Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 1

Young Hot Rod – unsalted by protecting admin and new version moved in from userspace. Further actions at editorial discretion. – GRBerry 23:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Previously deleted as not meeting WP:MUSIC, new version at User:Recury/Young Hot Rod with multiple independent reliable non-trivial blah blah sources. I guess being a member of one of the most popular rap groups in the world isn't a technically a criterion, but gosh why shouldn't it be. Recury 20:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion and salting (I'm the one who salted it) then. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsalt to allow Recury to implement his new version. Iced Kola^(Mmm...) 20:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's done. Thanks. Recury 23:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Image:Emory University Seal.gif – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 02:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Was speedy deleted despite a valid fair use claim or any chance to argue against deletion. Was still being used in an article at the time and is under discussion at the Emory University talk page. Nrbelex ^(talk) 06:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- It only had {{univ-logo}}. A specific detailed fair use claim for every location of use is also required, and none was present. Can you write one for each intended use? GRBerry 14:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How's this:
    The use of a low resolution version of this logo constitutes fair use in the Wikipedia article Emory University because:
    No free equivalent will ever be available or could be created that would adequately give the same information.
    
    The low resolution nature of the image prevents reuse which could infringe on the commercial benefit of the copyright owner;
    
    The image and the institution it represents are critically discussed by the article;
    
    The image used for educational and informational purposes by Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization.
    I'm having trouble finding another university article that has any rationale for their logo's use beyond that tag but... anyway... how's that? Nrbelex ^(talk) 20:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thread moved from where it was incorrectly placed in the content review section. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Looking at the source page, this is not even the University's current logo. "The University crest is used only for special commemorative applications and no longer represents the University in any official capacity." As such, fair use as a logo is not available. Presumably something from this ZIP file of logos should be used instead, as per directions here. GRBerry 23:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Consensus and argument on Talk:Emory University appears to be against using this image in the article, and if we can't use it, then being fair use it can't be uploaded. To be clear, my reason for endorsing deletion is the fact that there is no current place for the image; if consensus on Talk:Emory University changes in favour of the image, I would reconsider, as a deletion forum shouldn't be inadvertantly used to determine which image is used on a page. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Donnie Davies – Relisted at AfD with consent of closing admin – trialsanderrors 08:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Donnie Davies as an actual person with an intended message is a moot point and so is whether or not his article meets the Wiki biography requirements. He is quickly growing in notability largely as an internet spoof and most of that newfound public interest is the argument surrounding whether or not he exists or if it's a gimmicked persona.

There are many sources now that verify the notability of Donnie Davies as an internet persona myth. A quick Google search of him turns up over 200,000 hits[1] and a search of his name and song turns up 18,000 hits[2]. Among the articles that may not verify his seriousness, but acknowledge him as a spoof phenomenon are Spin[3] and The Washington Blade[4]. Other articles address his ideas (whether or not it is a fictitious persona) such as Philadelphia Weekly[5] or Cinema Blade[6]. It is also speculated that he is Joey Oglesby of the Chicken & Pickle Guys by Dan Savage in his blog with the Stranger, Slog[7]. The political content of this, whether or not a spoof, has also garnered the attention of activists such as Heartstrong[8] and a petition has been started online for content removal from free sites. SquatGoblin 03:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. It may or may not have been a valid A7, but he's supposedly, at least, a living person, meaning WP:BLP applies, meaning that articles without reliable sources should be deleted on sight. -Amark moo! 05:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about his existence as an urban myth or spoof legend? --SquatGoblin 17:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~You still need reliable sources, which you admit are not in existence. -Amark moo! 23:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Please reread what I wrote. What I conceded is that there isn't a reputable source verifying his actuality as a person or if he is serious, there are number of sources that mark his notability by his existence as a spoof or the magnitude of how it has spread. The main point of my argument is that the notability marks this article as about an urban myth and not a biography. There are at least 4 reliable sources that discuss that the main part of the subject that has everyone's attention is whether or not this is a spoof. To say there isn't any proof that marks this idea as a notable is denial at this point. Again, whether or not he is real is moot. --SquatGoblin 04:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that wasn't clear. I read it to say that there were no reliable sources to say that he existed as an urban myth, either. -Amark moo! 04:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I'll try to rewrite the point so it's clearer. --SquatGoblin 05:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion no reliable sources, and the fact that it's unknown if he even exists doesn't speak well for reliable sources showing up anytime soon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I can acknowledge that there aren't sources that verify Donnie Davies as a real person, there are sources that verify the magnitude of him as a spoof on the internet. There are numerous articles on Wikipedia that speak of things that cannot be proven to exist, but warrant an article based on notability. Isn't there a balance between verifiability and notability? I'm interested in what you have to say about his notability since I've acknowledged the lack of reputable verifiability and that point seems to be conceded by people who support the reversal. --SquatGoblin 17:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete Since when do we ignore internet news? It should be obvious that this person even if fake has been commented upon by numerous sites. "Donnie Davies" get's 2 hundred thousand google hits. Not 200, not 2 thousand. That alone is enough to say that an article is warranted. Even an article that says, we don't know if he's real, etc. is still an article. We have articles on other make-believe people who have fewer hits then he gets. Wjhonson 08:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't "ignore" internet news. But if no reliable sources report it, we can't say that the information is sourced, which violates WP:V, and in this case, WP:BLP. -Amark moo! 15:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Undelete~~ Relist on AfD (Edited to relist since Coredstat notes there was an unresolved AfD thread - Gerta 05:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)) For the sake of full disclosure, I posted the most recent Davies article prior to its deletion and protection. I'm unclear how WP:BLP or WP:V is violated here. There are now reliable sources on Davies. These do not necessaily draw final conclusions on his identity, but as far as I can tell, uncertainty is not grounds for deletion. Unverifiability would be a no-go, but again, there are now solid sources reporting on the controversy surrounding Davies. In addition to references listed by SquatGoblin, I would add this from Cinemablend and this from Philadelphia Weekly (edit: both now referenced by SquatGoblin in the nominating post -- Gerta 22:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)). I didn't fuss over the previous deletion since it was marginally sourced, but now I feel the sourcing is quite reasonable and this article is somehow being held to some ethereal standard. I'll revoke my undelete position if someone can clearly explain in this deletion review thread how the uncertainty about Davies' actual identity satisfies WP:V. Gerta 16:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete Sufficient sources have been produced, and it is not relevant whether he actually exists, any more than it is relevant whether or not God actually exists when deciding whether to have a "God" article. Pinoakcourt 20:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete Exactly how reliable are you waiting for coverage to become? Conor 22:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ConorM (talk • contribs) 22:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Undelete Wikipedia does have an article on Bigfoot. Like Donnie, there are no reliable sources indicating that Bigfoot actually exists, but there are plenty of reliable sources indicating that the legend of his existence is relevant to many people. I think an article on Donnie is worthwhile not because of who he may be, but because of his impact on culture. (Disclosure: I wrote an article about Donnie that was deleted.) Mattymatt 17:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist on AfD. I'm the one that listed this for AfD twice. I'm not that terribly against the article, though I do still think there are questions that need to be answered (not to mention that it takes a little more than two weeks for something to be considered an "urban legend"). However, I don't think that A7 was appropriate for this, and might have been given that classification by an admin unfamiliar with the meme. Give the undeletionists a fair chance to show their sources. Thunderbunny 02:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist on AFD (note, I was the deleting admin). Looking back on this, A7 probably was not warranted, but at the time there were no reliable sources, and notability was questionable. This should get a full 5-day discussion. It should not be undeleted without relisting on AFD, as an AFD was in progress when I closed it early, and there were no arguments to keep at the time). --Core desat 04:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to wait for the closer, you can just send it back yourself. ~ trialsanderrors 08:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of articles related to scientific skepticism – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 02:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

UNDELETE_REASON The List of articles related to quackery was a stand alone list without any references or organization. It was a long and unfocused list. Now, a new and different "shorter and more focused list" with verifiable references meets every aspect of Wikipedia gudleines. The List of articles related to scientific skepticism as gone through a "massive remodeling". Everything has been categorized, organized, and well written. It was NOT a re-creation of the list of article related to quackery that was a long list with any sentences or references. This was an amended list that has gone through a massive change. I invite you to look at the histroy for the PROOF. Thanks. Overturn deletion as the result of error. This is a clear case od error. New and different articles are allowed to be created. This new list had references and sentecnes and categories. Obviosly is it very different from a long long that had everthing mixed up togther. Additionally, the closing admin asserted if everything was referenced it could be back on mainspace again too. Not only is it referenced, it has sentences and categories that were not there before. And the intro paragraph has updated with a lot more detail for inclusion and focus. This is an easy overturn when you look at the history when it was in mainspace under the list of article related to quackery compared to a different, The list of articles related to scintific skepticism. A massive improvement is a reason for mainspace. Easy overturn for the misunderstanding. Thanks. --QuackGuru 02:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I closed this DRV after Nihonjoe reversed his own deletion, making it temporarily moot. Woohookitty then speedy deleted the article again and closed the AfD, so it seems this should be reopened. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion the reason we moved this to project space had nothing to do with references or content, but with the inherent nature of the article. 1) 'related to' is weasel wording. 2) what relates to 'scepticism' is inherently POV 3) A list wikipedia of articles is a self reference. Unfortunately there does not seem to be a consensus to remove this subjective crap from the project space, but it clearly has no place as an article. Previously 'QuackGuru' wanted us to label these things quackery, now he's got a slightly better sounding title, but he doesn't keep getting to reheat his POV article and resubmit it. This is bordering on disruptive.--Doc^g 13:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. "List of articles related to scientific skepticism" is significantly different from "List of articles related to quackery", regardless of why one of the delete !voters said to delete. It deserves another discussion. -Amark moo! 15:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2nd Comment. There was much confusion about the lists. The lists are different. Based upon false information editors voted on false information. The lists were in fact different. The article can be reopened and if anyone feels the article does not deserve articlespace they can simply nominate it again for deletion. The deletion process should be fair and based upon facts. Confusion sometimes happens. Thanks. --QuackGuru 15:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous bolding struck out. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my the superflous bold to 2nd comment. Thanks, --QuackGuru 18:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure why this is important to have in article space, since it's been moved to project space previously. Plus, it totally fails the self-reference test - it's an article about articles on Wikipedia. Why would this be necessary? Endorse deletion from article space; it's probably fine in project space, but might be better off as a category in the long run. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3rd comment. The discussion here is about an error in the deletion process, not if the article should or should not be in articlespace. If an editor feels it does not belong in articlespace then that editor can easily nominate it for deletion and let the process continue based on the facts and not a misunderstanding that it was largely the same article. Thank you. --QuackGuru 18:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think lists of other articles are useful. Here are just four that I find useful: List of chess topics, List of chess players, List of chess world championship matches, List of famous chess games. And there are several others. Just look at the number of edits I have made to List of chess topics, as an indication of how useful I think it is. Bubba73 (talk), 18:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether something is a chess topic or not is a binary yes/no, it isn't inherently POV, and it doesn't need weasel words like 'related to'.--Doc^g 18:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a big issue with this version of the article and all prior machinations is that it treats scientific skepticism as a belief rather than a methodology of believing. Perhaps this is where QuackGuru is getting tripped up. By incorrectly holding scientific skepticism as a belief, he/she thinks there must be a group who subscribes to this belief known as "Scientific Skeptics". Thus, whatever this group deems to be quackery or pseudoscience or just plain bunk is thought to be "related to" scientific skepticism. Aside from this being highly POV, unencyclopaedic and perjorative in nature, it makes a false assumption that scientific skepticism can be reduced to "what" someone believes rather than the method by which someone arrives at their beliefs. Scientific skepticism is merely a way of thinking... about anything. If you think with scientific skepticism, then you approach everything with the need to have it explained rationally by the scientific method. It is the opposite of accepting something on faith (without scientific evidence). Therefore, there is nothing in the universe that can be more or less related to scientific skepticism; after all everything can be equally analyzed by the methodology of scientific skepicism ... an apple, a quasar, a theory, a thought, etc. "Is the apple real?" "Prove it." "Is the theory sound?" "Prove it." The list of articles related to scientific skepticism truly would be as long as n (where n represents the amount of articles in Wikipedia). In essence, this list is of no practical importance. Levine2112 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At the risk of repeating myself, this discussion here has nothing to do with if the article is bad or good. This is about the deletion process was unfair because of a misunderstanding. People voted base on a misconception it was largely the same article. There is clear evidence the deletion process was against policy. People voted bease upon false information. Read the comments at the deletion discussion and it is pretty evident voters were confused. The lists were different. Also, if Levine does not like the title that can be changed and moved in a minute. Note: Many articles on Wiki have been through and are under dispute involving controversial subject matter. These types of articles, in the beginning, will have there fair share of >>> growing up to do. This is expected and is natural process. Cheers. --QuackGuru 02:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than a title change. Please reread what I wrote. I can tell you that when I voted to delete, it wasn't just because I thought the article was a re-run of something we voted out of article space previously. It was mainly for the reasons which I articulate above. I don't think that your article will ever make the cut in article space. Any limitation on what is included in the list is clear-cut POV. I'm sorry. Levine2112 02:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please >>> read the reasons given by Levine and others to delete. Thanks. --QuackGuru 02:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion - See nothing wrong with the procedures taken as Speedy Delete POV and largely the same article. The article was basically the same as the previous article only the author copied all the refs from the listed articles and called it improved. So basically a Speedy Delete for Speedy_delete#General_criteria number 4 was appropriate: Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted. Cutting and pasting 368 refs from articles does not constitute substantially altering the first article. Somebody would have had to do a lot of reading to do that much research. --Dematt 02:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comments made by Dematt is exactly my point. The articles are different. Catagorization, title change, lead intro changed, references, etc. is the reason to restore back to articlespace. Please look at the history for the proof. Also, take a look at what I found. Another list of articles that is still in mainspace, as a matter-of-fact, has had difficulting in the >>> beginning! --QuackGuru 03:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse delete. There is no misunderstanding except maybe for QG. Many editors are probably tired of the onslaught of POV and this spamlink farm AGAIN. This present "article's" improvements restored some of the items specifically removed before even the *original* delistings. Changes of window dressing, cross dressing arguments, just don't solve the original problems. We have had multiple AfDs, including the surviving project space version that *actually lost on the "delete" count*, too. Relentless campaigning w/o underlying merit for duplicative, pejorative material and contextual derogation by groups that claim to represent some great scientific majority. Looking at histories, a this is another of spam farming that has been repeatedly noted by a number of editors since, at least last summer, about certain POV interests and attack sites. A big, steaming POV pile with some odorous rejects rewelded on is still a big malodorous POV pile that once again attempts to hijack the term "scientific" for partisan views into Article space, again.--I'clast 07:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and the facts speak for themselves. According to the MFD votes there was no consensus to delete and therefore a keep. The votes were split down the middle at 14 keep versus 14 delete. [9][10] According to some editors they do not like the list because they think the subject matter of scientific skepticism is POV. We should not let the influence of a few non-beleivers get in the way of progress of building an encyclopedia. Any concerns what is on the list can be addressed on the talk page. Read the comments by those who want to delete and it is clear what they are about! Scientific skepticism is a notable subject. A list of articles of interest is a great navigational tool for readers. Scientific skepticism is not POV. Readers deserve the ability to have a list available to them. There are many lists on Wikipedia. Reference lists are exactly what Wikpedia is about. A misunderstanding created by a few people -- I believe should be overturned and reversed. Misleading voters is not wikilike. Wikipedia is about representation of all significant viewpoints. A resource list about scientific skepticism is as encyclopedic as a List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts is. --QuackGuru 13:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, no evident problem with process here and reasons for deletion are sound. This may be reasonable somewhere in project space but is too vulnerable to problems to make it acceptable in mainspace, which is why it's been deleted. If there is agreement on the Science WIkiproject that it could live over there, then we can undelete it to that location, but it should not be linked directly from articles. Guy (Help!) 13:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the editors who have voted endorse delete here are the same edtiors who have voted delete to the list before. I urge the closing admin. to look at the facts that the lists where in fact different and there is evidence that speedy delete was falsly used to portray the list as the same list and that a few editors used false and misinformation to confuse uninformed voters. This says more about the voters than the list. I would like to know if the voter Guy even has seen the new and improved list that was in articlespace. It is deleted now so how could he have seen it. Most of the voters of voted endorse deletion here including Guy voted to delete the list from the WikiProject.[11][12][13][14]
Sustain deletion. I'm the deleting admin. Literally the only keep vote in the AfD was from the nominator of this deletion review. That was it. The vote was 14 for deletion and 1 for keep. Also, a good chunk of the deletes (the majority) were either strong delete or speedy delete. That's a pretty strong consensus. And letting the vote continue would not have led to a different result. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 16:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The majority of the voters voted delete based on misinformation it was the same article. It does not matter if 100 to 1 voted for delete. There were given false information it was a recreation. The article can be listed again for deletion in a fair manner. Voters should vote base on truthful information. The article were different. --QuackGuru 16:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments below are from Dematt.

