Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 4

Scary Movie 5 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

• Overturn Numerous sources cited on the talk page that this movie is IN PRODUCTION (including IMDB), and confirmation of actors who have signed onto the project Sumnjim 19:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment article deleted some time ago when there was nothing but speculation concerning this, once again no discussion with deleting admins first as mandated before deletion review. Personally pretty neutral as to the outcome of this discussion. That said the "numerous" source cited about this being in Production appears to be one, IMDB. Similarly the "actors" again is of the non-multiple variety i.e. one. So the verified article from the sources provided so far, are it is in production, due 2008 and will feature Leslie Neilsen as the president. --pgk 20:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-redeletion until it's been released and we can write a proper encyclopedia article about social impact, reach, etc with multiple non-trivial sources. Until then all we can write is either a regurgitation of new stories or future speculation. We have no need to scoop anyone here at Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that no movie deserves to be on wikipedia until it's physically been released to theatres? Sumnjim 21:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Seems fair. Rumour site <> encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
      • rumor site > encyclopedia is a possibility? Herostratus 04:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
        • IMDB is not a rumor site. To reiterate, this article was deleted a long time ago, when not much info was out on this movie...however if you read the discussion page there are numerous sources documenting that this movie is now in production, which means that it should be undeleted. Sumnjim 14:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Actually, it is. IMDb allows anyone to edit. They do employ a few fact-checkers and have some social controls on editing but not all edits or contributions get properly vetted. IMDb should be used as a source only with great caution and with significant cross-checking of the facts. Nevertheless, my core point is that we can't write an encyclopedia article solely based on the information findable in IMDb. Proper encyclopedia articles focus on the context, impact and social analysis of a film, not a mere regurgitation of the actors, plot and release rumors. Rossami (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete plenty verifiable information is available about this movie.  Grue  16:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion per verifiable information en masse[1]. Matthew 16:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hate to be the one to tell you, but not everything you can find in google is considered a reliable source. The article was deleted pending availability of reliable information so far that information is still pretty lacking. --pgk 15:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Allow recreation. This has been salted for a year, and there's plenty to make a valid article with now that wasn't there a year ago. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sonny Moore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Vanity article LifeStar 17:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close nomination, AfD is underway, this nomination here was likely in error. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Delphine Records (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Not a valid reason to delete page Dashfan00 17:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy deletion absolutely no assertion of notability. See WP:CSD#A7. Metros232 17:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Article as written made no claim of notability: record label with just two releases, one of which is an EP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion under A7. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:WPMOVIE (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This redirect to User:Raul654/Wikipedia the Movie was deleted based upon a strict interpretation of WP:CSD#R2. However, I accrued consensus on the criteria for speedy deletion talk page that such redirects (i.e., from a shortcut pseudo-namespace) to user pages were fine. This nomination is merely a way to see if such consensus works for everyone, works specifically in this case, and can be enforced. Gracenotes^T § 17:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - R2 clearly states it doesn't apply to WP crosslinks. Did you try asking the deleting admin to undelete it? Patstuart^talk·edits 17:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  Yes I did. Gracenotes^T § 17:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Redirect does not point to Wikipedia space, but rather to a page in user space. No need, and as far as I know, no precedent, for a WP redirect to a user humor page. Also, there was no "accrued consensus" at all on the validity of the redirect on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Raul654/Wikipedia the Movie—quite the opposite in fact. —Doug Bell 17:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • (ec) Gracenotes has provided numerous examples at WT:CSD, if you'd like to check them out. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  1. As bbatsell mentioned, there are redirects such as WP:P&S and WP:HELL. (If you want to do a WP:POINT, go ahead and delete those.) 2. If the issue is whether humor pages specifically are okay (and I was assured it was not the issue), take it to WP:RFD rather than speedy deleting it through a loophole. 3. See WT:CSD. Gracenotes^T § 17:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. There is no issue here. If you want this changed, change policy. Abeg92contribs 18:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per newly clarified policy at WP:CSD. Note that thsi is a new calrification, and that until very recently such redirectes were agaisnt the lettter of CSD. See reasoning on the CSD talk page for thsi recent change. DES ^(talk) 00:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Legal. Herostratus 05:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. While I wouldn't advocate a blanket ban on WP: redirects to userspace, I think the rule of thumb that should be used is whether the content of the redirect target is appropriate for the Wikipedia: namespace. WP:VPRF, for example, is appropriate, as there are many Wikipedia tools in the same vein (AWB for example) with pages in the Wikipedia: namespace. On the other hand, while consensus at the MfD has decided that the content at User:Raul654/Wikipedia the Movie is OK in userspace, it is unacceptable for the Wikipedia: namespace, and thus should not have a WP: redirect. Krimpet (talk/review) 05:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. This is Wikilawyering. Raul654 has earned the right to the occasional redirect, if nobody wants the ETLA for anything else. Lighten up, folks! Guy (Help!) 18:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at RfD. IAR and POINT imply that you shouldn't speedy something based on a loophole; and I think this is sufficiently controversial that a discussion would be helpful rather than wasteful here. --ais523 17:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The Godfather films in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I do not believe that the debate indicated that a community consensus had been reached. Yes, certainly, more people advised a "delete" than did a "keep", but the substance of the debate indicates not consensus, but a fundamental philosophical division between those who are ideologically predisposed to delete any and all so-called "trivia" articles, and those who have a more relaxed attitude towards them. I think that dichotomy runs throughout the Wikipedia community, but I also believe that the former attitude is more prevalent among those most likely to become involved in AfD debates, and the other backstage processes of running Wikipedia. However, that fact that this eliminationist philosophy is overrepresented in this small slice of the community doesn't speak to the attitude of the community as a whole. If you were to ask, I'm fairly certain that more people would agree with the idea that on Wikipedia "everything that's not (explicitly) forbidden is allowed", while those dogmatically predisposed to elimination of certain types of material believe that "everything that's not allowed is forbidden." Given this, it's hard for me to understand how the closing administrator could reach the conclusion that a consensus had been reached. I suggest that a community consensis was not reached, and that the article be reinstated. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 15:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Consensus on the AfD was unquestionable, and whether the nominator agrees with the "philosophical motivations" of the !votes is irrelevant to the consensus. It appears that the nominator has some fundamental disagreement with the AfD process (believes that consensus on AfD does not reflect Wikipedia community consensus) however it is not the place of the closing admin to try and second guess the consensus reached. There are other places to bring up disagreements with deletion policy, but since this was closed well within that policy there is no sensible conclusion other than to endorse the closure. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion in popular culture. A completely valid interpretation of a debate in which pretty much every opinion was for deletion, and which therefore follows numerous recent precedents. The way to deal with bloated pop culture cruft in articles is to prune it, not to split it out into whole articles comprised of nothing but cruft. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to say that I disagree entirely -- I have no particular problem with the AfD process, except that I keep reading that it's not a vote but an evaluation of consensus. Clearly if you just count votes, there's no question of what the outcome is, but my understanding that it was more important to evaluate the essence of the discussion to determine where consensus lies, not to count noses. I don't see where it's particularly reasonable to read that debate, and all the objections laid out to the eliminationist philosophy, and say that a consensus was reached -- unless some other meaning of "consensus" is being invoked. And then, how does one ignore the other arguments that were brought out? To wit:
    1. The material in the article in question was spun-off wholesale from another article, where it was the subject of intense debate between myself and the AfD nominator. After the spin-off, the nominator brought the new article up for deletion. In what conceivable way can that not be a violation of the deletion's policy's absolute proscription against using the deletion process to settle editing disputes? Why should the nominator be rewarded for blatantly violating that rule by having the article deleted?
    2. The policy that was cited to justified deletion was WP:AVTRIV, but that policy is not a proscription against any and all "trivia" articles -- it recognizes the existence and the worth of those articles, as well as their drawbacks, and counsels avoidance of them. There is no part of that policy that calls for the absolutle wholesale deletion of "trivia" sections or articles, as suggested by the AfD nominator and his supporters.
    3. A sizable portion of the people who agreed with the nominator that the article should be deleted were also the people that agreed with the nominator (against me) in the editing debate on the original article, and many of them had entered that debate original discussion at the nominator's suggestion. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, but I am suggesting that the debate was overwhelmed by editors of one particular philosophy, who opposed any and all "trivia" sections or articles wherever they appeared, no matter of their content. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 16:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe you are missing the point. You are correct in saying that the deletion debates are not a vote, and are not decided by vote count. That is to prevent people from saying "Delete!" or "Keep!" without elaboration and have their opinions counded as strongly as actual informative debate. However when an overwhelming majority of those expressing their voice are in favor of deletion, and the overwhelming majority of those voices are not simple "Delete" votes but include a rationale for deletion, that is exactly what constitutes a consensus. If the debate is overwhelmed by editors of a particular editing philosophy, the closing admin has no choice but to conclude that said philosophy is the consensus in this case. You may not like the philosophy or the rationale provided, but when the tide of opinion is against you, it's hard to argue that a consensus has not been reached. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't think I'm missing the point, but I am defintely missing the distinction you are trying to make. An "overwhelming majority" can only be determined by counting voted, which makes it a quantitative determination and not a qualitative one, which is what I understood the consensus process to be -- at least that's how it's touted. What I'm asking for is a qualitative evaluation of the debate, and by that criteria it's clear that there's a fundamental split in philosophies which prevented a consensus from coming about. On that basis, and in light of the points I brought out above, I believe the article should be restored. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 17:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ed, we know you dispute the deletion. Te problem is, you appear to be alone in that. Your very very lengthy arguments have been seen, weighed, and found unpersuasive. Now would be a good time to give up. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Guy: You are, of course, correct. I'm disappointed not so much that the article will be deleted -- it's hardly a major blow to the encyclopedia, or to me, not to have it -- but that my arguments, especially those which go to the supposed nature of the Wikipedia enterprise -- seem to have fallen entirely on deaf ears, and apparently haven't even provoked an iota of doubt or re-thinking on anyone's part. C'est la vie. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 00:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, the debate was open, extended, proper, and properly interpreted in the end. To respond to Ed's points: 1 - don't assume that this deletion settles the issue of the section in the article it was spun off from. Rather, consider this part of the Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles cycle. This debate was about the fate of the stand-alone article only. 2 - De facto, it is well-established in the community that articles that consist entirely of trivia sections can be deleted, and WP:AVTRIV is usually cited as justification, alongsite WP:NOT. The AVTRIV page should probably be updated. 3 - that's a serious accusation but I couldn't find any evidence of it being true. Do you have diffs to support your claim? Where did this solicitation of votes take place? Mangojuice^talk 17:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I thought it was clear that by saying explicitly that there was no conspiracy, I was making no accusation of solicitation of votes. What I am saying is that editors of a certain philosophy, who were aware of the original editing debate between myself and the AfD nominator, were overrepresented at the debate, that's all. As to the other points -- perhaps it wouldbe better to leave WP:AVTRIV alone, since it seems like a perfectly reasonable and moderate policy, and ask editors to actually follow the policy that's been approved, as opposed to the one that would like to have? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 17:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I see where the misunderstanding came in, and it's my fault. When I wrote that the nominator asked the others to "join the debate" I was thinking of the original editing debate on The Godfather, not the AfD debate. It was a very poor choice of words on my part. Let me make clear that I am not saying that any solicitation of votes or canvassing took place in the AfD debate. I've changed the wording so that nobody else will get the wrong impression. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 18:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - closing admin correctly interpreted the discussion to arrive at the result. Otto4711 19:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • So when I see statements like this, from WP:AFD:
    Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. Thus, you should not attempt to structure the AfD process like a vote...
    and this from WP:CON:
    Formal decision making based on vote counting is not how wikipedia works (see Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy) and simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate.
    Am I to take it that these are merely pro forma statements, and that on a practical basis admins really just ignore the content of the debate and count votes to determine that a consensus has been reached? I admit that in this case the "deletes" outnumber the "keeps", that an "overwhelming majority" supported the deletion, and even that a supermajority of "deletes" was reached (over 80%), but it's hard to reconcile those standards with the basic policy declarations about what a consensus is and how it's determined. By those standards, judging by the quality and content of the debate rather than by the numbers, I don't think it can be said that a consensus was reached, not when a significant portion of the participants remain unconvinced and unmollified. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 20:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • No, these aren't merely pro forma statements. As I do not wish to endlessly belabor this subject here on DRV, I'm going to leave a comment on your talk page and hope I can clear a few things up for you. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). The consensus of the AFD decisions was not ambiguous. I recommend that you read the Talk page archives of WP:CONSENSUS for an understanding of the "rough consensus" we seek (which is different than the "ideal consensus" that you imply). Rossami (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• It turns out that "rough consensus" in practical terms equates to "supermajority of the people who show up to comment". While that may be an adequate model for determining the consensus of the very small group who participated (a statistically insignificant subgroup of the entire community), it's not nearly adequate to determine the probably consensus of the community as a whole. That requires something much more difficult, a qualitative analysis of the arguments being made and a reasonable extrapolation about how those arguments would play in the community. It's quite possible that there's no practical way for that model to be implemented, which is what I somewhat suspected, and why I kept asking in the AfD debate how consensus was determined.

I'm not a fool, I can see where this DRV is going, and I don't really relish putting myself in the position where I look foolish by tilting at windmills, but I guess I'm just a bit disappointed (OK, more than a bit), that the promised community-consensual model that Wikipedia was said to embody turns out to be something quite a bit less interesting. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 00:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, the consensus on AfD was quite unambiguous. Everyone contributing to the debate stated their argument well; there was no profliteration of pile-on, no-substance votes like the nom of this DRV seems to be suggesting. Additionally, the nom of the AfD was 100% right in trying to integrate trivia into the main article, and did nothing wrong by nominating the spinoff article for deletion. Krimpet (talk/review) 05:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  Just a quick correction -- the nominator of the AfD was not trying to integrate the material into the article, he pronounced it all entirely worthless, and under pressure from others left in a single (uninteresting and not illuminating) entry from the material that now has been deleted. In fact I was the one who wanted to integrate the material into the article, and I was the person making suggestions as to how the material could be reconceptualized and rendered into prose, either in the original article or in the spin-off. The people who voted to delete took the stance that the material was entirely worthless and should be totally deleted without integration. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 08:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse close. Yeesh, that's a lot of text. The argument that the nomination was out of order because it was the result of an editing dispute is not convincing. With that out, you can't deny that the close was proper. Herostratus 05:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Sprawling, messy trivial "in popular culture" sections are to be found in far too many articles. Separating them out will only reduce further the inadequate level of self-restraint that editors show in writing this dross. Nathanian 00:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Frederique_Constant (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD 1, AfD 2)

Insufficient Notability

After this discussion was closed, Kinslayer proposed to change his opinion. Asked if he could review new drafts, but did not receive answer. Believe notability of Frederique Constant as Watch Manufacturer was established and accepted, please see draft and [[2]].

• Undelete Frederique Constant, it's a notable company and IMHO passes WP:CORP. Merge Peter Stas there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete the deletion discussion needed wider participation--there were only 3 voices: the nom, 1 ed., and the closing admin. The correct thing to have done would have been to relist for further discussion. DGG 19:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Upon further consideration of both AfDs, I see that issues related to this were discussed more widely, albeit in a rather confused manner, involving both the company, and Peter Stas, the proprietor. I can only guess that a reasonable close would have been to keep one of the two article. As the other one has been deleted, this one might stay--and appropriately, for I think the company is the more notable. Whatever COI might be there can be removed. I comment, of course, without having actually seen the articles. It would greatly clarify DR if the items in question were made visible to all participants. DGG 07:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not have previous articles either. Anyhow, please see drafts for what I suggest to be neutral text referenced with various sources. Pcstas 10:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closures (keep deleted) but no prejudice against recreation from verifiable sources if written by someone without the inherent conflict of interest. First, not only was the originally deleted version flagrantly advertising, it was also a copyright violation. I can not endorse the undeletion of the 2005 versions of the page. Second, the versions created (and deleted) in 2007 seem to be governed by this second AFD debate. The second debate got plenty of participation and still closed with everyone except the article's author (and subject) arguing to delete. I find no process problems in that second discussion either. There was some evidence presented late in the discussion that the company might be approaching WP:CORP's standards for notability, although some of the references appear to be mere reprints of press releases. I do note, however, that none of the participants in the discussion actually changed their opinions. Even Kinslayer's subsequent comment is ambiguous. The real deciding factor for me, though, is that autobiographies are bad for the project. If you and your company are really notable enough for coverage in an international encyclopedia, then let someone else write the article. It is impossible to be sufficiently neutral when deciding to write about yourself. Rossami (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Noted on autobiographies. Believe drafts show neutral text. Please feel free to adjust. Listing Frederique_Constant is primary aim, fine to merge additional text there. Pcstas 10:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete Looking for various watch brands to prepare for Basel watch fair. Found many but missing Frederique Constant and then stumbled on this page. Company very known here in Netherlands, in my opinion they should have an entry. Hwilli 16:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

List of abbreviations for names (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Seems to have been speedied. Reason given as "recreation", however, I was not aware of any previous version of the page, created it completely from scratch, and fail to see how it merits deletion. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 12:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• The reason is probably that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The actual article is here, in our friendly neighborhood wiktionary. We do appreciate your enthousiasm. >Radiant< 14:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm aware of wiktionary, but this list is not a definition. Someone researching old documents and looking for the name corresponding to an abbreviation, or vice versa, would not likely look first in a dictionary, but in an encyclopedia, as Newyorkbrad seems to concur. I'd like to know if there is a formal process to review the merits of inclusion of this article, rather than immediately speedying it because a previous incarnation was AfD'd. I'd also like to note that I'm a fairly experienced editor, and I'm bit offended at your (seemingly) patronizing tone. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 17:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, that was not my intent. I was simply trying to answer your (implicit) question of how it merits deletion. >Radiant< 11:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• There was a prior AfD, the link to which is above. For what it's worth, had I seen the AfD I would have voted "Keep", as I think this is useful encyclopedic rather than just dictionary content, but I don't believe we have a process for reviewing a deletion just because of disagreement with the result, where the result correctly reflects the consensus that existed at the time. (As difficult as it might be to believe that deletion, the most over-rule-governed part of the project, is missing a process!) Newyorkbrad 16:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I would note that dictionaries are useful, too, and the deletion of an article from Wikipedia is not meant as a judgment on its usefulness. :-) Dmcdevit·t 17:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• It looked like a substantially similar article to the one already deleted, which is at wikt:Appendix:Abbreviations for English given names. I would invite you to work on the article at Wiktionary; we'd be happy to have you. Dmcdevit·t 17:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Erm. This was speedied as a recreation. However, the spirit of CSD G4 is mainly directed toward intentional recreation of a known deleted article, I think. The article is substantially the same as the deleted version, so the AfD for that version may inform us. It was a proper close, BUT... the discussion was awfully weak. Comments such as "Who's to say that "Henry" should be abbreviated "Hy." rather than "Hen."..." indicated that the person doesn't know what's going on; the other comments were mainly very short, of the "WP:WINAD" variety and not showing a lot of depth of thought. And while it's technically true that paper dictionaries might contain this type of material and paper encyclopedias may not, we living here in the bold future of the 21st Century are not necessarily tied to conventions of paper media: there's no reason it can't be in both places. So while not saying the close was actually improper, I'll WP:IAR here and say Overturn. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 05:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
  • 'Fraid not. The spirit of G4 is to not discuss again on AFD what was recently already discussed on AFD. >Radiant< 09:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• I put in a Soft redirect, how's that? >Radiant< 09:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The soft redirect is acceptable. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 16:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure of the AFD and the speedy-deletion as reposted content. There were no process problems in the deletion discussion. The decision was consistent with standing precedent that those kinds of pages are better handled via the appendices in our sister project, Wiktionary. (The soft redirect is useful.) Rossami (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni Giove (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was deleted for CSD G5 which is Pages created by banned users while they were banned. The user who created this page is unrelated, but the page was deleted because Sock Buster added to it. However, the Sock Buster account was in fact not a sockpuppet of the said banned user, and was in fact a legitimate sock of mine. I am requesting undeletion of the pages created by Sock Buster and and unblock of the account. —KingIvan 11:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Suggestion If you think an account should be unblocked/unbanned, I'd suggest attempting that before coming here with the related undeletion request, as determining who should be banned and who is a sock of who is beyond the scope of what we handle here at DRV (the andministrator's noticeboard would probably be the best place for such requests). Note that this is a suggestion only, and I'm not advocating actually unblocking anyone or undeleting anything at this time. This is beyond the scope of DRV. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment In general, checkuser requests are not subject to deletion. Only the Checkusers themselves are empowered to rule on these requests. I can imagine a circumstance of exceptional abuse where a request could be summarily deleted but this doesn't rise to that level. However, rather than proceed with a formal deletion review I would suggest merely resubmitting the request. Newyorkbrad 16:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: the page was not created by Sock Buster, but by EppurSiMuove (talk · contribs), a sockpuppet of the banned user Afrika paprika. Ivan, just create the page again under your own username this time. Sock Buster was not a legitimate sockpuppet because it was created to avoid scrutiny. Khoikhoi 18:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|MfD)

My interpretation of this debate is that we should leave the Word Association sandbox game, and remove the subpages as being a violation of Wikipedia is not a social network. The so-called Sandboxians re-created them a few times, and now I see that Grue has taken it upon himself to undelete all the variant games and the template which promotes the variant games. There are a number of pages including:

• Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Word Disassociation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Ultra Game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Disassociation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Wikipedia:Sandbox/Ultra Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Ultra Game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Fixed (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Radial (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/TheAA (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Word before last (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Radial Ultra Cross (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Disassociation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/No.2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Disassociation/Deviants (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Psychadelic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Deviants (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:Word Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

If someone would like to spend a moment convincing me of the encyclopaedic merit of inventing and promoting, particularly through use of a template, novel variants of word association, I'd be grateful. I can't say I'm especially happy that I only found out about Grue's undeletions when he told me not to delete them again; he did not tell me he had undelete dthem the first time, so I nuked the bluelinks in my deletion log because the "sandboxians" had re-cerated them under "much better titles" a few times since. Grue undeleted them again and left me a note saying not to "unilaterally" delete them again. I do not consider this particularly constructive. I am open to debate, and deletion review is here to challenge a deletion. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep undeleted the debate was closed with the result "delete the archives, keep everything else". Instead, JzG took it upon himself to delete all subpages, without any discussion supporting his actions. I restored pages to their status quo status after discussion was closed. Wheel war ensued. I believe my actions were supported by community consensus, while JzG's were not.  Grue  11:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• And you really went out of youre way to discuss it before starting a war, didn't you? Oh, wait, no you didn't even leave a note on my talk page. Thank you so much for that token of respect. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep undeleted no evidence these have caused any harm or disruption; I read the MFD and there doesn't seem to be any consensus to delete, and I can't see any specific policy they violate. On-wiki games don't use enough server space to be worth worrying about, and since all Wiki editors (except a few Foundation employees) are volunteers, they deserve the right to engage in such pastimes if they so choose. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 12:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not helpful in building an encyclopdeia, and per the MFD. >Radiant< 14:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Abstain. Reluctantly, I agree with Grue on the interpretation of the MfD, although I'll note that Grue only undeleted some of the variant games so even he apparently sees the worthlessness of many of them. Most of these games don't play differently but simply have different formatting, so really I think they should all be deleted with maybe one or two exceptions. —Doug Bell 14:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as the most obvious of linkclutter.--judging on the merits of the pages. Its not the space I object to, but the insertion of extraneous and irrelevant links to articles . The closing summary, which was fair enough, was to keep the main page and delete the archives, but did not mention the subpages. DGG 20:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep undeleted. My reading of the MfD was that there was a concensus that all archived games should be deleted, I'm not convinced there was a concensus to delete the spin-off games in the subpages. Perhaps a fresh MfD to determine the outcome for these- some subgames look pretty trivial while others may be worth keeping. WjBscribe 00:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep undeleted as Grue's actions do seem to be consistent with the consensus at MfD; however, I agree with the nom that Grue should have notified him the first time to avoid provoking a wheel war. Krimpet (talk/review) 05:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)