Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 19

List of songs featured on The Office (US TV series) – "No consensus" closure overturned; relisted at AfD. – Xoloz 01:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Overturn and delete - AFD was closed as "no consensus" but the closing admin should have discounted the various "keep" !votes that were predicated on such non-arguments as the anonymous WP:ILIKEIT !vote, the WP:USEFUL !vote and the "if you delete this you'll have to delete everything like it" !vote (and those who cited it) that cited two additional song lists that were, in fact, deleted in the course of this AFD. None of the keep arguments refuted the WP:NOT violation asserted in the nomination. Otto4711 19:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AfD should probably have been closed with a keep. I would also point out that a deletion review should be done for List of songs featured on The Office (UK TV series). How can you keep the US list of songs for The Office and not the UK one? A few list of songs were recently targeted at AfD and most of them, The O.C. off the top of my head, were kept.-BillDeanCarter 20:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately the UK AFD didn't mention the US one, so it's likely the closer didn't know both existed. AFDs of related articles are kind of awkward... case in point right here. --W.marsh 21:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually most of the nominated song lists were deleted. This one and the OC were the only ones kept. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of music featured in Skins, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs featured on The Office (UK TV series), the list of songs for House, a list of songs played at the Bada bing Club on The Sopranos that was nominated a few weeks ago, along with some other song lists (for songs with telephone numbers in their titles and the like) were deleted. I don't understand why the closing admin wouldn't take those into account along with the lack of legitimate arguments from those wanting to keep this list in making the close. Otto4711 21:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus result, trying to spin keep votes as invalid is not helpful. Tim! 08:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using loaded words like "spin" is not civil. Last I heard, part of an administrator's job is to evaluate the quality of arguments on both sides, not just count votes. Can you point out which of the keep votes advanced legitimate arguments? Otto4711 12:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse overturn & Delete - The keep votes were all fan-oriented responses that failed to address meaningful wikipedia policy as to why the article should be kept. Discard these and the call to delete should have passed. Tarc 12:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Tarc above. Deor 13:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, delete. At no point was it suggested why the topic "songs featured on the US version of The Office" is encyclopaedic, therefore the list is by definition indiscriminate; keep !votes were indeed variations on WP:ILIKEIT. This belongs on a fansite. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, nothing said here that wasn't brought up during the afd. The closing admins explanation shows that he read the discussion and came to a conclusion which is entirely reasonable. - Bobet 23:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a reasonable reading of the discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn & delete. AFD is not a vote count, spurious arguments should be discounted. >Radiant< 08:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse you could just as easily mischaracterize many (not all, but many) of the delete votes in the discussion as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. On the other hand, the people who argued that "the music is an integral part of the show" are making a direct rebuttal of the stated reason for deletion, that it was a repository of loosely associated topics. W.marsh accurately assessed that there was no consensus. --JayHenry 15:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The people arguing for deletion cited actual policies. The people arguing to keep, didn't. Otto4711 00:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse no consensus closure On the arguments actually made, no consensus is within reasonable administrative discretion. I think there is probably a WP:V argument to make, but as the closing admin specifically noted, nobody made that argument. And the AFD closure has to be evaluated on the arguments actually made, not hypothetical arguments that equally hypothetically have a valid answer, and we can't know until there is a discussion about them. GRBerry 19:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So...let me see if I understand your argument here. If an admin finds an AFD to close for an article that clearly and unambiguously violates Wikipedia policy A, the admin can't delete the article if the nomination is based on Wikipedia policy B and no one happens to mention A? That seems utterly nonsensical. The notion that admins' hands are tied in the fashion you suggest is just bizarre. Otto4711 00:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I really thought this violated WP:NOT, I would have deleted. But as I said in the close, that wasn't really clearly shown. People argued against this being "a directory of loosely-associated