Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 9

The page for this single is completely false. Nothing has ever been said by the band about this song being a single, the cover submitted for it was a fan made creation combining Nightwish's logo, Within Temptation's Album Artwork and Evanescence's font. The song had been said to never be performed like by the band. --"heliosis" Talk

If you feel that an article should be deleted, you can nominate it for deletion. How to do so is explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. This is not the place to nominate an article for deletion. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Lunavelis is a real alternative-rock band from Cleveland, OH. I am unsure as to why their page was deleted in the first place as they are a legitimate band. Currently signed to the Arp Media Record Label while releasing a full-length album which is available on iTunes and throughout the internet. Lunavelis has also opened for Grammy Award Winners, Ok Go. They're gradually gaining popularity amongst the college age demographic receiving notable airtime on numerous midwest radio stations as well as Cleveland's primary alternative rock radio station 92.3FM KROCK. I think it would be beneficial for Lunavelis' fans to have access to a Lunavelis wiki page to learn more about the band. Lunawiki (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you create a subpage at User:Lunawiki/Lunavelis or something similar to show what content you plan to recreate the article with. If you do so, please read WP:MUSIC and WP:N. Also, judging by your username, you may also want to read WP:COI. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. I'm sure the band is real and legitimate. What matters is whether they're notable. The notability criteria for bands are outlined in WP:MUSIC. There was not a single assertion that Lunavelis meets any of the criteria, so speedy deleting the article was valid per WP:CSD#A7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aecis (talk • contribs)
• Endorse deletion, as Aecis said, have a read of WP:MUSIC. There are many, many indie bands in the world with a MySpace page and an upcoming album, but Wikipedia consensus is that generally it is not appropriate for them to have an article in the encyclopedia. --Stormie (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no indication that band meets WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and incorporate Lifebaka's message by reference. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

AtTask, Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is a strange DRV and a long story, but here goes. AtTask was originally an article about a project management software company and was one of the listed titles on list of project management software. This page has a fairly long history, and was reviewed for deletion back in February after a contested speedy deletion, with a result of keep. Sometime in November/December, it was nominated for deletion again after User:Vpdjuric had worked to improve the article (with possible COI but it seems like this user was working hard to be neutral). The result of the discussion this time was delete, with most users stating that the product may be notable but not the company (the article seemed to be adequately sourced and the company/prdocut covered by third parties). At this time, User:Vpdjuric recreated a new article, @task, about the product, instead of the company, according to the suggestion of the AFD. It was marked for speedy deletion as an advertisement, but that was reviewed by User:Chrislk02 who said "asserts notability and is cited. if notability is contested, please take to afd" at which point Hu12 marked it as recreation of deleted material with a link to the spam report.

All this may be questionable to some degree but still procedure. However, at this point, Hu12 added the articles to protected titles with the message: AtTask repeatidly recreated. Eight deletions total including two AfdsWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AtTask and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AtTask (2nd nomination) see also @task Hu12 (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC). This is factually false. "Two AFDs" would imply they were both "delete" but only one was; the other was a clear keep. The eight deletions are between 2 different pages, 4 of which were in February and were overturned by the AFD. The last deletion of @task was, in my opinion, an unfair attack on good-faith efforts by the author of the page to comply with the most recent AFD. I felt the titles should be unprotected to allow an appropriate article to be created about the product as mentioned in the AFD. I attempted to contact Hu12 over this issue but my arguments would not be listened to, and I did not want a wheel war, so I decide to let the issue cool off.

A few days ago, I noticed a new page created at AtTask, Inc. This article was brief and not as sourced as the previous article, so I decided to work on it to make the text more neutral and add third party sources. Today, Hu12 has deleted this article as "recreation of deleted material" (which it clearly was not, as any admin can see from the page histories), and protected the title. I feel that the only way we can resolve the protection issue is here at DRV, so I am posting it for the communities consideration. I don't really care whether the deletion of AtTask (the company) is overturned, but I think the titles should be unprotected so that the article about the product (which is clearly notable) can be written by the editors wishing to contribute to the topic. Renesis (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The most recent incarnation AtTask, Inc. was created by Scjnsn (talk · contribs) who is the AtTask, Inc. CEO^[1] and is responsible for at lest five (5) of the recreations. There is quite alot of history behind AtTask, Inc's promotional use of Wikipedia, Just about every concievable violation and sneaky method in an attempt for inclusion has been used in this case. see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Dec_1#AtTask.2C_Inc.

