Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 4

Earth Point – Deletion endorsed without prejudice – 00:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Reason: Author feels that the company meets notability criteria.

Earth Point has been the subject of several independent articles. These include

The Idaho Statesman - a metropolitan newspaper,
Inman News - a leading trade journal,
Google Earth Blog - the definitive blog for Google Earth, and
Google Maps Mania - the definitive blog for Google Maps.

Note 2 of WP:CORP illustrates the point.

Hewlett-Packard satisfies this criterion by, amongst other things, being covered in a feature article in the Palo Alto Weekly.

By way of comparison:
The circulation of the Palo Alto Weekly is 43,024 once a week. aan.org
The circulation of the Idaho Statesman is 65,000 every day. Idaho Statesman

If Hewlett-Packard is notable because of a feature article in the Palo Alto Weekly, then likewise, Earth Point is notable due to a feature article in the Idaho Statesman.

Thank you and best regards,
Owyheerover 21:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse G11 deletion The "article" was an advertisement. Totally new text needs to be rewritten in a fashion that conforms to the neutral point of view policy. Notability was not the basis for deletion, however, in accordance with WP:FORGET it would be best if the independent sources are used to write the article, and properly cited. GRBerry 21:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse without prejudice to recreation with the non-blog sources ("definitive" is subjective) and in a neutral tone. Wikipedia has a strong negative stance towards advertisement. ColourBurst 21:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right - I used the word "definitive" above to say that these are credible blogs and could be considered for notability purposes. Such subjective terms do not appear in the deleted article itself. I can remove the blogs from the article. However if there is a way to certify a blog, I would be happy to learn it.
Since it seems that notability is not the issue, I would like to fix the advertising issues. I have read many delete logs, many company articles, and every guideline I can find. Yet I will need some help recreating the article.

1. I don't have a copy of the raw text and would be grateful if someone could send it to me.
2. For the deleted article, I worked quite hard to make a factual description without any kind of promotion. But it seems I failed.
  1. Is it possible to describe a company and still fall within the guidelines?
  2. Is it possible to mention the reasons a company is notable?
  3. Could anyone suggest specific changes I should make to the deleted article?

Thanks Owyheerover 06:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is your relationship ot this company? I note this is the first subject you've edited on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 16:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, I am the company. That is a strike against me. Nonetheless, I am trying to learn what would be an acceptable article.

Here is a question. Since HP is used as an example in note 2 of WP:CORP, I am using their article as my guide. Here is part of section 1.1. My question is this. Pretend HP is just getting started. Would it be possible write this paragraph in the present tense?

Their first product was a precision audio oscillator, the Model 200A. Their innovation was the use of a small night-light bulb as a temperature dependent resistor in a critical portion of the circuit. This allowed them to sell the Model 200A for $54.40 when competitors were selling less stable oscillators for over $200. The Model 200 series of generators continued until at least 1972 as the 200AB, still tube-based but improved in design through the years. At 33 years, it was perhaps the longest-selling basic electronic design of all time.

What if this section was written in the present tense? Would that sound like advertising?

My dilemma is that using the HP article as a guide, I am not sure how to write an acceptable Earth Point article. It would be very helpful if someone would say "In your article, that sentence right there, that is advertising."

Thanks again, Owyheerover 19:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way is to use the amnesia test. Forget all that you personally know about the subject, and write from your sources instead. Anyways, there's no way to "certify" a blog because WP:RS's provision of reliablility includes an editorial process, and blogs have no editorial oversight. The only blogs that are used as far as I know are blogs directly from newspapers, and blogs that are used as primary sources (sources from the subject) for noncontroversial matters about the subject. ColourBurst 17:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Owyheerover, an advertising speedy-delete usualy means it's ok to re-write the article... but you need to make realy sure it's not advertising. ---J.S ^(T/C) 23:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, without prejudice against recreation, advertisement is bad. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid G11. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion although a neutral rewrite with reliable sources would be acceptable. (aeropagitica) 17:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

South DeKalb Mall – Keep closure endorsed – 00:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The AfD for this article was closed as keep without comment. Upon asking the admin, User:Doc glasgow, for clarification, I found that his reasoning was 1) that no consensus exists, 2) that the existence of the mall is not in dispute, and 3) that neither lack of any sources nor lack of notability is a deletion criterion. I feel that the apparent lack of any independent sources whatsoever is a deletion criterion (WP:V, WP:RS), as is lack of notability (WP:N) -- and none of the keep !voters provided any reliable sources during the course of the debate. It has been long established that existence is not sufficient for inclusion within Wikipedia. Even if this article were to be kept, it should have been closed as no consensus, not as keep. Shimeru 19:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins's response. I've been misunderstood here. My reason for closing this as a keep was that 4 keeps to 7 deletes is not a consensus to delete = default keep. When Shimeru asked me about it he made the additional comment that "keep !voters didn't address the sources or notability" - my extended rationale was to that. They don't have to. If the existence of the Mall was being questioned then failure to verify would be an overriding reason to delete. But that wasn't being questioned - so any sourcing of particular claims/information is something to be sorted by clean-up, and not a reason to delete in the absence of a consensus. Notability is subjective, and not an overriding reason to delete in the absence of consensus either. Basically, I closed this as keep as there was no consensus to do otherwise.--Doc^g 20:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry Doc, I have to point out you are incorrect. Notability IS a citeria for deletion. Per WP:N

Topics that do not satisfy notability criteria are dealt with in two ways: merging and deletion.

As an admin, you should be well aware of ALL wikipedia policies, if not have them committed to memory. Also Notability is not subjective. Further more as a closing admin, you have a responsibility to read Deletion Guidelines for administrators which quite clearly states:

Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable' and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.

It seems you were just vote counting and not reading the AFD. If there are 100 keep comments but only 1 for deletion, and that deletion comment did prove that there were no Verifiable sources and not a single Keep comment refuted that or just said "it's notable" without proof, then closing the article as Keep would be wrong. You have an obligation to digg deeper than just a quick glance and close. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 19:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre. You confuse notability and verifiability again. I agree, if someone had suggested that the article was unverifiable, and the debate didn't indicate otherwise, I would have deleted it (numbers be damned). But, in reality, the article is verifiable, so that really isn't an issue. As for notability, it is contentious. And I have never said it isn't a reason for deleting - just that it isn't one that overwhelms considerations of consensus. If there had been a consensus that the article should be deleted for lacking notability, I would have deleted it (have no doubt about that). But I saw no such consensus. No, I didn't just vote count, as I have already indicated: please don't imply I'm lying.--Doc^g 19:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Clarification: 3 keeps to 8 deletes. Of course, it's not a vote. I maintain that keep !voters do have to address the arguments put forth in favor of deletion -- especially sourcing, which is not subjective. Shimeru 21:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um. It's a directory entry. But the Doc is a smart man. What to do? Guy (Help!) 21:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone could proactively apply the guidance at WP:LOCAL and merge it somewhere. AFD keeps don't trump merging. And what content to preserve in a merge is an editorial decision. GRBerry 21:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced content is not mergeable. ~ trialsanderrors 23:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, delete A business needs a claim to notability or it fails WP:CSD#A7 (a policy). The claim has to be sourced or it fails WP:V (a consensus-overriding policy). This is Admin 101. ~ trialsanderrors 23:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | Unchanged, crap sources don't change anything substantially or procedurally. ~ trialsanderrors 00:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. This is a procedural process, and Doc made the right call, as there was no consensus to delete. Rebecca 23:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion I called a keep/no consensus. But why not delist this DRV: let those who want it kept try to source it properly. If that doesn't satisfy those who want it deleted, then after say 7 days let someone take it back to afd and see if they can garner a consensus.--Doc^g 23:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, on the basis of {sofixit} I've sourced the article. Not hard. My surprise is that no-one did it earlier. I've no objections to this being sent for a fresh AfD to see whether there is a consensus to delete on the grounds of 'notability' - although I can see no reason why there would be.--Doc^g 23:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Now that sourcing has been addressed, this is rather moot. Thank you, Doc. Shimeru 02:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, delete as per trialsanderrors. Closing is supposed to be a matter of applying policies and guidelines which requirea a substantive, supported claim to notability, not just vote-counting and verifying something exists. (even if it was a votecounting process, there's a 8 to 3 delete majority here...)Bwithh 00:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's rubbish. CSD A7 states 'the assertion is controversial ... the article should be nominated for AfD instead'. Such things aren't automatically deleted - there needs to be a consensus. There isn't.--Doc^g 00:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was an AfD and it wasn't automatically deleted. I'm not sure what your criteria for consensus is - unanimity? Bwithh 03:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What in hades? It is manifestly not "a matter of applying policies a guidelines which require a substantive, supported claim to notability" on the part of the closer; their job is simply to determine if there was a consensus to delete, which there was not in this particular case. Doc made the right call; if you have a problem with the actual result, take it up with the people who supported the articles retention. Rebecca 00:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify my sentence which may have been worded in an unbalanced way - closing deletion discussion should involve consideration of other relevant policies and guidelines and is not just a vote-count for consensus. I have no problem with the 73% support for deletion in this afd.Bwithh 03:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure as keep. Assertions are false and article has been sourced. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 00:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"False assertions"? The article may be sourced now, but its hardly well-sourced. Bwithh 03:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be clear: lack of sources in never a reason for deletion (other than WP:BLP) - it is only if something CANNOT be sources (after real efforts have been made) that it is deletable. DO NOT nominate something as contra to WP:V, unless you have made strenuous attempts to source it first.--Doc^g 16:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's clearly some disagreement between reputable admins over this particular article, so I don't see this as a matter of simply asserting the-letter-of-the-policy to me. There's obviously some room for different readings of policy here.

While I always do a good faith search for reliable sources before nominating afds - WP:V states on the other hand:"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.", and not the nominator or !voters for deletion.

In addition, WP:V also asserts: "Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

In other words, lack of sources is' a reason for deletion and is especially important and urgent for WP:BLP, and furthermore, "aggressive" removal of unsourced material (where the burden of providing sources is on the creator of the content, not the person who removes it) is important for all information.

In addition, guideline WP:CORP calls for the multiple non-trivial, independent reliable sources, and it could certainly be reasonable argued that the article still lacks this.

Bwithh 01:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Mall verifiable exist? Yes. Therefore the subject of the article meets WP:V. If there is unsourced information in the article perhaps that should be challenged as you say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc glasgow (talk • contribs)

"Does the Mall verifiable exist? Yes. Therefore the subject of the article meets WP:V." but would fail WP:NOT as a a stub tantamount to a directory listing (once unsourced info is removed) and WP:CORP as a NN commercial organization. Bwithh 02:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-endorse closure, but keep now that sources are added. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a totally unsourced and unverified statement in the article which implies that the mall's owners or previous owners are racist (the claim that the mall was never expanded or updated unlike other local malls because most of their customers have been African-American). I'm removing this controversial statement and tagging other unsourced claims in the article Bwithh 04:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. No substantive rationale was presented for deleting the article; the only claim worth addressing, that it "appears to be a directory entry," found no consensus. And looking at the article, it does not appear to be a directory entry, nor was it such when it was nominated. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Call was well within reasonable discretion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

DekiWiki – Deletion endorsed – 00:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Deletion process was not followed, was not spam, was not vandalism, was not orphan, is notable see: Talk:DekiWiki for assertions of notability, and the previously deleted Talk:DekiWiki page. The original article had several contributors. Only one of which is affiliated with MindTouch, me. Look at first article that was deleted without adherence to the deletion process. You'll find there are, by my recollection, at least 6 other contributors in a short period of time. ~ AaronF 19:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted three times as spam, two separate admins. AaronF has a conflict of interest here. Guy (Help!) 19:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion WP:CSD#A7 applies as there is no assertion of notability in any of the three versions deleted. GRBerry 22:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ViaWiki, a hosting service for DekiWiki, is being offered as a commercial service. (Unless you want to set up a free version, which lets you have only five users.) The number of cited users of DekiWiki is four. AaronF works there and has a conflict of interest. It seems to me that if DekiWiki is notable, someone else from outside the company should be writing about it. I'd expect it to have more of an installed base before it becomes truly notable. Endorse deletion. Now can I please go back to researching Richardsonian Romanesque architecture and working on Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places? --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 01:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Has a repeated speedy for a COI article ever been overturned? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

British Bulldogge – Speedy close, AfD still in process – 09:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

this is a true new rare breed dog that comes from the founder Danielsoren 07:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The breeder is one of the founders of this breed of dog... you are allowing Olde English Bulldogges which is the name invented by David Leavitt who was a co-breeder with Tim Kelly... and now the breeders have broken gain into Leavitt Bulldogs and British Bulldogges -- these are the inner working of the breeders at the center of this movement... the circle of breeders includes Tim Kelly who is the founder of the Olde English Bulldogge Kennel Club which you allow on wikipedia. He has indeed founded a new club the BBKC... I am not trying to spam about the club, while I am a member -- these are rare breed dogs that deserve a small corner of the universe to tell their story... and I simply want to put them on the pages where they belong... the breeding program that started in the 70's has progressed and the different strains are now established and the circles are evolving and the story should be able to be told.

you allow this one....

Main article: Wilkinson Bulldog

Lolly Wilkinson of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada, has been breeding a strain of Bulldog referred to as the Wilkinson Bulldog, for many years that is similar to the Old English Bulldog. Due to the small number of bulldogs and the potential for inbreeding it is of questionable quality; however, the Wilkinsons claim that it is a healthy breed and suffers few genetic diseases. In addition, the breed is not recognized by any major kennels. Whether this breed will gain worldwide popularity and more people accept that this is the real Bulldog, remains to be seen. while Tim Kelly is well known in the breed circles and Lolly is what is considered a starter... Tim is part of the foundation of the breed that Lolly is working with... David Leavitt has all but left the breed behind in the hands of the OEBKC which was founded by Tim and now his movement into to family dog aspect of the breed is complete

your editors don't know anything about this rare breed, but the breeders sure do and I am a starting breeder and enthusiast who is attempting to document the story, it is a true underground story that needs the chance to be recorded here!...

so I may not be the best writer in the world... but help me edit it rather than throw it away!

Too Early The AfD is still open; in fact, it only started today. Agent 86 08:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Joe Todaro – Deletion endorsed – 00:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

This page should not be delted. First of all it was created by another user, not myself, I just fine tuned it. Yes that user happens to be my friend but we are no way in "cohoots" with each other. Joetodaro 08:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse Deletion. Your friend still has a conflict of interest and as such will have neutrality problems. So, there's no real reason brought up and unless third-party nontrivial reliable sources are shown, it still violates verifiability policies. ColourBurst 05:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse valid WP:CSD#A7 plus WP:COI issues. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse perfectly valid A7 deletion, with a WP:COI violation thrown in for flavour. Undeleting this would make no sense, as within minutes it would be found and deleted again, also under A7. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion - per WP:COI; you shouldn't write articles about your friends. -- Selmo ^(talk) 19:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as per WP:BIO and WP:COI issues. No reliable sources provided for the article to demonstrate notability, either. (aeropagitica) 16:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not meet WP:BIO or WP:COI.--mathewguiver 20:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ernie Green – Deletion endorsed – 00:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

I'm not sure why his page is showing up as a candidate for speedy deletion, we have weathered this storm before and it was awarded to be a legit page. I feel that there is no need to be going through this AGAIN. Joetodaro 08:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse valid WP:CSD#A7, WP:CSD#G11 and WP:COI issues as well. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as valid A7 and apparent vanity page. Since this is the fourth time it's been deleted, I have protected it against further re-creation as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The deleted history shows that the admin who deleted it three times on 23 Oct 2006 also edited it several times on the next day, saying in the edit summaries in effect that emails had convinced him of notability. GRBerry 14:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Ernie Green also had a dream. Not about blacks and whites getting along. That was Martin Luther King. His dream was golden, and not as in the golden ticket, that was Charlie in Willy Wonka. I'm talking about fighting the Golden Boy, Oscar de la Hoya." - Err... Endorse. ---J.S ^(T/C) 23:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Non-notable biography as per WP:BIO. (aeropagitica) 17:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not meet WP:BIO, non notable. --mathewguiver 20:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lenny Loosejocks – Undeleted, listing at AfD at editorial discretion – 01:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

deleted as an advert, when it wasn't Kc4 04:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore history for review; I almost wish there were some way for non-admins to do that. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Google cache is a good place to start. ~ trialsanderrors 04:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list. G11 does not mean "it's non-notable so anything would be advertising". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and undelete per nom. G11 is for things like "TDS has the best software and you will be happy if you become our customer - here's a list of our products ... ." But this is a reasonably well-written article that looks nothing whatsoever like an advertisement. --BigDT 05:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, maybe not G11, but the logo of a redlinked website is undoubtedly a valid A7. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it could pass with some rewriting, it still seems at least A7 to me... --Tone 10:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, with no strong opinion on whether it should be relisted (I wouldn't). Long-running and fairly popular series of games, written about in the book 3D for the Web (ISBN 0240519108), with some press mentions (including, bizarrely, this one from Wired about migrating to Linux using WINE). Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn This wasn't an advertisement. It received what is in my eyes an overly enthusiastic expansion on 27 December by an editor in good standing, not a single purpose account. I think the article should be rewritten to follow the manual of style and emphasize real world significance, but I don't see a reason for speedy deletion. Redlinks don't indicate non-notability when there has never been an article at the target.[1] GRBerry 14:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore needs clean-up but not so much to justify G11. A7 might be closer, but I'd rather have this AfD'd given the source mentioned here and the prominence on Ezone which may well pass WP:WEB especially given its past popularity.[2] Eluchil404 16:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist not an acdvert -- Selmo ^(talk) 19:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Gentoowiki – Deletion endorsed without prejudice – 01:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The template is still present on several Gentoo-related pages, and has been there for months. I can't see what it used to look like, but I am presuming it is similar to Template:Wowwiki (which survived a request for deletion) and other similar templates, which serve a useful function. So I think it would have merited a discussion before deletion. Anyway, the sysop who deleted the template should have deleted the places where it was included also; now he has left an ugly hole on several pages, and I feel unsure about deleting those inclusions. – gpvos (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Not quite, it looked more like the Commons or Wiktionary box, along with logo. I'd say if you recreate it similar to the wowwiki template spam shouldn't be an issue anymore. ~ trialsanderrors 02:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 01:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation if it is more like {{Wowwiki}}. The deleted one looks too much like the commons box, meaning it looks too cluttering and official. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist as an out-of-process deletion, though I don't really like these things. In this particular case, I can't find an article on the Gentoo wiki. If it isn't notable enough for an article, it probably isn't notable enough for a template there. Still, though, there isn't a speedy deletion criterion that fits here ... so give it its day at WP:TFD so that a consensus can be reached. --BigDT 05:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted Template:Lyriki, created by the same user, because it served only to link to copyright violations. When I noticed that he created another, similiar, external link template, I looked at the website it was linking to and found it to be a poor, uninformative resource and that the template was designed to create links to the website for its benefit, not for the benefit of Wikipedia ("spam", in other words). However, if others disagree, they're free to recreate it or restore it, as should be implicit in anything I delete.--SB | T 19:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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