Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 7

message: Why was the article for klerck deleted?  I see no valid reason. --Fragasm 18:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I voted keep for the second AfD, deletion review is a different breed from AfD. If you nominate an article for DRV, it has to be for a valid reason, such as the AfD not following proper process, or some new information that wasn't presenteed in the AfD. Repeatedly nominating an article for DRV with no new information is grounds for that nomination to be speedy-closed without further consideration, so you'd really be creating extra work for just you and the DRV closer without any payoff. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The information you present was already in the article when it was voted on in AfD, so it doesn't exactly qualify as new information not previously presented in the AfD. As someone who voted keep, I definitely think Klerck was notable enough and I found the article to be interesting. But as I said, DRV is a review of process. I think the AfD was validly closed, even if the result wasn't what I'd hoped it would be. Yes, I would like there to be a smoking gun that would make people vote to overturn the AfD closure and keep the article. But simply repeating information that was already in the article when it was AfDed (links to the obituaries were in the article), presenting the "sum of all human knowledge" argument, and saying how deleting the article is "silly" won't get people to vote Overturn. You need to find concrete information that wasn't previously in the article when it was deleted, information that would satisfy the notability requirements. If you do that, I'd vote overturn. If you don't, I'd vote to endorse deletion, even speaking as someone who voted keep and still believes the subject of the article is notable enough. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Once again, you are talking about stuff that was already in the article when it was nominated for AfD, so it was considered. You can nominate it for DRV if you wish, but the AfD was fairly overwhelming, so I think the DRV will not succeed. You are free to try, though. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for deletion review of Klerck 

message: A big thank you for the (relatively) new transcluded subpages.  I'd not brought something here in awhile, and needed some history undeleted.  The ability to watch the subpage and know when things were done without the previous huge amount of noise was a much better experience than a few months ago!  Good job. 
And there appears to be a bit of cleverness about preloading new day pages that I'll try to figure out for the daily CfD and elsewhere.  Thanks again!
:--William Allen Simpson 05:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  transclusion pages 

message: An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rehane_Abrahams. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. She is an important South African actress! Ethnopunk 14:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Working on it... - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it's been undeleted, and an AfD process will now begin. Follow the link to the discusison from the article. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Appreciate due process.Ethnopunk 11:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rehane_Abrahams on deletion review

message: This page has a gargantuan history, and is unwatchable if you're only following one discussion. We ought to start transcluding individual debates, quite like AfD. Has this been proposed before? It makes eminent sense. I'll go start a discussion at WP:AN - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could I really nicely suggest that everyont read the discussions on this very page about this very topic so that we may avoid covering old ground? - brenneman {L}  04:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything is still in the history, I guess.  In some circumstances we've been asked to blank old AfDs and DRvs because they were showing up in google.  I'd be happy with them being closed and remain translcuded as long as the template was a shrinky-one and not in a repulsive colour. - brenneman {L}  05:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shrinky stuff (I guess you mean show/hide buttons, NavHead, NavFrame) only works in monobook and its children, so that really isn't an option. Kotepho 07:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just meant "span style ="font-size:75%;".  Sorry I was vauge. - brenneman {L}  07:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transcluding individual DRV debates

message: I've hacked around this text a bit, for the benefit of requesting editors and the undeleting admins, and tightened it severely. The key point is to make access to uncontroversial deleted text (not copyvios, libel, privacy violations, etc) as simple as possible. I suggest keeping the two actioned requests there for the moment as examples of how to do it, or at least how I do it - David Gerard 19:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds uncontroversial, so I don't have a problem with it. The only problems would be if there is a request to restore vandalism or some other sort of crap. What do we do with those? Titoxd(?!?) 19:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Content review section

message: Fyi to admins: This article appears to have been successfully nominated for deletion and then underwent a deletion review process in which all the commentators endorsed the deletion. The deletion review was closed on June 25, 2006 but the article seems to have been restored, not deleted. Bwithh 20:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaken. The AfD was poorly titled. The nomination was for a number of individual articles for individual Class A players on the team, most of them barely stubs. We maintain articles on all minor league teams. Fan-1967 20:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I was just coming to say that. The AFD and the DRV dealt with the players, and never the team. Titoxd(?!?) 20:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kinston Indians]] 

