Template:Welcome-anon-Jimbo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore | cache))

Deleted by Picaroon (who's no longer about) as a T1, but I don't see how the template is divisive or inflammatory. It should be at least sent to TFD. Stifle ( talk) 18:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted as a valid T1/T2. The quote from Jimbo is out of context (the context being that it was this reply to a trolling IP). Good faith IP users are welcome to remain IP users if they so desire and any template telling them otherwise is a blatant misstatement of policy. -- B ( talk) 18:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, it's the very validity of that speedy criterion being called into question that, I suspect, has motivated this review. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Removal of T1 redux, where this and several other templates deleted under criterion #T1 are listed. If you think that the criterion is itself valid, which you presumbly do if you think that speedy deletions under it are valid, then I suggest that you contribute to the talk page discussion, because your view isn't well represented there. Uncle G ( talk) 23:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted as T2, not as T1. It presents something Jimbo once just kinda said in a particular situation as if he said it in his policy-making capacity, and thus amounts to a misrepresentation of policy. Chick Bowen 00:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Misrepresents policy. - Mgm| ^(talk) 11:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as valid T2, whether or not it meets T1. Eluchil404 ( talk) 02:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per B. Jimbo should have worded himself differently to prevent people from taking it out of context, but that doesn't mean we should take it out of context. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted per T2, since this defninitely isn't common practice or policy. Hut 8.5 09:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Ism (punk band) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) I recently put in a request to PMDrive1061 for reverse the deletion of the Ism (punk band) page. He cited blatant copyright infringement while citing a website from CDbaby.com. I responded to him that this was not correct and pointed out how he was confusing the copyright of the CD for sale on CDbaby with the bio of the band which is on the official Ism website granting license to anyone who is wishing to use the bio in any way. If you scroll to the bottom of the page, you can easily see this:

http://www.ism-punk.com/historyoftheband.html

After several attempts to correct the administrator, he failed to respond after his first statement. Then he deleted all requests. I know there have been multiple complaints about him deleting articles and have no idea whether he was justified or not but in this case he was mistaken and refuses to confront the issue in an intelligent manner. It almost seems as if there is an agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.181.219 ( talk • contribs) 14:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• It's very unclear which site copied the other. The cdbaby.com site says it's copyright Joseph Ismach. Can the nominator clarify who he is? Stifle ( talk) 16:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Once again, the CD baby site is stating a copyright to the CD for sale on CD baby in the section preceding the bio. It does not state copyright protection to this bio. The bio is not copyright protected. This is very clear. I know this because I am the author of the bio which appears on the the official Ism page and myspace page and Josef Ismach (copyright owner of the CD for sale on CD baby) along with his manager that runs the site have authorized use of the bio. The bio was approved by both of them for it's accuracy. The bio is not copyright protected in any way, shape or form and available for distribution. It is very clear on the website and that is why it was included on Wikipedia and myspace along with numerous others sites. The reason they authorized unlimited use of the bio is to clear up confusion of false rumors that were spread on the net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.181.219 ( talk) 17:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Weak endorse/send to OTRS. First, a WHOIS search on ism-punk.com does not resolve to Josef Ismach, so there's no clear trail of whether ism-punk.com has a valid claim to the history. Second, CDbaby does not have a copyright policy defined on its site, so the assumed license is copyright, all rights reserved. The chicken-and-egg question is still, did ism-punk.com copy CDbaby, or did CDbaby use text submitted by the author of ism-punk.com? My hunch is to overturn and allow the copyrighted text as the basis of the article, but I'm thinking we should be conservative and let the people at OTRS process an email from the author and do their usual copyright vetting procedure.

That said, the author of the bio should keep in mind that he will not own the Wikipedia article if it is recreated, so other editors may change it—and the authorized bio does not necessarily carry more weight than independent reliable sources. — C.Fred ( talk) 22:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you Fred but it is now Feb. 5th and the link has still not been restored. I can email anyone at any address and the copyright owner of the CD listed for sale (once again...not the bio), Josef Ismach, can also do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.181.219 ( talk) 08:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Cherryade (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

This article was significantly revamped by myself during the debate. However, the closing admin seemed to ignore this and redirected a perfectly good article. It should have been closed as no consensus, if anything, or left open a little longer to establish new consensus - all the "votes" above my comments were about the article before I revamped it. There was no consensus whatsoever for deletion. Majorly talk 10:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• The article has not been deleted; the nominator is welcome to restore the article as an improved version or to redirect it to a more appropriate target. Stifle ( talk) 16:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • It has been deleted - there's no history. Plus, I can't restore it either. Majorly talk 16:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The closure may have said redirect, but the closing administrator actually deleted the article. Uncle G ( talk) 23:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Closing admin The consensus was Redirect/Delete so I dleted the article and placed a redirect per community consensus. Majorly's re-write had been noted on the AFD for 4 days without comment. If there were comments after his re-write indicating a change of opinion, that would have influenced my close, but there were not. AFD closers do not judge content, we judge consensus, so we cannot go back and say "Yes, article looks good enough to me now". MBisanz ^talk 21:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The consensus of the old article, yes. Not of the new one though. Majorly talk 21:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • PS I hope I read that wrong. "[We] do not judge content..." is false. You should never close an AFD without actually looking at the article, and what was said about it. It should have been left open for further comments on the rewrite. You closed based on consensus to redirect (though not delete) the article before I revamped it. That was incorrect of you to do so. By your suggestions, you'd close an AFD on Barack Obama if consensus said to delete, despite it obviously not being deletable. Majorly talk 21:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect and delete are two entirely different actions. They are not the same thing. The former is a simple variant of keeping an article, and does not involve us hitting our delete buttons. Indeed, it is an action that any editor, even one without an account, can perform. Unless someone actually opines "delete then create a redirect" explicitly, a redirect opinion should not be considered endorsement of deletion. Uncle G ( talk) 23:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - I !voted for a merge/redirect to ade but had I seen that User:Majorly had significantly improved it, I would have withdrawn my !vote. I think it's only fair to overturn the redirect and allow Majorly to improve the article. Pyrrhus 16 21:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • It's actually the deletion that is at issue for overturning. The closing administrator deleted the article. (Don't be misled by what is written in the closure. See the deletion log. The article was deleted, making its edit history and content inaccessible.) Redirects are ordinary editorial actions. Anyone, even someone without an account, can perform a redirect of an existing article. (And anyone with an account can create a redirect.) Anyone can also undo a redirect. It's the deletion that involved the administrator tool. And it's that deletion that is non-reversible by ordinary editors making ordinary editorial actions with ordinary editing tools. Uncle G ( talk) 23:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Like User:Pyrrhus16 I based my !vote on the article's original, non-encyclopedic content; I believe it's possible to write a viable article on this subject. It looks like new, improved content would address the nominator's rationale. The only other !vote against the article, a claim that the word "cherryade" is a neologism, was addressed during the deletion discussion. AFAIK User:Majorly is free to start a new article on the subject even before the endorsement of a DRV, but if s/he has lost access to valuable content, the article should be undeleted at least long enough to userfy it. Baileypalblue ( talk) 22:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Why should xe be forced to work on this article outside of article space? Uncle G ( talk) 23:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I see no reason why User:Majorly, or anybody else, should be forced to work on this article outside of article space. However, if a consensus should develop to keep the previous version of the article deleted, then the article should nevertheless be undeleted long enough to save its contents. Baileypalblue ( talk) 03:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• I think the AfD might have benefited from a relist after Majorly rewrote it. Just my $0.02. – Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• On the one hand, I endorse the deletion as good faith and within guidelines. (Disclaimer: I made the AfD nomination, and I think the article, as it stood at the time of deletion, was still not up to par.) On the other hand, because sources were added and there is confusion, overturn and relist so we can determine whether there is consensus on the new version. — C.Fred ( talk) 22:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Clarify, please. I still don't understand why this was deleted instead of just redirected with content retained, which would have allowed for a merge at a later date. Barring clarification, undelete history as deletion was inconsistent with close of AfD. Chick Bowen 00:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • User talk:MBisanz/Archive 6#Question on AfD outcome might help. However, the rationale given there doesn't seem to have any applicability to this article. It seems exceedingly unlikely that Majorly was part of any sort of cherryade "fan group" wanting to preserve inappropriate content relating to cherryade in the encyclopaedia, thereby warranting a deletion in order to prevent the undoing of the redirect. ☺

    More seriously: The rationale of lacking sources for the content doesn't apply, either, since Majorly's rewrite not only had two, but cited them as well. Also note that deletions have been performed in closures marked "redirect" for James Harvey Callahan ( AfD discussion) and Kent Street (Simcoe, Ontario) ( AfD discussion) in the past two days. Uncle G ( talk) 04:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    • I would be interested in hearing from other admins about this, but to me, that practice is outside of our norms, and rather questionable. History content of a redirect is often useful when circumstances change and it makes sense to convert a redirect back to an article, and a non-admin may not realize the history was ever there (particularly when the AfD doesn't indicate that a deletion has occured), or whether it contained anything useful. I'm sure MBisanz is doing this in good faith, but I'd suggest he give this a bit more thought and update his scripts accordingly. At the very least, he should make sure that the AfD close accurately reflects his actions. Chick Bowen 04:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • My approach varies. What I noticed in this AFD were Redirect to soft drink as this is a useful search term, but there's nothing to merge and Delete I'd say that "Cherryade" is nothing more then a neologism. To me that signifies a step beyond redirection to deletion. Over my time I have had complaints of people wanting the information under redirects deleted or the redirects protected because of edit warring over the AFD close. I suppose we could add a standard AFD comment like "redirect and delete". Also, as I noted, closing admins cannot judge the article. If people are saying to delete because of a neologism, and then someone comes along and says there are older sources that they have added, unless the earlier people come back and edit their comment, closing admins cannot be saying "Well I think the article now meets criteria, so I'll retain it". Look what happened when another admin decided his interpretation of an article should override what was on the AFD page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (7th nomination). I should add that if there is new information in the article that does permit it to pass criteria, then it should be restored as a community consensus that it now meets criteria. MBisanz ^talk 05:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist The article was significantly different to the one that most contributors to the AFD commented on, therefore the best course of action was to relist the article at AFD to see what the consensus is over the new version of the article. This should be standard practice when an article is significantly changed during an AFD after all/almost all contributors have commented based on the old version of the article. I am also think protecting a redirect is a much better course of action than deleting the history (where the closing admin thinks this is absolutely necessary) as it preserves the history for merging any content, it increases transparency in letting people see why it was redirected and also prevents the recreation of an article unless/until a consensus is reached to recreate. Davewild ( talk) 09:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn The closing admin admits that there were no comments on the rewritten version, hence no consensus to delete it. The article should've been relisted for more input rather than closed. Unless the article history is particularly damaging (libel, BLP) there's no good reason to delete it prior to redirecting since, as stated, it deprives people from reinstating a reworked version with the proper history attached. - Mgm| ^(talk) 11:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn I'm now in my fourth decade and we had cherryade when I was a boy so this clearly isn't a neologism and deleting for that reason simply doesn't fly. (Disclosure: I hate cherryade, it tastes disgusting). Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and restore. The article as rewritten was not addressed in the AfD, and it seems to be an acceptable article. A new AfD could be started if desired, but I see no reason to do so. I agree with most of the other process comments above, including that the former text of redirected articles need not generally be deleted absent a specific reason to do so. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Dell_Schanze (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

Non-Notable Vanity 67.177.27.74 ( talk) 04:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse AfD - clear consensus to keep. This is not AfD round 2. Usrnme h8er ( talk) 10:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Early close (I can't remember the template anyone else may fel free to use this rational and close it - then remind me what the template is) the last AfD was 1.5 years ago - just re-nominate it. Viridae ^Talk 11:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply