Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 19

Image:Giafront.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The fair use image for a deceased individual with the impossibility of obtaining an open soure image (back in the days who would take a picture of a model and then abandon the copyright?). This image should be restored and added to the article. Chimeric Glider (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Restore - The FUR looks reasonable to me; at the very least it merits an IfD. Doesn't look like process was followed. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 23:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Deleting admin says restore - Hmm, I might have been wrong on this one and not realised she was actually not living. Sorry about that - David Gerard (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Please. Mistakes? --TarzanASG (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry? Is there a reason for challenging the article's deletion? Tony Fox (arf!) 19:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No Use For Nickels (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page is significantly different from the original version. The article is clearer about the fictional elements of the organisation. The organisation does not actually destroy or promote the destruction of Canadian currency. It is merely a social group that actually exists in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada that has based its website on the pretend notion that the nickel (Canadian coin) should no longer be circulated. Although this “war against the nickel” is a joke, the organisation has made videos and written “facts” about the subject (also meant to be taken as jokes). All 95+ members listed on the NUFN website are real people who have themselves decided to become members. An article about the No Use For Nickels Organisation is as notable as one about any other club or organisation. With time the article should be able to be improved substantially. Thank you for considering this request. Juliancaza (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn. Was speedied as a G4, but the previous AfD linked to was closed as a speedy the same day it was opened. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The organization in question is fictional, and the portions that are real are irrefutably non-notable. This article has no place in an encyclopedia. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted should have been specified as A7 rather than G4, but I think it was a harmless slip of the mouse. A valid speedy. A club without claim to notabilityDGG (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment by deleting admin I agree that I should have changed the CSD from G4 (the tagger's reason) to A7, given the nature of the AFD. Regardless, the article is still meets the A7 criteria and so I believe it should stay deleted. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that voids my concern pretty well. Change to neutral, only because I can't see the article in question. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment by original editor To clarify, the NUFN is a real organisation with a fictional cause. All 95+ members are real. Sorry, I may not have made this clear originally. Juliancaza (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, that's not the reason it was deleted. It was deleted because the article doesn't tell us why the organisation is important. Why it deserves an article. I hope this helps. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment by original editor Thanks for your comment lifebaka. I would argue that the fact that the organisation is real and that the membership is substantial makes it as important as any organisation.Juliancaza (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gayl.pdf (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The doctor in question had a significant on the practice of emergency medicine and emergency medicine law as well as setting the nationwide legal precedent for precluding the admission of students for psychiatric observation when they seem to pose a threat to other students on a campus or in a school. The case served as the basis for current legal education concerning when to avoid admission of patients for psychiatric observation if they pose a public safety risk before they have committed an overt act, such as shooting someone or stabbing someone. The case in question occurred years before Columbine and is still cited and remains unique. If necessary I can include the legal discussion related to the case and the eventual ruling by the Michigan State Supreme Court. Mstytz (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Part of the problem was that this was a PDF file consisting of plain text. If you want to get text into Wikipedia, you should type it in as text rather than trying to upload a PDF file as an image. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - unwanted PDF file because Wikipedia is not a repository for source texts, potential copyvio. Are US state rulings in the public domain? MER-C 13:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (note: I nominated it for IfD) not only is this in the wrong format but it would need to be completely rewritten as the tone and most of the content are unencyclopedic. I understand if you are upset about your wife's death, but Wikipedia is not the place to build a memorial. I doubt this is a copyvio though. Hut 8.5 16:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - extremely moving. However, as described above, it needs to be converted to plain text and rewritten in an encyclopedic manner. WP:DEV, WP:BIO, and WP:RS may help. BlueValour (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per above. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)