topics", people argued for it. But I didn't find either side made particularly strong arguments, it was hardly "clearly and unambiguously" proven. --W.marsh 01:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Not quite. WP:V only requires deletion when an article is unverifiable, rather than currently unverified. Significantly more evidence is required to show that something is unverfifiable, because it might be verifiable but not currently verifiable. I think there is probably a WP:V argument to make that would compel deletion, but I also think that making it would require a lot of effort. And as is discussed at User:Mangojuice/Slave, we don't require admins to spend that much effort to close a discussion. I don't think the article clearly and unambiguously fails WP:V, I merely suspect that it does, but admit both that I don't know it does and that I wouldn't spend the time required to determine that on a discussion that avoided the topic. GRBerry 02:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete, AfD is not a vote. Most delete arguments made good, policy-based points, while most of the keeps centered around WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL (and at least one was a personal attack without making any real argument at all). I don't think W.Marsh's close was necessarily outside of reasonable discretion, but it certainly looks like a clear "delete" to me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Song articles – All have now been undeleted by various admins. – W.marsh 23:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Save some "Weird Al" Yankovic songs, the list above are all Billboard-charting singles by well-known musical artists (Aaliyah, Mobb Deep, etc) speedy deleted by Mel Etitis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Even if songs could be speedy deleted for notability (they can't), they certainly don't fall into that category. A request for them to be undeleted at his talk page has been soundly ignored. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and keep all. I wouldn't go so far as to say that a song must never be speedied, but there was no basis for doing so in these instances. Note that this same admin's deletion of the Weird Al song I Lost on Jeopardy was reversed on DRV last week, and then AfD'd with a result of Keep by a !vote of about a zillion to one. Newyorkbrad 20:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Undelete all per songs not being covered by CSD. Send any to AFD that he doesn't think meet WP:N, but judging by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Lost on Jeopardy the admin in question here is quite out of step with consensus on songs. --W.marsh 20:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn all, It's All About the Pentiums was all over MTV for weeks. Sheesh. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn all... while a few are pretty short (eg. Have a Party, I Want a New Duck, Breathe, Stretch, Shake), and don't clearly assert their significance, it's not clear there's any good reason to delete them instead of merging/redirecting to either a related album or author. (perhaps that's the reason that CSD-A7 only covers groups, and not songs/albums?) --Interiot 20:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored several, and redirected the one that was not released as a single to the album. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've undeleted all except the last, which appears to be a hoax. If any of these really need deletion, afd is over there Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was Nature Trail to Hell always a redirect, or was there an article there? Did the image for I Want a New Duck get speedied along with the article, and should it also be restored? Robert K S 21:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed nature trail to a redirect because it's an album-only track, and those don't usually get their own articles. No image shows =up in the logs for I want a new duck. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What material was at Nature Trail to Hell, and was it given a chance to be merged into the album article? Robert K S 22:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's still there behind the redirect. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think "Nature Trail to Hell" is article-worthy (and now I can't stop singing the lyrics to myself, either), but that can be worked out on the article talkpage. Newyorkbrad 23:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Mert_Özel_.jpg – Not a DRV issue, resolved anyway. – pgk 07:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This picture is taken by me and I hold the rights to it. I do not want this picture to be published in wikipedia at this time. Berk Sirman Berkbs 19:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was uploaded by User:Amormio, if you are that user then log in as that user and make this request. ^(H) 21:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or are you saying that the uploader did not hold the rights to the image and you do? ^(H) 21:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a bit of poking around I realize the image is a copyright violation and have removed it from Wikipedia. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. ^(H) 21:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Underwood Carrie.jpg – deletion speedily endorsed, nominator provided no arguments as to why deletion was improper. – Picaroon (Talk) 19:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image was improperly orphaned and deleted as unused fair use image. Proper deletion procedures were not followed per WP:IFD and instructions for administrators. Uploader User:Eqdoktor was not served a deletion notice to contest the deletion. Said image has already passed an earlier IFD test. Admin User:Nick has unilaterally refused to undo the admin error. Eqdoktor 18:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to the statement by Eqdoktor, the image was correctly orphaned and listed for 7 days for deletion. The image in question was in contravention of Unacceptable Use, Section 8 of our Non Free Content policy "# An image of a living person that merely shows what s/he looks like. The rationale is that this is potentially replaceable with a freshly produced free photograph" and was deleted correctly in accordance with Speedy Deletion criteria CSD-I5 and CSD-I7 (take your pick, it could have been deleted under either). The image should not have been uploaded to Wikipedia and indeed, a free photograph was found which would have rendered this image surplus to requirements if it's use had been sanctioned by policy anyway (which of course, it isn't). The uploader simply refuses to understand that this photograph should not be used in any Wikipedia articles and that discussion cannot overrule foundation policy and local non free image policy regarding the use of this image, despite spending a substantial amount of time trying to explain why this image was deleted. I also refuse to undelete the image in order to tag it for deletion again, this time informing this user,just for it to be deleted again in 7 days as it has to be. Administrators have better things to do than defend ourselves from this sort of over zealous process wonkery. Nick 19:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted - as a staunch supporter of appropriate fair use, I fully support taking inappropriate fair use out and having it shot. Foundation policy is pretty clear on this. Procedural grounds won't do here, IMO - you need to detail why the image actually doesn't violate Foundation policy - David Gerard 19:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem? The image was used under fair use. Our non-free content policies only allow that if the image can't be replaced. The image has been replaced by this one, which is a perfectly fine image of her. There's nothing that could save the other image short of fox suddenly releasing the copyright under a new license. All procedures were followed and notification wouldn't have made any difference. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the hurry to sweep it under the rug?: "Over zealous process wonkery" as opposed to willful disregard to proper deletion procedures and complete disregard of consensus building - two official policies ignored by the admin? I am sorry but this is a classic case of "two wrongs not making a right". As stated on the header above, WP:DRV is about process, not about content (goatse pics notwithstanding /grin). I believe given a chance at debate/discussion in a WP:IFD review - I can make a good case for the image. The merits of the image need to be debated/discussed in the proper forum of the WP:IFD page NOT swept under the rug in such a rushed manner. As it is, in this particular forum - it has been already pre-judged as unusable. Nevertheless, I am dismayed and disappointed a Wikipedia admin is allowed to "pick and choose" whatever policy/rules to apply based on his bias. If the image is restored and promptly deleted in 7 days (which I contend will hopefully not happen) - what is the harm? Rule of Law in Wikipedia Consensus is reached, I have been showed the error of my ways and a few million electrons get burnt out. If an admin missed pushing out a vital FA article, I will apologize profusely but I think thats a better outcome than arbitrary and capricious actions of overzealous administrators. I'm just asking for a chance to be heard, discuss and debate the fair use issue in its proper forum - the image appears to have been speedily deleted to avoid just such a discussion. --Eqdoktor 20:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Qian Zhijun – The result was wait until ArbCom does something about the current case. Introducing another debate is dangerous; we should just let it go for a bit and let the tempers cool down. – Sean William 16:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

After the last DRV closed TODAY as restore article since the last AFD was open for only 45 minutes, the newest AFD was re-opened for a mere 12 hours before it was closed and locked. I am re-listing this for the same reason as the previous DRV, the discussion was open for insufficient time to allow a full consensus to be reached. See also related ANI report Nardman1 16:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is currently on WP:RFAr --W.marsh 16:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is now listed at RFAR, I think we should hold off on having any more deates until Arbcom either accepts or rejects the case. Frankly, the issue of whether to keep or not keep the article has blown FAR out of all reasonable proportion: the subject is covered at List of Internet phenomena#Images. In the meantime, I think we should just redirect there, and start up a new debate when either the Arbcom case is finished, or when it becomes clear that Arbcom is not going to take up the case. Mangojuice^talk 16:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw nom without prejudice, Arbcom is probably needed at this point. Nardman1 16:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

WMLZ-LP – Deletion no longer contested; now a proper redirect. – Xoloz 01:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previously deleted and protected from recreation by User:David.Monniaux, I gained permission to recreate the article in a way that it would not cause the same problems originally brought to m:OTRS (at least, in my understanding). It has since been speedy deleted by User:Cryptic, citing the original complaint to m:OTRS (though, as stated, it no longer caused said issue) and citing A7:nngroup, despite the fact that the station is licensed by the FCC, making it notable JPG-GR 04:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being covered in nontrivial sources makes it notable. We're not just a station catalogue. Being licensed by the FCC makes sources more likely to exist, but this is only a low power station, and whether anything exists is dubious. A7 at this point is probably the wrong way to go about it, but it won't (or at least shouldn't) survive AfD without any sources besides station directories. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to the notability guidelines which say FCC licensed means it is automatically considered notable. Most notability is determined by coverage in reliable sources, which also nicely helps meet out verifiability standards. --pgk 08:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I'm aware of one. I guess I went ahead and assumed that if the FCC licenses a station, that makes it notable in and of itself. JPG-GR 17:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Not every FCC licensee is a notable entity. Any individual with a HAM radio license is one, after all. In this case, it just seems like part of the school and better off merged into the school's article for a mention. I'd support merging it to Bedford High School (Michigan) if someone would bother to write that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no issue with that... but I'm no expert on that school. Far from it... JPG-GR 18:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, for completeness sake, I'm gonna give it a try. JPG-GR 18:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford Senior High School JPG-GR 19:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pgk: I'm aware of at least two reliable sources that attempt to list every single licensed primary station in the U.S., so I don't think this would be a particularly useful criterion (although I don't think either of them cover LPFMs). Dr. Bruce Elving's FM Atlas, 20th ed., does list this station, although he doesn't have anything in particular to say about it. If this one has independent programming (as might be established from a Web site showing its program schedule or a school Web page describing how it is used in the school's academic program), I'd consider it sufficiently notable. After all, Wiki is not paper. The station does exist, and WP is not hurt by having this article, so long as it does not become a target for edit wars among the students at the school. 121a0012 03:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria will usually involve multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, directories/lists etc. don't cut it. WP:HARMLESS isn't a good reason to keep an article if it doesn't meet our standards, pictures of my cats are harmless they have no place here. --pgk 07:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yorkshire Derby – "No consensus" closure overturned; since margin of consensus is too small to permit outright deletion at DRV, matter is relisted at AfD. – Xoloz 01:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Though no consensus was reasonable on the balance of the discussion, the article, that was totally unsourced, should have been deleted on policy grounds as failing WP:RS and WP:V. Lacking any criteria for inclusion, it is also indiscriminate information and potentially unlimited with any two teams in Yorkshire, in any sport, qualifying for inclusion. I asked the closing admin on 13 May to reconsider but there has been no reply. Overturn and delete. BlueValour 02:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete, it was pointed out that the article was unverified and the keep side failed to demonstrate verifiability by finding some reliable sources. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not endorse closure, but I'm leaning toward keep and expand with sources. A quick Google search indicates the term all over the place, but I have absolutely no knowledge of footy whatsoever, so I think we should be aware that this may actually be able to be a properly sourced article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist this was a hard one to close. Although WP:A/WP:V was mentioned, it wasn't hashed out to the point of clearly showing a verifiable article couldn't exist here. If people want this article to stay they should cite published sources showing more people than just Wikipedia editors call these events "Yorkshire Derby". And if these are merely alternate terms maybe this should be a dab page. but these are all things DRV isn't really suited to determining. --W.marsh 15:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist seeking attributable sources specific to this point (among the hundreds of hits Google gives for "Yorkshire Derby"+football [1] ). I agree with W.marsh on all points. There are many fans of the sport on this language's Wikipedia and we need them to make clear whether this topic is too local-interest-only (under WP:LOCAL) or too indiscriminate ("no criteria for inclusion" was asserted above) to be verifiable through reliable sources. Barno 16:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete if no reliable sources are brought here or added to the article in the next five days (before this DRV closes). If these reliable sources do not appear, the subject does not meet WP:V, and the article should be deleted. --Core desat 17:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Was no concensus on AFD, have now found and added 3 sources to show that the article can be expanded with verifiable sources. Davewild 20:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is all a rather nebulous concept but I don't think that this is the point. You can fill the page with a list of matches that are described, in passing, as 'a Yorkshire derby' since this is a generally used colloquial term for any match between Yorkshire teams (and you could do the same for all the UK counties). As I understand it the article is based on the assumption that there is a formal concept called The Yorkshire Derby which there isn't. TerriersFan 20:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My adding sources was to answer the point that the AFD discussion should be overturned because it did not meet WP:RS and WP:V. With sources an article can be written about this very widely used term. As these sources show[2] [3] the term is used by many reputable sources and has a clearly defined limit - Yorkshire! As a widely used concept, sourced and with a defined limit there is no reason to delete. Davewild 21:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete as per my arguments on the original AfD. While the concept of a "Yorkshire Derby" exists, it refers to any match between two teams in Yorkshire, unlike, for example, the Manchester Derby which is between two specific teams and not other Manchester teams (e.g. Bolton v Rochdale wouldn't be "the Manchester derby". As such, the only stable states for this article are either a one-line dicdef or a sprawling list of every possible permutation of Yorkshire's eight football teams (plus possibly every rugby, rugby league and cricket team), neither of which would be appropriate content — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the keep argument that this can be shaped into a better article is acceptable, see not reason to overturn no consensus result. Tim! 08:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, delete. Actually qualifies for speedy deletion since it contains nothing which is not inherently obvious from the title, but the article also abjectly fails to explain in what way a Yorkshire derby is distinct from the generic usage of the word derby in sports. The reason it fails to do this is, of course, that it isn't. Variations on "keep even though it is unsourced and indiscriminate" should have been discounted; a good number of the keeps explicitly acknowledged that it is unsourced. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While there may be a basis for an article here, this isn't it. It has just barely enough text to not qualify for CSD A3. Overturn & delete. >Radiant< 08:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus closure or relist No consensus is within reasonable administrative discretion for that debate. As others before me have pointed out, the WP:V issue was raised, but was not adequately addressed to provide a compelling result. So sooner or later, we have to face that issue. I don't really care when, but I do note that AFD is the proper forum for it, not here. I think this just happens to be two words that frequently appear in sequence (meaning "a derby in Yorkshire"), and the WP:NEO guideline is the basis on which it should be shot down. But I don't see in this AFD any evidence that people looked for sources on the term and failed to find them, so no compelling WP:V case was made in the AFD. GRBerry 19:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete - this remains indiscriminate information. Even 'Yorkshire' is undefined. Does it include just the former counties of North, South and West Yorkshire which would exclude the football teams Middlesbrough and Hull City or the long defunct traditional county that would include those? And of course the list of sports and clubs is unlimited. For example I can source a passing reference to Sheffield Hallam Civica against Harrogate as a 'Yorkshire derby' in Men's Hockey here but so what? I don't see the point in a relist since it will not solve the organic problems with the article. TerriersFan 19:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:North American NF-Board football teams – probably a mistake, no reason seen for deletion – Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This category was deleted on March 6th. According to the deletion log, it was deleted per User:Betacommand/Datadump/To be Deleted, but I can't find a reason why it was listed there and why it qualified for deletion. It contained at least one article, Greenland national football team. None of the other subcategories of Category:NF-Board football teams was deleted. A ecis^Brievenbus 01:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find any reason for it to be deleted, so I'm going to restore it as a probable mistake. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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