It is a great reference on project space where it came from. --Dematt 03:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[15] However, when Dematt voted at the MFD at the WikiProject, Dematt stated it was an attack list! A few editors may be showing signs of a conflict of interest or an opposition to scientific skepticism. --QuackGuru 14:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I still agree with both of my comments above. It's an attack article that belongs in project space. --Dematt 17:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dematt's above comment stated that it belongs in project space. But Dematt voted to "delete" from project space. Clears signs of causing confusing and misrepresenting the facts. Dematt voted to delete from project space. Dematt believed it does not belong in project space.Again, Dematt voted to delete from project space! --QuackGuru 17:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dematt said I quote, "It is a great reference on project space where it came from. Now Dematt has confirmed her/his true beliefs that she/he thinks it is an attack article. This shows clear signs of a conflict in interest. What is on the list that is an attack. Dematt has not said what. In project space on the talk page Dematt did not help much. If there is anything that is an attack it should aggrassivley be changed in articlespace. Conflicts of interest and misleading voters is a relevant reason to undelete. I have demonstrated for the deletion review to bring fair justice and due process. --QuackGuru 17:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru, please don't midrepresent my comments in an effort to degrade my credibilty. I would appreciate your WP:AGF as I will for you. --Dematt 17:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can the comments be misinterpreted. Dematt voted delete at project space then Dematt stated here it belongs in project space. I would like to know what about the list is an attack. Dematt has never displayed this evidence. Wikipedia is about representing all significant viewpoints. A list about scientific skepticism is reasonable and notable. The same voters who voted delete before in project space, voted delete in mainspace, and endorse delete here. Most of these editors have not attempted to improve the article and present what needs to be updated to make it a NPOV. I would of liked Dematt to help to improve and point out what can be improved to create a good article. It would be fantastic if the list was restored and Dematt could improve the article and regain my faith in her/him. --QuackGuru 18:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just overviewed the deletion process for speedy delete. The voters were mislead it was a recreation of the same article. It was not. Based on these grounds the deletion can be reversed to undelete. --QuackGuru 18:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion - At this point, I can no longer AGF, given the extensive hisory QuackGuru has with pushing this list.[16] [17] [18] Regardless of the procedural issues QuackGuru is arguing, there is an inherent problem with his continual actions against consensus. I believe the correct decision was reached to delete and, per WP:SNOW, should not be overturned. QuackGuru's ownership issues with the article seem to be the central problem to this whole affair, and more relevant than a minor procedural point. Of further note, QuackGuru has chosen to turn his userpage into a similar list to what he has been pushing for weeks now. See this diff. I believe this is a violation of userpage policy. I had no problem with moving the list to Project space, where it still resides, but QuackGuru has seen fit to recreate it both in mainspace and Userspace against consensus. I can no longer consider his actions to be in good faith and must endorse deletion of the article. -- Kesh 22:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I will footnote my !vote with this caveat: QuackGuru "asked" me to put this article up for AfD. I firmly believe this was another WP:POINT to try and solidify his claim on the article, hoping the AfD would fail and thus legitimize the article. All these actions should be considered as part of this review, as they color the whole process. -- Kesh 22:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Kesh said here, I quote: "I have no problem with moving the list to Project space,..." but when Keth voted in the MFD he strongly and aggressively voted to DELETE. These are the facts. I have demonstrated there is evidence of false statements made by Kesh and others who want to further confusion and get the article deleted. They want to delete it off of the projectspace too. Just look at their votes. I have proven editors are not being totally honest with there statements here. This shows the deletions process was unfair by voters who have mislead other voters and have made misleading statements here. We should not let dishonest statements made on Wikipedia to prevail. This is justification to undelete. I rest my case. --QuackGuru 22:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - For the record, the MfD occurred after the move to Project space. During the AfD process, I supported the move to Project space. It was during the MfD that I noticed QuackGuru's ownership issues with the article and became concerned about its PoV nature. That was the reasoning for my vote there. I'm afraid there is no cabal, but it has become clear that this list does not belong in mainspace and certainly not when QuackGuru is attempting to establish ownership against consensus.
