Nicked! (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| AfD)

There is a legitimate reason to have a page of this title, for it was an episode of ITV's Police Camera Action! made in July 2002. I can't see any reason why we shouldn't have an episode of a TV show that is clearly notable, even if the title has been deleted several times. sunstar net ^talk 23:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion and salting None of the other Police Camera Action! episodes have articles. Why should this one, especially right after a wave of vandalism? Melchoir 23:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• They will have episodes soon, I've just got to find sources for them. -- sunstar net ^talk 23:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• I have actually started creating episodes for them.... see my contributions list. -- sunstar net ^talk 00:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment. It's been unsalted. Unless you actually made the episode page before, there's nothing more to do here. - Amarkov moo! 00:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

The Picture of Dorian Gray in popular culture (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| AfD)

Editted and renamed article can be viewed at List of adaptations of The Picture of Dorian Gray.

This article originally contained a sizable list of movie adaptations as well as a list of popular culture references. Since several AFD comments suggested the adaptations should be kept, User:Stbalbach renamed it to List of adaptations of The Picture of Dorian Gray (and, I assume, trimmed it to do what it now said on the tin). The closing administrator deleted the renamed article with the comment "Interestingly enough, the keep arguments provided just as many reasons for deleting as the delete arguments". I don't see how the AFD discussion can be interpreted as a consensus that we shouldn't have a list of movie adaptations of Dorian Gray. —Cel ithemis 22:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Note from closing admin: To expand on my statement reproduced above, the primary keep argument from Stbalbach ( talk · contribs) (and used as the keep per basis of most of the other keep opinions) uses as it's primary argument the following statement:

  No one is going to actively engage in edit disputes on a daily basis trying to keep popular culture junk out of articles, it is not worth the time or effort - in reality, no one does it and so the popular culture sections just keep growing like weeds. The only solution is to segment this stuff out and keep it out of the main articles. IMO the real problem here is people trying to delete the "in popular culture" articles over some idealistic notion of what Wikipedia should be, without taking into account pragmatic realities.

  That rationale is not a basis for keeping the article—it is a basis for deleting it. — Doug Bell  ^talk 23:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Undelete the adaptations page; that is a reasonable topic for a subarticle. The AFD doesn't provide support for deleting that page; indeed basically everyone who commented on the newly scoped page, including delete voters, supported it. The discussion was obviously misread. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

  Your statement regarding comments on the editted page are misleading as only one person who had previously commented on the AfD commented on the editted version. That person changed from arguing weakly for delete to advocating keep. — Doug Bell  ^talk 23:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

  On the contrary, four people supported removing the pop culture while keeping an article on adaptations -- R. fiend, Otto4711, Hoary, and Walton monarchist89. In any case, the important point is that there is zero support for deleting the adaptations article, either in the AFD debate or in general policy. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

  Yes, Christopher Parham represents what I said correctly. (Sorry, I'm too busy/lazy to check how he represented the other three people.) -- Hoary 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

  Otto4711 seemed to support deleting the article and allowing recreation of a sourced list of adaptations, but Mangojuice and I both supported keeping adapations as well. And I really don't see how the "keep per stbalbach" !votes could possibly be interpreted as delete arguments for the list of adaptations.

  Does anyone think that the list of adaptations would not survive AFD if listed on its own? —Cel ithemis 23:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

  I hadn't got around to looking at the edited version. OK, I am now looking at it. It needs more work, but it's worthwhile, and I'd unambiguously vote "keep" on it. -- Hoary 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and list the adaptations page. If a page is changed like that, it needs a full discussion, free from comments on the earlier version. - Amarkov moo! 00:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• comment I think from the recent AfDs on this and similar that there is no concensus in general about the handling of the "in popular culture" articles. I have seen perfectly good arguments both ways, and myself am torn between saying that they are generally non-encyclopedic and that they represent an essential safety valve to permit better editing of the main articles. In that situation there will inevitably be contested closings, inconsistent results, abd the opportunity to reverse from repeated AfDs. In this case, I can't see the article, but I accept Hoary's statement that it's now acceptable, and we should overturn the deletion so people can consider it and edit it, though i expect it back on AfD sooner or later. DGG 00:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Question - seeing as how my name is being bandied about in this review and since I didn't get a look at the re-done Adaptations article, is there a way for me to see it so that I can make my views clear on it instead of having others try to do it for me? Otto4711 04:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

