Color symbolism and psychology (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article was deleted after minimal discussion (just five votes) on grounds of insufficient sourcing and citation, as well as being unauthoritative within its subject matter (psychology). Request review and possible undelete on grounds that this article is not actually a "hard science" artice despite the "psychology" association; the "connections" and "moods" discussed on the page have been well known for many years, and are not exclusively anglo-centric as asserted in the discussion. Accordingly, arguing from a "citation needed" and strict-constructionist WP Policy mentality on this particular article is well-intentioned, but entirely misplaced. Requesting review rather than working through deleting admin not out of disrespect, but just out of not having time for prolonged discussion today. Ender78 (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Article has already been extensively reworked and additional citations added. Additionally, the article has been flagged for further attention within the Visual Arts WikiProject. I notice that there are still certain parties who are attempting to (ab)use policy as a blunt instrument to tell other people how it's going to be, but if the purpose here is to promote quality content, I believe I am taking the right actions and going in the right direction. I welcome those who disagree to provide logical arguments on the page's talk. Ender78 (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion There was overwhelming consensus to delete the article. This could not have been closed any other way. Cunard (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were five votes total. That's not overwhelming by any standard of which I am aware. Ender78 (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many votes would be required for an article to be deleted? Five seems to be enough. Cunard (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've seen votes that went on for months, so long that the vote itself had to be restarted just to bring the matter to an actual resolution. That's the opposite extreme. I would simply say that a fair hearing requires more than five people. Ender78 (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The debate went on for over seven days. No one opposed deletion. This is a good close that reflected the consensus of the community. Again, how many votes would be required for a fair hearing? Six? Cunard (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think the fact that you're sustaining the action purely on the basis of process, and trying to bait me into a flamewar with your belligerent and unilateral tone is unfortunate, and precisely what I hoped to avoid by putting it through review rather than trying to work it at a lower level. The article in question is not a very high-traffic page, hence it is no surprise that discussion developed slowly and that it needs more time for a proper discussion to unfold. As a reductio ad absurdum, what would you say if I managed to rope together five people and a rogue admin and deleted Jimbo's page? Would six votes be sufficient in that case? Ender78 (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continued endorse deletion, do not restore Having read the comments below, I am convinced that the AfD participants were correct that the article was unacceptable in that it failed the non-negotiable policies of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that the best you've got? I can regurgitate policy, too. In any case, here's nine different citations I've added to the article, which I have already restored, because talking to some of you people is like conversing with a brick wall.[1]|[2]|[3]|[4]|[5]|[6]|[7]|[8]|[9]
• Endorse closure What, exactly, is supposed to be procedurally incorrect about this AfD discussion? Five participants supporting deletion is plenty, especially when no significant objections were raised, and AfDs should never be left open "for months." The closest thing to a vote to keep was a comment that "throwing it all away would be a waste," and even that user did not disagree with the assertion that the article was unacceptable in its current state. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you actually read my comment, I specifically state that "for months" is the opposite extreme, intended to illustrate the opposite end of the timeframes under which AfDs have been conducted in the past. I do not advocate leaving one open that long; I am only saying that five votes on a site as large and authoritative as WP does not constitute anything near a plurality. Ender78 (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll further note that speedy deletes aside, seven days is the shortest vote I've personally witnessed, and five votes the smallest number of voters. I note that the admin relisted the article, so that actually underscores the extent to which the article in question is slow-traffic and should've been given a little more time. (better yet, a little TLC.) Ender78 (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not a vote and 7 days is the current standard, it used to be 5 days and there is no quorum (nor has there ever been one) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Seven days is the standard, and plenty of AfDs are closed after seven days. Three !votes on one side with no opposition is normally sufficient; five !votes, as here, is way more than sufficient. Tim Song (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd point out that seven days, for a more general-interest article, would normally result in more than five votes. The very fact that "the standard" is not necessarily "the hard rule" is to allow some leeway for situations just like this. As for opposition, I missed the close of the vote by mere hours, or there'd be at least one vote against. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ender78 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, mostly per Cunard. Having examined the article and purported sources, I concur with his assessment. And speedy close. DRV is not a platform to attack other editors. Period. Tim Song (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I don't see any departure from correct handling here. Maybe putting a delsort or two on it would have garnered a few more votes but who is to say it wouldn't just have been another bunch of "delete"s? The five voters were not "roped together" and the admin was not "rogue" so I don't see any reason to invoke such empty spectres. Rather than waste time arguing about this I would like to suggest that Ender78 adopts an alternative approach which is more likely to be productive, i.e. to request a copy of the deleted article to be put in his user space so it is available for reference and then start a pair of stub articles for the two subjects that the deleted article was conflating, (e.g. Colour symbolism and Psychology of colour). It will be important to add the appropriate WikiProjects so that the articles are worked on collaboratively and then I recommend to gently start building the articles up trying to avoid the problems with the original one. Some elements of the original article could be reused with appropriate caution. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's precisely what I was trying to avoid. I simply think the article should be restored and re-tagged if quality is deemed lacking. Personally, I found --and find-- it to be a good quick-read on the topics covered, with no deeper scholarly analysis really necessary. I don't understand why you would scrap an entire article that isn't a hard-science article to begin with, on the basis that it needs to be rewritten from scratch to include more scholarly citations. Shouldn't it have been done the other way around, and tag it to the various related WikiProjects first? We both know if I restarted the article, it'd be stubbed within seconds and speedied within minutes, precisely on account of what's already happened. Ender78 (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, your invokation of my "five voters and an admin deleting Jimbo" example misses the actual argument and point being put forth, which was explicitly acknowledged to be reductio ad absurdum. (Please read the actual argument before inaccurately attempting to debunk it.) Ender78 (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, I can't help but notice --and mention-- that this article is getting railroaded without anyone actually reading the arguments in favor of reconsidering or examining the AfD discussion's flawed arguments, while "Fishsticks" and "Gay Fish" is a cause celebre being mentioned for restoration and protection. That's.....profoundly disappointing, and indicative of the flaws created on WP by "the process" becoming the tail that wags the dog. Ender78 (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But you've brought this issue to DRV, which is all about analyzing whether process was followed. If you think the accepted process is wrong, you need to obtain consensus to change it elsewhere. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's flexibility in the AfD process precisely because it's not a one-size-fits-all thing. Ender78 (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure I understand your argument here. In what way is AfD "not a one-size-fits-all thing"? What sort of extant flexibility in the process do you believe this article was denied? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • AfDs do not automatically close themselves, yes? They're left to thinking human beings, then, for a reason, which would seem to be so that that person could determine if the action proposed truly fits the consensus model at hand. Another interesting factoid: Snied, DanielRigal, and Smocking are all from the UK, all participated in the AfD, and all have participated in this discussion, along with two IPs that have either edited or reblanked the article in question, or participated in the AfD. Ender78 (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I have restored the history for discussion I think Endor attempted this, but I did it the right way. The article as it was deleted is visible in the page history. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you; I simply tagged the page as being reviewed, because I didn't want to get into a 3RR kind of situation. Ender78 (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and improve. The participants got it wrong. We shouldn't delete articles due to their poor state if they are about real subjects, as was this. Whether "psychology is an actual science" and whether "the rest is just contestable mysticism" are points worthy of coverage in a good article. The nominator even suggests move [some of the content], which means that deletion is not a preferred outcome due to WP:Copyrights. See also WP:BEFORE. The connections between colour, symbolism and psychology and real, historical and academic; the subject is notable, even if the title was confused, and it will likely be recreated in some form, and to best respect our licensing and the importance of attribution, the article should be at least userfied for any interested editor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse, but restore I do not see what else a closing admin could have done, and I like others here am not willing to criticize him in the least, as would be implied by overturning. Rather, the discussion reflects the defects of our AfD system, because it did not have sufficient attention form anyone prepared to improve the article: sources can be added, and the article further clarified to indicate the extent to which it represents popular tradition and the extent it represents science. If someone wants to extend it to non-Western traditions that would be good also. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except for the notion that perhaps seven days in this specific context was a touch hastier than it would be in a busier article, no criticism of JForget was in any way intended or implied. I made sure to mention it as such on his talk. Ender78 (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse, but restore per DGG's reasoning. I was shocked to see this article go and at the meager participation in the AfD discussion. I unfortunately did not become aware of it until after the fact. __meco (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion (Disclaimer: It was me who originally nominated the article for deletion). Color symbolism (essentially beliefs) doesn't mate with psychology. The few scraps of content that are valid Wikipedia content (sourcing, original research and notability being key issues in this particular case) should be moved to appropriate existing articles, or new articles if somebody can muster some accompanying content. It seems wrong to me that a fatally flawed article would be restored for the sake of keeping it its own article. Snied (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - I was one of the five people who voted for deletion, but as I mentioned on the vote there is some peer-reviewed scientific research into the subject. Therefore SmokeyJoe has a valid point: if an article about a valid subject can be improved we shouldn't delete it. Unfortunately the content of the article relied almost entirely on original research, some books with titles like Life Colors: What the Colors in Your Aura Reveal and Color Healing Therapy, new-age websites and unsourced blogs. Perhaps the best source in the article was an unpublished paper by an independent researcher who in turn cited mostly unreliable sources, but it seems to be have been removed in later revisions. I think it would be an all-but-empty article if you'd remove all the content with major issues. If a few people who are more familiar with the area can come up with better content and have the sources to back it up (e.g. the Journal of Sports Sciences article on t-shirt color on match outcome), that would be great; but they might as well start from scratch. Perhaps "Color psychology" would be a better title for that article, while "Color symbolism" would be a better place to describe the more cultural aspects. Smocking (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I genuinely mean no offense by this, but both yours and Snied's comments indicate that you really don't understand the topic very well. It's not a topic where you're going to get a great deal of hard-science scholarly papers on the subject, and I'd argue that the example provided in the AfD, that of "Red being associated with success in English Soccer Leagues" is hardly better: is the association created by the color red alone? Or is that association being magnified by other culture-specific elements, that being England's national identity and it's love affair with Football? The point of this article, from my perspective, is to attempt to cover the topic without exhaustively introducing other factors that cannot fully be quantified. I can't say it enough: this is one of those situations where a hard-enforcement take on WP policy is not constructive to the article or the audience. Ender78 (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've said several times you think that you think this shouldn't be required to meet the same standards as other science articles. Which particular standards are you meaning? verifiability, no original research etc. are not really negotiable. You speak of the point of the article from your perspective, which tends to suggest that it isn't really based on any real world perspective. i.e. is a set of things bought together which would almost certainly fall into the realms of WP:SYNTH. Psychology itself is well studied and understood, is there any study of this from a psychology point of view or not? If there is, then it surely should have academic coverage, if there isn't then we shouldn't be trying to make such a connection. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • In turn, shouldn't you be using your username, Smocking? Or are you Mr. Rigal? Curious that I'm getting anonymously flamed by an UK IP when there's two UK editors with a seemingly vested interest in this article. Frankly, I'm getting a bit sick of the belligerent tone being directed at me for daring to say that maybe an article should be RfD. Some of you folks really need to stop and consider that the reason WP:POLICY exists is not simply for its own sake, not so that an admin can talk of his flawless, never-overturned AfD record. You want your perspective? Ask ANY GRAPHIC DESIGNER AND/OR ARTIST ON PLANET EARTH ABOUT THE TOPIC. USE THE GOOGLE. THERE'S PAGES AN PAGES AND PAGES out there on this basic topic that live under many different names, but all discuss the basic emotions and reactions experienced by people in response to certain colors. Again, your insistence that it be treated in the same manner within the psychology topic as, say, Antisocial Personality Disorder suggests very strongly that you DO NOT understand the subject matter and its context, and where it diverges and merges with the more scientific subtopics within psychology. As for the article, call it "Color Symbology", "Color Psychology", call it whatever you want, but the information in question even in the present form is well-known amongst certain professional circles, and can stand on its own even with the minimal citations in the initial article. This isn't to say that there hard-science papers on the subject do not exist at all, but only that they aren't anywhere near as necessary to properly covering this topic as they would be for the aforementioned Antisocial Personality Disorder. Ender78 (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please try to remain civil. Please try to refrain from making unsubstantiated allegations or insinuations against other editors. Please reread this discussion and ask yourself who is most likely to be described as "belligerent" or "flaming" by an uninvolved reader. I don't think you are helping your case. For the record, I am not the IP editor above and I am not sure what possible "vested interest" I could have in this matter or what my being in the UK has to do with anything. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It has nothing to do with any admin's AfD record. I listed this article for deletion; I am not an admin, and my "record" such as it is would consist of this article only! You'll be able to make a better case if you don't resort to ad hominem attacks and instead concentrate on the issues. I would personally follow Daniel's advice and move the article content over to your user space, invite editors to help improve it and boost it up to the standards required for a standalone article and then create a new one with a more focused name (surely there is some sense of achievement to be had from that process?) Snied (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • All respect, but bull. If, as you say, you're not personally vested in this decision, you would be considering the arguments presented, rather than sticking to narrow policy definitions that have already been demonstrated --repeatedly-- to be less applicable to this subject matter than you have continued to assert. As for "belligerence".....how would YOU interpret the phrase "You speak of the point of the article from your perspective, which tends to suggest that it isn't really based on any real world perspective."? In any case, I don't care: neither of you, nor your probable IP doppleganger, have a right to smug sarcasm. I have provided nine additional links to authoritative sources, in addition to the eleven in the original article, yet you continue to argue on the basis of policies that simply do not apply. What conclusions should your fellow editors draw from that? Ender78 (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The policies are as applicable to this article as they are to any other article, due to being the policies. Putting the article in your user space and improving it would be a positive step towards keeping the content. Being rude and throwing around baseless accusations wouldn't. 05:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snied (talk • contribs)
              • I suppose you require citations to prove that trees are made of wood, then? Please do not communicate with me again. As to rudeness, I give as I get, and if that's not to your liking, tough. I didn't initiate the rudeness. Ender78 (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • "He started it!" is not a valid excuse for being incivil. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's what a five-minute Google search turned up on the topic, under the keywords "color association", "color psychology", and "color symbolism": [10] [11]

[12][13][14][15][16][17][18] You'll notice that amongst these links you'll find not only your cherished academic credentials, but also commercial art experts and authorities on color such as Pantone. And these nine links are in addition to the eleven already cited in the article. Still not convinced? In the amount of time it takes you to log out so you can flame me with your IP rather than your handle, you could already have duplicated the search in question. Ender78 (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • Wikipedia doesn't require me to login and I don't have an account to login to, so your comments are misplaced. Sorry if asking you to expand on your meaning is in someway offensive to you. If finding the sources is so trivially easy, why do you believe there is a need to suspend the requirement for reliable sourcing? Some of the links there would certainly seem to fail as reliable sources, others not, if they support the content of the article is however a different question. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • In regards to usernames, I don't believe you. It's that simple. If you can't read a sarcastic tone in your own words, I cannot help you, and I'm sorry, but I'm simply not part of the "turn the other cheek" crowd. If you're rude with me, I'll be rude with you, without apology. My only interest in this matter is preserving an article that is perfectly relevant within the actual context it would most commonly be searched for, not with any administrator's "win/loss" record as has been asserted by others. I informed JForget that it was not personal, and no disrespect was intended, but that I simply wanted to put the article through additional process as I did not believe that the people participating in the AfD truly understood the subject matter and why the seemingly-applicable WP policies were less pertinent, in context, than was being asserted. As for sourcing, I am not saying that the article should have ZERO citations, only that academic sourcing is both less pertinent AND less crucial to this article than is the norm elsewhere. As it was, the article had ELEVEN cites, and NOT all of them were "new agey", even though what people have called "new agey", again, is simply the nebulous norm in this subject matter, particularly inasmuch as the connotations of each culture can, as already noted, be different in differing cultures. Ender78 (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • You can believe or not believe whatever you want regarding me, it's really more fool you if you can't differentiate based on freely available information about such matters. I don't believe my comments to be rude and certainly not the intent. As for your comment here ...I did not believe that the people participating in the AfD truly understood the subject matter..., well where might one go to understand the subject? Of course if they didn't understand the issue then the article was lacking. Regarding having ELEVEN cites as with the list above a number on it's own is meaningless, I've seen plenty of articles deleted with far more than that because they are still basically works of WP:OR bringing together lots of disparate sources to present the artivle authors point of view on a subject something none of the individual sources support, not that I'm saying that is occurring here since I haven't gone off and read the article or all the sources in detail, my first comment is trying to actually get you to expand on why you think the sourcing requirements appropriate in this case, something I still don't understand your reasoning on. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse, but restore. This article has been around for nearly seven years. Why the great rush to delete instead of fix? Agree with DGG. The AfD process appears not to have worked effectively here, but everyone needs to keep WP:FAITH and WP:CIVIL in mind. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (already voted). Okay, I'll just forget about Ender78's accusations as (s)he already apologized elsewhere. What bugs me though is that this page is still mostly composed of sections like

  "Orange is energy, enthusiasm, 'get-it-done' attitude, and balance. It typically symbolizes Hinduism, Buddhism (monks wear orange because this vibrant yet soothing color aids in renunciation and spiritual focus), cheer, happiness, energy, balance, heat, fire, enthusiasm, nourishment, flamboyance, playfulness, autumn, desire, Sagittarius (star sign), and September. Orange has less intensity or aggression than red and is calmed by the cheerfulness of yellow. Orange is symbolic of the Royal family of the Netherlands. As such, in the Netherlands, Orange symbolizes royalty, and as William of Orange was the Calvinist color, orange symbolizes protestantism, particularly in Ireland (Orange Order)."

  This is not even the worst one. Stuff like that on Wikipedia just makes me sad, because I really believe in working together to create good articles that people can take seriously. You (as in: an editor in general, not anyone in particular) just can't talk like that without damn good sources, say it's science and put it in the psychology category. I don't really care that much about using scholarly articles, as long as the phrasing and claims match the reliability of the sources. The main articles (compare: Orange) of the colors are much more objective and they didn't need any peer-reviewed sources either. Some parts of the page are somewhat okay now, but can't we at least delete the "Common Associations and Connotations of Color" section? That part really makes my eyes bleed and it makes up most of the article. As little as I've contributed to Wikipedia, I've always paid a lot of attention to backing up what I write. To see people apparently making stuff up, googling the words, then listing the hits as sources (even though they are mostly and obviously fringe webpages) and having that material go unchecked for years is just sad. Smocking (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll tell you what makes me sad, pal: People who don't have any exposure to the subject matter regurgitating WP:POLICY to further some silly ideology. If you'd just stop trying to make it conform to your interpretation of policy long enough to think, --or to do some research-- you'd see the material is NOT as bad as is being asserted. But, I'm not going to fight this any further, because it's simply become a battleground for people who look at WP as a big club with sooper-seekrit handshakes than a place where the content is the highest calling. For what you people have wasted trying to tear this article down, you could've fixed it, or failing that, stayed the hell out of my way as I tried to fix it. You're all continuing, because 1.) You want to have "your" way, and 2.) Because at this point, some of you are far more angry at my failure to "Respect Your Authoritah" than anything else.' So, congratulations: An online encyclopedia with thousands of articles that will never be quality now has one less article that could be. Ender78 (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the article needs much work, but I don't see how that work will be possible unless the article (and on going changes to it) is kept visible to all editors and unless such work is treated as a good faith effort. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gay fish (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Redirect to Fishsticks (South Park) as a plausible search term, and protect to prevent retargeting to Kanye West; see Fish dicks → Fishsticks (South Park), Manatee gag → Criticism of Family Guy, and Naggers → With Apologies to Jesse Jackson. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the above proposal. In August and October 2007 this was speedily deleted twice, once per WP:CSD#A7 as an article about an non-notable band, and then per WP:CSD#G1 "nonsense". In April 2009 it was recreated as a redirect to Kayne West and retargetted to Fishsticks (South Park) 3 hours later. The targets swapped a further four times over the next 24 hours in a series of vandalism and reversion. Between the 10 April and 19 September 2009 this was stable as a redirect to the South Park episode. On the 19th it was vandalised to again point at Kayne West. 18 hours later an anonymous user blanked the page without leaving an edit summary, possibly trying to remove the vandalistic redirect. The anon's blanking was reverted by a bot less than a minute later, unwittingly restoring the vandalised version. Still less than a minute after the blanking, user:Vancouver Outlaw tagged it for speedy deletion under criterion WP:CSD#G3 (Vandalism), which ignoring the history was clearly correct. Eleven minutes later user:Kinu deleted it under WP:CSD#R3 as a recently created implausible redirect, a criterion that technically did not apply as the redirect page was not recently created (although the retargetting was recent) and not implausible given that 4 different users (assuming no sockpuppetry) thought it plausible enough. Given this history, a protected redirect seems appropriate to me. As neither user:Vancouver Outlaw nor user:Kinu have been made aware of this discussion I will put a note on their userpage now. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the above proposal as entirely logical. The Fishsticks article mentions the term enough to justify this redirect. Also, indefinite protect to keep it from being vandalized and pointed back to Kanye West. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy deletion and retarget to Fishsticks (South Park). WP:CSD#R3 applies only to "recently created" redirects, and redirects with useful page histories are not eligible for speedy deletion. As discussed above, the redirect had a useful page history, and I fail to see how it could've been construed as "recently created." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy recreate and protect per nom. No point keeping this open for 7 days. Tim Song (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Recreate and protect as a reasonable search term. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Homosexuality in animals. Oh wait, that article doesn't contain any mention of fish. OK, retarget to Fishsticks (South Park) it is then. Robofish (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spjayswal67/Ambarish Srivastava (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The newspaper clips posted here indicate that there is significant coverage about the subject, including this, this, this, etc. Move the userspace draft to Ambarish Srivastava. Cunard (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am completely agree with your opinion.Seemavibhaji (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC). — Seemavibhaji (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep deleted Having read through the draft and the cited sources, I don't think the subject meets the WP:ARTIST standard of notability, either as a poet or as an architectural engineer. As far as I can tell, Srivastava has no poetry book/anthology published, and the only non-online publications cited are in a Surat college magazine. As an architectural engineer, I could not find any scholarly publications or notable projects. None of the listed awards are really notable; a couple are simply honor certificates accorded during a function (Sarasvati Puja) organized by a local school, and at an inter-college debate. The current draft is bloated with self-published citations, and exaggerated import of the awards and associations with various organizations of which Srivastava is a member. The newspapers citations are mainly from the the Sitapur supplement of Lucknow based newspapers, and the coverage is ultra-local (for example, residents of a housing colony in Sitapur organized an event to honour local parents and military-men [19], [20], [21]). I have no doubt that the subject is active in the civil life in Sitapur and is well-known in the community, but he doesn't satisfy wikipedia's notability criterion. Abecedare (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist at AFD. I agree with A Stop at Willoughby that that would be a better venue to judge the notability of the draft article, with wider visibility and participation. Abecedare (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As I mentioned in the previous DRV, the sources available are local, city supplements of regional papers, not the regional newspapers themselves. He's active in local social circles and has presided over local events, but that's not something unique or a proof of notability. The Indira Gandhi Priyadarshini Prize doesn't appear to be a claim of notability either, the award itself doesn't appear to have any criteria and doesn't receive coverage except in the context of "notable people" having this listed in their many awards. As far as the poetry listing goes, none of it is sourced to our standards. The article continues to read like an inflated resume. Given that, I'm going to stick with the keep deleted position. However, I wouldn't be opposed to a relist at AfD. —SpacemanSpiff 18:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Addressed to both Abecedare and SpacemanSpiff: does the subject pass WP:GNG? Cunard (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought about that but I don't think so because: (1) all coverage, except for the Priyadarshini award, is trivial, (2) all the sources are very week. I can expend of this, if/when the article is relisted at AFD. Abecedare (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Like I said above, the coverage doesn't, IMO, pass WP:GNG, but given the disagreement here, I think that's better addressed through a relist at AfD as an alternative I'd suggested earlier. —SpacemanSpiff 22:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist at AfD. First of all, with only two participants, the original AfD did not really form a binding consensus and could conceivably be treated like a contested PROD. That said, the current userspace draft has been changed substantially since it was deleted at AfD; as such, WP:CSD#G4 would not apply upon a move to the mainspace. The rewritten article's sourcing (and whether it establishes notability) should be considered in a new AfD discussion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In light of the low traffic of the AfD, and the apparent disagreement over the notability of the subject, which should be addressed by AfD, I'll go with relist. Tim Song (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It is clearly mentioned about Indira Gandhi Award at the article User:Spjayswal67/Ambarish Srivastava, line 2-3 of Awards paragraph that "Ambarish Srivastava could not attend that award ceremoney because he got injured in a road accident at December 2007, so he was honored this award at his home through post office Sitapur" so how his coverage about it was possible in national or regional newspapers? although glimpse of this award is available here at reference no.-8 at above article. Photograph of Indira Gandhi Priydarshini Award, Certificate of award, Approval Letterof the award and letter for delivery also could be viewed all above three images are included in The newspaper clips posted here, It also proves that he was honored with this award. these above scanned images can bee also added separately as citation at User:Spjayswal67/Ambarish Srivastava if allowed.Seemavibhaji (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• work on it a little further, then restore and relist The closing admin should not have closed after the minimal discussion, but should have relisted; however, I think the result would have been the same. There are still some serious concerns with the article. The award would better be proven by 5 newspaper articles already cited, not by photographs of the award, but it would help if English translations were added, at least to the talk page. It would also help if the citation on the award were given so we could tell for which of his rather diverse "outstanding services, achievements and contributions " it was awarded for--I assume it was construction engineering. It would further help if English translations of the names of the various other awards were added, with some indication of their significance. It is possible that President of the Indian Institute of Building Designers Association "IIBD" is notable, but that article was deleted after a minimum discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Institute of Building Designers Association). I think that Looking at it,it had no external references of any sort--if it could be shown to be the leading national professional body, it would be sufficient. I presume the subject did the engineering design of various prominent buildings, and this information should be added--it supports notability of architects, and it might do so here also. I cannot figure out the significance of the poetry --in the absence of some source that it is actually considered notable , that section of detailed listings should be deleted. I do not see the point of relisting it in its present form, because unless it were improved along the lines I tried to indicate, it would probably be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ambarish Srivastava has honored many Senior persons over 60 years old, and he had organised a Deep yagya (pooja) for their good health as well as long life. Mr. Mohan Verma of Danik jagran has witten a special report on this great work and he treated it as a notable work in that report, see here and hear. Six Nos of poems of Ambarish Srivastava were published at Poems of Ambarish Srivastava at 'Anubhuti' of UAE , and twenty one nos. poems at Swargvibha which are prestigious websites. whether these are not online publications which can prove notability. Spjayswal67 (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank Mr. DGG. As per your suggestion i must work on it.Spjayswal67 (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. This  News Title : Ambarish Indira Gamdhi Priyadarshini Award se Sammanit [Ambarish honored to Indira Gandhi Priyadarshini Award]: p. 04. 2007-12-07. 

• Now this article is ready for review so please take a necessary action.Spjayswal67 (talk) 07:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• acceptable for user main space now, with another AfD optional. I looked at the article, and made some further edits. I removed the detailed listing of each poem, some of the material on the social work--I do not understand what the presented awards are about,or what is the notability in presenting them--and the photos of certificates of membership, of attending courses, and so on. I left in some links to photos of the buildings, but there need for third party sources about them. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the article be moved to the WP:Incubator instead, so that there is defined process for it being reviewed before it is moved to mainspace ? As I mentioned above, I think the subject does not meet our notability guidelines - but am not sure what is the right forum to have that discussion. Abecedare (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, my typo-- I meant acceptable for main space. I apologize for the resulting confusion. I think it's good enough to meet the previous objections. There are 3rd party sources for the awards. If anyone still wants to nominate for AfD they can, but in my opinion the article is improved thoroughly enough that an AfD is likely to result in a keep. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I, too, agree with restoring the article to the mainspace due to the addition of multiple reliable sources, including the ones I mentioned in this DRV nomination. I believe that the subject pass Wikipedia:Notability (biographies). Cunard (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hi, i would like this article to be reviewed. I believe there have been violations to the time and procedure of consensus reaching oriented work typical of Wikipedia. The article by itself suffers of a lot of problems. Is not notable, they are trying to make it notable by linking it to some yellow journalism websites. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Malformed DRV fixed. Tim Song (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Cirt's close of the first AfD as reasonable, and endorse Fences&Windows' close of the second AfD as clearly correct. DRV is not AfD round 2 (or 3, in this case). Tim Song (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse both- I might have gone with a keep for the first, but I'm not an admin, so take that with whatever sized grain of salt you prefer. The second AFD was also closed correctly in my eyes.Umbralcorax (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: we're seriously not considering keeping this shit on Wikipedia? The section about causation is as bullshit (it's a fucking earthquake!) and the belief is held about as much as the belief that <insert activity here> causes cancer (hey, maybe HAARP causes cancer too!), and the section about Israeli organ harvesting is classic anti-Semitism that is, again, held by very few people. As these conspiracy theories only gained minimal coverage and the theories are not held by anyone with either a) more than three braincells and/or b) a political point to parrot, FRINGE mandates its deletion. Yes, I know DRV is not AfD round 2, but the closure of AFD#1 is so misguided this needs to be said. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, Sceptre, is that they are a lot of people with "less than three braincells" or that have "a political point to parrot", enough people to make these theories notable. A theory can be as idiotic as it can be, yet it can be notable. --Cyclopia^talk 12:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The original AfD should have been closed as delete. Arguments for deletion were stronger and part of the early "keep" votes were based on a now-debunked rumour about Chavez. I have little hope that this DRV will make any difference but I still think this article makes Wikipedia look amateurish, unable to filter substance from noise and happy to report on just about anything so long as it can be tracked to a url. It's being maintained by people who want it deleted but don't want it to turn into something even more ridiculous and embarrassing for the project. It's a liability for Wikpedia's credibility and I'm not going to waste any more time caring: there are better things to do around here. Pichpich (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wish everyone saw it like you. Not only is this article a collection of gossip but it is very detrimental to the quality of Wikipedia..in paper, this article wouldn't exist in a real encyclopedia, I care so much for the quality of Wikipedia and articles like this really add to the reasons why people see Wikipedia as an amateur encyclopedia. In fact there is basically a flooding of articles about conspiracies of pretty much everything. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn the second AfD. The article had undergone a total revision since the first AfD. Regardless of the nominator's reasoning, it was entirely appropriate for another AfD to take place given that most of the content that the keep votes were based on in the original AfD had been moved to other articles or revised. Fences&Windows focused only on the nominator's argument and didn't take this substantial revision into consideration. Following that logic, it would be therefore be acceptable to open a third AfD with this revision as the stated reason for renomination. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure of the first AfD as "no consensus." Very lengthy debate on whether the article's existence gave its subject undue weight and on whether WP:FRINGE resulted in strong arguments from both sides but did not lead to a consensus. One problem which arose was caused by participants who could not evaluate the article for WP:NPOV and WP:V (as opposed to evaluating the fringe theories themselves); the validity of these arguments was questionable, but they did have some good points as well. Many participants in the debate felt that the subject either should not have its own separate article or should not be at its present, possibly misleading title, so at this point a requested move or proposed merger might be a good idea. However, there was no consensus to outright delete this article, so the closing admin made a proper call.

  Endorse closure of the second AfD as "speedy keep." WP:SK criterion 2.1 allows for speedily keeping articles when the deletion nomination is "obviously frivolous or vexatious." This renomination was not frivolous, but it was vexatious. Renominating an article for deletion just days after the previous AfD – which included lengthy and exhaustive debate – was closed can certainly be considered vexatious. So can filing a new AfD instead of a DRV to challenge a closing admin's decision. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Lengthy and exhaustive debate" that is mostly now meaningless given the significant changes to the article that have taken place since. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but presumably the article has only been improved since then. If it has declined in quality, then it follows that you should revert to its previous form. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say it is vexatious?? It would be vexatious if there was no one saying that the deletion was necessary, most editors said it should be deleted. Vexatious is applied only when there is an obvious consensus, when everything points out that the nomination makes no sense..in this case there is a reason there is a why..and is not like i am nominating a well established article, i am nominating a mockery of an article that is shameful to Wikipedia standards.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not to insult you by calling it "vexatious," nor do I mean to imply bad faith on your part. But put yourself in the shoes of those defending the article. From their perspective, returning the article to AfD so quickly must certainly seem vexatious. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse keep. The reason for deletion (expressed more clearly in the second AfD as : "The scientific grounds on tectonic plates are very clear. The so called theories are nothing but not notable gossip invented by some yellow-journalism newspapers in Europe. " ) is totally incorrect within the general patten of Wikipedia. We include notable nonsense. That something is contradicted by science and reason does not mean we do not include information about it. I'd add back the section on Robertson, and by now there's probably some more also. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm absolutely floored that we have this article, based on a bunch of lunatic fringe theories, and that we still have the ability to call ourselves a serious encyclopedia. The arguments for keeping this in the first AfD were not sufficient in my read, and I would overturn the no consensus decision in the first AfD and delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment see Talk:2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories - the DRV nominator opened an RFC on the DRV itself. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the author of Claims of Israeli organ harvesting in Haiti argued on the AfD for that article that the AfD of that isn't being decided on encyclopedic grounds; instead, it's getting "keeps" because the people believe the theory. Seeing as the article is a POV fork of this, we may need to look over AfD#1 to see if there are any people who wanted it kept ostensibly because they believe in the organ-harvesting rumour and/or the HAARP theory. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse keep The claim that these aricle is based only on fringe sources is clearly false. These theories, (while anti-semitic and stupid) are endorsed not only by racists and white supremacists, but also from the national media in the Iran and Syria. Even a senior member of Iran's government has expressed support for the theory. It is certainly notable.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • The same Iranian government that demanded that Israel be wiped off the map? I said the same thing during the "Claims of Israeli organ harvesting" AfD: these people would jump on Israel for destroying the Palestinian rocket industry if a peace plan was ever worked out. It's still a fringe theory, as it's not accepted by anyone who a) has more than three braincells, or b) doesn't have a need to criticise Israel's every action because, dang nabbit, they just don't like them Jews. Sceptre ^(talk) 08:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I would like to see the article gone, because I feel it gives far more attention to baloney theories than what they deserve due to media being drawn to outrageous utterances. Unfortunately, consensus did not support deletion at this point, but hoping that it will change a year from now when it is clear that the coverage is fleeting and fails WP:NOT#NEWS. For the moment I will acquiesce to not reading the article again. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A year?! The article has changed so much since the first AfD that the second one should have been allowed to continue. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Keep The theories are crackpot theories, but they are backed by ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability and this is what the keep close was properly based upon. Alansohn (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the 2nd speedy close? Look how different the article was from the first nomination. Don't you think that's a sufficient reason to allow the second AfD to run its course? --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense. Assuming, arguendo, that the second version was deletable, surely the appropriate response is to revert it to the first, nondeletable, version? If we go by your argument, anyone can edit an article and then renominate it if the first AfD did not reach a result they like, and the new nomination could not be speedily closed. Tim Song (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't a one-off edit we are talking about, the article was substantially revised and has remained so. Sure, if the revisions were spurious and designed to enable another quick AfD, then the reviewing admin would rightly go with a speedy close. But that is the whole point of having a reviewing admin. In this case they should have reviewed the 2nd AfD and decided that as the article had been substantially changed by a number of editors was in a new and different stable format, then the AfD should remain open. --Pontificalibus (talk) 08:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn the early closure. It may have been soon, but I don't think it should be a speedy keep. It should have been allowed to run its course. The first one should have been closed as a delete anyway. The arguments for delete were more persuasive. And no, I didn't !vote in either one. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep, the consensus was pretty clear and renominating an article after six days allows for procedural keeping for WP:NOTAGAIN. Such theories are obviously nonsensical, but they're notable nonsense. --Cyclopia^talk 12:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep Although the subject is distasteful, the supporting sources seem reliable, and it looks like the closing Admin came to the correct conclusion in the AfD(s). --Noleander (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist the first AfD. Although it assessed consensus correctly, it was closed before the minimum discussion period of seven days had elapsed.  Sandstein  14:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep but permit a new AfD, which should be allowed to run the full 7 days no matter how snowy things look. I would have !voted keep in in the first AfD, on the grounds that the existence of and belief in crackpot theories is itself a fact, but that isn't the relevant point here. DES ^(talk) 21:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why let another one run a full seven days? The first one did, and the second one was opened only because the nominator didn't like the outcome of the first, and opened a new discussion less than a week later. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse 1st close as no consensus and endorse second close as SNOW keep First close could have gone keep, delete or no consensus so no consensus was almost certainly the best close. The second one was right after the first and closing early (and referring to DrV as the closer did) seems quite reasonable given the !votes at that time. I'm not a big fan of WP:SNOW in many cases, but I'm fine with it when you're probably in the wrong venue. Hobit (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Imput (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Reason given by deleter (housekeeping) was erroneous. This page was deleted as housekeeping, on the basis that there was no Imput page. In fact, there is such a page (and there was at the time of deletion). I asked the deleter on his talk page to undo the deletion; he replied on my talk page; I followed up back on his and he did not respond. I accept that the content of the talk page might have been minimal or useless, as he says, but that's not a reason for deleting a talk page. Ma^t_chups 04:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No opposition. I'll go along with whatever the community thinks. I did not respond because I was so busy with other things on- and off-wiki. Bearian (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Are we now spending 7 days arguing over the deletion of a useless page? What a productive use of time. Tim Song (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment--the problem here is that it is obvious that this page used to exist and any editor with interest in this is going to wonder what the heck was going on. My concern is not so much with the junk itself, but with reducing confusion. Ma^t_chups 12:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• There were exactly two edits to the page. The first was a message asking not to delete the page, totaling 46 bytes. The second was a user adding a CSD tag to the page. Bearian is correct that these are not useful edits. Regardless of whether or not it needed to be deleted, it is not worth our time to restore it. Endorse. Cheers. lifebaka++ 07:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse No, it didn't strictly fit the CSD criterion G8. However, it was totally useless, to the point of a redlink being better than what it contained, so I'll endorse as a valid exercise of admin discretion under CSD G6. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy deletion, even though it hardly matters. WP:CSD#G8 did not apply because Imput was redirected, not deleted. As for WP:CSD#G6, I see no reason at all why an admin would bother to delete this under that criterion. I went through WP:DEL#REASON to be sure. Copyvio? No. Vandalism? No. Spam? No. BLP problems? No. WP:TPG tells us to archive talk pages rather than deleting them, and WP:CSD tells us that admins should speedily delete only in the most obvious cases. Well, there was no legitimate reason to delete this talk page, and it certainly wasn't an obvious case. Although this may be much ado about nothing, the deletion was improper. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been discussions as to whether or not G8 applies to pages such as this, actually. There isn't really consensus on the point. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, that only bolsters the argument that G8 should not have been used here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn speedy, take it to MfD, , but the alternative is to merge the content into the talk page for "Input". DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• DGG, is there more content than what Lifebaka reported above? If there wasn't, what point is there in merging a request not to delete the page or a CSD tag into Talk:Input, which clearly is not in danger of going anywhere? Assuming those two edits are all that were there, would restoring this to be ran through MfD not be just process for process' sake? Someone PROD'ded the Imput article, which someone else contested; and I'd reasonably suspect also added the "do not delete" message to the talk page. The Imput page was, one minute later, converted into a redirect, an action the de-prodder was informed of. In the end analysis, if someone wants to go through the process of history merging the old edits with the current talk-redirect, then, so be it, but what do we gain in the process? (And a MfD would be overkill in the extreme here. If this is restored, hopefully someone will either restore the talk-redirect (a practice I don't care for) or tag it with some WikiProject tag and call it a day.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. We need to stop wasting time on things like this. JBsupreme (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Speedy deletion is not the place for "creative solutions". Sincw it bypasses discussion and consensus, it shou;ld be used only for the most obvious and clearcut cases, and only for things strictly within the letter of the WP:CSD IMO. No onw would have bothered with a deletion discussion of this, nor, i hope, would such a hypothetical discussion have resulted in a delete. Plenty of talk pages have very little content, but that is not a reason to delete them. DES ^(talk) 21:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Why the hell are we even discussing this? The deleted edits are of no use whatsoever. Process-wonkery at its worst. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I'd ask "why the heck it ever got deleted and why it wasn't restored by the closing admin on request once it was found to be deleted in error?" Hobit (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• restore I can't see any valid speedy here. Mistakes get made, but I don't understand why it wasn't just undeleted on request. Hobit (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn and give the deleting admin a slap for suggesting to bring it here. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]