Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 14

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

Per the original nomination for deletion: "This model/wrestler is not notable, the article is poorly written there isn't sources confirming her career, and this article contains fragments and run-on sentences. Also there isn't enough information to make an article about her"

Since the time this article was deleted, she has met the notability requirement and is now a contracted wrestler for Total Nonstop Action Wrestling using the ring name "Velvet Sky". She has appeared on TNA Impact! on at least six occasions in 2007 (see Online World of Wrestling for details), and has appeared on three TNA pay-per-view events: TNA Bound for Glory (2007), TNA Turning Point, and TNA Final Resolution (see TNA Wrestling's Website for Final Resolution details). She also has a profile on the TNA official website: Velvet Sky Profile.

She is listed on various internet sources under the names Talia Madison (ring name), Velvet Sky (TNA-copyrighted ring name), and Jamie Szantyr (real name). Tigrahawk (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Allow recreation and list - A sufficient degree of notability now exists for another look at the page and there are a number of news references here. I am not knowledgeable enough to judge whether all this is sufficient for compliance with notability requirements so a broader view would be helpful. BlueValour (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - IOn my experiece working on Pro-Wrestling articles, anyone on the active roster of one of the major promotions is considered notable. As she is an active wrestler at TNA, and wrestling regularly on their weekly show, and their PPV's, she is now notable.LessThanClippers (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I can't objectively "vote" overturn, since I've been part of the effort to get an article on her all along, but I think it bears mentioning that Talia Madison is not her real name, but one of her ring names. It's not, however, the best-known one - that would be Velvet Sky. To satisfy WP:NAMEPEOPLE, her article should be at Velvet Sky (preferably) or Jamie Szantyr, her real name. Talia Madison should be a redirect. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per MfD, AfD, DRV #1, DRV #2 and DRV #3. No substantial new information here. --Smashville^BONK! 01:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as procedural default. Just be bold and recreate the article with lots of inline citations and little to no puffery. JERRY ^talk _contribs 12:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Her article can't be recreated. All 3 possible names (Jamie Szantyr {her real name}, Talia Madison {her best known ring name and what the article should be called}, and Velvet Sky {her current TNA ring name}) have all been salted. 20:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn, I guess. It is true that the character "Velvet Sky" now actually exists on television; when these were deleted, the character was merely a hypothetical mention in the wrestling blogosphere (notoriously unreliable, even among blogs.) I suppose this creates a substantial change of circumstance, although I'm unconvinced that enough WP:RS exist to make a sound article. To address Jerry's point above, these articles had been salted, so recreation without some sort of appeal was impossible. I salted them, so I will unsalt them now, subject (of course) to the final decision of this review. Xoloz (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I thought that a user who wished to recreate a salted page could create the page first in their userspace, then ask the salting admin to unsalt it. I did not think this required a Delrev, as long as the new article was not "largely identical to the original article and still not addressing the concerns that resulted in its deletion." JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Any admin can move a draft into mainspace if they agree that the AfD concerns have been resolved. The problem here is that we don't have a draft to look at, nor any independent sources. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly why I was suggesting to create the article first (in userspace), demonstrate that it will satisfy the previous deletion concerns, and only THEN request to cross-namespace move it. To request unsalting it based on a new DELREV discussion seems unnecessary and much harder. The article will effectively have to be recreated here, one line at a time, in the form of a lot of comments and replies. It would be so much easier for the user to just make the page and ask an admin to move it. This procedure is wasting time and accomplishing little. JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep salted I somewhat agree with Xoloz that now the presumption of notability exists (which is why I didn't speedily close this nomination), but per the history of this article I want to see either conclusive evidence in the form of reliable independent sources or preferably a feasible draft in user space before I agree to unsalt this. In this case, the onus is clearly on the editor who wants this article restored, and the sources in the nomination are still insufficient. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn per Xoloz. D.M.N. (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn She is a regular on TNA television, has wrestled several times on pay-per-view, and has easily become notable (which she has been for several months actually). TJ Spyke 20:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as with articles like The Game (game) - reliable sources independent of the subject are needed first.

