Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 6

Mer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)

It was deleted as 'patent nonsense' after having existed for almost one year; The discussion that is spread out between here and here also indicates that there has been a normal article at the page (can patent nonsense really be 'infinitely better' than other content of the same page?), so the only way I can explain the deletion is that someone deleted a vandalized page without checking the page history for an unvandalized version first. Since there is already a redirect to something else on the page now, it should subsequently be moved and changed into a disambiguation page, I suppose. - Andre Engels 07:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The page was about a French commune, which ended up being speedied after its content was vandalized. I restored it since there's no good reason not to have a page on that. - Bobet 08:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series)

Before beginning, let me say that I bear no ill will towards the closer, who I believe was working in the best possible faith and should be commended for the amount of work put into this close (roughly 5-6 hours). However, I believe that there were multiple issues with the AfD process and a few with the closing that make this AfD invalid. Chronologically, my concerns are threefold:

1. Nomination. In order to give a valid opinion in an AfD, you must have read the articles under discussion. In this case, that entailed reading 59-84 (nominator and closer differ on the exact number) separate articles. If the remaining fragments of the category that have not yet been deleted are any indicator, this means that giving a valid opinion which took into account the case-by-case differences between the articles under discussion would require somewhere between 2 and 4 hours of reading. This is an utterly unrealistic requirement to place on anybody. As additional process concerns, not every included article was properly labeled as being under discussion, and no individual reasons were given for the deletion of any specific article in the series. This is in addition to secondary concerns such as the nominator overwriting an existing debate to start it.
2. Discussion. As a result of this unfortunate nomination style, the vast majority of votes in the AfD were just that: votes. Rather than being a reasoned discussion of the individual merits of the articles, it became an ideological clash between "deletionist" and "inclusionist", with delete votes that essentially read "per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE" and keep votes per "Gundam is a notable anime". A few individuals gave longer versions of the above two votes, and an even smaller group gave their opinions on a specific minor group of the articles, with most of them voting merge.
   To make matters worse, the nominator was incivil throughout the AfD, swearing, ranting, and jumping on every keep voter and declaring their opinion "invalid" and even "nonsense". This conduct was condemned by several users, but he continued to engage in it, creating a hostile and combative atmosphere and further destroying attempts at reasoned discussion.
3. Closing. When User:Doug Bell closed the discussion, he effectively closed it as "delete with no consensus exceptions". He gave these exceptions to those few articles which a couple of editors (mostly User:Mythsearcher) took the trouble of giving specific keep reasons for. This was in an attempt to avoid vote-counting, according to his closing. While this was better than nothing, it ignored that a blanket delete is of equal validity as a blanket keep. Which is to say, none whatsoever in a protracted argument. The only valid opinions in an AfD are those which are directed at the merit of individual articles, based on the reading of those articles, and of those I see only User:Mythsearcher's comments.
   In other words, the closer took into account minimally reasoned deletes while ignoring keep opinions which displayed similar amounts of thought. Additionally, the comments near the end of the debate seem to agree that the consensus was for collaborative merging under the guidance of the relevant Wikiproject.

In conclusion, and with all respect towards the dedication of User:Doug Bell, I believe that this AfD was flawed throughout its entire founding and execution on a fundamental level. A deletion discussion cannot be concluded without a valid debate. A debate cannot be conducted without valid arguments. Arguments cannot be given without valid evidence. Evidence cannot be gathered without reading the articles under discussion.

This AfD made the most basic step of deletion discussion absurdly difficult, made it impossible to give a valid opinion, and generated nothing productive. Relist in a sane manner. --tjstrf talk 17:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT FROM CLOSING ADMIN Doug Bell: (Here's why I got involved.)

First let me say that the only personal stake I have in whether these articles are deleted or not is to have some sense that the considerable time I invested in closing this nomination was not in vain. To put it another way, I would have no basis other than the arguments presented by others to have rendered my own opinion in the matter had I chosen to offer my own opinion on the AfD as I have no knowledge of nor opinion of the articles in question. I'd like to address a few inaccuracies in the above request, and beyond setting the record straight on the process of closing, have little else to say on this as I have no personal interest in the articles themselves.

The discrepency in the number of articles is entirely mine as I added the number 84 to the nomination. This number was based on the number of articles listed on the template Template:Cosmic Era mobile weapons that was referenced in the nomination as the list of articles under consideration. In the process of closing the AfD and reading the articles I discovered that many of the separately listed articles on the template actually referred to the same article (multiple Gundam's being listed in a single article.) So the actual number of distinct articles was 59 instead of 84.

As to the closing, I take considerable exception to the characterization of my evaluation. In fact, some of these statements make me question if the characterization is based on actually reading what I wrote or on Tjstrf's own personal assessment of how he would have closed the nomination. In particular, the attempt to establish equivalence between the rationales to keep and to delete. You are free to read the 156K worth of discussion to establish your own consensus, as I did, but to state that the strength of the arguments and their basis in policy and precendent are equilvalent is a misrepresentation of the facts. I spent considerable time and effort to not count !votes, but instead reduce the arguments of each side down to their core points and the strength of their positions in reaching my decision on closing this nomination. There was consensus between both the keep and the delete arguments, at least when an argument was presented, that matches the four points I make at the beginning of my closing statement which I'll repeat here:

1. The level of detail, in-universe style and sources of all of the articles fails to meet WP:WAF and WP:RS.
2. The information is single sourced with possible copyvio issues from MaHQ.net.
3. All of the information has already been transwikied to http://gundam.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
4. While the Gundam series itself clearly meets the notability requirements of WP:FICT, the majority of the articles listed in this AfD do not.

These points were not generally contested on the nomination and by themselves lend considerable credence to just deleting all of the articles. The only real point of contention between the keep and delete sides of the discussion had to do with point #4 above. Even on this point, there was consensus, with about half the keep supports admiting that between some and many of the articles would qualify as the equivalent of WP:FICT "minor characters" and should not have articles of their own. So the main issue that separated the two sides of the argument was determining a) whether to delete all of the articles; or if not, then b) which articles to keep. My closing was based on what I judged to be the consensus of the keep votes for articles that could be supported by criteria that is in line with WP:FICT. Note that the majority of the delete opinions would not have kept any of the articles, but I tried to err on the side of keeping any articles that might have a claim to notability under WP:FICT.

One last thing to note is that shortly after the closing I had two messages on my talk page, both from proponents to keep all the articles praising me on the manner in which I performed the closing (one even giving me a barnstar) even though neither of them got exactly what they wanted. So obviously Tjstrf's opinion of my closing is just that—his opinion. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• NOTE: I was asked to and offered my complete cooperation with recovering any material from the deleted articles needed to create a new composite article discussing the deleted subject matter. Since these articles had not been improved much since the previous AfD in April 2006, I saw no reason to leave the articles in the hopes that somebody would soon be needing the material to create a composite article. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn - I made a comment on the original AFD about how it was absolutely impossible for any kind of correct decision in such a large AFD. And that you'd need input from WP:GUNDAM guys over which should be kept and how they should be merged. I was rebuffed by some inclusionist with a really shitty argument, so I didn't bother with this new AFD. However, instead of deleting those articles in the close, at best, they should have been redirected to the merged pages, in order for WP:GUNDAM or Anime guys to rein in the remains. - hahnchen 19:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure per my comment above. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse a peerless example of AfD closure by quality of argument. Yes, it was complex. So Doug spent hours understanding the arguments and then closed to the best of his understanding. Overturning the whole thing would be quite wrong. Any which are individually more significant than Doug rated them, we can debate individually, but in the end the result looks right from both process and policy, as per the reasoning set out in great detail both here and on the AfD. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse per Doug's promise to provide any deleted material to contributors to use in creating possible articles that are non-crufty and actually verifiably sourced. It might be useful to userfy the articles temporarily so the material can be copied by those involved. Or if it's been transwiki'd to some wiki that revels in this cruft already, then awesome, job done. I think to be clear a statement should be made that recreation of any of these articles isn't speediable, but neither will we stand for wholesale re-cruftization. We do want the verifiable information useful to someone who wants an introduction. We don't want fanboy trivia. Some of both has been deleted. SchmuckyTheCat 21:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In the closing statements I said:

    That leaves the following to be deleted with no prejudice against creating a single (or very limited set of) composite article(s) that discuss all of these elements as a group while addressing concerns #1 and #2 above

    and

    The deleted articles above should be redirected either to a composite article or to some other article, in part to discourage recreation and in part to assist in locating the correct article for searches. This redirection is to be done at a later time following the completion of this closure.

    The point being that recreating the individual articles in not endorsed, but creating redirects is encouraged and creating one or a few composite articles covering the deleted material is without prejudice which mean not subject to speedy deletion. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure I understand how it's easy to jump to the conclusion that no one could possibly close such a monster of an AfD, but I was very surprised at how well it went. I believe all major concerns and points were represented, and that the discussion for the articles, which ones to keep (for now) and which ones to delete, was made with excellent judgement. -- Ned Scott 21:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment WP:GUNDAM never really got off the ground in the first place. I've actually been doing some house cleaning on that project, changing it from a sub-section of Gundam to include all of Gundam, so that people could have a place to discuss the rest of the 'cruft clean up. (The shortcut WP:GUNDAM was made just last night) WikiProjects are places of collaboration first, and groups of people second. WikiProjects don't have authority over the articles under their scope, but are simply a place for discussion and collaboration to happen. -- Ned Scott 21:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion. I have nothing against the closer, closing was fine. But by the nature of such an insanely huge nomination, many issues certainly did not get as much discussion as they should have. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like to address one other point in this deletion review nomination not related to how it was closed. There is much made in this nomination about the impracticality of reviewing so many different articles. First, had this nomination been made as suggested by nominating all of the same articles in smaller chunks spread across multiple AfDs, the same issue would present itself—namely the number of articles to review does not decrease with the number of AfDs they are spread across. It is true that individual editors can choose to weigh in on only a subset of the articles in question, and there is benefit to that, but it is also true that the amount of discussion they would have to digest to weigh in on all of the articles would undoubtably be considerably greater. Besides, an editor can always weigh in on only a portion of the articles listed in a massive AfD anyway. The fact is that there were a number of editors supporting keeping the articles (or some portion of them, or in at least one case supporting deleting them) that had broad familiarity with the subject matter and contents of the articles without having to spend hours reading them. It was only the opinions of these editors that was taken into account in determining which articles to keep and which to delete. So I humbly disagree that the process was inherently flawed or that it would be a better process to consider these in a mass of AfDs instead of in a massive AfD. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The absolute number of kb you have to read doesn't decrease, certainly, but the amount you have to do in one sitting will. If it's a decision between A. sitting down and reading 50 articles, taking notes on each of them, and dedicating 3 hours of your life to give a breakdown of why you think a bunch of articles on a series you don't even like should be kept/deleted as individual entries or B. just saying "keep/delete' plus some personal opinions on notability as a whole, which will most editors do? As this and all similar AfD's demonstrate, the latter.

If, on the other hand, you only have to read 5 articles, and then the next day read 5 more, and then 5 more the day after that, and then another 5, the time is split out into pieces. You spend 15 minutes, evaluate the 5 articles, and say "Delete X because he only appeared in one episode, merge Ya, Yb, and Yc into Y because they're just variants of each other, and keep Z because he's the main villain." Then the next day if you feel like it you can go through another 5. (That's right! You don't even have to be the one to evaluate the next 5 articles, you could take a wikibreak and let someone else decide that day.)

