Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 28

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

The request for deletion was biased strongly biased, I've read the user page of user Pablo and it says the following:

I have come to find out that any group with the word truth in its name exists for the sole purpose of spreading lies.

How to find articles that should be deleted The best way to find an article that fails Wikipedia's policies on inclusion is to use an article's what links here page. Often, crappy articles link to more well-known articles within the same subject. Here are some what links here links that are especially helpful in finding bad articles: * Loose Change * 9/11 Truth Movement * Daily Kos More coming!

The reasons for deletion no longer apply. After reading the discussions on previous deletion, most arguments were concerning the fact that the movie was not well known, using a simple search on Google I found out the movie Terrorstorm has more hits than another movie which does have it's own article, America: freedom to fascism. Joehoe665 22:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion (actually redirection) If I remember correctly, the primary reasoning last time this came up with DRV was that we should have an article about this because somebody wore a t-shirt at a concert, which had to be just about the most laughably awful reasoning I've seen here to that point. This request, while less overtly silly, is based on Google hits vs another (similar?) thing supposedly with an article, and is similarly invalid. See also WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion/maintain status quo of redirection. Pablo's deletion request is fully justified, since he requested speedy deletion for recreation of an article which was deleted by consensus. His biases are beside the point; any other editor could have made the same request. That said, this doesn't call for an article until, say, Newsweek does a full-length article on the movie. —C.Fred (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse DVD comes out next week, and the reviews should follow. There should be no article without good sources, reviews, and strong sales figures backing up notability. -Nard 00:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Process followed, deletion legit. --Tbeatty 16:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• endorse deletion until we get reliable sources. We still don't have that. JoshuaZ 15:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - bias on the part of any editor is not important unless it appears to have caused them to misinterpret the closure of the debate. This does not appear to be the case. --Haemo 05:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

The image was nominated for deletion and the IfD was subsequently closed by admin User:Nv8200p as "kept"[1], citing that the image is considered in the public domain until proven otherwise. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the burden of proof is actually the other way around, that an image claimed to be in the public domain would be deleted unless it is proven to actually be in the public domain. The image page actually provides no evidence to back up the claim that it is in the public domain. In light of that, I am listing the image here for deletion review, for reconsideration to delete the image. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• The image was taken in 1937 or 1938. The Japanese Army was in control when the image was taken. I have found no publications of the image under the jurisdication of the Japanese government dated before 1957, so the image meets the public domain requirements of the image copyright tag. -Nv8200p talk 19:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually the image that was taken in 1937 or 1938 is this one - Image:BuriedAlive.jpg. The image in question here (Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg) is a modified version, cropped and with a dotted line drawn in the middle, and so I believe it is a derivative work. In other words, this could be an image that someone produced just a few years ago, and copyrighted by the person. No evidence is offered on the page pertaining to the claim that it is in the public domain. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The original uploader, Hare-Yukai (talk · contribs), licensed his derivative work under {{PD-retouched-user}}. A speedy close is in order. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Doesn't that count as original research, not to mention unencyclopedic. Plus he didn't just adjust the lighting or contrast in the picture. He mashed the picture horizontally and then produced a dotted line to accuse the original picture of being a fake. I don't really see any rationale or purpose for his fabricated picture to exist on wikipedia. It is not used in any article and there hasn't been any discussion (besides from the uploader) regarding either his faked picture or the original picture. If this picture has been used by massacre deniers as a "credible" evidence then I can see the reason to insert it into the corresponding article. But for this case I see absolutely no rationale. Blueshirts 23:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
        • It was used in the talk page for Nanking massacre before you removed it. Anyway, what you are talking about is a content dispute, the initial IfD and this DRV were meant to address the copyright status and deletion. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
          • The only way it was used was that it was aligned talk page as along with the original picture thumbnail peppered with engrish captions, with no further comments and follow up. Do you count that kind of shit as "discussion" in any sense of the word? Blueshirts 00:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
            • I don't particularly care, in any sense of the word. The comment you replied to meant merely to point out the copyright status, nothing more. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - It was already discussed here. Please see the discussion. It should be depend on the decision of the Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 28#Image:BuriedAlive.jpg. What meaning is there to discuss it again? Hong Qi Gong and Blueshirts were concluded as being the thinker(s) of the Communist's side. --Hare-Yukai 15:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

ps. or Are you Storker(s)?

Orphaned non-free image (Image:The baby setuped by Capra s staff.jpg)

Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg

Image:Picture of smiling with army.jpg

Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 28#Image:BuriedAlive.jpg

Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg listed for deletion

Image:Picture of smiling with army.jpg listed for deletion

Image:The baby setuped by Capra s staff.jpg listed for deletion

Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg

Talk:Nanking Massacre

Talk:Nanking Massacre

Image:Picture of smiling with army.jpg

Talk:Nanking Massacre

--Hare-Yukai 20:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Still delete, see below. So the assertion is basically that this is outright fraud by one of our contributors? Wow. I'm tempted to speedily delete this, and indefinite block per WP:IAR. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak)

  Eh, what's the fraud? John Smith's 23:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  Read what Blueshirts writes, then look at the two photos. It looks like one of our contributors someone took a historical photograph, retouched it, then drew a dotted line on it to draw attention to his retouching, and used that as evidence the historical photograph was retouched. That's just horrible. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  Which picture is more horrible than? --Hare-Yukai 02:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  Hahnchen says exactly what I wanted to say, more clearly, below. :-(. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  I'm glad I resisted the temptation. On further evidence it looks like the original photograph uploaded as BuriedAlive.jpg was doctored, and this demonstrates the doctoring. However, the current photograph uploaded as BuriedAlive.jpg does not show this. Since the only purpose of Fake_Photograph_as_BuriedAlive.jpg is now unnecessary, we don't need it, and no fair use can be justified. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I would ask the admins to please take a careful comparison of this picture in question and Image:BuriedAlive.jpg. Looking at where the dotted line would appear in the latter, you can see that the modification is clearly more than just a dotted line. Parts of the middle of the original image was chopped off and then the remaining pieced back together again. If User:Hare-Yukai really did create this work as he claimed, then he has uploaded this image for the sole purpose of making the image page of Image:BuriedAlive.jpg a battleground to push his POV. Take a look at the history for Image:BuriedAlive.jpg. Hare-Yukai is not trying to use this image he supposedly created for the purpose of discussion, which as we all know should take place in discussion pages - he has been inserting this image right in the image page of Image:BuriedAlive.jpg itself. If he did create this image, then he is inserting original research in the Image:BuriedAlive.jpg page, and it would be extremely helpful if an admin sternly warns him against doing so. On the other hand, if this is not original research - meaning if this image was actually created by a reliable source - then it is a possible copyright violation. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think that I would say that the IFD was closed correctly based on the narrow grounds under which it was opened. In the first IFD, HongQiGong argued that it was only used for discussion, which seems acceptable, thus not a rationale for deletion. In the second IFD, Blueshirts argued that it was not used in articles (same argument, same outcome) and that the uploader was attempting to discredit the original, which seems to violate WP:AGF while not being a rationale for deletion. In this technical sense I do not think the closing admins were incorrect. I am, however, concerned about the provenance of this image, and the opaque critique of Image:BuriedAlive.jpg that it presents. I'm particularly concerned that this image could somehow in the future be used in an article to present a case that its attribution does not support. I would like the uploader/creator to explain the image's creation in straightforward language, including his motivation for doing so, or to present the image's source in context. Is that appropriate here? I simply don't think, having read all of the linked materials, and I do mean all, that I have determined the intent or purpose of the image -- what it "shows" -- about the original. --Dhartung | Talk 08:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure but delete There is adequate reason to believe that the original is indeed in the public domain, and that this is a derivative work to falsely claim that the original was a fake. The creator of a derivative work can release their derivative work into the public domain. If this is indeed a derivative work by the Wikipedia editor, then its purpose is to attack the original image, so we should speedy delete it under G10. If it is not by the Wikipedia editor, then they aren't able to release the derivative into the public domain, so we have a false copyright status. Since it needs to be deleted whether the uploader is the one that modified it or not, we should delete it regardless of whether or not they modified it. GRBerry 13:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC) (New comment further down; I no longer stand by this logic, but it is important to the thread of the discussion. GRBerry 18:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC))
  • Exactly, thank you for putting the issue in words much better than I did. If this is indeed User:Hare-Yukai's own work, then the image was uploaded simply as an attack. If this is actually not his own work, then it's a possible copyright violation. In either instances, deletion is called for. There are dozens of websites dedicated to questioning the authenticity of these images, many having their own little modifications with lines and arrows drawn on the originals to show what they believe are discrepancies in the photos. It's not absolutely impossible that this image was simply downloaded from a website. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse but delete G10, I previously voted keep but I see now Wikipedia is not a place for Wikipedia:fringe theories. -Nard 14:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • In this case, the meaning is different from the meaning of G10 and this problem. --Hare-Yukai 02:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Uploading your own fake photograph to try and discredit another photograph, and citing it as conclusive evidence that the entire Nanjing Massacre was faked, is the most flat out worst thing I've seen on Wikipedia. I'm going to upload an image of King Kong smashing up the twin towers, and then claim it's conclusive proof that the whole thing was a conspiracy. - hahnchen 16:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that if I were an admin, I'd block this user. Although these rash rogue decisions, is probably why I'm not one. - hahnchen 16:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • There. That's what I wanted to say. And I am an admin, and barely restrained myself. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Real historic photograph, notice the normal face and torso of the man with his arm pointing towards the camera

Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg Faked photograph made by Hare-Yukai to discredit the real photograph. Notice the mashed face and torso of the same man, with the added dotted line.

• For a quick side by side comparison, see the thumbnails above. Blueshirts 20:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The modification is also obvious at the man's legs. In the original, we can see negative space between the man's legs. In the modified version, the man's legs are pressed together side-by-side, with no negative space between them. If this modification comes from User:Hare-Yukai himself, then it was original research uploaded as a form of attack. However, if this actually addresses a legitimate concern, meaning it comes from a reliable source, then the photo is a possible copyright violation. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • You shouldn't say such a lie at least. An original image was changed once. You know its fact. If anyone is administrator, history can be seen, and it will be able to be found easily. --Hare-Yukai 00:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • How can you explain this fact?

(del) (cur) 12:44, 14 July 2007 . . Nv8200p (Talk | contribs)

(del) (cur) 14:42, 5 June 2007 . . Hare-Yukai (Talk | contribs)

--Hare-Yukai 00:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Refer to file history of the image:BuriedAlive.jpg.

14:47, 5 June 2007 Hare-Yukai (Talk | contribs) (199 bytes) (→Summary) (undo)

It is clear that at least another file existed before 5 June 2007. I up-loaded this file for the explanation of the currently file. Hong and Blue know its fact. What kind of reason do they say such lie for, and then they entrap me? They have the duty and have to explain its reason. --Hare-Yukai 02:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, you are not making any sense at all, aside from your atrocious English. Must feel pretty hot now, eh? You uploaded the faked photo with the dotted line to discredit the real historic photo uploaded by User:Johnnyboyca. So what's the deal about this "another file" that you're talking about? Care to show us any diffs that we can actually click, instead of some random timestamps? And what's with "entrapment"? You made this image trying to fool everyone, but unfortunately some of us have sharp eyes. Now, would you mind showing us the metadata or whatever that shows that you made the faked image, or perhaps give us a website where you grabbed it from? Your game's up and more confusing engrish from you isn't going to help you. Blueshirts 02:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No need to make disparaging comments about his English. Hare-Yukai - your English is a little difficult to understand. If it helps, you can comment in Chinese and I'll translate. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Present image of the Image:BuriedAlive.jpg#File history were Up-loaded by Nv8200p. It should be revive the User:Johnnyboyca's up-loaded image. --Hare-Yukai 03:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as an admin viewing the deletion log, Hare-Yukai is right that until a few weeks ago, BuriedAlive.jpg was different, so we shouldn't accuse him of fraud. The Fake_Photograph is, however, now unnecessary. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have found three images on the Internet containing the same detail as Hare-Yukai's: [2][3][4]. I don't know why there are two photos around differing on that detail (possibly a problem with the photographic process?). Anyway, this could be a topic for (original) historical research, but I don't see how Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg could be used in a place where original research is disallowed. Tizio 17:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot. These images are known well and generally. The image file which was up-loaded by User:Johnnyboyca was the same as these images. Then, it was more high density image. The presented image Image:BuriedAlive.jpg(now) is extremely rare one. Where did they get it from? I think that it may be one of the precious historically record. --Hare-Yukai 18:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Hare-Yaki: where did you find that photograph? You have to provide the source of image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg and a discussion of why it was faked that comes from WP:RS ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I got it from user:Johnnyboyca's up-loaded file. You can guess it from file history. --Hare-Yukai 18:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Never mind, I see that was clarified above. Weird. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
        • normal picture on bbc news [5] The doctored photo looks like it was folded along the entire vertical axis, with distortion not only including the man with extended hand, but also shortened back of the man with white shirt in the foreground. [6] Blueshirts 02:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
        • It 5 is the secondary fake photograph. It is the photograph made at least after 1995. The first fake (montage) photograph 2 34 were made before 1943, and released by Chinese 國民党(National Party). --Hare-Yukai 09:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
          • And do you have any source for that claim? Blueshirts 15:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
          • This is kind of irrelevant. This photo with the dotted line was uploaded as a reaction to the original version of Image:BuriedAlive.jpg. Since Image:BuriedAlive.jpg has changed now and is not the same photo which the dotted photo indicates, this dotted photo is no longer necessary. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
            • It is described in detail there, the book of the "Nankin incident 'The verification of the Said Proof Photograph'", 東中野修道博士(Dr. Higashinanano Osamichi). 証拠写真「流れ圖」の概説(The summary of the Said Proof Photograph's "flow figure") in the 「証拠写真」の源流を辿る(The tracing of the source history of the "Said Proof Photograph") Depends on this description, it is certain that this photograph is a montage at least. It was already famous matter in Japan in about 1986. It is said that the many 'Said Proof Photograph' about the Nanjing Incident was released from the Nationalist Party bulletin in 1942. --Hare-Yukai 16:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
              • Yeah Hong's got a point. The simplest explanation is that the original photo got folded along the vertical axis in some first publications and was propagated subsequently. Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense to doctor the mashed photo to return to the original photo. Plus I don't trust a right wing revisionists book's take on this. It's like quoting "Did Six Million Really Die" on their take of some photos taken from the HolocaustBlueshirts 17:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
                • It is only an old image (Image:BuriedAlive.jpg up-loaded by user:Johnnyboyca ) that can be confirmed by this book. So it should be review old one and remove new one. --Hare-Yukai 23:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, deleted as no longer needed With the explanation here, the uploader has acknowledged that we no longer need the image. We certainly aren't going to use it in an article. A summary and link to this discussion should be added to the Image Talk page for the original discussion, explaining why the original image wasn't reliable and then we can delete this image as having no remaining use in building the encyclopedia. GRBerry 18:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The old image (up-loaded by user:Johnnyboyca) should be revive. I will use it for many explanations (If Hong and Blue don't disturb it[7]). This contains a new problem. Hong and Blue removed many articles which I wrote. So I can not write any more. Does such condition correspond to the no longer need the image? Let's think about this problem well with all. Then, let's leave this arguments in the important record of the Wikipedia. --Hare-Yukai 23:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • What's the point of uploading another photo where there's already one that's not doctored. Blueshirts 03:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
      • It is because a present image (Image:BuriedAlive.jpg up-loaded by User:Nv8200p) can't withstand to the proof of the source history. It does not exist at least before 1995. So the old image (up-loaded by user:Johnnyboyca) should be revive. As for being more important, Blue and Hong well knows the background of this incident (problem), and you are participating in this argument, like to know nothing. --Hare-Yukai 05:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Look, stop pulling stuff from your ass and post it here, capice? You know very well that the photo with the artifact line was used by revisionists to deny the massacre and at the same time they conveniently ignored the original photo. Blueshirts 05:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! Online (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

It does not fail WP:NOT, and I found sources for WP:WEB:

• GameSpot review
• GameZone review
• GamerDad review

Also, it was distributed with Weekly Shonen Jump, so it is notable (WP:WEB, #3). VDZ 19:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• You don't really need Deletion Review as there was no deletion. You can undo the merge and just improve the article. --W.marsh 19:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I did, but Jauerback reverted it and told me to take it to deletion review...so I'm waiting for an admin to simply say "the article can be undeleted".VDZ 19:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse nothing above to overturn a unanimous consensus at AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as closing admin. This is technically not a matter for DRV, as no article was deleted, but I suppose one would need to produce a very substantial new consensus in order to overrule the AfD's merge consensus. Sandstein 06:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

But why? There's nothing wrong with the article anymore, now is there? VDZ 09:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse - I realized that this didn't technically belong in DRV when I told VDZ, but I also felt that simply letting the article get recreated with some minor changes wouldn't be appropriate, either. Jauerback 15:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• overturn I don't understand. it appears to meet WP:WEB. what's the issue? JoshuaZ 01:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Soul City FM (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I have been working on this article for a while and believe it just about meets the required level? If not please can it be restored to my user page so that I can work on it further? P.S apologies if im going about this wrong, im a bit of a novice here, but I do like it! Video killed the radiostar 14:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC) xxx

• Are there any sources here? Did newspapers, magazines etc. write about this station? If not, undeletion might be a moot point. --W.marsh 15:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah just userfy per Starblind. --W.marsh 00:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted unless sources show up; the article never had any, nor did it assert any notability. --Coredesat 20:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, no problem with userfying. --Coredesat 07:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak overturn This was an A7 speedy deletion, and it could be argued that radio stations are always notable (note that I am not making that argument myself). At least it can go through a discussion at AfD. --Ginkgo100^talk 21:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Restore to userspace so nom can work on it. Sounds like a reasonable request. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• There are one or two more sources i have found on the net using wiki radio project which are related to the subject, i have also found some papers with information on which i would like to/try to upload. This station was unique in the area it served as the format was un like any other. It also was the main contender for the licence. Video killed the radiostar 10:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC) xxx

Mr. Lee (cat) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Ryulong deleted this page twice. It's a notable cat. These are the sources:

• http://www.mr-lee-catcam.de/pe_cc_s.htm (all sources recorded here)
• Your Cat Magazine, United Kingdom
• Blikk Newspaper, Hungary
• Geliebte Katze Magazin, Germany
• The Globe and Mail, Toronto, Canada
• Germanys biggest Newspaper FAZ - Frankfurter Sunday Newspaper, Germany
• Heute Newspaper, Zuerich, Switzerland
• Matin Plus, France
• Huge article in Westfaelische Rundschau, Germany
• Article in NRC Next Dutch Newspaper
• Article in Het Laatste Nieuws, the biggest Bruessels Newspapers
• Yahoo News
• Article in the "Westfaelische Nachrichten" newspaper
• Article in the "Leibziger Volkszeitung" newspaper

I didn't even get to build it? Fromage911 07:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my AFD thing I did after requested to show it was a valid article got deleted too by Ryulong because he said it was useless: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mr._Lee_(cat) Please let me know, and sorry Fromage911 07:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Overturn Even before the references were added the article asserted enough notability to not make it a speedy deletion by mentioning the international presscoverage. Agathoclea 07:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I did it right? Ryu just said on my page it wouldn't survive AFD because it's not an historic cat? Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fromage911 Fromage911 07:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

An AfD is a totally different matter again - this is about if this qualified for speedy deletion first of all - but people most likely will comment on the further use of the article - just sit back and wait a few days now. Agathoclea 07:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

thank you. what about my deleted afd? Was that oK? Fromage911 07:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

List of songs whose title constitutes the entire lyrics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'm not sure that the decision in the AFD was really right. removing the "Don't be so deletionist" and WP:INTERESTING comments, the headcount is at 8:3. The deletes did give reasons. Additionally, the two that !voted "Weak keep" were rather wary on how encyclopedic the article was. Will ^(talk) 06:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• This should have been closed as delete since there is nothing encyclopaedic about songs whose title forms the entire lyrics, there is no properly authoritative source for most of them, and it's an entirely arbitrary selection criterion. Many similar lists have been deleted as random collections of information; this is no different. Just a list of songs matching an arbitrary criterion and selected in the main through original research. Guy (Help!) 06:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure this isn't round 2 of AFD, Guy. The closer seems to have been within discretion. --W.marsh 13:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• endorse closure as reasonable. I note that I am not too happy with this article myself--I did not participate in the AfD as i was undecided. But I notice that the first listed delete !voter changed his mind to !keep in the course of the discussion, so it is reasonable to think there must have been some convincing arguments. DGG (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Given the number and weight of the arguments, I think that consensus (backed by policy and guidelines) is quite clear. Eluchil404 23:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, per Guy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - Keep arguments were "its encyclopedic", "interesting", and EliminatorJr didnt explain how the article was not in violation of "loosely associated items" Corpx 20:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete per Guy above. Eusebeus 22:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete view - There was a balance of views at the AfD and I can see that it was tempting to close as a n/c. However, though these lists are 'interesting' and have a 'cute' factor they really are not encyclopaedic and are essentially pointless. Bridgeplayer 03:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• endorse close I would have closed this as delete but it looks within admin discretion to me. The users should feel free to start another AfD if necessary. JoshuaZ 15:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, the concerns raised by those arguing for deletion were not addressed, particularly the loosely-associated items concern. --Coredesat 04:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete I'm not sure if anyone noticed but this is the 2nd DR on this. I put up the first here Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July#11_July_2007. I'm glad I wasn't alone in seeing how this AfD had an unreasonable expectations from deletion arguments. Bulldog123 04:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's cool and interesting and that IS enough of a reason to keep it on Wikipedia. 72.231.19.104 14:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, delete and write a song about that. Trivia. >Radiant< 15:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)