Fly Gibraltar – Closure endorsed. – Daniel 09:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Fly Gibraltar (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` The admin closing the discussion failed to realise the article is nonsense Gibnews 22:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] overturn the article describes an airline that was never licenced, had no aircraft, and no longer owns the company name 'fly Gibraltar' quite what the point of its inclusion is in wikipedia escapes me and most people voted for its deletion giving sound reasons. --Gibnews 22:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse valid AfD closure, no cogent argument made for DRV. If nominator disagrees with the AfD perhaps he should start another one. -N 00:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion outcome. Which part of the article is nonsense? John Vandenberg 02:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. The user had contacted me via e-mail, and I replied with the following: "It's not a vote, and it doesn't matter if something exists or not- it depends if there are proper sources documenting it. In my view, both sides presented valid arguments, and the discussion had been up for days without any other administrator closing it, so I felt no consensus could be reached. If you feel that I've incorrectly interpreted the debate, you can list it for review"--Wafulz 04:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse What's the big deal. Its sourced and there was no clear consensus to delete this. Why not try again later on? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. I voted to delete based on weak notability, but I have no complaint with the process. The article is not nonsense; if it were it would be WP:CSD eligible. --Dhartung \| Talk 09:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Reluctant endorse closure. Article does pass the important policies of WP:V and WP:NOR, although I would argue that it fails in basic notability for corporations (a corporation which never got started.) But to delete based solely on notability grounds requires consensus, and it was reasonably clear that my opinion did not have that support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure, done appropriately. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure - If there was no consensus, and the article is correctly sourced, passes WP:NOR, keep it. Why not? --tennisman 14:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment There are two issues here, firstly whether the AfD was properly closed, given the number who say it was, then I cease to protest. As regards 'the article' there is no airline there was no airline there won't be an airline and that WHY there should not be a page about it. It describes a non event of no importance. --Gibnews 14:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] DRV isn't AFD2. If the AFD was closed properly then that is it. There is nothing to stop you relisting the article at a later date to see whether a consensus to delete has emerged in the meantime. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure, I see no clear consensus either way, and both the keep and delete sides had some well-reasoned arguments. It can always be discussed again in the future. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Reluctant endorse closure: saying "there is no airline" misses the point. This isn't an article about an airline; it's an article about a proposal that fell through after generating a fair amount of press. There was a proposal, and it's well documented, and the people at AfD took note of that documentation when arguing to keep the article. I'm not sure I agree with them, nor am I sure I would have closed the same way if I had to power to close, but I think the close was within the bounds of reasonable discretion ~~(although "no consensus" might have been even better)~~. Xtifr _tälk 10:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Whoops, for some reason, I thought it had closed as keep. Xtifr _tälk 20:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Fly Gibraltar – Closure endorsed. – Daniel 09:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The admin closing the discussion failed to realise the article is nonsense Gibnews 22:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

overturn the article describes an airline that was never licenced, had no aircraft, and no longer owns the company name 'fly Gibraltar' quite what the point of its inclusion is in wikipedia escapes me and most people voted for its deletion giving sound reasons. --Gibnews 22:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse valid AfD closure, no cogent argument made for DRV. If nominator disagrees with the AfD perhaps he should start another one. -N 00:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion outcome. Which part of the article is nonsense? John Vandenberg 02:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The user had contacted me via e-mail, and I replied with the following: "It's not a vote, and it doesn't matter if something exists or not- it depends if there are proper sources documenting it. In my view, both sides presented valid arguments, and the discussion had been up for days without any other administrator closing it, so I felt no consensus could be reached. If you feel that I've incorrectly interpreted the debate, you can list it for review"--Wafulz 04:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse What's the big deal. Its sourced and there was no clear consensus to delete this. Why not try again later on? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I voted to delete based on weak notability, but I have no complaint with the process. The article is not nonsense; if it were it would be WP:CSD eligible. --Dhartung | Talk 09:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant endorse closure. Article does pass the important policies of WP:V and WP:NOR, although I would argue that it fails in basic notability for corporations (a corporation which never got started.) But to delete based solely on notability grounds requires consensus, and it was reasonably clear that my opinion did not have that support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, done appropriately. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - If there was no consensus, and the article is correctly sourced, passes WP:NOR, keep it. Why not? --tennisman 14:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are two issues here, firstly whether the AfD was properly closed, given the number who say it was, then I cease to protest.

As regards 'the article'

there is no airline
there was no airline
there won't be an airline

and that WHY there should not be a page about it. It describes a non event of no importance. --Gibnews 14:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV isn't AFD2. If the AFD was closed properly then that is it. There is nothing to stop you relisting the article at a later date to see whether a consensus to delete has emerged in the meantime. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure, I see no clear consensus either way, and both the keep and delete sides had some well-reasoned arguments. It can always be discussed again in the future. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant endorse closure: saying "there is no airline" misses the point. This isn't an article about an airline; it's an article about a proposal that fell through after generating a fair amount of press. There was a proposal, and it's well documented, and the people at AfD took note of that documentation when arguing to keep the article. I'm not sure I agree with them, nor am I sure I would have closed the same way if I had to power to close, but I think the close was within the bounds of reasonable discretion ~~(although "no consensus" might have been even better)~~. Xtifr _tälk 10:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, for some reason, I thought it had closed as keep. Xtifr _tälk 20:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/PalReturn – WP:SNOW overturn – —METS501 (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/PalReturn (edit \| [[Talk:User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/PalReturn\|talk]] \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Overturn. This was a userbox in user space and not a template. User ^demon claims that this userbox is a template under CSD T1 but does not substantiate the claim. Where is the discussion where users consensed on the idea that templates are the same thing or subject to the same rules as userboxes in user space? Current UBX policy states that "Userboxes must not be intentionally inflammatory or divisive." The UBX in question conformed to that criterion. User Sefringle takes exceptions to the 'implications' s/he finds in the UBX; however, it is hard not to wonder if her/his support for deleting the UBX is nothing more than simple agenda-pushing since s/he is a self-declared "strong supporter of Zionism" who displays a UBX to that effect in her/his user space. Finally, for what it's worth, I, the author of the userbox in question was not notified that it was being debated for speedy deletion and only two users participated in the "debate" --DieWeisseRose 19:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. I agree with DieWeisseRose. I had the userbox on my user page, and did not know that it was proposed for deletion until a bot removed it. The whole process, from nomination to delete, lasted just six hours, during which many editors will have been asleep. It looks to me as though only the nominating editor actually took part in the discussion before the discussion was closed and the box deleted. This s6trikes me as an unnecessarily hasty process. The box itself was appropriate; when editing an article, it is often helpful to know whether an editor has a strong political or philosophical inclination to any side in related discussions. This does not imply uncritical support for those who share my own bias, or opposition to those who do not; but it does mean that editors can understand where another editor is coming from, and what they are trying to say. Of course such boxes should not be obligatory; but if someone feels strongly enough about an issue to declare this on their user page, this is an indication that they recognise their own possible partiality and are making this known publicly. I think the userbox should be restored. --RolandR 20:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn - the topic is unquestionably divisive and if it were in template space, I would not hesitate to speedy it. However, it was in user space. I declined to speedy it when going through CAT:CSD last night. Someone else decided to speedy it rather than allowing an MFD to go through. That's just inappropriate. --BigDT 20:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn I agree with BigDT. The box may well be inappropriate but its not a T1 - especially as it is in userspace. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Not at all a proper speedy deletion -N 21:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and list - either speedy all the similar user boxes, for example User:UBX/Zionist or use TfD, but deleting user boxes in this manner possibly isn't the most prudent course of action. Addhoc 21:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn as the others--definitely not a speedy. A box -- or anything else -- about which there is significant reason to discuss first, should be discussed first. DGG 21:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse If templates which insult religon should be deleted per this policy, templates insulting to countries and entire populations should also be be deleted per WP:CSD#T1--Sefringle^Talk 04:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] If endorsing the Palestinian right to return is perceived as insulting to a country or entire population, then the problem is the perception, not the right. Palestinian return is an international legal right, and was an explicit condition for Israel's admission to the United Nations. Of course this can be debated, discussed, ebven denied. But to present it as an insult is in itself an insult to our intelligence. --RolandR 09:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure I grasp why this movement is more insulting to Israelis than Zionism is to Palestinians. Addhoc 13:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] It is not really about who is insulting whom. If you want to express opinion, use your userpage, hard code userboxes on your page (If they are very inflammatory, your userpage might be wiped clean, mind you). Don't templatise them so as to entice others to use them. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for your reply. I'm still of the opinion that deletions of this nature should include userboxes covering opposing views, in order to avoid controversy. Addhoc 17:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion per Sefringle's statement here and in his nomination at the MFD, as well as ^demon's reasoning in his closure. This, again, is a divisive, inflammatory, and polemical userbox, and such is not allowed in userspace; see WP:USER#Inappropriate content. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and for all intents and purposes, this page is a template, as it is meant to be transcluded on pages. Therefore, T1 essentially applies. --Core desat 06:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] I should also note to the nominator that WP:UBX is neither policy nor a guideline. WP:CIV is a policy, however, and the nominator violates it by accusing the nominator of the MFD of an agenda opposite to the views conveyed by the userbox. --Core desat 06:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn This may be a divisive ~~template~~userbox, but there is no criterion in WP:CSD that applies. Discussion should take place at MfD. nadav (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, inflammatory soapboxing. Userspace should not be used as a means to get around WP:CSD#T1. If you want to express opinion, hard code it on your userpage, without enticing others to put up these userspace templates on their respective pages. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn - T1 does not apply to userspace, not even if someone with the delete button says that it does. -- Gavia immer (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. Userspace pages must not be speedied. Loom91 17:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and return back to MFD where it was already in discussion. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment I notice that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/Zionist now exists, partially intended as a test case. Can I suggest that the decision in the form it was made as a speedy deletion be overturned ASAPA and then this box be added to the Zionist UBX deletion proposal. That way we can have a debate that focuses on the concept of UBX's showing this sort of political alignment rather than on the specific box.--Peter cohen 18:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn per the consensus reached around WP:UBM. —Ashley Y 07:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/PalReturn – WP:SNOW overturn – —METS501 (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Overturn. This was a userbox in user space and not a template. User ^demon claims that this userbox is a template under CSD T1 but does not substantiate the claim. Where is the discussion where users consensed on the idea that templates are the same thing or subject to the same rules as userboxes in user space? Current UBX policy states that "Userboxes must not be intentionally inflammatory or divisive." The UBX in question conformed to that criterion. User Sefringle takes exceptions to the 'implications' s/he finds in the UBX; however, it is hard not to wonder if her/his support for deleting the UBX is nothing more than simple agenda-pushing since s/he is a self-declared "strong supporter of Zionism" who displays a UBX to that effect in her/his user space. Finally, for what it's worth, I, the author of the userbox in question was not notified that it was being debated for speedy deletion and only two users participated in the "debate" --DieWeisseRose 19:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I agree with DieWeisseRose. I had the userbox on my user page, and did not know that it was proposed for deletion until a bot removed it. The whole process, from nomination to delete, lasted just six hours, during which many editors will have been asleep. It looks to me as though only the nominating editor actually took part in the discussion before the discussion was closed and the box deleted. This s6trikes me as an unnecessarily hasty process.

The box itself was appropriate; when editing an article, it is often helpful to know whether an editor has a strong political or philosophical inclination to any side in related discussions. This does not imply uncritical support for those who share my own bias, or opposition to those who do not; but it does mean that editors can understand where another editor is coming from, and what they are trying to say. Of course such boxes should not be obligatory; but if someone feels strongly enough about an issue to declare this on their user page, this is an indication that they recognise their own possible partiality and are making this known publicly. I think the userbox should be restored. --RolandR 20:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - the topic is unquestionably divisive and if it were in template space, I would not hesitate to speedy it. However, it was in user space. I declined to speedy it when going through CAT:CSD last night. Someone else decided to speedy it rather than allowing an MFD to go through. That's just inappropriate. --BigDT 20:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I agree with BigDT. The box may well be inappropriate but its not a T1 - especially as it is in userspace. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Not at all a proper speedy deletion -N 21:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list - either speedy all the similar user boxes, for example User:UBX/Zionist or use TfD, but deleting user boxes in this manner possibly isn't the most prudent course of action. Addhoc 21:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as the others--definitely not a speedy. A box -- or anything else -- about which there is significant reason to discuss first, should be discussed first. DGG 21:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse If templates which insult religon should be deleted per this policy, templates insulting to countries and entire populations should also be be deleted per WP:CSD#T1--Sefringle^Talk 04:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If endorsing the Palestinian right to return is perceived as insulting to a country or entire population, then the problem is the perception, not the right. Palestinian return is an international legal right, and was an explicit condition for Israel's admission to the United Nations. Of course this can be debated, discussed, ebven denied. But to present it as an insult is in itself an insult to our intelligence. --RolandR 09:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I grasp why this movement is more insulting to Israelis than Zionism is to Palestinians. Addhoc 13:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not really about who is insulting whom. If you want to express opinion, use your userpage, hard code userboxes on your page (If they are very inflammatory, your userpage might be wiped clean, mind you). Don't templatise them so as to entice others to use them. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I'm still of the opinion that deletions of this nature should include userboxes covering opposing views, in order to avoid controversy. Addhoc 17:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per Sefringle's statement here and in his nomination at the MFD, as well as ^demon's reasoning in his closure. This, again, is a divisive, inflammatory, and polemical userbox, and such is not allowed in userspace; see WP:USER#Inappropriate content. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and for all intents and purposes, this page is a template, as it is meant to be transcluded on pages. Therefore, T1 essentially applies. --Coredesat 06:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should also note to the nominator that WP:UBX is neither policy nor a guideline. WP:CIV is a policy, however, and the nominator violates it by accusing the nominator of the MFD of an agenda opposite to the views conveyed by the userbox. --Core desat 06:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn This may be a divisive ~~template~~userbox, but there is no criterion in WP:CSD that applies. Discussion should take place at MfD. nadav (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, inflammatory soapboxing. Userspace should not be used as a means to get around WP:CSD#T1. If you want to express opinion, hard code it on your userpage, without enticing others to put up these userspace templates on their respective pages. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - T1 does not apply to userspace, not even if someone with the delete button says that it does. -- Gavia immer (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Userspace pages must not be speedied. Loom91 17:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and return back to MFD where it was already in discussion. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I notice that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/Zionist now exists, partially intended as a test case. Can I suggest that the decision in the form it was made as a speedy deletion be overturned ASAPA and then this box be added to the Zionist UBX deletion proposal. That way we can have a debate that focuses on the concept of UBX's showing this sort of political alignment rather than on the specific box.--Peter cohen 18:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per the consensus reached around WP:UBM. —Ashley Y 07:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Image:Pucci and Michelle.jpg – Deletion endorsed. – Daniel 09:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:Pucci and Michelle.jpg (edit \| [[Talk:Image:Pucci and Michelle.jpg\|talk]] \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` restore Thomaslear 08:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC) --> Hello, user Quadell deleted "Image:Pucci and Michelle.jpg" - can I ask why please? the log says (replaceable fair use (CSD I7)) however this is a non-copyrighted image, it is publicly available on Pucci's myspace page and I am not sure of the reason for deletion.[reply] I am not re-uploading in case it is in breach of some rule, however the one given in the delete seems to be strange Things put on MySpace can (and very often are) still copyrighted: just take a quick look at any 5 random MySpace pages and you'll see all sorts of artwork, photos, album covers, movie posters, and lots of things copyrighted by somebody. Publicly-available and public domain are completely different concepts. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] The best person to answer your question is Quadell. Have you asked him about this? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] When you created the image, it had a ((AutoReplaceable fair use people)) tag on it which enabled it to be deleted after 48 hours per I7. This image had no license tag on it. All such images will be deleted per speedy criteria. It sounds like this should have been I4 instead of I7, but either way, it was going to be deleted without a license tag which indicates that it is a free image. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] All creative works (like photos) are inherently copyrighted. Simply placing one on a public website changes nothing. Unless the copyright owner of this photograph explicitly releases it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. --BigDT 19:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, procedure was followed. John Vandenberg 02:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion the ed. has misunderstood the nature of copyright for items on the web.DGG 20:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Image:Pucci and Michelle.jpg – Deletion endorsed. – Daniel 09:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

restore Thomaslear 08:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC) --> Hello, user Quadell deleted "Image:Pucci and Michelle.jpg" - can I ask why please? the log says (replaceable fair use (CSD I7)) however this is a non-copyrighted image, it is publicly available on Pucci's myspace page and I am not sure of the reason for deletion.[reply]

I am not re-uploading in case it is in breach of some rule, however the one given in the delete seems to be strange

Things put on MySpace can (and very often are) still copyrighted: just take a quick look at any 5 random MySpace pages and you'll see all sorts of artwork, photos, album covers, movie posters, and lots of things copyrighted by somebody. Publicly-available and public domain are completely different concepts. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The best person to answer your question is Quadell. Have you asked him about this? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you created the image, it had a ((AutoReplaceable fair use people)) tag on it which enabled it to be deleted after 48 hours per I7. This image had no license tag on it. All such images will be deleted per speedy criteria. It sounds like this should have been I4 instead of I7, but either way, it was going to be deleted without a license tag which indicates that it is a free image. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All creative works (like photos) are inherently copyrighted. Simply placing one on a public website changes nothing. Unless the copyright owner of this photograph explicitly releases it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. --BigDT 19:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, procedure was followed. John Vandenberg 02:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion the ed. has misunderstood the nature of copyright for items on the web.DGG 20:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion – WP:SNOW overturn – —METS501 (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion (edit \| [[Talk:User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion\|talk]] \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Comment If it's not too late, I'd like to include Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) in this DRV. It is a similar page that was deleted for the same reasons. It included templates like: "This user is interested in environmentalism", which is hardly T1 speedy-able. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment I suppose Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics could be temporarily undeleted and the contents migrated into the categories under User:UBX/Userboxes#Politics_and_beliefs, as suggested by WP:UM, to avoid any possible thought of (Wikipedia namespace == official repository). 84.145.203.216 14:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Was speedily deleted by Cyde with the reasoning "No official repository for non-template space T1 templates." Whether this is or is not a "official" repository is subject to debate, as well whether the templates within are "T1 templates" (does this imply they can and will be deleted any time citing T1?). For this reason the deletion should be overturned. 84.145.231.10 11:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment Needless to say, a ordinary user, repeatedly blanking userbox related pages (something revertable by any other user) would be warned, then blocked for vandalism. The admin in question repeatedly deletes userbox related pages (something which much be undone by a length DRV to avoid wheel-warring) can simply cite WP:IAR and be home free. Wikipedia truely has become a two class society. 84.145.231.10 11:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] User:UBX is a legitimate user by policy, and that user continues to be an editor in good standing. Deletion of a page in a user's userspace should only be done after a MfD discussion or if it meets one of the CSD critera. This page does not. Overturn No need to send to MfD, let someone that wants it deleted make the nomination if they think they can get actual consensus. GRBerry 13:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Lets leave out the invective but a quick look at the cache suggests these boxes are not inflammatory so speedy under T1 was unjustified. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. (A) It's not justified by any speedy deletion criterion. (B) Most of the userboxes on the page are not speedy-able per T1. (C) There's no point in getting rid of an organisation page for userboxes that still exist. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn per GRBerry. Eluchil404 17:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and list at MfD - Mets501 was attempting to re-establish momentum in the user box migration and his alternate account was intended to be a temporary measure. Addhoc 19:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn no need to list at MfD this is not a valid speedy deletion. -N 21:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn per Black Falcon above. --DieWeisseRose 22:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, Black Falcon's point C is quite pertinent; this deletion was plain silly and disruptive. John Vandenberg 02:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion per Black Falcon and GRBerry, and Migrate Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics to userspace. This is getting sillier by the day. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice 06:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Classic T1. Endorse deletion. --Tony Sidaway 09:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] T1 doesn't apply in userspace, Tony. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav\|Trainer Card)} 13:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Does too. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] As Gavia so eloquently puts it up north, does not, even if someone with the Delete button says it does. "T1" stands for "Template" namespace, not "User" namespace, unless you can point out some policy that says it does. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav\|Trainer Card)} 14:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] T stands for template. Any page that is being used as a template is a template, regardless of what namespace they're in. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Then change it. It is unpopular in any case, as you'll see if you ever try to discuss it on XfD or some other place which is frequented by the masses of the lowly, common Wikipedians, as opposed to the CSD Talk Page, where only the Admins and the would-be Admins gather. Any thing in userspace that's offensive can be deleted as a personal attack or as incivility. I for on haven't seen T1 used anywhere without a DRV springing from it. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav\|Trainer Card)} 14:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. Userspace, and it's OK to let people express their opinions in userpages in non-disruptive manners. Why "this user is a Buddhist" is "divisive and inflammatory" is beyond me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] This page is not inflammatory in anyway, but used for enticing other users to get these userboxes in their space. However, it is overturn as per GRBerry. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Qy and what is wrong with that? If one is a Buddhist, why not provide an easy and standard way for other Buddhists to say the same? DGG 19:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Ans. And why not expunge this propaganda business and hard code templates into userspace? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. The actions of the radical antiuserboxen are starting to increasingly appear ridiculous to me. Speedy deleting (i)a userspace page (ii)that was merely a repository for existing userboxes (God knows what 'official' is supposed to mean) (iii)most of which did not fall under T1 at all: where are we headed? This crusade by the likes of Cyde Ways and Tony Sideway is starting to take on tinges of desperation. Why can't we focus our energies towards more constructive work? I'm sure that Wikipedia will be a far better place if all editors tried to write articles instead of wasting time like this. Not only do we have experienced administrators, presumably among our most valuable contributors, spending their time trodding through userspace looking for obscure pages to speedy delete (seems deletion by community consensus no longer suits them), we also have the owners and users of those userboxes diverting their attention from articles to these pages, and the community at large spending their time sebating countless policy propositions seeking to resolve the matter one way or the other. Why don't we just live and let live? I appeal to all concerned to put an end to this madness. Loom91 18:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn completely out-of-process deletion, and from the history of the deleting admin, this smells of needless disrutpion. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn nonsensical deletion, overturn it. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 17:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - I also support migrating Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics to userspace as part of this deletion review. --DieWeisseRose 02:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Userfy to anyone using the template. —Ashley Y 07:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn - per Sjakkalle. How anyone expressing their religion can be "divisive and inflammatory" is beyond me. Completely out of process. It's already userfied, for goodness sake. JRG 01:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn The page has existed since last fall without controversy. There is no speedy criteria to justify this action. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion – WP:SNOW overturn – —METS501 (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Comment If it's not too late, I'd like to include Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) in this DRV. It is a similar page that was deleted for the same reasons. It included templates like: "This user is interested in environmentalism", which is hardly T1 speedy-able. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suppose Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics could be temporarily undeleted and the contents migrated into the categories under User:UBX/Userboxes#Politics_and_beliefs, as suggested by WP:UM, to avoid any possible thought of (Wikipedia namespace == official repository). 84.145.203.216 14:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was speedily deleted by Cyde with the reasoning "No official repository for non-template space T1 templates." Whether this is or is not a "official" repository is subject to debate, as well whether the templates within are "T1 templates" (does this imply they can and will be deleted any time citing T1?). For this reason the deletion should be overturned. 84.145.231.10 11:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Needless to say, a ordinary user, repeatedly blanking userbox related pages (something revertable by any other user) would be warned, then blocked for vandalism. The admin in question repeatedly deletes userbox related pages (something which much be undone by a length DRV to avoid wheel-warring) can simply cite WP:IAR and be home free. Wikipedia truely has become a two class society. 84.145.231.10 11:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:UBX is a legitimate user by policy, and that user continues to be an editor in good standing. Deletion of a page in a user's userspace should only be done after a MfD discussion or if it meets one of the CSD critera. This page does not. Overturn No need to send to MfD, let someone that wants it deleted make the nomination if they think they can get actual consensus. GRBerry 13:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Lets leave out the invective but a quick look at the cache suggests these boxes are not inflammatory so speedy under T1 was unjustified. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. (A) It's not justified by any speedy deletion criterion. (B) Most of the userboxes on the page are not speedy-able per T1. (C) There's no point in getting rid of an organisation page for userboxes that still exist. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per GRBerry. Eluchil404 17:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at MfD - Mets501 was attempting to re-establish momentum in the user box migration and his alternate account was intended to be a temporary measure. Addhoc 19:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn no need to list at MfD this is not a valid speedy deletion. -N 21:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Black Falcon above. --DieWeisseRose 22:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, Black Falcon's point C is quite pertinent; this deletion was plain silly and disruptive. John Vandenberg 02:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion per Black Falcon and GRBerry, and Migrate Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics to userspace. This is getting sillier by the day. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice 06:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Classic T1. Endorse deletion. --Tony Sidaway 09:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- T1 doesn't apply in userspace, Tony. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 13:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does too. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - As Gavia so eloquently puts it up north, does not, even if someone with the Delete button says it does. "T1" stands for "Template" namespace, not "User" namespace, unless you can point out some policy that says it does. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 14:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - T stands for template. Any page that is being used as a template is a template, regardless of what namespace they're in. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Then change it. It is unpopular in any case, as you'll see if you ever try to discuss it on XfD or some other place which is frequented by the masses of the lowly, common Wikipedians, as opposed to the CSD Talk Page, where only the Admins and the would-be Admins gather. Any thing in userspace that's offensive can be deleted as a personal attack or as incivility. I for on haven't seen T1 used anywhere without a DRV springing from it. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 14:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Userspace, and it's OK to let people express their opinions in userpages in non-disruptive manners. Why "this user is a Buddhist" is "divisive and inflammatory" is beyond me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not inflammatory in anyway, but used for enticing other users to get these userboxes in their space. However, it is overturn as per GRBerry. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qy and what is wrong with that? If one is a Buddhist, why not provide an easy and standard way for other Buddhists to say the same? DGG 19:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ans. And why not expunge this propaganda business and hard code templates into userspace? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. The actions of the radical antiuserboxen are starting to increasingly appear ridiculous to me. Speedy deleting (i)a userspace page (ii)that was merely a repository for existing userboxes (God knows what 'official' is supposed to mean) (iii)most of which did not fall under T1 at all: where are we headed? This crusade by the likes of Cyde Ways and Tony Sideway is starting to take on tinges of desperation. Why can't we focus our energies towards more constructive work? I'm sure that Wikipedia will be a far better place if all editors tried to write articles instead of wasting time like this. Not only do we have experienced administrators, presumably among our most valuable contributors, spending their time trodding through userspace looking for obscure pages to speedy delete (seems deletion by community consensus no longer suits them), we also have the owners and users of those userboxes diverting their attention from articles to these pages, and the community at large spending their time sebating countless policy propositions seeking to resolve the matter one way or the other. Why don't we just live and let live? I appeal to all concerned to put an end to this madness. Loom91 18:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn completely out-of-process deletion, and from the history of the deleting admin, this smells of needless disrutpion. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn nonsensical deletion, overturn it. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 17:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I also support migrating Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics to userspace as part of this deletion review. --DieWeisseRose 02:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to anyone using the template. —Ashley Y 07:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - per Sjakkalle. How anyone expressing their religion can be "divisive and inflammatory" is beyond me. Completely out of process. It's already userfied, for goodness sake. JRG 01:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The page has existed since last fall without controversy. There is no speedy criteria to justify this action. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

User:UBX/Communist – WP:SNOW overturn – —METS501 (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:UBX/Communist (edit \| [[Talk:User:UBX/Communist\|talk]] \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` The userbox is question was deleted by Cyde citing "T1". I fail to see what is so divisive and inflammatory in a userbox that says "This user is a Communist" that it warrants speedy deletion. The pratice continues that the XfD process is conveniently ignored by users who have "the bit", circumventing community consensus finding, even or especially if they know that their actions are quite controversial. 84.145.231.10 09:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Irrespective of whether you always agree with him, there is no doubt that Cyde has always edited in good faith and with the best interests of the project in mind. Please comment on the actions not the user. Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. An inappropriate application of T1 ... "is a communist" is no more inflammatory than "is a capitalist", "is an American", or "is a Christian". Though all of them can be problematic, I do not consider any of them T1 candidates. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn - T1 does not apply to user space. Incorrectly applying it is a sure fire way to restart the UBX wars and break a peace that has existed for a year. Attack/hate userboxes should be deleted as attack pages. Questionable ones should go to MFD. Onces that merely express a preference are not problematic. --BigDT 19:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn + list at MfD - given this was in user space and Template:User George W. Bush is in template space, I'm not convinced this should have been speedied at this juncture. Addhoc 19:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] The Bush userbox is what T1 was made for. It was unused and now is no more. --BigDT 20:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Thanks! Addhoc 21:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn - T1 does not apply to user space. User space is the appropriate place for "controversial and divisive userboxes" per WP:UM --DieWeisseRose 22:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, process was sidestepped to delete something that would not have been easily passed through mfd. John Vandenberg 02:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. Process is important, as is consensus. This deletion adheres to neither. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav\|Trainer Card)} 06:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Classic T1. Endorse. --Tony Sidaway 09:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] T1 doesn't apply in userspace. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav\|Trainer Card)} 13:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn per BigDT. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, divisive but not inflammatory. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. Ridiculous! I can't imagine that so much of the community's energy that could have been used to better the encyclopedia is going down the drain. And with all respect to AGF, I believe that at this point the blame lies more on the deletion brigade than the creation brigade, not the least because higher standards of behaviour must be expected from admins than newbies. It is a dark day, when long-time admins consider the principle of community debate and consensus to be optional and secondary to their own opinions and agendas. My words probably sound like a typical newbie rant against OMG ADMIN ABUSE but after looking at this page I could arrive at no other conclusion. One small ray of hope: in several consecutive reviws of speedy deletions all except Cyde Ways and Tony SIdeway have voted overturn. I find it hard to believe that even after this the antiuserboxen are not taking the cue that their actions are going squarely against community consensus. Loom91 18:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] The problem is that of the 1200 admins, any single one of them can do a speedy, and the only place to review it is here. For any question, out of 1200 people, all experienced and well-meaning, a few will misunderstand. DGG 21:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, per Loom91, this seems like a waste of energy, and as Raven's Apprentice points out T1 should not apply in user. Darrenhusted 00:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, completely out of process. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and WP:SNOW. As shown above T1 does not apply. I dislike all userboxes but don't see how this one is any worse than many others around - it's certainly not an obvious polemic deletion. violet/riga (t) 11:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion divisive and inflammatory. If we allow communism then Nazism would be ok. An ideology that promotes genocide can't be here. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 17:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Userfy to anyone using the template. —Ashley Y 07:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn per Black Falcon. JRG 01:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn T1 doesn't apply to userspace. I thought Cyde would know that by know. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

User:UBX/Communist – WP:SNOW overturn – —METS501 (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The userbox is question was deleted by Cyde citing "T1". I fail to see what is so divisive and inflammatory in a userbox that says "This user is a Communist" that it warrants speedy deletion. The pratice continues that the XfD process is conveniently ignored by users who have "the bit", circumventing community consensus finding, even or especially if they know that their actions are quite controversial. 84.145.231.10 09:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of whether you always agree with him, there is no doubt that Cyde has always edited in good faith and with the best interests of the project in mind. Please comment on the actions not the user. Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. An inappropriate application of T1 ... "is a communist" is no more inflammatory than "is a capitalist", "is an American", or "is a Christian". Though all of them can be problematic, I do not consider any of them T1 candidates. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - T1 does not apply to user space. Incorrectly applying it is a sure fire way to restart the UBX wars and break a peace that has existed for a year. Attack/hate userboxes should be deleted as attack pages. Questionable ones should go to MFD. Onces that merely express a preference are not problematic. --BigDT 19:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn + list at MfD - given this was in user space and Template:User George W. Bush is in template space, I'm not convinced this should have been speedied at this juncture. Addhoc 19:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Bush userbox is what T1 was made for. It was unused and now is no more. --BigDT 20:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks! Addhoc 21:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - T1 does not apply to user space. User space is the appropriate place for "controversial and divisive userboxes" per WP:UM --DieWeisseRose 22:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, process was sidestepped to delete something that would not have been easily passed through mfd. John Vandenberg 02:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Process is important, as is consensus. This deletion adheres to neither. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 06:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Classic T1. Endorse. --Tony Sidaway 09:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- T1 doesn't apply in userspace. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 13:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per BigDT. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, divisive but not inflammatory. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Ridiculous! I can't imagine that so much of the community's energy that could have been used to better the encyclopedia is going down the drain. And with all respect to AGF, I believe that at this point the blame lies more on the deletion brigade than the creation brigade, not the least because higher standards of behaviour must be expected from admins than newbies. It is a dark day, when long-time admins consider the principle of community debate and consensus to be optional and secondary to their own opinions and agendas. My words probably sound like a typical newbie rant against OMG ADMIN ABUSE but after looking at this page I could arrive at no other conclusion. One small ray of hope: in several consecutive reviws of speedy deletions all except Cyde Ways and Tony SIdeway have voted overturn. I find it hard to believe that even after this the antiuserboxen are not taking the cue that their actions are going squarely against community consensus. Loom91 18:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that of the 1200 admins, any single one of them can do a speedy, and the only place to review it is here. For any question, out of 1200 people, all experienced and well-meaning, a few will misunderstand. DGG 21:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, per Loom91, this seems like a waste of energy, and as Raven's Apprentice points out T1 should not apply in user. Darrenhusted 00:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, completely out of process. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and WP:SNOW. As shown above T1 does not apply. I dislike all userboxes but don't see how this one is any worse than many others around - it's certainly not an obvious polemic deletion. violet/riga (t) 11:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion divisive and inflammatory. If we allow communism then Nazism would be ok. An ideology that promotes genocide can't be here. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 17:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to anyone using the template. —Ashley Y 07:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Black Falcon. JRG 01:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn T1 doesn't apply to userspace. I thought Cyde would know that by know. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Category:East Jerusalem – Deletion endorsed. – Daniel 09:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:East Jerusalem (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`CfD`)` Overturn or relist. Per Wikipedia:Deletion review#Commenting in a deletion review and my nomination for deletion review just below. --Timeshifter 12:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] This concerns Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 11#Category:East Jerusalem. I already tried to get the closing admin to change his mind. From Wikipedia:Deletion process#Categories for Discussion page: "If the discussion failed to reach consensus, then the category is kept by default, but the decision should generally include a reference to the lack of consensus, in order to minimize ambiguity and future confusion." I count 8 keeps and 19 deletes from non-anonymous users. The "oppose" is a keep vote, and I counted it in the 8 keeps. Most of the deletes were from users who did not enter into discussion. I see no consensus, and not even rough consensus, to delete this category, and that is the main reason I am asking for this deletion review. And I thought closing admins took less notice of "post-and-run" deletion votes who don't discuss anything. I would like the category to be kept, or at the very least relisted for discussion. I also believe there is new info. The main reason given by those who wanted deletion was discovered late into discussion to be incorrectly applied, and there was little opportunity to discuss the new info. Some people wrote "Listify and Delete", or just cited Tewfik as their reason. Tewfik's reason was guideline 8 at Wikipedia:Categorization# Some general guidelines. But late into discussion it was discovered that when one reads guideline 8 one finds that it actually could be applied to keeping the category. How? Because the use of Tewfik's very specific and non-controversial subcategories in his list page, List of East Jerusalem locations, means that "it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs" in those subcategories. So the subcategories of Tewfik's highly-praised list page can be used as the uncontroversial subcategories of a category page, Category:East Jerusalem. Another delete vote said to go ahead and create those subcategories, but still to delete the overall category! Eventually, someone will create those subcategories anyway, and then put them in a new version of Category:East Jerusalem. I can live with that, but I still think the original closing admin decision to delete was faulty, and would like other opinions. Timeshifter 08:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Relist if compromise needed. I wondered about the justification of this closure at the time it happenned. I think the political nature of the debate about this and other categorisations concerning Jerusalem and the surrounding territories should be considered. Counting votes or even how many argue on each side, just reflects the relative power of pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian lobbies within the English-language Wikipedia. The closure should be based on the coherence of the arguments on each side, not just on the numbers of votes. No consensus should have been the decision.--Peter cohen 10:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Vote now clarified Peter cohen 15:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] I'm going to go out on a limb here and endorse deletion. The closing admin has already said he doesn't count votes. Also, there was over a full day between the last comment and the closure, plenty of time to discuss the merits of any new info. Oh, and just for clarification, the closing admin doesn't count votes. --Kbdank71 10:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for explaining your case as the closing admin in question. I still think there was no consensus with several people on each side of the debate putting arguments.--Peter cohen 11:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] So I take it you are voting "overturn"? --Timeshifter 12:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Kbdank71. One day is not enough to discuss new info. Many people check wikipedia every day or two, and may not have seen the new info before the CFD was closed. Many people just post and run, and never come back. If you don't count votes, then how do you decide? And why isn't "no consensus" a good enough closing admin statement for this? --Timeshifter 12:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] I re-read what you describe as "new info". I think you are mistaken. The guideline that Tewfik mentions refers to the populating of the East Jerusalem category, not to whatever categories the list happened to be in. Besides, you introduced your "new info" two days before I closed the discussion. It was discussed for one day, with three people adding to the discussion, all wanting to delete. Then a full day went by with no discussion at all. Then I closed it. If one day isn't enough, is two? Do you think anything different would have happened if I left it open any longer? --Kbdank71 14:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] There seemed to be a continuous 2 to 1 ratio of deletes to keeps until the last few deletes piled on, and you closed the discussion. Most of the deletes throughout the first 8 days were using Tewfik's reasoning. Tewfik did not leave a link to the guideline page he was quoting. So people were mostly following along with what he said. I actually had to hunt down the guideline page by searching all over, and then I posted my new info when I saw that the guideline could be interpreted differently than how Tewfik was doing. Now that Category:East Jerusalem has been deleted in spite of the fact that there was no consensus in the comments, there is now an attempt to delete categories with "Palestinian territories" in the name. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 19#Geography of the Palestinian territories. In both cases, geographical category names have been distorted into political names, and the wikipedia category discussions have deteriorated into political forums. Just note the political nature of many of the comments. I think rational discussion went out the window early on. Tewfik tried for months to depopulate and speedy-delete map categories that had "Palestinian territories" in the name. So I predict that will be the next target. --Timeshifter 14:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yes this creeping deletion is a severe threat to WP:NPOV. The category system should reflect the rival perspectives. The way articles are linked is part of the subtext of wikipedia and a neutral point of view must be reflected at this level just as much as in the words of articles themselves for it to be objectivvely maintained.--Peter cohen 15:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion - well within the discretion of the closing admin and seems well supported by the comments at the discussion. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn we should try to avoid creeping bias. Catchpole 15:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] endorse deletion per After Midnight. JoshuaZ 16:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn this is not a subject for vote counting. Among the arguments for deletion accepted in the closing was that some inappropriate items had been placed in the category. That's not a valid argument. DGG 21:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: Debolded as the user has commented to "relist" below. Tewfik^Talk 04:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion per Midnight - the closing administrator (Kbdank71) has repeatedly stated that he doesn't count votes, so I'm not sure why anyone would think that. Also, the argument was Categorisation guideline 8, not "that some inappropriate items had been placed in the category". Where the allegation of "creeping bias" comes from is beyond me, but DRV is meant to decide whether the discussion was closed per policy, and not the place for either discussing content, or for broad implications of bad faith. Tewfik^Talk 23:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, there was no concensus. A few well stated reasons for deletion were given, but most were disputed. None of the reasons for deletion were clear policy issues, so I dont see why an admin needed to push ahead and make a call on this issue. My concern is that will Category:Cities in Israel and other similar cats for the geography of the region also be deleted because they may contain dubious entries? John Vandenberg 03:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion The fundamental argument in the CfD was that the category name has no precise meaning. Timeshifter proposed using two subcategories to disambiguate the meaning. Tewfik disagreed with this suggestion because he felt it would lead to the creation of four or more very small overlapping categories with little potential for growth. I also disagreed with Timeshifter because I preferred a more precise name and since I felt his suggestion would turn the category into a meaningless empty shell. All those who opposed deletion said either 1)the name was inherently vague or 2)agreed with Tewfik or 3) agreed with my reasoning. Timeshifter claims in this nom that his observation on the 18th added important new information which was not sufficiently discussed by the closing on the 20th. This observation was merely that the subcategories idea he proposed on the 12th would eliminate any ambiguity and thus (in his opinion) obviate the item 8 concern in WP:CAT. However, by that time, everyone should have been fully aware of Timeshifter's suggestion and its objective. It is patently false that those who cited Tewfik for deletion votes were citing outdated information; rather, they were citing Tewfik's rebuttals of Timeshifter's proposal and were expressing their opinion that—notwithstanding his proposal—having an "East Jerusalem" category would necessarily invite edit warring. If people closely follow the progression of the CfD, I think they will also agree that Kbdank71 correctly closed the discussion based on rough consensus and the strength of the arguments. To Timeshifter: as before, I invite you to create a more precisely named replacement category. nadav (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC) [NOTE: This is not my original post; I revised it per the discussion below. To see my original post, see the diff 08:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)][reply] Nadav. You are misrepresenting what I said and I don't appreciate it. Subcategories and the guideline are 2 different things. My comment on the CFD page about the mistakenly-interpreted guideline was made on June 18, and part of it was emphasized with bold text. So you can't miss it. See this diff. --Timeshifter 06:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] You're right. I misinterpreted what you wrote. Please forgive me and disregard that portion of my comment while I revise it. nadav (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] I've now revised my comment. nadav (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] I think you are still misrepresenting the discussion. It sounds like you are reading people's minds from mostly one-sentence, post-and-run delete votes. Please ~~strike-out~~ old info instead of changing your comments after people have replied. It is way too confusing otherwise, and a little unfair, too. Here is the diff of what you originally wrote here. --Timeshifter 08:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] I think it is you who is mind reading. I take the invocation "per [name]" to mean "per the arguments [name] has been making throughout this discussion." I see no reason to believe it would refer only to Tewfik's early mention of item 8 but without any of the later extensive discussion. In fact, I invite you to ask those people on their talk pages to post here about whether they still stand by their votes. About the crossing out: I usually use it, but in this case I think it would make my comment hard to read. I added a note at the end about the revision. BTW, in hindsight I think the reason I thought you were talking about the sept 12 proposal is because I don't see what the sept. 18 post substantially added to the CfD. At the time, I saw the post as just repeating your reasoning of why the subcategories would solve the contentiousness problem (and I agreed with this reasoning, but I believed it was not a useful solution) nadav (talk) 08:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn No consensus. 'nuff said Delad 13:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion per SV's rationale on the discussion page. Admin well within policy to delete. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Weak Overturn. Consensus to delete is not evident. The correct step to take would have been to extend the discussion. I suggest relisting. Loom91 18:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Relist , following Loom91's reasoning. There was clearly no consensus. I doubt there will ever be any real consensus on this, and the thing to do is to come to some compromise about where the category can and cannot be used. DGG 21:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. Clear consensus for deletion, well within admin's prerogative. This is just an attempt to get another kick at the can. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion - this is about as much of a consensus as anything I've seen on Wikipedia, and there is no "new" information. --Leifern 10:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion per above. 6SJ7 19:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion per After Midnight. gidonb 19:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion improper cat, properly deleted. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Category:East Jerusalem – Deletion endorsed. – Daniel 09:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Overturn or relist. Per Wikipedia:Deletion review#Commenting in a deletion review and my nomination for deletion review just below. --Timeshifter 12:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This concerns Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 11#Category:East Jerusalem. I already tried to get the closing admin to change his mind. From Wikipedia:Deletion process#Categories for Discussion page: "If the discussion failed to reach consensus, then the category is kept by default, but the decision should generally include a reference to the lack of consensus, in order to minimize ambiguity and future confusion." I count 8 keeps and 19 deletes from non-anonymous users. The "oppose" is a keep vote, and I counted it in the 8 keeps. Most of the deletes were from users who did not enter into discussion. I see no consensus, and not even rough consensus, to delete this category, and that is the main reason I am asking for this deletion review. And I thought closing admins took less notice of "post-and-run" deletion votes who don't discuss anything. I would like the category to be kept, or at the very least relisted for discussion. I also believe there is new info. The main reason given by those who wanted deletion was discovered late into discussion to be incorrectly applied, and there was little opportunity to discuss the new info. Some people wrote "Listify and Delete", or just cited Tewfik as their reason. Tewfik's reason was guideline 8 at Wikipedia:Categorization# Some general guidelines. But late into discussion it was discovered that when one reads guideline 8 one finds that it actually could be applied to keeping the category. How? Because the use of Tewfik's very specific and non-controversial subcategories in his list page, List of East Jerusalem locations, means that "it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs" in those subcategories. So the subcategories of Tewfik's highly-praised list page can be used as the uncontroversial subcategories of a category page, Category:East Jerusalem. Another delete vote said to go ahead and create those subcategories, but still to delete the overall category! Eventually, someone will create those subcategories anyway, and then put them in a new version of Category:East Jerusalem. I can live with that, but I still think the original closing admin decision to delete was faulty, and would like other opinions. Timeshifter 08:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Relist if compromise needed. I wondered about the justification of this closure at the time it happenned. I think the political nature of the debate about this and other categorisations concerning Jerusalem and the surrounding territories should be considered. Counting votes or even how many argue on each side, just reflects the relative power of pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian lobbies within the English-language Wikipedia. The closure should be based on the coherence of the arguments on each side, not just on the numbers of votes. No consensus should have been the decision.--Peter cohen 10:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Vote now clarified Peter cohen 15:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go out on a limb here and endorse deletion. The closing admin has already said he doesn't count votes. Also, there was over a full day between the last comment and the closure, plenty of time to discuss the merits of any new info. Oh, and just for clarification, the closing admin doesn't count votes. --Kbdank71 10:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining your case as the closing admin in question. I still think there was no consensus with several people on each side of the debate putting arguments.--Peter cohen 11:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So I take it you are voting "overturn"? --Timeshifter 12:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kbdank71. One day is not enough to discuss new info. Many people check wikipedia every day or two, and may not have seen the new info before the CFD was closed. Many people just post and run, and never come back. If you don't count votes, then how do you decide? And why isn't "no consensus" a good enough closing admin statement for this? --Timeshifter 12:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I re-read what you describe as "new info". I think you are mistaken. The guideline that Tewfik mentions refers to the populating of the East Jerusalem category, not to whatever categories the list happened to be in. Besides, you introduced your "new info" two days before I closed the discussion. It was discussed for one day, with three people adding to the discussion, all wanting to delete. Then a full day went by with no discussion at all. Then I closed it. If one day isn't enough, is two? Do you think anything different would have happened if I left it open any longer? --Kbdank71 14:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There seemed to be a continuous 2 to 1 ratio of deletes to keeps until the last few deletes piled on, and you closed the discussion. Most of the deletes throughout the first 8 days were using Tewfik's reasoning. Tewfik did not leave a link to the guideline page he was quoting. So people were mostly following along with what he said. I actually had to hunt down the guideline page by searching all over, and then I posted my new info when I saw that the guideline could be interpreted differently than how Tewfik was doing. Now that Category:East Jerusalem has been deleted in spite of the fact that there was no consensus in the comments, there is now an attempt to delete categories with "Palestinian territories" in the name. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 19#Geography of the Palestinian territories. In both cases, geographical category names have been distorted into political names, and the wikipedia category discussions have deteriorated into political forums. Just note the political nature of many of the comments. I think rational discussion went out the window early on. Tewfik tried for months to depopulate and speedy-delete map categories that had "Palestinian territories" in the name. So I predict that will be the next target. --Timeshifter 14:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this creeping deletion is a severe threat to WP:NPOV. The category system should reflect the rival perspectives. The way articles are linked is part of the subtext of wikipedia and a neutral point of view must be reflected at this level just as much as in the words of articles themselves for it to be objectivvely maintained.--Peter cohen 15:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - well within the discretion of the closing admin and seems well supported by the comments at the discussion. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn we should try to avoid creeping bias. Catchpole 15:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion per After Midnight. JoshuaZ 16:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn this is not a subject for vote counting. Among the arguments for deletion accepted in the closing was that some inappropriate items had been placed in the category. That's not a valid argument. DGG 21:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Debolded as the user has commented to "relist" below. Tewfik^Talk 04:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per Midnight - the closing administrator (Kbdank71) has repeatedly stated that he doesn't count votes, so I'm not sure why anyone would think that. Also, the argument was Categorisation guideline 8, not "that some inappropriate items had been placed in the category". Where the allegation of "creeping bias" comes from is beyond me, but DRV is meant to decide whether the discussion was closed per policy, and not the place for either discussing content, or for broad implications of bad faith. Tewfik^Talk 23:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, there was no concensus. A few well stated reasons for deletion were given, but most were disputed. None of the reasons for deletion were clear policy issues, so I dont see why an admin needed to push ahead and make a call on this issue. My concern is that will Category:Cities in Israel and other similar cats for the geography of the region also be deleted because they may contain dubious entries? John Vandenberg 03:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The fundamental argument in the CfD was that the category name has no precise meaning. Timeshifter proposed using two subcategories to disambiguate the meaning. Tewfik disagreed with this suggestion because he felt it would lead to the creation of four or more very small overlapping categories with little potential for growth. I also disagreed with Timeshifter because I preferred a more precise name and since I felt his suggestion would turn the category into a meaningless empty shell. All those who opposed deletion said either 1)the name was inherently vague or 2)agreed with Tewfik or 3) agreed with my reasoning. Timeshifter claims in this nom that his observation on the 18th added important new information which was not sufficiently discussed by the closing on the 20th. This observation was merely that the subcategories idea he proposed on the 12th would eliminate any ambiguity and thus (in his opinion) obviate the item 8 concern in WP:CAT. However, by that time, everyone should have been fully aware of Timeshifter's suggestion and its objective. It is patently false that those who cited Tewfik for deletion votes were citing outdated information; rather, they were citing Tewfik's rebuttals of Timeshifter's proposal and were expressing their opinion that—notwithstanding his proposal—having an "East Jerusalem" category would necessarily invite edit warring. If people closely follow the progression of the CfD, I think they will also agree that Kbdank71 correctly closed the discussion based on rough consensus and the strength of the arguments. To Timeshifter: as before, I invite you to create a more precisely named replacement category. nadav (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC) [NOTE: This is not my original post; I revised it per the discussion below. To see my original post, see the diff 08:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)][reply]
- Nadav. You are misrepresenting what I said and I don't appreciate it. Subcategories and the guideline are 2 different things. My comment on the CFD page about the mistakenly-interpreted guideline was made on June 18, and part of it was emphasized with bold text. So you can't miss it. See this diff. --Timeshifter 06:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right. I misinterpreted what you wrote. Please forgive me and disregard that portion of my comment while I revise it. nadav (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've now revised my comment. nadav (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you are still misrepresenting the discussion. It sounds like you are reading people's minds from mostly one-sentence, post-and-run delete votes. Please ~~strike-out~~ old info instead of changing your comments after people have replied. It is way too confusing otherwise, and a little unfair, too. Here is the diff of what you originally wrote here. --Timeshifter 08:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I think it is you who is mind reading. I take the invocation "per [name]" to mean "per the arguments [name] has been making throughout this discussion." I see no reason to believe it would refer only to Tewfik's early mention of item 8 but without any of the later extensive discussion. In fact, I invite you to ask those people on their talk pages to post here about whether they still stand by their votes. About the crossing out: I usually use it, but in this case I think it would make my comment hard to read. I added a note at the end about the revision. BTW, in hindsight I think the reason I thought you were talking about the sept 12 proposal is because I don't see what the sept. 18 post substantially added to the CfD. At the time, I saw the post as just repeating your reasoning of why the subcategories would solve the contentiousness problem (and I agreed with this reasoning, but I believed it was not a useful solution) nadav (talk) 08:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn No consensus. 'nuff said Delad 13:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per SV's rationale on the discussion page. Admin well within policy to delete. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Overturn. Consensus to delete is not evident. The correct step to take would have been to extend the discussion. I suggest relisting. Loom91 18:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist , following Loom91's reasoning. There was clearly no consensus. I doubt there will ever be any real consensus on this, and the thing to do is to come to some compromise about where the category can and cannot be used. DGG 21:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Clear consensus for deletion, well within admin's prerogative. This is just an attempt to get another kick at the can. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - this is about as much of a consensus as anything I've seen on Wikipedia, and there is no "new" information. --Leifern 10:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per above. 6SJ7 19:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per After Midnight. gidonb 19:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion improper cat, properly deleted. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.