message: Since there is no need for classification of articles or for any review (which I doubt seeing the number of articles written about the fact that we do not review the articles) then the  should be removed too. Lincher 05:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The TFD for that one disagreed on that. The point there was that FA was such a strongly-established part of Wikipedia's quality system that it deserves special recognition, but that no other metatemplates should use it. Titoxd(?!?) 05:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA template for deletion please 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command & Conquer Red Alert Infantry was recently closed, with the deleting admin citing policy as the reason for its deletion; however, a closer inspection of the vote reveals that the number of Keeps (including those who voted merge, as that is a form of keeping) tallies up to 15, while those who voted delete only recieved 14 votes. As I understand it the AFD process is suppose to gain a consensus for deletion, but in this case the consensus would either be to close to call, or would be in favor of keeping and/or merging. Should this be reviewed? TomStar81 04:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The decision to delete (or keep) a topic isn't merely a tally of votes, but the quality of the arguments. To some extent, it also has to do with the level of contribution of the members; the argument of someone with 3k+ edits for "delete" will have more weight than a 4-edit person arguing for "keep". EVula 22:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't the order of evaluation be first criteria and policy, (if there is a mass consensus of people voting to keep a copyvio article, it still gets deleted) then consensus, then strength of arguments, and only after that, if at all, who is arguing what position? All having 3,000 edits does is prove that you aren't a single-purpose account. If a 500 edit member and a 5,000 edit member were in dispute, I'd certainly hope that people wouldn't conclude the 5,000 edit member held precedence! Also, I think "merge" is a form of delete, not keep.--tjstrf 23:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I did a really shitty job of describing the process because I was trying to keep it very short and concise. Everyone else seems to have made up for my lacking, though. :) For the record, I was talking about just single-purpose accounts vs. actual "real" contributors, not in other situations. EVula 17:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think any admin ever considers edit counts of 500 vs 3,000. Previous edit counts become important when they're very small, like single digits, or zero. Fan-1967 23:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are two components to an XfD discussion.  First is the gathering of facts, then there is the consideration of how those facts realte to policy and practice.  Anyone can contribute facts, of course.  Even very new editors can reference unambigious policy statements, but when it comes to more nuanced or complex decisions, more weight is not so much given to experianced editors as that they are often able to contruct more coherent and durable arguments.  If it comes down to pure opinon ("keep because I like it" vs. "delete becuase I hate it") then all animals should be treated equal, with none more equal than others.  To restate, the hierarchy is fact:policy:opinion.  It's only in the middle that "edit count" should ever come into it. - brenneman {L}  01:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: So, to recap: This is not a valid deletion review case because consensus is second to a policy or guideline. Although numerically both sides were roughly equal the closing admin was in the right to delete the article. TomStar81 01:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, there's no such thing as an invalid DRV case.  Regardless, one would hope that the overwhelming notability consensuses (consensi) would trump the somewhat falliable AfD discussion in many cases. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concern over a closing 

message: I like how discussion is now put under individual days (like Log/2006_July_10), but I notice that there isn't that cool navigation thingy at the top of those pages.  Like on the TFD page for July 10, it shows "July 9" and "July 11" at the top of the page - could those be added for DRV?  They appear automatically added to me for TFD... Hbdragon88 07:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look into this.  Shouldn't be too hard with the day-1 and day+1 templates. Kotepho 04:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I got it. Kotepho 06:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding those header thingys 

message: I cannot figure out what is causing some dates to list twice. While trying to correct the error, I may have exerbated it. So I'll stop trying for now. --Ezeu 09:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks OK now, except July 13 and 14 are on the same subpage. --Ezeu 09:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page mess 

message: WHY WAS IT DELETED??????
IT ISNT THE SAME AS IMDB = www.imdb.com it is: THE IMDB = www.theimdb.tk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnybondsingh (talk • contribs) 
:It was deleted because it's a totally non-notable message board that was only created in May this year.  Also seeing as your user name is the same as the person who was reported as having founded the message board it also counts as self-promotion and spam. -- Francs2000  13:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, it doesn't exist. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, sorry, it does exist. I didn't realize this because Sunnybondsingh posted the wrong link to his own message board. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason it was deleted is Sunnybondsingh has posted to the wrong links. However, This article was notable. *~Daniel~*  ☎ 02:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was notable? You are talking about this website: "Total Posts: 875 	Total Members: 39"??? Fan-1967 02:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep Deleted - 39/6000000000000 is certainly not a notable amount --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail 21:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE IMDB 

message: I am wondering what the proper procedure is when the addition of items to DRV is reverted.  One particular DRV listing has been posted twice consecutively, in reference to a number of these  edits, and twice has been reverted (apparently by administrative rollback).  If this is an appropriate revert, please explain how and why such removal of legitimate DRV nominations is acceptable.  My understanding is that DRV nominations, regardless of outcome, need to be listed as closed - they cannot simply be removed with no explanation by administrative fiat.  Perhaps my understanding could be improved by some editors who understand what is happening here.  Thanks!  --71.36.251.182 15:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be more specific about which listing you mean and I/we might be able to help you. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DRV listings removed 

