• Closer's comment: After reading up on the pertinent discussions I agree with GRBerry's assessment of the stance held by the WMF. Future clarifications can of course nullify this interpretation. In the meantime I posted a simple banner on Commons that uses the quote but not the globe to ameriolate the problem of redlinks on user pages. ~ trialsanderrors 21:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:NotSuckBanner.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|IfD)

This was under the GFDL, I'm not sure why it was deleted. Also, unless I'm very much mistaken, the User:WikiLeon who created it was never informed of the IFD. The deleting admin didn't remove it from all articles/pages, so it's looking pretty ugly on my user talk page now! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• technical note: linked the IFD GRBerry 02:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies, it wasn't licensed under the GFDL. However, the license says "It is (or contains) one of the official logos or designs used by the Wikimedia Foundation or by one of its projects." Yes, it does, but hardly enough to be concerned about. And it's usage won't cause problems with redistribution, and we are unlikely to get sued by the Wikimedia Foundation... - Ta bu shi da yu 02:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Image included the official logo, so it was ((copyright by Wikimedia)). I am sufficiently unclear what that means to whether or not to endorse deletion. I also see that on the image page a user removed the IfD flag 2 minutes after it was added, and that situation was left untouched for seven days, until a day before it was deleted. That is troubling. GRBerry 02:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. I was not informed of this being deleted until I seen it redlinked on my page. The image license was changed in early 2006 by User:Angela to a copyright Wikimedia image. Usually images that are of the Wikimedia foundation are acceptable whenever it IS SHOWN on a Wikimedia project. --w^{L<speak·check·chill>} 08:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, this diff may be of interest - The nomination was from an anonymous IP, mapped to a proxy server in Bristol. I believe this may have been a bad faith nomination. User:Eugene2x was the one who removed the IfD tag as a "nonsense nomination". --w^{L<speak·check·chill>} 08:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am extremely offended by the implication this was in bad faith. Can you please give justification for that? What actions in regard to this nomination show it was in bad faith? The only think I apparently didn't do is contact you, which I apologise for, but I'm not used to the deletion policy here-137.222.10.67 00:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I deleted the image per WP:IFD because it is a copyrighted image being used out of the article namespace which makes it a copyright violation. I've restored the image pending the results of the deletion review. I missed the fact that the uploader was not informed. The uploader now knows about it, so that procedural issue is resolved. The image should be deleted as there is no use in the article namespace for it and any other use is a copyright violation. -Nv8200p talk 12:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, if the image license can be clarified then I don't see the issue. Many userbox images on exist only on user pages. This banner is really pretty inocuous, and it expresses a view held by myself and a very many Wikipedians. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete / Ask WMF. Either the use of the copyrighted/trademarked logo is legitimate on Wikipedia in general (e.g. Wikipedia:Banners and buttons) or its not. However, I don't think this is an issue that should be attacked piecemeal. Asking the foundation for guidance would seem reasonable though. If they think all such banners should be deleted (e.g. allowing only "official" uses of the logo), then we can certainly do that; however, my suspicion is that they know about such banners and don't mind their existence. Dragons flight 17:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, I emailed the Foundation: [1]. Dragons flight 18:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There's another one without the logo that Essjay made, but I can't remember the name of it. Chick Bowen 21:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found it: commons:Image:Not suck.PNG. Chick Bowen 23:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If the review concludes that the image be deleted for use of the Wikimedia logo, I predict this may call for every derivative work from the logos, including the admin mop with globe icon, to be deleted from both en and commons, treating it as a fair use work. That may possibly become an issue as large as the Userbox war and Esperanza closures combined. --w^{L<speak·check·chill>} 07:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If you look at the foundation-l thread linked by me above, Geni suggests that all Wikimedia logos and their derivatives be treated as unfree and deleted except where they qualify as fair use. So far, he alone in advocating that position. For the record though, even if that came to pass, I can't imagine how the drama would pass the Userbox Wars. Dragons flight 08:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I don't think it would be that big a deal, particularly if something clear came from the foundation and thus there was no room for argument. Someone would draw (or probably we already have) something that would serve as an "editors' logo" or somesuch, and we would use that for these various functions. Chick Bowen 01:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, it turns out there already is such a thing: Image:Wikimedia Community Logo.svg. Chick Bowen 01:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete per Leon pending feedback from the foundation per DF. Sarah 10:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete: I would think that we can use Wikimedia copyrighted images on Wikimedia projects, don't you think? Also, I think it would be best if we contact the WMF or the board or whoever should be notified.