    - And I'm still not sure why the heck he insists on misspelling my name repeatedly... -- Kesh 23:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah, I see. QuackGuru seems to believe Steth is sockpuppeting and is insinuating I'm one of the puppets by the intentional misspellings.[19] I am not, and would suggest he put in a request for checkuser rather than making passive-aggressive accusations. -- Kesh 23:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I do not understand where Kesh got this idea from. Everyone cool off. --QuackGuru 23:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being honest now. You have gained my utmost respect. Kesh has voted to delete because of me not the article. He feels this is personally about me not the article. If the article is POV then I invite Kesh to point out what should be improved and stop making this about me. Votes should be about the article not another editor. If any editor has a problem with the article then deal the the article not me. This is another reason to undelete based on Kesh's comments it is about me. --QuackGuru 23:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no it isn't. I've tried to explain this to you, QuackGuru. We operate on consensus. If 65 or 70%+ of users believe that the article should stay deleted, it will stay deleted. I know you've stated that the numbers do not matter to you, but it's how we operate around here. I think you are taking this all way way too personally. You are taking votes for keeping deletion as a personal attack. They are not. Looking at this vote as someone with no opinion on the topic that the article is about, I can say that people are voting based on what they see as a correct vote. You feel that it wasn't correct or that people voted based on misinformation. You are entitled to that opinion. But continuing to battle over this one article is not going to be beneficial to you on Wikipedia. It's going to create a lot of hard feelings. If the article is kept deleted, I'd suggest letting it go and moving on. You will do no good fighting this to no end. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 02:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion too. I have provided evidence that voters were mislead. This is about fairness and justice. The articles were in fact different. They voted speedy delete because they were mislead it was a recreation of the same article. Misleading voters alone is more than enough reason to undelete. I have demonstrated also there is a conflict of interest and voters here have tried to mislead in this discussion here again. I'm just being honest and give the closing admin the correct facts. Nothing more. Thanks for your comments. I appreciate it. --QuackGuru 02:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following statement below was made by the closing admin. in the AFD.

The result was Speedy delete as POV and largely reposted conent. WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like evidence presented it was largely reposted content. I believe the admin. was also mislead. The original article was a super long list. The new and different article had substantially changed. Please check the history for the different articles. I believe I was well within the guidelines and policy to create a different article. People votes speedy delete because they thought it was a recreation of the same article. This kind of misunderstanding underminded the deletion process. I want the facts to be revealed. Nothing more. Thanks, --QuackGuru 15:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are still claiming the list was deleted due to "misinformation." That is incorrect. It was properly deleted because it was substantially the same list. You took out a couple items, and tried to make a WP:POINT by throwing over 360 references into the list from the articles linked. There was no substantial difference between your new list and the old one, which still featured inappropriate article links and no set criteria for inclusion. Those are the facts as they stand. Further, your continued disruptive creation of the article list in mainspace against consensus is worth weighing in the deletion and this review. As for evidence, one simply need compare your new list's contents vs. the list in Project space. -- Kesh 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list was deleted because of misinformation by a certain editor or editors. Let the evidence speak for itself. Spoofing of truth or a misrepresentation of the facts is all the more reason to reverse, undelete, and overturn the deletion. The original list in mainspace was way back in the first week of January. It was the List of article related to quackery. What is in WikiProject space is different than what was originally in mainspace the beginning of January. I have pointed out Kesh has got his facts confuses. >>>I quote: "As for evidence, one simply need compare your new list's contents vs. the list in Project space. -- Kesh 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)" <<< What is in ProjectSpace is not the same that was originally in mainspace back in the first week of January. Looking at the history is telling and convincing.[reply]

Rightfulness, justice, and Wikipedian fairness will prevail, so help me God, "I do." Cheers to Wiki -- a true believer! --QuackGuru 23:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

1 February 2007[edit]