Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 13: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:32, 15 November 2006 editUser27091 (talk | contribs)3,634 edits vote order (hopefully I did that right)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:40, 5 September 2022 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators59,531 editsm Fix linter errors (via WP:JWB) 
(97 intermediate revisions by 35 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:


<noinclude><div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 1px 0 0; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; font-size:10px"> <noinclude><div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 1px 0 0; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; font-size:10px">
{| width = "100%" {| width = "100%"
|- |-
! width="50%" align="left" | <font color="gray">&lt;</font> ] ! width="50%" align="left" | <span style="color:gray;">&lt;</span> ]
! width="50%" align="right" | ] <font color="gray">&gt;</font> ! width="50%" align="right" | ] <span style="color:gray;">&gt;</span>
|} |}
</div> </div>
Line 16: Line 14:
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page.
--> -->



====]====
:]
:{{la|Wall-E (film)}}

This film, less than 2 years in the future, appears to have gotten its article deleted so quickly as if it were indeed just a rumor. Study various Disney/Pixar web sites and how many will mention this film?? ] 23:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' for the time being. Feel free to write a new article when more is known about the film. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 23:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' Nothing was out of proccess in that AfD, the consensus found it was not verifiable yet. Blogs are not reliable sources. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 23:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
**Please explain. Do people who write info in blogs often lie?? ] 00:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
***This is explained in the wikipedia policy ]. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 00:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
***Quite honestly, it's impossible to verify if they lie or not (more likely, they repeat stuff they hear from "around" which isn't a reliable source of information either). So they're not reliable enough. ] 03:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''': People who write in blogs ''do'' often lie, but they even more often repeat rumors found in other blogs. There is no thing to discuss until someone else, with accountability, writes about it. ] 02:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' Too far into the future. No guarantee that this film will be released at this point. Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball ] 09:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. Less than two years into the future? And there was I thinking we were an encyclopaedia, not a crystal ball. <b>]</b> 12:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
**Do you mean less than 2, or 5?? How many articles on upcoming films does Misplaced Pages have?? ] 14:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
***Too many, most with more rumors than facts. ] 16:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' per the ] on this movie. No confirmed information, and we're not in the crystal ball business. --''']]''' 23:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

====]====
:]
:{{la|List of Mario series items}}
I recently got this page restored, but it seems to have been deleted again. Again I must explain the reason we need to keep this article. Misplaced Pages is an encylopedia. An encyclopedia cannot think, so it is immune from bias and prejudice. Deleting this article is a bias, who says that we can't keep things about video games. One person said, "Misplaced Pages is not an instructions manual." Who are you to judge? Misplaced Pages is a free encylopedia. You are being bias about not letting an article in, because it informs you about the items in a video game series. Mario is now a pop icon, you can see 1-Up mushrooms on, shirts, cars, tattoos. It is recognizable and should be restored.
* '''Endorse deletion'''. Yup, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia. ] is where you find the bit about not being an instruction manual (or indeed an indiscriminate collection of information). Accusations of bias are offensive and unnecessary, try taking the comments at face value rather than imputing motives. We have an enormous number of articles on video game topics, it is fatuous to suggest that this was deleted because it's about Mario, rather than because it's a random list. <b>]</b> 22:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' Procedurally sound and only one Keep. Accusations of bias are also used mainly when an article clearly does not meet the criteria for inclusion, as this one doesn't. ] 23:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''. Misplaced Pages is not an instruction manual, this is not negotiable. ] explains the fundamental policy. ] 03:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' per JzG. ] ] 14:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' - Wiki is not an instruction manual, as stated numerous times. If certain Mario items have cultural significance, then add them to ] ] 14:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Deletion'''. Good judgment is part of keeping the project on-track. Suggestions that we should not use any judgment at all in order to avoid bias misunderstand what an encyclopedia is and what is needed to give it quality. --] 15:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

====]====
*{{la|Yehuda Zisapel}}
*]
How can you have an article about ] without having an article about ]? I was in the process of massively revisioning the Yehuda Zisapel article, but it was deleted before I could say a beep! This kind of behaviour is like a thug behaviour. If ] was accepted, there is no reason for not having one for ]. Indeed, the initial article was badly written, but as I CLEARLY stated, I deleted the bad text and started to create an encyclopedic entry!!! ] behaved like a bully in my view, having no real knowledge on the subject and without paying attention to my notes on the article's discussion page. I recommend revoking that user's Admin ("Ixfd64") status. <small>—comment ] by </small>]<sup>(]/])</sup> {{time}}
:I've added a link to the article and to the AfD. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 21:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*Having one thing is no reason for having another. And neither are McCartney or Lennon... '''Endorse deletion'''. If you can write a well sourced article which states the notability then please do so - AFD isn't ]. Thanks/] 22:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
** Oh really?? You would have a ] article but not a ] article? Anyway, your answer is not to the point, because, as I said, and I will say it again, the article was indeed bad, and today I started to totally revise it, but they didn't give me time to breath, and it was deleted before I could even make the required changes and additions. Again, if someone says he/she is working to amend a bad article, you do not delete the article before he/she posts the revision. And this was done on the same day. '''Undelete''' - I need to post that corrcted article!!
*** Please stop making wild assertions and address the issues raised at the articles for deletion debate and by Wangi above. If you genuinely believe the two are indivisible, why not expand the existing article to include both? <b>]</b> 22:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*** I didn't quite get it Guy, since I addressed a very important issue: I was disturbed while I was in the process of revising a to-be-deleted article, which is basically an essential one. Your comment above appears to be patronizing. Please talk to the point <small>—comment ] by </small>]<sup>(]/])</sup> {{time}}
****I suggest you write the article in your userspace, for instance at ]. That way you can rewrite the article in peace and quiet, and when you're done we will have something substantial to judge. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 23:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
**** An ''essential'' article? You don't think you might perhaps be overstating just the ''tiniest'' fraction? Coming along invoking Paul McCartney, describing articles as "essential" and ] of admin who called a perfectly proper close on the basis of the deletion debate, bears all the hallmarks of excessive involvement with the subject. I think you might need to have ] before you consider ]. In a word, chill. There is no deadline, after all. <b>]</b> 12:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' until reliable sources are found. If X has an article, so should Y is not a valid keep reason. We're all humans - does that mean every single human should have an article even if the vast majority of them don't have enough sourced information to fill a thimble? John Hyams, the problem was not with the tone of the article (which could be fixed), but lack of reliable sources, and the fact that when it was challenged, it still could not come up with them. ] 03:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

====]====
:]
:]
:{{la|Actuarial Outpost}}
The fact that three people who voted keep are members of the forum is irrelevant. No sockpuppetry occurred, and as mentioned at length, the niche that actuaries as a whole occupy makes the standard Alexa/Google ranking inapplicable. Further, there were 7 votes for Keep and 4 for delete. Even if you completely discount the three of us who are members of the AO (which I maintain is both inappropriate and insulting), it is still 4v4 which is no consensus. I would have closd this as keep (7-4) but felt although a sysop, it would be inappropriate for me to do so. I am afraid that W.marsh went too far the other way, and am requesting review for undeletion as keep, and at the very least, no consensus. Thank you ] 21:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*I've added a link to the second AfD, as that AfD led to the deletion of the article. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 21:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::Thank you -- ] 21:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse deletion''', for one thing a conflict of interest is a valid consideration. However it appears their opinions were not regarded with as much weight due to their lack of understanding of wikipedia policy. I see nothing out of line with the closing of this nomination. I see you used the word vote, we don't vote we discuss. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 21:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:There are pages and pages in the RfA talk archive about that ] But the term "vote" was used by the closing admin; perhaps you should let him know that too ;) Ya think there was an abuse of process, for someone to use the term vote and close an AfD?!?! ('''JUST KIDDING''') -- ] 21:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::The closing admin said ''Most people voting to keep seem to be members of the forums'', in fairness some people were voting, instead of discussing(Not pointing to anyone specific). ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 22:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::Just for the record, I said "vote" in somewhat an ironic sense, since I was rather sure it would be coming to DRV because I wasn't closing it like a vote. I may use the word vote because it's grammatically convenient, but it would be pure semantics to argue that I actually think we "don't vote we discuss" just because I said the word vote. --] 23:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*As HighInBC said, there was a clear conflict of interest. At any rate, as I've said before, if ] (and to some degree, WP:V) are to mean anything, we have to actually enforce them, even if it's a site we've heard of that's being considered. Actually, especially then. The nomination above contains nothing about reliable sources, and everything about letting us vote to include stuff sourced to forum postings. --] 22:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse deletion''', AfD ''is not a vote'', it doesn't matter how many people come along and assert how great the subject is, without non-trivial treatment in reliable secondary sources we can't have an article without violating fundamental policies. <b>]</b> 23:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': I am extremely displeased that my "vote" was completely disregarded without comment. I am sure anything I say here will be disregarded as well. I have seen debates with much stronger consensus to delete closed as "no consensus", but a WP celebrity closed the debate and WP celebrities are endorsing it, so this DRV amounts to pointless wheel spinning. At this point my disillusionment with AfD could not be greater. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— ]</span> 00:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
**It is regretable you feal that way, but if you think of AfD as a democracy where every vote counts then you will be dissapointed. Each point a person makes is weighed based on it's merits. Even a strong consensus cannot go against wikipedia policy, and those who argue with policy in mind will do better than those who argue in a fashion incompatable with policy. Sorry if you are disillusioned. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 00:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
** The clue here is in the word "vote". AfD is not a vote. All valid arguments will have been weighed in the balance, but in the end ] is not policy whereas ] is. <b>]</b> 12:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' - I endorsed deletion in the Afd debate (I believe I originally brought up the WP:WEB concern in a prod). I did not look anymore at the article after that, but if the references from multiple third-party authorities in the actuarial industry were indeed added, I would lean towards undeleting it. --- ] 00:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
:They each ammounted to a casual mention of the site, just using information from those sources, the article would be lucky to be a paragraph long. --] 00:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' The references from the two main United States actuarial professional organisations were sufficient for the article to be kept in my opinion. I have concerns with the attention to detail of the closing admin, his responses here and in his closure of the AfD appear to be hurried and contain typos. ] 07:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
:: However slowly I type, I tend to produce typos. This is the result of bone-deep burn scars across the fingers of my left hand (hurrah for Firefox 2 and html form spell-checking!). Does that mean I should never close an AfD? I have no problem with debating the merits of the closure ''as a closure'', with reference to the weight of arguments, but can we please leave personalities out of it? Thanks. <b>]</b> 12:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
:: Maybe it's because I'm dyslexic? I dunno. I've never been attacked for my typos, except on Misplaced Pages Review once. What's next, the closure was invalid because I made a formatting mistake? I'm good at those too. Anyway, like I said, if the article was written from what can be attributed to reliable sources, it couldn't be more than a paragraph long, based on the 3 references given. This is why WP:WEB wants more than just passing mentions. --] 13:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Keep''' The criteria for notability shouldn't be "is this famous", because if it were world famous it would already be in a regular encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is better than a regular encyclopedia, because it has answers that regular ones don't. The criteria for notability should be "can I imagine someone looking this up on Misplaced Pages to find out what it is?" And the answer is: yes. Because frankly, if I saw "Actuarial Outpost" anywhere else on the web, my first instinct would be "What is that?" and I would turn to Misplaced Pages for the answer. Misplaced Pages begins to loose its purpose if it deletes unusual articles, because Misplaced Pages is all about tapping into the knowledge of the world, to write articles not just about famous things, but also not so famous and infamous and niche things too. ] 23:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
**No one said the question is "is this famous", the point is that nothing non-trivial has been written about this by reliable sources. They often write about decidedly non-famous and downright obscure things. --] 00:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Keep''' - Consensus was reached in the discussion, and that consensus was keep. It shouldn't have been overturned. Notability in general may not be a good guide here, because the field itself is rather obscure, and because Misplaced Pages is striving to become a comprehensive source of knowledge. How obscure does a field have to be before notability within the field does not apply? I'd venture to guess that if the field was notable enough to include in Misplaced Pages, that anything notable within that field to the community of members of that field is also notable enough to be included in Misplaced Pages (in some form - if not in an article of its own, in a more general article). Therefore, the article should be retained, and if some editors still feel that the topic is too obscure to have its own article, they can propose a merge. {{smi|1}} &nbsp;''''']'''''10:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

====]====
This page was deleted today by Cholmes75 for reason g11. The page was deleted in the past for reason g11. We followed the same guidelines that all other businesses have used to create our Misplaced Pages page. We would be willing to make changes and discuss but the page was just deleted. We are a valid U.S. corporation, with multiple retail stores. Last night we created the page and listed it under Massachusetts businesses. We would like to start the process of having our page restored. Finally, any business page could be deleted for reason g11 why is ours being singled out? {{unsigned|WaveRunr}}
*The article was probably deleted because of some advertising lingo in the article. The nomination otoh seems to have been based on the ranking (594,883). This doesn't meet the notability guidelines ] and ]. '''Endorse deletion'''. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 21:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''': per AECIS. ] 21:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse deletion'''. The use of first person pronouns is, I'm afraid, all we need to know here. WaveRunr, there is strong resistance to ], including corporate autobiography. It's very difficult to be ] about your own company, even if you do pass our ]. <b>]</b> 23:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' Not every business could be deleted under G11, as volunteer, third-party editors write neutral articles about businesses in which they are not involved. See the fine article on ], for example. ] 23:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
**Or the featured article ]. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 23:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

====]====
This page was ] by ], and on the same day by ].

I am not sure that the article ever qualified as a speedy candidate. The grounds suggested in the nomination, that it was "inherently POV", are not grounds for speedy deletion last time I checked.

I am also not convinced that the subject is entirely valueless - Jacques Barzun opined that the most beautiful English word was ''cellardoor'' - or that the last contents were so worthless as to be unusable. It mentioned a poll taken that claimed that Norwegian was the most beautiful European language, which suggests a sourceable statement. Some notice could also be taken of the cultivation of some languages, notably Italian, for music outside of the areas where they are spoken as native tongues. - ] 19:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' per ]. Bad-process deletion, but in its current form, totally useless and no chance of surviving an AfD. Let whoever really wants to have an article there just write a better one. ] ] 20:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I'm not certain what part of the process was "bad" per ]&nbsp;(]{{•}}&nbsp;])'s comment above (please elaborate), I speedied it under ] A1 with an uncited modifier, which is reflected by the deletion log. Ihoyc's comment that I speedied it because it was inherently POV is simply not true, but I happen to agree that there's absolutely no way to make an article on 'beautiful sounding languages' recoverable. That wasn't the criteria I applied, though. - ]</small> (]) 20:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
**Sorry about that - wasn't sure I understood the very brief comment left when you deleted it. (The letters CSD might have helped :-). At any rate, the last version of the article had three paragraphs, and was reasonably clear what it was trying to be about, ao I'm not sure that it qualifies under ] A1 either. I will have to sit down with Mario Pei's ''One Language For the World'' one of these evenings; Pei did a great deal of editorialising about the aesthetics of both natural and artificial languages as they existed in the late 1950s. - ] 21:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse deletion''' unless we have a valid objective definition of beautiful. Which of course we don't because it's inherently subjective. <b>]</b> 23:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

*I'm on the fence with this: "Inherently POV" in this instance means "essay" or "original research." Essays that are direct confessions of an author's point of view can be awfully like tests. However, it was an improper deletion. That said, the article pretty much has to fail the deletion policy, and I'd rather see the linguistics interest expressed in a more mediated, cited, and cooperative, and far less idiosyncratic form and don't know that going to AfD will accomplish that. ] 02:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse deletion''' An article on this subject is probably impossible and should certainly be at a less POV title like ''Phonoasthetics of language'' or something. ] 15:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

====]====
This article was nominated by user:Jersey Devil, together with 30+ other articles a few month ago. In ] User:Lambiam characterized it as ]. So much for context. Now, for my arguments for undeleting:
#I, the creator, was not informed of the afd, in violation of policy and guidlines. If i had been, i could have argued for keeping the article. Also, note the without me, it is one arguing to keep the article, and three arguing to delete it. Consensus to delete would not have been reached if i had been informed.
#Considering that other higher profile afd at the same time was kept, ] and ] and ], you have 3 of the four ] having their family tree kept, while this one had it deleted.
#Umar is considered royalty, thus, the arguments for deleting does not apply.

