Yo – keep closure endorsed – GRBerry 00:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Yo (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` According to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, "All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not)...". This article transparently fails Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so it should be deleted regardless of what the AfD votecount is. I was the only participant recommending deletion here but felt policy is clear in this case, so I asked the closing admin to reverse his close or at least relist the AfD. He refused to do either. BTW would like to acknowledge that this is just one of many recent WP:WINAD AfD's that in my view were closed in favor of votes and against policy. The attitude of many participants in these AfD's, including this one, has seemed to be "it's long, so it can't be a dictionary article" which is wrong as explained in WP:WINAD. Pan Dan 22:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure. Doesn't seem like a dictionary entry to me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse own closure of corse. The consensus is obvious for keep, and DRV is for review of process, not a second hearing on the article. Overturing or relisting would be way out of line. There is no policy or anything I can use to relist that or overturn it. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] endorse keep The content is much more than a dictionary definition, & the AfD made it obvious.DGG 03:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Relist. No policy violation can be clear enough to overturn near-unanimity... but it still contains nothing but definition, etymology, and usage. And I don't really think that four people is enough in most cases anyway. -Amarkov moo! 04:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment DRV is to make sure that process was followed and nothing was deleted or something out of process. It's pretty clear in this case. DRV is not a second look at the article. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 18:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Arguments clearly going against established policy counts. -Amarkov moo! 22:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment I'd also like to point out that the user asking for the review User:Pan Dan recently also got into a dispute with admin User:Coredesat over the closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You. Same idea there. I have used the same rational as User:Coredesat in my closing, and he eventually got fed up and told him to go here too. Just a little background/pattern by User:Pan Dan. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 18:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Let me help you out with that detective work. I also had discussions with User:Deskana concerning You, User:Bucketsofg concerning List of Chinese surnames, and User:Seraphimblade concerning List of most popular given names (though I demurred from having one with User:Bobet over List of Internet slang phrases). So what does this show? It shows I've been involved in lots of WP:WINAD AfD's recently (to which I refer in my nom above) and am bewildered at how little some editors, including some admins, seem to understand WP:WINAD. I didn't want to bring the other AfD's to DRV, because the others had at least some minimally convincing reason to keep (it's a list so it helps in navigation, You could be potentially be used as the site to build an encyclopedia article about Time's 2006 Person of the Year, etc.). But in the case of Yo, there is no reason whatsoever to keep in the face of basic policy. The process that was not followed, in answer to your other point, is Wikipedia:Deletion policy which I quoted in the first sentence of my nom. Consensus at a single AfD discussion should not trump the general, long-time consensus behind a basic policy such as WP:NOT. Pan Dan 18:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] So your claim is that there's no other way to expand this beyond a dictionary definition? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] A dictionary article is more than a dictionary definition. See WP:WINAD. Pan Dan 18:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yes, all articles are subject to high scrutiny (well, we would hope all). If they are not, they are nominated for AFD, and in the AFD discussion on whether or not it meets all criteria is discussed. In this case, it was decided that it met policies (3:1 to be exact). Asking me to override consensus would be a gross misuse of everything this wiki stands for. And this is not the first time either. How many admins will it take for you to listen that we will not override consensus that is 3:1 for something? We cannot decide here whether we followed that line (All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not)...) you cited because that is what AFD is exactly for! AFD decides whether it meets rules. Not here. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 22:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] So you determined the result of the AfD by counting the votes, even though the voters' rationales contradict policy? You're not a bot. Pan Dan 19:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] You obviously have no idea all the work sysops do. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yes, thank you. Now, again: Do you believe that there's no other way to expand this beyond a dictionary definition? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] The current version of the article is already more than a dictionary definition. It is entirely composed of dictionary content. Please read WP:WINAD--just one more time. Pan Dan 19:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Then we disagree on the interpretation. This clearly doesn't fail the clause you're claiming it does, to me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps merge to one of the lists shown on Slang to fix the problem? >Radiant< 10:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse retention Much more than a dictionary definition. Honbicot 11:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse keep It has the history behind the word. It isn't just a definition. Wikihermit 21:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure. While I agree that this page is currently a mere dictionary definition, there were no process problems with the AFD discussion. Give the "keep" voters the benefit of doubt for now. If it remains unimproved, the page can be renominated after a reasonable time. Rossami (talk) 06:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Yo – keep closure endorsed – GRBerry 00:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