message: While clarifying the header of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review, I removed some text that said
Note that using restored article text to recreate a deleted article is speedyable, and using it to keep it semi-permanently in your userspace has gotten editors penalised by the ArbCom in the past.
I've seen MfD discussions result in text getting deleted from userspace, but I don't know which Arbcom case this refers to. Anyone know? I think the text should be there, but it should point to a specific Arbcom ruling. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That first clause seems really off; we often encourage users to use deleted article text as a basis for recreating a better version of the article, so at the least it should differentiate between speediable G4-material recreations and using deleted articles as drafts. -- nae'blis 15:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to make the wording clearer. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: When did Arbcom penalise editors for keeping deleted content in userspace too long?

message: I can't even remember why I came to deletion review - but looking at the recently concluded was an "OMG" moment.
Mega Society and Encyclopaedia Dramatica deletion endorsed in the first four items!  And looking further down Club Penguin!
Luckily no more that I know are 'pedia worthy - but perhaps that's just my ignorance.  Something is rotten in the state of AfD. Rich Farmbrough 22:44 28  July 2006 (GMT).
:Wikipedia is not a web directory. Being part of the historical record means more than three people saying 'I played it/read it/called someone a rude word on it'. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I quite agree. However, the point I'm making is that while I wouldn't expect a Mega Society article in a normal encyclopedia, and perhaps wouldn't miss it on WP, I would expect at least a redirect to High IQ societies which are a (possibly tasteless) cultural phenomenon of significance.  Similarly  ED could be a redirect to a "parody/satire" section of an article about major wikimedia installations - I don't know what it's Alexa rank is, but I know I've come across it many times.  Club Penguin, however, is a phenomenon perhaps not as interesting to Wikipedians, but important in it's own right in the same way that, say The Magic Roundabout is, as a formative experience for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of children. Rich Farmbrough 21:25 15  August 2006 (GMT).
I still didn't understand the ED shutdown, with the whole lockdown and all. 24.188.203.181 23:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An OMG moment 

message: Request for undeletion.
The Article named Geosteering, created on Sunday 30 July, got a speedy deletion tag while being written. I deleted this tag by mistake when I was editing the article. A new speedy deletion tag appeared few minutes after. I didn't bother and continued to write the article. I added links to other Wiki articles and to external resources. On the 31st morning, when I was going to edit this article and add more information, the article had disappeared. This is my first article and 1 question pops out.
Why this article, has it been deleted after half a day, while under construction and following the wiki rules? Can it be restored?
Florent GSS 15:50 31 July 2006 (GMT).
*I have undeleted the article Geosteering and removed the speedy deletion notice.  It didn't fit any of our speedy-deletion criteria anyway.  Please note, though, that the article is still in danger of being deleted until it is expanded with more than simply a definition of what geosteering is.  If it comes up for deletion, I would vote to keep it, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Geosteering" article deletion 

message: May Bob forgive have mercy on my sole for the blatant vote counting I'm about to do. - brenneman {L} 07:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So sometimes a relist can make a big difference, even in discussions that already have more than eight contributors. - brenneman {L} 07:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some of my recent relists 

message: I've attempted to a DRV just now for Category:Pseudoscientist, but the title section isn't appearing and I can't figure out what's wrong. Assistance would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 21:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When posting a link to a category or image, remember the colon. :Category:whatever or :Image:whatever.jpg. Jim62sch fixed it. Fan-1967 21:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, thanks for the heads up. (I'm actually not sure I knew that).  JoshuaZ 21:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting help? 

message: "Deletion Review is also to be used if significant new information..."
I understand that this is about simple mistakes in process, but the header implies that a new article must be reviewed before being created if an old one has been deleted.  This appears to contradict the speedy deletion criterion's "substantially identical" clause.  I think that it's better if something gets created in user space and reviwed first, but it's not obligatory according to policy.   - Aaron Brenneman 12:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For what it's worth, Aaron is right (and I've no idea how or why anyone would say otherwise).  The DRV header is grossly incorrect about the undeletion process and this has been the case for the better part of a year.  Of course nobody needs permission or review to create a new article, and incorrectly deleted articles can be restored by any administrator without permission. --Tony Sidaway 23:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This isn't a ''required'' stage in recreation 

message: Why was the club penguin article deleted and proteced? I'ts a nice game, lots of people play it, and its #1 on miniclip! Roule 15:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club Penguin.  Rossami (talk) 05:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion and protection of club penguin 