I would request for the article to be undeleted, or at the very least renominated. Thanks.--] 16:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''undelete''' --] 16:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''undelete & relist''' -- couldn't hurt. This time, perhaps at least a link to who Umar is would help clarify things. As written, I had thought this was just some nn geneology. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and relist'''. Agree that Umar is an important dynastic figure. - ] 19:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse deletion''', allow userfication to fix up. Entries included:
::Paternal grandmother: ''(insert name)
::Paternal grandfather in law: ] ''(not a mistake)
::Uncle: ] ''(not a mistake, married his mother)
...
::Sister ] (Not sure if they have the same mother)
: and so on. This article was in dire shape, badly formatted and covered with editorial markings like the above. <b>]</b> 23:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

*'''Userfy''' per Guy. ] 00:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse deletion''': It wasn't discursive at all. It was literally what the title says: a family tree. It had no context whatever, no ''discussion'' whatever. It had this little paragraph pointing us to an Islamic website to tell us how to manage marrying a non-Muslim. Other than that, it was ''undigested'' data. Misplaced Pages is not a host for random data, and this was presented exactly as random data. ] 02:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse keep, and pledge to bring article up to standard''' - Let Striver work on the article to bring it up to standard, in article space where the piece belongs. Striver is an editor in good standing who created an article in good faith, who in turn was not accorded good faith by the one who nominated the article for deletion. Striver should have been notified, and I believe the article would not have been deleted if he had been. And Striver, if you are reading this, keep in mind that raw data is subject to being deleted in the future, so the article should be expanded on to actually cover the ancestry represented, and their significance, to some degree. That the Umar comprise one of the four ] might be a good place to start. So, give it a lead paragraph, and how about a see also section listing the other Rashidun. I pledge to look in on the article should it be undeleted, and will bring it up to standard myself in the event that Striver does not. &nbsp;''''']'''''11:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' without prejudice. The consensus on the AfD was clear. I suggest userfying the content, to let Striver work on it. When he's confident it's ready to be moved to the article mainspace, he can bring it up here again. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 11:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

====]====
:]
:{{la|Special moments of Hungary's 1956 uprising}}
I'd like this article to be undeleted because I think the main reason for which it was deleted (that it was unsourced) no longer applies. Please see the ] of the article (from which the English one was translated), the author listed all the sources. Also, the article was originally planned to be a trivia section of the revolution's article, but that article was long enough in itself and in HuWiki it already has several sub-articles, so we thought why not have a separate article for this too? They are interesting, they are true (and now referenced) and tidbits like this help bringing history closer to the average reader. (I know the title was unencyclopedic but it can be changed.) – ]&nbsp;] 16:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

*'''Undelete''' per my nom. – ]&nbsp;] 16:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' - I agree with ]. --] 16:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

*'''Undelete''' I believe the article, in its deleted form was a WIP, and would have evolved into a useful subarticle of the main 1956 article - a section of stories and anecdotes (of which there are many) which may not be quite as sourced or NPOV enough to fit in a FA article, but is certainly part of the story, this may also serve as a staging article for materials which may become better sourced, referenced and put into an objective (historical) form to be shuttled into the FA article. The article should also be renamed "Anecdotes of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956". ] 16:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse deletion''' - This really doesn't sound like an encyclopedia article. Anecdotes, tidbits, and "special moments" are not really encyclopedic material. I would support userfication for extraction of encyclopedic content of course. Cute stories/anecdotes don't need their own article. There are, of course, verifiability concerns too, which is why it probably shouldn't be directly restored to the main space anyway. ] 16:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

*'''Undelete and rename''', pretty much for the same reasons already stated. We're working on a whole bunch of articles eventually to become a comprehensive survey of everything about the 56 revolution and the anecdotes will be nice to have. :) ] 16:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

*'''Undelete''' - I agree with ]. ] 16:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

*'''Undelete''' - I agree with ]. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 16:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

*'''Undelete''' - Trivia are generally not expelled from wikipedia. I would regard it as a problem if they would be, while I would not think it a problem if an article is readable, though that often triggers suspicion as I have experienced. The article is a sidebar to the main article about Hungary's revolution and in my view its content is more than just anecdotes. These are facts and events which are worth knowing if you want to get a clear picture about Hungary's 1956 revolution. Don't we want to present information worth knowing in the encyclopedia? As for sourcing, anybody who wants full sourcing in English must wait for another 50 years or more (I myself will lose interest by the end of that period). Regards, --Korovioff 16:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:*Actually, trivia ''should'' be "expelled" from Misplaced Pages per ], as it is, by definition, trivial. And, no, this does not mean trivia should instead be in separate articles. ] 17:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:*Apologies what you are saying is just the opposite of what is in your link. As for trivia sections developed further, please search on "Lists of trivia" and you will see that there is no such principle in the English wikipedia which you referred to. Only one of the many examples: ] Regards, --Korovioff 17:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

* '''Undelete and rename''' I think this is important summary of that revolution. We can find another suitable name.
**''Hints:'' List of the... Timeline of the... Caracteristic events in..., Main moments in..., etc.
--] 17:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

*'''Undelete''' I agree with ]. This is an article in huwiki ]. --] 17:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''undelete''' per above. --] 18:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

* '''Undelete and rename''' per Rodrigo. ]] <sub> ]</sub> 19:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' - not the kind of stuff for wikipedia. We're not a memorial. --] 02:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''': "Special moments?" That's so riven with a particularly undocumented point of view as to make it intractably off the mark from the start. These are valuations that are not part of an encyclopedia's business. Historians can talk about the high points and turning points, but they are writing history. Our aim is less controversialist. ] 02:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
:::'''comment''': I'm pretty sure no one would complain if we changed the title to something a bit more encyclopedic! :) I think "special moments" was probably a clumsy translation, and I agree it sounds pretty silly. ] 04:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
:::'''comment''': As the original author of the articel I would be completely content with a changed title. Apologies for the original title which only reflect my lack of experience. But please, please do not repeat that the story is undocumented - every bit of it IS documented, pity that this is about a subject from a not English-speaking country. The new title could be "List of trivia on..." or something like that. Whoever still want to keep this story deleted should also propose the deletion of the numberless trivia stories in enwiki. (I would personally regret that.) Regards, --Korovioff 10:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' as the original nominator on AfD. Having checked the hu: version, I agree there are sources over there, including even some decent ones, but still I believe it is impossible to turn this into a NPOV article, which means it should remain deleted. At any rate, the title is very badly biased (as it is on hu: also). Yes there were some bits and pieces that could possibly be included ''somewhere'' – but they didn't deserve their own article. I'm willing to reconsider my vote if someone comes up with a title under which this could be turned into a fairly NPOV article, but I have tried to make up such a title and just couldn't. ]] 14:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
:::'''comment''' I understand your concern, Misplaced Pages really cannot disintegrate into pieces of random collections of facts. Still in my view rules should not be applied too rigidly, otherwise they will get to killing real content. It happens that a subject is surrounded by a big number of worth-knows which you cannot merge into the main article because it will become too long or unfocused. Look at the ] article - no one ever nominated it on AfD and that's right. I don't want to bore you with other examples. The deleted article IS well-sourced, therefore I don't see why it is not NPOV. I admit, the title can be misleading. What about "Hungary's 1956 uprising trivia" or something like that? Regards, --Korovioff 16:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*:::*We're an encyclopedia though -- we're not here to house random collections (there *are* other websites on the internet), we're here to build an Encyclopedia. Trivia doesn't fit in that goal. --] 23:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
::'''another comment''' I agree with Korovioff. I can also understand the concerns of those who warn against letting Misplaced Pages degenerate into endless collections of useless facts--I agree with that. However, I do think that anecdotes and trivia are ''not'' always useless or irrelevant. In this case, IMO, the anecdotes from the Revolution would be first of all, just plain ''interesting'', but also useful as they could help provide a more vivid picture of what actually went on in 56. ] 23:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse keep''' - If Hungary's 1956 uprising wasn't trival, then its details should be presented. Isolating details and calling them trivial isn't appropriate here as it is the sum of the details (included in both this and the parent article) which comprise the whole historical account. Special moments help to put events into historical context. &nbsp;''''']'''''11:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

====]====
:]
:{{la|Crash_My_Model_Car}}
article had AFD discussion months ago, which decided to keep the article, and has been deleted with no notice by administrator. ] 09:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

<s>* '''Undelete'''; admins who don't know how to behave properly are a bad problem, as in the case of ]. ] 11:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)</s> <small>Vote struck. {{user|Waiting4}} (probably a sockpuppet) has been indefinitely blocked from editing wikipedia. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 13:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)</small>
*'''Endorse as A1''': It's a predicate nominative. If the band is at all worth knowing about, then the authors should say something other than, "This is a band." It's a real problem when people will write more in the DRV entry than the article itself. ] 12:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete or relist'''. The final version was the result of a massive blanking by {{user|88.107.53.175}} in the last ten minutes of the article's existence. The original version was a lot better, and would definitely not have qualified for A1. Perhaps for A7, but more likely for prod or AfD. BTW, the AfD resulted in no consensus, not in keep. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 13:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''', possibly '''speedy''' if ] agrees as this seems to be purely a mistake over the blanking. The version before blanking did have a claim to notability - being signed to first one then another notable record label. --]<sup>]</sup> 13:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', but allow recreation, '''''IFF''''' ] are cited. Every one of the sources in the article were to myspace, the group's own page, their record company, and fan pages. There were '''''no''''' neutral third-party sources. ]|] 03:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

====]====
:]
:{{la|Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia}}
This was deleted for being "not notable". Misplaced Pages apparently insists that it keeps nonsensical articles on every elementary school, and then deletes a prestigious university founded in the ] by ]. The hypocrisy of the deleting admin was well illustrated when he closed several ] debates on similar articles that I was forced put up to illustrate a ]. Then, as if to further illustrate my point about incompetent censoring admins, my first attempt bring this to wider attention was vandalised from this page. Here, my hard work to bring this article to the attention of the world needs to be undeleted. {{unsigned|6ofthebest}}
::'''Close''' this and recreate the f*ing article already. As has been repeatedly pointed out to the original author (and to his sockpuppets), it would have been far less stressful to all parties involved if they simply re-created the article with only that tiny bit more substance that distinguishes a solid stub from an A7-deletable substub. There's no need to undelete anything, the article only consisted of the following tautology: "The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia (LTSP) is a Lutheran Theological Seminary in in Philadelphia, PA". ] ] 09:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

^^^ See what I mean? There are important considerations here, such as admin accountability and whether they should act in accordance with established rules, and community consensus, not bite the newbies, and not get overly emotionally involved. I have seen no reason why ] deleted the article, nor why he should be trusted with any sort of admin responsibility. ] 09:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion as A1''': Here is the whole of the article: "The '''Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia''' (LTSP) is a ] ] in in ]." X is X? That's what you consider an article? That's actually ''less'' than a Yellow Pages entry, since it merely defines its subject in terms of itself. "The big oak tree is a big oak tree" is not an addition to the sum of human knowledge. If you don't actually know anything about the seminary, then don't fight for your simple sentence. If you do, add it. ] 12:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
<s>*'''Endorse''' deletion per A1, as outlined by Geogre.</s> See below. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 13:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', no content. --]<sup>]</sup> 13:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', Fut. Perf. is bang on the money. What ''is'' the point of expending more effort on arguing than on the article? Valid speedy under A1, A4 and A7 - an empty article which in as much as it contains anything has only a restatement of the title with no assertion of notability. ] being an established rule, the claimed accountability issue is baseless. I suggest we close this since the deleted content is worthless and a new article will require a separate debate (and that only if it is also deleted). <b>]</b> 14:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' Future imprefect is an rogue admin. The idea that is has no content is a barefaced lie. The content is more than that; it contains one external link. If you want to expand it, expand it. BUT DO NOT DELETE OTHERS WORK. IT IS RUDE. ] 18:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC) {{spa|26something}}
**If it contains only one line of text and only one external link, it qualifies under A3. But either way, do not recreate deleted content, but await the outcome of this discussion. I have redeleted the article and the two redirects you created. If you create them again, you will be blocked from editing wikipedia. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 18:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Bollocks. Either something is notable and it deserves an article or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways, as you are trying. ] 19:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC){{spa|26something}}
:Guys, as I said, the easiest solution, spilling the least ink, is this: . Hope you don't mind me recreating it now by an act of slight IAR, after Aecis had actually deleteprotected it. I just added barely enough encyclopedic content to make it stand as a stub. Can we now close this "review" here? Whoever wants to expand it let them expand it; whoever wants to delete it let them propose it for deletion (''if'' there are genuine notability concerns, that is), and we can all live in peace again... ] ] 19:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::I endorse Future Perfect's article, but suggest slapping {{user|26something}}, {{user|waiting4}} and {{user|6ofthebest}} with a wikitrout for recreating a deleted article verbatim, trolling, WP:POINT-violating votes in other reviews and possibly sockpuppetry. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 20:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Close discussion''' The new article is significantly better than and significantly different than what was there before. No point in wasting more bytes on this discussion. ] 23:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*I maintain my endorsing of the original deletion, so no strike-through there, but I endorse the new article. Still, there is some bell going off in my head telling me that this seminary has more interest even than what has been written up so far, that there is some role it has played in history.... Still, our nasty friends are on blockable ice with these tactics. ] 02:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
'''Endorse deletion''', '''endorse blocking''' of the offensive User, but the article has been recreated to be something meaningful, so this DRV is moot. ]|] 03:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Close discussion''' per GRBerry. Apparently he or someone else decided to just create a better article. -]<sup>]]</sup> 08:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

====]====
:]
:{{la|GFP Personal Finance Manager}}
Seems like a piece of genuine English-language software to me, check project link

<s>* '''Undelete''' - I believe it used by the good Christians at ]. ] 11:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)</s> <small>Vote struck. Indefblocked, likely sockpuppet. Violation of WP:POINT. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 13:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)</small>
*'''Endorse closure''': Valid AfD closure. It was unanimous among signed and registered accounts. The "two wrongs" argument was irrelevant, as it always is. ] 12:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', as noted in AfD therer is no substantive evidence for anything more than mere existence. Just another SourceForge project. <b>]</b> 14:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' No reliable sources and proper AfD procedure followed

====]====
:]
:{{la|Newport University (California)}}
This is a for-profit unaccredited "school" fails WP:CORP and lacks WP:V As the closing admin said, "I find it rather disturbing that so many established editors think the number of google hits" when so many of the google hits are unrelated. Closing admin. based decision of "no consnesus" on "numbers" that include "Keep per Silensor" and were thoroughly refuted.

This is for-profit and two newspaper sources have a trival mention of this place that questions its academics.

The most serious argument to keep is the California bar lists it as a "Registered" (note to be confused with the institutions its accredits). According to the bar it "'''cannot advise prospective students on''' the advantages or disadvantages of attending unaccredited schools or the '''quality of the legal education programs provided by the schools'''." And the California Bar does not "approve or accredit correspondence schools"-- which is Newport.

Hence, we have an article about what it is not (unaccredited) with what its website claims. With the sole reason for keeping this on wikipedia is the California bar lists it, but won't accredit it and can't comment on its academics. And we have two trival mentions that call it a business and question its academics. Misplaced Pages is not an ad space for unverifiable businesses. Delete per ]. ] 01:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' Arbustoo, DRV is not AfD take 2. One really needs a process based issue to overturn an AfD- a plausible result is generally endorsed (and rehashing the exact arguments of the AfD isn't really the place of DRV). ] 01:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and delete''' per my nom. ] 01:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*Sorry that my closures seem to be taking up the majority of DRV lately... but that's what you get for closing the tough AfDs I guess. I dunno, this was a tough call. But it didn't seem to fail ], and ] was debatable, JJay said that "the Salt Lake Tribune did an extremely long expose in 1996 when it registered in Utah" which would do a wards meeting WP:CORP. Anyway... just did not feel that there was consensus to delete, or enough of a case to override consensus for WP:V reasons. --] 02:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
<s>*'''Delete''', this is not notable like a real university such as ]. ] 11:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)</s> <small>Vote struck. Indefblocked, likely sockpuppet. Violation of WP:POINT. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 13:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)</small>
*'''Endorse closure'''. What consensus? --] <small>]</small> 12:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' (My standard is abuse of discretion, not de novo review, because DRV is not AFD round two.) There is no requirement that reliable sources be available online for free. Nor is it even required that they be online. The AFD nomination introduced one reliable source. Jjay showed multiple others. That, in and of itself, is enough to meet ]. As there were enough sources referenced to meet ], and there is no overwhelming policy argument on the delete side (that is not refuted by the company passing WP:CORP), there is no abuse of discretion. I also note that the school was founded in 1976, so it is safe to assume there is print coverage that is not available online. ] 13:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse closure,''' there was nothing wrong with the closure here at all. FWIW, I also think notability is clear here, no good reason for deletion. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and relist'''. There seems to be considerable confusion in that AfD about a number of things that matter enormously. One is the "registration" issue; note that the (the standard-bearer in the field) says "Idaho, Hawaii, Montana, Alabama, Wyoming, Mississippi and California have either no meaningful standards, excessive loopholes or poor enforcement owing to local policy or insufficient staff." The other is the ".edu" domain, which is essentially meaningless; such domains can be bought and sold like any other. Given that most of the votes to keep are based on misunderstandings of these things, I don't think the AfD should be considered to have consensus. ] 22:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
**Escuse me if I am misinterpreting, but it seems your arguement is that the people who <del>voted</del> <ins>voice an opinion to</ins> keep where confused and got it wrong? Please correct me if I am wrong. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 04:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
***My argument is that insufficient information was available during the initial debate to arrive at a consensus. Please remember that AfD is not a vote. ] 16:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
**I found see nothing to indicate that I was misinformed, or had a lack of information. I didn't mean ''vote'' when I said it. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 18:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and relist''' leaning to '''overturn and delete''' One source appeared to be about this school and others. The other sources were about the school's graduates. It fails ]. The discussion was lengthy but the !voters seemed to misunderstand crucial matters, per Chick Bowen. ] 01:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' I see nothing out of proccess, I see a lack of consensus. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 01:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' AfD closed properly by my view. ] 04:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse close'''. An obvious no consensus result (that some people seem to have difficulty accepting) properly closed by the administrator. The nom here states that: ''Closing admin. based decision of "no consnesus" on "numbers"''. That is clearly contradicted by the closing admin's statement, which specifically refers to arguments. I might feel differently if User:Arbustoo had contacted the closer prior to taking this to DRV, or had some other evidence to justify his assertion, but that does not seem to be the case. Instead, the nom here seems to want to re-argue the merits of the article. After <u>an excessively long 7-day AfD discussion, with broad participation and 29 posts from user:Arbustoo,</u> I don't think that is necessary. It is also <u>not the role of DRV</u>. I will say, though, that characterizing a 2,500 word article focused on the school, that includes interviews with Newport's founder and various employees, as "trivial" is a bit of a stretch. The description of the registration process with the California Bar is also highly misleading, given the strict criteria applied by the Bar. However, that was all discussed '''ad nauseum''' during the AfD debate. In short, I agree with User: Chick Bowen, who argues to overturn the decision, but concludes his post by writing: ''I don't think the AfD should be considered to have consensus''. The discussion did not have consensus, which is why it was properly closed as "no consensus" --] 20:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' This is not the point to rehash the AfD discussion. ] 00:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment''': Thanks for the helpful words. Please add the comment to the top, right below User:Arbustoo's 200 words on trivial coverage, academics, the California Bar etc. --] 00:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. Deletion review is not necessary for secondary listings on AFD. 21:35, 14 November 2006
*'''Endorse closure''' I advocated deletion but if the closing admin thinks that the keep arguments were strong enough to make it a no consensus that's the admin's perogative. As observed by Yamaguchi, there is no rule against listing this again at some future point. ] 00:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

====]====
{{afdnewbies}}
:]
:{{la|General Mayhem}}
I believe that this article was ] without ] (4 keep, 3 delete at the end of voting) and that it is notable enough to justify inclusion in our encyclopedia. This article's subject is an with almost 20 million posts and in Google. The article did not violate the core policies of ], ], or ] and thus I don't think it should have been deleted on the basis of a guideline and without community consensus. —] <sup><small>( ] | ])</small></sup> 02:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

*'''Overturn''' as nominator. See reasoning above. —] <sup><small>( ] | ])</small></sup> 02:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', no mention of notable sources appeared on the AfD and none have appeared here. AfD is not decided by pure weight of numbers. Google hits are not proportional to the number of reliable sources. ] 02:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*Evidence simply wasn't presented that this topic met/meets ]. If we are going to keep ignoring WP:WEB every time a site we've heard of is nominated for deletion, we should really not keep it as a guideline. --] 02:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''. The only argument I can see for overturning it is that Snaafu might have wanted to add sources (the other three keep votes only talked about how large and active the forum was, which is not a WP:WEB criteria). However, post counting and google hit counting is not research. Find some reliable sources first (I didn't see any in the first skim of the google hits). ] 05:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' - Lack of independent published, non-trivial sources was cited as the main reasoning for closing as delete. Until some are presented, this really shouldn't be overturned. ] 06:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', number of !voters is to be used only as a rule of thumb, arguments do count. In this particular case, closing sysop's decision to delete article that fails ] and ] looks perfectly legitimate. ] 09:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' So the fact that the total keeps outweight the total deletes doesn't matter at all? Does this not set a dangerous precedent? There was no consensus to delete this article, yet it got deleted anyway, and it's losing its appeal despite this procedural injustice. This concerns me. —] <sup><small>( ] | ])</small></sup> 11:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::Yep, numbers don't matter at all. This case won't be setting precedent either, that precedent is long since established. Weight is about strength of argument, not numbers. I can't see the deleted article, so I don't know if Snafuu did cite reliable sources. If he had, that action alone would have outweighted everything else in the discussion. ] 13:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:::He didn't... the only edit at all after the AfD started was 1 instance of vandalism. --] 14:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:::*There actually is no user "Snafuu", actually, that comment appears to have been added by ]. ] 14:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Well, maybe I'm just too much of an ], but it really bothers me that a that is comprable in notability to ] and far more notable than obscure things like ] and ] was deleted without community consensus and based on a mere ''']'''. Deleting people's hard work like this is wrong, and bad for the encyclopedia. This was a fairly developed article. I haven't even posted on that forum in years, and it still upsets me. '''Twenty million posts''' people. That's more than ten times the number of Misplaced Pages articles on EN. Ugh! —] <sup><small>( ] | ])</small></sup> 22:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::::And this forum's sister forum, the one it originally broke off of and has since outgrown, has an article too! ] —] <sup><small>( ] | ])</small></sup> 22:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
<s>* '''delete'''; an online forum is not as notable as a subject like ] ] 11:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)</s> <small>Vote struck. Indefblocked, likely sockpuppet. Violation of WP:POINT. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 13:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)</small>
* '''Endorse deletion''', lack of sources not remedied. No prejudice against recreation ] decent sources are cited. "]" promises of sources are not, I'm afraid, of much use. <b>]</b> 14:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', the concerns brought up by the nominator were never addressed. Simply saying that it's one of the largest forums ever doesn't make it ] if no sources are given. --''']]]''' 16:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:: http://www.big-boards.com/rd/14/ However, note the rank of 34 is incorrect, by current numbers this board should be ranked 20th largest community, I would also like to point out that the lone popularity of the site is noteable in it's own right http://alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=genmay.com (also note genmay.net) and at least one site considers it to be amongst the likes of digg http://www.2spare.com/item_62350.aspx --] 07:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
:::According to the big-boards link posted, when sorted by , it appears as the 647th most active forum. When sorted by , it appears as 927th. And as for the 2spare.com link provided, that is copied and pasted directly from the old Misplaced Pages article (they even kept in the text that would have linked to references, as can be seen by the '''' in the text, so that wouldn't count as a ] on its popularity.
:::Oh, and I've noticed that in the 2spare.com link, every word of that entire piece is copied and pasted straight from the relevant Misplaced Pages articles, without any credit given, from a quick glance at it. Perhaps someone should fire off an email. ;) --] 07:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
::::That big-boards alexa ranking is incorrect as-per the alexa ling I posted above, genmay (with the sum of both domains ranking) should be in the top 400 approximately. --] 08:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Like ? --] 08:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::I fail to see what this comparison accomplishes other than that the other sites are larger, and myspace puts those all to shame, it's all a matter of scale. I'm not disputing the importance of the other mentioned websites, I'm disputing the importance of this one.--] 08:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Allow recreation''' per Guy. I'm staying short of endorsing deletion: I think that if this debate had an outcome, this is the right one, but I actually don't think this debate had a clear outcome. Still, I don't think we should undelete a huge fan article with no sources: better is if someone just starts over from verifiable info. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''weak keep deleted''' for now, unless independent sources can be found. But google hits are impressive and there are other examples of websites and communities being included. If the article were to be included it needs to be rewritten.--] 19:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. This is quite similar to ]. LUElinks has a similar activity level, number of ghits, and overall notability as General Mayhem. Internet forums are not kept just because they have xx million posts (though, once there is a certain level of activity, it usually indicates external sources can be found). --- ] 00:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' without prejudice to being recreated with reliable sources. It's strength of arguments that count, not numbers. One of the Keeps actually said that verifiability wasn't important. The other said that the website was big, which isn't a valid criterion. There were no valid reasons to keep presented. ] 01:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' Article did not show anything that would be considered notable. I believe this was a good faith delete and should stand. (An aside, the reposting of the article after the delete shows a complete disregard by the creators for the rules and policies of Misplaced Pages. While this has little to do with my vote, I feel it must be noted for the record.) --] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 07:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

*'''Overturn'''' Re sources, genmay is reponsible for the walken 2008 presidential hoax, perhaps you've heard of it? This satisfies WP:WEB. ] 07:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep it'''' Enough said. {{unsigned|199.80.153.170}}
**Don't expect others to do your research for you, present the sources. Links or print material citations are acceptable. — ] ] 08:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep it''' Genmay is has recieved press coverage as well as widespread internet coverage as a result of the "Walken 2008" shens. This, in addition to the extremely large database of users and posts probably makes it more noteworthy than half the crappy articles on Misplaced Pages. It is also referred to in the Christopher Walken article as a (now broken) citation. GG WIKIPEDIA! ] 08:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
**Ditto, present some links or print citations. Just ''saying'' there are sources doesn't carry any weight. — ] ] 08:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

:::http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45757
:::http://news.com.com/2061-11199_3-5833740.html
:::http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/a/194062.htm
:::http://digg.com/celebrity/The_origin_of_Walken_for_President_2008_revealed

:::etc.. etc... etc... ] 08:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Thank you. — ] ] 08:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Rizla, you're the man. ] 08:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Now that I've taken a look through them, I'm going to advise you to turn those "etc" into sources too. All of these talk about the hoax primarily, with General Mayhem getting only a trivial mention as the source of the hoax. That doesn't meet ]. — ] ] 08:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Perhaps the original thread would be of use? —] <sup><small>( ] | ])</small></sup> 08:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::That'd be useful for writing an article ''after'' notability was established otherwise, but it's not independent and so doesn't satisfy ]'s criteria for establishing notability. — ] ] 09:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Are... are you serious? What about the information presented in these links makes it seem as though the site is unremarkable? The hoax recieved national attention, what if someone reads an article about it and wants information on the perpetrators of the prank? Well, they won't be turning to Misplaced Pages, apparently. Do we need a New York Times article about how Genmay is going to change the world before we're deemed "notable"? I honestly think you're just looking for reasons to delete this wiki. ] 08:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::That is true but is mainly due to the nature of a hoax. There is no denying where the hoax originated, you can see for yourself here: http://genmay.net/showthread.php?t=562197. Nobody wants to give credit for a hoax and bring the people who created it notoriety. But the hoax itself did make many, many newspapers, television shows, etc. I agree it isn't the most compelling thing under WP:WEB but it DOES meet the test. This Combined with its immense size warrants the article. There are many, many other articles which meet a standard that is less than this for notability. ] 08:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::That makes the hoax notable, not the site. For the site to meet ] there has to be "multiple, independent, non-trivial coverage" of it. The "non-trivial" part means that it has to be the subject of the coverage and the coverage has to be more than a brief piece. A passing mention in an article primarily about something other than the site doesn't qualify. Your energy would be better spent trying to find some coverage that qualifies rather than arguing that these do. (And again, size doesn't matter here.) — ] ] 09:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Per above, you're looking for reasons to delete this page rather than looking for ways to improve the quality of Misplaced Pages. In fact, your exclusionist attitude works to the detriment of Misplaced Pages. Although it may be difficult to source, Genmay is indeed a notable internet community, and I would hope that as a moderator you'd support ]. As I commented on your talk page, this deliberately obtuse Wiki-elitist act is tired. I nominate the article for cleanup. ] 10:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
* '''Overturn''' If ], ], and ] are worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages, then ''certainly'' Genmay is as well. Just because the article is unsourced and/or poorly written doesn't make it a candidate for deletion -- such a condition makes it a candidate for cleanup. Genmay is ''without a doubt'' worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages. ] 10:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

*'''Overturn''' As per above, if many other websites, of comparable nature mind, have wiki pages, then aren't we establishing a dangerous precedent of elitism in the face of evidenciary support? Surely the evidence provided is in no means circumstantial, as the links directly mention the forum, the forum thread shows the natural progression of the idea, and easily proves the claims that they were responsible for this event that received mass-media coverage. It should be allowed to exist and should be cleaned up. Any other alternative is quite simply double-standards elitism and should not be tolerated in a free and open medium that seeks to remove the insanities that editorial injustice leaves on other educational facilities. I know that I surely turn to wikipedia now ANY time I have any question or issue. Does this right not extend to those wishing to find out about large internet communities? We have articles for far smaller communities, this is a community with over 40,000 active members, much like Fark, SomethingAwful, Offtopic and they all have pages. As I've stated, this double standard appears to boil down to both stubbornness and unneeded elitism.<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
** Inclusion is not a ''right'', and your assertion is unsupported by objective evidence - YTMND scores over twenty times as many ghits as this, and is also in the top 2,000 on Alexa, an order of magnitude better than this. So instead of hyperbole, how about some citations to reliable sources from which we can verify the content, and especially the neutrality, of the article? <b>]</b> 12:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
***Since when is the neutrality of the article disputed and since when does that justify deletion rather than a rewrite? ] 19:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
::: Have any of you even looked at what has been included in http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Internet_forums? I suggest you delete half of those pages as well. Including Gaia, offtopic, hardocp, and somethingawful forums. There are obviously serious problems with WP:WEB and it is frustrating to see it being sited as a roadblock for this article. This is not a vanity entry, there are many people who would like to know about genmay due to its sheer size, ability to distribute memes, and status within the internet community. It is my opinion that one should err on the side of inclusion when there is obvious debate here. If you look at the forum pages I've cited earlier all undergone deletion threats at one time and were eventually kept. You can reference obscure policy pages all you want, go ahead, but we all know there will always be flaws and it does not apply to every single case. Re: Walken - for this hoax it meets the bare minimum of WP:WEB. It is irrelevant that news sources chose to focus on the hoax and not where it came from. I also dispute that cnet news, digg.com, and the dozens of blogs this is cited in is trivial. These are still sources. I will love it when people come to wikipedia to the chris walken page, look at the hoax entry, click on genmay, and then see "well we're sorry! This page isn't notable enough. Nope, the fact that it created a massive hoax with national news coverage and is one of the largest internet forums just isn't enough justification to keep it in!" ] 18:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse deletion'''. However, I think the hoax might deserve an article seeing as ''it'' has numerous sources. --] 15:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
**If you take a look at two or three wikis about internet forums such as Genmay, it's easy to see that the precedent is, and has been, to write about the site, it's history, pranks performed, etc. If you wish to rewrite twenty or thirty articles, dealing with forum members like Genmay's all along, then changing them might be feasible. Honestly, though, what you're proposing - the writing of several new articles and the deletion of many others - sounds like a massive waste of time and energy. Sorry to be realistic, but an article about General Mayhem that talks about the hoax would do just as well as an article about the hoax that talks about General Mayhem.] 19:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
***From the sources presented, I see lots and lots of details about only the hoax, with "Oh, Genmay did it" at the end. From what ] we have, it would make logical sense to have an article for the hoax and a brief mention of the forum somewhere in the article. All I'm proposing is one article for the hoax instead of on article for the forum, and nothing else. --] 19:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
****And I'm proposing an article that is a consolidation of the site, history, and the hoax. Internet forums don't get in the news for much OTHER than crap like hoaxes. Now, what I'm saying is that you can delete every single wiki for internet forums in the listing that Rizla posted and replace them all with wikis about the hoaxes that they perpetrated - since that's pretty much all that they are "referenced" for - or, you could maintain the precedent that's been set since the dawn of Misplaced Pages and just have an article about the General Mayhem site with a feature on the hoax, like all the others. Besides, what about possible future hoaxes that originate at Genay? Are we going to have 50 different wikis about 50 different hoaxes? Or one that succintly features them all? Yeah, you can ALWAYS follow the rules down to the very last period, but when the rules are meant to cover such a large subject matter as of that contained within Misplaced Pages, the rules aren't always one hundred percent effective, efficient, or applicable. You people act as though the WP:WEB was sent down from God; I mean, they're more like guidelines, anyway.] 20:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*****Actually, many notable internet forums/communities contribute significantly by helping to shape the online world. Basically, they have helped to perpetuate language, fads, culture, whatever (ie ], ], ], etc). Other forums, such as ] become well-known because of infamy, such as shootings, in combination with notable, verifiable content, such as popular or successful bands. Take close notice to what I've been saying: I haven't once mentioned ]- what I'm stressing is the ] of an article concerning Genmay. As it stands, the verifiability about the forum itself would be completely empty. Even ] isn't set in stone- it's a guideline to help with official policies such as ], ], and ], which have very, very few (if any) exceptions. Until an article about Genmay can meet all three of those official policies, it will not be allowed to exist. --] 21:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Note''' {{user|Alaskamiller}} has apparently chosen to recreate the article, twice, as ] and ]. Both have been tagged for db-repost. ] 20:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
**Fascinating information that does not pertain to this conversation in the least. Thanks for contributing nothing. ] 20:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
***Please be ]. --] 21:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
****Please remain ].] 23:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*****This is relevant to admins and bueracrats who might be stumbling upon recreations of the article to see if the db-repost tag holds merit. --] 00:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' how many times must Genmay go through these deletion reviews. Do you keep deleting the page with hopes it will stay deleted for good? Saxifrage abused his admin and used his own biased views on what is notable enough for the deletion of this article.{{unsigned|81.208.95.27}}
*'''Overturn''' Grounds for original deletion are questionable at best --] 23:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)<small>User has three edits not related to Genmay--] 00:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)</small>
**<small>Not that excuses really matter, but I rarely bother to log in except for discussion, and my IP is dynamic. --] 04:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC) --] 04:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)</small> I would also like to add that ] does not entirely apply to a website that is no more than a community/forum. ''Subject of published works or awards'', noone writes books about or hands awards to sites with questionable content such as genmay. By using only the guidelines of ] than even ] would not qualify, as I know of no awards or publications that even trivially mention it, but the notability of goatse is undisputable. --] 04:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
***Books aren't the only things that are published. Newspaper articles are published, as are website articles. Therefore , for example, could be described as a published work asserting the importance of ]. Do you see? --] 04:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
****Oh, and as for Goatse itself, I can find in published works. --] 04:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
*****The point I'm trying to make here is that ] does not properly apply to the unique structure of a forum-only website, for the most part the only people that would be knowledgeable enough and consider a forum notable enough to publish works about it are those that frequent it, however the infamy of the forum grants notability in its own right as per my response to Coredesat --] 07:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' To allow articles on other internet forums (none of which have any "references") but not this one doesn't make any sense.{{unsigned|74.114.196.47}}
*'''Coment'''. Let me remind everyone that "If article A then article B" is not valid in this discussion. This is about the Genmay article. --] 00:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
**This point, on the contrary, seems ''extremely'' valid and I find it to be in very poor taste that you simply brush it off. Do you believe that its fair for one article to be deleted while another article of lesser informative value remains? ] 00:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
** I'm sorry, but you are quite mistaken. It is very much valid.
***No, the point is actually extremely invalid. If those articles do not meet the criteria for inclusion, then it should be discussed on their respective talk pages and/or ] nominations. This is a deletion review for Genmay, which is about Genmay's article, Genmay's sources and Genmay's content- other articles are not involved in this. In short, the validity of other articles does not provide evidence that Genmay meets all three of ], ], and ]. --] 00:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
****Excuse me? So if Article A is worthy of Misplaced Pages and Article B is similar or superior in nature to Article A, then how is Article A not worthy of Misplaced Pages? The other articles that "aren't involved in this", as well as the Genmay article, have come under such review several times and are still there. Why should GM be the one to go? Even today, several member of GM added the tags to other such articles to be considered for deletion, and what happened to those wikis? Are THEY being put on the chopping block? No, in fact, they are now under lock, so that they cannot be put up for deletion. Take a step back and look at the issue at hand for two seconds: the problem here is not with Genmay's article, it's with Misplaced Pages's horrible double-standards. Don't say to me that the other articles will be considered for deletion if they're put up for deletion, when putting them up for deletion isn't even an option at this point. It's all or nothing here, if you're going to sacrifice one good article, sacrifice them all and save some goddamn credibility.
*****Who said article A is worthy? Nobody. If it exists and shouldn't, then it will get deleted in good time and that has no bearing on this article. If it exists and should, then since it's not the exact same thing it's entirely possible that there are ''different'' reasons for keeping it than there are for keeping or not keeping this article. This is a really common argument in deletion discussions, and it doesn't work. This article has to stand on its own sources. — ] ] 01:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
*****They put up tags for speedy deletion, which are only for articles that do not assert notability or are clearly nonsense. Perhaps you all should actually read through ] to see how to properly propose and discuss deletion. There were no attempts at discussion, and the articles were locked because dozens of forum members decided to be counter-productive by posting "lol dongs" or some equivalent on the main article space. The talk pages are quite certainly still open for discussion; nomination for deletion is more than just slapping on a tag and waiting for the article to be wiped. Normally, it's ''at least'' a five-day discussion, as it was in ]. There is no horrible double-standard. On November 5, deletion for Genmay's article was proposed on the basis of no reliable sources for verification of facts. As it stands today, on November 15, there are still no reliable sources, unlike articles such as ], for example. Crying for the mass deletion of other articles will go nowhere in this discussion- if no verification is presented, then this article will stay deleted. --] 01:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
******Our good mutual friend Saxifrage is the one who suggested that we put up tags for speedy-deletion on these such articles, for the same infraction that the Genmay article was deleted for. Articles that clearly asserted no or few references have not been deleted. And if the articles I'm referring to had been deleted, then there would've been no posting of "lol dongs" on said articles, now would there? So as far as I can see it:
******1. Genmay article deleted
******2. Us: "Shouldn't other similar articles be deleted, too, then?"
******3. Saxifrage: "Put them up for speedy deletion, then."
******4. Articles locked - can't be deleted
******5. Genmay article still up for deletion
******6. Us: " :( "
******7. ...
******8. Horrible double-standard.
******9. "lol dongs"
*******However, none of the articles met ]. Rather than pursue civil discussion in the relevant talk pages, the forum members went on a vandalizing spree. In the end, we are still left with no sources about Genmay, some insults thrown around, and some vague threats of further vandalism. In the end, the point isn't about other articles right now- it's about '''this''' article and '''Genmay's''' lack of sources. I'm not going to bother replying anymore unless someone actually comes forward with sources about Genmay. --] 02:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
********Ok, I have no idea what kind of sources you want us to have. Half the time, you're linking me to a random page written in legalese telling me "it's all right there lololloo so obvious". So what, exactly do you want from us? You said earlier that this isn't about notability, it's about the verifiability of an article concerning Genmay. What the hell does that mean?
*********What we require is evidence of General Mayhem's importance, particularly from ]. In other words, we would need things like its impact on the Internet, publishings about its history, appearances in the media as the main subject, major awards that it has won, etc. These sources must be non-trivial (more than a passing mention), independent (not from Genmay or its members), and from notable, reliable sources (ie, nothing from random weblogs or forum posts or similar things). In order to merit an article, there would have to be several such sources; there would have to be enough sources to form a decent comprehensive article. --] 02:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Allow Recreation''' General Mayhem message board has surely achieved a level of notability that validates the existence of a Misplaced Pages entry. Anything involving the past articles content that could be edited or corrected; such as the quality of the writing or source citation, has no merit in an argument like this. The truth is its original deletion was motivated by a trivial grudge from one of its former users.

:General Mayhem has long roots in the internet world. At one point it was a part of HardOCP, which has an entry. When a large conflict surfaced they broke apart and became independent. The battle that ensued because their exodus is enough for an article in itself, but Genmay did not stop there.

:General Mayhem was the sole perpetrator of the Walken 2008 hoax, which made national news and television during its peak. Walken recently, almost a year after the fact was documented on Conan O’Brein still talking about the hoax. This can all be proven in the General Mayhem archives. For this fact alone, Genmay deserves an article.

