Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 16

Media Publisher (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Did not have an opportunity to debate the merits of the deletion reasons EricAlderman 22:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Technically this could be undeleted as a contested prod, but come on, a user account named EricAlderman and the article stated "founded in October 2002 by Rod Bacon and Eric Alderman". Pretty clear WP:COI case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Relist Yeah, I have acknowledged I'm one of the founders of the company. My argument is that the company is in fact notable, and that I carefully followed the advice from WP:COI: "If you do write an article on area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources." (If the article were undeleted, I don't think anyone could argue over its neutral tone. I made no claims of product quality or industry leadership, etc. Do you really have to be a Microsoft or Adobe -- so big that everyone writes about you all the time -- to have an article about a company? Our particular industry is more limited in its size, but we are in fact the leader within it, so we are clearly notable to that audience (including many Fortune 50 companies among our customer base).—Preceding unsigned comment added by EricAlderman (talk • contribs)
  • You might want to consider the guidelines about notability at the linked page. If you think it's still notable, I'd be okay with overturning the prod deletion. --Haemo 01:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Los Angeles Dodgers Opening Day Starting Lineups (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was closed as a no consensus, even though there was consensus to delete the article (12-6), most of the keep votes were because WP:USEFUL while the delete voters had valid concerns over the status of the article. I recommend a Overturn and Delete or at least Relist Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete: I disagree that there was "no consensus" as well. There seemed to be a strong support of deleting the article per WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:N, and WP:NOT#INFO, and reasons for Keep included WP:USEFUL and WP:INTERESTING, not valid arguments for AfD debates. Ksy92003(talk) 19:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - I've been a baseball fan for years, and I can say that opening day rosters are no more relevant than the normal rosters through the season are, and in some ways they're even less relevant. I've seen some pretty minor names in the Red Sox roster over the years due to injuries and/or extended spring training by the regulars. But anyways... the keepers' rationales, varying from "I like it" to "its interesting" should not have been given they weight that they apparently were afforded. Tarc 19:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Again Good grief.. I thought this was settled... Ksy wouldn't know a valid argument if it hit him in the head... Several people gave good arguments for keeping the article.. It really is not fair that just because Ksy and his good buddy Jaranda don't like the decision they can bring this up again. Spanneraol 19:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This is why we have DRV. Don't insult me just because you don't agree with my opinion. Comment on contributions, not on contributors. Ksy92003(talk) 19:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Obviously the only opinions that matter are yours, so why do I even bother... The only people likely to find this board are those that agree with you.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanneraol (talk • contribs)
      • Alright, I don't even know why you're saying this about me. Who are you to say that I think only my opinions matter? Your opinions are just as valid as mine are just as valid as Albert Benjamin George Michael's opinions. Mine don't hold more weight than yours do, nor vice versa.. Just calm down and let the process work its way through. Ksy92003(talk) 19:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• endorse a variety of arguments were presented, and they all were refuted. a reasonable close., DGG (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • All I saw was back and forth agrueing, non of them were refuted. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, consensus was actually clear. Arguments for deletion were sound and based on valid concerns that were not addressed. --Coredesat 19:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per DGG. --W.marsh 19:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete remove all the threaded comments and strip it down to just the delete/keep comments, and it's pretty clear. Kwsn(Ni!) 19:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn & Delete Keep arguments were - "navigational purposes", for remembrance, its significant (without providing sources asserting the significance), useful. While MLB recognizes the starting day pitcher, that's not a reason to keep the whole lineup. I think a starting day pitcher list might be worth keeping Corpx 20:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. The thread was long, so I think the conclusion of no consensus was easy to make, but wrong in this case. Cool Hand Luke 21:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Such arguments as "I think this page should be kept because it will be useful for a lot of people and will help them remember some players that they have forgotten" are not valid !votes. I don't see much in the way of keep arguments that should have been paid attention to. WP:USEFUL is not a valid argument, period. Corvus cornix 21:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. I would likely have called this one otherwise but I don't think Walton did anything wrong with the closure, and therefore I can't argue against it. Besides, it's a no-consensus close, there's nothing wrong with letting the issue cool off a little and then renominating it to try and get better consensus. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - consensus to delete is pretty clear. Delete arguments addressed policy and guideline concerns whereas keepers tended to argue WP:USEFUL and the like. I note that one keeper was persuaded to the point of withdrawing his support. Otto4711 21:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, not a great close, the obvious consensus, rooted in policy, was to delete; the keep arguments were very weak (I like it, it is useful). Neil ム 10:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - OK, at the risk of getting on everyone's bad side, I'm going to try and explain my close. This was a very difficult close overall; I personally agree that the list is pointless, and would have !voted to Delete if I had participated in the AfD. When I was closing the AfD, I came very close to closing it as a Delete, as I also felt the Delete arguments were stronger. However, although I disagreed with the arguments to Keep, I felt that they did make some valid points, and didn't think their opinions should be disregarded. AfD is not a majority vote; the Delete !voters may have been in the majority, but I felt the Keep !voters were a sufficient minority that it was better to take their views into account. I also reasoned that a No consensus result, unlike a Keep, does not prejudice quick re-nomination. If someone wants to re-nominate the list for deletion, it is quite possible that it would be deleted the second time round. Walton^One 13:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Agree with closer that this was a tough close with legit editors voting to keep but their arguments were mostly the same and not rooted in policy. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak endorse - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but that does not mean that information does not belong on Wikipedia. This article is consistent with the purpose of lists. I say weak endorse because the AfD could have reasonably be closed either way (the traditional WP consensus line is "two thirds, sometimes higher"), but there was nothing procedurally wrong with the AfD. Also, the deletion per copyright violation argument was really improper, as the article contained nothing but factual content, organized in a purely factual manner. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. I could go through and make arguments against each argument to delete but there are 2 in particular that do not hold any weight. First of all - the list cannot be a copyvio because any similarities between it and any other website are exceptionally minor. The table itself consists of player names (factual information), ordered by position (which is by far the most commonly used way to distinguish players in a baseball lineup) and year (which is necessary since this is, after all, a list of lineups over time - and since there is 1 opening day lineup per year... and many years...). Given this information, a table with 2 axes - year and position - seems to be a very suitable way to order this information. How can that be a copyright violation? Second argument - the list itself is not notable because opening day lineups are not inherently notable. The arguments here are along the lines of... "who cares who started on opening day, because players could be injured?" Well, we shouldn't have lineups in the articles about UEFA Champions League finals either, because obviously it doesn't matter who started those matches since players could have been injured! I guess FIFA World Cup squads are not notable either, since players could have been injured and therefore other, less deserving players selected in their stead! Indeed, I am even less of a baseball fan than a football fan but even I know the importance that a team's opening day lineup has, at the very least to baseball historians and fans, if not a more general interest (like mine, since I have watched maybe 10 baseball games in the past 4 years). ugen64 19:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not familiar with the football tournaments you're referring to. Where are lineups listed? Keep in mind that a typical baseball season consists of 162 games lasting six months. To list the starting lineup for one of those games, especially game number 1, is only representing about 0.6 percent of the games for the entire season. If, as I assume, your football lineups are representing a far higher percentage of the season's games, the analogy is weak. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply the fact that a number of baseball related sites such as baseball-reference and baseball-almanac list the opening day starters as a special category as well as most teams media guides listing the past seasons opening day starters should be proof enough that they are notable and of a special nature. I found three online sources on cursory glance that show this information as special and notable.. that should be enough to satisfy the concerns of Wknight above. Spanneraol 02:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
      • But baseball-reference is a reference site, not an encyclopedia. They also have a page to list the most unique similarity scores. I don't even know what that means but, by your logic, since they have such a list, so should we. Same with list of progressive leaders for adjusted OPS+. No clue. (I'll stop there). —Wknight94 (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Thats not what I was saying.. Your point was that no one cares about opening day lineups because they arent different than the other 161 days... I was showing several examples of where they are held out as more notable than other days. Spanneraol 04:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Alright, let's assume that the opening day roster is more significant than the rosters of any other day. Would it still be notable enough to list each one throughout the season? I mean hockey and basketball have opening days as well, but the guys who start those games aren't significant, are they? Ksy92003(talk) 05:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete view - I am normally sympathetic to sports lists because they are generally encyclopedic and fans find them useful (usefulness is not always a bad thing!). However, I am unconvinced about the encyclopedic nature of this particular list and by both consensus, and by policy, this close should have been as a deletion. Bridgeplayer 19:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete This is raw data rather than an article. Carina22 16:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It is a list, not an article.. Spanneraol 02:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete since consensus was to delete. Eusebeus 18:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - It appears that the discussion was interpreted incorrectly as the consensus was delete. I think the list was a strong keep. In fact, there probably is enough WP:RS material out there to write an article on the topic. I'm not sure what the consensus' stink with the article was, but there you go. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Australian Holographics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was incomplete, and now needs to be completed. There may have been some concern over the copyright of certain images, but in fact all images used have been cleared and are free to be used publicly. Also, there was reference to the lack of any assertion of the subjects importance or significance. I think this was an oversight on behalf of the original contributer. The importance of this particular endeavor in large format holographic production is hard to dispute. Many international experts would attest to that fact. Some ground breaking research was conducted by this company, and the various examples of holograms produced fill in an important part of the international holographic story, about which there is precious little information available in Wikipedia. If the Article can be reinstated or re-submitted, I will volunteer to work to link together researches and producers in this field and make sure that the articles are well referenced and thorough in their adherence to Wikipedia's content guidelines.- Perhaps complicating this process is the fact that the person who deleted the article, "Naconkantari" has apparently left the Wikipedia community, so I have not been able to advise them or discuss same. with thanks~User:Receptive Receptive 15:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn article should never have been speedied--clearly asserted notabilityDGG (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I agree with DGG, although I think the notability could have been asserted more clearly. --Bduke 22:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Relist in AFD, it had some claim of notabilty in the article, but weakly. It had no sources to back it up though. I would have endorsed the speedy deletion but I'm willing to give the writer the benifit of the doubt. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - [I am the author in question]. There are a number of reliable external sources to validate the notability of the information contained in the article, and the article also was not linked well enough to other holography related articles both internal and external. This can be remedied quite easily. I also think this article can form a kind of hub to draw other notable practitioners in the holographic community to contribute information to Wikipedia] So if I can ask... What happens next? Receptive 08:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Just wait a few days for this debate to close. If things continue the way they're going now, the article will be undeleted, and then you can work on improving it. Mangojuice^talk 06:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - It took two years of their research before they were able to commercially produce high quality large format holograms. Seems important to me. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - don't relist right away, give the author a chance. Seems like a viable topic, certainly meets the A7 threshold. Mangojuice^talk 06:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Childhoodsend/Balance check (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

My sandbox was nominated for deletion (?!) on August 14 by interparty, and the debate was closed for "delete" only one day later, August 15, and this despite having only votes for "keep". Debate should at least been open longer (if not by fairness, see policy). Comment on admin's page was left unanswered. Little chance to improve was given. Also, not sure request by nom was even supported by any policy. -- Childhoodsend (talk • contribs • logs) 14:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Note - The user subpage was nominated for MfD deletion at 20:29, 14 August 2007. Two users participated in the MfD. The page was speedy deleted 10:51, 15 August 2007 by Radiant, reasoning "Pages like this are effectively "enemies lists" for a content dispute (see recent thread on WP:CSN). This poisons the atmosphere and really isn't helpful." This deletion review addresses whether WP:SPEEDY supports the speedy deletion. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Relist at MFD. Without seeing what the page's content was, I'm not sure deleting it was the right decision. Both contributors in the discussion seemed to support keeping it. And the user who created the page didn't even get to defend the page. Sasha Callahan 14:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC) - — Sasha Callahan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: That is not correct. He was made aware of the MfD and commented in it, just as I pointed out WP:DRV to him as he complained afterwards. --Stephan Schulz 18:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• • That's a red herring. Pages that fall under the speedy deletion criteria (A10, in this case) are not exempt just because they are listed on MFD at the time. >Radiant< 13:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Relist at MFD. Deleting admin, in their deletion summary and closure summary, cited a thread on WP:CSN that doesn't even mention the page. (I note that there was less than a 24 hour gap from asking a question of the deleting admin and opening this review.) When 2 uninvolved participants at MFD had opined keep, one of them an admin, the MFD closure was clearly not supported by consensus, although that may develop. GRBerry 14:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. It appears both of them were admins. Cool Hand Luke 17:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Could be. One I recognize 'cause he hangs out here too much, kinda like me. One I have no acquaintance of. GRBerry 21:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
      • That's a red herring. Pages that fall under the speedy deletion criteria (A10, in this case) are not exempt just because they are listed on MFD at the time. >Radiant< 08:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Since Radiant seems hard set on misinterperting, I absolutely reject his claim that G10 applies (there isn't an A10 at all). We all know certain admins who are so biased in certain subject areas that they should never act as an admin in disputes involving that area. The page was not an attack page, and whether it is worth having is for a consensus on MFD to determine. Accordingly, overturn the incorrect deletion, because the supposed rationale now offered is false, as was the one offered in the deletion summary. GRBerry 14:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Relist I advised the user to take it here. DGG (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. No policy clearly demanded deletion, and its early closure appears out of process. OR and objective usefulness don't even apply to user pages as far as I'm aware. This sort of page might in fact poison the community, but it's not clearly a bad thing as DGG's MfD comment shows. It's an important debate that the community should have. I recommend widely publicizing it upon relisting. Cool Hand Luke 17:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a red herring. Pages that fall under the speedy deletion criteria (A10, in this case) are not exempt just because they are listed on MFD at the time. >Radiant< 08:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Seeing as no one who had looked at the page recognized it as an attack page, including at least one person supposedly under attack (see JoshuaZ's thoughts below) I would say that it's the kind of controversial call that policy demands sent to XfD. Cool Hand Luke 23:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. CE is a known problem user, and Radiant was right on the money when he deleted this as an attack page. Raul654 18:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Do all listings of a user's purported bias constitute an attack? I seem to recall admins posting lists of non-scientific Global warming editors in various forums. I agree that this might be an attack page, but if it is then we really need to discuss the limits of identifying other user's purported POV. Cool Hand Luke 18:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is Raul654 18:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment For those not aware, Raul654 is known for such rant against me. We have divergent views about global warming and he takes it quite heartedly. --Childhood's End 18:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment - For those not aware, Childhoodsend is a global warming denier. His edits to that topic have been profoundly negative and waste the time of users interested in making those articles better. [1][2][3] That he should create such a page is not surprising in the least. Raul654 18:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment Kinda shows what I mean... --Childhood's End 19:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I see. The non-admins should see the precedents here, here, and here. It should be noted that these pages had headings like "Be wary of the following and monitor their edits closely", whereas this deleted article said, "Administrators known to clearly support the theory of anthropogenic global warming." I think lines could be drawn here; it's not so clearly an attack. Users make these kinds of dirty dozen lists all the time in talk space. Cool Hand Luke 18:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
      • • Just to chime in, you're wrong there. My purported "attack page" was no such thing. One thing it did say was "Be wary of the following" (no "watch monitor their edits closely," as Cool Hand Luke claims), which is not entirely different at all from [4]. So you and Raul654 can keep claiming these things, but they are without substance. ~ UBeR 13:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
          • On 04:34, 1 March 2007 you revised "Administrative watchdog" to say "Be wary of the following and monitor their edits closely". I didn't make this up; it's a direct quote. I have no idea who you are, and I have no axe to grind. It should be clear from my comment below that I'm not giving anyone a free pass here. That's just what the deleted page said. Cool Hand Luke 19:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
            • The last modified version wouldn't have said to monitor their edits closely. Regardless, no different than [5]. ~ UBeR 21:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Users make these kinds of dirty dozen lists all the time in talk space. - Wik is banned for doing it. Uber's 3 previous hit lists were all deleted. Your comment is simply false. Raul654 18:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment. Oh, Really? When one inserts a list of purported POV warriors into history and refers back to it in the future, it functions like this user page. If naming groups of purported POV editors is an attack, we should not tolerate it anywhere. Don't misunderstand me: I believe that deniers of man-made climate change are simply wrong. I also think I would vote to delete this user page on balance. But DRV is not about the merits of deletion. DRV is about process. The process was short-circuited here. Cool Hand Luke 19:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Relist The deletion process was undermined and ignored by Radiant. Raul654's just got an axe to grind. ~ UBeR 18:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a red herring. Pages that fall under the speedy deletion criteria (A10, in this case) are not exempt just because they are listed on MFD at the time. >Radiant< 13:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not red herring at all. You were wrong, and just about every admin and every user here agrees. Don't try to game the system. ~ UBeR 13:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Abstain As the nominator, I obviously think the decision was right. The page was useless POV-pushing propaganda. I would have preferred for community consensus to firmly establish this, on the other hand. On the third hand, zapping this early might have prevented some waste of time, so I appreciate Radiant's attempt. --Stephan Schulz 18:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There was not even an opinion expressed on this page, so "POV-pushing propaganda" might prove hard to establish. Again, please re-read DGG's MfD comment, which quite accurately described the simple purpose of this page. --Childhood's End 18:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Sure. And I am not expessing anything about your ancestry and a donkey with this comment. --Stephan Schulz 19:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. The discussion should have been allowed its full course. To clarify one point. When I expressed an opinion on the MfD discussion, I was not an admin. I was made an admin only yesterday (actually today on UTC time). --Bduke 22:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a red herring. Pages that fall under the speedy deletion criteria (A10, in this case) are not exempt just because they are listed on MFD at the time. >Radiant< 08:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I assume that, upon becoming administrator, your opinion hasn't changed? ~ UBeR 23:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I think that his comment was meant to clarify the point discussed by GRBerry and Cool Hand Luke above. --Childhood's End 14:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment when does keeping track and labeling contributors cross a line per WP:HARRASS or WP:STALK? For what purpose was this list made? I see little valuable reason for its continued existence but there may be a good faith explanation during MFD. Carlossuarez46 22:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• relist Having seen the content, I don't see anything wrong with giving it the full length. I have trouble seeing it constitute an attack, although I would think by now that users would have learned that it is easier to just keep lists off Wikipedia. JoshuaZ 03:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist per above. Inappropriate out-of-process deletion. Walton^One 14:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. Speedy closures are meant for WP:SNOW-esque AfDs, not for pushing controversial decisions before substantial resistance has a chance to form. There was no consensus and no policy was discussed, apart from WP:OR which doesn't apply to user space. — xDanielx ^T/_C 01:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a red herring. Pages that fall under the speedy deletion criteria (A10, in this case) are not exempt just because they are listed on MFD at the time. >Radiant< 08:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    • How is this a red herring? His comment actually answers yours beforehand (!) --Childhood's End 15:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, several people here appear to be unaware that Speedy Deletion Criteria apply EVEN to pages presently on MFD. >Radiant< 08:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, several people here believe that the speedy deletion criteria do not apply to this page. GRBerry 12:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, one or two people have an actual argument, but the rest are throwing the red herring around that pages on MFD may not be speedied. >Radiant< 13:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
      • See petitio principii. It seems that you are trying to defend your decision by throwing everyone's arguments into the red herring basket upon your assumption that speedy deletion automatically applied, while that's what you failed to show. It notably seems that the reviewers above do not feel that the page should have been speedy-deleted, so saying that speedy-deletion applies despite MfD is no answer. I guess you're supporting your decision upon criterion 10 (attack pages), but this criterion is for "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity" and it is far from being clear that my page fell under this, as it shows and as you can see by the comments herein. As Speedy deletion warrants, "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead.". Thus I dont think that all the reviewers herein are guilty of making red herrings... --Childhood's End 13:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
        • See straw man and ad hominem. >Radiant< 14:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Next time you close a debate as speedy deletion, try to actually mention it, eh? Y'know, on the deletion summary or in the heading or something. Don't use words like "The result of the debate was delete." If you had said it was a speedy to begin with, I could have immediately undeleted it as an invalid speedy and sent it back to MfD. It would have saved everyone a lot of time. Cool Hand Luke 00:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Strictly speaking, I'd really opt for relist, as incorrect speedy closing of an AfD, followed immediately by speedy deleting of the material. Given that that's clearly a nonsense, I endorse deletion. The material had no place in Wikipedia. For me, this is a classic example of IAR... as it's making a monkey of our rules. --Dweller 16:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Relist at MfD - Speedy delete may be used at anytime, even when the page is at XfD. However, I think reasonable people could conclude that the speedy deleted page could serve a purpose other than to disparage its subjects, particularly since two users failed to note such disparagement at the MfD before the page was speedy deleted. The page was created by a user with 1,700 posts since starting with Wikipedia in Jan. 2007. The user has not had any other such subpages deleted. The Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard discussion on Childhoodsend was closed with "User's blocklog is clean, no violations present, try using WP:DR." While the user subpage may not meet Wikipedia:User page, WP:CSD#G10 appears to have been misapplied and none of the other speedy delete criteria appear to apply. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Relist, because an MfD was going on. The speedy here doesn't seem valid: this may be an enemies list as Radiant describes it but it doesn't say anything attackish or otherwise worthy of qualifying as G10. If the user's behavior is an issue, I would much prefer to see warnings and blocks, and behavior-oriented dispute resolution as a way to handle it, and the page is not so incivil that we can't wait for an MfD to take place. Mangojuice^talk 05:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Relist Inappropriate deletion as no criteria applied per Mango. Radiant should have sufficient trust in the community to assume that if his position is correct, he would have received the backing of the community. Instead he short-circuited due process. Brandon97 13:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

David Shafer (baseball player) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

In the Debate on AFD over this article; four voted to keep and four to delete. Regardless of this, WP:BIO states "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis" is the criteria for establishing the notability of athletes. The subject of the article plays in a fully professional league. Sasha Callahan 11:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - I'm not sure how the closing admin concluded delete there. --B 12:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Relist There was clearly no consensus--a variety of arguments were offered, included one by an established editor challenging our practice of not accepting minor league baseball players. DGG (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn there was no consensus. --W.marsh 17:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and page move there clearly wasn't any consensus for deletion, and WP:BIO is quite clear on the subject; player clearly has notability. However, I also think the page, if it's overturned, be moved to David Shafer (baseball) due to the fact that all baseball player's articles are being moved to this format. Ksy92003(talk) 18:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Relist on AfD player hasn't played a single MLB game, so notability is somewhat questionable. Ksy92003(talk) 19:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Relist on AFD as I admit I shouldn't be the person closing this debate as I am involved with baseball articles. Just for a note several of the keep votes were protest votes that wanted to change WP:BASEBALL guidelines of not accepting minor league players, which failed in the talk page of WP:BASEBALL big time, nothing with the player so I discounted those. The minor leagues while they are proffesional, it's not the highest league there is for baseball and there is consensus that minor leaguers aren't notable. Shafer won't be in the majors for a while (if ever) looking at this link currently a earned run average of over 7.50 which means horrible even for the minor leagues. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't think individual projects could set there own notability standards. Last I checked, WP:BIO states that athletes are notable if they "have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis". The subject of the article has played several seasons in fully professional leagues, and is notable by WP:BIO's standards. The baseball project can't set its own policies, but if they don't want this article to fall under their scope, that's the projects call. Sasha Callahan 18:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I'll likely leave a comment on WP:BIO about wikiprojects guidelines on certain athletes. Most of the wikiprojects have their own guidelines about athletes, not only baseball but soccer, etc about athletes who play in the lower divisions but are "fully proffessional". They are the specialists of those kind of topics and it should be mentioned. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - there was no consensus to delete. -- DS1953 ^talk 19:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. The Delete argument was founded in both the inaccurate assertion that WP:BASEBALL established specific grounds under which minor-leagues are deemed not notable, and upon the shaky premise that any such would trump WP:BIO's unambiguous phrasing. In fact, WP:BASEBALL has nothing more solid than "Most minor league players are not considered notable, but some players are as determined by WP:BIO," nor does WP:BIO support the popular fallacy that fully professional leagues are non-notable if they are not premier national leagues. Were I the closing nom, I'd want overwhelming Delete consensus to override the fuzziness of the grounds, but no consensus at all was reached. I applaud WP:BASEBALL members for wishing to tighten up their criteria, as other sports Wikiprojects have accomplished, but do not support them using AfD as a stalking horse to bypass the need to establish -- and respect -- their own project's consensus.  RGTraynor  19:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I want to respectfully disagree with Jaranda's assertion that the minor league arguments failed "big time" on the WP:BASEBALL talk pages.. It seemed like there was enough general agreement to open up the minor league notability guidelines to at least include the minor league all-stars. Spanneraol 20:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse I could see a problem if the player had "significant coverage" from independent sources, but looking at the cache, I fail to see that, and I do not think being a MiLB player should be a sole reason to keep it , per WP:BASEBALL Corpx 20:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, minor leaguers do not meet the criteria. Mnor leagues are not the highest level, period. We don't keep people who play for the 12th level of English soccer, why would we keep people who play for the third level of professional baseball, only two steps up from the lowest possible level? The deletion was proper under consensus that has been followed from the beginning of such discussions. Minor leaguers who have not yet played a major league game do not get articles. If this guy gets kept, then there would be reason to delete any minor leaguer who has never played a major league game, and that just opens a can of worms that we don't want to open. Corvus cornix 21:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor league players are the most borderline cases in WP:BIO, it gets deleted in AFD all the time, but with the current wording, a person may think wrong. I reopened the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (athletes) which should take care of this issue, other than that, is there anyway this DRV should be Delayed until some discussion is formed. I'm away until Monday. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Comparison with the 12th level of English soccer is spurious. It is totally uncontroversial that people who play at the third level of English soccer (Football League Division One) do merit articles. Postlebury 10:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion view - WP:BIO is a guideline that is only of limited use in some sports, hence the reason why the Baseball Project produced their own guidelines. We have discussed minor league players before and agreed that they are not generally notable. Of course, if there is a particularly notable amount of media coverage then, in accordance with WP:N, an exception would be made. In this case, no specially significant reliable sources have been produced and I see no reason to go against the position of the baseball guys and gals who know their onions. Bridgeplayer 04:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I wanted it relisted because I wasn't the one who supposed to close it as delete, because of obvious bias. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The more specific guideline is the relevant one. it was written and accepted as consensus with full knowledge of the general guideline, to adapt it more specifically to the particular type of subject. Whether it was a good decision is something I am unable to judge--that's why there's a specialised project who have the knowledge for it. But discussing the wording of the guideline at the appropriate page seems the way to go. DGG (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • What specialist knowledge is needed exactly? Knowledge of wider practice on Wikipedia is what is relevant, as the whole project should be consistent. If a group of specialists want to apply standards which are markedly different from those of Wikipedia as a whole, they are free to set up their own wiki. AshbyJnr 18:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

specialist knowledge about whether minor league players are likely to be so frequently referred to by RSs that there is a strong or even an compelling presumption of importance. There are many special cases which over-ride the general standard of WP:N--highways, inhabited places, for 2 major examples. This is specifically stated at WP:N-- " A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right." Read WP:N, don't guess at it.DGG (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. I believe WP:BIO must control here even if it is imperfect. Allowing individual projects to set the standard is an invitation for confusion and disagreement. Given that many articles are under the umbrella of more than one project, we should consider what would happen if two projects issue contradictory statements of notability. The problem should be addressed at BIO and there the various project people and non-project people can make that decision. In fact, the baseball project could agree on a statement and issue it there. However as for this particular article we should allow the more expansive wikipedia-wide guideline to direct. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 20:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and optionally relist. WP:BIO and WP:BASEBALL are loosely in conflict. It makes sense to give priority to the more specific one, but on the other hand WP:BIO is a much more well-established guideline which reflects a much wider precedent-based consensus. There are two sides to the issue precedent-wise, and the AfD resulted in a 4-4 tie (including nominator) or 4-3 keep (excluding nominator), indicating that consensus favors keeping per WP:BIO. — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I certainly agree that the priority should be given to the more specific set of criteria. That would be WP:BIO. The sentence I quoted in my own comment is all the criteria WP:BASEBALL proffers; compared to some of the criteria given in other sports Wikiprojects, which goes into specifics as to number of seasons/games played, the particular tier of leagues, and consensus criteria as to a player's generally regarded prospects for reaching the majors, WP:BASEBALL's is next to nonexistent.  RGTraynor  16:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. AFD is not a vote, and rules-lawyering about the "fully professional league" clause of WP:BIO ignores its intent and the reality of the situation: minor-league baseball players who've never or haven't reached Major League status aren't notable per se. --Calton | Talk 01:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for my info, could you point me to the discussion or commentary indicating that the intent of WP:BIO is for any level below "major league" to be de jure non-notable? Truth be told, I haven't found anything of the sort myself.  RGTraynor  14:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn There shouldn't be an arbitrarily different rule for baseball and projects should have no right to overrule general guidelines. It is essential that this is made clear if we are to have a well organised consistent encyclopedia. People will want to look up minor league baseball players, so they should be covered, to provide the same standard of service to readers as is provided in other sports. Postlebury 10:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore and strike down the baseball project's guidelines, which are not consistent with the overall notability requirements applied by Wikipedia. Why restrict the coverage of baseballers to 30 teams, when the coverage of European football extends to players from hundreds of clubs? AshbyJnr 18:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There aren't hundreds of European clubs, I'm taking the issue of minor league players to WP:BIO talk pages, as it's borderline at best (as some people don't consider them to be fully proffesional) and specialists of borderline articles should decide those that are borderline by BIO or WP:N Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There are hundreds of European clubs. There are about 100 professional football clubs in England alone. Brandon97 13:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per Calton above. Eusebeus 18:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and do not relist - The closer did not seem to interpret the debate correctly since there was no consensus. Do not relist since the AfD lasted 5 days, and enough users participated in the AfD to determine consensus. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore. There was no consensus to delete, and WP:BIO must take priority over discussion on a project. If general guidelines don't take priority, Wikipedia will become incoherent and unpredictable. Brandon97 13:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_6#Image:Bring_radicals_cartoon.png

I am bringing this issue up for review because the IFD process, as well as the talk page of the sole article this is used on, lack sufficient editor participation to get a meaningful consensus on this image.

This image is a low-quality hand-drawn cartoon used to illustrate a pun in an article about mathematics. It is debatable whether it is actually funny, but it does not add information that could not be covered in the article text. However, the actual issue is whether Wikipedia should use cartoons to illustrate articles and make them funnier. I believe it was established with the WikiWorld comic that we should not (hence that cartoon was moved to our newsletter rather than to articles).

The main arguments to "keep" so far are (1) that mathematics textbooks also use silly cartoons, which seems to be irrelevant, and (2) that the detractors of the cartoon are ignorant about mathematics, which is only an ad hominem. I suggest that this image has no place in an encyclopedia and should therefore be removed. >Radiant< 09:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse keep No reason for deletion based in overriding policy offered anywhere that I can see. Clearly no consensus for deletion at IFD. GRBerry 14:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep there seem to be divided opinions on this within the project, but that's where they'll have to work it out. Editing question. DGG (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, image is unencyclopedic and not within the scope of Wikipedia. Arguments for keeping do not address concerns about the image. --Coredesat 19:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep. If the image is encyclopedic for one particular article is not the question - it can be deleted from the article instead of from the database. I can imagine encyclopedic use of the image in articles on humor, on in-group jokes, on drawing techniques, ... --Stephan Schulz 20:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• This is stupid. It shouldn't be in the Bring radical article, just get it gone and then it can go the way of any other lame orphan images people upload. Shall we create cartoons for other articles? Wasn't this discussed a while ago, and the answer was no? Overturn and delete for anyone who's counting; the image is tantamount to original research. Neil ム 10:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Why won't you let this go, Radiant? There was ample discussion on the Bring radical talk page regarding the image. Your participation in that discussion was limited to one sentence. You then decided that despite the lack of concensus, you'd list the image at IFD. A fair summary of your position there and at IFD was "I don't like it".

  The lack of discussion at the IFD was your own fault, Radiant. You didn't mention the IFD on the talk page, nor did you even notify the creators (CyborgTosser and Cronholm144).

  I'd also like to add that the image was brought up for IFD before, and was kept. The image was also discussed by the math Wikiproject. All these discussions I linked at the IFD. All of them either resulted in no concensus, or a concensus for keep.

  Having to debate this repeatedly is really getting tiring. I also think it underhanded that you didn't tell me you brought this to deletion review. (You didn't even mark the image as up for deletion review.) Lunch 20:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • This'll be my last comment anywhere about the cartoon.

    It seems like the thing to do is relist this at IFD. But for Pete's sake, at least invite people to debate the merits. At a minimum, you should notify the creators (both of them), the talk page of the "Bring radical" article, and the math wikiproject at WT:WPM. It would be wise for someone to read all the prior debate and summarize it at the IFD for everyone to read. There are cogent arguments for keeping it and for deleting it. I don't think they've gotten much air.

    I think this image has gotten far too much time and attention of contributors, time and attention that would be much better spent elsewhere. I've reached my limit and am going elsewhere. I leave it to the rest of you to do as you see fit. Best of luck, Lunch 22:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• endorse keep I disagree with the IFD result, but there seems to be clearly no consensus to delete. 20:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn since I, and I assume many others who have expressed an opinion on this cartoon, were not made aware of the new IFD. I would definitely have !voted delete, since I agree %100 with Radiant's reasoning and have expressed similar sentiment before at Talk:Bring radical and elsewhere. nadav (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - I'm fairly strong about not wanting the image in the article. However I don't think IfD is the place to handle that, and I certainly don't think Deletion review is the way to go about it. The only place this should be discussed is on Talk:Bring Radical. As for the actual IfD, the consensus (regrettably) was to keep. --Ybbor^Talk 21:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC) changed to relist, see below.
  • Deletion review is the place to discuss improperly closed IfDs. There was almost no participation at the IfD (keep in mind that a dozen people expressed an opinion on the cartoon previously), and the discussion was closed as "keep" because the image is licensed, which ignores the fact that the reason people want it deleted is because they feel it's unencylopedic (which is an acceptable reason for getting rid of an image, as per Wikipedia:Image use policy#Content, which refers to WP:IMAGE#Pertinence and encyclopedicity). nadav (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • You make a good point about low participation, which seems to be what Radiant was getting at in his nomination here. Relist so greater participation can be achieved. --Ybbor^Talk 22:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep The picture is properly licensed and not offensive or grossly inappropriate, the closer was correct in directing editorial concerns to Talk:Bring radical. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Endorse and optionally relist per clear XfD consensus. Whether an image is "encyclopedic" is a largely ambiguous. Wikipedia is not paper; there is no policy prohibiting images which are not strictly informative; and the XfD determined that the image was appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. I see nothing about this case which makes it appropriate for DRV. — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It cannot be called "a clear consensus" since there was almost no involvement. I and many others were not informed of the IfD. It needs to be relisted so that the many people who have expressed a view in the past can participate. nadav (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • By the numbers, the vote count was 6 (keep) to 1 (delete). The number of participants wasn't outstanding, but it was much greater than most IfDs get. The being radical editors seemed well aware of the proposed deletion -- what other groups would you recommend notifying? — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually there were only two voters on the IfD, the other 5 were from a prior discussion that happened in March. And the !count was 2 delete, 5 keep for the record.--Ybbor^Talk 23:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
      • (e/c) ????? There were only 2 keeps vs. nom (Radiant). The Bring radical editors were not made aware, since there was no notice on that article's talk page. nadav (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Right again Nadav. Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion#Listing_images_and_media_for_deletion states that a notice is supposed to be provided in the caption whenan image is up for deletion. This didn't occur at the Bring Radical page. combine this with the obviously low participation, and there's definite grounds for a relist.--Ybbor^Talk 01:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
          • I didn't know that the caption wasn't tagged -- I'll change my vote accordingly. I don't see why we should be ignoring the previous IfD though -- it's the same image, after all. In fact I would have supported a speedy keep on the grounds that the nomination was "making nominations of the same article with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected." I don't know if WP:CSK officially applies to the IfD forum, but the same logic certainly does in this case. Even if Radiant managed to get a majority in favor of delete, it would be a clear case of "Asking the other parent". For all practical purposes, I still consider it a 6-1 keep, since the same arguments were presented in each IfD and the context was not different in any relevant way. — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Consensus can change, and it makes no sense for us to be forever bound by the opinions of the small group of people that voted "keep" in the first ifd (and content is very often nominated multiple times for deletion). Moreover, the question of including comics in articles was already definitively settled by the wikiworld discussions, which saw much, much broader participation. nadav (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
              • Consensus can change, yes, but "asking the other parent" is not a proper consensus change. It doesn't matter in this case, since the IfD was rejected repeatedly, not circumstantially. My point is just that the article shouldn't be relisted any further for reasons of low participation, since there is really no appropriate reason to disregard the three Keep votes from last year as well as the three for this year, given that the same arguments were presented and the image remained static. — xDanielx ^T/_C 08:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, Unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original cartoons. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • On the same note, DRV is not the place to improvise original extensions of what Wikipedia is not. — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Since we all have short attention spans, let me refer everyone to the very large consensus that decided it's not ok to put the WikiWorld cartoon in mainspace articles. It was eventually decided to make it a column in the Signpost instead. See e.g. [6], [7]. It's a clear precedent. nadav (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I find your "very large consensus" assertion rather unsound. Neither of those discussions produced any clear consensus, and. They also didn't have a particularly high level of participation, and unlike the IfD, most of the participants didn't express clear positions on the issue. On the first page you referenced, there seemed to be a very vague agreement which lies somewhere between presenting unobtrusive links to comics on the main article page and presenting them on the discussion page. If anything, this implies that we should keep comic-like images, not delete them. The WP:AN discussion involved a very mixed bag of opinions - "I think they're brilliant", "Very clever", "Surely a link on the talk page is enough", "they surely will be brillant additions to the project", and so on. Only a small minority of editors expressed the view that the images had no place on Wikipedia. In any case, the relevance of any such "consensus" to this DRV is rather slim. We're dealing with a small image which doesn't need to be stretched, not a template, not a link, and not anything which is presented in any way substantially similar to the way large WikiWorld comics may be presented. There were also concerns voiced which have virtually no applicability to this DRV, such as "Comics have the problem that the text in them is not editable". We're dealing with a single-frame image, not a large comic that illustrates an entire article. — xDanielx ^T/_C 08:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep - IfD and DRV do not seem to be appropriate ways to edit articles. The image should not be in the Bring radical article (perhaps because it is original research or because of a variety of style reasons or because there are no reliable sources to support the inclusion of the image in the article), but that doesn't seem to be a basis to delete a {{self|GFDL-no-disclaimers|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}} licensed image. If the image is included in an article, I think WP:RfC is the place to get consensus to keep it out of articles or this discussion may be a sufficient consensus for an admin to use their tools on the matter. Talk page consensus discussions should last for about five days. If you are looking for an admin to close such a discussion with a decision, please contact me. If someone closes the discussion early to prevent consensus, please contact me and I will open the discussion back up or post a note on WP:AN. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

ProjectPier (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was reposted in a significantly improved manner after an initial deletion. Also, there was a discussion about the deletion criteria on its talk page that resulted in a consensus to keep the page Rcrossvs 03:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion. Certainly didn't fall under G4 :-) ugen64 09:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, was not markedly similar to the originally speedied content. Not a valid application of CSD G4. Neil ム 09:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn G4 deletion and award the second deleter a trout; G4 only applies to things deleted because of an XfD discussion. When an XfD discussion is closed because an article was already speedy deleted at the time it started, G4 doesn't apply. Overturn original A7 deletion and award the first deleter a trout, an open source software product does not meet the criteria for A7. Sigh. GRBerry 14:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - Not sure if my vote counts, but I noticed that there are already 3 other people suggesting to have the page restored, and no one things the deletion was justified, so can someone restore it now? Rcrossvs 07:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but normal time on DRV is 5 days. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Closing_reviews. --Stephan Schulz 08:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, not familiar with some of wikipedia's policies in this arena Rcrossvs 04:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn as explained by GRBerry. -- DS1953 ^talk 16:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• overturn per GRBerry. JoshuaZ 20:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I noticed that someone seems to have restored the page, can the discussion page also be restored so there is a record of the deletion discussion. Rcrossvs 06:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)