According to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, "All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not)...". This article transparently fails Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so it should be deleted regardless of what the AfD votecount is. I was the only participant recommending deletion here but felt policy is clear in this case, so I asked the closing admin to reverse his close or at least relist the AfD. He refused to do either. BTW would like to acknowledge that this is just one of many recent WP:WINAD AfD's that in my view were closed in favor of votes and against policy. The attitude of many participants in these AfD's, including this one, has seemed to be "it's long, so it can't be a dictionary article" which is wrong as explained in WP:WINAD. Pan Dan 22:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. Doesn't seem like a dictionary entry to me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own closure of corse. The consensus is obvious for keep, and DRV is for review of process, not a second hearing on the article. Overturing or relisting would be way out of line. There is no policy or anything I can use to relist that or overturn it. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorse keep The content is much more than a dictionary definition, & the AfD made it obvious.DGG 03:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. No policy violation can be clear enough to overturn near-unanimity... but it still contains nothing but definition, etymology, and usage. And I don't really think that four people is enough in most cases anyway. -Amarkov moo! 04:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment DRV is to make sure that process was followed and nothing was deleted or something out of process. It's pretty clear in this case. DRV is not a second look at the article. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 18:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Arguments clearly going against established policy counts. -Amarkov moo! 22:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd also like to point out that the user asking for the review User:Pan Dan recently also got into a dispute with admin User:Coredesat over the closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You. Same idea there. I have used the same rational as User:Coredesat in my closing, and he eventually got fed up and told him to go here too. Just a little background/pattern by User:Pan Dan. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 18:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me help you out with that detective work. I also had discussions with User:Deskana concerning You, User:Bucketsofg concerning List of Chinese surnames, and User:Seraphimblade concerning List of most popular given names (though I demurred from having one with User:Bobet over List of Internet slang phrases). So what does this show? It shows I've been involved in lots of WP:WINAD AfD's recently (to which I refer in my nom above) and am bewildered at how little some editors, including some admins, seem to understand WP:WINAD. I didn't want to bring the other AfD's to DRV, because the others had at least some minimally convincing reason to keep (it's a list so it helps in navigation, You could be potentially be used as the site to build an encyclopedia article about Time's 2006 Person of the Year, etc.). But in the case of Yo, there is no reason whatsoever to keep in the face of basic policy. The process that was not followed, in answer to your other point, is Wikipedia:Deletion policy which I quoted in the first sentence of my nom. Consensus at a single AfD discussion should not trump the general, long-time consensus behind a basic policy such as WP:NOT. Pan Dan 18:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So your claim is that there's no other way to expand this beyond a dictionary definition? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - A dictionary article is more than a dictionary definition. See WP:WINAD. Pan Dan 18:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, all articles are subject to high scrutiny (well, we would hope all). If they are not, they are nominated for AFD, and in the AFD discussion on whether or not it meets all criteria is discussed. In this case, it was decided that it met policies (3:1 to be exact). Asking me to override consensus would be a gross misuse of everything this wiki stands for. And this is not the first time either. How many admins will it take for you to listen that we will not override consensus that is 3:1 for something? We cannot decide here whether we followed that line (All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not)...) you cited because that is what AFD is exactly for! AFD decides whether it meets rules. Not here. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 22:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So you determined the result of the AfD by counting the votes, even though the voters' rationales contradict policy? You're not a bot. Pan Dan 19:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You obviously have no idea all the work sysops do. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, thank you. Now, again: Do you believe that there's no other way to expand this beyond a dictionary definition? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The current version of the article is already more than a dictionary definition. It is entirely composed of dictionary content. Please read WP:WINAD--just one more time. Pan Dan 19:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Then we disagree on the interpretation. This clearly doesn't fail the clause you're claiming it does, to me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps merge to one of the lists shown on Slang to fix the problem? >Radiant< 10:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse retention Much more than a dictionary definition. Honbicot 11:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep It has the history behind the word. It isn't just a definition. Wikihermit 21:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. While I agree that this page is currently a mere dictionary definition, there were no process problems with the AFD discussion. Give the "keep" voters the benefit of doubt for now. If it remains