:General Mayhem is also the source of internet jargon, and Photoshopped images which are stolen by other websites for profit. The group frequently comes together to perform internet acts otherwise impossible (see Drawball: Bunchies (also documented in the archives)). The group does none of this for profit like other websites, only for the enjoyment of the users. The users at Genmay do not receive profit from their shenanigans; at least allow them some recognition.--]<small>— ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}} has made ] outside this topic.</small>
::This isn't about how wonderful the forum is. This is about ] and ]. --] 01:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
::A Misplaced Pages article isn't an award. More words aren't going to do you any good. Show us the sources and you get an aritcle. It's as simple as that. Listen to the people in your forum trying to explain what it takes to get an article here—they're talking sense. By the way, nice avatar. — ] ] 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
:::It is fact that Genmay is responsible for notable internet memes worthy of discussion at Misplaced Pages. It is fact that Genmay has a unique forum culture worthy of discussion at Misplaced Pages. It is fact that Genmay is one of the largest forums on the internet; thus, omission of Genmay from Misplaced Pages leaves Misplaced Pages incomplete. It is fact that Genmay and its members exert a strong influence on internet culture; thus again does omission of Genmay from Misplaced Pages leave Misplaced Pages incomplete. To put it another way, you two are both completely out to lunch on this one. The argument put forth by ] isn't "Genmay is wonderful." To latch on to that and only that is intellectually dishonest, certainly something I wouldn't expect from an allegedly impartial Misplaced Pages editor. Rather, the argument is "Genmay is every bit the source of memes and internet culture that ], ], and ] (etc) are." Your collective unwillingness to believe this, even faced with a 40,000 member forum screaming that you're wrong, violates the spirit (if not the letter) of ]. '''TONS''' of unsourced or poorly sourced articles remain in Misplaced Pages. Why? Because it's blatantly obvious to anybody that they belong, and because ''someone will eventually get around to sourcing them appropriately''. All Misplaced Pages contributors know this. In a position of power at Misplaced Pages, your job is to live and live, not to tear down. You would do well to remember this. ] 04:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
::::] applies to user interactions, not content. That would be why our "collective unwillingness" doesn't violate its letter or its spirit. In case it needs repeating, the size of your forum is irrelevant as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. Stop bringing it up, because it's a waste of your time. Go find media coverage and bring it back. That's all you have to do. No media coverage you can find? I guess nobody really cares about it then. Found media coverage? Excellent, we'll welcome an article on Genmay based on those sources. It's really very simple. Screaming that you're all notable while not being able to back it up with evidence is just futile. — ] ] 08:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Saxifrage, compare the times inside that thread with the dates and times of the media articles, all the content contained within proves that it is, in fact, the creation of that forum. If you were the one to do the research rather than rebuff it at face value and not read into it, shows that you aren't maintaining an NPOV. You'll see there's more than enough evidenciary support.
:Well, first off, comparing the times and events to reach our own conclusions would be ], which isn't allowed. Second, we have tons of sources for the hoax, and at best a passing mention of Genmay, meaning that at best we would have an article for the hoax, with a passing mention of Genmay in there. Like Sax said, Misplaced Pages isn't an award or a status symbol- it's an encyclopedia, which has to contain neutral, verified, proven facts. --] 01:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
*This is about trivial grudges and vendettas. Sources and verifibility have been proven by many posts before mine. We have responded to your assertions, yet ours involving the ''Validity'' of the original deletion have gone overlooked. Power in itself does not justify abuse. By the way, Nice girlfriend.--]
**]. The quality and subject of sources has been dealt with already. --] 01:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
***That isn't a personal attack I commented neither on Saxifrage nor his content. Saxifrage mentioned my avatar in a way to suggest he is watching me, while I just wanted to remind him that he isnt the only one that can have internet eyes. Sources have been delt with VALIDITY has not.--]
****Pot, meet kettle. The vendetta is being pursued by the Genmay users, not me. That you don't care to understand what people are telling you about what is needed to get the article back up means that ''I'' am being irresponsible with my power? Even if I ''was'' being irresponsible, I would still not be the one resorting to crime to vent my frustration as the Genmay crowd are. If my ego were truly let loose in this you'd all be banhammered long ago (and it would be a sad and pathetic thing of me to do). Good for you I actually have social and professional ethics. Anyway, you've been told what you need, go find the sources. If they don't exist, accept that the world doesn't care about Genmay yet. — ] ] 08:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Recreate or keep it'''. For reference in newspaper citation: Paris Hilton Hack "...had appeared on GenMay.com (short for General Mayhem), an eclectic, no-holds-barred online discussion forum." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/19/AR2005051900711_pf.html --]{{unsigned|80.222.161.221}}
**This is only a passing mention of Genmay- barely a sentence. --] 02:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
***But the prank is good enough for a wiki, right? Maybe we should just make thirty different wikis and consolidate them under "Pranks/Hoaxes of a forum that shall remain unnamed as it is not important enough for an article". Now there's an idea with some merit.{{unsigned|169.232.125.106}}
****] much? So far just the Walken hoax is the only one. The Paris Hilton thing would probably fit better into a celebrity news website as opposed to an encyclopedia. --] 03:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
****(edit conflict with Wafulz - this is in response to 169.232.125.106) There would not be an article called ]. That information, if it was relatively notable, would be best suited on the Paris Hilton article itself, as it is entirely related to her, and there is no disputing that she is notable enough, and verifiable. There are thousands of newspaper and magazine articles, TV sections e.t.c. around the world that have been dedicated to discussing her. The same cannot be said of General Mayhem, which even in that link posted above by ] recieved only a passing mention.--] 03:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The original wikipedia did assert its notability by mentioning it as one of the largest message boards on the internet and cited big-boards as the source. It wasn't totally up to date but it seems that a clean up or a need for citations would have sufficed, not a full fledged, biased delete.

*'''Overturn''' This is such a a joke. We've cited references proving we responsible for the walken for president hoax, disseminating the paris hilton hack, and countless other memes. We are in the top 25 on big boards by posts. Ridiculous amounts of blog posts about genmay can be found in google. Yeah, sure not notable at all! I really really appreciate how ''true'' to the spirit of wikipedia the admins here are being. It's obvious what the spirit of WP:WEB was. No vanity articles, no advertising. Websites with presence or notability on the web should be in. Where you guys need to step back rethink things is what criterea you use to judge notability. As proven above genmay has a significant presence on the internet, are you denying this? We've given hard sources to quantify these, if you consider them trivial that is ''your interpretation'' and smacks of POV. And, oh yeah, we all know like cases should not be treated alike, heck why don't we just throw out 600 years of judicial common law! GREAT JOB WIKIPEDIA YOU'VE DONE IT AGAIN! ] 05:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' If other websites such as SomethingAwful and HardOCP have Wiki entries then there is no reason that Genmay should not be able to have their's as well. From what I can see it looks as if there are some biased admins that are responsible for the deletion of this article. I believe it's only fair to allow the article to return.{{unsigned|160.36.31.242}}
*'''Endorse deletion''' per Kavadi carrier and Wickethewok. Any possibility of notability wasn't even remotely asserted. I find it remarkable how the most vociferous supporters always use the same line, "to allow articles on other internet forums/websites/actors/etc. but not this one doesn't make any sense", but how they barely ever provide any examples. In the rare occassion that they do, the other forum/site/photographer/company clearly and easily meets all the notability criteria, and the whole point becomes moot. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 10:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
**Please do not come in here making uninformed votes. If you think no articles were cited as being worthy of deletion, you obviously didn't read the fucking responses. If you think "any possibility of notability wasn't even remotely asserted", then you obviously didn't read the fucking responses. That having been said, please refrain from speaking anymore. Thank you. {{unsigned|169.232.125.106}}
***Perhaps you would like to read ] and ]. I have placed a warning on your talk page for your continued behaviour. As for your first sentence, how do you know his vote is uninformed? Because it was his first message here? He could have been watching for a while. Perhaps it's just because his vote was opposed to what you would have wanted. Either way, his vote seems informed enough based upon his summary above. --] 10:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
****Yeah thanks for that, I seem to be collecting them. Although I appreciate the conclusions that you leap to, I consider his vote uninformed because there has been ''non-stop'' quoting of articles of similar nature that are worthy of deletion. Case in point, the eight articles from our favorite letter of the alphabet that I posted about four lines under this one. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
*****Guess what, they are all either nominated for deletion, or actually have verifiable content, so your lame ass excuses seem even lamer because you were too dumb to actually do any reading. If you need help with the bigger words in ], then I'm sure your mum will help. ] 11:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
******Kinslayer, can we at least try to remain civil? Responses like that help nobody's cause, least of all your own. —] <sup><small>( ] | ])</small></sup> 11:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
*******Hope you're talking to this jerk and not me. While you're at it, shoot him one or three warnings. I know I love it. And I see one of these articles up for deletion and around four that have a nice little tag saying that they have no references or sources. So please, Mr. "Kinslayer", don't pee on my leg and tell me its raining. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
******** I took care of it for you, since I doubted you'd be able to figure out how to do it yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:The_Kinslayer#http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FWikipedia:Deletion_review.2FLog.2F2006_November_13.23General_Mayhem ] 11:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
*********Now you're just hurting my feelings. Are you sure you're not a Genay ember? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
**And running quickly through the "A's" in the list of internet forums with articles on wikipedia, the following pages don't seem to have sources of the type that you deem necessary for the articles to exist:
***http://en.wikipedia.org/AR15.com
***http://en.wikipedia.org/Adequacy.org
***http://en.wikipedia.org/The_Adrenaline_Vault
***http://en.wikipedia.org/Airliners.net
***http://en.wikipedia.org/Apolyton_Civilization_Site
***http://en.wikipedia.org/The_Army_Rumour_Service
***http://en.wikipedia.org/AskMen.com
***http://en.wikipedia.org/Atheist_Forum
**Once again, these are just the A's. Ban me if you want, now. I'm sick and tired of this site and it's elitist moderators.<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
*'''Endorse Delete''' - There are absolutely no verifiable claims to notability apart from one sentence (trivial) mentions. (This answer your question Mr. I can't sign my posts?) ] 11:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
**I'd sign my posts but I'm afraid my name isn't as cool as "The Kinslayer". And I wasn't aware I was asking you any questions, least of all, "What is the sentence that Wiki-nerds have been mindlessly repeating all night?".

Latest revision as of 17:40, 5 September 2022

< November 12 November 14 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)

13 November 2006

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 13: Difference between revisions Add topic