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 02:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:FU#Downstream use - the problem isn't Wikipedia, it's Wikipedia mirrors -137.222.10.67 00:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Important notice regarding fair use that all administrators should see. It is quite clear that the board doesn't want Wikimedia only images used in the projects, and the only real argument I saw for this one was that it might be a legitimate derivative work within Wikipedia. GRBerry 14:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - I nominated that. See my original reasons - think of Wikipedia mirrors, who may host this file and have copyright issues. This is only used in User Pages and is not fair use. -137.222.10.67 00:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For the record, my original reasons were Unencyclopaedic, copyright the Foundation NOT GFDL but only used in user pages (hence pointless and not distributable). Think about people mirroring Wikipedia and copyright issues surrounding that. IMO, this clearly does not meet WP:FU (see "Downstream use" in particular), and it was only used in user pages - the fact it makes them look "less pretty" is neither here nor there and is a very weak argument -137.222.10.67 00:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • With respect, Wikipedia:Banners and buttons is not a user page. If using the logo to promote Wikipedia is a legitimate activity (which is unclear), then that page is the justifiable place to have such banners. Also, this particular image is no greater risk to reusers than any of the hundreds of other things marked Copyright By Wikimedia. If there is a problem there, then is should be addressed as a group, and not by deleting just one item. Incidentally, most reusers don't copy User of Wikipedia pages anyway. Dragons flight 00:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay then, more clearly: It isn't used within the encyclopaedia, and is /primarily/ used within user pages or WP namespace - I doubt either of which qualifies as fair use. I'm perfectly happy for there to be a wider debate over the use of Wikipedia Copyright images if they have similar issues such as this one, but I'm not exactly sure where to start that discussion. -137.222.10.67 01:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - I've started a discussion at the village pump about this exact issue - any and all comments would be appreciated. -137.222.10.67 01:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aniger pda.jpg (edit|[[Talk:Image:Aniger pda.jpg|talk]]|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

That was my pic, i took it with the cellphone cam during a mycology lab. But I forget to put the tag for free use and I didn`t put it on the watchlist so I completly forgot that the pic was there. It was until today that I had a homework about A. Niger that i remember this. Sorry xD (The guy who deleted the pic is in some sort of Wikibreak or somethinglikethat, according to his user page)ometzit<col> 15:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete Tag was forgotten on original upload; ((untagged)) was applied, then original uploader (our nominator) added ((PD-self)) but forgot to remove the ((untagged)) tag. Since it was tagged at the time it was deleted for being untagged, the process failed. GRBerry 18:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete Semperf 23:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Well can I recover my image? My hard drive was formatted so I don`t have another copy of the image, it was a macroscopic image of A. Niger growing on PDA agar and here in wikipedia is hard find macroscopic images so I think it was a decent contribution--ometzit<col> 02:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went ahead and undeleted this, since I see no point in a long discussion over what was obviously a simple mistake. Dragons flight 19:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete as mistaken deletion. Nardman1 13:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I request that the article Zezima be un-deleted. My reason is that although some deem him to be non-notable, he has attained the number one status in an MMORPG that contains approximately 10,000,000 people, and the name 'Zezima' yields 272,000 google hits. The reason I have brought this issue before a review board is that negotiations on the talk page have pretty much reached a standstill: the people who want the article recreated are extremely stubborn and the people who don't want the article recreated are extremely stubborn.

Post Script: I was unable to contact the adminstrator who performed the delete+protection because this adminstrator has retired from wikipedia. Luksuh 14:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No.. There are no reliable sources, and nobody has come up with any in the last 30ish recreations. I refuse to send this to AfD on the principle that the last AfD was two years ago, because there are obviously no sources. -Amark moo! 15:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC) (new comment further down)[reply]
• Endorse deletion nothing above estabilishes (though charitably it might assert) notability under the guidelines WP:N or WP:BIO. If you wish to make a page you can do so at User:Luksuh/Zezima and come back here to have it moved to mainspace. However, unless it demonstrates notability from reliable sources it will not be allowed. Best wishes! Eluchil404 16:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Let's put it this way: there's a Runescape-specific wiki, and they voted unanimously to delete (and protect) the Zezima article. In my view, if a wiki all about Runescape doesn't think they should have a Zezima article, then there's no way in heck that a general-interest encyclopedia would either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - completely unverifiable; noone can decide whether Zezima is male or female for instance. Every version of the page so far has rapidly been turned into a boiling cauldron of vicious personal attacks against this person by passing vandals. Most of those 272kGhits are irrelevant; a search for 'zezima runescape' yields 102kGhits, none of which appear reliable, consisting mainly of forum posts. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and continued salting We've seen this page in various forms and deleted it too many times. Known about to Runescape fanatics - absolutely. But we have not a shred of evidence that an encyclopedia article on the player can be written or maintained. WP:BLP has made standards for articles on living people (and the player is, even if the character isn't) a lot tighter than when this was last discussed in a deletion debate. GRBerry 18:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Fatal1ty this guy ain't. JuJube 19:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. We have a source now, so it should at least get that. -Amark moo! 22:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and responding to Starblind, the arguments there were thoroughly unconvincing. -Amark moo! 23:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, a RuneScape fansite is definitely not a source, and especially not when it would be presumably the only source for the article. Secondly, the deleton discussion did bring up some good points, to directly quote one, "I do not believe we should allow articles about specific players. If RuneScape players want to sign up to the wiki they can have their own user page." ...which makes perfect sense to me, and if a Runescape doesn't think that individual players should have articles, then it does to follow that a general-interest encyclopedia shouldn't either. Also interesting is the assertation that the page would be a vandal magnet, which seems to have been the case here as well: of the dozens of different article versions, quite a few were libellous attack pages. Frankly, I'm surprised we're even debating this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Firstly, it is a source, whether or not it's reliable, and it's not just some random fansite either; discussion on how good it is should not be occuring here. Secondly, that isn't unquestionably a good point; it makes just as much sense to me as saying that of anyone else, and again, debate on stuff like that should occur on AfD. Also interesting is that we don't delete any other vandalmagnets. -Amark moo! 05:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Semperf 00:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion as above Bwithh 02:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion: I do believe that the arguments for keeping this article have some merit, but I also believe that Wikipedia simply is not the place for biographies about a RuneScape player. The topic on Zezima can be very interesting to many, but we simply don't have enough information about this player to merit a valid article. Should he suddenly be exposed outside of the gaming world in the near future, then I guess we can discuss this matter again sometime, but not now!!!. There are plenty of things an editor can do rather than debating over Zezima's article!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 00:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Starblind's arguments are pretty convincing. If the wiki which is specific to the game doesn't want the article, why should a general encyclopedia want it? Corvus cornix 00:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment in response to Starblind's arguement: Do you really think that 4 votes for deletion on the RS wiki determine consensus? --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 00:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SheezyArt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD|Previous DRV)

numerous

Following reasons for undeletion or at least allowing someone to properly create this article 1. Administrator who locked it is now gone 2. SheezyArt is a large online community with a obvious precence on the net 3. Reason for deletion and lock unclear and possibly non-existent

• Note Added previous DRV for this. --pgk 11:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion deleted as no assertion of notability, the review request does nothing to address that. If it's truly verifiably notable from reliable sources then write that article in userspace and ask for that article to be moved into place. --pgk 11:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Present status of admin is irrelevant, fanbase existed at AfD and previous DRV and was not seen as relevant. As pgk says, a sourced article in user space with cited evidence of notability may be more persuasive. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion' There has been a new creation since the last deletion review, so we really are reviewing a new deletion of a new article. The new article doesn't even look up to the standards of the old article. I think deletion under A7 is generous for the new article; I'd personally have chosen G10 - attack page, especially based on the next to last paragraph. But either way, deletion is correct. GRBerry 16:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, possibly Speedy close as the last DRV was in December (and was unanimous) and this renom doesn't add any good reasons to undelete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The fact that the last admin who deleted the article has voluntarily (not banned, not desysopped because of behaviour) abandoned that account does not invalidate his actions. "Large" has no context (you could probably find hundreds of "communities" that are "larger"), and is irrelevant in any case because the sole fact that a community is large does not make it any more likely to have been covered by third-party reliable sources, which is what the article really needs. ColourBurst 22:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Semperf 00:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, A7 is borderline, but this would be a valid G10. Either way, there's no new information (in the form of reliable sources) provided by the nominator here. --Coredesat 00:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FictionPress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Minor scuffle over speedy deletion, handled poorly. Trouts at ten paces, but I'm going to bed now. brenneman 07:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of this article is incomprehensible. This website is one of the most notable literature websites, with 10s of thousands of stories, poems, plays, etc. It's almost as notable as FanFiction.net. Academic Challenger 07:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd not go so far as "incomprehensible" but I'd wear "well outside the normal bounds." How about userfication until sources provided? - brenneman 10:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion I honestly don't see any assertion of notability per WP:WEB; so it looks like a valid A7 speedy deletion. No objection to userfication to facilitate a rewrite with sources. Eluchil404 16:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion I can't see an assertion of notability in the article either. I went to edit mode and checked the references; community.livejournal.com is not what Wikipedia looks for, so the (incomplete) citations aren't a claim. If someone were to give some evidence of notability, I might be persuaded that it should be sent to AFD, and I have no objection at all to userfying it, but the article as it was is a valid speedy deletion. GRBerry 17:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. As written, it looks like a fairly obvious choice. If you think a good, sourced article can be made on the subject, by all means give it a try and show us that. But the deleted version was obviously doomed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This article was actually created by an IP address in January 2005, and has been edited by dozens of editors, so it can't just be moved to the creator's userpage. LiveJournal references should be fine for articles about websites, and if you would visit the site itself, it's notability should be obvious. Academic Challenger 22:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  What there is supposed to make me believe that there is a process of fact checking prior to publication that would make that a reliable source? The reliable source guideline is not significantly different for websites than for any other content. It looks like yet another social networking site, no more reliable than MySpace or Wikipedia by our standards. GRBerry 22:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only types of article that livejournal posts would be a reliable source for (and even then only as a primary source) would be articles on livejournal culture (and not only does fictionpress not count in this regard, articles based only on primary sourced research is very strongly discouraged). Any other use of it would not be reliable. Like GRBerry said, it has no fact-checking mechanism and therefore you literally cannot rely on it. ColourBurst 22:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll take the above a step further: LiveJournal is not a reliable source. Verifiability is not optional, and it applies across the board. We don't have one standard of verifiability for serious articles (The Holocaust) and another for silly ones (Doctor Poo). Verifiability applies to 'em all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Semperf 00:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:WEB is not in any way, shape, or form a speedy deletion criterion; it's a guideline on article division. WP:CSD#A7 is and always has been very carefully worded to require an assertion of "importance or significance," not "notability" - a term which was consciously hijacked into a restatement of Wikipedia:Verifiability in order to stop the endless "Delete! Delete! All foo are inherently non-notable!"/"Keep! Keep! I think all foo are important enough for a great encyclopedia!" wars on AFD. Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles is not policy, and vehemetly opposed besides, and misinterpreting A7 as "article does not meet Notability-Guideline-of-choice" to make an end run around that isn't on.

  As for this article in particular, it claims right there in the lead to have 144,000 registered users (which isn't wholly insignificant) and that it's a spinoff of another site, FanFiction.Net, which itself passes WP:WEB with flying colors, having been the subject of an article in TIME. Neither a single administrator making a speedy deletion nor DRV is equipped to handle this sort of call, and in any case this is no way no how an A7. Overturn and list at AFD. —Cryptic 02:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm well aware of the (purposeful) yawning chasm between the speedy deletion critera and the inclusion guidelines, and as I intimated above I can accept that this was one or two standard deviations from the mean... but I'm deeply loath to restore something with no real sources supporting it. I've suggested once that this be user-fied while sources are located, and I still think that's the best option. I'll take the trout-slap for possibly over-zealous speedy deletion, but the outcome is what's important here, isn't it? If someone wants it kept they can find the sources, regardless of if it's discussed here or at AfD. - brenneman 05:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also want to disclaim any association with the idea that WP:WEB is a speedy criterion. Though looking up, my comment could be read that way. I read the article and I saw no claim (sourced or otherwise) that the site was important or significant. Not even a throwaway like "The most important source for fan-fiction on the web". I cited the guideline as an indication of the kind of things I look for in a web-site rather than an exhaustive list of acceptable claims. It is also worth noting, as brenneman says above, that articles with no chance of surviving AfD are regularly kept deleted even if the speedy was arguably over zealous. Eluchil404 10:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment [2] Seems to fulfill WP:WEB to me. --DavidHOzAu 13:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article you mentioned only has a single mention of FictionPress - in a table, with the other online fiction communities (the article focuses on online fiction communities as a whole). That's not nearly extensive enough to support the information in the article. ColourBurst 16:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I just typed in Fictionpress to see if they had an article on this site I visit frequently, and guess what? I discovered that there was an article written about it that was deleted, and that it was on Deletion Review right now. (Strange, isn't it?) Considering that I had heard of this site before this article and deletion review came up, I must vote a strong undelete on this article. Wiwaxia 08:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• undelete and send to AfD. The question is N. Speedy is for incontestable NNs to which there could be no good-faith challenge. Any contestable anything is not suitable for speedy--speedy is intended to rid us of the obvious junk. We seem to be all agreeing to this in other instances. I think we need a rule or practice: a contested in good faith speedy can not be deleted without an AfD discussion. (or perhaps a prod).

Even if the contested speedy for unsourced gets consensus, the proposal is a 10 or 14 day period to complete the article--what this is closest o under our present rules is a prod. Why should anyone be loth to restore with no sources--it would merely be restoring a speedy, not approving the article. it would still be subject to AfD.

We've seen some cases here where a good faith argument could not be made--either someone gaming the system, or commercial spam. This is in neither category. DGG 02:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• While doubtlessly well intentioned, this is a perennial proposal that has been rejected many times. Contested speedies are almost always happily restored to user space, or per the directions at the top of this page can be re-written as new, fully sourced articles. Just like this one. Rather than faffing about on this page, proponents of a p[articular article would better spend there time finding sources themselves and doingthe writing themselves rather than pushing it out into mainspace or onto AfD and hoing someone else will do the work. The simple fact is that well-written articles with multiple non-trivial citations from reliable sources don't get deleted. - brenneman 03:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burger King menu items (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This article was deleted while an duplicate article for McDonald's was kept, and a second AfD request is leaning towards keeping by a factor of 2-1. The consensus on the McD's being kept was that the menus of large international chains are worthy of inclusion, thus this should apply to the BK version of the article. All information was fully verifiable by following any of the links provided in the article, as apposed to the claim of the deletor. Jerem43 04:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, closing is fine. Why did you pick this AfD to challenge instead of the McDonald's one? If your argument sums to "Look at this other AfD", it's entirely arbitrary which one to pick. -Amark moo! 05:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I should clarify my reasoning as to why the article should be reinstated: Since both articles are identical in subject, purpose and function, why was the McD's page kept while the BK page was deleted. The reasons that were stated in keeping the McD's article apply to the BK article. If the BK article was deleted as not being appropriate, so should the McD's. There should be a consistent policy. Jerem43 07:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then renominate the other for deletion. But the process for this AFD appears to be just fine. --Farix (Talk) 17:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, unfortunately wikipedia is inconsistent at times and we just have to deal with that fact and fix it up the best we can. Mathmo ^Talk 10:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is Inconsistent Sounds like a good topic for an essay, if one doesn't already exist. --Farix (Talk) 17:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There used to be an essay on this topic. I can't remember if it was here or on Meta but I haven't been able to find it anywhere. I wish someone would post a link to it because I remember it as quite well written. Rossami (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Close is fine, plus I agree with it. Listing menu items is surely the job of BK's own web team. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close was clearly a correct interpretation of policy. Eluchil404 16:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I don't see anything particularly wrong with the reasoning behind the close and it was based on the arguments given in the AFD. Just because a similar AFD concluded with a different result does not affect this AFD. --Farix (Talk) 17:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Valid close of a valid AFD. I note that the original McDonalds AFD which is referred to above was more than half a year ago, and that article is under AFD again. Standards change over time, and inconsistency is common in a wiki. See WP:INN for greater elucidation of this issue. GRBerry 18:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the original AFD may have been that long ago, this remains ongoing. FrozenPurpleCube 19:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse While I'm not sure I totally agree with the result, the closure appears to be pretty much sound. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Nobody has yet explained to me how this is indiscriminate. This is the product line of a major company in the world. Why shouldn't we have an article on this subject? Is the section in the Burger King article that describes the products to be removed as well? If you don't feel there's a need for a separate article, why not a merge there? And are Whopper and the rest of the BK food articles going to be deleted? I'd prefer one article, but since these do exist something should be done. Whopper is probably notable enough, but the others? Even though I know the Meat'normous got media attention, I'd prefer a collected article. Sources? Anybody really believe that sources can't be found on the history and circumstances of a major international corporation's menu? Especially troubling when at least one contributor claims there were sources in the article. That would mean that at least half the reason for deletion was factually invalid. FrozenPurpleCube 19:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion Review is not a place to reargue the debate. It is only to review the closing of the debate for inappropriateness or faulty judgment by the closing admin. --Farix (Talk) 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be why I am arguing with the Admin's decision, which I content was faulty for the reasons I expressed. It is neither indiscriminate nor is the information unsourceable. Was that unclear to you? Did I express it wrong? How should I have said it? Your complaint makes no sense to me, but perhaps I am missing something. FrozenPurpleCube 20:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks more to me that your only "fault" with the closing is because the closing admin disagreed with your position once he evaluated the discussion. However, many of the delete votes comments did cite policies to back up their positions while the majority of keeps mostly used variations of WP:ILIKEIT, WP:INTERESTING, or WP:USEFUL arguments. Remember, the closing admin is there only to determine if there was a consensus based on well reasoned arguments, not to determine who has the better argument. --Farix (Talk) 20:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My problem is that the closing admin's reason for deletion is factually untrue. This is not unverifable information, or original research. Thus WP:NOR and WP:V do not apply. Burger King's history is easily verified enough that I am satisfied with WP:RS as well. That leaves us with WP:NOT, and the chosen complaint was indiscriminate. I do not see any mention of what part of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE applies in either the closing reason or the discussion, and in fact, there was a widespread consensus that it was not indiscriminate, as it's no different than listing the cars made by Ford, the software made by Microsoft, or the drinks made by Coca-Cola. You can claim how other people made poor arguments if you want, but I think that WP:IDONTLIKEIT was more of a problem. Furthermore, I request that instead of complaining I'm not doing things right, you either explain the right way to do things(in other words, tell me how I can say what's wrong here, because I think it's clear there is something wrong with this decision, and if there is no way for a DRV to consider an admin's misinterpretation of a page or the consensus of discussion then DRV is fundamentally flawed), or try to convince me why I'm mistaken in my reading of the situation. Otherwise you're just going to waste both of our times. FrozenPurpleCube 21:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, the closing admin made a judgment on what he thought was consensus. If you disagree with the consensus, so be it. But it's pointless to continuing arguing about whether the article should be or shouldn't be deleted. And please don't come to my talk page and affectively tell me to butt out if I don't agree with you. --Farix (Talk) 22:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am sorry you're offended, but I do wonder what would be the proper way to express my concerns. I believe the closing admin was wrong in deciding the consensus as they did. I explained why the facts are not on the side of the closing admin. You objected saying this isn't the proper place for that concern, or perhaps I didn't express it properly, I don't know. If you can neither explain why I'm mistaken or explain how I can express that concern better, then it's pointless to discuss it further, as it would just lead to acrimony. So far, you have only succeeded in further convincing me that DRV seems to be useless. That's not a good thing, is it? FrozenPurpleCube 23:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Sounds like an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument to me. The McDonald's menu needs to go, too. JuJube 19:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion: WP is not indiscriminate info. Semperf 03:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion on the grounds that inclusion is not an indicator of notability. I believe the McDonald's list should go to the garbage can too, but that doesn't change my view about this deletion, or the process that led to it. YechielMan 03:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, please remember that deletion review is about whether the process was followed, not about repeating the AfD all over again. The AfD was obviously a no consensus result, meaning that the deleting admin did not follow process when closing it as a keep. Restore the article (as Wikipedia always has kept no consensus decisions), wait a few weeks and renominate if wanted. That would be according to policy. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Consensus is reflected in policy and guideline, not a few editors who turn up for an xFD, AfD is not a vote for this reason among many. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When soundly argumented, the votes by users who turn up for a specific AfD now and then are just as valid as those by users who spent all their time at AfD. If you would like any further discussion on this, please do this on my talk page. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion I was pretty sure someone had recently cited some essay regarding the inconsistency that often occurs at wikipedia, but inconsistency alone is not reason for overturning this AfD. As others have noted, the inconsistency could be resolved by deleting the McD menu article. The AfD for this article was run and closed properly, I see no reason why it needs to be reopened. Agent 86 20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and undelete Since the McDonald's AfD was closed as Keep, it would violate WP:NPOV to have this article remain deleted, unless it can be explained why McD's menu should be kept and BK's shouldn't. JuJube 23:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There is no inconsistency--the McDonalds article is better, and that obviously influenced the AfD debate. There's nothing wrong with that. AfD is both a judgment of the topic and a judgment of the article as it stands--always has been, and really has to be to avoid keeping some incredibly bad articles. Chick Bowen 23:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. This was within reasonable admin discretion. The arguments that we must be consistent with the McDonalds page are incorrect. WP:INN applies. Rossami (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]