unimproved, the page can be renominated after a reasonable time. Rossami (talk) 06:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Retarded Animal Babies – ENDORSE CLOSE (keep deleted). Neither AfD nor DRv are votes, so basing strictly on strength of argument, the close was proper as no credible proof of sufficient notability was offered, nor did this DRv offer substantive new data or indication that the original close was improper. – Herostratus 13:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retarded Animal Babies (edit\|talk\|history\|links\|watch\|logs) Retarded Animal Babies (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` Deleted per WP:WEB in december 2006 after an AFD that barely had discussion or consensus, and protected from recreation on the first nomination. Retarded Animal Babies has since gained notability since being prominently featured in a Weird Al Yankovic video. Propose to undelete, as it was a well written article, or at least allow recreation. --Edokter (Talk) 18:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] If this is now notable please present multiple non-trivial reliable sources to verify that. Appearing in a music video isn't enough, although it may indeed have spawned the sources we need. --kingboyk 19:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] http://www.aintitcool.com/node/30010 http://www.antimusic.com/news/06/sep/1208.shtml http://news.awn.com/index.php?ltype=cat&category1=Commercials&newsitem_no=17943 To name a few. --Edokter (Talk) 19:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] All of those sources are copies of the same press release, and are not about the subject of this article. - Bobet 19:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted - The sources are all the exact same thing (essentially a press release) and they barely mention the "Retarded Animal Babies". Wickethewok 20:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Relist "barely had discussion" there were 18 comments to the review, which I would think adequate--but they were evenly divided, and the was no consensus about the criteria to be used. The closer used based the decision on personal opinion with respect to this.DGG 20:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted, all three of those are the same thing and do not mention the subject of the article at all. The article was deleted because the keep arguments did not address the concern of the nominator. Also, the AFD was plagued with single-purpose accounts, so some of the keep votes have no merit. --Core desat 20:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, above sources do noting to challenge the legitimacy of the original deletion as Coredesat notes. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted per Wickethewok. --kingboyk 11:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist. No specific prejudice against the original closure, but 57,000 Google hits suggests there may be something here. RFerreira 02:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Retarded Animal Babies – ENDORSE CLOSE (keep deleted). Neither AfD nor DRv are votes, so basing strictly on strength of argument, the close was proper as no credible proof of sufficient notability was offered, nor did this DRv offer substantive new data or indication that the original close was improper. – Herostratus 13:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Deleted per WP:WEB in december 2006 after an AFD that barely had discussion or consensus, and protected from recreation on the first nomination. Retarded Animal Babies has since gained notability since being prominently featured in a Weird Al Yankovic video. Propose to undelete, as it was a well written article, or at least allow recreation. --Edokter (Talk) 18:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is now notable please present multiple non-trivial reliable sources to verify that. Appearing in a music video isn't enough, although it may indeed have spawned the sources we need. --kingboyk 19:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/30010

http://www.antimusic.com/news/06/sep/1208.shtml

http://news.awn.com/index.php?ltype=cat&category1=Commercials&newsitem_no=17943

To name a few. --Edokter (Talk) 19:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- All of those sources are copies of the same press release, and are not about the subject of this article. - Bobet 19:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - The sources are all the exact same thing (essentially a press release) and they barely mention the "Retarded Animal Babies". Wickethewok 20:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist "barely had discussion" there were 18 comments to the review, which I would think adequate--but they were evenly divided, and the was no consensus about the criteria to be used. The closer used based the decision on personal opinion with respect to this.DGG 20:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, all three of those are the same thing and do not mention the subject of the article at all. The article was deleted because the keep arguments did not address the concern of the nominator. Also, the AFD was plagued with single-purpose accounts, so some of the keep votes have no merit. --Core desat 20:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, above sources do noting to challenge the legitimacy of the original deletion as Coredesat notes. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted per Wickethewok. --kingboyk 11:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. No specific prejudice against the original closure, but 57,000 Google hits suggests there may be something here. RFerreira 02:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Institute of Design IIT – Restored non copyvio edits – Garion96 (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Institute of Design IIT (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` Copyvio sections had been removed from the article after concerns were raised. The user who made the request may have forgotten to remove it from the copyvio list. Dual Freq 13:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Institute of Design IIT – Restored non copyvio edits – Garion96 (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Copyvio sections had been removed from the article after concerns were raised. The user who made the request may have forgotten to remove it from the copyvio list. Dual Freq 13:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Steve_Pavlina – ENDORSE CLOSURE (keep deleted). Both the AfD and this DRv were basically unanimous. No sufficient proof of notability was offered in the AfD, so the closure was proper. And no convincing new data has been offered here. – Herostratus 14:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Steve_Pavlina (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` Notoriety has been established, see statistics in talk page Natebailey 02:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy endorse, nominator is using Alexa ratings alone to account for notability. Alexa ratings are not part of WP:BIO or WP:WEB, and inclusion is not an indicator of notability. --Core desat 03:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Only argument for recreation are Alexa rating which are not part of any of our notability criteria. Needs independent non trivial mentions in reliable sources. No sign that these exist here. WjBscribe 04:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure - The delete close was proper since the consensus agreed that there is not sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the topic. Comment: There is not sufficient source material even in these articles that mention Steve Pavlina: (i) della Cava, Marco R. (February 27, 2006) USA Today When sleep is just a dream. Page 1A.; (ii) Bangkok Post (August 2, 2006) Internet site of the week: stevepavlina.com. (iii) Correa, Barbara. (October 29, 2006) Los Angeles Daily News Blogging for dollars: Some make enough money off sites to quit day job. Section: Business; Page B1; (iv) Sterling, Liz. (November 4, 2006) Sun-Sentinel Intution often clear, wise. Section:Lifestyle; Page 7F.; (v) Torquay Herald Express. (December 2, 2006) Us Brits are embarrassed by idea of 'self-help'. Page 18. -- Jreferee 06:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure, no credible reason given for overturning. Some of the articles linked from it are also in pressing need of cleanup, especially polyphasic sleep. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Ratings alone do not count for notability and the only arguement I can find for restoring it is a list of statistics. — Pious7_Talk ^Contribs 19:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Opinion was almost unanimous in the AfD.DGG 20:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Steve_Pavlina – ENDORSE CLOSURE (keep deleted). Both the AfD and this DRv were basically unanimous. No sufficient proof of notability was offered in the AfD, so the closure was proper. And no convincing new data has been offered here. – Herostratus 14:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Notoriety has been established, see statistics in talk page Natebailey 02:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy endorse, nominator is using Alexa ratings alone to account for notability. Alexa ratings are not part of WP:BIO or WP:WEB, and inclusion is not an indicator of notability. --Core desat 03:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Only argument for recreation are Alexa rating which are not part of any of our notability criteria. Needs independent non trivial mentions in reliable sources. No sign that these exist here. WjBscribe 04:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - The delete close was proper since the consensus agreed that there is not sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the topic. Comment: There is not sufficient source material even in these articles that mention Steve Pavlina: (i) della Cava, Marco R. (February 27, 2006) USA Today When sleep is just a dream. Page 1A.; (ii) Bangkok Post (August 2, 2006) Internet site of the week: stevepavlina.com. (iii) Correa, Barbara. (October 29, 2006) Los Angeles Daily News Blogging for dollars: Some make enough money off sites to quit day job. Section: Business; Page B1; (iv) Sterling, Liz. (November 4, 2006) Sun-Sentinel Intution often clear, wise. Section:Lifestyle; Page 7F.; (v) Torquay Herald Express. (December 2, 2006) Us Brits are embarrassed by idea of 'self-help'. Page 18. -- Jreferee 06:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, no credible reason given for overturning. Some of the articles linked from it are also in pressing need of cleanup, especially polyphasic sleep. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Ratings alone do not count for notability and the only arguement I can find for restoring it is a list of statistics. — Pious7_Talk ^Contribs 19:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Opinion was almost unanimous in the AfD.DGG 20:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of fonts by Ray Larabie – Speedy close, no deletion to review – Core desat 08:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of fonts by Ray Larabie (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` This was an incomplete list of fonts. I completed the list and it vanished with no explanation. Did I do something wrong? Ray Larabie - www.typodermic.com 00:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Article has not been deleted but rather redirected to the main Ray Larabie article. The old content can still be acessed through the history page [1]. Since the deletion discussion was closed "merge and redirect" you can add the list to the main article but probably shouldn't recreate it as its own page without discussion. Eluchil404 06:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy close The content was removed from the visible page per this discussion. Requestors remaining query was answers and request is outside the scope of deletion review. -- Jreferee 06:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of fonts by Ray Larabie – Speedy close, no deletion to review – Core desat 08:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This was an incomplete list of fonts. I completed the list and it vanished with no explanation. Did I do something wrong?

Ray Larabie - www.typodermic.com 00:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has not been deleted but rather redirected to the main Ray Larabie article. The old content can still be acessed through the history page [1]. Since the deletion discussion was closed "merge and redirect" you can add the list to the main article but probably shouldn't recreate it as its own page without discussion. Eluchil404 06:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close The content was removed from the visible page per this discussion. Requestors remaining query was answers and request is outside the scope of deletion review. -- Jreferee 06:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.