Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Instructions

Steps to list a new deletion review

  1. Follow this link to today's log.
  2. Copy the following line to add a new entry:
    {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=ARTICLE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~
  3. Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page:
    {{subst:DRVNote|ARTICLE_NAME}} ~~~~.

Commenting in a deletion review

In the deletion review discussion, users should opt to

  • Endorse the original closing decision; or
  • Relist on the relevant deletion process (usually Articles for deletion); or
  • Overturn the original decision and, optionally an (action) per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. In the case of a kept article, the default (action) associated with overturning is clearly delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum.

If there is a consensus to endorse a decision, then no further action is taken — the decision stands. If there is a consensus to overturn a decision and apply some other result to the debate, it is applied.

Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the (action) specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

[edit] Decisions to be reviewed

Active discussions
Recent discussions
Archived discussions

[edit] 12 December 2006

[edit] Sorin Cerin

Sorin Cerin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — {AfD}

This article was deleted on December 3 with conclusion: "Deletion endorse among established editors" because the article was very poor in information.After that time we recreate another article,with more information and now we beleive that article is good to be in Wikipedia.The new article was deleted on December 11 with conclusion:"the article must to go first through deletion review again"Alinaro 08:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn deletion. A forced DRV only applies if someone wants to repost deleted content. The new version of the article (before it was redeleted by Jmabel) asserts notability by national news coverage, which the originally deleted version didn't. - Mgm|(talk) 09:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn per MgM and cleanup. Zocky | picture popups 11:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn per above. Said it perfectly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn You can't delete an article with the same reasoning if it's substantially different. Xiner 17:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armeniapedia

Armeniapedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)

Article was definitely not a candidate for speedy deletion. If the deleting admin believed there was no assertion of notability as stated in the deletion log, then he or she should have listed it immediately through AfD, which is standard and proper procedure, rather than delete unilaterally without discussion or notification. metaspheres 08:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: WP:CSD A7 is for exactly this: articles that do not even assert notability can be speedied without AfD. And I didn't "believe" there was no assertion of notability; I saw there was no such assertion, I don't need AfD to tell me that much. BTW, as a courtesy to interested editors I even notified the Armenian noticeboard in advance, which I wouldn't have been required to do. But anyway, I'll be happy to provide you with a copy of the deleted material if you want to work on it and improve it (although I'm skeptical). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Fut. Perf. is quite right. There was no notability asserted. It did however have 3 links to the same domain where one would've sufficed. Sounds like spam. - Mgm|(talk) 09:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion Please read WP:CSD A7 again. Then read it a third time. Dragging an utterly non-notable wiki to DRV after a perfectly valid speedy is ill advised. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 15:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment would somebody please delete Urdu Wikipedia as well? There is no assertion of notability there as well. Tizio 17:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom Imaging Systems

Freedom Imaging Systems (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (AfD)

This article was removed under the rule CSD A7 by Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh On 19 November 2006. The reasons for this were it not being notable. Comments included its lack on mention on websites such as Forbes. What is required to prove notability, and who decides?

See also: [1]

  • Endorse deletion, read WP:ORG and WP:WEB please. -Amarkov blahedits 02:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn deletion I found at least one third-party non-company reliable source, see "Ex-files" which means this entry has the potential to satisfy WP:CORP. Deletion was definitely a hasty a decision and the user should have received notification of the standards needed for the article to pass muster. Endless blue 21:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Then just write a new article. A7 doesn't care if something is notable, it cares if the article asserts such. If it does not, it gets deleted. There's no prejudice against creating a new article that does assert notability. -Amarkov blahedits 21:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I hear you, but I'm not the author, and the author requested more than restatement of policy that does not apply in this article's case. I'll put something on their talk page. Endless blue 22:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Tuesday, 12 December
  • Endorse because the deleted version was awfully like an ad. It was promotional in tone and wording, with how many products now offered, etc. In other words, undeletion of this article would be to reinstate an article that violates the deletion policy pretty clearly both in terms of lack of reliable sources and for being an ad. The fact that the company could be covered just puts us back to the "article needed" stage. I do not think this is a cleanup case: this is a rewrite from scratch case. Geogre 10:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Circle Square Ranch

Circle Square Ranch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)

Not a commercial page, only meant to inform viewers about the company. It's a non profit organization, they don not advertize on wiki. I was a volunteer there onece just thought i would make a page, cause i love wikipedia. If I broke a rule please explain it to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.1.163.100 (talk • contribs).

  • Informing people about a company is exactly the same as advertising even if you don't call it that. To be listed on Wikipedia it has to be notable (i.e. covered by independant third party reliable sources). Being famous for something is not required but helps. - Mgm|(talk) 09:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse if AfD: This isn't a speedy deletion candidate, but it is an article that violates the deletion policy. "No advertising" is one of our most important principles at Wikipedia. We can't promote even the things that a majority support, and so we can't be used to announce or promote awareness of even non-profit and humanitarian organizations. Instead, we report on things already reported on by multiple others. Geogre 10:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Stabbin

Captain Stabbin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

- I believe the Captain should be re-put, for the reasons i stated on the talk page of the article. I am not from a porn company, i merely tried to add an informative article on the subject of a porn start who is notable amongst young men, particularly college students. The Captain is notable for these reasons, and the article therefore conforms to wiki policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captainstabbin (talk • contribs).

  • Which part of WP:PORNBIO does he fulfill? Also, note that autobiographies are discouraged. If you're not him, you should pick another name. - Mgm|(talk) 09:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion': There is no claim whatever, no reference, to indicate "fame." This is an Internet porn star? It looks like a school boy prank page. It also looks like the worst form of misogyny, but that's irrelevant. Vanity, A7: entirely appropriate delete. Geogre 10:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just Dial Communications

Just Dial Communications (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article has been deleted for spamming. The article was providing information about corporation's history. Please review the talk page for the deleted version. Thanks for the comments, I will rewrite the article with references explaining why the company is not just another communication company, but an organization which should be included in wikipedia pages.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Tuesday, 12 December
  • Endorse deletion. Try reading WP:ORG and WP:EL. - Mgm|(talk) 09:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: the page was recreated (no reason to assume anything but good faith). I redeleted it and left a note on the user's talk page explaining what's going on. Zocky | picture popups 11:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bob rae posed 2006 campaign.JPG

Image:Bob rae posed 2006 campaign.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Attempts to replace this with original content have been made, all failing. Because a random Wikinewsie applied to attend a Liberal event early the campaign, and didn't show up, we ended up banned from this weekend's leadership vote. None of the flickr photos of Rae are CC-BY, I've yet to hear back from anyone I contacted, urging relicensing.

Rae will either become the leader of the federal opposition party, and be extremely hard to get a hold of; unless he becomes Prime Minister, there will likely be no free images of him. Or he will lose, and disappear into private retirement. Unless we secretly have Wikipedian who holds membership to elite Canadian country clubs, forget it.

Additionally, this is a politician. It doesn't inflict on sales of anything, because he doesn't sell anything.

Finally, his press relations manager personally encouraged the image's usage. Until Monday, there's no hope in heck I'd be able to converse with them, to ask them to relicense the image, due to the busy last minute campaigning. -- Zanimum 22:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm missing something here. Are you saying that if he becomes leader of the federal opposition, he'll become a recluse? Why will no one be able to take a photo of him in that situation? If he does disappear into private retirment then the issue of availability of free images can be readdressed, now is premature --pgk 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
No, if he becomes the leader of the opposition, he'll be so booked by shadow cabinet meetings, national publications and stations, etc., that he won't have time for the little people. When was the last time you saw Bill Graham at an event? Yes, he's interim, but so what. Can we not just undelete, and then discuss this on Monday? -- Zanimum 02:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
People will still be able to take photos, he'll still make "public" appearances, taking a photo doesn't have to be posed or one on one. The image was originally deleted over a month ago, we've had over a month to replace it and no one has bothered, I can't see what difference a couple of days without an image would make. --pgk 07:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
If you eliminate (a) all the events that are $100 a plate, (b) only for the registered media, (c) only for Liberal members, you're not left with a lot. The only opportunity to see Bob publicly, for free, was in Toronto at 8 am on a Thursday, and on a Friday in Ottawa from 3 to 5 pm, at the Slovenian Canadian Club of Calgary, and in Cupar, Saskatchewan, which is in the middle of no where. He's trying to attract a very limited bunch of people, the Liberal delegates. Thus he has no need to be freely accessible to folks like us. -- Zanimum 15:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
He'll still be appearing in places the public can attend and take photos, again it doesn't need to be a posed shot or a one on one. Why you eliminate (a) and (c) I'm not sure anyway, are we saying the being a Liberal member and being able to take a photo for use on wikipedia are mututally exclusive? The policy on replaceable fair use says nothign about replacement images needing to be taken for zero cost. --pgk 15:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
That list is to prove that almost all of the events on his tour of Canada were inaccessible to Canadian Wikipedians. They were members-only or expensive. Do you see anyone that's willing to spend $100 dollars for one photo? -- Zanimum 14:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Again the criteria says nothing about cost or willingness of any given individual to meet that cost. The person will still be appearing in public and will still be able to have his photo taken, and indeed you can still persue getting an "official" image released under an appropriate license. I assume this individual doesn't get out of cars with a blanket over their head as they get shuffled into buildings with blacked out windows with individuals searched to remove photographic equipment, they aren't a recluse. Your list doesn't "prove" anything regarding unavailability of a photo or ability to take one. As to the general principle is someone willing to pay $100 to get a given photo, if not then I guess the photo simply isn't that important to the article. --pgk 15:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
If someone took a picture of a unicorn, but kept it under copyright, you'd say we couldn't use it? Because "oh, we can just send a photographer to Antartica to wander around for five months to take a free alternative". Correct? -- Zanimum 18:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Well putting aside that unicorns don't actually exist, then I can't see what this has to do with anything. Bob Rae isn't a recluse hiding out in Antarctica, he is a public figure, he appears in public regularly, I would guess he probably even has a fairly public diary. Go to flickr and people have photos of him, (they aren't licensing them under a suitable license) they undoubtdly have managed to take photos of him, why those people can manage to but you reckon no one else in the world will be able to is beyond me. If your unicorn appeared in public regularly, then yes it would fail replaceable fair use, if it cost $100 to get the picture, it would still fail replaceable fair use. For sports personalities in such situations we say people can go to a game and take a photo, they can indeed cost $100 or more to do. --pgk 19:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Tuesday, 12 December

[edit] Image:CRIIRADmap.gif

Image:CRIIRADmap.gif (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Has been deleted on the claims that one Wikipedia could draw the same map. First, this would be a breach of copyright, since the map would be copied from the CRIIRAD's map without even stating it. Second, since this map is relevant to the Chernobyl catastrophe and has thus scientifical implications, clearly it carries no weight if drawn by an anonym user (be him a known Wikipedian). Lapaz 15:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone could have copied the information from that map (the coordinates of the dots) and incorporated that same information into a PD map of France. It looks to me like this deletion was proper. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Tuesday, 12 December
  • Comment - I'm not sure simply copying the coordinates from this map would clear copyright issues. As I understand cartography copyright, we would need a new map constructed from the same data, if it's available in a published source. Zocky | picture popups 11:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 11 December 2006

[edit] Template:User UBXEssay

Template:User UBXEssay (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)

Inappropriate Application of T1. Cyde claims that this is "divisive" which is just a thinly veiled excuse to force another userbox to User space. The template and the essay that it refer to are intended to help editors think about the userbox discussions in an informative, albeit somewhat humorous, fashion. This template and its inclusion on user pages is not divisive, but conciliatory. It has done a great deal of good in bringing people to see each other's points of view on this Wiki issue more openly. Forcing this particular template to user space will lessen the effectiveness of the discussion because several of those involved in the discussion believe that this is exactly the sort of template that should be allowed to remain in Template. Forcing them all to User is inflammatory in and of itself. In any case, a speedy delete per T1 was rushed and probably inappropriate. NThurston 20:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This user has read the essay on userbox personalities and might be a Monday, 11 December.

Users can put whatever categorization they prefer in place of "Centrist." --NThurston 20:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


  • Thanks. Do not endorse deletion, but see no major issue with it being in userspace as it is now. Certainly wasn't a T1, in any regard, but it continues to exist, so there doesn't appear to be a problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: Remember this is about process, not necessarily outcomes. The question is whether Cyde should have used Speedy Delete (T1). In my opinion, T1 was mis-applied. At a minimum, this should have gone to MfD, where a discussion about Template vs. User could have taken place. As is, Cyde is imposing a userfication that may or may not be justified, and this case in particular shows why that imposition is not appropriate while the discussion on userboxes continues. --NThurston 21:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, DRV is necessarily about outcomes. When an incorrect process gives a possibly-incorrect result, DRV is empowered to correct it. If an incorrect process produces the right result, then we have nothing to do - correcting the process is beyond the scope of DRV. Chris cheese whine 02:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion while I'm here. This didn't belong in Template space -- any reference to the userbox war in template space is an automatic T1. Properly userfied, where it belongs. Xoloz 21:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Xoloz, that was exactly what I was thinking when I got rid of it. --Cyde Weys 21:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse userfication. Boarderline T1, but nothing is gained by undeleting since clearly should be in User rather than Template space. Eluchil404 22:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse userfication and deletion If it was properly userfied I have no issues with the deletion. CharonX/talk 23:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • And theoretically, even if it wasn't properly userfied, then userfying it should be the outcome of a debate like this, not restoring it as a template. --Cyde Weys 23:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Of course. If it had not been userfied before deletion my "issue" would have been that it had not been userfied before deletion. Okay, now that sounded weird. CharonX/talk 23:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • FYI, the box already exists at User:Royalguard11/userboxes/UBX essay. Userfied (and ironic, concidering it's about a userbox personality essay). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse status quo. This is precisely the sort of thing that should be out of Template: and into userspace, which is precisely what happened. Precisely how it happened is none of our concern. Chris cheese whine 02:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse userfication, since little is gained by having two copies of the same userbox. However, I state for the record that T1 shouldn't have been used as the criterion for deletion (it was not, as far as I know, actually causing any divisions or controversy amongst the community); it would have been easy enough just to use its redundancy as the reason for deletion. CameoAppearance orate 03:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy and delete It's the right thing to do. Some of the other comments here can be less harsh in tone, though. Xiner 03:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - it's not an appropriate use of template space to promote userspace content. By the way, the image of the "World's Smallest Political Quiz" is obviously mistagged (I will correct it) and is a non-free image. It should not be used in userspace. BigDT 05:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't care if it is in template namespace or userspace. Note: this template is an exact copy from the one in userspace, originally by the same editor. - Mgm|(talk) 08:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse. It's already been userfied, so I've no problem with kicking it out of templatespace. jgp TC 09:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Request to Close Since it is apparent that a consensus is emerging, I see no point in furthering this discussion. However, I would like to note that there is some feeling that Cyde did mis-apply T1 in this case. I presume he used T1 because there was no other criterion to justify Speedy Delete. So, the bottom line is - yeah, maybe it shouldn't have been a Speedy Delete, but "oh well" the outcome is not that bad, so what the hay. While there is something fundamental about this approach to editing that bothers me, I accept that this is the consensus. --NThurston 14:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment to NThurston - What an incredibly arrogant and bad faith assertion you make above. Simply because you don't like the rules doesn't mean Cyde is abusing them. It's divisive because it invokes that pile of crap people call the userbox war. It was in template space. Kindly explain to me using logic and not "Gee I'm going to make a wild accusation of Cyde making up a reason to delete my thingie". --ElaragirlTalk|Count 15:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply to Elaragirl - I have responded on your talk page. To the rest - I think you should know that Royalguard has done more to calm the userbox war than the rest of us put together. The personality essay has helped to bring people together, not drive us apart. He deserves some credit and/or recognition for being willing to talk about what makes us different. Understanding is the key to progress. --NThurston 15:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion/userfy - no reason for this to be in existence as a template. Moreschi 15:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Xiner/Userboxes/Pro-Life Pro-Abortion

User:Xiner/Userboxes/Pro-Life Pro-Abortion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)

I'm shocked that the page was deemed inflammatory, when I didn't disparage anyone but am just stating what many pro-choice people believe, that we're pro-life, too. If the page is T1 then so is every pro-life page that is against choice, b/c they're saying we're against life. I'd also have liked a notice on my talk page about the deletion and about my "inflammatory" behavior, because if I'm guilty of such behavior, I should be warned against it. Xiner 02:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit: I just realized how difficult it is for anyone to form an opinion about this case if they don't know the original text. It was, as I recall, a userbox saying "Abortion|This user is pro-life and pro-choice". I wrote it with WP:GUS in mind. I hope no one got defensive about my mentioning the violence against abortion clinics? Xiner 17:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Edit: I have not seen a cogent argument for speedily deleting my page. I thus feel Dmcdevit abused his admin privileges in this case and has filed a grievance at the appropriate page. Xiner 17:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. "I'm just stating what I believe" doesn't keep something from being inflammatory. Please direct me to these other pages you're complaining about so I can nominate them for deletion. -Amarkov blahedits 02:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pro-Life_Wikipedians is a prominent example of what I'm talking about, and openly too while my page sat in my user space. I am also complaining about the speedy deletion that took place. While you promised to nominate the pro-lifer pages for deletion, my page was deleted without a whimper. Xiner 02:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    WP:INN is a good essay to read in this case. This is a wiki, and deletion is necessarily inconsistent, if only because rightfully deleting one thing does not obligate someone to undertake rightfully deleting everything of the same type. If you actually want that page deleted, that's another thing, but its existence offers no argument for keeping your page. Dmcdevit·t 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    When I found the pro-lifer category, I wanted to nominate it for deletion, but decided to present a balancing view instead, which is now removed from Wikipedia. I'm waiting for Amarkov to do something about that page now. Xiner 04:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    I assumed they were like yours. They are just like the standard pro-choice userbox, which wasn't deleted. -Amarkov blahedits 05:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    I knew it. The only differences between mine and theirs is that theirs is in Template and Category while mine is in my userspace, and theirs implies I'm against life while mine just says everyone is pro-life. Can I say Biased Admin? Xiner 14:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    Since you won't do it, I've listed the related categories for renaming. Xiner 22:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia aims for neutrality, and templates used for transcluding POV advocacy and organizing Wikipedians by POV serve no productive purpose. That is why this userbox was deleted as divisive. Dmcdevit·t 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    No, my page says an abortion supporter also supports life, while the pro-lifers' page implies I'm against life. Which is divisive? I'd also argue that deleting my page removes an inclusive point of view and is thus a divisive act itself. Xiner 04:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter what your POV advocacy was, just that it was. Dmcdevit·t 09:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    Funny the only thing you've said is that my page violates something. How about a substantive debate? Xiner 14:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, provided that the content was something along the lines of "This user is pro-choice" and not "This user supports the slaughter of unborn babies". It was in userspace, and WP:GUS was applied for userboxes of a political or religious nature. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    Exactly. My page falls under GUS while their pages fall under Template namespace rules. Apparently some admins find "This user is pro-life and pro-choice" inflammatory. Xiner 14:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, list at TfD. Speedy may have been proper, but it seems controversial enough where a better hearing should probably happen. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you for admitting at least that much. May I ask why I can't say I support life? Xiner 15:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't really care what you state, honestly. But if it's obviously this controversial, you should be able to make your case in the proper forum. I don't know how it was worded at the time of deletion, so I don't want to make any real judgement calls. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete It makes me wonder what made this userbox so obnoxious and vile that it required speedy deletion. If Dmcdevit feels this box should be gone he should take it to MfD rather than going straight for the delete button. CharonX/talk 16:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment So that people know what is at issue, here is the most recent version of this deleted usebox:
Choice This user is pro-life and pro-abortion.


- TexasAndroid 17:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Undelete not so inflamatory as to be a speedy candidate in userspace. Should be deleted through MfD instead. Eluchil404 18:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and send to MfD, that userbox isn't inflammatory enough to warrant a T1 deletion. Better to send it to a deletion debate rather than delete it outright, because this would definitely be a controversial issue. --Coredesat 19:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete per Jimbo: "The middle ground is to let people do as they will in the user space, and merely use reason and argument to teach people over time why one ought not use Wikipedia userpages for political or other campaigns.... while at the same time saying, no, really, the template namespace is not for that." (from WP:JOU) -GTBacchus(talk) 19:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete per GTBacchus. T1 should not be applied to userfied userboxes. --NThurston 20:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete as I did. I've been off-wiki for a while, so I had no clue this was already here when I restored it as a simple mistake. Seeing now that it is, I must support undeletion. The box is userfied. T1 deletions of userfied content are very bad, as they threat to reignite the Userbox Wars. If a userfied box is egregiously bad, it will violate G10, and may be speedied. This box doesn't so violate, and deserves a hearing at MfD. Xoloz 21:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete Having now seen the deleted userbox, this does not merit a T1 deletion, especially in userspace. MfD is optional in my mind, so I really don't care whether it receives an MfD nomination. GRBerry 21:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn & Undelete as a WP:GUSed userbox. Honestly, this was suppose to solve all of this, not just delay inevitable deletion. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Send to MfD. I think the correct result originally happened (POV advocacy is bad regardless of which side is doing it), but I think enough people object that a debate is warranted. Chris cheese whine 02:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    But it's ok to say you "will not stand for American 'English' (common grammatical and spelling errors mistaken for dialect)"? Xiner 02:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    Damn straight. You did read the big bright bold messages at the top of my userpage, right? Chris cheese whine 02:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    But mine, well, that's another story. Xiner 03:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    My non-template patently-humorous box can stay while your template-in-userspace deadly-serious POV box might have to go, that's so obviously discrimination. Here, have a cookie. Chris cheese whine 03:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    What to someone is "patently-humorous" may not be to someone else. If you think my userbox is deadly serious, you're sadly mistaken. Xiner 04:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Undelete; T1 is not a valid criterion for the speedy deletion of userfied userboxes. Perhaps put it on MfD instead, since its content seems at least somewhat objectionable, but T1 does not apply. CameoAppearance orate 03:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. I don't see anything particularly inflammatory about this box. It shows someone can be pro-abortion and pro-life at the same time. It actually tries to stop those inflammatory situations that arise from who think they're mutually exclusive. - Mgm|(talk) 08:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Undelete. If it's in userspace, it shouldn't be deleted. jgp TC 09:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hm: This was undeleted quite a while ago, with no objection from me. Please spend your time doing something more useful before looking at this. :-) Dmcdevit·t 09:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Request to close per Dmcdevit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the only reason you've stopped objecting to the undeletion is the overwhelming consensus of your peers. I still think it's an abuse of adminship, but regardless, this case itself is due for an end. Xiner 15:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Undelete, MfD please if you want to. - Mailer Diablo 18:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Halo2Leagues.com

Halo2Leagues.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)

This page is not spam, we are posting information about a free leagues website. If MLG has the right to a page we should also have that same right. CBTS Pennywise1 16:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion per sixth word of the above nomination, Wikipedia is not the place to promote your site. No version of the article asserted notability despite repeated recreation, let alone verified it with reference to non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. No-one has the "right" to a page, see WP:INN. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • See WP:ILIKEIT, that one article exists is not automatic permission for any article on the same subject to stay around... if whatever MLG is doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines, feel free to nominate it for deletion. --W.marsh 17:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn deletion - the page was actually up for about a week or two before it was deleted, so deleting it then was a little harsh. Regarding verification and reliable sources - I own the site, so anything quoted on that page can be sourced from the site - most of the info is on the "About H2L" page. I feel that information that appears on our site which describes it, it's purpose, features and history should be included in an encyclopedia, as it is worthy content. And also MLG was nominated for deletion before, but managed to remain after it was voted to keep the page. Can I also add - if you guys seem to think that our page the way it was didn't comply with your views - how should we create it so that it will be worthy of being in the encyclopedia? --- TheChrisD, Halo2Leagues.com Head Organiser 18:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, this was a valid A7. Also per W.marsh, WP:COI, WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:INN. --Coredesat 19:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, valid CSD A7 and WP:COI issue. --Kinu t/c 00:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per WP:NOT and yes, this is spam. Xiner 03:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 10 December 2006

[edit] fixity of the species

Fixity of the species (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)

The article was originally called linnaean lawn when it was proposed for deletion. After being moved to fixity of the species, a more commonly used name, and more was added to the article, it was not reconsidered as a legitimate article by the many who agreed to delete the article. The article now meets all the wikipedia criteria (although, much more can be added). Furthermore, some who agreed to delete the article appeared to be confused as to the difference between "merging" and "deleting". Pbarnes 05:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion. Valid close, and you admit that the delete !voters didn't consider it legitimate after the changes. -Amarkov blahedits 05:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I admit what??? I said they didn't reconsider there votes. They assumed it was the same article as before with the same title as before. How in the world did you conclude "you admit that the delete !voters didn't consider it legitimate after the changes." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pbarnes (talk • contribs) 05:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
      • You may be right, but you may also be wrong. Maybe they did reconsider it. Either way, there was nothing wrong with the process. -Amarkov blahedits 05:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse valid process, and with only 84 Googles I see no pressing reason to spend too much time agonising further over this. If someone wants to make it a redirect to creationism or something then that should be uncontroversial. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - Closure was valid per procedure and policy. Doc Tropics 20:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ned Raggett

[edit] Pingus

Pingus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)
This article has been undeleted in the light of more evidence produced. Evidence as to the notability of the article was not present either on the AfD discussion or the page itself. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Notable Linux game. Has been mentioned in many industry publications, online and offline, e.g. linux.about.com, UnixReview.com, CNN.com. It was Game of the Month [3] at the Linux Game Tome, arguably the most notable online Linux game website. If we have any Linux open source games at all, then we should certainly have Pingus -- it is among the most well known ones. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pingus did not show any consensus to delete.--Eloquence* 00:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn deletion. "Admin discretion" doesn't mean "delete whatever you feel like if you disagree with people who want it kept", or "Ignore given sources if you don't like them". -Amarkov blahedits 02:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn Notability is established here, and the AfD did not produce anything remotely close to consensus. -- Kicking222 03:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, but undelete. The sources offered here were not offered in the AfD, which means that, for once, I can endorse a NHN closure, but we obviously came to the close without the full information that made it apparent that it meets standards, so it should be undeleted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, but undelete due to new evidence (sources). AfD was pretty much WP:ILIKEIT voting, DRV nom thankfully is not. --W.marsh 15:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist as there are enough sources mentioned here that weren't mentioned in the AFD to merit reconsideration. GRBerry 22:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Undelete. We've already proven notability. jgp TC 09:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tourette's Guy

[edit] The_Irascible_Professor

The_Irascible_Professor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)

This article was deleted with apparent disregard for the consensus to keep. Furthermore, the reason for deletion (no substantial case for notability), appears to ignore the discussion in which two third-party reliable sources were presented to satisfy WP:WEB. Overturn. dryguy 16:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse (my own) deletion. The two 'sources' referred to, [6] and [7] are trivial mentions; the first merely cites the blog as a source and the second recommends reading a particular post from the blog (it is not a review of the whole blog) halfway down a very brief article. Apart from that the AfD contained the usual 'this Google number is big' and other assorted armwaving. AfD is not a vote. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. What is it with the feeling that an article must be kept if there is any reason to believe someone might be theoretically able to source it at some undetermined point in the future? Unsourced things get deleted. -Amarkov blahedits 21:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9 December 2006

[edit] Rachael Ray Sucks

Rachael Ray Sucks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)

The AfD on the above article was speedily closed by Zoe (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves), with the explanation "NN blogs (it's on Livejournal) and attack pages both qualify for speedy deletion". Regarding the non-notability: the article asserted that the site was covered by Slate, Newsweek, The New York Times, and USA Today. Those are all "non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", which means that the article met WP:WEB. Whether the site is hosted by LiveJournal is immaterial. Rachael Ray Sucks also didn't qualify for G10 because it was not an attack in itself: it merely reported an attack site. Writing about an insult does not repeat the insult. This means that the article didn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. I request reopening the AfD, to assess some kind of community consensus. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 21:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion - non-notable attack site. Newyorkbrad 21:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is an attack site. But what matters is whether it was an attack article. Attack articles qualify for G10, articles about attack sites do not. And how is it non-notable with the outside coverage? (Yes, it needs referencing, but that's no ground for speedy deletion.) Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 21:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn per nom. Seems to meet the relevant standards, but certainly shouldn't have been speedied. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn G10 covers articles that only attack a subject, not articles about websites that do so. If/when sent through AfD, it'll probably end up being deleted anyway, but that's neither here nor there. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Allow AfD to run its course. Not an unambiguous speedy. Guy (Help!) 10:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Article never even alleged notability, it's not even on its own website, it's a Livejournal blog, there's nothing notable about it, and therefore it clearly fails WP:WEB. There were four sentences, nothing which talks about the website itselft, no sources except to the site itself and to the place where the quote from Rachael Ray about the site came from. Speedy endorse deletion (I was the most recent deleter). User:Zoe|(talk) 21:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The article asserted notability in the sentence "The community has been mentioned in newspapers including Slate, Newsweek, The New York Times, and USA Today." That meets WP:WEB criterion 1: "The content [of the site] has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." And per WP:CSD: "If the assertion is controversial ..., the article should be nominated for AfD instead." Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 22:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist - Contrary to what Aecis is saying, it does not meet the notibility criteria sited. It was not the subject of the articles, but rather a passing reference. However, per JzG, it is not a unanimous/unambiguous speedy, and should have let the AfD go. - JNighthawk 06:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist. Notability is asserted, so it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. jgp TC 09:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mandarin emperor style dildo

[edit] Heather Poe

Heather Poe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), AfD

0942 PT Dec 9, 2006 Heater Poe is the life partner of Mary Cheney (daughter of VP Dick Cheney). It was announced this week that they are expecting a baby. She is mentioned several times in the Mary Cheney article. When you pull her up in Google there is a lot about her and photographs of her. She is important as she is one of the first openly gay spouses invited to the White House for State Dinners - (I.E. The recption for the Prince of Wales). She also helped co-auther Mary Cheney's book "Mine Turn" and has several chapters about her in the book. Her name is [[]] in the article and when I tried to expand it twice it was remove as being NON REVLEVANT. I think anyone with so many google pages, on the front pages of newspapers and in a current best selling book is revelent and should have an article on them. (By the way the comments from the remover were really in combative and natsy tone) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sfphotocraft (talk • contribs).

  • Why not just redirect to Mary Cheney? It's what we usually do with family of notable people, and it wouldn't need a DRV to just make a redirect. Also I don't see what comments from any of the 3 people who deleted this article had a "combative and nasty tone". --W.marsh 17:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion AFD consensus was clear and obvious. Nothing in the nomination indicates that she has any notability other than being the partner of a daughter of the current VP of the U.S. By our standards, the VP automatically merits an article, their children have to do something publicly notable to get an article, and the spouses/partners of those children really have to meet WP:BIO all on their own. De-redlinking the name in the Mary Cheney article would help prevent more attempts from recreation. GRBerry 02:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, but create redirect The AfD closure from ~6 months ago was obviously valid, and the person does not have any notability of her own. However, there's certainly no reason her name can't redirect to Mary Cheney's article. -- Kicking222 03:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, redirect and protect: I'll do it, if others won't. At this point, the name is going to be entered into the search box with increasing regularity ("Mary Cheney's Partner Pregnant! Film at 11:00!"), so we both need the redirect and need to prevent homophobes and ... others ... scribbling on the spot. (I'll do it meself.) Geogre 13:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Cheney's the pregnant one, not Poe. Fan-1967 00:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I suppose that shows my interest in the President Vice President's Verbotten daughter's reproduction. Geogre 12:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist at AfD. Circumstances have changed considerably, and it should probably get a new hearing with that in mind. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Geogre. She has no independent notability and can easily be covered in Mary Cheney's article. Eluchil404 18:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Both the relationship and issues raised by the current situation make this topic noteworthy. Did the request originate with her?FasterPussycatWooHoo 16:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Brother - Big Business

[edit] SheezyArt

SheezyArt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)

I closed the AfD for the article and speedy deleted it due to CSD A7, but since even those who supported speedy deletion mentioned it had a decent Alexa rank, and also due to requests, I'm placing this on review. Personally I still think it is a borderline speedy candidate. (Note that the article used to be titled Sheezyart, and was apparently copy-and-pasted to SheezyArt last year.) Kimchi.sg 00:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion, valid A7, Alexa ranks are not indicators of notability. Will reconsider if notability is asserted and verified through multiple non-trivial reliable sources. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Sam Blanning. I actually had an account there once, amazingly enough, but I can attest to its non-notability. There isn't anything in the article itself that suggests that WP:WEB is met in any way. --Coredesat 02:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • We are talking about a site that now exceeds 100,000 members; would you consider a city of that size "non-notable"? Do you assert "non-notability" on the grounds that you did not enjoy your experience? Or simply based on the fact that the site is non-commercial unlike archives such as deviantART? Even that would be a spurious argument, as I can provide you upon request with the URLs for many artists who make a living off of their art who make use of SheezyArt. I suggest you justify your claim further, especially considering that you were a member. Exactly when were you a member--from what date to what date? What exactly did you find non-notable besides your dislike for the site? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.21.218.60 (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
      • Membership isn't a measure of notability, either. While I was there I did not see anything that showed that the site was very widely known or notable in any way aside from the number of members (granted, this was some time ago, but as far as I can tell, it still applies). Whether I can say it's notable or not, it doesn't solve the problem that the deleted article did not meet the standards in WP:WEB. --Coredesat 22:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Cities cannot be equated to websites, simply due to the fact that the latter isn't bound by a physical location and is therefore easier to grow to 100,000 people. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Alexa ranking doesn't mean automatic notability, and besides, A7 says "that do not assert notability", so if the article didn't mention anything which would make it notable, it's valid anyway. -Amarkov blahedits 02:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per everyone above. Not just does Alexa ranking not confer notability, but the site's Alexa ranking is in the 28,000s, which isn't that high to begin with. If no importance was asserted, then there's no reason not to speedy the article. -- Kicking222 03:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] R G C Levens

R G C Levens (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)

I wrote a stub about the Merton Classics don, R G C Levens (Robert Levens) which was twice speedily deleted for notoriety. As he was well known at the time for his school edition of Cicero Verrine V how do I get the entry restored if such arbitrary methods are used? Alternately someone might provide a fuller entry----Clive Sweeting

  • Endorse deletion. He isn't notable, despite being the editor of some random Latin textbook. -Amarkov blahedits 14:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Can we have a link to the AfD debate, if any. If speedied without debate, the decision is impossible for non-admins without access to the article to evaluate. Newyorkbrad 19:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The entirety of the article said R G C Levens (Robert Levens)( - ) was Classical Moderations Tutor at Merton College, Oxford in the mid twentieth century. Married to the theatrical producer Daphne Levens (née Yarnold) he was particularly well known for his school edition of Cicero, Verrine Oration V. His only son, Andrew, was killed as an undergraduate in a traffic accident in Russia.. No claims of notability whatsoever. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
" particularly well known " is a claim of notability, albeit somewhat strained. Rich Farmbrough, 13:16 10 December 2006 (GMT).
We have gone over this many many times. If somebody writes "Joe Blow is particularly well known for his large penis and his way with the ladies", I can't speedy delete it? Be realistic. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
That would more than likely be blatant vandalism. This, of course, is not analogous. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion Not notable. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse but there is a case to make. The problem is that what was written gave no claim for notability except that he prepared a pedagogical edition of Cicero. It's exceptionally rare that an Oxford don produces such slim publication history. I would suspect that he far passes the Random J. Professor test, so the topic is probably highly appropriate, but the performance didn't give us anything to debate. Geogre 13:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and send to AfD. I'd say the "particularly known" part is a controversial enough assertion at this stage to give it its AfD. Remember A7: "If the assertion is controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead." --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and send to AfD — per Jeff. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and send to AfD — per badlydrawnjeff. -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete without prejudice to relisting if the article isn't improved within a reasonable period of time. Newyorkbrad 22:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horseshoe Theory

Horseshoe Theory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)

The shortened stub does not contain any original research Horseshoesmith 00:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • You are probably referring to Horseshoe Theory. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 00:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I've corrected the listing. This article was deleted in AfD on December 3. On December 8, it was recreated, in a shortened form, by Horseshoesmith, and deleted as a G4 by Deepujoseph about an hour later. Horseshoesmith recreated the article, and I redeleted it, noting that the user had been left a message, explaining how to contest a deletion. I think it wasn't entirely clear what was involved, and after a couple of quick recreations and deletions, I finally protected the page and advised Horseshoesmith how to list the article at Deletion review. I think the article, as recreated, still contains substantial original research, and doesn't seem to get past the sourcing problems of the former version. Thus, I suggest we endorse deletion, but I'm open to being shown that this topic is covered non-trivially in multiple independent sources, in which case I'll agree that we can support a well-sourced article about it. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting case. The question is whether the recreation is substantially different from the AfD versions in the matter of argument. Is it different "where it counts," in other words. The article provides references to some people who have said things about the theory that are similar, although a stable and precise discussion of "horsehoe theory" instead of "the extremes meet" doesn't really work. (Jonathan Swift, in A Tale of a Tub, proposed that Peter (Roman Catholicism) and Jack (the Puritains) grow to look like each other during their fight (the Reformation and Counter-reformation), and that was in 1704. This isn't ever called a horsehoe theory, even though it is the observation being called that theory.) It's the point of view and application of a single term to this general observation that is original research. The general observation is a commonplace, but it doesn't have a single name or, to my knowledge, get a general discussion (only particular ones, like people swatting down the anti-communists who want to say that the Nazis were socialists). Endorse deletion or, and this is controversial maybe, send back to AfD for a new ruling on the more bolstered form. Geogre 13:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 8 December 2006

[edit] Yeouinaru Station

[edit] List of people whose full names are not commonly known

List of people whose full names are not commonly known (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)— (AfD)


After looking at the AfD for this list, I'm concerned by the reasons given for deletion. Also, several people seem to have the wrong idea about what the list actually is. I've tried to follow the policy at the top of this page, and resolve this informally on the deleting admin's talk page first, but he refused to answer my specific points and pointed me straight here, so here I am, I guess. These were the three main points made for deletion:


  • Criteria's too vague, lots of people don't have their full names commonly known

This point was made by several people, including the deleting admin, and it's quite valid - if the list really was a list of "people whose full names are not commonly known", it would be too vague. However, if you actually bother to look at the list, you'll notice it's specifically based around use of the person's first name. That's why I reworked the introductory paragraph there, to tighten the criteria needed to list a name, and suggested, with some support, that it be renamed to "List of people whose first names are not commonly used".


  • Can't be verified or checked for notability

If there's an article on Sean Connery, he's passed the notability test.
Sean Connery's full name is Thomas Sean Connery.
Due to community consensus, and based on the volume of published works which use his name, he is referred to as "Sean Connery" throughout the article.
Therefore, by Wikipedia standards, he falls into the category of "someone whose first name is not commonly used", and is a valid candidate for the list.

Re: the original nominator's example: if there were no references, then all occurences of "Buzz Aldrin" in his own article should be replaced by "Edwin Eugene Aldrin". However, the article can use the Buzz name, since it has several references showing how frequently this name is used, even in official publications. (That's where the change from "known" to "used" becomes more useful.)


  • List is unnecessary, just go to the person's page

This defeats the purpose of the list. If you're trying to find people whose first names aren't commonly used, and you don't know exactly who you're looking for, what do you type into the search box? Quote from WP:LIST:

If the user has some general idea of what they are looking for but does not know the specific terminology, they would tend to use the lists of related topics (also called list of links to related articles).

Indeed, there is a whole category, "Lists of people by name feature", which is then seperated based on the nature of the common name. This list is now a notable omission from the category. (However, List of people named after famous people seems far too vague, so I've prodded it).


I made most of those points during the discussion, but they went unanswered. Based on those points, I still believe the list should be renamed to List of people whose first names are not commonly used, as proposed. If, at the end of the day, there's a true consensus to delete it, fine, - but I'd still like to hear a few answers to those specific points. Thanks for your time. Quack 688 23:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion. "Commonly known" is entirely based on editors' POV, as the nominator admits by saying that the basis for Sean Connery being on the list is because that's what we refer him to as in his article. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    As this isn't AfD round 2, let me be more specific about process; the main argument for the consensus that argued for deletion in the AfD was that 'commonly known' is POV, and this is absolutely right. Hence, valid AfD and no reason to overturn. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. The main argument seemed to be that it was POV what is "commonly known", which it is. Even if it wasn't the main argument, I'd still endorse deletion for that. -Amarkov blahedits 01:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
By that reasoning, we should refer to this guy as "Thomas Sean Connery" in his own article, since "it's POV to say his common name is Sean Connery". However, if it's community consensus that the shorter name is the one more commonly used to identify a particular individual, then it should be used all across Wikipedia - both in his own article, and in this list. I'm just after a bit of consistency.
As I previously said, I agree that "commonly known" is bad, that's why I proposed changing it to "commonly used", since it's easier to verify. Can we please direct any future comments towards that? Quack 688 01:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • But we still don't know how common something must be to be "commonly used". To address your other point, that isn't POV, any more than it's POV to use "humor" instead of "humour". It's just the name we use, it doesn't express a viewpoint. To say something is "commonly used" does express a viewpoint. -Amarkov blahedits 01:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree - continually referring to him as "Sean Connery" throughout the article isn't "just the name we use", and it's not a regional issue like spelling - it makes an implicit statement that "Sean Connery" is, in fact, his common name. That is simply an editor's POV - until reliable sources are supplied, that is. The only reason people can use this name is because they have references at the bottom of the article, showing how often he's referred to as such in primary sources. However, I can't refer to author Robert A. Heinlein as "Anson Heinlein", since there are no sources which suggest that this name is commonly used. It's all about the sources. (I've got some errands to run, I won't be able to answer for a while, but I hope people keep this in mind.) Quack 688 01:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, valid per process. Also valid per policy: list is subjective (define "commonly known") As to the nickname argument, that's why we have redirects. No reason to overturn deletion of this subjective list. Guy (Help!) 17:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Just for the record, I've said four times on the page (twice in bold text) that the term "commonly known" is inherently problematic and should be replaced. Quack 688 00:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion per everyone above. Incredibly subjective criteria for the article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • If an encyclopedia primarily uses the name "Sean Connery", then it is already implicitly claiming that this is his common name, not just a fashionable nickname. A reputable encyclopedia should not imply anything that it is not prepared to openly state, and needs to be consistent across all its articles.
Can you please be more specific, and say exactly what part of the following reasoning is "incredibly subjective"?
- The name "Anson Heinlein" does not appear in any notable sources, so it would be intellectually dishonest for an encyclopedia to suggest that this is Heinlein's common name - either explicitly ("He commonly uses the name Anson Heinlein"), or implicitly ("Anson Heinlein did X, Anson Heinlein did Y...")
- Connery's birth name is "Thomas Sean Connery".
- The name "Sean Connery" is used in primary sources much more often than his real name. (Interviews, award ceremonies, film credits, reviews, etc.)
- This is not his real name. (His real first name is Thomas, not Sean.)
- However, due to the weight of primary sources, "Sean Connery" can be used as his common name:
explicitly ("He is commonly referred to as Sean Connery", or "Thomas is his first name, but it is not commonly used")
implicitly ("Sean Connery did X, Sean Connery did Y"). Quack 688 00:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've struck the "incredibly subjective" section from my comment. However, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to be more specific about saying "I agree with the other people who endorse the deletion".
Your rationale is moderately sound (though it potentially falls apart for anyone who isn't as famous as Sean Connery), but I still can't shake the opinion that this article is just plain useless. Sorry, but that's just how I feel. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I'm happy to address the "useless" criticism, but first, I'd like to point out that verifiability was the main concern of the original nomination, and of several of the "delete per nom" comments there. If a valid verifiability method was presented to these people, several of them might change their stance.
Regarding its usefulness, I've mentioned the WP:LIST quote and my basic reasoning in my first post. Also, if you want to find examples of stage names, but you don't know anyone in particular, you can go to Stage name. However, that article's own criteria makes it clear that Sean Connery is not welcome there:
People whose main forename just happens not to be the first one (such as Paul McCartney and Marie Osmond) are not listed here—these are their real names, not stage names.
This sounds like the exact criteria for the deleted list - wouldn't this be a great list to link to from that paragraph? If you want to find examples of these people, but you don't know what names to type in, how do you go about it without a list? Type in random celebrities until you get lucky?
In summary, if the list helps users find the information they're after, if it's based on the same standards used throughout Wikipedia, and if the three main reasons used for deletion are addressed, the only reason outstanding is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Of course, someone could come up with a new reason for deletion, but that's what AfD is for. I'd be perfectly happy to see the article renamed, updated with the verifiability criteria I mentioned, then given a fresh procedural AfD listing. Hell, if someone revives it, I'll tidy it up and relist it for open discussion on AfD myself. How does that sound? Quack 688 08:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Happy for Quack to recreate as [[List of people whose first names are not commonly used]] unless a better name can be found. Rich Farmbrough, 13:24 10 December 2006 (GMT).
  • Please tell me that any reworked version is not going to contain the less than surprising fact that Katie Couric is named Katherine, or Bobby Cox is actually Robert. Next thing you know, they'll give us the shocking news that Dick Cheney is actually named Richard. Fan-1967 17:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed, common abbreviations like those shouldn't be there, and should be removed if discovered. Quack 688 23:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Seems to me that was a substantial fraction of the list in the earlier article. Fan-1967 00:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "A substantial fraction needs to be removed" (assuming that's true, it's a bit hard to check right now without access to the list) is an argument for cleanup, not deletion. Quack 688 01:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse myself per closing statement and JzG. Yanksox 14:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You endorse yourself based on your own closing statement of "there are a great deal of people that their actual full names are not known."? Sigh. Like I said to Guy before, I've now said five times on this very page (twice in bold text) that the term "commonly known" is inherently problematic and should be replaced. It's six and three if you count this post. Same for the "full names" part. If you don't intend to address any of the specific points brought up here, I honestly don't know what else I can say. Quack 688 15:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I am allowed to endorse myself, I'm not entirely insane, thank you. Let's take a look here, shall we? I judged this AfD based upon strength of argument this is not another AfD. There was almost no or barely any strength in the argument for keeping this page. The subject matter is inheriently trivial, and nearly on the boderline of insanity. Also, I don't think anyone is too keen on you essentially badgering everyone here about how you feel about this page. Just because you're going on near tirades doesn't negate the consensus of the AfD, which is being fully endorsed. Yanksox 16:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
First, I never suggested you were insane, and I don't appreciate your statement that the list is bordering on insanity (and the implication that anyone who endorses this list might also be bordering on insanity). The main concern people had with the article was verifiability. I've outlined a method of verifying the statement "Sean Connery's first name is not commonly used". Too many people's full names aren't commonly known? That's what the rename's for. The article is trivial? It's a list - it's not supposed to add new information itself. It's used to organize existing information based on a common feature, just like the current list of stage names. That's the purpose of a list. Several people commented that it was useful, just not verifiable.
I thought the point of the discussion process was to highlight problems in an article. Three main problems were found, and I proposed three solutions for them. If there's a specific problem with one of my solutions, point it out and it can be addressed. If my solutions are valid, then the original concerns have been addressed, and the article should be kept. At they very least,it should be fixed, then put back on AfD so people can check and see if their concerns have been addressed or not. Quack 688 18:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Con Artist

[edit] Just Dial Communications

Just Dial Communications (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article has been deleted for spamming. The article was providing information about corporation's history. Please review the talk page for the deleted version.

  • Endorse all G11 deletions, and whack the people who did the G4s. G4 does not apply to speedies. -Amarkov blahedits 22:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Be careful who you whack there, guy. G4 used to cover speedy deletions, not sure where this instruction creep came from, but if it met a speedy deletion criteria and is recreated in a "substantially identicle" form, it still meets the original criteria. --W.marsh 22:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I think it is a bad idea for G4 to apply to speedies, but okay. Sorry if I offended anyone. -Amarkov blahedits 22:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
        • The updated {{db-repost}} template now asks for a specific AFD reference. I don't have an issue with it. Let's face it, usually a db-bio is still going to be a db-bio on the next round, but occasionally content is added that takes it out of db-bio qualification. Rather than checking to compare with older versions, it seems reasonable to just ask whether this specific version meets speedy criteria, so use a specific CSD reason rather than repost. Fan-1967 23:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion Non-notable group. There's absolutely no assertion of notability. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lang Michener LLP

Lang Michener LLP (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (deleted history)

This article has been created and deleted twice, the first time for 'spam', and second for reading like advertising. The topic of the article is a Canadian law firm, one of the most notable in the country. One of its founders, Roland Michener, is a former Governor General of Canada, and they have had many other notable partners, including former Prime Minister Jean Chretien. I do not believe the current version of the article read like an advertisement, but at least two editors had already posted to the talk page offering to help improve the article before the deletion took place a few hours ago. I think the deletions were probably unwarranted in the first place, but there are editors who are willing to work on bringing the article up to scratch. Since the previous version (note the article creator's talk page) had also been worked on to make it more neutral and fleshed-out, perhaps that version could be userfied to combine the info from both? Anchoress 21:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I would be willing to userfy this. Is that a suitable course of action? (will you agree to that?) —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I think it best to allow this process to run to its completion. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The major author appears to be Sara Swartz, the company's communications co-ordinator, which is probably not a good start. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think an undelete and subsequent AfD listing would be appropriate—it's not without its problems, and those problems may warrant deletion, but this is far from speediable in my eyes. BigNate37(T) 21:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • as I see it we have two choices:
1. Keep it deleted
2. Rewrite it.
But as it stands spam is not keepable Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 21:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
But I don't agree that it's spam. It's not really self-promoting, it's less POV than the vast majority of the articles on pop music artists, and it is on a topic that's mentioned in a bunch of Wikipedia articles. Anchoress 21:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Most of those articles seem to reference Roland Michener in his political role, or are otherwise not relevant to this firm, or mention it only tangentially. Fan-1967 21:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It's true that the listing doesn't only show Lang Michener, but I disagree that the articles that mention it do so only 'tangenitally'. Sergio Marchi and Donald Stovel Macdonald, both Canadian Federal politicians, list it as their place of employment, for instance. Anchoress 22:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, those references were specifically what I meant by "tangentially". Fan-1967 22:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, point taken. :-) But my main point above was that it isn't spam, and I stand by that. Anchoress 22:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Lang Michener unquestionably deserves an article, as it is one of Canada's largest and most prominent law firms. However, the version that was deleted did read like an ad. There is thus no need to undelete, but hopefully someone will soon come and write an NPOV article on the subject. The incoming links should also be restored. - SimonP 22:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Restored the incoming links. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fortuna (philosophy)

Fortuna (philosophy) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)

This page refers to a contemporary social movement called the Fellowship of Fortuna which is internationally recognized though not widely written about. It seems to me that wikipedia is the place for people to find complete, unbiased information on this movement which is rooted in conepts of fortune and chance. like other 'religious' movements, i think it should be covered here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kismetologist (talk • contribs).

  • O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis, semper crescis aut decrescis. This article, on the other hand, was in respect of a group with statu minimis no evidence of significance or encyclopaedic notability. A quick search finds that there is nothing "out there" on which a verifiable article could be based. Sorry, but the reason we require a group to be the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources is that without this evidence of notability, past experience shows that we can't ensure that we maintain our core policies of verifiability, neutrality and no original research. When you have been featured in multiple mianstream publications, then will be the time to have an article. Meanwhile, this was a valid speedy deletion under criterion A7, and I must endorse it. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, valid A7. The article did nothing to establish notability for the group. --Coredesat 00:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Who is spreading the idea that Wikipedia is the place for all which is true, instead of just sourced things which are true? -Amarkov blahedits 03:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion Wikipedia documents movements after they have become notable. It should not be used to directly increase a fledgling organization's exposure. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better Than

Better Than (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)

better than is a philosophical principle developed by the fellowship of fortuna. It is in wide use as a meditative tool. the information was procured by contacting the fellowship directly. links were also provided —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kismetologist (talk • contribs).

  • And yet it has evaded completely the all-seeing eye of Google. Tell us, O master, how is this feat achieved? Endorse. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Yes, this too. It's almost patent nonsense, but not quite. However, it's also not an encyclopedia article. Combine that with the fact that Fortuna (philosophy) was a valid A7 and you have an article that can't possibly stand on its own. --Coredesat 00:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion I would have supported deletion whether or not the Fortuna article was deleted. This was, literally, patent nonsense. Gong Long? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion The bulk of the "article" is an essay. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional rooms

List of fictional rooms (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)

Overturn. Numerous voters for "delete" did so under the argument of unmaintainably infinite, based on a lack of reading of the article's intro paragraph, which limited the scope considerably (fictional rooms in non-fictional buildings). This list is on par with any number of "fictional item" lists as available at Archive of fictional things and its child Index of fictional places, such as List of fictional buildings. However, the article topic doesn't fit in well with any other fictional place or item lists - for example, it would be out of scope for list of fictional buildings because it involves real buildings. Some proposed a name change, which I would also endorse if a non-wieldy one could be created. Furthermore, others endorsed deletion (ironically) because the article was too small; but initial size is a poor reason for deletion. Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 06:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion unless someone can point to the entry on the encyclopaedic concept of fictional rooms associated with real structures with which this list is associated. Guy

(Help!) 07:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

    • Sigh. Alas, the same straw man I already dealt with. There is no such entry for a myriad of articles in Wikipedia. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 22:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • And if they are brought to AfD I will advocate deletion. What was the problem with the process here? Or the new evidence? Guy (Help!) 23:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - AfD closed within process. VegaDark 09:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion Afd process ok Bwithh 14:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion can't see any problem with the AFD. --pgk 14:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Unless you have information that wasn't present in the AfD debate? -Amarkov blahedits 15:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • endorse deletion i looked over the afd also and it looks to me like the process was ok.--mathewguiver 21:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion: The list is limitless. "Room where I made love to Ashley Judd" would be fictional, too, but it wouldn't be in fiction, and it wouldn't be in popular fiction, and there would be no way to determine whether it is major popular fiction, and there would be no way to specify that it is room significant to the plot of a significant popular fiction or real room significantly figured in the plot of a significant popular fiction. Geogre 19:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Clearly, there's a certain prejudice against list articles and particularly fictional item lists, to the point that some opponents read neither the content of its DRV nor its intro paragraph. They don't bother to make valid arguments, they just vote no blindly. Well, you fellows have your work cut out for you. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 19:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Complaining about the "anti-fictional item list cabal" doesn't help your case. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion Nobody's going to convince me that wasn't a nonsense article, and the AFD was fine. Danny Lilithborne 23:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN.--WaltCip 12:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion The AfD was followed through just fine; DR isn't the place to come just because you're upset that community consensus and yourself don't see eye-to-eye. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 7 December 2006

[edit] Bodo

[edit] Atlético Chorlton

Atlético Chorlton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)

Notable football team in the Manchester area. No warning to user who created the page prior to deletion and so no idea who deleted it. Article provides statistical data up to date of the team in question and history of its creation. Adamwjeffers 16:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlético Chorlton. Page was correctly nominated for deletion; notification of page creator is not necessary as it is assumed the creator of a page will keep it on his watchlist. —Angr 16:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion valid AfD and no new evidence presented. --W.marsh 17:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per W.marsh. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, entirely without problems per process and per policy and guideline. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion Pretty much an open and shut case. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, not AfD round 2. -Amarkov blahedits 02:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per W.marsh. Inner Earth 15:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The White Rose Society (student group)

The White Rose Society (student group) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)

Notable national group documented in media outlets. All self-promotion was removed prior to deletion. Article is important for the clarity of other articles such as White Rose and White Rose (disambiguation). Significant association with the original White Rose gives readers especially students a contact point for more information on the White Rose. For example if you wanted to see a play about the White Rose or become involved in activism similar to the White Rose there is only one organization that you will find, The White Rose Society (student group).Colinster 16:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Did the original article have any reliable sources documenting this? If not, then how do we have verifiable information about the connection between this society and the original White Rose society? ColourBurst 18:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • No, it had no sources whatsoever; the closest was an external link to their website.[9] I deleted it the first time under G11, and the second time under both G11 and A7. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion It was crap then, its crap now. The Society student group article has absolutely nothing to do with any other White Rose article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion unless notability is asserted and verified by multiple reliable sources; having the same name as something is not an assertion of notability. Even this nomination reads like an advert, frankly. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • comment - I find it suspect to say the least that an attempt was made to tag The White Rose Society (website) for speedy deletion immediately prior to this request for a deletion review. --BenBurch 20:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion and an industrious person ought to go looking for that website getting inserted elsewhere. Geogre 13:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SombatMetanee.jpg

Image:SombatMetanee.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)

The image was uploaded as a {{promophoto}} and included in the article Sombat Metanee in the infobox. It was flagged by User:Chowbok with a {{Replaceable fair use}} tag, which I then disputed. Through that process, however, I learned that the use in the article was indeed not fair use, so I moved it to a section of the article that detailed the actor in the era depicted in the photo. That was "not good enough" for User:Angr, who then deleted the image. I disputed this on Image talk:SombatMetanee.jpg, and Angr offered some helpful suggestions about how to improve the article so that the image might be kept. Those improvements were made and a new fair-use rationale for the image was crafted. Angr then made a subjective judgement about the photo and asked if a different image could be used. I accommodated him by offering an external link to another image, but it wasn't good enough for him, either. I then offered a link to several images that he could choose from, and that's when his responses ended. So I've brought the issue here, seeking a resolution. — WiseKwai 10:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is at Image talk:SombatMetanee.jpg. I'm still not 100% convinced the image is unreplaceable yet, but I was surprised when the talk page was closed for further discussion. My responses only ended because I felt out of my depth in making decisions on what images do or do not adequately illustrate the physical attractiveness of an actor I've never heard of. I was hoping for more input from others rather than "The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it." —Angr 10:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm the one who closed the debate. I just thought it was policy to close debate after the image was deleted. I certainly didn't mean to stifle debate if it's still up in the air. I personally wouldn't have deleted it, FWIW, but I know it's a borderline case. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Note -- we don't appear to have a source for this image or know who owns its copyright -- there's a statement that the image was "released by" a film festival. This fails our image sourcing requirements. Jkelly 21:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: The image was part of promotional material distributed to the press for the 2006 Bangkok International Film Festival, which holds the copyright to the material. — WiseKwai 04:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/l/Wikipedia%7EDeletion_review_Active_2aeb.html"