Article @task speedied four times as spam WP:CSD#G11

Article AtTask speedied four times as spam WP:CSD#G11, Plus 2 AFD's Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AtTask and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AtTask (2nd nomination)

ArticleAtTask, Inc. speedied as spam and WP:CSD#g4

• attask.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - Meta: SRB-XWiki - COIBot-XWiki - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57 • Linkwatcher: search • Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • OnSameHost.com • WhosOnMyServer.com

Spam Accounts

Natebowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)Nate Bowler, chief technology officer for AtTask
Scjnsn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) AtTask, Inc. CEO^[2]
160.7.248.35 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) UT corp location
Vpdjuric (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
65.202.21.15 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
61.193.186.130 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
Jehoshua22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
Vms37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
The amount of abuse, spam and recreations from this company is on a staggering level. No offence to Renesis' good inentions but this has gone beyond the cusp of acceptable, and creates significant doubt as to whether any of AtTask, Inc's on-wiki activities are conducted in good faith. Not even going to attempt to cite the laundry list of policy & guideline violations involved--Hu12 (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Restore - One AFD says keep. The other AFD says that the company is not notable, the software might be, but is deleted anyway? Stop arguing the toss over semantics, if the software is notable, then its fine to detail it on an article on the company. There are multiple sources on this on Google News, even when ignoring the press releases. The behaviour of company employees does not do a thing to change the guidelines and policies on Wikipedia, guidelines and policies that attask(software/company/whatever) passes. - hahnchen 20:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore best version of the product's article, at whatever title is most likely to be searched for. The two AfDs for the first article about the company look fine to me. I don't think that the latter two articles qualified for WP:CSD#G4, since (admins correct me if I'm wrong here) the 'copies' were probably not "substantially identical to the deleted version". Because of this, the better of the two (I'm assuming the product article) should be restored and all other titles redirected to it. Also, hahnchen is right about the possible WP:COI issues: they are not a reason for deletion. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete the company article, overturn and restore the product article. I was one of the people who did a lot of the leg work on the last AfD. There are two issues. One is the product, one is the company behind the product. The sources that have been found can establish notability and verifiability of the software product. Period. Full Stop. I helped guide User:Vpdjuric to creating an article about the product. The article he initially created was a bit rah, rah but did the sources justice and was a pretty decent start-class article. I stand by my statements that At Task, Inc has no notability as notability is not inherited. The product should have an article. The company should not. I am more than willing to watchlist an article about the product to keep it on the straight and narrow even with my limited time here on WP nowadays. spryde | talk 21:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• No opinion on the articles, but User:Vpdjuric looks like a spammer to me. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Restore the article on the product. the latest version at @restore seems adequately sourced COI of the editor is no reason to delete an article. I'm not considering now whether the company itself deserves an article --if it has only onemajor product , probably it does not. Perhaps the great importance of the wholly legitimate concerns of those fighting spammers have caused them to lose perspective of what is our primary goal, building an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• comment. While its nice to think one or two "support/overturn/recreate" posts in an AFD or Deletion review about which of the 4-5-6 versions of this companies "self created advertisments" is sutible for inclusion, the fact remains this is an encyclopedia and Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Long after this discussion, the promotion will continue.

--Hu12 (talk) 09:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hu12, the fact is that your vigilence in fighting spam (to be respected, for sure) still does not overturn policy regarding grounds for inclusion. There are several editors (including those from the company) who are willing to be sure that the text of the article does not violate Wikipedia's policy for "promotion and advertising". The nice quote above does not apply to notable topics which have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. -- Renesis (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Brad said that 17 months ago, and we have not lost the battle. During that 16 months, probably tens of thousands of spam articles have been removed, an equal number kept from even starting--and perhaps a similar number, contributed by people with COI, have enriched the encyclopedia. The spam fighters must continue to be carefully aware of the distinction. DGG (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

National Professional Basketball League (2007-) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was closed as a non-admin keep even though only a very limited number of editors participated. I rebutted the discussion about the sources, and the other delete and the two keeps had not one policy based reason, saying only that the league exists and that it's "obvious". This debate, becuase of the lack of discussion should be Relisted in AFD or overturned and delete. Secret ^account 15:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Relist. I don't see enough discussion there for me to be comfortable with any closure of it. Relist for more discussion. Also, the nonadmin closure doesn't appear unambiguous enough to match the deleltion process guidlines on it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Nevermind, closure was changed by trialsanderrors. Speedy close, as the reason for the nom doesn't exist anymore. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Truth & Consequences (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Closed as redirect while consensus clearly indicates keep. Closer also pre-emtively protected the redirect under CSD G4 "to enforce consensus". G4 only applies if the article were actually deleted and recreated, which is not the case here. Closer then sets stringent conditions if editors want to fix the issues raised in the AfD, by requiring the article be listed here for these improvements to be reviewed, before they can be implemented. That is not an acceptable process. Non-withstanding administrative discretion, I feel the closer has shown some bias in closing the AfD. — Edokter • Talk • 15:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I unprotected the redirect as clearly premature. We don't preemptively protect articles or redirects. This is not an invitation to revert the closure (on which I don't have an opinion yet), but to allow good-faith editors to fix the problems that came up in the discussion. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure other than the protection and the overly stringent requirements to improve the article. As it was, the article failed our policies, but Heroes is a notable enough TV series to assume that a policy-compliant article (or section in the "Episodes" article) can be created. For that, the edit history is still available for anyone who wants to take on the task. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Redirect some of the keeps didn't have a policy based reason for keeping the article. Others voted speedy keep because it's was recommended for editors not to list espisote articles in AFD, which isn't a valid reason for keeping, as any article that doesn't meet wikipedia policies can be nominated for AFD. Edokter rebuttal of Uncle G, who is one of the most knowledgeable editors on wikipedia policies is wrong as well, as watching the espisote yourself isn't a third party source. Closer made the correct call. As for the redirect protection, that's something that doesn't need DRV for. Secret ^account 15:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse redirect per Secret (based upon last revision before redirect). trialsanderrors made the right call unprotecting it, as G4 has nothing to do with page protection. None of the keep !votes cited policy or gave stunning arguements for keeping, and the WP:V issue was never addressed. It doesn't look like the ariticle made the requirements that WP:EPISODE sets forth anyways, since it contained almost nothing besides a plot summary. Closer made the right call. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse close. As Secret points out, keep opinions made during the AfD were not strongly grounded in policy. There do not appear to be sufficient reliable third party sources about this particular episode for it to warrant an article. That problem was not satisfactorily rebutted by those wishing to keep the article. Wikipedia should not collect plot summaries for every episode of a notable TV series. WjBscribe 15:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure to the extent that it clearly ended as a variation of "keep". Whether the page should be kept as an independent article or turned into a redirect is an ordinary editing decision to be made by consensus. That discussion should certainly consider the opinions and evidence presented in the AFD discussion (and now here) but that part of the AFD is no more binding than an equivalently attended discussion on the Talk page. Unlike deletion, reverting a redirect requires no special admin powers or capabilities. Sort the rest of the decision on the respective article Talk pages. Rossami (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Under the requirements set up by the closer it did. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • That's true. The second paragraph of the closer's comments had no basis in policy and is not sustainable. Rossami (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• I wish to endorse closure as the closer, register my disappointment that the nominator has assumed bad faith and accused me of "bias" (if I had any bias, I wouldn't have closed the discussion), and note that this is why I protected the redirect. If it happens again, I'm reprotecting. Daniel (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Please don't put too much drama in the situation. My biggest problem was the pre-emptive protection to force an outcome, something that should never been done. And unless there is clear vandalism or edit-warring, I advice not to reach for the protect button too hastily. — Edokter • Talk • 23:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Please don't try to advise my course of action when you have a clear conflict of interest in the situation. Daniel (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Very well then, I'll just tell you: Reprotecting for other reasons then edit-warring and vandalism will be considered wheelwarring. I do not have to tell you what the consequences are. Further more, do not make unsubstansiated accusations; I consider that a personal attack. — Edokter • Talk • 01:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Threats don't work well with me, sorry. Please stop being hypocritical - you made an unsubstansiated accusation that I was biased, but now you claim that you consider them personal attacks? I'm terribly confused. Daniel (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
          • The two of you, knock it off. If you don't have anything sensible or relevant to say, then don't say anything at all. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Well, it looks as if consensus considers what Edokter had to say as being incorrect. I'll take the high ground given to me by that and drop it, then. Daniel (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete redirect. Isn't there a page on this episode anyway? KC109 (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The article is the redirect now. — Edokter • Talk • 23:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• It would be appreciated if someone could have left a notice on the WikiProject's talk page. Had I known about the AfD, I would have voted for redirection because the television episodes guideline states "If the article(s) contain little content, consider merging or redirecting them into another article". While the episode is notable and real-world information is easy to find, the WikiProject (which I am a part of, but have no intentions to fix the articles because I have given priority to the other WikiProject that I belong to) has failed to demonstrate that they can save the article, so I endorse the close. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• AFD can return two verdicts - delete and not-delete. (Not-delete is generally referred to as keep, no consensus, or some other term.) If the AFD returns not-delete, then editors can continue to take normal editorial actions, like merging, redirecting, trimming, adding content, etc. Therefore endorse a non-delete closure. DRV has no further jurisdiction - if the page is improperly protected, WP:RFPP it, and if there is a consensus that the redirect should be a full page, then be bold. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

restoration

• This DRV is apparently moot as the article has been restored by Sceptre (talk · contribs) with a reduction of plot and the inclusion of reviews by Robert Canning (IGN) and Erin (Television Without Pity). [3] — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep restored in light of the above. There isn't much question as to whether the episode is notable, and verifiability isn't really an obstacle at this point, especially given materials like this (as noted by gadfium). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Pilot (CSI) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Good faith non-admin closure as keep/nomination withdrawn by nominator who changed their mind. The debate was not non-controversial, though, as another editor !voted for deletion. From a review of the discussion comments, I feel it is likely that a different outcome would be possible if the AFD ran its course.JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This userbox was an alternative to the "support the troops" and "stable Iraq" boxes. It was deleted without notice with the comment "This is disruptive, liable to cause drama, and unhelpful to the project. Please do not recreate it. Thanks.". And yes, I am a bit steamed at the removal of the box expressing the side unfavored by admin, and only manage to assume good faith with difficulty.MQDuck (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup it is very difficult to assume good faith here, but let me try. I'm all for free-speech (and not that's it relevant I don't support the Iraq dfisasco) but I am dead against trolling. So, I'll post the deleted userbox here, and say no more.--Doc^g 00:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This user recognizes the right of Iraqis to resist occupation.

Well apparently my defense wasn't as obvious as I'd thought. It doesn't make sense to me for it to be alright to express support the forces on one side of a conflict, but disruptive to express support for the opposing forces. I understand the argument that Wikipedia is not the place to take sides, but you have to be consistent in that case. Just mind reading here, but perhaps you think "support the troops" isn't an aggressive or non-peaceful statement (the userbox even has a guy with a gun on it, compared to a flag on mine). But if non-aggressive and pro-peace is what you consider acceptable, then I think you'd have to agree that they should both be replaced with something like "I support minimum casualties in Iraq". --MQDuck (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That other crap exists isn't a good reason to let you troll with this.--Doc^g 01:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Keep deleted Iraqis can do whatever they feel like doing, but that doesn't mean you need to shout that out on your userpage. Userboxes about (military) conflicts are frequently contentious and have no place on WP because they do not help collaboration in any way (you want something collaborative - try "This user is interested in Iraq") while they do inflame passions. By the way, a preemptive troutslap to anyone who trys to invoke meaningless WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS style arguments. Viridae^Talk 01:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Userpages are a nice little add-on to the encyclopedia for users to express non-controversial information which won't disrupt meeting our main goal - writing an encyclopedia. The same rules apply to things which are used on userpages only (ie. userboxes). Therefore, I see no fault in the rationale in Doc's deletion. Daniel 01:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse; given the userbox is clearly confrontational. — Coren ^(talk) 02:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: There's no way in hell this userbox will help build a collaborative environment or an encyclopedia. MastCell ^Talk 02:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose deletion: Userboxes are 7/8ths superfluous. If we were to keep our opinions to ourselves, wikipedia would have few articles indeed. (EDIT:) Has this been a source of confrontation before, besides here? There are many more userboxes, albeit less confrontational, that could create just as much confrontation; maybe not in talk pages, but in general opinions of others. If we're to assume good faith, please assume that my userbox is in no way trying to be confrontational. It seems a given to me that, unless a user is espousing their views vehemently elsewhere, the confrontation is in the direction of the holder of the box, putting the holder in the defensive. Unless evidence exists elsewhere and in reasonable numbers, this seems to me a very bad idea. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(err...just out of curiosity, do only admins vote in these? I'm the only standard member. Oops if so, and disregard what I'd said) Xavexgoem (talk)

It's not an excuse, but it brings up a bigger question about statements of support for any side of the war. Since the consensus on my userbox is becoming clear, a wider discussion needs to open up about all statements of support for any side in the Iraq war, so I'd like to insist that one be opened. --MQDuck (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate any userbox you find disruptive at WP:MfD. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there's more of a defense here than that equivalent userboxes supporting the other side, or supporting equivalently divisive positions in other arguments, are allowed to remain. Those who favor deletion of controversial, soapboxy userboxes seem always to posit that they don't help in the creation of an encyclopedia. I suggest that that claim needs to be examined. Specifically, I believe allowing users to display userboxes not directly related to encyclopedia work, even controversial ones, does in fact help in the creation of the encyclopedia, because it helps keep the people who post those userboxes happy. Happy editors are better editors; hell, unhappy editors sometimes become departing editors, thereafter contributing nothing.