message: Hi, I'm the one who recently edited Bob Ricci's music page, and I used the information from his myspace page and I guess it wasn't exactly objective. I didn't mean to get his entry deleted, I just thought that the write up that was there was kinda short and uninformative. I'm wondering if you'd reconsider because now I feel bad. I know for a fact that the article wasn't started by Bob Ricci, but I think it's my fault that it got removed. If you want 3rd party reassurance that he belongs on here, do a simple google search on "Bob Ricci" in quotes. I'm showing 24,000 matches and lots of third party references to him. Plus, his song "She Blocked Me" is currently availabe on Ebaum's World, Albinoblacksheep.com, and a ton of other sites.  He also passes WP:MUSIC since it's been on the charts in Canada, UK, Australia, and even Germany (due to a flash video being done by a German fan) and is also on regular rotation on actually quite a few radio stations even in the US (check his site for a list of upcoming radio interviews he has on actual  stations) He's also in rotation on National Lampoon's official satellite radio station.  We fans have been able to collaborate a complete discography of his CDs and also unreleased material here on WP, and it's a shame to see it go. I hope you'll take this into consideration.
Also, in his deletion discussion, somebody mentioned the fact that "anybody with a CD burner can have a CD for sale", but Bob Ricci is on iTunes, and not "anybody with a CD burner" can be on iTunes.  They have a strict screening policy.  I know this first hand cause I can't get myself on there for the life of me.  Read their policy.  So label or not, he's recognized as a musician, and there are a lot of noted musicians who forgo a label in the music industry's current state.  There also seemed to be a fair amount of posts supporting that the article remain, and it seems as if the people who argued for deletion didn't really research very much.  They simply said that the article was written for vanity (which was an objective opinion with no support) or that Bob wasn't notable enough (which doesn't make sense to me because of the sheer amount of info out there on him), or that he didn't pass WP:Music, but he does by a few stipulations if you'd do the research.
I'm all for what WP stands for and believe me, if I didn't feel that Bob deserved to be on here I wouldn't be making these arguements.  But I feel that he more than qualifies.  Just because a few WP admins haven't heard of him doesn't mean he's on here for vanity.  And as I said, his WP page was created and maintained by his fans. SSMatt 18:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A reasonable argument, but this isn't the place for it.  You should take your evidence for notability to the project page rather than this talk page.  And be sure to follow the instructions and sign your posts.  =)  Powers T 18:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry.  I edited the page anonymously and I just made this account recently to post my arguement.  On the deletion discussion page though it said to continue futher discussion here?  SSMatt 18:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Thanks for your help.  I moved it there.  Was it right to put it after the other entires?  Or should have I have listed it first?  Will it affect it's visibility?  I'm not really too familiar with the processes here yet. SSMatt 20:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undelete of Bob Ricci 

message: How can the page be legitimately deleted, while there are still pages on, for example, Star Wars Kid? Just interested really. Can't you see that Jimbo stepping in like this just enhances your negative reputation? 193.63.21.78 12:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, the Pokémon argument isn't the right argument to use here. FWIW, I happen to believe that Brian Peppers shouldn't have been deleted, but now that it is, I'm carrying on like normal. Of course, I have two rights on Wikipedia: the right to fork or the right to leave, but I chose neither. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brian Peppers 

message: In updating links for Pony Express I did some nosing around and see that Benjamin "Ben" Holladay has been locked and deleted.  I don't see an explanation in any of the logs.  There was a request for article that was weak but I used as the basis for an article on Ben Holladay which is one it should have been.  I would like to see the logic on the original deletion and locking.  Holladay bought the Pony Express and sold it to Wells Fargo.  His mansions are mentioned in articles.  Follow the links!!!   The long name needs to be unlocked and forwarded to the Ben Holladay article.    Americasroof 19:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Benjamin "Ben" Holladay

message: Several WP articles have recently been moved (improperly) to wikibooks, without the contributions histories. I want to get them undeleted (briefly) so I can retrieve those histories as required by the GFDL, and perhaps to let the original authors know where they went. 
The ones I have in mind right now are annotations of Peanuts books (sounds silly, but they're actually quite good). 
The transwiki was done by an IP who has made no other edits there... search doesn't work very wekk on wikibooks so I cant tell if others were brought over earlier. What we have so far (from WB newpages log):
*17:56, 16 August 2006 ‎The Complete Peanuts: 1959 to 1960 Annotations (hist) ‎[2,152 bytes] ‎212.181.214.6 (Talk) (transwikied from en)
*17:56, 16 August 2006 ‎The Complete Peanuts: 1957 to 1958 Annotations (hist) ‎[11,611 bytes] ‎212.181.214.6 (Talk) (transwikied from en)
*17:55, 16 August 2006 ‎The Complete Peanuts: 1955 to 1956 Annotations (hist) ‎[13,336 bytes] ‎212.181.214.6 (Talk) (transwikied from en)
*17:53, 16 August 2006 ‎The Complete Peanuts: 1950 to 1952 Annotations (hist) ‎[12,296 bytes] ‎212.181.214.6 (Talk) (transwikied from en)
*17:52, 16 August 2006 ‎The Complete Peanuts: 1953 to 1954 Annotations (hist) ‎[2,565 bytes] ‎212.181.214.6 (Talk) (transwikied from en)
The full series of Wikipedia articles (8 of them) can be found here. I need the two that are missing, and the edit histories for all of them (if anyone's willing to do that, it just involves copying the contribs page(s), and pasting them onto the talk of the wikibook module. 
If I'm online, I'll be tuned into #wikibooks on irc if someon'es willing to help. --SB_Johnny | talk 01:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doing now (talking on IRC) —Mets501 (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transwiki problems 

message: He's more important than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Walker and you let him on.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdf273 (talk • contribs) 
:Sorry, the Pokémon argument isn't the right argument to use here. If you believe that Andre Walker isn't notable enough for inclusion, you are free to nominate that article for deletion as well. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is he? Wjhonson 00:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea. There is nothing in the deleted article history. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here it is: , speedied twice as A7. Based on google and author's contribs he's some sort of officer of University of Birmingham Guild of Students. -- Fan-1967 02:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop deleting the [[Matthew J. Marshall]] Page 

message: This page was deleted within 5 minuets of me creating it by User:Casper2k3 before I had time to add to it.
Skiffing is a term used within the British army and is not something I have made up, nor was it an act of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GokuARRSE  (talk • contribs)  
:  The deleted text was The transfer of bum mud from the skiffers ring to the skiffys upper lip. Wikipedia is not an urban dictionary (or a military slang dictionary, for that matter.)  I don't see how the article could be expanded to include more than a slang def AND be reliably sourced. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is nothing but trolling. · rodii · 01:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe at Urbandictionary. Folks, see www.arrse.co.uk (not link) for background on this. · rodii · 13:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please don’t delete my [[skiffing]] page 

message: I recently tried to add basic information about the company Move.com (formerly Home Store, Inc.) to the Wikipedia but it was continuously removed and is now protected from further creation. I was making an honest attempt at creating a wiki-worth page void of sales pitches, marketing copy, and anything that promotes a product or service; however it was still removed and all other attempts to improve the page resulted in the same outcome. After reviewing other wiki pages of similar companies (i.e. KB Homes), I understand the desired wiki content of such a company. I am asking to have the page reinstated so that I may create a wiki-worthy page. I made what I thought were revisions to the content when it was deamed an advertisement but it appears my attempts to improve the page has worked against me. All I'm asking is for a chance to work with the wiki community to create an appropriate page for Move.com.
Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankjohnson999 (talk • contribs) 
:All commentary and the original post have been moved to a formal deletion review, as this is not the space for such requests. -- nae'blis 15:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Creation Protection to be removed from Move.com page 

message: The way Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of manga published in English by Tokyopop was closed looks iffy to me. On the last day the nom declares a re-listing and then only with one vote it is deleted. In the interest of full disclosure, I voted keep. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it had already run for 8 days right?  An admin doesn't have to honor the relisting, do they? Syrthiss 13:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The closer's terse statement doesn't make what discussion was used clear. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might go ask Nandesuka on their talk page. :) Syrthiss 12:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone look at this? 

message: Could anyone reactivate the Article Stick Figure Empire? It was a pretty cool articles, and i have no idea why it was deleted. Please Reactivate it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TK002 (talk • contribs) 
:It must of been speedied I can't find anything. Whispering(talk/c) 00:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted via CSD #A7; that generally means the original article wasn't clear on why the Stick Figure Empire was notable/encyclopedic. -- nae'blis 19:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (edit conflict)  Stick Figure Empire was speedy-deleted on 22 Aug by user:Fang Aili who cited speedy-deletion criterion A7. The opening sentence of this page read "The Stick Figure Empire is a fictional political faction made up by TK 002 for other peoples enjoyment." It did not qualify for speedy-deletion under that specific criterion because it was not about a real person, etc. but this was patently deletable because Wikipedia is not a free web-host. I probably would have speedy-deleted it under case A1 (no context for expansion into an encyclopedia article). Rossami (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stick Figure Empire