Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 1

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

Editors seemed to ignore the fact that there have been several records released by WATMM (under the label WATMM Records), which in and of itself is notable- or hey, by this logic, why not just delete the Virgin Records article? - Nö†$®åM 21:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

watmm: 1 compilation cd, short run (1000 units or less), self released virgin: 65,000 releases over 38 years, over 100 billion units - Theodore Tresgareth

The key point is that their record label is self-created. For it to be notable, a band should be signed with an established label or sell a lot more than 1000 copies of their self-created album. See WP:MUSIC. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong... A case study in irony lulz! Notability is NOT popularity. - Nö†$®åM 21:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There are quite a few musicians that have their own wiki articles that frequent watmm, not to mention they have a record company, are an extremely popular website. the first vote was 100% in favor of keeping watmm. this said someone felt there was "no consensus" (you know who you are you silly nazi you) and all the article was voted out. someone obviously has an agenda to kick this article out. --AlexOvShaolin 21:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, sockfest, enough already. Guy (Help!) 21:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. You have to give a better reason for fulfilling WP:MUSIC than "all their music is self-released." Because that does not fulfill WP:MUSIC. Forums are not trustworthy or reliable sources, by the way. Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Undelete, quite obviously per my above reason and AlexOVShaolin... Also, you're not to be concerned with the forum link, by the way. From what I gleaned quickly from WP:MUSIC, it says nothing about record companies, independant or no... - Nö†$®åM 22:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CORP works for record labels. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, AfD validly closed, no non-trivial coverage in reliable sources shown which would merit overturning the AfD. Pretty much nothing is notable "in and of itself" by our standards. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, please delete the site too, they think the tuss is by aphex, how wrong they are - Theodore Tresgareth

• Endorse deletion I am the webmaster of WATMM.com, and I think this Wiki article should be removed due to constant defacement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.194.98.16 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
  • It should probably be pointed out that there is very little chance that this IP is actually the webmaster of WATMM. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Philippine Presidents by longevity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

There was no consensus for deletion. The closing administrator concluded that there was a consensus for deletion because he or she erroneously ignored all arguments that were based on precedent, on the idea that Wikipedia should be internally consistent, or on the idea that Wikipedia should avoid bias. Those are legitimate arguments in a deletion debate and should not have been ignored. As background, six nearly identical articles have undergone deletion nominations, and each of them was kept. The only difference any editor has mentioned between those articles and this one is that this article concerns the Philippenes rather than a European or English-speaking country. Fagles 19:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I listed some reasons why I think the article was improperly closed on the deleting admin's talk page. -Fagles 19:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I've notified everyone who commented on the AfD about this deletion review.-Fagles 20:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Overturn per Fagles and per WP:PAPER and WP:BIAS. Carlossuarez46 20:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You're citing a policy can apply to absolutely every page that is created and a WikiProject? Why would that overturn a deletion?John Reaves (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I anticipated seeing this one appear on DRV, and to be honest I'm a bit torn. The merits of the keep !votes were fairly weak - my own among them. I was relying largely upon precedent in other similar articles that had survived deletion and assumed that consensus was to keep these sorts of things. However, as it was ultimately deleted, List of United States Presidents by longevity is now up for deletion. Ultimately the fact that other such articles exists is not in and of itself a reason to hang on to an article, but in both this debate and that one a consensus is lacking and there are no strong arguments on either side. Overturn due to a lack of consensus. Arkyan • ^(talk) 20:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Overturn, no concensus. Abeg92contribs 21:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn a consensus must be met in order to delete, not just personal ideals or opinions. Jmlk17 21:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn the admin may have a point that "keep per precedent" is not much of an argument, but neither is "delete. unencyclopedic." Either way there was clearly no consensus. This flawed deletion is now being improperly used in an attempt to delete the similar list about U.S. Presidents. --JayHenry 22:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

So "unencyclopedic" isn't good reason to delete something from an encyclopedia? John Reaves (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi John, feel free to read WP:UNENCYC which elegantly and accurately, argues that "Delete. Unencyclopedic." is not a real argument and explains why it should be avoided. I also suggest looking at WP:FIVE which is sorta the five core principles of Wikipedia. It clearly and unambiguously states, in the first sentence no less, that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." (emphasis added as this is a good example of information that would be in an almanac). --JayHenry 00:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's just an essay, I was talking in terms of common sense (which I sincerely hope I don't need to cite something for). Yes, the anonymous user below has already pointed out the five pillars already. John Reaves (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, geez, John, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were the closing admin and would be familiar with those two references to begin with. I didn't mean for that to sound patronizing. The bottom line is that I saw the AFD for Philippine presidents and thought it was a no-consensus, with both sides making some really weak arguments. I think this is good information for an almanac which is Wikipedic if not "encyclopedic". In fact, I have a Time Almanac which includes exactly this information about longevity (for US). --JayHenry 03:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. John Reaves (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn as there was no consensus and per JayHenry Aquatics ^{Guard Alert} 22:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I see eleven people suggesting variations-on-the-theme that to delete would be systemic bias since we list US presidents in this way: a pefectly valid policy based argument, and I can see no reason to discount it. There was clearly no consensus to delete. AndyJones 22:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Relist Put it with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Presidents by longevity. Or overturn, but anyway there was in no way a concensus for delete.--T. Anthony 22:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Confirm Deletion I feel the delete !votes on the AfD carried more weight than the keep votes, which all relied on precedent and consistancy arguments. How is that different from 'other stuff'? I admit there is an issue of bias in that lists of Western country's leaders by longevity were kept, but that redressing that bias by allowing in trivial things like this is not the answer. Deleting the other lists and adding meaningful, encyclopedic content about non-Western countries is a quality solution, keeping this list is a quantity solution.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 22:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Precedent arguments can carry some weight on their own merit. If we allow it already, why prohibit it on something else? Honestly, I believe there was no consensus with respect to the decision to delete the Philippine presidential longevity list. --Sky Harbor 00:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Confirm Deletion. Firstly, that other bad articles exist is not a reason to keep this one. Secondly, there is already a featured list of Philippine Presidents. To introduce another ordered by longevity is a content fork and should not be encouraged. The existing list should be converted to a sortable table class, and the longevity data added to that one, and then every other column can be sorted too. Need an alpha sort, or a sort by succession date? No problem, use the same article for everything. And yes, I believe every US list should be consolidated too! --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 00:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • • • The argument isn't just "other stuff exists"; it's "other stuff exists and subsequently survived AFD" which sets precedent. You can't make a list on US presidents survive and delete the same one regarding people from another country. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you mean WP:POVFORK and, uh, this is not a content fork. --JayHenry 00:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks, fixed my link. Uh, a content fork is ... creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. Why is this not a content fork? --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 01:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I read the "content fork" guideline as being concerned with POV forks. I think that just because you have one list about Philippine presidents doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't have other lists about them. Perhaps merging "age at election" and "age after office" and "longevity" into one sortable table would be a solution, but I didn't know that was practical. Certainly merging every president-related list would be too cumbersome. --JayHenry 01:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Confirm Deletion. I am a Filipino and that list doesn't help me at all in any way in my course Political Science. Researching who outlived who doesn't matter, or who lived longest. What matters is what the president did during his term and factors affecting his decisions. Longevity wouldn't affect in any way a president's decision-making. I hope my vote proves in no uncertain terms that the AfD for the US list is not a WP:POINT because my arguments here goes the same for other lists of this kind. There are lists that are helpful and encyclopedic, this one and others like it is not. This is just trivial and list-cruft. Berserkerz Crit 06:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Sjakelle's argument "There are many ways to rank things, those which have some sort of impact on the subject matter are justifiable, but since a president's longevity means nothing to the person's presidency, this is not one of those" is extremely convincing and not at all rebutted by the keep proponents, whose arguments consisted entirely of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If we have this, then why not Filipino presidents by height or Filipino presidents by birthplace going North to South, since all have equal relevance to being president of the Phillippines? The closing admin was right to discount arguments which did not demonstrate that the article was not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. As Arkyan said: "Cyrus Andiron makes a very valid point that we have List of U.S. Presidents by longevity, of which this list is essentially a clone for another country. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not in and of itself a reason to keep an article, but the US list survived an AfD attempt along with a batch of other, similar lists. That makes it precedent, not just "other stuff exists"." There's no reason to treat this any different than the other lists that already have a concensus behind their survival. All articles of this type should be treated the same. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn If this article is deleted, then these articles should listed be on AFD and deleted because of prior precedent: List of U.S. Presidents by longevity, Earliest living United States president, Oldest living United States president, List of First Ladies of the United States by longevity, List of United States Presidents by date of death, List of U.S. Presidents by time as former president, List of United States Presidents by date of birth, List of Austrian Presidents by longevity, List of Presidents of Portugal by longevity, List of German Presidents by longevity, List of United States Vice Presidents by longevity, List of German Chancellors by longevity List of Austrian Chancellors by longevity, List of Canadian Prime Ministers by longevity, List of Portuguese monarchs by longevity, List of British monarchs by longevity, List of Japanese Prime Ministers by longevity, List of Secretaries-General of the United Nations by longevity. Otherwise, that is a textbook definition of bias. Also, the closing admin must not have read the comments in the AFD because most of them were in favor of keeping the article. I was under the impression that rulings were based on consesus. When did the whim of an administrator take precedent over that?--Cyrus Andiron 12:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Consistency and avoiding bias are both fine reasons to keep an article. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - the arguments based on the existence of similar lists for other countries are weak. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an excuse for keeping this article. Articles on similar topics get treated differently in every day's AFD. Accusations of bias are unsupported and a failure to assume good faith. It is not bias to want an article deleted, just because that article happens to deal with a non-English speaking country. Arguments like "it's a big country and it deserves to be treated like other countries" are ridiculous on their faces and should be ignored in their entirety. Nothing "deserves" a Wikipedia article and no article is entitled to exist. Articles regarding the United States and Canada and Russia and China and Japan and other countries that are way bigger and more important on the world stage than the Philippines are deleted every day. The closing administrator correctly discounted opinions based on invalid and unpersuasive arguments and properly deleted the article. And if any of the other ridiculous "...by longevity" articles get nominated, let me know and I'll happily !vote to delete them. Otto4711 04:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Arguments to keep this based on the existence of other article would be weak, were it not for the fact they survived AFD. If AFD decides having such a list is useful, than applying that to all such lists is the logical thing to do. Whether the country is important in world politics is irrelevant because Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. Personally, I think using sortable tables and merging the lot of them in the main lists is the way to go. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That a particular article survived AFD is not a guarantee that another similar article will. Precedent is useful to look at in AFD but it is not ironclad. In addition, consensus can change. Otto4711 12:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its authors. I'm amused by Otto's comment that the U.S., Japan, China, and Canada are more important than other countries because of size. That is pretty much a textbook example of WP:BIAS. He talked about how any assertions of bias were in bad faith, and then made a comment about how being "way bigger" made them more important. A bit ironic, huh? When did the size of a country become a determining factor in importance? If that is the case, then any articles on the Philippines would be more valuable than any articles on the United Kingdom. The Philippines has 56,000 more square kms of land area and thus is more important. By this logic, all UK articles should be deleted before we tackle anything on the Philippines. Cyrus Andiron 12:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Always glad to be able to offer amusement to a fellow editor but I do wish that in this instance it was as a result of something that I actually said. My comment was that other countries are bigger and more important on the world stage, and it was in response to the faulty argument that the Philippines article sould be kept because of the size of the country. In fact, what I'm saying is that the size of any country has no bearing on whether articles about it should be kept. Sorry if that point was confusing for you. Otto4711 14:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually you made the distinction between size and their impact on the world stage. The "way bigger" comment was what I was referencing, perhaps you had forgotten. Moving on though, neither one of those criteria should apply in this case. The Philippines is still a country and should be treated with the same respect as any other country. I'm unaware of a policy that restricts "less important" countries in terms of what can be written about them. Please point me to where I could find that information. --Cyrus Andiron 15:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, my memory is just fine. You time might be better spent worrying less about my memory and more about your reading comprehension. To rehash yet again: In the AFD, an argument to keep was as follows: "The Philippines is a fairly large and significant nation deserving the same treatment as others." In response to that I noted that articles on countries that are larger and more prominent internationally are also deleted, because the size of a country or its prominence in world affairs has no bearing on whether an article listing off how old its presidents got to be should be deleted. You're fixating on the "way bigger" part of the statement and ignoring that it is part of the phrase "way bigger and more important." Regardless of how twisty you try to make what I said, the point still stands that arguing for this article on the basis of either how big or how important or some combination of the two is not a relevant argument. Otto4711 17:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me more pointing out the flaws in your argument. As I said earlier, this article was deleted the first time without consensus. Also, it appears that List of U.S. Presidents by longevity will survive its AFD. Your assertion that articles on countries that are larger and more prominent internationally (in regards to leader's age) are also being deleted is completely ficticious. Is my comprehension all right so far? Please show me where one of those articles has been deleted. I listed quite a few earlier, and they all still appear to have blue wiki links. How is that not biased? --Cyrus Andiron 19:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't restrict my comment to articles concerning the age of a country's presidents. Take a look back at my original comment. I referred to articles regarding countries generally, not only specific articles on presidents by age. Perhaps you should concentrate on the words that are really on the screen instead of the ones that aren't anywhere but inside your head. Otto4711 01:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Only argument given for keeping was WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, even if the OTHERSTUFF was kept on its AfD. Maintaining consistency is possibly a worthy goal, but not one of our guidelines or policies. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. Looking at the AfD there was clearly no consensus for Delete - there were in fact more "keeps" than delete. NBeale

• AFD is not a vote. Otto4711 09:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Confirm Deletion if all other articles listing by longetivity are deleted. Otherwise, Overturn. --Matjlav^(talk) 01:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. No new information to present here, except that Wikipedia doesn't count votes. Wikipedia weighs votes. And the delete votes outweighed the keep votes tenfold. Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The subject is notable, I challenge this deletion because the guy is notable in computing. Carlaw3030 13:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion valid AFD, no new evidence presented here... DRV is not round 2 of AFD. --W.marsh 13:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. You're lucky this article went to AfD: I would have regarded it as an A7 speedy deletion candidate. It is also a hoax: there is no 'Sir Craig Barber'. Sam Blacketer 14:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close. We just had this discussion a week ago - [1]. Corvus cornix 16:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• I thought I remembered the name. Speedy close. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

This was deleted out-of-process, and the subject meets all policies on notability, biography, verifiability - he's covered in third-party sources, and he is notable enough for inclusion here. Carlaw3030 13:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete with the assumption that the article will be improved. Sufficient sources seem to exist [2]. However, I have no problem with the deletion... the article did not truly state importance and no sources were cited to make it easy to tell this article was not a hoax, so it's not hard to see why this got speedy deleted. --W.marsh 13:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete - then relist for proper AfD if necessary. We have no way of telling what the article was or why it was deleted, and there seems to have been no AfD debate. From the google he seems to be marginally notable: without the article and its discussion page, how can we tell? NBeale 17:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse CSD A7 without prejudice to recreate: the entire version that was deleted was: "Daniel Morcombe was 13 years old when he disappeared on December 7, 2003. He was last seen waiting for a bus on Nambour-Connection Road, approximately 2km north of the Big Pineapple, on Queensland's Sunshine Coast." This is a substub that hardly asserts notability per CSD A7. There are thousands of missing person cases that are not encyclopedic material (WP:NOT the crime blotter), but if this is, i.e., if the subject is indeed notable vis-a-vis an kidnapping/missing person case properly covered per WP:RS (no, it doesn't have to be as sensationalized as Natalee Holloway, just sourced), then by all means let's create a proper stub that, at worst, would be discussed at AfD. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • NOTE: previously discussed, closed with a similar note to my recommendation above: [3]. Not sure why new Carlaw3030 is rehashing previous DRVs, including Craig Barber, but it looks like a WP:SPA. This article was deleted five months ago and there has been no new version since. If another discussion is not needed on this topic, then perhaps the previous motion ("Deletion endorsed, no prejudice against creating a new article.") is reasonably still valid. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse CSD A7 - this was a perfectly proper deletion since no notability was asserted in the article, as can be seen in the full text above. Being a missing person, even if widely reported, does not confer notability. I have no problem with the article being recreated if there is enough material for a viable article. TerriersFan 19:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete, allow re-creation. Per the previous DRV here, it does seem to be notable - well, in Australasia, anyway. A source was cited in the original DRV, but its reliability would have to be assessed per WP:RS. I could create an article on it - ask me on my talk page if you have any questions. I'm no expert on the subject, but I'll have a go at an article anyway. --SunStar Net ^talk 20:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: I have created a stub article at User:SunStar Net/Daniel Morcombe - please use the talk page of this to discuss it, and I'll move it into mainspace if there's a consensus for this action. --SunStar Net ^talk 20:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Just move that into mainspace. Your version meets WP:N, so we can close this debate and move on with things. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Article is re-created, now it can be AFD'd if people want. --SunStar Net ^talk 21:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

UNDELETE_REASON Goodlookingmanager 08:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, valid AFD, no reason given for overturning it. >Radiant< 08:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. A redirect to the one sentence in Marc Bolan is reasonable. Sam Blacketer 09:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure but it seems like what is being challenged here is the full protection of the article to enforce the redirect. This is not really the domain of DRV. Perhaps an article RFC to establish a new consensus not to redirect... or just discussion on the talk page. --W.marsh 13:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. W.marsh hit it on the head. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse original closure, but unprotect. Specifically, the nominator was told to come here to discuss it, so that's one issue. More importantly, the protection should not be permanent here - as an AfD result of "redirect" is not binding and should not be held in place by two people who had expressed opinions at the AfD when two people unrelated are challenging that. For the record, I think a redirect is a poor choice for this article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and protection, at least for now. Let's not actively invite more problems. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion no reason given. JuJube 00:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion bad-faith nom? Sr13 (T|C) 02:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Loren Cass (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|Joint AfD)

I believe the article "Loren Cass" was deleted in error. It was thrown in at the last moment in a "deletion discussion" for an entry regarding the director of the film, Chris Fuller, but the article on the film was up for years and should not have been removed, in my opinion (see info and sources below). It was lumped it days prior to deletion without any discussion and was removed. As a result, many Wikipedia, Google, and other web links have stopped working. Not to mention Wikipedia users will be deprived of knowledge regarding a film that many are searching for information on. A transcript of my exchanges with the deletor, who referred me to this page, is below for reference...thanks for your consideration and, hopefully, restoration:

The Wikipedia entry for the feature film "Loren Cass" was recently deleted and I'm confused as to why. It seemed to comply with the notability guidelines and has also been up for a long time, probably over a year, perhaps even several. The subject matter is supported by numerous major newspaper articles, reviews, and websites around the Internet. The Wikipedia entry was linked to by a number of websites and got/gets a large amount of traffic via Google, as evidenced by the official website's incoming traffic logs from Wikipedia visitors. I believe this entry was deleted in error as part of an entry for the director, "Chris Fuller", and the Wikipedia deletion logs even show a comment by the deletor referring to it as a "documentary film", which it is not (as evidenced by the Wikipedia article itself and, obviously, numerous other Internet sources) and further proves that the deletion was inappropriate. Thanks for the consideration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.92.208.140 (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

• It was deleted as the result of a deletion discussion. Perhaps provide a few citations of the major newspaper sources you have mentioned, so that I can have a look? - Mailer Diablo 10:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The deletion discussion was regarding the entry for the film's director, not the film itself, which was lumped in at the last moment prior to deletion and not discussed at all. Here are a few examples of external sources regarding the film. It is brief and by no means comprehensive, there are many more. If you need me to dig them all up I will, but again, I didn't write the original article (which had the sources referenced) and would prefer the old one just get re-posted. If I need to research and re-write the entire article myself, just let me know. Until then, here's the examples:

• http://www.sptimes.com/2006/10/11/Neighborhoodtimes/Movie_will_have_its_f.shtml *http://www.nationalmediamuseum.org.uk/bff/2007/film_detail.asp?details=all&filmid=6674&class= *http://www.auff.org/uploads/AUFF.pdf
• http://imdb.com/title/tt0464098/

Please re-post the original as soon as possible, if that is what you deem appropriate. Again, it's been up there for years to no ones detriment, however, it being down as killed many links throughout the web and throughout Wikipedia itself, not to mention deprived Wikipedia users of information on a relevant work of modern art (that many are actively looking for). Thanks again.

• Ah, now that's something. Perhaps you may to put forth a case of appeal at deletion review. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 15:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• comment. The debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Fuller was opened on March 29 at 7:00. "Loren Cass" was added 5 minutes later (and not "in the last moment"). Most of the debate took place on April 4th. It was closed on April 9th. --Aleph-4 23:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Aleph-4's explanation. It was a valid co-nomination and a valid AFD. --Coredesat 03:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. AfD was closed properly, but I hope we're not forgetting the purpose of DRV (*cough* number three *cough*). New sources have been provided, so the article should be overturned. Let's also not overlook the fact that Mailer Diablo seemed to think that it was worth brining to DRV. Rockstar (^T/_C) 04:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn after re-reading the nomination statement and looking at the sources. IMDB doesn't work, but the others do. --Coredesat 04:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn It was (apparently) up for ages and never had an AfD debate. If someone thinks it should be deleted it should be AfDd properly NBeale 09:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)