I'm not suggesting that this is obviously correct. I'm suggesting that, before accepting a claim that the box in question disrupts the project, you examine it. Is there evidence of controversy arising from this or any similar userbox disrupting directly the creation of any mainspace page? If not, then we're just talking about relative unhappiness here, and to that effect I submit that those who post userboxes on their own pages are probably more affected by them than those who might be offended, but do not have to visit the userpages in question.

For the record: (1) I suppose I'm not unbiased – I posted this very userbox on my own page the day before it went up for deletion; (2) I do mind that the community as a whole seems to tolerate certain highly opinionated boxes but not others, but I admit that's not directly germane to this proceeding. atakdoug (talk) 07:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn. In case it wasn't apparent above. I think that until all arguments about both whether potentially divisive userboxes hurt the project and whether, if so, any political boxes should be allowed, are settled, it's inappropriate to delete anything from the userspace unless there are serious legal implications. atakdoug (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Overturn and take to MfD. Deleting admin did not cite a valid CSD criterion. Userboxes cannot be deleted because one admin subjectively views them as "disruptive"; this would only have been appropriate if the userbox attacked another editor personally (in which case it would have fallen under G10). This is a slippery slope, leading eventually to the deletion of userboxes such as "This user supports recycling" by admins who view them as "divisive and inflammatory" (I am not making this up; such a deletion actually occurred in the past). Whether this userbox is appropriate or not should be determined by community consensus at MfD. Walton^One 09:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn how is this any different to User:Neutralhomer/Userboxes/Tibet? Except in this case it is the "good" Tibet fighting against the "evil" china... ? The userbox in question is only causing controversy because people are forgetting that this is an international project, we must maintain a neutral point of view. In wikipedia's view on the war in iraq, America is not the "good guys" and the Iraqies are not the "Bad guys". Restore Userbox. Fosnez (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn We are once more on a slippery slope here. Community consensus is that userboxes are tolerated, even if they hold controversial views. T1 does explicitly not cover userspace. So unless the box is obviously and intentionally meant to disrupt (which is quite a high bar to reach) or openly attack someone (G10 etc.) proper process should be followed. Which in this case means a MfD. This way far less Wikidrama is caused. CharonX/talk 12:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn. Arbitrary deletion with no discussion. Most userboxes are useless IMO and are annoying to some people. If it were up to me, I'd delete them all. ;-) But deleting some politically incorrect infoboxes while keeping others is even worse than doing nothing and letting people troll freely in their userpages. --Itub (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• For the record This userbox was not sitting quietly in userspace when the big bad admin came along and started TEH DRAMA. It had already offended one user and spilled onto ANI. My action was designed (unsuccessfully with hindsight) to nip the drama in the bud. There is no way in hell that template enhances a collaborative environment and collegial spirit. And if the user was interested in such things he would not be contesting this deletion. The creator cannot fail to know that this is controversial and provocative. --Doc^g 13:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I've often seen "preventing drama" cited as the justification for arbitrary administrative actions. However, in my experience, such actions almost always cause more drama than they seek to prevent. Yes, I can see that there are various sound arguments for deleting the userbox - but if you want to do that, take it to MfD and let the community decide. CSD is for things that obviously and uncontroversially need to be deleted straight away; MfD is for handling controversial deletions. Walton^One 13:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    • If there are good arguments for keeping it as helpful, please make them. I will back off. If not, why vote to undelete it? Is it just for process reasons?--Doc^g 14:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and discuss at MfD Not sufficiently inflammatory to warrant immediate unilateral action. DGG (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

So, is it a good use of our human resources that every time someone creates a trollbox we have a five day discussion to decide whether to uncreate it? No thanks.--Doc^g 13:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

How about not deleting it in the first place and letting people be? --Itub (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

See my note above.--Doc^g 14:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Match pump (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I translated this article from Japanese wikipedia. Reason is this expression sounds like English, but it is NOT. Often it is confusing. So it is NOT correct English (this is the whole reason I translated.) I tried to contact admin, but my comment is deleted for some reason. I appreciate if anybody else review this process. AIEA (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy close. Already has an open DRV here. Please comment there. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)