  I added the link above to the renamed article. — Doug Bell  ^talk 04:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Thank you. Overturn deletion of the Adaptations iteration of the article. Otto4711 04:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I think overturn and relist is the appropriate suggestion given the significant changes to the article that occurred late in the AfD cycle to address concerns. — Doug Bell  ^talk 04:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Query? Since Doug agrees to a relist and there are no otstanding arguments in endorsement, can this be speedy closed and relisted? It seems like further discussion at AfD is appropriate. Eluchil404 11:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• I (admittedly out of process, invoking WP:SNOW) undeleted the adaptations page, either before this DRV, or at least before I noticed it. It seemed quite obvious to me. This adaptations page is different from the one nominated, and with it being the only article on most of the film's based on the novel, can we honestly say every film in the universe gets an article except those based on Dorian Gray? Leave everything as it currently is; it's already done. The pop culture crap can stay in deletionville. - R. fiend 14:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

File:Upright vacuum cleaner.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore| AfD)

File:Scrub sponges.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore| AfD)

File:Yarn toilet brush.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore| AfD)

The images are needed for illustrations in an article and there wasn't even a discussion about them. No one informed me of wanting to delete them and I don't know who deleted them. There are needed in the article. Chuck Marean 20:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion Deletion logs show they were deleted as replacable fair use. It shouldn't be hard to visit your local store(s), take a picture of one of each, and upload those with a release to the public domain or under the GFDL. The possibility of someone doing so makes these replacable fair use. GRBerry 21:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion Invalid fair use claim; easily replaceable, or just use images from Commons. -- ZimZalaBim ( talk) 23:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - Deleted as replacable fair use was the correct result. I agree with GRBerry and ZimZalaBim. Please read Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy: Even if the use is fair use, the image still must meet the requirement that "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." As GRBerry wrote, just visit your local store(s), take a picture of one of each, and upload those with a release to the public domain or under the GFDL. -- Jreferee 20:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The article was deleted under the misguided notion that vaporware does not merit an article, which is simply untrue in wikipedia, as there are many articles about vaporwares. Taku 09:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion unless notability is shown with reference to non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources. -- Sam Blanning ^(talk) 12:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Can you just do a bit of google search? I found [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Need more? -- Taku 12:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. We need multiple reliable sources (meaning that you could write the article from them). Only one of those could actually source any content; the rest are passing mentions, and one is even a forum post, which is certainly not reliable. And my search didn't turn up anything better. - Amarkov moo! 15:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• okay. If this is the way wikipedia is going to be, then I can live with that. But the implication means we have to delete lots of articles like this one. -- Taku 01:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, it does. If you have any in particular to point out, I'll do some research and nominate them for deletion. - Amarkov moo! 01:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • You might want to think of Wikipedia as a compilier of information that already exists in published sources. -- Jreferee 20:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. There is not sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the topic. The topic fails WP:Notability. The deletion was properly closed and I endorse the deletion. -- Jreferee 20:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Settlements in Kurdistan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (3 articles 3 sub categories) – ( CfD)

Category:Cities in Kurdistan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (19 articles 1 sub category)

Category:Villages in Kurdistan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (2 articles)

Ignoring the additional content issues and pov issues completely (which plagued the cfd). I believe these categories fail to meet WP:V.

-- Cat out 18:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

How do you determine what falls inside Kurdistan and what doesn't in a reliable and verifiable way? I challenge anyone to provide this information, otherwise I can't see how the inclusion criteria would be inline with WP:V. -- Cat out 13:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Also I'd like to add: It is not my job to prove that a category lacks an inclusion criteria, its the other way around. The creator (or someone else) is supposed to provide this information. -- Cat out 13:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment Renamed to make clear this is multiple categories, and moved within the day's log to put it immediately above the review to undelete the categories that were deleted. This is the review to delete the ones that were kept, down there is the one to get back the ones deleted. GRBerry 19:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

  Strange, isn't it? -- Cat out 19:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment. This nomination had been sitting without being closed for over a week after the normal discussion period. I looked over the comments provided and felt that there was not a consensus to support keeping or deleting. So I closed the nomination as no consensus. In removing the nomination templates, I decided to speedy the two that were empty and are now listed below for recreation. I did update my closing comments to reflect this fact. While there was no consensus, I did suggest a possible rename from the discussion that I thought might be able to reach consensus if it was proposed. I still feel my close was proper and that maybe this discussion can move the issue to some form of consensus. Vegaswikian 19:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure and speedy close. Nothing in the nomination concerns to the CFD close, so what, exactly, are we supposed to review? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure per Angus. Nom gives no rationale for review.-- William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 23:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. I respect that you believe they fail WP:V, but there was no consensus to that effect. DRV isn't XfD round 2. - Amarkov moo! 00:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

  Well... I do not know what more to say. I Gave a lengthy rationale and people hesitated to vote. I gave a short one people complained. I am not sure what more to say. I even provided 4 completely different maps of Kurdistan to demonstrate the WP:V problem... -- Cat out 03:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• I interpret this listing as essentially an opportunity to see the general picture, and can be closed when we have decided the case below. More logically, this question must be decided first, and then the case below. DGG 00:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC) DGG 18:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Closure -- except as I comment in section below re the deleted categories. -- Diyarbakır 12:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

  As I asked before can you please give us your inclusion criteria. How do you determine what falls inside kurdistan and what doesn't? -- Cat out 13:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure and speedy close, no review rationale, and renaming the categories (a better idea, IMO) is an editorial decision. -- Core desat 15:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Cities in Turkish Kurdistan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore| CfD)

Category:Villages in Turkish Kurdistan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore| CfD)

Improper deletion. Category was depopulated during a no consensus CFD. -- Diyarbakır 08:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Not, strictly speaking, a WP:CSD C1 candidate, but what is DRV expected to achieve here? You may recreate the category if you wish as CSD G4 does not apply to speedy deletions. However, dispute resolution would be a more appropriate way to resolve the underlying conflict. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

  A dispute resolution was attempted but was ignored: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-03 Category:Kurdistan -- Cat out 18:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment merged both categories, identical nominations and commentary to date. GRBerry 14:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. - Francis Tyers · 17:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted. Still fails to meet WP:V. This is not how we categories elsewhere. -- Cat out 18:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

  Other similar noms: #Category:Airlines_of_Kurdistan_and_Sub-category_Airlines_of_Iraqi_Kurdistan, #Category:Current_governments_in_Kurdistan -- Cat out 19:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment 2 This is the review to get back the categories deleted as empty that were mentioned in a CFD. Immediately above is the review to delete the ones that were kept from that CFD. GRBerry 19:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I was the administrator who closed the main discussion as no consensus. When doing that these two categories were empty and apparently had been for a while. As a result, they meet the C1 criteria for speedy deletion. That is what I did instead of removing the CfD notices and leaving the empty categories around. Since they were speedy deleted as empty, anyone should be able to recreate them if there are valid entries for those categories. But as I suggested to the editor who first discussed this with me, it might be better to get a new name resolved before doing a recreate. Vegaswikian 19:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. I've seen this issue being debated in a number of places, but can't remember all of them. I'd argue that 'in Kurdistan' needs to go, but 'in Kurdish areas' would be acceptable. Somewhere I thought there was a proposal to rename the categories. Can anyone who has been following the issue add some information about the debates elsewhere? EdJohnston 23:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

  There was some debate here on this Cfd: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_9#Category:Settlements_in_Kurdistan
  I do not think cat:"kurdish areas" also meets verifiability. We lack a census to determine what area is kurdish. Also even with a census US states and cities are not categorized in the proposed manner. -- Cat out 13:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

  OK, I admit the verifiability problem with 'Kurdish areas'. I withdraw my suggestion that the categories be renamed. EdJohnston 14:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

  Since they are not verifiable, shouldn't they be deleted. -- Cat out 21:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn, since they were only speedied as unpopulated. But it really would be best to address the issues first. - Amarkov moo! 00:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - These may have been legitimately deleted due to being empty, but my purpose in bringing this here is to review the fact that the categories were improperly emptied during the CFD (and was discussed there) and thus their empty state was the problem; deleting them after such poor conduct encourages the tactic of depopulating categories during CFD. -- Diyarbakır 12:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

  As I asked before can you please give us your inclusion criteria. How do you determine what falls inside kurdistan and what doesn't? -- Cat out 13:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

  That'll be our famous "verifiability, not truth". If there's a plausible source that says X is in Kurdistan, then X is in Kurdistan. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

  Is there any verifiable source that declares kurdistan as a country? Are there any verifiable borders for kurdistan? Since no one answered to either of these questions, the categories are NOT verifiable. -- Cat out 21:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

  Subcategories of Category:Settlements by region would not necessarily be countries as the text on that page states. Any region which is not a nation state, whether it is Europe, Asia, Kurdistan, Baluchistan, the Punjab, Tibet, New Guinea, or something else, is going to require more careful policing than by-government categories will. Every proposed inclusion would need to be considered. However, I think you'd have a hard job convincing unbiased observers that Kermanshah, Arbil, or Diyarbakır, were not cities in Kurdistan. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

  If you look in our Diyarbakir article, you see its attribution as the 'unofficial capital of Turkish Kurdistan', but the reference for that consists of two blog postings, neither of which is a reliable source. Even if that city is correctly placed in Kurdistan (which can't be shown currently), Wikipedia is unlikely to be able to provide that information based on reliable sources for all the cities that people want to put in this category. So they will probably just put them in anyway, based on 'personal knowledge'. By vetoing recreation of these categories, we are sensibly anticipating the fact that any actual attributions to the category are most unlikely to be based on reliable sources. Lack of a census (that would record people's national origins) is certainly a major part of this problem. EdJohnston 22:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

  Angusmclellan on the contrary, I would expect unbiased observers to think the contrary. This map redraws borders of Greece and removes Turkey from existence. Are you proposing that we should retag all Turkish cities accordingly? How about this map which redraws the entire middle east.
  Wikipedia:Categories#Some_general_guidelines #8: "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option."
  -- Cat out 22:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

  Well, it took all of fifteen seconds to find references to Diyarbakir being the "the so-called capital of Turkey's Kurdistan", and "the politico-cultural capital of Turkish Kurdistan", and "the capital of what Kurdish clandestine nationalists call Kurdistan", and simply "the capital of Turkish Kurdistan", using Google books. Any editor who was interested could have done the same as I did: Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL I could hypothesise why there might be a problem, but that would soon head into WP:ABF territory. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

  The politico-cultural capital? That doesn't even make sense and is probably a controversial definiton. A non-contraversial way to reference to Diyarbakir is that it is the largest city of Eastern Turkey or that it is the Capital of Diyarbakir province.
  Based on the search you provided... there are a number of false positives with "Persian Capitals" and "Diyarbakir being province capital". In addition scholar and news returned no matches. I fail to see a widespread acceptance of Diyarbakir as the capital of Kurdistan. diyarbakir+capital+"turkish kurdistan" returned no matches. Some Kurdish groups claim Arbil and Kirkuk as their 'capitals'
  -- Cat out 01:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn deletion of categories emptied out of process. — Doug Bell  ^talk 02:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply

New Ivies (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| AfD)

At the time this article was deleted, it was a freshly coined term that had not yet taken off. Yet, it is clear that this term has been since adopted by the universities described as well as the education community. A simple Google search for "new ivies" or "new ivy" reveals coverage in sources like college newspapers, blogs, etc. I think it has entered the cultural lexicon and probably merits an explanation. Andre ( talk) 07:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Question. Are there any sources for the term (as opposed to just usages)? - Amarkov moo! 15:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation. A quick search reveals one source and evidence that another exists ( evidence for even a third source, but rather garbled, is also available). -- N Shar ( talk • contribs) 02:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• speedy: allow re-creation This term was becoming N at the time of the last Afd. as a result of a Newsweek article that included a rating of those schools.

"25 New Ivies; The nation's elite colleges these days include more than Harvard, Yale and Princeton. Why? It's the tough competition for all the top students. That means a range of schools are getting fresh bragging rights.; [U.S. Edition], Barbara Kantrowitz, Karen Springen. Newsweek. Aug 21, 2006. Vol. 148, Iss. 7; p. 66,"

In addition,many schools which came out well have put it on their official web sites, egg. stories/082106TuftsNamedANewIvy.htm Tufts, RPI, as well as local newspapers, such as [www.rnews.com/Story_2004. cfm?ID=40983&rnews_story_type=7 Rochester], Pittsburgh, and " Weekend Journal; Taste -- de gustibus: Rejecting the Ivies Before They Reject You--Peter Schroeder. Wall Street Journal (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Aug 25, 2006. p. W.11"

Perhaps we are interpreting WP:NEW a little too rigorously. DGG 22:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. WP:NEO is appropriately strict. As the term 'new ivies' spreads around, will it continue to refer to the same group of colleges, or will it be a constantly fluctuating group? How would a college substantiate that it was a New Ivy? Would Newsweek continue to be the owner of the term? Why keep this article unless multiple reliable sources recognize this as a term that has entered the common vocabulary? EdJohnston 03:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per EdJohnston. This term still lacks firm definition. This should wait a while longer. JDoorjam JDiscourse 18:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion' - As background, Wikipedia has the following articles on ivies: Wikipedia:Ivies, Little Ivies, Public Ivies, Ivies, Southern Ivies, Jesuit Ivy, and Hidden Ivies. As used in the cited references, the term new ivies seems to refer to ivies that are new, rather than "new ivies". Perhaps in the future there may be a new ivies vs. old ivies distinction (like new money vs. old money). However, there is not sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the topic. The topic fails WP:Notability. This appears to be the consensus in the AfD, which was closed properly. -- Jreferee 21:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply

ASCII comic (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| AfD)

Seems like outlandish deletion to me. Overwhelming consensus to keep during AfD (remember, Merge is basically keep). The closing admin claims that "no reliable sources provided", which is completely false if he had bothered to read either AfD or the article itself. Totally pissed off,  Grue  07:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• • For those who think it was "within admin's discretion" to close like Samuel did, I have to tell you about 3 factors that closing admin usually considers when closing AfDs (from my experience):
    1. Sheer numbers: 8 keeps, 4 deletes -> clear consensus to keep
    2. Tendency: After the article was expanded, almost everyone was for keeping. Therefore there's tendency to keep.
    3. Quality of argument: the argument for deleting the article is not of any quality, all we have are some cliches like "fancruft" without any links to policies that this article fails at.
  • Basically, what we have here is a consensus to keep. No way in hell the closing admin can disregard these 3 factors and delete the article. What we have here is a clear closing error, and I fail to see how it can be otherwise.  Grue  08:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. - Francis Tyers · 11:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • May I ask why?  Grue  14:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

If the content wasn't merged, it should have been. But I understand the content was merged. This topic does not have enough reliable sources to stand alone as an article, it is better placed in ASCII art. - Francis Tyers · 17:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

It wasn't merged, and afaik GFDL requires that merged content is not deleted from history. So, undeletion is needed regardless of whether the article was merged or not.  Grue  20:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure. Actually, it should simply redirect to ASCII art, as that's what it is basically. bogdan 11:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Most of people who participiated in this AfD seem to think otherwise...  Grue  14:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist. I'd say to merge, because I believe that is a different, and valid, outcome. With so many people saying to merge it, it shouldn't have just been deleted. The issue is, nobody gave any reason why it should be merged. So relist and tell people to actually say why. - Amarkov moo! 15:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• overturn From the discussion, I see it as no consensus, just as the previous AfD. It was not a correct closure. Then, if people want to debate the merge, they don't need to do it on AfD. DGG 00:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Closure against consensus. Spacepotato 09:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure Wikipedia is not a democracy. While there was not an expressed consensus to delete, the nomination raised issues of verifiability, and keep commenters mainly argued on issues of notability. It was within admin discretion to delete. I would recommend a rewrite of this article using reliable sources, which would then address the concerns of the original nominator as well as the closing admin. I see no error in process in this close, however. GassyGuy 21:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • "I would recommend a rewrite of this article using reliable sources". Uh, that's what I already did during the course of AfD. And with so many keep !votes, it wasn't within one particular admin's discretion to override community consensus.  Grue  07:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • You've already said as much. I gave my opinion. Please do not repeat yours as if mine is inherently flawed, especially in a rather condescending manner. There's really little to gain by commenting on every dissenting opinion. You've brought it up for a review - let it run its course. GassyGuy 08:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. The discussion ended in a consensus for preserving the content, either by keeping the article or merging it. As I did not participate in the AfD, I cannot say with certainty whether the merge was or was not performed. However, the fact that the article was deleted instead of redirected with a {{ R from merge}} tag suggests that a merge was not performed. Thus, I believe the deletion should be overturned, the article reinstated, and a merge to Ascii art suggested via {{ mergeto}}. Please note: I think a merge should be suggested/recommended, but not necessarily enforced. -- Black Falcon 08:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn as closed against consensus. Bucketsofg 20:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. Within admin discretion to delete. Merging relevant material from the former article in ASCII art is, of course, perfectly reasonable. Nandesuka 14:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Since when 4 deletes against 8 keeps is within admin's discretion to delete? Especially when every reason for deletion was adressed during AfD? For the article to be deleted, there's got to be consensus to delete. There's no consensus, simple as that.  Grue  15:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Since AfD is not about vote-counting. Hope that helps. Have a nice day. Nandesuka 16:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Yes, it's about consensus. There was no consensus to delete AND there was no reason to delete which was valid at the time the article was deleted. Hope that helps.  Grue  22:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply

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

User:Luigi30 deleted this article on an open source video game (a popular Angband variant) citing only 'spam' and further explaining himself that 'it read like an ad'. Is this guy for real? Anyway, it was a genuine article on a notable subject, it was not spam, it was by no means an ad, and the delete was completely uncalled for and the work of this man alone. Call it abuse of rights or whatever, this article needs an undelete, and then, perhaps if one finds it necessary a minor rewrite. IDX 20:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Judging solely by the cached version on Google: This looks borderline for a speedy, but there were no sources and no assertion of notability. I don't think it would've survived an AFD, and a casual search didn't turn up any news coverage that could be used to improve it. - Hit bull, win steak ^(Moo!) 21:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • It shan't be too difficult to cite sources. I admit this was a failing of mine. However, I still assert that Luigi's decision was misguided. If it were undeleted I'd find sources myself (there are plenty). There is an article on ZAngband - which going by this website [6] is now less popular than Heng/Entroband. There are articles on the most minor of open source games on Wikipedia. I don't see why this is not notable - and if properly sourced, can't be an article. And there are still broken likes around [7] IDX 21:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Bear in mind that some of those open-source game articles might exist simply because nobody's noticed them and had them deleted yet. It's always better to make a case for an article on its own merits than to base that case on other articles. - Hit bull, win steak ^(Moo!) 15:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion: The claim to notability is that it is based on something else. There is nothing that establishes that this game is downloaded/played, and the list of "roguelike" computer games is enormous. What sets this one apart from the mass? Well, the article gives the update list. It lists the features. It doesn't read like an ad so much as it does the version history from the download. Geogre 02:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• I'm a roguelike aficianado. I'm aware of Hengband's existence, but not of any evidence that it is "popular" (and, popular compared to what?). If you can find reliable sources demonstrating that, an article might make sense. But there, are as [8] notes somewhat tongue-in-cheekly, "1001 Angband Variants!", and being one doesn't automatically make one worthy of an article. Nandesuka 22:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 07:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Angband, problem solved. >Radiant< 11:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Meh. If it redirects anywhere, it should go to List of Angband variants ( AfD discussion), if that survives. — Cryptic 13:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, no evidence that this is more notable than any other freeware game. No opinion on redirect. -- Sam Blanning ^(talk) 13:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply