File:RUeyegouge.jpg – Overturn and list at FfD. The question of replaceability boils down to the question whether the image's use is decorative, as the deleting admin argued, or whether using the image to illustrate the consequence of gouging "significantly enhances the reader's understanding of the subject" (WP:NFCC#8). I doubt that anyone would disagree that a decorative nonfree image is by definition replaceable; and on the assumption that this image is not decorative, as the discussion below appears to be based on, the consensus of the discussion here is that the image is most likely irreplaceable. Shoehorning an NFCC#8 problem into an NFCC#1 problem generated quite a bit of confusion, as reflected in the discussion. NFCC#8 is not a speedy criterion, and if anything is clear here, it is that this image should not be deleted without discussion. – Tim Song (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
NonFreeImageRemoved.svg (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) I believe this image or similar image is not likely to be found free. Gnevin (talk) Endorse I agree with the considered reasoning provided by the deleting administrator at their talk page. A picture on eye gouging is very likely to be replaceable. Of all the rugby union matches played throughout history, there may very well be a free picture of eye gouging. If not, head out to your local park with a couple of mates this afternoon dressed in rugby union getup and take free pictures of you eye gouging each other to your hearts content. Irreplaceable does not mean "I can't find any free pictures on flickr". Sounds tough, I know. But such is the conservative approach that is demanded of fair use claims. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment: Are you high? If not, head out to your local park with a couple of mates this afternoon dressed in rugby union getup and take free pictures of you eye gouging each other to your hearts content eye gouging is extremely dangerous behaviour which can result in blindness and the lose of the eye and you are seriously suggesting I go to a local park and carry out criminal behaviour! You've in a round about way admitted that a replaceable image is not available Gnevin (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Just a bit of humour. I could accept using a picture like this to demonstrate anal poking as it's only been known to happen once. But with the multitude of examples of eye gouging throughout the history of kick-chase-gouge-whistle-scrum-whistle-kick, you can't possibly argue that there's not likely to be a free image of it happening somewhere. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] The image wasn't of a gouge it was on the result of a pretty horrendous gouge . Most gouging in RU doesn't result in eye damage, this limits the number of options, of those that do most if not all aren't free . The image can be found here. Shouldn't people endorsing actually look at the image? Gnevin (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] To repeat what the deleting admin said, if the image was used to illustrate and comment on that particularly horrendous gouge, an NFCC#1 claim could potentially be made out. But the image was used to demonstrate gouging generally; thus it is replaceable by any free picture of gouging. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well if you want a picture of gouging (Why,I don't know) there is one on the article here lower down. If you really want it though why having an image showing potential criminal action is beyond me. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Third time explaining this too you, maybe if you took time to listen instead of being owe so funny! The image shows the eye damaged caused as a result of an eye gouge not an eye gouge in progress Gnevin (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] That's not the 3rd time to me. I think you may have misread me, I already knew this was a photo showing the result of a gouge, (In fact, I was the one that found the source that contained this picture). And what I said was directed at Mkativerata who said he wanted a picture of gouging itself rather than a picture showing the damage that can be done. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] The you refereed to Mkativerata not yourself The C of E sorry about any confusion Gnevin (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn The very nature of gouging is that is an underhand act. It's unlikely that anybody would undertake in gouging someone when it is clearly visible, let alone easily photograped. While the picture is not particularly pleasant (in fact its very unpleasant), it is not gratuitous and is very effective in illustrating the dangers of gouging. It is highly unlikely that it could be replaced a free image from elsewhere G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 12:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn: Well, I think that although the picture may be gruesome, it does illustrate a point of what Eye-Gouging in Rugby can do to a person. The person in the picture was blinded in the gouged eye and had his Rugby career ended so as Gnevin says, it is highly unlikly to have another free equivilant. (I Will also say that I found Mkativerata's "joke" very insulting to both the sport and players who have had their lives dramatically altered because of someone trying to rip their eye out.) The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn: Per my reasoning above and the fact that any replacement would not serve the same encyclopedic purposeGnevin (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse: While such eyes may be rare the list where this image was used shows that it happens