Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 5

Number One with a Bullet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

No consensus was reached upon closing the discussion, but the vote was 5-4 to keep. Bensin (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion (as closing administrator) AfD is not a vote. The strength of argument for the keeps was weak; all were either not based in policy at all, or were based on a single source constituting verifiable context for notability. That source does not provide context to establish notability of the subject of the article, but rather gives it an essentially trivial mention. As well, the requester has the count wrong anyway, it was 5-4 in favor of delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There were 5 keep votes and 4 deletes, JFire switched to weak keep. Did you read the discussion before you closed it? Catchpole (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Do you assume that administrators read discussions before they close them, or do you assume the opposite? Try having a quick a read over WP:AGF, it's mad good stuff! And please also go re-read the AFD... where do you count User:B. Wolterding? I think he meant to delete it, since he nominated it, what do you think? That would make the count 5:5. But, as I said, AFD is not a vote. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums says:

In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia.

Each and every one of the 15 performers on the album are notable songwriters and there are articles on Wikipedia for (if not all then very close to) every one of them. The songwriters perform their own songs, notable songs that also are covered on articles on Wikipedia. Notability is thus not a problem.

Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums:

Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources.

Where "significant" not necessarily refers to the amout of coverage. The album is mentioned in trustworthy media so it exists, but it is the notability of the performers merits the album an article.--Bensin (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If an intersection has a stop sign, all cars approaching from that direction should stop. Therefore, since this pool has a no swimming sign, all people who walk on the street across the parking lot from it should walk slowly. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 14:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

In what way is that comment related to this discussion? --Bensin (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ask a friend or neighbor to explain it to you. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 20:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You wrote it. Why don't you explain it? --Bensin (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't... I'm allergic. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. Based on the arguements, the close is reasonable. The source provided in the AfD isn't strong enough to satisfy WP:N, and I'm pretty sure that compilations fall under the "mixtapes" mentioned in WP:MUSIC#Albums as not generally notable. If you can find better sources, feel free to recreate it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn WP:N isn't generally a guideline worth following in my experience. The article met our core policies, let's retain it. Catchpole (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If you wish to have WP:N overturned, please take it up on Wikipedia Talk:Notability. DRV is not the place to change policy. -- Kesh (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - Proper close as failing both WP:V (only one source) and WP:N. -- Kesh (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The number of sources has nothing to do with whether the information in the article is verifiable, for which primary sources are sufficient. It is trivial to verify this article. Catchpole (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse For the time being, as it just doesn't fit with notability. AfD seems to be alright as well. Jmlk17 01:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse with a bullet. Consensus that underpins policy is more reliable than the "consensus" represented by a few people voting at AfD. Guy (Help!) 11:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse The closing admin made the correct decision. Captain panda 20:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn, there was no consensus in that AFD and WP:N is not, and never will be, a policy. --Pixelface (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse per jerry Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 00:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, about time albums started getting held to sourcing requirements instead of being allowed to "inherit" notability. Should've been that way all along. There isn't sufficient sourcing here for an article, so the article must go. Nothing else to that story. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Compilation albums are so common that allowing them to inherit notability from the bands it contains is rather bad precedent to set. -Halo (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse - for the reasons laid out by Seraphimblade and Halo. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn I see the closer as substituting his own standard for adequate sourcing, for the standards of the participants in the AfD. Furthermore, many people realize that sources for the pre-internet era, even 1988, can be hard to turn up on Google, and have a less demanding stance than they would had the album been released last year, say. If the closer didn't want to close the AfD as keep or no consensus, he should have added his opinion to the discussion, explaining why he wasn't impressed by the sourcing. --Groggy Dice T | C 01:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn as no consensus. A random non-notable album doesn't get this kind of mention from the NYTimes. Closer asks for multiple sources, but is there anything else (in the article) to source? It was a decent stub already, with good reference from NYTimes, which is a supposedly reliable source. Wikipedia articles need enough, not ample source(s) in order to survive. Further, as Groggy Dice said, there was decidedly no consensus for deletion; if the closer didn't feel one source was enough, they should have weighed in the debate with their views, not close it as an outright deletion. It should also be noted that this article did not fail WP:V in any sense, WP:V only requires that "material challenged or likely to be challenged" be sourced; the page in question contained no unsourced controversial info, thus no policy violation. WP:N, on the other hand, is only a prescriptive guideline, and there are strong arguments from both side concerning whether the article met WP:N or not. This is a no consensus. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The NYTimes article was not about this record. It was about the record industry, and it only gives a trivial, yet enthusiastic, mention to the record. The NYT article does not provide any verifiability for material that was actually in the our article. It could only be used as verification that one newspaper writer liked it and thinks others will as well. Not a valid source, and it was the only one. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 18:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In the New York Times article Jon Pareles, the chief music critic, writes about the album in no less than three paragraphs. That hardly constitutes a trivial mention, but is a valid source if anything. --Bensin (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, as we discussed at great length on my talk page, the critic is making a point about the entire industry and states that a certain person is unique, and he goes into huge details about this person. He then obligatorily mentions that this album is another similar example of one aspect of what he said about the other guy. He does not offer any encyclopedic details about the album, like sales, airplay, why the album has the particular songs on it that it does, or anything of value to our article. He just says that it is sure to be a delight to listeners. He gives it a passing mention in an article dedicated to a completely different subject altogether. It is most definatly not> a review of this album, as you seem to suggest. "source" implies that it contains content that we use, not that its a really famous person who happens to mention it. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Three paragraphs is not a passing mention. Neither is it a review, and not in any way did I imply that it was. As for the rest of the "content that we use", I'm sure that the jacket of the record itself provides a detailed enough tracklisting. --Bensin (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the NYT piece didn't discuss sales or airplay, but many album reviews and articles don't, so that's not indispensable. And it actually does discuss "why the album has the particular songs on it that it does." Also, a "passing mention" is maybe a sentence or two, not a couple of paragraphs. What this case boils down to for me is this. Just as BIGNUMBER means that an article with tens of thousands of blog hits may be deleted because there's no "mainstream reliable source," there's also SMALLNUMBER. Lack of massive coverage does not prove something is insignificant; for instance, someone may be influential but choose to work behind the scenes. In this context, the position that the Pareles piece represents recognition by the New York Times is not a slam-dunk keep, but it is reasonable. The retort, that it's just one source and not even the main thrust of the article, also has merit. And if it had persuaded the majority of AFD participants, I couldn't argue with the close. But it didn't, so a debate with two reasonable positions has been settled by your dismissive attitude towards one of them. --Groggy Dice T | C 17:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"The NYT article does not provide any verifiability for material that was actually in the our article." Sorry, I must disagree. The NYTimes article verifies a quote used in the article, which made it a valid source. The only other piece of info presented in that article is the "track listing" part, which is hardly "material likely to be challenged", thus doesn't need a source, IMHO. If anyone has different views then they can look it up easily at amazon or all music or whatnot. There is absolutely no verifiability issue with this article (it was short, yes, as all verified decent stubs can be. Could you point out something else so controversial that must be verified?), the only thing debatable is notability, in which case, there are a good number of AfD participants who deemed the three-paragraph mention from NYTimes to be notability evidence. I don't think their opinions should be disregarded just because the closer was on a different wavelength. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you say that this notion of notability you are putting forth here has any community consensus? If so, why would you be pushing this agenda here instead of at WT:N or WP:VP-proposals? Do you expect administrators to ignore guidelines such as WP:N because there is some better way to do things that is not documented anywhere, but well known to you? Administrators closing AFD's need to weigh the arguments posed against policy, guideline, and precedent. If it was about counting the number of participants who want something, then it would be a vote, and we would not need administrators at all... the fine folks upstairs in the development department could just put a vote-counting feature in the server to automatically handle AfD's. Delrev is not the place to try out radical new platforms. Notability is a very important part of what is done in AfD. If you don't like that... go change it first, then come back and enforce what you have changed. Doing it this backwards way is obtuse and not the wiki way. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." From Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums. --Bensin (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a demo album, not an officially released album. This means that it is performed by the writers of the songs. Therefore the performers are not notable as performers. The clause you cite is for hit albums by charting groups. If Colin Powell sang happy birthday to his neighbor's dog and I recorded it on my walkman, it would be a recording of a work performed by a notable person, but it would not meet the spirit and intent of the clause you cited, as this article failed to do. And the word "may" is a very special word with a very significant meaning which is not there by accident. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You argue that the word "may" be interpreted literally (preferably to your definition), but that the word "album" be interpreted as "hit albums by charting groups" to meet some "spirit and intent" of the policy. You wrote in your post "reply to nonsense" that there are other arenas for debating changes of policies. --Bensin (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Guideline, not policy. And since you quoted the first sentence of the guideline above, let me point out the one you cropped-off:

Note the words "significant" and "sources" <---- plural. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The more you've expounded the premises behind your close, the more it confirms for me that you did not judge this AFD with even scales. If you feel that Wikipedia should only have album articles for "hit albums," or that demos by professional songwriters are equivalent to a random celebrity singing to his dog, or that a published compilation of successful demos should not be considered an "officially released" album, those are big assumptions to bring to the table. All of these are propositions that should have been tested in the AFD discussion, not brought out in DRV. Your idea of what constitutes a "passing mention" differs from that of many editors. You oppose inflexible vote-counting, but favor inflexible source-counting. You like admin discretion in deciding AFDs, but dislike any discretion in evaluating guidelines, even though guideline pages specifically give leeway for exceptions. You base some of your arguments on the current "may" wording of the album guideline, even though this language was changed without any real consensus to do so. You interpret the guideline's comment on demos to apply to this album, though a logical inference would be that this clause was meant to prevent innumerable articles on individual demos, not a published album compilation of demos. And I'm not disturbed by the fact that there's only one source at present, because in the reams of dead-paper writing from 1988, there's surely something else that was written about it somewhere. That, combined with the fact that the one source currently is the New York Times, not the Boise Gazette, is enough to make me respect the opinions of those who chose to keep. Groggy Dice T | C 16:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you know more about me than my mother does, now, aparently. What a quick study! Scary. Did you peruse my other AFD closes and find that this is fairly consistent disruption on my part? Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 19:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Two issues from the Afd after a brief discussion the closing Admin said to use DRV.
The first is the article African Australian which was closed as Keep the closing rationale said it was a term clearly in use. The issues raised was the article is a WP:SYNTH due it being an undefined term, this was not addressed by any editor during the discussion and no source was provided that defines the term. IMHO the closing admin counted the numbers rather than the content of the discussion.
The second article listed and kept though with a suggestion that it should again be listed at AfD, Afro-Australian was a POVFORK and a GFDL copyright violation due to copy paste from African Australian, consensus for this was clear that it be deleted/merged.
What I ask is that the copyvio(Afro-Australian) gets speedy deleted as such by an independent admin, the article African Australian be deleted without prejudice. Gnangarra 18:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Notes - Afro-Australian redirects to Afro Australians Of African Descent, and I just removed the AfD template and added the DRV template to it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn keep closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African Australian and as per Gnangarra delete fork mentioned above (and any future fork).

The closing admin stated keep side of the discussion show that the term is in use, by the Autralian [sic] government and otherwise

There is no evidence that the term is in use by the Australian government: dot gov dot au websites cited were all referring to the names of non-government organisations - in no case was it a term used by a government body or politician outside that context.

The Australian Standard Classification of Cultural and Ethnic Groups (ASCCEG) used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics does not allow derivation of this data at an appropriate (other than 4 digit) classification level.

The article thus breaches WP:SYNTH as it comprises original research: Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. In this case there are no sources cited that directly relate to the subject of this article - nor do any such sources appear available. In requesting deletion however, my view is that this should without prejudice to recreation should someone be interested in writing a valid stub based on appropriate and reliable sources --Matilda ^talk 23:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse keep. Perfectly valid close based on reasonable grounds. The article demonstrates the term is in use. Lack of government sanction for the term is immaterial. Even though there is disagreement on what the term means, that should not preclude having an article on the topic that covers all meanings of the term. If articles require an unambiguous definition before creating then Riverina fits into the same boat as well. Regarding WP:SYNTH, discussing multiple uses of a term is not creating a synthesis and even less "demonstrat[ing] the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position". Problems with the article's content should be dealt with outside the deletion process. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be willing to consider deletion without prejudice to recreation should an editor be willing to write a valid stub removing any elements of WP:SYNTH. While I fee the topic is notable and can be sourced, the content at this stage does need a major rewrite. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• endorse keep the objections were considered at the Afd, but the consensus was otherwise. DGG (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - an Afd considers the arguments, not counts the votes - so a consensus has to form around the argument. The nominator is correct that the argument of WP:SYNTH was never adequately addressed, therefore article should be deleted. Article also fails to quote reliable references - not one reference uses the term, and the included official Australian statistics do not use the term. There is no basis of fact here, and therefore no basis for an encyclopediac article that even a clean-up would fix. Bardcom (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse keep. The AfD was, in my opinion, closed according to the consensus there. The notability or validity of the term should be discussed elsewhere, perhaps further at AWNB, but I don't see an issue with the AfD close. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Anal Sex with Sluts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted in mid writing. I can understand the "prod" but not the speedy. Secondary sources were forthcoming and would have enhanced the value of the article. The deleting administrator suggested I take it up here. JeanLatore (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• speedy keep Deleted though politely termed original research, representative content included . " ... is a common pastime of attractive young men and woman in Miami-Dade Count and Broward County, etc etc. " . Fortunately, this is not typical of your edits. DGG (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. This was a proper G3 deletion. Nothing salvageable and hard to believe that it was intended in good faith. If there are reliable sources on this topic they should be added to the anal sex article and this one should not be recreated even at the MOS compliant title Anal sex with sluts. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse; what a strange undertaking. This can not have been a serious attempt at writing an encyclopedia article. April 1st was 4 days ago, if it was brought up then, I am certain that everyone would have assumed it was a joke. Agree with Eluchil404 as to what to do with any sourced information. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse Are you being serious? Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Uh, obviously. Is this even still open right now? Jmlk17 02:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse content was blatantly inappropriate for Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 16:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse No. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse The issue here is... what? Please, this can't possibly be a legitimate article. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Si.mobil-Vodafone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Si.mobil is the second largest mobile operator in Slovenia. Its brand is called Si.mobil-Vodafone. My proposal is to restore the article and move it to Si.mobil.[1] Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. A provider with a significant share of the market is certainly notable. Not sure which name is better, though. I think they always use Vodafone as a part of the name. --Tone 15:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, as the deleted article is about the company not the brand, it makes sense to use the name of the company which is Si.mobil.[2] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it's the company. Si.mobil is fine. --Tone 17:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Recreate the deleted article was an unsourced sub-stub that would today probably be speedy deleted under A7 and G11. However, a properly sourced version would be welcome at any time. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Uh, wow. That AfD is from '05. Recreate rather than go through DRV. I'm perfectly sure that good enough sources exist now, but I can garuntee that it's easier to recreate it than do anything here. History merge after recreation is also cool by me. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy; and allow recreation with proper sources. VFD was too long ago to simply overturn it. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Recreate Could easily become a better article, or worked into the project somehow. Jmlk17 02:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've recreated it. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this needs a close, then. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Slon in Sadež (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Slon and Sadež are notable Slovenian musicians for the following reasons: a) They're recipients of the Viktor Award (nagrada Viktor),[3] which is one of the most important (probably the most important) media awards in Slovenia (aka the Slovene Oscar); b) In the year 2008 they have run the whole Viktor Award show [4]; c) Their satirical music is well known in Slovenia. Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• I will restore this article. The deletion was a bit too fast, the band is pretty much notable. However, I would ask you to put those references in the article. Regards. (how do you close a discussion here, what's the template?) --Tone 14:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Son of Stimpy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Persistently deleted as recreation of deleted material - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Scooter for Yaksmas, a discussion about many Ren and Stimpy episodes. I reworked the article for this episode during the deletion discussion, which went unremarked on. I then recreated the article after deletion as I was confident that the new version was adequately sourced to address notability concerns. Unfortunately a number of different administrators have responded to speedy deletion tags that have been placed upon the article, some of them whilst an arbitration injunction against deleting episode articles was in place. I now submit my request to the community to gain input as to what is exactly wrong about the article as it stands. (As I do not have a copy of the deleted article to hand, it may be useful for non-admin participants in this discussion to be able to view a copy of this article to be placed in my userspace. Catchpole (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• This article is a substantial recreation of an article deleted at AfD; I agree that an administrator should temporarily userfy the article to demonstrate that. Nominator does not show fault with the closure of the AfD for this article. Consensus was clear the first time around, and the nominator (and perennial deleted-material re-creator) knows full well that an article so similar to one already deleted by process should have come to DRV before being created in the mainspace. With no injunction to hide behind, this article must stand on it's merits, or lack thereof. Keep deleted. ➪HiDrNick! 16:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Consensus is not clear, the previous discussion was about over 40 articles, this is about a specific one. I didn't come to deletion review before in the belief that boldy by-passing such bureaucracy would be encouraged. It is disheartening that your continued efforts to delete this article are diverting my energies from other activities. Catchpole (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist if desired. The current version contains a third party reference from a published book dealing with this episode, and thus does meet the problems from the AfD. I do not think it would be currently deleted, but given my involvement in these discussions, I'd like another admin to review it before undeleting even for inspection. DGG (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist if desired. The current version is not a G4. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. I agree with User:HiDrNick. No indication that the AfD was out of process. If this particular episode merits an individual article, that point could be raised at the LOE talk page to establish consensus. Eusebeus (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, per above. One reference does not make independent significance, significance was adequately addressed at AfD. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Please do not misrepresent the deleted article, which has more than a single reference and more were provided at the AFD discussion. Catchpole (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

yes, my meaning was it has one indisputably RS good book reference in addition to the probably acceptable web sites used in the original--the relevant paragraph is: "In An Introduction to Film Studies , ed. J Nelmes, Routledge, ISBN 0415262690, the episode is used as a case study and comments on the motifs in the episode. The 'Son of God' motif which underpins the cartoon, signalled in its title and its Christmas setting and soundtrack, allies the sacred and profane in a way that some might find provocative. Kricfalusi does not make this a coherent analogy, however, but self-evidently uses the 'openness' of the animated vocabulary for subversive purposes. -- DGG (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn, if the changes address the reasons for which the material was deleted, WP:CSD#G4 doesn't apply. And the earlier AFD seems to have been a bad faith nomination by a Simpsons fan who doesn't like Ren & Stimpy. --Pixelface (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Undelete as episodes are verifiable and notable; no consensus to delete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:BowsersCastleSMB3Toon.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

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

Since those images were tagged for deletion, I put them on my current IP's talk page to stop them from being deleted. But they were removed from the page, and now they are deleted. Please bring them back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Besuto (talk • contribs)

• Endorse deletion If they were non-free (ie copyrighted) images as the log says, they can't be used on user pages or user talk pages. They would have to be used in an article, have an important purpose within that article which couldn't be served by text or a free image, and have a proper fair-use rationale written for them. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 11:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)