The important bit is to keep the necessary level of reading and evaluating that you need to do in order to give a valid informed opinion on the article content low. For a nomination of 5 articles, that minimum is 40-100 kb of article text and a short afd debate. For a nomination of 50 articles, that minimum is 400-1000 kb of text and another 100 kb of arguing. And let's not forget the hours it will save the closer. --tjstrf talk 23:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. The administrator worked very well with what was presented in the AfD discussion. Although the final result was not what I (the nominator) originally intended, it was clear that his decision met consensus. Swaying away from the blind "delete all" and "keep all" arguments (which I admit to being a part of), there was a clear consensus - to keep some, merge some, and delete the rest. tjstrf claims this was simply Mythsearcher's opinion (which it may have been), but many were shown to agree (even though I was not one of them). I understand my conduct was terrible, and luckily I did calm down to leave the discussion, contrary to what tjstrf claims. However, the original nomination was not as bad as it was made out to be - after 4 or so votes, every page was labeled as under discussion - in addition, group nominations are allowed and (apparently) are common place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheEmulatorGuy (talk • contribs).
• Endorse closure. Doug did a stand up job under the circumstances. That's one of the best closes I've ever seen. Mackensen (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure This seems to me a very reasonable compromise. I see now that some were important to the series, but most wernt, therefore I applaud the closing admin for doing a artfully done closure. Fledgeling 01:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. In the interest of full disclosure, I voted for deletion in the original AfD. It has been my opinion throughout this process that, at the time of nomination, not a single article listed meets the out-of-universe requirements laid forth in WP:WAF and WP:FICTION. While some articles can successfully be argued for notability, I believe that this notability comes from entirely within the intersection of Gundam hobbyists. What few modifications have been made to the article do not impress upon me any improvement, and my original feelings stand. However, with that said, I believe that the closing admin put in a lot of leg work where others would've been content to say, "Psh. There's no way you can make any sense out of 130kb," and dropped the whole thing. Bravely, he trudged through the carnage and came up with a sensible, compromising solution.

After the nomination was closed, I went through the articles he'd chosen to keep and compared them to the criterion he'd established when starting the closing process. While I don't agree on every article, I believe he found a golden mean that respects both the so-called delitionists and the so-called Gundamcruftists. Beyond that, I agree with the sentiments raised above: either you list 'em all under one article and people get their knickers twisted, or you list each article seperately and people get their knickers twisted. There's really no easy way to excise such a huge mass from the body of Wikipedia. Consequentially 01:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment "All of the information has already been transwikied to http://gundam.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page" No, not at all actually. Yzak Jule 05:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure what the above person's basis is, but this template shows otherwise. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If you had bothered more than a cursory glance, you would see that it's months out of date and lacks a majority of the recent information added to the deleted articles. Yzak Jule 05:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I apologize, you are indeed correct. However, I don't see how you can blame me, it's an incredible mind strain to read the terribly-written articles. Someone (like you) really needs to re-write everything for a non-dedicated audience. --TheEmulatorGuy 06:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I could have if the articles on here hadn't been deleted in a hurry :-) Yzak Jule 06:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
      • How many could you have saved over the period of five days, the length of the AfD? It's not as if there were no notice of this. Actually, I was surprised that no one had actually asked to divide the nomination up (nominator noted the regret he/she had for a large set to be considered). The fact remains that the closing admin took the time to analyze all that was thrown in his direction, and he called it down the middle (note that I made no comments during the process of the AfD - and I am here only to comment upon whether or not it was properly closed). Doug Bell took the time to explain the reason (which to save, which to redirect, which to delete) in virtually each case, and to state what can be to salvage the deleted material. Under the circumstances, one Barnstar is certainly not enough for the closing admin - the "decision" was better written than many I've seen from a court of law. Endorse close. B.Wind 07:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn Deletion There should be no "exceptions" when it comes to a no consensus ruling. Doug's deletion of material that should have been kept in order for us to be able to merge the articles properly as was being discussed on the AfD page needs to be overturned so we can actually do the work that was beginning at the time of closure. This AfD has breathed new life into WP:Gundam, and the admin's choice to blatantly ignore the progress that was being made to solve the problems brought to light is disturbing. Kyaa the Catlord 07:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As I said on my talk page and above, I will gladly provide the deleted material for the purpose of creating a merged article that addresses issues #1 and #2 above. All you need to do is ask. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply Yes, by deleting the articles you are now holding the data needed to merge them captive until we can meet your demands. Bloody brilliant. How are we supposed to work on these articles when you deleted them so we can't work on them? Catch bloody 22. Kyaa the Catlord 08:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Meet my demands? I think you misunderstand. The only "demand" is that you are planning to create a merged article instead of individual articles and that you intend to address the issues #1 and #2 above. However, at this point I'd rather wait until this DRV completes since if the result is to overturn then there is no need for me to supply the deleted material. (This is not set in stone, it's just that if this is overturned, then the merge would be premature.) —Doug Bell ^talk 08:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I point at the later discussion in the AfD and the related ones on WP:Gundam. There was an effort being made to address your concerns at the time you closed this AfD, but by deleting the material needed to be reviewed, you built a huge wall against us being able to merge them properly. If we can't view the material required for merging, how the hell do you propose we work on it? Kyaa the Catlord 08:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

<sigh>What is it about I will gladly provide the deleted material that is so difficult to understand here? —Doug Bell ^talk 09:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, it appears you did not take into consideration the work being done to do this prior to deleting the articles. A number of the deleted pages are being discussed on WP:GUNDAM for review, improvement and potential merging. Instead of deleting them, it would have been better to leave them so that the project could work on them without having to beg for you to provide the information that was simply deleted. With this data simply removed, I'm going to face difficulties simply doing planning for proposing merges. *sigh* Kyaa the Catlord 09:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about, Kyaa? WP:GUNDAM is still hardly active, and even if it was, a WikiProject does not have authority over a group of articles. -- Ned Scott 09:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As stated, the WP:Gundam group was actively discussing merges when these articles were deleted from underneath them. They may not have been terribly active, but are we supposed to judge people based on their activity? Sounds damn elitist to me. Kyaa the Catlord 10:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not judging people. WIkiProjects are places to collaborate. WikiProjects do not have authority over articles, and their existence should never be a reason to keep (or delete) an article. The editors who were discussing things there were also discussing things on the AfD. Some conversation spilled over there, and suddenly that is a reason to undelete articles? -- Ned Scott 10:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In his decision to delete, Doug did precisely that. He judged people based on the number of edits they had made. This betrays a bias towards those who edit a lot against those who simply use wikipedia as an encyclopedia. I used the discussion on WP:GUNDAM as an example that the discussion was ongoing and that there was work which was disrupted by Doug's deletions, not to simply justify undeletion, but to show the circular logic of his "I will provide the information..." statement. If he's willing to provide the information, why delete it in the first place? It simply makes it harder for those of us who intend to improve the articles to do so. Kyaa the Catlord 10:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. I'm someone who is trying to get WP:GUNDAM going, and I think the deletions are a step in the right direction. Does that not make me apart of that WikiProject and it's efforts? You seem to assume that the conclusion of a separate discussion there would be to keep. This has nothing to do with how often people edit. WP:GUNDAM is a failure of a WikiProject that only now has signs of life directly because of the AfD discussion. There was no previous serious effort to improve those articles before hand, and the only activity on that project was spill over from the AfD (in other words, without the AfD there wouldn't even be that discussion). Someone created the project in an attempt to boost collaboration, and it didn't really happen. It might happen now, and if so, great. You're trying to make the existence of WP:GUNDAM significant when it's not. -- Ned Scott 10:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware that the WP was rather dead prior to this... Grrr. I'm not saying that the WP was significant. I'm saying that the WP and its spillover from this AfD was significant and that these articles should be made available again so that the work that was beginning can continue. Without the background information, it is harder to propose merges and coordinate. Based on Doug's willingness to provide the deleted material, it shows that his decision to delete in the first place was weak and that overturning this should not be a big deal. Kyaa the Catlord 11:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It might not even possible for these articles to improve enough based on their 'crufty nature. Nothing of value has been lost. Don't get me wrong, I watched every episode of SEED and a good deal of the other Gundam shows, and I can still honestly say that. -- Ned Scott 11:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment. I hate the word "cruft", its inherently POV and should be banished from Wikipedia. But I do agree that these articles need serious work and major merging. The only ones which should remain are those tied to characters worthy of having their own articles and even then, they should be grouped on a "list" sort of article with a couple of exceptions. The problem with this mass delete is that it deleted major weapons (Duel and Buster for instance) which should have been merged into a smaller, tighter article on the G-Weapons. I'm not suggesting we keep all these articles, but in order to do the major amounts of work that is needed, we need some of these back for it (temporarily imho). Kyaa the Catlord 11:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, for 2 reasons: firstly that this was a trainwreck of epic proportions, and re-opening it as is will simply continue the carnage and (to a lesser extent) the utter bl**dy-minded snarkiness of many contributors; secondly, because the closer followed (as far as I can see) the approved processes -- no accelerated closure, no keep/merge/delete-only mindset, reduced attention paid to sheep-votes and so on. I agree (with both sides) that this is an emotive issue, but I don't think that restarting the whole epic from day one will acheieve anything. And if the articles are already transwikied elsewhere, then (as I understand it) the content has not been lost, and can be resubmitted as approrpiate -- Simon Cursitor 07:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, and give Doug a cookie. Proto::► 09:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as I see no abuse of discretion. While some mass nominations are trainwrecks, others are not. It is up to the discretion of the closing admin to decide if a particular discussion is a trainwreck. Those that really should go the trainwreck route are those where either people generally agree that the articles are radically different or where several overlapping subsets get discussions that differ in reasoning and/or consensus outcome, such that consensus is not discernible to the closing admin. At this time, WP:TRAINWRECK is a redlink, and mass AfD nominations are explicitly authorized, so arguments that a mass nomination is sufficient reason to keep are contrary policy and should be ignored. GRBerry 09:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Well, I vote to keep those pages, however, I have seen that problems exist for some pages. I do regret some errornous (IMHO) parts of decision, like ZGMF-X56S Impulse Gundam, which is quite major MS-es. However, I admit that Doug had tried the best effort and appreciate such good (despite not perfect) efforts, and understand that his minimal knowledge on the subject may lead such errors. I am against mass AfD, but I admit there is no such policies control over this. Repeating that mass AfD with mass RvD, IMHO will lead only to flamewar as well as mass AfD. I would rather RvD on per-article basis. Despite all of these, I choose to work on planning the Mobile Suits pages structure, first before any RvD. And don't forget, the RvD doesn't always need to be done, rather... use Temporary Undeletion. Remember, that we have such processes, I have asked Doug, and he accepts to help. And if you ask, until now, I still stand on keep stance. I am one that against for merging too much, since that will be "explosion". We still accept stub, why not clean-up. Anyway, as I said in Doug's talk page, I must thank him and wish him good luck, though I can not give him any barnstar since the decision still not exceptionally good despite it is good solution (Sorry, Doug ^^ ). To all inclusionists: Our "enemy" may have hot-head. Our heart may hot. But our head must remain cold. Cheers...(^^)Draconins 14:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Temporary undelete and move to userspace or project space to facilitate merging. Then move back and delete. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 17:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this request needs to wait until this DRV has concluded. I would point out that if you want something to work on, the no consensus articles still require a lot of work as outlined in the AfD closing statement. The no consensus status is not going to prevent a future AfD from deleting these articles nor serve as an argument against their deletion, so perhaps it would be worth some effort to justify the articles that were not deleted. Not trying to suggest what you should work on as that is up to you, but I don't want that point in the closure to be lost. It was a close call to just delete everything, but as I say above, I tried to err on the side of not deleting where it wasn't clear. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. In my view, the closing admin did an exceptionally good job in teasing out the various strands of a complex and confusing debate. As this is an appeal, not a de novo re-hearing of the substantive issues, we should ask ourselves (a) whether the closing admin applied policy incorrectly; and (b) whether, in dealing with the issues, he made any major errors of fact which would necessitate the decison being overturned. As far as I can tell from the discussion above, under (a) the primary issue being alleged is merely that he shouldn't have accepted the case as it was too difficult. But that doesn't amount to a misapplication of policy. Nobody has so far alleged (b) with any conviction, and in particular no-one has provided a reasoned list of the specific articles on which they think the decision went the wrong way (and to provide support for such an allegation would mean having to re-do the entire thing from scratch). Note that it should not be a reason for overturning the decision to argue that "I would have not have accepted the AfD" nor "The conclusions might have been different had I done it". Unless an admin does something demonstrably incorrect, which this one did not, the community should accept his decisions with good grace. --MichaelMaggs 18:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse per above people who said it much more eloquently than I can. Whispering 00:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure -- I just spent over an hour going over the AfD discussion myself to see what the actual points raised were, and to see if I could find any obvious flaws in the closer's reasoning. I could not. This was a truly remarkable job of finding the threads of good debate from amongst the irrelevant yammer (e.g. mere voting) posted by both inclusionists and deletionists alike. I am awestruck! I think no one would have faulted the closer if he'd simply closed the debate as "trainwreck, no concensus", but he rose to the challenge. If we don't have an Avoiding-a-Trainwreck Barnstar, we may have to create one just for Doug! :) Xtifr _tälk 09:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as an all-too-rare example of going with the emerging consensus, not defaulting to "no consensus" (which both sides often claim as a partial win) or letting somebody else suffer through it. Somebody should buy Doug a beer. -- nae'blis 17:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Make it a nice strong pale ale or a stout please, although I'm not sure how well this will go with the cookie.  :-) —Doug Bell ^talk 17:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion. Many of the people endorsing closure are claiming that the closer looked at all the points people made, that he worked well with the material that was said, that he considered the good debate from the discussion, etc.

The whole problem with mass deletions is that it's so unwieldy to read and comment on 59 separate articles that people won't be able to present good arguments for all of them. So the fact that the closer carefully analyzed all the arguments that were presented is irrelevant; the nature of mass deletions means that those arguments will be far from complete. Ken Arromdee 05:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• In this particular case, the articles were more or less identical as they were mostly paraphrases of another site. I'm sure anyone familiar with the series could guess the content of any given article from its title--I don't have to read an article on the Greased Up Deaf Guy from Family Guy to know he's a one-joke character with about 3 appearences. Some people seem to have picked out the units important enough that it'd be credible to write a good article on them. At least one person asserted that they at least skimmed every article, and I'm sure many more read a few at random like I did. 59 is not so large that a hidden gem would be missed. BCoates 06:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Now, as I see this, there is no use crying over spit milk, especially the milk is already rotten. These articles are poorly written and is hardly anything that could be called following wiki's guidelines. They have to be rewrited one way or another. I suggest the following actions that could mend the short empty period ASAP before some new fan pop up and recreate the pages. (While one already keep on bashing about this on a lot of related page, try going to Talk:List of Gundam SEED characters, this person have posted the same thing on a lot of major characters talk page, too.).

First, someone please create a list page, containing no description at all, with only listing of names of all the mecha that is present in the series. (Seed, Seed-Destiny, Stargazer and Astray should all have separate pages for easier follow up.)

Second, redirect all the deleted pages to those coresponding lists and point people to WP:GUNDAM in the talk page of those lists.

Third, slowly rebuild the necessary information following wiki's guidelines and policies.

This will take time, but the first two steps will reduce chances of the pages being recreated.

MythSearcher^talk 12:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• This is an excellent plan of action. I think this is a better approach even than trying to start from the deleted articles as there was far too much detail and, as MythSearcher points out, these articles would have required complete rewrites even to stand as their own articles. This plan creates a framework to create a suitable article covering the material and also addresses the concern of having the current void filled by more inappropriate articles that will be candidates for speedy deletion. I endorse this plan. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• This page exists at Cosmic Era Mobile Units. Its full of redlinks due to this deletion, however. Kyaa the Catlord 20:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, that page isn't exactly what you suggested Mythsearcher, but... its a good jumping off point. Kyaa the Catlord 20:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I also think many has to be rewritten, but still, old informations may be useful, so it may be a time I request such temporary undeletion. For me, it is easier to cite source based on statement than find really new fact. I don't say find new fact is hard, it is just harder. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a paper, it had no problem if you put it in userspace for a while, if needed. Sorry for being inclusionist. (-_-) Draconins 09:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

PERKEPIS (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)

PERKEPIS is a notable society, since it is operating throughout Sarawak, catering the needs of Muslim students there. Pls reconsider deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed niz89 (talk • contribs)

• I deleted the article because I couldn't find an assertion of notability per either WP:CORP, WP:ORG or WP:N and because it bordered on spam. I have no problems with a new article that asserts notability, but I suggest writing it in your userspace first, at User:Syed niz89/PERKEPIS. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 14:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm sorry, how is that WP:NOTABLE? A local supermarket caters to the needs to the people locally, but nobody has written anything significant in reliable sources about it. Look at the notability guidelines Aecis provided, and also read WP:V. ColourBurst 17:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse: The article was a valid speedy as A1 in its recreated form. In its previous incarnation, it was a testimony to a local student organization. This is too granular in topic, and the actual performance of the article was a predicate nominative. Geogre 13:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion No assertion of notability. Just because an organization exists doesn't mean it should get an article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Neil Woodford (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)

The article was originally deleted as it was claimed it was not notable. However, the subject has numerous online and newspaper references, controls Britain's largest investment fund, and has considerable influence due to his control of £12 billion of UK equities. Accordingly I rewrote the article with a few more references. However, this was listed for speedy deletion on the grounds of being 'advertising' (it was not, as I have nothing to advertise). I took out content that said the funds were first and second in their sector for performance over 5 and 10 years, as although this is as factual as claims about say Warren Buffet's investment performance, I can see some people might find this to be advertising. I also added in a little more content. Nonetheless, the article was added for speedy deletion as 'advertising' a second time. I added something to the talk page asking exactly what about the article constituted advertising, and beseeching somebody to provide some justification before deleting the page, as having to go through endless process to get the page undeleted is a little boring. However, the page was still deleted within a few hours, along with its talk page, and no one attempted to provide any justification to me what was supposed to be wrong with the content. The page's speedy deletion was clearly inappropriate, as the deletion template said that the page should only be deleted if the article "a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article", and this blatantly was not the case: no substantial rewrite was needed, and the speedy deletion was inappropriate. Nssdfdsfds 09:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn, no opinion on sending to AfD - the article can be viewed here, the last version before it was speedied.[1] Although there is a little bit of weasley content, it certainly doesn't fall into the category of "blatant advertising for a company, product, group or service that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article". Really, all it needs is a copyedit, a serious look at the relevance of paragraph two, some internal links, and some categories. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per Daniel Bryant. Probably should go to AfD if there's argument, but speedying wasn't proper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: This was originally a short and spammy article written by a user with no other contributions. I advised that if he wanted the article his best bet was to rewrite citing good sources, making it less like a personal fan-piece or vanity. That is what he seems to have done; it's not of featured standard to be sure but it does not look irredeemable to me. I will undelete the history so people can have a look; I think we are biting the newbie here and should at least try to give the guy a chance. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain. This was how I perceived the article when I deleted it. This should have been brought here the first time (or even the second time) instead of recreating the article however. See the logs. I also undeleted the talk page while this process takes its course. --Zsinj^Talk 14:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and clean-up the deleted version. Catchpole 15:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and AfD: With the recreation and reconsideration, we should at least let AfD take a crack at it. I'm on the fence about biographies of people who are high up in finance but not really acting publically or significantly. Geogre 17:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn - But I suggest that the effort is put into the Invesco Perpetual article instead. - hahnchen 19:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete iff rewritten. The original version was pure spam, and the last sentence bordered on an attack. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• overturn and allow for improving Yuckfoo 06:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn the speedy deletion, did not meet the speedy criteria it was deleted under, and I don't see any other that it meets. I do see links to two sources that I believe are independent and might contribute to meeting WP:BIO, however I have not followed them to see if they are themselves non-trivial enough to meet the WP:BIO test. I do expect that there are additional sources not linked. GRBerry 09:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• overturn per above. --mathewguiver 21:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history) - (RfD)

This RfD was closed by User:Freakofnurture as 'delete', after the nomination and one 'keep' opinion (it's not clear to me which side the balance of arguments was on; remember that RfD has a lower deletion threshold than AfD). The redirect itself was not deleted for over a month; since then there has been an edit war over whether the redirect should exist or not, and whether it should be linked from WP:NCR (either linked directly as a shortcut, or piped to go to some other page). Wikipedia talk:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man currently has views in favour of the redirect which didn't come up at the RfD; presumably views against the redirect will also appear. Therefore, I'm asking for the RfD to be relisted so that the consensus of the community can be made clear. (As the redirect's purpose is to make a joke in the main WP:NCR project page funny, this could be seen as an editorial decision on that page rather than a deletion; in this case, I'm asking to allow recreation if the editorial consensus is to do that.) --ais523 13:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Overturn, note this redirect has already been undeleted but I'm commenting here in case it is deleted again. (→Netscott) 13:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Leave it, it's a harmless joke and redirects are cheap. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Query I am not quite sure of the actual procedural position of the page. If there has not been an RfD since July it should probably simply go through RfD again rather than a full fledged deletion review since there is nothing but wheel-warring to evaluate. Eluchil404 13:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Not even sure it qualifies as wheel-warring, since the re-creations look to be mainly just reposts, whihc is valid given that there is no solid basis for deletion anyway. Guy (Help!) 13:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. "Admin discretion" doesn't mean "ignore discussion or lack thereof if you feel like it". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per Amarkov and ais523. Ral315 (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per all the above. (No wonder I couldn't find the RfD; it was under another name...) ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 20:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Common-sense delete. Things like this are garbage and we're far better off without them. --Improv 20:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong leave as is per both comments by Guy. (The procedural history here is odd but I think that's a Strong Overturn.) Newyorkbrad 21:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Freak doesn't seem to like the page it directs to itself, and nominated it in the past to be deleted. The result was keep. I think Freakofnature deleting the RfD is a conflict of interest.. -- Ned Scott 01:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. You can't just WP:IAR delete things because you don't like them. Regarding the redirect itself, it's a joke redirect to a humour page, can't possibly hurt anything. --tjstrf talk 01:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. The simple fact that somebody is going to edit war over recreating this is enough disruption to justify the delete. Silly redirect, perhaps silly delete, but disruptive recreation. Let it go, let it die, let it be gone. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, redirects are cheap. Proto::► 09:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep, useless and harmless. Kusma (討論) 13:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse and discount all overturns for being invalid and massively repetitive Just because it's "harmless", it doesn't mean it's "encyclopaedic". Read WP:ILIKEIT.--WaltCip 01:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • WP: redirects do not have to be encyclopedic. Further, you cannot declare a person's opinion invalid for disagreeing with it. Repetitiveness from multiple people shows that they agree with the argument, it's a longhand form of "per that guy above me who I agree with". Read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --tjstrf talk 01:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Note also WP:PROJECTSPACEISNTANENCYCLOPEDIA. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Closing comment I'm speedily overturning the deletion of of this redirect. As it has been noted, this is a potential conflict of interest, and there's no relevant Speedy Delete criteria to justify it. Send it through RfD for the third/fourth/forty-second time if you want it gone. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Limecat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)

The the limecat article was deleted and protected from recreation. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limecat shows six votes to keep and three votes to delete. For some reason it was decided that there was no consensus despite there being double the votes to keep than to delete, and was then deleted. Further, the only claims the few "delete" votes put forth is that limecat is "not notable," "non-encyclopedic," and "just a joke." These claims, which, once again, are in the minority, are unsubstantiated or irrelevant.

• The fact that limecat may be a joke (though it is more correctly categorized as an internet meme) does not preclude it from having a wikipedia article.
• "Non-encyclopedic," as everyone knows, is just a term of art which really means "I don't think this is worth anyone thinking about but I don't have any factual argument to present to defend that position."
• Limecat is absolutely notable, and far outside the GameFAQs message boards where it was supposedly formed (note that I'm not sure this is true, because the article I was going to, to look up such information, was deleted).
  • A search for "limecat" on google returns over 34,300 results, with a few variations of the limecat image displayed. Note that the first result on the google search page (ignoring the obviously spamdexed one) is the Wikipedia entry, which is now empty. Users who want to know more about the limecat meme and do a google search on it are sent to a page telling them it isn't notable enough to be worth talking about. [2]
  • There is a limecat myspace account, with over 500 "friends." Limecat's Myspace
  • There are users and communities on LiveJournal who list limecat as an interest [3], there is a user who has taken the limecat user name, complete with limecat avatar [4].
  • There exist YTMND tributes to limecat [5], and limecat is well known on 4chan.
  • The delete voters themselves were well aware of limecat, as is clear by their joking comments about limecat not being pleased with the quality of the article.
  • I work part time as a technology consultant in a computer lab at my university, and there is a large, 36x56 inch poster up with the limecat picture and the text "Food and drinks in the computer lab? | Limecat is not pleased," which both the staff and users appreciate, it being a nod to the huge popularity of this Internet meme.

Because the articles of deletion votes showed a two thirds majority in favor of keeping, and because the reasons the minority of delete voters expressed are shown above to be invalid, I respectfully request that this article be unprotected and, if possible, restored to the state it was in before being deleted, with full history intact. If the previous quality of the article was not up to Wikipedia's standards and contained original research, this can be fixed, and I would be willing to clean up the article myself. Deleting it for want of quality is not a solution when there is a clear interest in the subject and people willing to improve it. If for some reason someone feels the article is subject to vandalism, it would of course be reasonable to protect it from unregistered users and new users, but please, at least unprotect the article and give us a chance to fix whatever problems existed. --stufff 17:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• The other afds and deletion review Okay, jeez. Not this again. The limecat "cute kitty pic internet junk" issue has already been through 2 other afd/vfd discussions (plus a speedy delete in the 3rd afd nom for a recreated article after a deletion consensus in the second afd nom) besides the one cited in above by stufff. In addition, the outcome of these have already been subject to a deletion review which endorsed the deletion Bwithh 02:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The other afd discussions :

Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Limecat

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Limecat_(2nd_nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Limecat_(3rd_nomination)

Also, I suggest that you focus your enthusiasm and energy on contributing to Encyclopedia Dramatica's detailed article on Limecat instead (which also has a tremendously witty parody of the Wikipedia afd discussion, including a parody of yours truly apparently). That kind of site is much more appropriate for Limecat than Wikipedia. ED is blacklisted as a spam site by WP, so here's the non-hyperlinked url with "nospam" that you have to take out: http://www.encyclopediadramaticanospam.com/index.php/Limecat Bwithh 02:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and here's a bonus site that you might enjoy (suggested by User:Calton in the 2nd afd): http://www.stuffonmycat.com/ Bwithh 02:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse: The thing about fads and crazes is that they're ephemera. What made All Your Base encyclopedic is its longevity. Long years after the joke, people still use the phrase (though few know why they do, I suppose). Dancing hamsters and boogie babies and ceiling cats come and go in a very transient manner. The article in question is a report on a negative as much as on a positive. It says this photo has appeared here and here and here (with page rank boosting links to each), but nothing about why or what is going on. There is no meaning, merely the noting that a thing happened. Geogre 17:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see the full articles on Dancing baby and The Hampster Dance. Your point fails. Further, it is hardly possible for more information on why or what to be added to the article when the article in question was not only deleted, but protected from recreation so that even if someone did have such information to add, it would not be possible to do so without bending over backwards and trying to make reasonable arguments to people who have no concept of logic, and think circular reasoning justifies their actions. --stufff 19:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, that's two wrongs making a right. I actually can see both the baby (which was imported into VH1 promotions) and the Hamster dance (parodied on The Simpsons) have some greater justification, but the point I was making was inescapable: we need time and spread outside of verbal and personal media to achieve something that can be commented upon. When we do have commentary, we need to have actual commentary, and not simply, "Look, there it is! Oh, and it's over there, too!" If we were Gawker.com, or The Register (with its "everywhere girl"), then we would cease to be an encyclopedia in any sense. Geogre 14:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. 1) AfD is not a vote. See Wikipedia:Deletion Policy#Background. 2) Googlehits, Gamefaqs.com message board, Livejounral, Myspace, YTMND, 4chan, and random University lab students are not reliable sources. There's no way to hold any of those people accountable for what they say. 3) "Not notable" in this case is usually a shorthand for "does not have enough reliable sources to write an verifiable article on this topic that conforms to WP:NOT." It's not an equivalence to "I've heard of it" or "it's very popular". Find reliable sources. ColourBurst 18:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 1) Maybe you should read Wikipedia:Deletion Policy#Background yourself, you are apparently unfamiliar with it. Allow me to clarify for you: a) An administrator will delete the page if a Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus] for deletion is reached." b) "Consensus," as defined by the Webster's Dictionary sitting on my shelf, means "majority of opinion." It's quite clear what the consensus for that AfD was, six said keep, three said delete; the three who said delete did so presenting points which I have refuted above. The admins who reported "no consensus" and then deleted the article did so in bad faith, there was a clear consensus and they ignored in favor of invalid and poorly thought out reasons to delete. 2) 3) I have to assume you are being intellectually dishonest on purpose here. Please explain to me how Chuck Norris Facts, Star Wars kid, Milk and Cereal, N64 kid, Dancing baby, Xiao Xiao, Dog poop girl, or O RLY? conform to your rigid standards for notability and verifiability of Internet memes. The very nature of the articles is to note that they are popular, describe various appearances they have made and how they have spread, and provide some history on how they were started in the first place. The only ways to do that are to show hit results and point to actual locations where they have spread, and to the location where it first appeared. For these purposes, those kinds of sources are absolutely verifiable. The standard you are trying to apply simply is not suited for the topic, and you are fully aware of that fact. If you applied the same standard to everything in internet meme, I'd be willing to bet that 90% or more of it would be out the window. --stufff 19:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. See WP:CONSENSUS, specifically the sections concerning consensus versus other policies, and consensus vs. supermajority. Consensus never overrides policy. By the way, the WorldNetDaily has written about Chuck Norris Facts, Globe and Mail and several other newspapers have written about Star Wars Kid, the Washington Post has written about Dog poop girl, so your assumptions that they aren't verified are wrong. ColourBurst 21:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
      • You neglected to address the Milk and Cereal article and the N64 Kid article, which do not fit this requirement yet are still there despite being of much lesser prominence than limecat. Please don't pick and choose only those examples that suit your purposes, doing such is a dishonest form of argumentation; if this is a policy, then why is it only enforced selectively? WP:CONSENSUS clearly states that there should be negotiation and discussion, this didn't happen in the AfD. Six people said keep, three said delete, there was no debate over the merits of any argument, the article was deleted. --stufff 23:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There's a much stronger consensus for WP:WEB, our guideline for web-related content. The difference between the ones you listed and Limecat is that the ones you listed meet the guideline. There's no reason to be nasty about it (we have a policy regarding civility as well), but there's a lot beyond the AfD the closing admin has to look at. My suggestion is to work to get the guidelines changed rather than continue to hammer away at this single article. Until our flawed guideline/policy is fixed, we're not going to see much traction on articles like Limecat. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Welcome to the lunacy that is our verifiability policy, Limecat isn't pleased about it, either. I can't in good conscience endorse this closure, but you're not going to get any traction on this until our reliable source/verifiability policy gets updated to a more logical place. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse - Welcome to an encyclopedia. You're not going to get any traction on this until our standards are lowered dramatically to include your neighbours, favourite neckties and articles on singular knock knock jokes. Whereas some of the things you've mentioned such as Xiao Xiao and Dancing baby have had a wider cultural influence (see the Xiao Xiao v Nike lawsuit), and mentions outside of "internets lol", Limecat, hasn't. I have no idea why we have an article on LUEshi, literally, no idea. - hahnchen 19:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. YTMND Wiki exists for documenting this kind of thing, we don't, because we can't do it without violating fundamental policies. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Sensible guidelines protect us, at least a bit, from poor judgement and WP:ILIKEIT. Sensible decision. --Improv 21:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and protection per WP:ILIKEIT, WP:INN and WM:PIE, as well as the policy of WP:V and the guideline of WP:RS. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Let's see... AfD is not a vote, WP:ILIKEIT is not a keep criterion, neither is WP:SHOULDHAVEIT (without reasons grounded in policy), and "Keep" with no explanation does not, and should not, count NEARLY as much as "Delete per WP:V." -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion There's no way such an article could possibly pass our current verifiability/reliable-sources rules. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Those rules are ridiculous when applied to an internet meme. What better way to show that something exists than to point to it and say "there it is?" You also ignore applying this standard to half the things in the internet meme category, for example, Milk and Cereal and N64 Kid. Please explain what those articles are doing up if Limecat doesn't belong. --stufff 23:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • They have reliable sources. This doesn't. Complain about how it's unfair that we require verifiable sources for things that are so cool all you want, even maybe form your own wiki where reliable sources are unneeded. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so you must have verifiable sources. That isn't negotiable. There is a list of like 10 things that Wikimedia has as Foundation principles, and which can never be overruled by any type of consensus, at all. Verifiability is one of them. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
      • You are incorrect. I'm looking at both of the right now, and neither one has verifiable sources. Further, there are hundreds of other articles that lack any sources at all, and thousands more that have statements which lack sources. None of these articles have been deleted and protected from recreation. What you're saying sounds really nice, but you and I and everyone else here knows it isn't true. Why has this article been singled out when this rule is conveniently ignored in so many other places? --stufff 03:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry. We'll delete those other articles too. Your's just happens to be on the chopping block now. That being said, I'm of the opinion that internet memes should be forced to meet a far higher standard of notability since so many of them end up resembling things made up in school one day that someone else happened to find cool. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 04:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Endorse Nominator needs to go through other afds and prior deletion review and make an argument challenging those, rather than base his argument on an outdated afd discussion. Bwithh 02:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse without prejudice against a sourced article, should such a thing ever become possible. The reason we have articles on other internet memes is both longevity and verifiability (though they do tend to go hand in hand). Nominator seems to have made the common mistake of going to the link provided on the deletion screen, seeing the original nomination, and basing their argument on that. Perhaps it would be useful to newbies if we linked to future discussions from old ones? The naming structure makes this relatively easy, and any prior discussions should be mentioned in newer ones, this just extends the courtesy the other way. I know I've gotten tripped up before by outdated deletion discussions; but this is really ranging far afield of the scope of Deletion Review so I'll shut up and eat my lunch. -- nae'blis 18:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Moon Ball (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)

SpeedyDeletion? Inviso 00:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC) "15:09, 2 November 2006 NawlinWiki deleted "Moon Ball" (g1 a1 wp:not Moon Ball is a game of skill. It is not only hand eye skill but a game of brains and deception. Moon Ball is played with the players choice of ball Ex: tennis ball, raquet ball, lacrosse ball ect. The choice of playing area is also the player)"[6]

I see no reason why the artice was deleted, nor can find any discussion for deletion in the del review archives. I am requesting that you store the page, and check the logs to see that vandalism has occured in the past, which I have restored from computers at school and home.

• Comment: the article was deleted because the administrator who reviewed it believe it to be "Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content" (CSD G1) originally, and then the second time as an "Article that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject" (CSD A7). No debate is required. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The Article was not patent nonsense or gibberish, but rather a description of a variation of the commonly played high school games such as 'wallball' and 'beamball' The article was being prepared to be updated with pictures and a video from an upcoming game. If it was random gibberish or did not make coherent sense, then it is not the fault of the author, but rather the fault of someone who may have edited it, as has been done in the past and had to be fixed. I request that it be reinstated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Inviso (talk • contribs) 01:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

• Endorse. Pictures and videos don't prove anything other than it's something that you and your friends made up one day. ColourBurst 17:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• endorse deletion per ColourBurst, unless independent sources are added. --mathewguiver 22:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse: Look at the article and then look at the justification offered by the deleting administrator. The person deleting explained that it was G1. The article says X is Y, and then it offers a modifier, and then it gives a negative (there is no ball used). What on earth can anyone learn from that? It exists. Use your brain. Pick any ball. Wow. It's as much an A1 as a G1, but the article offers absolutely nothing, and so it is a proper speedy deletion. Geogre 13:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per ColourBurst. Inner Earth 15:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)