--Solumeiras ^talk 10:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Here are a few independent sources: Talia Madison World - Official Website, Talia-Madison.org - Fan Site, Online World of Wrestling profile, Glory Wrestling profile, Lethal Women of Wrestling profile, Slammin Ladies profile Tigrahawk (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Obviously, if someone creates a good userspace or Wikiproject space draft using independent sources, move it into article space. But I don't see reason to unsalt before that time. GRBerry 15:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Recreate in userspace, then bring it here: it seems that she has now achieved notability, so just write an article already. Articles which have been salted after being the subject of multiple creations, deletions, reviews, etc. aren't likely to be unsalted just on request - please write the article first. --Stormie (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Article has been recreated in sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tigrahawk/Sandbox —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigrahawk (talk • contribs) 23:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The Medic Droid (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This AfD was re-listed on 12th January following an invalid non-admin closure (see previous DRV below). It was closed on 14 January as "No Consensus" by Shirahadasha. My concerns are: (a) Was it appropriate to close the AfD after only two days of further discussion after re-listing? (b) If so, was "No Consensus" the correct result? All the opinions expressed after the re-listing were "Delete". (c) Was Shirahadasha justified in "upgrading" my !vote from "Weak Delete" to "Weak Keep"? (See [1] and [2]). I believe that the AfD shows a clear consensus for deletion, so my primary recommendation is Overturn, but I would also support the AfD being re-opened in its current form. Tevildo (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete - I queried Shirahadasha regarding this decision, and was told that the decision hinged on the iTunes chart, which the majority of those who opined for delete (which included myself) felt did not satisfy the requirements of WP:MUSIC. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) with regards to that, and thus far the only other opinion agrees that retailer charts should probably not be considered as fulfilling that particular part of the guideline. I also have to question the consideration of a "weak delete" as a "weak keep," but even if that was the case, a count of 8 delete opinions to 4 keeps (one of them weak) does lean towards a consensus to delete, especially with the basis of those keeps being a retailer chart. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Relist - there was a consensus to delete, but only just. Addhoc (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The closure was as a No Consensus, not as a Keep, hence can be relisted without requiring review. It might be useful to gain clarity on the status of the iTunes chart before doing so. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Would you object to reverting your close? Addhoc (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "The closer got it wrong" is not a reason for relisting, it's a reason for review. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per Trialsanderrors. Addhoc (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - clear consensus to delete shown in the AfD discussion. [[Guest9999 (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)]]
• Overturn and delete re (b) An obvious delete after the supposed evidence for notability has been rejected in the discussion. Re (a), yes, the discussion can be closed at any time after the relisting once it has created more discussion. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete there was a consensus to delete the article. All alleged evidence of notability was refuted. Hut 8.5 19:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: one of the main issues here was whether the fact that the band had a track which "at one time ranked #26 on iTunes top 50 dance chart for the U.S." made them notable. However, I'm actually becoming increasingly dubious about the reliability of this claim. The reference given was [3]. A page on a site described as a "free songwriting resource and general music resource for both fans and musicians", not a reference to Apple's actual iTunes site. This chart describes itself as "Today's Top 50 Songs in Dance" yet it hasn't changed since it was linked to from the AfD discussion a week ago. And looking on the actual iTunes site, all I can find are Top 10 listings for each country, with no historical data. So I certainly stand by my opinion from the AfD discussion that this article should be deleted. --Stormie (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

List of television shows set in Connecticut (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Admittedly an old AfD but I think the discussion clearly showed a consenus to delete the page, far more users felt the page should be deleted than kept, with 15 users expressing the opinion the page should be deleted, 3 users who thought the article should be removed and the content merged into Connecticut and only 6 thinking it should be kept. The page is essentially a content fork of Connecticut and an unnecessary, unencyclopedic cross-categorizations; none of the shows listed are notable for being set in Conneticut. Guest9999 (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Just nominate the list for deletion at AfD. Yes, consensus can change, but DRV is not going to reverse outright a "no censensus" closure from 2005. DRV is totally unnecessary. Xoloz (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed. Close the DRV and make a new AFD nomination. When you do, be sure to provide a link to the prior discussion along with the arguments you've presented here. Rossami (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Withdraw nomination and close - as consensus can change. [[Guest9999 (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)]]

WP:RFALITE (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

DarkFalls' reason for speedy deletion in the deletion log for WP:RFALITE is "(WP:POINT)".[4] WP:POINT (better known as Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point) is not a valid speedy deletion criteria. I request that the page be undeleted. If there is a desire for deletion, DarkFalls (and anyone perhaps wanting it deleted here) should have gone to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion as the proper venue. Mahalo. User:Ali'i - Name added by Onorem after some format issues.

• WP:UCS over blindly following process, please. Endorse deletion per my comment on User talk:DarkFalls: "(...) I realise this was likely created in good spirits/as a joke, but people have strong feelings about the process surrounding non-admin rollback, i.e. that it doesn't become RfA-lite. Such a redirect is only going mislead some people and aggravate others, neither of which Wikipedia really needs right now. (...)" – Steel 15:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Going by the book, the real reason for deleting this is CSD R3. The redirect is plainly misleading (as WP:RFR is not RfA-Lite), is thus an improper search term, and is an implausible typo. No invocation of WP:IAR/UCS needed, although the deleter might have been more precise in providing a rationale. Xoloz (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not asking whether this should be deleted or not... that would be a discussion for Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. This is a request to review the process of the deletion. Was it out-of-process? Was DarkFalls right to delete it? I think that it was clearly out-of-process. Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point is not a valid criteria for speedy deletion. It should be undeleted and listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion if anything. Let's not endorse out-of-process deletions like this where a admin just doesn't like the page. A deletion discussion should have happened first. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • As I was attempting to communicate, the deletion was within process because CSD R3 properly applied. That the deleting admin didn't see the proper reasoning within process is regrettable, but the deletion can be sustained, even if he was a little off on the rationale. Xoloz (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Criteria 3 states... "Recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are redirects in other languages." It's not an implausible typo (it means what it says, it's not as if the redirect was Wikipedia:Reqeusts for rollback). So the question is more of a wrong naming convention. And I think if you look at discussion, you will see 1. that some people do think the Requests for Rollback page is RFALITE, 2. that redirects are, of course, cheap, and 3. the deleting administrator had no speedy deletion criteria in mind when deleting, and that using some contrived, post-deletion retrofitted criteria is quite underhanded. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy-deletion and send it to RFD. WP:POINT is not a speedy-deletion criterion. (Note: WP:VANDAL is a valid CSD and many POINT violations would be vandalism but the user's contribution history does not appear to support a conclusion of vandalism in this case.) Neither is CSD R3 supported in this case. This is not a typo. It may be a misnomer but that assessment is debatable. It is not such an obvious or deliberate misnomer that it met the "implausible" requirement. Speedy-deletion was inappropriate. Let RfD sort it out. Rossami (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn There's a balance to approaching potential WP:POINTs: if your rectification of a provocative act is more likely to inflame tempers than the said act, then don't do it. WP:CSD#R3 is a non-issue since many widely used WP-pseudospace redirects make absolutely no sense (e.g. see WP:OMGWTFBBQ and Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:OMGWTFBBQ). You can take this redirect as a harmless joke and let it go or you can think it an affront to civility and take it to WP:RFD. Deletion is a reactionary approach to dismissing dissent. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion pointless, pointed, missleading, inflamatory. Viridae^Talk 02:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Xoloz. This was a recently created redirect to a misnomer. Some people might think that Rollback is kind of like RFALITE, but for it to be a misnomer people would actually have to call it that, and in all the rollback drama that I've seen, I've yet to see anything suggesting that this is actually being used. Think of it with a different example: some editors (including myself) think that a lot of biting new users occurs at MFD, so would it be okay for me to redirect WP:BITE to WP:MFD because some people do think that MFD is bitey? --JayHenry (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - meets speedy delete criteria G6 and possibly R3, deleting admin could have given a better explanation of their actions though. Guest9999 (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)]]
• Endorse for reasons given above. Deb (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn, list For starters, R3 ("implausible misnomers") is certainly not applicable, per the various arguments above that "Rollback is not WP:RFALITE" show that the misconstruction of RFR as RFA-light is in fact very plausible. If there is a concern make sure the policy itself states that requesting rollback is not akin to RFA-light. More to the point, speedy deletion is not a tool to forestall, or game the outcome of, community discussion on a controversial topic, and the brunt of the arguments above fail to address the abuse of speedy but rather make a case for deletion at WP:RFD. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  I never have a strong objection to more discussion, my wise friend; but, it seems to me that an RfD on the question of WP:RFA-Lite is a rather indirect way of addressing the question. Isn't the policy page, as you say, the right place to discuss such questions, before making any such subtle redirect (either WP:RFA-Lite or WP:NOTRFA-Lite)? I'm not endorsing deletion here to "game the system", but rather because I really do find the redirect implausible, in the sense that -- without checking -- I'd really have no idea what it was redirecting to. After all, WP has "editor review"... my suspicion is that most editors would be unable to guess the purpose of the redirect, and it is for that reason that I don't find the speedy deletion abusive. Xoloz (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  By your argument above the redirect is misleading (it purposely creates a wrong impression) rather than implausible (without foreknowledge, the reader cannot glean from the redirect where it's going, which is true for 99% of our WP: redirects), an opinion that is shared by the deletion rationale. I'm not sure what policy the argument that a policy discussion needs to be held before a redirect can be created is based on, but I don't see how either a consensus for or a consensus against the notion that RFR ≠ RFA-lite in the discussion would affect the redirect itself. The rationale for the deletion is that the redirect expresses an opinion that goes against community consensus, and it does so in a disruptive way. Other than by scanning for most objectionable intent, I can't conclude this. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  The difference between the normal soup of acronyms and this example is that those are objective; while I couldn't expect anyone to know all of them, I do expect everyone to find them sensible once the target is revealed. To understand this redirect, an additional subjective implication must be grasped. While I appreciate your semantic distinction above, I suppose I've been assuming that a misleading redirect of this kind is "objectively implausible", in that it cannot be understood without resort to a particular subjective view. I agree that whether redirects are meant to be objective is a point unstated in explicit policy, but I think that this assumption underlies the system of redirects. I cannot think of a single other example of a redirect so riddled with subjective opinion. In any case, I do wholeheartedly agree that this case could use more discussion, so I will not be at all distressed if a new RfD is the result here. Xoloz (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. Xoloz explains the deletion rationale well (much better than the deletion summary). Even if the letter of R3 doesn't apply WP:IAR allows us to apply the spirit which coupled with WP:POINT makes this a clear delete. Redirects from odd or unexpected strings may be kept if they are helpful, but in cases such as this where they serve as commentary on the linked page they are generally disruptive and should be deleted. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - even if it is a pointy redirect (which it obviously is), the redirect has value in the same way WP:ILIKEIT or WP:DRAMA has value - it's beneficial as a a tongue in cheek characterization during a discussion. --B (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The function of DELREV is to assess the deletion of something, determine if deletion is the correct action to have occurred, and restore things that should not have been deleted. Clearly this redirect should have been deleted. DELREV does not serve some secondary purpose of instructing admins to make correct, proper, accurate edit summaries when making deletions. The correct venue for that might be WP:RFC, if the situation is habitual and severe. To game this DELREV process to serve some unintended purpose seems a disruption of wikipedia to make a point. There is a document somewhere about that.... oh yeah, up there in the nom... WP:POINT. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The best way to avoid WP:DRAMA is not to start it. And I still have to see a valid reason to delete the shortcut other than a severe case of WP:ADMINITIS (which, from the evidence presented here, seems to be contagious). ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, Jerry, "[t]his page exists to correct errors in the deletion process". If you note #2 in the box on the deletion review main page, it reads, "Deletion Review is to be used ... if the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions." I asked DarkFalls politely to undelete, which he or she refused. Then I came here. The question is not "should this redirect be deleted?" That would be an excellent question for Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. The question is "was this redirect deleted within process?" I don't think it was, so I took the appropriate channels to have my grievance heard. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Xoloz's rationale hits the nail on the head. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, it's misleading, simple as that. >Radiant< 23:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • How is it any more misleading than WP:DRAMA, WP:PUSSY, Wikipedia:Annoying users, WP:NEEDS MOAR DRAMA, Wikipedia:Requests for Transcendence, Wikipedia:Requests for edit whores, and many, many more subjective/misleading redirects? Also, simply being misleading (which I still might contend it isn't) is still not a criteria for speedy deletion. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I can't speak for Radiant, but I would support deleting all those you mentioned, even speedily. Redirects should not be used for meta-commentary; it's disruptive. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Two of those are meant to be funny, but I have deleted the rest under R3 as implausible and disruptive. Thanks for helping with cleanup, Ali'i. Xoloz (talk) 06:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

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

I would like the article restored to my userspace so I can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion. User:Mundokiir - Name added by Onorem after some format issues.

• Request Granted. I will userfy to User:Mundokiir/West_Coast_Rock_School. Please work expeditiously on improving the article, and return to DRV when you finish -- because the worry here is its advertorial tone, the content cannot remain very long, even in userspace. After two weeks, redeletion will probably be reasonable. Xoloz (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I was the person who deleted this article. Additional work is fine to see if the problems can be fixed. However, in addition to the tone, it needs to meet WP:ORG, WP:RS and WP:V and clearly assert notability. 19:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs)

Image:McDs fish deluxe.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

Image:McDs arch deluxe.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

Image:McDs grilled chicken deluxe.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

Image:McDs crispy chicken deluxe.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

I was having problems posting this as it was not displaying after I posted this earlier this morning. I was also trying to include the other three images deleted as well, but gave up in futility at the time as I could not see what I was typing when trying to preview my post. What I was trying to say was this:

The nominator claimed the images were only decorating the article, when in fact they were being used to display two points:

1. To show an example of the product being described in the article;
2. To show how the McDonald's used a similar design theme in its advertising program to link the products in the consumers mind by using identical fonts and graphics but with different colorations for each product.

The second point is the most compelling reason why the images were not being used for decoration, as it is an example of the saying a picture is worth a thousand words. Those five images quickly showed the reader the similarities found in the advertising without me or other contributors having to include a lengthy description for each item. There was an issue when the page was first created that the image captions were not shown. When the IfD was was proposed I realized this and fixed the images so the their captions were included and the image were shown in their proper context, however this seemed to have been ignored by the submitter.

Also the consensus was a little iffy as only three people commented on this: the submitter, my self and one other.

- Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC))

• Endorse deletion. Indeed, the non-free image was only decorating the article, and the IfD correctly so determined. Although I assume the nominator disputes this conclusion, he doesn't actually say so... if the nominator it to have any hope of success, he'll need to expand his reasoning. Xoloz (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Further comment Jeremy's thesis is interesting, and I'd wager there are probably reliable sources to support it in sociological literature on American advertising (which would need to be found and cited.) If that can be done, I'd support the inclusion of these images. Otherwise, anybody can take a picture of the items in question, and use that as the free-use example, making point one irrelevant. Xoloz (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply - The main notability in this article was that it was a disastrous flop in the annuls of advertising ($100+ million), and the sandwiches were discontinued a decade ago. Images of the products are very hard to come by, we were lucky to find them in an archive of McDonald's web page. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC))

This is a measure of my frequency of eating at McDonald's: I still thought the products were new! Amazingly, for an American, I've managed to become fat without Ronald's help! ;) Xoloz (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse, these pictures are obviously inappropriate. Your understanding isn't hindered by not seeing a picture of their fish sandwich. --B (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - You failed to read the primary reasoning behind the image's inclusion: While the image does show an example of the product, it's primary usage is to show the similar advertising theme used by McD's. Read #2 from above. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC))

• Overturn and relist the user has made a coherant argument that holds water, so to speak, that the fair use of the images is justified and contributes encyclopedic content to the article in which they are used. Further, a valid reasoning has been provided as to the irreplaceability of the images. Three comments at an AfD are unlikely to equate to concensus, particularly if the nom and the other !voter did not read the third users explanation and comment on it. Relisting the debate is likely to have resulted in a different outcome, and that different outcome is likley to be the right outcome, based on what this user has explained here. Let's do the right thing. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Well I think a question to ask here is, is there a free alternative to the presumably non-free ones that were deleted? Can McD's hold the copyright to the image their food products? If not, then someone can/should bring their digicam along on their next visit. Tarc (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Reply - The product has been discontinued for a decade. You cannot get any images of these items. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

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

AYCE is more than just a "high school program"; it is effectively a high school in and of itself, albeit an unconventional one. If small rural high schools are justified in having entries, a program that provides comprehensive secondary education for about 200 students should also be given an entry. User:TheLoneAmigo - Name added by Onorem after some format issues.

• Overturn. It's a contested PROD, according to the logs. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Although it is a contested PROD, in the event of an overturn, it would be immediately subject to speedy-deletion as an example of CSD A7-group. The PROD deleters should have realized that the CSD superceded the PROD, but there is no need to engage in the pro forma act of restoring simply because they did not. Xoloz (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• In light of the arguments below, I remove my opposition; with no opposition, the request can be speedily granted as a contested PROD. Xoloz (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn schools are explicitly not subject to speedy for notability--for the empiric reason that they are always contested in good faith by established editors. This page seems a question for AfD, where I might defend it--but I can't see how to defend it realistically unless there is additional information provided, and at least some degree of outside sourcing. So the simplest thing might be to first write a better article; you need not ask permission here for that. DGG (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - as an expired prod the page can be recreated on any reasonable request to an admin which this is. It is worth a mention what this is all about. This is an innovative programme for educating students who have problems fitting into mainstream high schools. There aren't many about but I know of one in the US. They have their own premises and over time acquire many of the characteristics of a high school though they remain a programme. It is still early days but there are a couple of useful profiles here that would count towards the necessary multiple sources. This is an important educational initiative and it would be a pity to lose it. TerriersFan (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)