|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I believe that Dave Elitch is notable as he is well known for being the replacement of Thomas Pridgen and for touring with Mars Volta, and for other reasons I am willing to bring up if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iminrainbows (talk • contribs) 01:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The Thomas Pridgen article is not up to date. Since then Pridgen has said that he has left and Dave Elitch has said that he has joined. My sources will be:
Iminrainbows (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Was speedily deleted by User:SchuminWeb on the basis of (F7: Violates non-free use policy: Not different enough that the idea could not be conveyed by a current free image). The criteria has not been correctly applied in this case as it is no longer possible to create a free image of the vessel in its Royal Navy form. The vessel was sold to the Pakistan Navy and has been extensively modified by that service. The Pakistan Navy uses a different colour scheme, the quadruple Exocet launcher in B position was removed, a Harpoon launcher replaces it, the Sea Cat launcher has been removed and the hangar modified to take a larger helicopter. It is not possible to replace the none free image with a free equivalent. Justin talk 22:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The images are very probably in the public domain, but just in case they're not I added a fair use rationale, and noted this in the discussion, calling for it to be closed as a keep, either way. Instead, and to my horror, User:Fastily deleted them! I have attempted to reason with him, but he takes the absurd position that if a file is definitely PD it may be kept, and if it's definitely copyright but fair use then it may also be kept, but if we're unsure which one it is it must be deleted! Deleting these files did nothing to improve the encyclopaedia, and I request that they be undeleted. For now they should be treated as fair use, just as a precaution; eventually enough time will have passed that we can confidently call them PD and use them more freely. Zsero (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This was a standard navigational template for American football bowl games; in this case, those which the now-defunct Xavier Musketeers football team played in. The template was nominated for deletion on the reasonable grounds that it contained one redlink and was orphaned. During the discussion I wrote the Xavier Musketeers football article and adding the template, so it was no longer orphaned. Only one other editor participated in the discussion, and s/he opined that the navbox wasn't "useful." Usefulness as such as an editorial question and not a reason for deletion. The template was deleted by Ruslik0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on these same usefulness grounds. I have asked him to reverse himself, and he has declined, so I'm bringing the matter here for wider attention. I would ask that the deletion be overturned so that the way is clear for restoring the navigational template to the article. Mackensen (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I saw this page was deleted, and am a bit confused as to why it is. The group itself is linked on other wiki pages. A google search for "students for economic justice" michigan state university pulls 88,000 articles, many from non-student news sources (that is, excluding the Michigan Daily and State News - articles were published in the Lansing City Pulse, Lansing State Journal, Democracy Now, Media Mouse, Southern Poverty Law Center, ACLU, etc., among others. A Lexis search pulls up Associated Press articles, the Tampa Tribune, the Washington Times, Grand Rapids Press, South Bend Tribune, and, of course, the Univeresity Wire (MSU and U of M). It's a bit confusing because it appears the editors recommending deletion seem not to have checked Lexis, given that 44 of the articles on Lexis about Students for Economic Justice were published prior to the deletion recommendation. Since deletion, the articles published include the Tampa Tribune and Washington Times. Sorry, as an update, I also found this page, which contains additional reasons for deletion, all of which I think are answered above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SEJ As well as several entries on google books, including http://books.google.com/books?id=aWkvLXn48YYC&pg=PT193&dq=students+for+economic+justice+michigan&cd=3#v=onepage&q=students%20for%20economic%20justice&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.247.133.240 (talk • contribs) 13:54, December 30, 2009
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Unfair deletion. No chance to review content. Steven.redgewell (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Bit of a strange situation. I've left a message about it for Jayjg, the closing admin, but he hasn't gotten back to me, so DRV seemed the next best step. Basically, the AfD discussion was not fully closed. The AfD involved two articles: a type of martial art called Tang Soo Do Kyohoe, and the inventor of said martial art, Bill Church (Tang Soo Do). Both were nominated for AfD and discussed together in the one discussion. As the closing admin, Jayjg properly stated that the consensus was for delete, but only deleted Tang Soo Do Kyohoe, leaving Bill Church (Tang Soo Do) without any determination. Essentially, one of four things should happen with the latter article: 1) keep (although this shouldn't happen as there is definitely no consensus for that), 2) delete, 3) re-listed for further discussion (or, alternatively, re-nominated in its own AfD), or 4) closed with no consensus (again, I think the !votes were definitely towards delete, so I don't believe this is a real option either). Singularity42 (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
There were a significant number of opinions expressed in support of keeping the article and after reviewing the arguments the issue seemed far from settled. Further, a close on a disputed AfD less than 12 hours after it was opened when it doesn't meet speedy conditions seems very premature. jheiv (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 28/Climategate scandal The nominator of this review has acceded to an agreement between the original creator and the sysop who closed the deletion discussion (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 28/Climategate scandal#Closure). The author will work on it in his userspace at User:Wikidemon/Climategate_scandal, and thanks all for the positive feedback on this subject. |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
quote:Reason=As other pictures in the article, this one conveys the situation and overall atmosphere of the scene much better than words can and also proves that what is said in the sentence is true (assuming, of course, the photo was really taken there and then, which is not being challenged, though). I say keep until a free image showing the same (or a reasonably similar) scene is available. Jimmy Fleischer. Arilang talk 09:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Zhou Shuguang(Zoula) was the first Chinese citizen reporter who showed support for Li Shufen's family when all the main stream Chinese media refused to take up the story. Zhou Shuguang(Zoula) used his mobile phone and internet cafe to file his report, and has since became famous among Chinese netizens. Arilang talk 09:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Not sure if this is the proper place for this but it seems it might be appropriate so I'll ask here. I've skipped the step of informing the admin who deleted the file because it's more of a policy question and perhaps due to a technicality in this particular case deletion could be justified although I'm unsure because the page has already been deleted. I suspect, however, this topic will come up over and over again in the future, so I'd like to request guidance on proper procedure when it does so that a more permanent solution may be developed. The picture is of the 7th President of the Philippines Ramon Magsaysay. He died in 1957. According to Philippine law, as described in the license template ((PD-Philippines)), pictures after 50 years enter the public domain. Because of this I'm uncertain why the picture of President Magsaysay was deleted. It is now 2009, 52 years after his death. One rationale I can see is that Wikipedia states that it has a benchmark of 80 years to conform with U.S. law. If this is the reason for deletion then the ((PD-Philippines)) template is useless and is misleading to anyone using it. A side issue this raises is of systemic bias since then it would increase the likelihood that pictures from the United States government or foreign governments will be relied upon. It would seem as if a Philippine government picture of a Philippine president even if conforming with Philippine law is not eligible for use on Wikipedia. I must also note the Philippine government is not particularly diligent in labeling pictures so the 50 year limitation is pretty important in keeping things simple. Anyway, I guess my question is this: If someone wished to upload a picture of a long since deceased president of the Philippines what rationales are acceptable? Must one rely upon non-free rationales? Lambanog 2 edits. (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This is a brief biography of an outstanding teacher in the field of ballet and his association with The Juilliard School, which is included in Wikipedia. The editor(s) accuse me of "copy and paste" when, in fact, the article has been re-written several times in my own words. There may certainly be similarities between my article and the various sources used to obtain and validate information. If, for example, I list ballet companies that Alfredo Corvino was associated with and I provide this information in chronological order, which would seem to be the most reasonable and rational way of presenting this information, then it may indeed appear similar to existing references that provide the same information. Sometimes there is only one way to express something - for example: "... died on August 5, 2005...". Can you suggest an alternate way to express this same fact that is both reasonable and rational? Indeed, in my attempt to "rewrite" common phrases numerous times, it is quite possible that an "already used wording" could spring to the mind. That is, after all, a part of how the human cognitive process works. (Here is a challenge to you - how many really different ways could you write and rewrite you own resume? And how many of those versions would be reasonable, logical and rational?) My article on Alfredo Corvino contains basically three parts - (1) his training/development (2) his career as both dancer and ballet instructor and (3) his philosophy and knowledge that made him one of the outstanding ballet teachers of the 20th century. The editor(s) seems fixated on the obituary from the New York Times and looking for similarities. I read on the Wikipedia site that the Editors should "ASSIST" rather than merely "DELETE". You can certainly tell by my membership, that I am a new/novice contributor to Wikipedia. It seems that "DELETE" may be used just to clear someone's desk. I signed on to Wikipedia to find that my article is already deleted without the opportunity to address the issues with the editor. I recognize that I was in error with my very first attempt at contributing to Wikipedia when I presented a copy of an obituary from the New York Times (newspaper) but in fairness, I had fully documented the article with complete credit to the author, the publication, the date published and even the internet address (http://). (I documented the material in the very same way that I would have done in my thesis or doctoral dissertation.) Instead, I am accused of "vandalizing" Wikipedia! If there is something specific in my article on Alfredo Corvino that offends the editors, I will be more than happy to attempt another revision. I would appreciate the opportunity to revise rather than have the editor use "copyright violations" and "repeated submisson" to merely push my article out of his or her way. Thank you. Seamanjg (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Drafting in userspace may be the best path forward. Good luck. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your review and feedback. I believe, based on reading through the responses, that the current problem with the article on Alfredo Corvino is that the revisions I made are still more like "derivations" of existing phrases... similarity infringement... in other words, while I changed words, the structure of the phrases in my article was still too similar to the original material. How do I address a situation where I may wish to use a direct quote? Is this possible? For example, if I wanted to include a segment of an actual conversation by an individual... such as a direct quote by Alfredo Corvino... can this be done? Sometimes, things are said or written so precisely... so perfectly... that they can not be rewritten and have the same impact. Although it may not seem like it to you, I really am trying to learn and to do things in a correct manner. What really frustrated me yesterday was that my article was blocked and I could no longer make any modification or revisions... and all the messages from editors accusing me of vandalizing wikipedia! (They did seem a bit harsh.) I will also explore the second suggestion... drafting in userspace ... I am not sure what this exactly means but I will certainly investigate. I am quite sure that new/novice contributors like me, are a constant source of annoyance and irritation to editors, like you... and I do apologize for any inconvenience I have caused. Thank you for your time! Seamanjg (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I believe the band has more than enough notoriety to meet the notability criteria in WP:BAND. Some notable reviews for their latest album are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and several others. Their latest album reached #177 on the U.S. national College Music Journal charts. All three of their albums were released on Sabotage Records, which has existed since 2002 and has released albums by Japanther, Team Robespierre, and Autistic Youth. Mcurtes (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article, I feel, was wrongly closed by User:Spartaz. The discussion on the AFD was clearly a no consensus, so the close should have been, by wiki standards, a no consensus closure with encouragement to discuss and improve the article (which has been vastly improved during the AFD, largely ridding it of the concerns that caused the nomination in the first place). Instead, the article was blanked, protected, and moved to a new "article" Comparison between Roman and Han Empires/Draft. This arrangement is a de facto delete/userification, and will only inconvenience the reader, so I propose an overturn to No consensus. I previously contacted the user to explain my concerns, but as they have not been addressed I feel DRV is the only proper course. Teeninvestor (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The closing Admin acknowledgedly counted raw votes instead of considering the strength of the arguments in the face of our police. The votes to keep didn't really addressed the problems raised in the nomination. --Damiens.rf 09:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I expect that the article was deleted by people who know nearly nothing about software testing or on request of some SW company. I added explanation there: [7] Havlatm (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
On his talk page, Mr. Malik Shabazz, has made it quite clear that he won't brook any differences about a page he has deleted. So although one is encouraged to dialogue with the administrator, I am appealing his decision directly because he has convinced me that I would be wasting my time with him. The page that I wrote (Hajime Sorayama v. Robert Bane and Tamara Bane Gallery) faithfully reports, with ample footnotes, a federal court case that is of public interest. It is not an attack page any more than the wikipedia page about Bernard Madoff is an attack page. You cannot define something as an "attack" page simply because the page describes criminal or tortious acts that are ruled on by a court of law. I make no disparaging comments about Mr. Bane personally or his businesses. The ONLY statements about Mr. Bane's behavior are direct quotes (footnoted) from two federal courts. Nor does the page I created here resemble the Tamara Bane Gallery page which was deleted over a week ago. That page (as I have noted elsewhere) contained contentious material and disparaging remarks. It also did not follow precisely what the federal courts ruled. Mine does. One reason to delete this page is NOT that it's an 'attack' page, because that's simply not true. Nor can this page be deleted because the information is not verifiable. All statements are verfied. So what is the reason, in that case? Ton-Metallicon (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
First, this discussion was previously wrongly closed early (it was closed before 7 days had passed by User:Sandstein) so this discussion didn't get a full seven days to be discussed before it was closed. Second, there was clearly a disagreement about whether it should have been kept. (There was 1 Strong Keep vote, 2 Keep votes, 5 Delete votes in addition to the nomination, and 1 Week Delete vote). Of course, deletion of an article is not just a vote, and in the event that there is a doubt about consensus, the article should be kept. (See number 4 at Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Deciding_whether_to_delete.) Third, it was clear that 3 of the delete votes based their opinion on the idea that no 3rd party independent sources existed, something that was clearly not true at the time. (See also further improvements I have made to the article since deletion at User:Cdogsimmons/Romania – Sri Lanka relations.) Fourth, the nominator, User:LibStar, as much as admitted that he had not done a thorough search for sources, despite the fact that the absence of sources was the reason he nominated the article for deletion. He disputed that he needed to do so, despite the fact that WP:GNG clearly says a good faith search for sources is necessary before nomination. Finally, as a matter of policy, the deletion of the information in this article does not serve Wikipedia's general goal of being a summary of all human knowledge. Notability in this situation should really be secondary to the fact that this information is clearly encyclopedic. The deleting administrator, User:X!, did not address the failure to find consensus regarding the "significance" of third party coverage when given a chance to reevaluate the delete .[8] All in all, the result should have been no consensus at the very least. Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Krempin is honorary consul of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in Germany, an official diplomat and listed as such on the website of the German Foreign Service, 2) the article cited significant coverage in reliable published indepedent sources (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Frankfurter Rundschau, in both of which she was profiled, Deutsche Presse-Agentur, Hessischer Rundfunk), 3) the article followed the BLP policy after being entirely rewritten. Hekerui (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
As the closing admin noted himself, the closure was a partisan action. The member should have simply commented like everyone else. Reopen the discussion (overturn speedy keep) and allow the MFD to reach a normal conclusion.
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Zelysion (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC) The article was previously deleted due to lack of notability and a lack of established sources. The article has been updated to match those criteria. See the current version of the page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zelysion/Tony_Wang
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Hovhannesk (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC) The article was previously deleted due to lack of notability and a lack of established sources. The article has been updated to match those criteria. He has debuted and played games now. Hovhannesk (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I think this now counts as notable as the series recently won the Mashable Open Web Awards in the "Funniest Youtube Channel" category —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradox295 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The article was deleted ages ago and has now been re-created by someone else(eventualism at work); I think there was more in the original than the current version so can someone please review it for WP:BLP compliance (I believe it predates the policy) and restore the history if appropriate. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 19:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Seeing as there were no sources other than Corley's web site, I have deleted this as a negative unsourced BLP. If someone wants to recreate it they will have to do a lot better on the sourcing first. Kevin (talk) 05:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Hello, The Page of Laurance W. Marvin was deleted without reason by strange user....[Jayjg].I have already tried resolving the issue with said user. No acceptable reason can be given for said users actions. All in formation on the page was factually accurate and up to date. I wish to file a complaint against this user [Jayjg]. And for the page Laurance W. Marvin to be restored. If you need additional information I can put you in contact with Mr. Marvin. the majority of his history is on actual paper not on the net which was stated on the page to start with. Also any issues with the page should have come up on the discussion section for this page and said user did not even go to the trouble to try and resolve any issue nor were the issues stated by said user. Please contact me.I wish to get this issue resolved as soon as possible..Thankyou.--Yoko-Litner (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
| ||
---|---|---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. | ||
Why you remove all articles ? It is a good client which exist since 2002, still in development and one of first (or the first) with the Whiteboard.
← Neustradamus, you're still not getting it. All those links do is show that the software exists. They do nothing to satisfy WP:N. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
| ||
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Already request keep before deletion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/AMSN (which removed)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I feel that Circ was unfair in deleting this page. I have updated information. Mr. Sheldon just won the best blogger of 2009 by the largest social media review website. I have contacted Circ several times in efforts to restore this page to no avail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cirt He referred me to this page.I am not a pro at this and I do NOT understand why this is so difficult!I am requesting that this page get restored to a full page..Thank you. Lovingmusic Lovingmusic (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The image was speedy deleted for non-free use. However, the image is not replaceable. This was stated on the File's talk page in response to the deletion tag placement. There was no reply to my discussion entry prior to deletion. The article is about a band that has released two CDs, taken multiple national tours and does so no longer because members have left. Fair use applies because the image displays the entire seven-piece band and such a free image does not exist. The image was also low resolution. However, if the image is restored and resolution is an issue the image can be made smaller. - Steve3849 talk 07:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Though the deletion nominator claimed that the article's external links about the reviews do not guarantee its notability, as all software are eventually reviewed, the software is still highly notable as it is reviewed by at least three reputable software sites (including Download.com and Softonic.com), and the reviews do not only state its history and features and are positive (Download.com rated it five stars). RekishiEJ (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Although this label is notable, because of a lack of sources an administrator (unfamiliar with the subject of hip hop music?) deleted it assuming that it failed WP:MUSIC. I wrote a draft of this article from scratch; this label has signed several notable rap artists so it should have an article. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This was dropped off at the AfD's talkpage, copying it to here: "5 votes over a period of just a few days does not translate to concensus. The article was a mess and looked like it had been written by a fan, but a little time should have been given for other persons to edit it, clean it up, and establish notability for Mr. Keyes. According to the Internet Movie Database, Keyes has had recurring roles in a number of TV shows, in addition to his co-starring role in Ben 10:Alien Swarm. I suggest that we restore this article, and heavily rewrite it to convey notability and remove the bias. Michaelh2001 (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)"
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Change in Reliable Sources policy since 2008 Fifelfoo (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
| ||
---|---|---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. | ||
AfD was closed as delete, allegedly for WP:BLP concerns. Problems I identify with the closure are:
For all these reasons I believe the correct closure should have been no consensus and, per our deletion policy, default to keep. Cyclopiatalk 13:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
| ||
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Also, if one looks at the rationales given by those in favor of deletion, some discrepancies will appear: one user, MzMcBride, supported deletion but did not provide a coherent argument in favor of it, (his reason was "it's not good to do anything half-assed), and this argument was cited by two other users as the basis for their own decisions. This aside, there were two main arguments for deletion: the article is no longer notable, and a lack of reliable sources. As for the first, see WP:NTEMP, and for the second see Cyclopia's comment in the AFD where she linked three separate books which discussed the website in detail. There are also many web sources. Add to these reasons a violation of WP:CANVASS (see the AFD for details), and I think it would be best to get some more eyes on this. NOTE: I have already discussed this with the closing admin. See User talk:NuclearWarfare#Merge of Google Watch. Cerebellum (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Contested prod per [34] and [35] --Tothwolf (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The majority of KEEP !votes do not appear to be based on policy or guidelines, in contrast to the DELETE !votes. More than one KEEP !vote
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Surely the creator of lethal injection, the most commonly used method of execution, is notable. 75.33.217.192 (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
In 2007 a user (User:CBM) proposed to delete File:Chicago Spire.jpg. After a discussion 2 users (myself and User:Wikidemo) and an administrator (User:Quadell) gained consensus saying the image should be kept and was not a copyright violation (the user proposing deletion (User:CBM) was the only user disagreeing). I was anticipating replacing the image once some measurable progress had been made on the structure. A few days ago, the admin User:Rama ignored that previous consensus and abruptly (speedily) deleted the image without discussion. I briefly introduced points where I disagreed with his assessment (on Rama's talk page) and pointed out that others disagreed as well. I thought it would be best to restore the image and propose it for deletion so that a proper discussion could take place and another administrator could determine consensus. User:Rama refuses to do any of this; he has ignored previous consensus on keeping the file and refuses to gain new consensus, stating that he is the only one who is right and everyone else is wrong - User:Rama stated "I do not care whether people disagree with me or not, this is not a democracy. If you want to vote reality out of existence, do that in a sandbox. I am very obviously right, and no matter of how many people are wrong and disagree with me, they are still wrong." He then stated that pointing out others who disagreed with him was a "waste of time" and that this discussion was "futile". Another administrator (User:Xeno) stated to Rama that "the 2007 discussion was closed as "fair use permitted" so it's probably unwise to unilaterally reverse that decision with a speedy delete". Admin User:Xeno recommended I add a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to discuss this. Users and administrators seem to agree that a speedy delete of this image, considering the previous nomination was keep, was too hasty. User:Xeno stated "Rama appears to have also bypassed the procedure outlined at WP:CSD#F7 (i.e. add Template:Rfu and wait 2 days)." An admin (User:Jayron32) summarized the whole issue well and stated re: Rama's delete - "Still a bad delete, if he wants to have an opinion that's cool, but he should then pass off to another admin to enact the decision. Admins should not be participants AND enactors of a consensus discussion. I know I kind of rambled a bit there, but the basic point is that the BEST solution would be clearer guidance from the Foundation on this issue; absent that guidance we must default to community consensus, and in this case I cannot see consensus to support Rama's move here, either in the general sense of interpreting WP:NFC or in the specific sense on how to deal with this image." In my opinion and many of the users/admins on the ANI is that the image should not have been deleted. The fair use rationale, copyright tag, and permission tag all were sufficient and followed all requirements. Finally the "free" images Rama uploaded on Commons have been nominated If anyone disagrees that this copyrighted image can be used here, I would be happy to discuss - good points were brought up on the ANI. DR04 (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
There was no consensus to delete Matt Kassel. The discussion initially centered around the lack of reliable sources. When sources were highlighted to establish notability, multiple editors agreed that WP:ATHLETE did not supersede WP:BIO / WP:GNG. As argued in the AfD, it does not matter whether or not Kessel passes the subject specific guideline, WP:ATHLETE; once he passes WP:BIO, he fulfills Wikipedia's inclusion requirements — "WP:ATHLETE is NOT an exclusive guideline". The closer asks what makes Kessel notable. My answer is that an "unusual amount of national media coverage over an extended period of time, for a college player" (Washington Post, ESPN, and New York Post) establish that Kassel is notable per WP:N. An unremarkable soccer player from Maryland would not receive coverage from the Washington Post if he were truly non-notable. I asked Black Kite (talk · contribs) to reconsider the close, and he responded, "No, I'd like it to DRV please, I think there's an important point at stake here." The closer is supposed to evaluate the consensus in the discussion, not make a casting vote. This close should be overturned. Addendum: The article in the Google cache is different from the deleted article. In the article that has now been deleted, I added the reliable sources presented in the discussion. Cunard (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This page was previously deleted for "WP:WEB, WP:VANITY, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, & WP:AB" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okashina Okashi. I'd like to request the deleted versions of this page be undeleted and have the history be merged into the recreated article at Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The outcome of the discussion does not support delete, instead the result should have been keep. I discussed this with the closing admin, but he did not agree. Dreadstar ☥ 02:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The discussion is at User_talk:Karanacs#Consulate-General_of_Switzerland_in_Houston User:Karanacs speedily deleted Consulate-General of Switzerland in Houston and Consulate-General of Pakistan in Houston - He had previously filed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consulate-General of Indonesia in Houston, which ended in the keeping of the consulate articles. There was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Houston, filed by another user, which ended in a no consensus. Likewise there was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consulate-General of the United Kingdom in Houston, filed by another user, which ended in the deletion of the subject consulate article. I asked Karanacs to restore the two articles and file an AFD. Instead he told me to make a DRV on his page. I believe that saying X is a consulate is, in and of itself, a sufficient assertion of notability, and that a user challenging the notability of a consulate should use AFD. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Closure rationale is "no fully unanimous consensus, default to delete". The "no consensus BLP default to delete" has recently been discussed to death here, and clearly the majority of the community thinks, from that discussion, that no consensus BLP should default to keep like any other article, unless an explicit request of the article subject comes out. The current policy wording has been discussed and ultimately changed to reflect the outcome of the previous discussion, and now says: "The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so. Therefore, if there is no rough consensus the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate.". The deletion should therefore be overturned per policy, as no consensus-default to keep. Cyclopiatalk 15:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
(contribs) 21:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Your comment: "I find it amusing that some of you here are trying to game the system, just because I used the extremely accurate term "no fully unanimous consensus". This term, while thought provoking, makes sense and isn't as deep as it sounds. If you need me to break it down, I'll gladly change it to: no consensus to keep, default to delete, which practically means the same thing."
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This page should have been deleted. Reason #1, This is a user page article that violates WP:WEBHOST and WP:SOAPBOX. The user fully admits this page is being hosted as a POV fork of Environmental effects of wind power in anticipation that his POV will be exonerated by scientific opinion in the future. Local consensus can override guidelines like notability, but limited discussion cannot violate core policies. Userspace cannot be turned into a POV free-for-all. Reason #2, the discussion shows a clear consensus to delete. Miami33139 (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
From the deletion log it is seen it was restored numerous times by different users. Therefore many people think that this category is necessary. Indeed, it is a well-defined category, i.e., with reasonably verifiable inclusion criterion: family names originated in the Indian subcontinent. Unlike European names, usually there is usually little dispute of Indian origin. I find it inappropriate to delete numerous very different, although superficially similar, categories under a single deletion discussion. The categorization of Indian surnames deserves a separate discussion. Thank you. Twri (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Non-notable band that has never charted a single song and isn't signed to a notable label. Zero gnews hits. A review of the first 100 ghits couldn't find a single reliable source. Mostly facebook/myspace and youtube stuff or unreliable music sites. Fails WP:BAND Amari42 (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Although the closing admin was IMO absolutely correct in the way they closed the AfD, subsequent events mean there may now be grounds for inclusion. Specifically, it is now known that Joe McElderry will be placed in the top three in the X Factor and thus meets criterion #9 of WP:MUSICBIO. I42 (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was deleted without community discussion and consensus as required by WP:Deletion, solely by one individual, and wrong reason for deletion was given (A7), which does not apply in this case. If this article is to be deleted there should be a formal discussion first, so that consensus may be reached. And as was brought up by Fabrictramp on my userpage "The article didn't fall under A7 by any stretch (and there's a lot of consensus against admins speedying A7s on sight), "written like a review" is not a deletion issue, and OR / unreferenced are not speedy issues. (Unreferenced was recently brought up as a potential speedy reason and shot down by consensus.)". George (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
When the page was deleted (later to be WP:SALTed), the subject was not notable. Now the subject has a #5 single on the Billboard Dance/Club chart (link), giving notability per #2 on WP:BAND. I am not requesting that the deletion to be overturned, but that the page be unprotected; a user has created a new article on the subject, located at User:Lolene, that should be moved to the mainspace as the subject is now notable. -M.Nelson (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I am bringing this here with the agreement of the closing admin, who admits there may be problems with his close and that the matter needs further discussion. This concerns a marginally notable BLP. Salahi became newsworthy as a result of gatecrashing a Whitehouse function. That incident and her involvement in it, despite being little more than passing news, merits inclusion in the 'pedia, and gets it at 2009 White House gatecrash incident. Other than that, she's famous for being (I quote from the article) "an American self-proclaimed model and socialite... [who] is hoping to land a part in an upcoming reality show." i.e. not notable at all outside the event. The Afd, unfortunately, hinged around the interpretation of BLP1E and whether it applied. There are sources which speak about her (unnoteworthy?) activities outside of the gatecrashing incident - but are these really derivative because of her fame there? Does BLP1E apply when such other sources exist? It seemed to me that most people in the discussion favoured merging or deleting the article. Those favouring keeping it argued on the basis that BLP1E did NOT apply here, but they really never explained why keeping the article was otherwise a good thing. Why do we want a seperate article here? My problem with the closing is that Arbitrarily0 (talk · contribs) simply told us what his own interpretation of BLP1E is. Now, some people might agree with him. But is that is rather beside the point, since the question is what is the consensus about this problematic BLP. We certainly could do with defining BLP1E better, but the pressing question is what to do with this article ON ITS OWN MERITS. Here I think the consensus of those who were commenting on the article and not the wikilegal questions is clear. This article should be merged or deleted (I care not which). Aside from that, the article is a marginally-notable disgrace. Scott Mac (Doc) 16:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||||
notability Wwwolf3 (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore many users of the predecessor TWiki decided to migrate to Foswiki as they expect that the former developers of TWiki will continue their work with the same quality and enthusiasm as they did with TWiki. So it is not a new software, as stated in the reasons for deletion, but more the continuation of development under a different project name. More information about this can be found here. Development of Foswiki and TWiki - get the facts It would be very nice, if you could spend some of your worthfull time to think about the 4 entries, which voted for deletion. 2 times because of stated lack of notability - this is obviously not correct 2 times "just because" - this is no argument
- This user is gone from wikipedia!
- This user is gone from wikipedia!
- As explained, the participation of some of the developers in this discussion, was reasoned by the notification about the deletion of the Foswiki article.
- The labeling with conflict of interest has an easy to understand background, please read about it in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foswiki
- this user points out, that his job on wikipedia is to delete articles.
Please also have a look at [47] to get an impression of how the article would look like. And be assured, the german wikipedia has the hardest fights for relevance . Wwwolf3 (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
| ||||||||||||||||
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Amanda Knox has received many requests for an article, according to the administrator locking it up. Yet it is still locked up. Please unlock it and allow a discussion. This is hereby a request to unlock it so a discussion can be made to start the article. Proof that many people want the article. There are very few people against having the article. Could you unprotect it? I'd like to start a separate article. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC) I have done so, as multiple people have now requested I do so. Could you please alert people at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher of your decision to split off part of the article? Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Obamo (talk • contribs) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Under any reasonable reading of the discussion, at best this was no consensus. Going on raw numbers, the discussion was 11 for deletion and 8 for keep with one neutral. On its face this adds up to no consensus. Addressing the specific comments in favor of deletion, they include "TV shows with LGBT-related episodes had already been around for years" (irrelevant), "the vast majority of the program [sic] cited in the article have no notability in their own right" (which I assume means that the commenter believes that the individual episodes are not independently notable, which is irrelevant to a list), including LGBT themes in TV shows is no longer unusual (untrue and also irrelevant), "The name of this list is simply atrocious" (irrelevant), "ridiculously long" (irrelevant), and "utterly ridiculous" (irrelevant and probably bigoted). All of these comments have no basis in any policy or guideline related to WP content and should have been ignored. The closing admin should also have ignored in their entirety the "what's next, list of X episodes that have Y?" comments, which make up roughly a third of the comments against the list. Other deleters questioned the use of "The Puppy Episode" as the dividing line despite multiple sources explaining it. Several commenters (including the nominator) failed to grasp the scope of the list, complaining that it did not include programs like Queer as Folk and Will & Grace despite repeated explanations that they fell outside the scope of the list. The list was for series that do not regularly include LGBT content and series which regularly include such content are outside that scope. The only substantive comments are regarding WP:OR, which were refuted within the discussion and for which a solution was proposed and ignored. AFD was closed with the single word "delete" and closing admin's response to questioning the closure was "If you would like a copy of the article in your user space, please let me know." which does not in any adequate way explain why this article, which had a dozen footnotes and several book-length references, was deleted. This closing does not even begin to reflect the content of the discussion. Deleting this article punches a hole through WP's coverage of this subject with no justification. Any issues with the article can be fixed through normal editing process. Deletion is entirely uncalled for. Otto4711 (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The subject of the article is a gay porn performer who fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG so a merge to List of male performers in gay porn films is inappropriate (see WP:SALAT). Additionally, the list itself is currently up for deletion. The closing admin does not seem inclined to change their closure. Please note that I was not the nominator of either of these, but I have nominated several unsourced BLPs of gay porn performers recently and a precedent is being set here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Lack of Citations could be due to the term often being reffered to as cardboard programmer or Rubber Duck Debugging. Such as http://redisblack.com/littlehacks/?p=5 http://compsci.ca/blog/rubber-ducks-help-best-with-computer-science/ http://everything2.com/title/Cardboard+Programmers http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki/Wiki?CardboardProgrammer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging The Rubber Duck Debugging wikipedia page has a similar term written for Cardboard Coder. Uplank (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Thomas K. Dye (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) (In line with the on-going dispute at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Edit_the_policies about refusing to discuss 'Merge' closures, I'm reopening this. As it stands, it appears there's a pretty strong rejection that 'Merge' closures can not be reviewed. Discussion on if merge closures can be discussed or not needs to take place *there* not *here*. Speedy closing on the grounds of a disputed essay was not a great idea.--Barberio (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)) Two issues with this AFD. First, it was re-listed despite having more than two comments on it, and substantial policy related statements given. Second, the deleting admin has chosen Merge despite no clear consensus to do so. (Four Merge !votes to Four Keep !votes) I have attempted to ask the admin to review this, but his response is that he decided to discount the Keep arguments because in his opinion they were wrong. [59] Administrators are clearly not supposed to substitute their own judgement when a discussion results in no-consensus. Barberio (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment: In the above, Fences the closing admin has made the following claims about the AFD.
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article has been deleted twice. Once at the start of the year and once now. I have written the article, taking on feedback from before and added it tonight. I feel I have added so much information and referanced it all as much as i can. It is all fact. The person is known in LGBT circles and is a charity chairperson etc and does a lot of different work. I would appreciate if this could be looked at again. I have spoken to the admin who is not wishing to change his views. Thanks Np097264 23:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Deleting admin's comments: This was the version of the article deleted at AFD in April 2008. This is the version that I deleted today as a G4. Certainly, the articles are not identical. But the issue that caused the AFD participants to support deletion, the lack of coverage in reliable third party sources, does not appear to have been addressed in the new version, making it, I believe, G4-eligible. Steve Smith (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
An earlier DRV (23 November) was closed early because of perceptions of bad faith and abusiveness on the part of the nominator (I don't dispute those perceptions). The person who closed the DRV has suggested here that the way to approach this is to lodge a more reasonable nomination. So here we are. The AfD (available here in unblanked form) rather clearly shows no consensus; the error, then is to have closed a no-consensus AfD as delete. There is particular concern from the fact that in the original run of the AfD there was clear consensus for keep; it was relisted -- and then closed later the very same day -- as delete. This was hasty in the extreme, particularly insofar as the discussion was by that point evenly split. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
He managed Serie C2 teams for almost 10 years. Serie C2 is a fourth division professional championship,like Football League Two. On wikipedia there are thousands of articles about professional fourth division footballers and managers of many different countries,so I think they are accepted. In addiction he managed in one Serie A match replacing the lead coach,even if I think this is not a relevant fact. The article was referenced. Der Schalk (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
this article has no sources and there for i think should be removed. Charaba (talk) 9:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 04:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC). Original timestamp was incorrect; correct one appended. Tim Song (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |