User:TreasuryTag ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This MfD should clearly have been closed as either 'speedy keep' (per SK2(4) – "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course" – and/or SK1 and/or WP:ATD) or as 'no consensus' because of the fact that there was clearly no consensus to delete. There were a lot of very angry people who objected to me cataloguing their lax or just bad behaviour. And there were a lot of editors who saw a chance to piss me off or otherwise stalk me. This is not to say that all of the 'delete' !votes were in bad faith, but a fair portion of them were.

Below is a table showing the 16:10 breakdown of arguments. We're talking about around 60% of people (including the biased people) wanting the passage deleted. I do not think that that constitutes a consensus.

• For removal of the offending passage: Acroterion, Andy Dingley, Orlady, Hut 8.5, Hi878, Buffs, Onorem, 195.43.48.142, KoshVorlon, Collect, Robofish, Beyond My Ken, SarekOfVulcan, Stifle, GiantSnowman, Ebyabe. Total: 16
• Against removal of the offending passage: TreasuryTag, My76Strat, Fastily, Some Wiki Editor, HominidMachinae, Thincat [procedural close], Graeme Bartlett, William M Connolley, Porchcorpter, Fences and Windows. Total: 10
• Unclear: SmokeyJoe, Egg Centric

Therefore, the result should obviously be overturned, and I look forward to that happening. ╟─ Treasury Tag► Syndic General─╢ 19:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:HA. ╟─ Treasury Tag► belonger─╢ 19:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  You too TT Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  Two of those links clearly don't apply, so that was a fairly useless comment. But thanks for your input. ╟─ Treasury Tag► Regional Counting Officer─╢ 21:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  JUSTAVOTE doesn't apply to DRVs. "Endorse close" means that I think the closer read the discussion correctly, and requires no further reasoning.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close: collect ( talk · contribs) seemed to sum it up saying "looks like a strong consensus to just delete the famed userbox and its "contents" from here" which is exactly how the MFD was closed. I agree It does look like a strong consensus. This DRV and the drama leading up to it seems a bit WP:POINTy. Toddst1 ( talk) 20:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment Since MFD was used to "delete" a portion of the page, it's all still there in the history for review by those interested in doing so. Permalinks including the portion in question:

• Talk page
• User page

-- Floquenbeam ( talk) 20:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Speediest possible Close of this DRV and permanent Deletion of TT's ridiculous self-pitying, paranoid and unnecessarily uncivil attack/rant. We really don't need this kind of disruption any longer, it's gone on far too long as it is. 2.121.29.24 ( talk) 20:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close--v/r - T P 20:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close and furthermore I suggest other editors do not get sucked into engaging with Treasury Tag unless absolutely necessary. As a further comment, I personally believe this DRV to be unspeakably POINTY. But if we are to have it I see no reason the box oughtn't be kept there while the DRV is in process (although I do not believe this DRV has to be seen through) Egg Centric 20:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close per DFTT. FuFoFuEd ( talk) 20:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse consensus was pretty clear, and the pointy editing at WP:AN and the closing admin's talkpage do not help the case any. Them From Space 20:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  To which "pointy editing at WP:AN" are you referring? ╟─ Treasury Tag► directorate─╢ 20:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I am unclear on the close statement which reads: "Consensus is that the offending portion of the page to be deleted" ... is this stating that consensus is for the entire passage be removed, or stating that consensus is that the links that specifically identify other users/editors be removed? It appears that the full text was removed following close of the MfD, but from my reading of the MfD, consensus only appears to support removal of the links within that statement. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 20:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close. There were dissenting views, certainly, and there is an argument that AfD wasn't quite the right place to ask for this to be removed. That said, a community consensus was reached in the AfD that the content was clearly inappropriate. Regardless of where the consensus happened, it's still consensus. The Cavalry ( Message me) 20:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close as a reasonable reading of consensus and one well within the closer's discretion. On a side note, maybe people could stop poking TT for a while? Egg Centric's suggestion above that people leave TT alone, while decidedly ironic, is nonetheless good advice. 28bytes ( talk) 20:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment - with regards to WP:SNOW, why are we still here? 2.121.29.24 ( talk) 20:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment ( edit conflict) Can this be speedy closed?--v/r - T P 20:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I agree it should be speedily closed. However, it is basically up to Treasury Tag. If he is not willing to go along with a speedy close then it's just going to lead to more drama (I don't precisely what but presumably arbcom). So maybe best to chill a bit and see what, if anything, he has to say. Egg Centric 20:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Per my comment above, I disagree with speedy/snowball close pending clarification on how the closing statement was intended. If the MfD was closed with the meaning that the text can remain if-and-only-if the links are removed, then I endorse the close ... however, if the close statement is that the block [of text]^{(edited after-the-fact to clarify)} must be removed and never restored foor any reason, then I strongly disagree with the close as that's not how I read the consensus that formed in the MfD. Until this is clarified, I would object to a speedy/snowball close. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 20:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment !Voters like myself who said it could stay with no links are also perfectly happy for it be deleted, I should think. Certainly I am. Egg Centric 20:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

That may well be, but those opinions were not clearly expressed by all who wanted the links removed in the MfD - consensus there only appears to support removing the links - or only allow restoration of the text pending removal of the links. Unfortunately, the close reason was not clear on this point. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 20:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close per all the previous. -- Ebyabe ( talk) 20:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  Also endorse due to this salient comment. -- Ebyabe ( talk) 20:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  That comment is neither salient nor relevant. ╟─ Treasury Tag► directorate─╢ 20:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  • • I removed that to try to calm things down. He just warned me for "vandalism" and restored it. I give up, he just won't help himself at all. Egg Centric 21:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close - I don't recognize how the speedy keep criteria proposed are supposed to apply, and the user has failed to explain how this content is in any way useful towards building an encylopedia. -- Onorem ♠ Dil 20:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• (I spotted this at ANI, I think I have never interacted directly with TT or commented about him, I have only participated in a few discussions where he has also commented) Endorse close There was enough consensus to justify deletion of the infobox. And also consensus that MfD was an appropriate venue for deleting only part of a page. TT could have offered at any moment the removal of all links as a way of keeping the naked text. And it was suggested to him that he did this. But he didn't do this, and the MfD was closed. If the MfD closure is endorsed, TT can still ask the closing admin about restoring the text with all links removed, or he can open a DRV where he asks the same thing. Heck, he might still be in time to ask here in this page. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 20:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close as representing a very clear consensus. And, I suspect, a clear consensus here as well. Collect ( talk) 21:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close TT asked specifically for the MfD to be closed as a no consensus and surely isn't happy that this has not occured. But it is obvious that while a wholesale deletion of the page had no consensus the removal of the offending piece had. Swimming against consensus seriously undermines credibility. Agathoclea ( talk) 21:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close Quite clearly consensus. - DJSasso ( talk) 21:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close. The notice has been removed for good reason, and this is all unnecessary drama. WP:SNOW should probably be applicable by now. Super Mario Man 23:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse clearly. And snow this discussion. - Nathan Johnson ( talk) 00:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close, although as far as I'm concerned, if TT wants to state that Wikipedia is a shithole, it's fine with me as long as he doesn't link to a list of those he dislikes. Having said that, he's done just that at the top of this page, making implicit attacks on Nyttend again, even though Nyttend hasn't participated in these discussions and is not relevant to the point TT's trying to make. This doesn't make me optimistic that he's willing to stick to a general statement of disgust, but indicates he's still intent on personalizing it. Acroterion (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply

BOARD International ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

have third party reliable sources, legitmate BI and CPM company, not intended for advertisement, Cpratt1 ( talk) 14:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment The third party references are [1] and [2], & one I have not yet succeeded in opening at [3]. DGG ( talk ) 14:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• The third link above is the same as this one [4]. No comment on whether the award is significant, but it can be confirmed here [5]. I couldn't find anything else, though, except for press releases and one business profile [6], so I am inclined to keep deleted until better sources are presented — frankie ( talk) 15:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I would love to be able to fix all necessary parts - how do I go about getting the article back into the article space so I can start again? I see no way of accessing it right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpratt1 ( talk • contribs) 15:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• At this moment the article shouldn't be recreated on mainspace since it would be deleted per WP:CSD#G4. You can create a draft in your userspace (i.e. User:Cpratt1/BOARD International), and then present that for review. Let me point out that it is required for the subject to have received significant coverage by third-party sources in order to recreate the article — frankie ( talk) 16:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion - many "third-party" sources were actually press releases and sponsored articles. No independent in-depth coverage was shown to exist. (Also, please note that Cpratt created it twice in userspace and moved it into mainspace, where it was promptly deleted under G4.)-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure by default. The submitter does not advance an argument why the closure of this AfD was procedurally incorrect or why relevant circumstances have changed since then. DRV is not the place to re-argue the merits of whether or not an article should have been deleted (about which I have no opinion in this case).  Sandstein  19:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• 'endorse deletion and very strongly suggest waiting for true 3rd party substantial sources before re-creation--but I disagree with Sandstein about the scope of DRV. Any closure that shows an error in evaluating the evidence, the guidelines, the policy or the consensus are cases of improper process, for the correct procedure for all admin actions is that admins must act reasonably. If the facts do not support the decision, the decision was wrong, and the process of making it was wrong, and the decision can and should be reviewed here. The supervening policy is NOT BUREAUCRACY. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I am not disputing the reasons this article was deleted; it was deleted and I can only do so much about it. Is there anyway I can work on the article that I already created as I do not have the original document containing the content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpratt1 ( talk • contribs) 14:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply