Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 8

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

The votes in the AfD were Keep: 8 (2 "Strong Keep" and 1 "Speedy Keep"), Delete (including nom): 5 (no "strong" or "speedy") . The closing administrator cited no sources for the reason for deletion. It is the view of at least some of the keep voters that rail and subway stations are inherently notable and per WP:AFDP ("Subway and railway stations are allowed, but notability is currently under discussion [1]"), Wikipeida consensus has agreed with that. With 8 to 5 votes in favor for keeping and per precedent, this warrants an undeletion.

• Note: Wikipedia is not a democracy, and AfD is not a vote. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  We always know that. The vote is just one factor in this. --Oakshade 00:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  So did the article have sources, as mandated by WP:V? Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  Currently it doesn't, but that's part of the point of this review. Per long standing precendent, it hasn't been felt that something considered inherently notable doesn't need sources or even assertation of notability. To memory, I don't recall a rail station ever being deleted even though hundreds (thousands?) don't have either. --Oakshade 00:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• It was a one sentence article... I wasn't even sure how people verified that much was true as no sources were ever cited anywhere. That was the real problem... it's not my job as closer to do everyone's homework, if there were sources to be found, they should have at least been mentioned in the AfD. I think I was more than reasonable... if sources can be found, I would and still will undelete. --W.marsh 00:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  Do you mean sources that confirm the validity of the content? That, of course, can be done quite easily (official station link) (google English translation). --Oakshade 02:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  Great, we've confirmed that there's a "ferry point" :-) This would be where independent and hopefully english language sources are important, enough to create more than a directory entry at some point. Even this much wasn't presented in the AfD though. --W.marsh 03:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Notability does not automatically mean inclusion. No matter how notable something may be, you still must have reliable sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The comment of the admin (W.marsh) who closed athe AfD was no reliable sources means no article..1-sentence substub....Provide sources and I will undelete Since this article hasn't been salted, if proper sources are provided and the article stub is filled out, someone could be bold and re-create the article, right, rather than having to bother with this DRV? Tubezone 05:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, that would be the best way to go about it really. --W.marsh 06:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • This is the first time I created a DRV, so I'm not completely familiar with protocol. With these latest comment and being the initiator of this review, I'm happy to withdraw it. Is it possible then to bring this to a speedy close? --Oakshade 07:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
      • No problem. Since it's a redirect anyway I recommend restoring the edit history behind it so if someone actually has the sources to expand it it can be done quickly. ~ trialsanderrors 07:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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 ^blah_edits 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 ^blah_edits 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)

Um, I haven't seen any comments in a couple of days - what happens now? If there aren't any new criticisms beyond those I've addressed above, can I get this list put on my user page to start work on those problems? Quack 688 23:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Con Artist (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)

What? Closed in less than one day? It may have been bad, but from what I saw, it was not that self-evidentially bad. 4 people was too little to generate discussion, and it was not even unanimous. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well this was headed for deletion anyway. The reference didn't use the term "Wiki Con Artist" or "Wiki Hacker" and the phrase gets 0 google hits other than Wikipedia mirrors. Apparently someone was trying to coin a term... which should clearly be something Wikipedia isn't for. If this weren't so obviously the case I could see sending it back to AfD, but right now it just seems like process for the sake of process. --W.marsh 22:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Hmmm. Self-referential, original research, neologism. You want it userfied? Guy (Help!) 23:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It would be nice if I could look over it more closely. It didn't look very bad from what I saw. So yeah, could you userfy it for me? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Never mind, it didn't quite sink in what "The sources don't use the term" means. I would close this now, except I'd probably break something with the new closing mechanism. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Closed. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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 ^blah_edits 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 ^blah_edits 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)

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)

• Endorse deletion Reads like an advert, non-notable, and little verifiable information from reliable sources. ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 23:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, it was spam, the only link was to their own website, which is not a reliable source. If somebody wants to rewrite it so that it isn't spam, and can provide sources to prove notability, I will not object. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Restore. Notable Canadian law firm. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid G11; if it's notable, independent editors are free to write an article demonstrating notability with reference to multiple third-party reliable sources. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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 ^blah_edits 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)

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)

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 ^blah_edits 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)