regularly. Therefore a free equivalent could be created if one does not already exit. Rettetast (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment It doesn't happen often. Cases of contact with the eye are common, really? We have an average of 3 or 4 cares per the 100's of top flight games played a year and in most of these it's eye contact near the eye area. Cases of out and out gouging as defined as where fingers are inserted in the eye are quite rare and cases of eye damage extremely rare. I've been watching Rugby for 15 years and this in the only case of physical eye damage I recall. If you look at the list you will see 1 ban of 2 years or more and the player he gouged eye wasn't damaged Gnevin (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] P.S could be created if one does not already exit. Are you offering up your eye? Gnevin (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thankfully its extremely rare, I've been watching/playing rugby for 20 years and I have never seen an out and out gouge taking place, mostly these are only brought to the attention by citing after games and the examination of television footage, for want of a better term these things happen in a blink of an eye and I can't see how it could be recreated. While this image is horrible, I cannot think of a better example to illustrate the point. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 21:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and restore The newspaper article makes it clear that this is not replaceable in any reasonable way. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Was this image copyrighted by anyone? Google image search shows thousands of images for eye gouge, and you could easily take a picture of someone touching someone's eye. By if this was a particularly famous eye gouge, an event mentioned in an article, and no copyright laws were violated, it should've been kept. Dream Focus 01:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment : Sigh explaining this again ! The image shows the eye damaged caused as a result of an eye gouge not an eye gouge in progress Gnevin (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn per Gnevin.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

File:RUeyegouge.jpg – Overturn and list at FfD. The question of replaceability boils down to the question whether the image's use is decorative, as the deleting admin argued, or whether using the image to illustrate the consequence of gouging "significantly enhances the reader's understanding of the subject" (WP:NFCC#8). I doubt that anyone would disagree that a decorative nonfree image is by definition replaceable; and on the assumption that this image is not decorative, as the discussion below appears to be based on, the consensus of the discussion here is that the image is most likely irreplaceable. Shoehorning an NFCC#8 problem into an NFCC#1 problem generated quite a bit of confusion, as reflected in the discussion. NFCC#8 is not a speedy criterion, and if anything is clear here, it is that this image should not be deleted without discussion. – Tim Song (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe this image or similar image is not likely to be found free. Gnevin (talk)

Endorse I agree with the considered reasoning provided by the deleting administrator at their talk page. A picture on eye gouging is very likely to be replaceable. Of all the rugby union matches played throughout history, there may very well be a free picture of eye gouging. If not, head out to your local park with a couple of mates this afternoon dressed in rugby union getup and take free pictures of you eye gouging each other to your hearts content. Irreplaceable does not mean "I can't find any free pictures on flickr". Sounds tough, I know. But such is the conservative approach that is demanded of fair use claims. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are you high? If not, head out to your local park with a couple of mates this afternoon dressed in rugby union getup and take free pictures of you eye gouging each other to your hearts content eye gouging is extremely dangerous behaviour which can result in blindness and the lose of the eye and you are seriously suggesting I go to a local park and carry out criminal behaviour! You've in a round about way admitted that a replaceable image is not available Gnevin (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit of humour. I could accept using a picture like this to demonstrate anal poking as it's only been known to happen once. But with the multitude of examples of eye gouging throughout the history of kick-chase-gouge-whistle-scrum-whistle-kick, you can't possibly argue that there's not likely to be a free image of it happening somewhere. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image wasn't of a gouge it was on the result of a pretty horrendous gouge . Most gouging in RU doesn't result in eye damage, this limits the number of options, of those that do most if not all aren't free . The image can be found here. Shouldn't people endorsing actually look at the image? Gnevin (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat what the deleting admin said, if the image was used to illustrate and comment on that particularly horrendous gouge, an NFCC#1 claim could potentially be made out. But the image was used to demonstrate gouging generally; thus it is replaceable by any free picture of gouging. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you want a picture of gouging (Why,I don't know) there is one on the article here lower down. If you really want it though why having an image showing potential criminal action is beyond me. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third time explaining this too you, maybe if you took time to listen instead of being owe so funny! The image shows the eye damaged caused as a result of an eye gouge not an eye gouge in progress Gnevin (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the 3rd time to me. I think you may have misread me, I already knew this was a photo showing the result of a gouge, (In fact, I was the one that found the source that contained this picture). And what I said was directed at Mkativerata who said he wanted a picture of gouging itself rather than a picture showing the damage that can be done. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The you refereed to Mkativerata not yourself The C of E sorry about any confusion Gnevin (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The very nature of gouging is that is an underhand act. It's unlikely that anybody would undertake in gouging someone when it is clearly visible, let alone easily photograped. While the picture is not particularly pleasant (in fact its very unpleasant), it is not gratuitous and is very effective in illustrating the dangers of gouging. It is highly unlikely that it could be replaced a free image from elsewhere G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 12:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: Well, I think that although the picture may be gruesome, it does illustrate a point of what Eye-Gouging in Rugby can do to a person. The person in the picture was blinded in the gouged eye and had his Rugby career ended so as Gnevin says, it is highly unlikly to have another free equivilant. (I Will also say that I found Mkativerata's "joke" very insulting to both the sport and players who have had their lives dramatically altered because of someone trying to rip their eye out.) The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: Per my reasoning above and the fact that any replacement would not serve the same encyclopedic purposeGnevin (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: While such eyes may be rare the list where this image was used shows that it happens regularly. Therefore a free equivalent could be created if one does not already exit. Rettetast (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't happen often. Cases of contact with the eye are common, really? We have an average of 3 or 4 cares per the 100's of top flight games played a year and in most of these it's eye contact near the eye area. Cases of out and out gouging as defined as where fingers are inserted in the eye are quite rare and cases of eye damage extremely rare. I've been watching Rugby for 15 years and this in the only case of physical eye damage I recall. If you look at the list you will see 1 ban of 2 years or more and the player he gouged eye wasn't damaged Gnevin (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S could be created if one does not already exit. Are you offering up your eye? Gnevin (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully its extremely rare, I've been watching/playing rugby for 20 years and I have never seen an out and out gouge taking place, mostly these are only brought to the attention by citing after games and the examination of television footage, for want of a better term these things happen in a blink of an eye and I can't see how it could be recreated. While this image is horrible, I cannot think of a better example to illustrate the point. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 21:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore The newspaper article makes it clear that this is not replaceable in any reasonable way. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was this image copyrighted by anyone? Google image search shows thousands of images for eye gouge, and you could easily take a picture of someone touching someone's eye. By if this was a particularly famous eye gouge, an event mentioned in an article, and no copyright laws were violated, it should've been kept. Dream Focus 01:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Sigh explaining this again ! The image shows the eye damaged caused as a result of an eye gouge not an eye gouge in progress Gnevin (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per Gnevin.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Porn creep – Deletion endorsed. The general consensus of the discussion below is that an AfD delete close is inevitable; hence, there is no need to engage in process for the sake of process. – Tim Song (talk) 05:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Porn creep (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) I added the review tag and got another message about it being speedily deleted. I am confused. I need the article I wrote to be reviewed as it was deleted on the grounds that it was the same as one written over a year ago. It bears no relation to that page, I don't even know what the one from 09 was, it was not written by me. Mine has new references and is wholly original. Please review it. Thank you William Edmonds (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC) (Original post: [1]) Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 20:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. The above editor is correct to note that this is "wholly original". The first AfD nomination said "PoV essay, whose original research is not supported by the listed references.". Whether or not the new references check out is of little import; this is still original research by synthesis -- amalgamating various sources into a personal essay that idiosyncratically defines the subject term. it also suffers from heteronormativity. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion classic example of WP:OR. I removed a speedy tag asking for deletion as no context, which is not applicable. G4 would apply, but we might as well let this review come to a conclusion. DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and list at AfD. WP:OR is not a speedy delete criteria. Taking the nominator at their word I can't see how G4 applies as if written by a different editor I doubt it's "sufficiently identical" to the AfD'd version as required by the criteria. Yes, in my view this version of the article is also likely to be original research and very likely to be deleted at AfD but if it's not the same article as previously deleted then that decision has to be taken by the community at AfD not by a single admin deciding it's still original research. Dpmuk (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and list at AfD, I agree with Dpmuk, G4 does not seem to apply. And see, e.g., TIME (2009). Perhaps it will be deleted at AfD, but I take the recreation as a legitimate attempt to create a new article.--Milowent (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse I agree with the nominator that this isn't really similar to the earlier article, but it's still completely unacceptable for an encyclopedia, including a "What you can do for your child" and a "list of tips". A serious attempt at an article on this topic would be better off starting from scratch than with this as a starting point. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Google news archive search [2] shows it mentioned as different things, none of which I see as the addiction mentioned in the article. That is called something else. There is an article about Wikipedia being accused of porn creep, for allowing images to be uploaded, as well as other places mentioning it as allowing it to creep in to the mainstream. The topic could be recreated for what it actually is, or the article renamed to something more appropriate, there surely news and book results for porn addiction. Dream Focus 01:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion Original research and synthesis. AniMate 01:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and list at AfD, almost certainly to be deleted as WP:OR, but not certainly enough to make the assumption. Also, the state of an article is not the topic of AfD or DRV, the topic is. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 07:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse original deletion - but this is new material, which needs its own AfD for the obvious WP:OR and WP:NEO. --Orange Mike \| Talk 17:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion Original research, encyclopedic. There is no reason to overturn. What would be the point? Keep it deleted per WP:SNOWBALL. --Pstanton (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted - this article is not what "porn creep" is. [3] and [4], among others, define porn creep correctly - it is the "mainstreaming" of pornography by the media. In other words, "porn creep" refers to how it is less and less shocking to see more and more revealing acts on the news or in mainstream TV/movies. This article is about a symptom of pornography addiction, not about porn creep. --B (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse original deletion; no need to put it through AfD. GlassCobra 04:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Porn creep – Deletion endorsed. The general consensus of the discussion below is that an AfD delete close is inevitable; hence, there is no need to engage in process for the sake of process. – Tim Song (talk) 05:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I added the review tag and got another message about it being speedily deleted. I am confused. I need the article I wrote to be reviewed as it was deleted on the grounds that it was the same as one written over a year ago. It bears no relation to that page, I don't even know what the one from 09 was, it was not written by me. Mine has new references and is wholly original. Please review it. Thank you William Edmonds (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC) (Original post: [1]) Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 20:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The above editor is correct to note that this is "wholly original". The first AfD nomination said "PoV essay, whose original research is not supported by the listed references.". Whether or not the new references check out is of little import; this is still original research by synthesis -- amalgamating various sources into a personal essay that idiosyncratically defines the subject term. it also suffers from heteronormativity. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion classic example of WP:OR. I removed a speedy tag asking for deletion as no context, which is not applicable. G4 would apply, but we might as well let this review come to a conclusion. DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD. WP:OR is not a speedy delete criteria. Taking the nominator at their word I can't see how G4 applies as if written by a different editor I doubt it's "sufficiently identical" to the AfD'd version as required by the criteria. Yes, in my view this version of the article is also likely to be original research and very likely to be deleted at AfD but if it's not the same article as previously deleted then that decision has to be taken by the community at AfD not by a single admin deciding it's still original research. Dpmuk (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD, I agree with Dpmuk, G4 does not seem to apply. And see, e.g., TIME (2009). Perhaps it will be deleted at AfD, but I take the recreation as a legitimate attempt to create a new article.--Milowent (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I agree with the nominator that this isn't really similar to the earlier article, but it's still completely unacceptable for an encyclopedia, including a "What you can do for your child" and a "list of tips". A serious attempt at an article on this topic would be better off starting from scratch than with this as a starting point. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google news archive search [2] shows it mentioned as different things, none of which I see as the addiction mentioned in the article. That is called something else. There is an article about Wikipedia being accused of porn creep, for allowing images to be uploaded, as well as other places mentioning it as allowing it to creep in to the mainstream. The topic could be recreated for what it actually is, or the article renamed to something more appropriate, there surely news and book results for porn addiction. Dream Focus 01:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Original research and synthesis. AniMate 01:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list at AfD, almost certainly to be deleted as WP:OR, but not certainly enough to make the assumption. Also, the state of an article is not the topic of AfD or DRV, the topic is. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 07:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original deletion - but this is new material, which needs its own AfD for the obvious WP:OR and WP:NEO. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Original research, encyclopedic. There is no reason to overturn. What would be the point? Keep it deleted per WP:SNOWBALL. --Pstanton (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - this article is not what "porn creep" is. [3] and [4], among others, define porn creep correctly - it is the "mainstreaming" of pornography by the media. In other words, "porn creep" refers to how it is less and less shocking to see more and more revealing acts on the news or in mainstream TV/movies. This article is about a symptom of pornography addiction, not about porn creep. --B (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original deletion; no need to put it through AfD. GlassCobra 04:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Brandy Howard – Recreation not permitted at this time; consensus is that there is insufficient sourcing at present. – Tim Song (talk) 05:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Brandy Howard (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (article`\|`XfD`\|`restore) I userfied the page deleted through AFD to User:Trannytime/Brandy Howard. Trannytime has worked on it and now wishes to see if their contributions are enough to recreate it. Sending the page here procedurally. NW (Talk) 20:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] This source, cited in the draft article, looks like it might be okay. I'm not so convinced about any of the others.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Isn't "Along with her writing partner Brandy Howard, ..." just a passing mention? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes, certainly. When I said that, I was trying to broach the subject of the draft's sources in a not-entirely-negative-and-discouraging way.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ok, can't say I see it myself, personally I'd find it pretty negative to find I'd been misled as to the value of something in the interest of being "nice". I'd find it more constructive to be given a realistic assessment such that I wouldn't go off and find more of the same. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Brandy Howard – Recreation not permitted at this time; consensus is that there is insufficient sourcing at present. – Tim Song (talk) 05:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I userfied the page deleted through AFD to User:Trannytime/Brandy Howard. Trannytime has worked on it and now wishes to see if their contributions are enough to recreate it. Sending the page here procedurally. NW (Talk) 20:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This source, cited in the draft article, looks like it might be okay. I'm not so convinced about any of the others.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't "Along with her writing partner Brandy Howard, ..." just a passing mention? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, certainly. When I said that, I was trying to broach the subject of the draft's sources in a not-entirely-negative-and-discouraging way.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, can't say I see it myself, personally I'd find it pretty negative to find I'd been misled as to the value of something in the interest of being "nice". I'd find it more constructive to be given a realistic assessment such that I wouldn't go off and find more of the same. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Michel Tardieu – Speedy deletion overturned. – Cenarium (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Michel Tardieu (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) Contest speedy deletion I am reluctant to contact apparently anonymous deleters ----Clive Sweeting Clive sweeting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 10 May 2010 Why? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] With regard to Michel Tardieu, which we have seen before at DRV, I did make contact with the deleting admin, here. Until he has had chance to respond, I am ~~neutral~~ See below.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn It will presumably pass afd under WP:PROF, because of "Pensée grecque et sagesse d' orient: hommage à Michel Tardieu," ed M.-A. AMIR MOEZZI (et al.), Brepols 2009 , as well as the position at College de France. In any case it clearly makes assertions of importance as an author, and as a professor. The original deletor might well have restored it if asked, however, since it seems a clear error. DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. There was a credible claim of significance or importance, as per the DRV a few days ago (which the deleting admin wasn't to know about as it was under a different title). --Mkativerata (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] 'Overturn A quick Google book search shows thousands of results, some of them obviously about this guy. [5] This should not have been speedily deleted. Dream Focus 01:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Some time having passed since I raised this on the deleter's talk page, I'm now going to run with overturn speedy and restore per DGG and Mkativerata.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC But this remains deleted_---Clive Sweeting
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Michel Tardieu – Speedy deletion overturned. – Cenarium (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contest speedy deletion I am reluctant to contact apparently anonymous deleters ----Clive Sweeting Clive sweeting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 10 May 2010

Why? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to Michel Tardieu, which we have seen before at DRV, I did make contact with the deleting admin, here. Until he has had chance to respond, I am ~~neutral~~ See below.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn It will presumably pass afd under WP:PROF, because of "Pensée grecque et sagesse d' orient: hommage à Michel Tardieu," ed M.-A. AMIR MOEZZI (et al.), Brepols 2009 , as well as the position at College de France. In any case it clearly makes assertions of importance as an author, and as a professor. The original deletor might well have restored it if asked, however, since it seems a clear error. DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. There was a credible claim of significance or importance, as per the DRV a few days ago (which the deleting admin wasn't to know about as it was under a different title). --Mkativerata (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Overturn A quick Google book search shows thousands of results, some of them obviously about this guy. [5] This should not have been speedily deleted. Dream Focus 01:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some time having passed since I raised this on the deleter's talk page, I'm now going to run with overturn speedy and restore per DGG and Mkativerata.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC

But this remains deleted_---Clive Sweeting

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Ano Ilisia – Article restored by deleting administrator (non-admin closure). --Mkativerata (talk) 06:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ano Ilisia (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) Contest speedy deletion I am reluctant to contact apparently anonymous deleters ----Clive Sweeting Clive sweeting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 10 May 2010 See listing of Michel Tardieu above. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Why? Also, deleting admins aren't anonymous. Just go to the deleted article and it'll list the deleter and the provided reason. - Vianello (Talk) 20:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. The article subject is clearly identified, assuming that the Google cache link is accurate, so this doesn't fall under WP:CSD#A1. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Speedy deletion reason used was not appropriate. Might possibly survive afd if references could be found. I suggest Vianello simply revert his mistaken deletion and if no references are rapidly forthcoming, send to afd. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment. Seems reasonable if multiple people agree here. The topic didn't seem readily apparent to me (or apparently the nominator), leaving me thinking, "A what district?" but that's probably a culture gap thing. No notability demonstrated, but I don't know how that applies to locations, so I'm okay with reinstating this and just seeing if that even becomes an issue. - Vianello (Talk) 03:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Ano Ilisia – Article restored by deleting administrator (non-admin closure). --Mkativerata (talk) 06:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

See listing of Michel Tardieu above. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Also, deleting admins aren't anonymous. Just go to the deleted article and it'll list the deleter and the provided reason. - Vianello (Talk) 20:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The article subject is clearly identified, assuming that the Google cache link is accurate, so this doesn't fall under WP:CSD#A1. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Speedy deletion reason used was not appropriate. Might possibly survive afd if references could be found. I suggest Vianello simply revert his mistaken deletion and if no references are rapidly forthcoming, send to afd. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Seems reasonable if multiple people agree here. The topic didn't seem readily apparent to me (or apparently the nominator), leaving me thinking, "A what district?" but that's probably a culture gap thing. No notability demonstrated, but I don't know how that applies to locations, so I'm okay with reinstating this and just seeing if that even becomes an issue. - Vianello (Talk) 03:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.