [1] [2]. 92.10.158.234 (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC) -->

• Editors with access to OTRS can find the relevant ticket here. Right now, given the allegation of BLP concerns I'd like to see a neutrally worded and properly sourced draft before I would be willing to even consider this. Based on the nomination, I'd suggest that the nominator is too close to the subject to be able to provide a neutral draft. Endorse pro tem until something worth looking at emerges. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• My recollection of the matter was that there were no obvious BLP violations in the final version. The biggest problem was that proponents of the subject were inserting extraordinary claims with weak sources and an opponent was adding negative material with equally weak sources. There is a general lack of objective 3rd party sources for the subject, but despite that fact he certainly seems notable enough for a Wikipedia biography. The article was deleted outside of process. I endorse overturning the deletion of the article and either fixing it or putting it through conventional AfD. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted; let's have a sourced draft first in userspace. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. Why was this article deleted to begin with? The mirrored version linked by the nominator has 98 footnotes, and is generally quite well referenced. If there was contentious material in the article, why wasn't this dealt with in the usual way by removing the offending sections or stubbing the article? The stated deletion rationale was:

"you know what, no matter what everyone does or says, I am always getting emails about this being a BLP violation or some copyvio. Take your matches elsewhere, I am done with this."

This isn't CSD G10. This is just an admin sick of dealing with the article. Let's get this back and deal with the issues in the same way as we do with all the other controversial BLPs. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Restore - I am not prepared to fully review the full article but the deleted one was a sourced stub. We could at least go back to that, and develop the article from there, carefully, in compliance with WP:BLP. Mangojuice^talk 15:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Restore, as the most recent version (admin only link) at least was stable. As long as there's a single stable version that can be reverted to, reversion is preferable to full-out deletion. Worst case here is that the article needs to be indefinitely and fully protected, which is still preferable to deletion. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 19:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Also, while the deleting admin has not responded here, he's indicated on his talk page that he would prefer to see a draft before restoration (diff). lifebaka++ 19:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Question. Can someone please post a copy of this article (protected, if necessary) while this is under review? I cannot really judge either way right now. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • As noted above, a mirror of a long version of the article is here. The short version was a few lines. For the purposes of DRV, the key matter is whether it was properly deleted. Since it was done outside normal procedures that question appears to be "yes". If nothing else, we can start over from scratch. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn if there was a neutral version to be rolled back too (as indicated by Lifebaka and Mangojuice) then I see no reason for deletion. It appears as if the deleting admin just got pissed off by all the POV pushers and purged the whole work at his discretion, which is not a valid reason for deletion. I would recommend the use of full protection in stabilizing the article as opposed for going for the nuclear option. Icewedge (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Skyzoo

Skyzoo (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I created this article from scratch with evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources, which was presumably lacking when an article on this subject was previously deleted at AfD. User:Orangemike speedy-deleted the article (A7), incorrectly I believe, and refused to restore it when requested, claiming that because of insufficient releases the artist was not notable, despite the agreed notability criteria at WP:MUSIC, not to mention the general notability criteria. Not being an admin, I do not have access to the deleted article but I wouldn't have created it if I didn't think ther was sufficient coverage of the subject in reliable sources, which included a biography at Allmusic among others. Since sources exist and were included in the article, speedy deletion was inappropriate. Michig (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC) I should also point out that Skyzoo has, in contrast to the deleter's comments, released a 'proper' commercially-released album, which has been released and reviewed, in addition to a mixtape, which I believe I pointed out in the article.--Michig (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• This really comes down to the sourcing. DRV isn't really the place to discuss that so I'd support undeleting and listing at AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• It wasn't an A7, but G4 would have applied in the alternative as the article had previously been deleted by a deletion discussion. Keep deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

  No, a G4 would not have applied as the article is NOT recreation of deleted content.--Michig (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

  The articles were both about the same person. If G4 couldn't be applied unless the article was an exact carbon-copy of the deleted article, it would be pointless — the criterion was created to avoid having to repeat deletion processes when a deleted article was recreated by a user. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• G4 criterion is "A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted". That's what the policy says, it does not state that creation of a completely new article about a previously-deleted subject is speedyable via G4. The original article was deleted due to lack of notability, a key factor being lack of significant coverage, which has been addressed in the completely-rewritten new article. This is not in any way a recreation of a deleted article. I don't really feel I should have to point this out.--Michig (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Nothing Michig has said makes it sound as if the previous AfD discussion needs to be revisited. If Michig thinks notability can really be established, I suggest creating a draft in user space first to show so. Mangojuice^talk 15:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• There's worlds of difference between the sourcing of the older and more recently deleted versions. I'd much rather see another AfD, if deletion is still sought. I wouldn't be surprised if it fared well there, either. Overturn the G4 deletion. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. If there is reliable sourcing on the subject I would like to see a draft in user space beforehand. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and start treating editors better. The version Google has cached[3] is sourced to articles about Skyzoo in allmusic[4], hiphopdx.com[5] and XXL[6] among others. That = non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources. (And more sources exist for this, e.g. [7]). Deleting because some entirely different article was deleted is bad, mkay? And backing it up with a personal interpretation of notability at odds with the consensus interpretation doesn't fly, needless to say.(Original article probably shouldn't have been deleted either, if editors put energy into sourcing and not clicking fancy buttons and opining, but that's another story.) 86.44.21.140 (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Elle williams 360.jpg

Image:Elle williams 360.jpg (|