Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 October 25
2007 October 27 >

26 October 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Web.py (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I created this article on October 23. It described web.py, which is a web application framework for the the Python programming language. There were already articles for nearly ever other Python framework that I know of, so I wanted to make an article on web.py for completeness. I believe I established the notability of web.py by referencing a couple of major sites and projects that use it (namely Reddit and YouOS. I know that there aren't any up-to-date software notability guides, but I believe that software which forms a major part of some high-traffic website's infrastructure is notable. I could certainly find other articles and references to web.py to establish notability, if this is insufficient. This article was speedy deleted, apparently because it was a recreation of a previously deleted page. (I wasn't aware that a previous page had ever existed.) I'm asking for it to be restored based on the subject's notability, which I will certainly be able to document more fully given the opportunity. For the record, I'm not affiliated in any way with the creator of web.py, Aaron Swartz... though I am a web programmer who appreciates having Wikipedia articles that cover many of the major web frameworks. Thanks. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 15:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seeing as how this already went through AfD in May 2006, and given that no evidence has been presented that this has become more notable now than it was then, I 'm going to endorse this deletion as a valid G4. Heather 19:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heather, I don't know what the previous contents of the article were... they may not have established its notability at all. The AfD mentions that it was considered non-notable. In my recently-deleted version, I believe I established the notability of the software. And can add more notable uses on top of those. That's why I'd like it reinstated. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 19:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting admin here. No versions of this article have ever asserted any notability, including this last one. I don't count a mention that some website uses this code as an assertion of notability. There's no reason to restore this article before references to multiple substantial coverage in reliable sources are provided. Sandstein 20:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure that media coverage should be the only grounds of notability for software. For example, we have an article on Googlefs, the distributed database filesystem used internally at Google. It's notable simply because it's an interesting piece of technology used to power a prominent website. I'd argue for web.py's notability on similar grounds. Another reason for its notability: Philip Eby (creator of WSGI, an important Python web server interface) suggested [1] that web.py is the most pythonic web framework. There's been a lot of debate among Python developers on whether to choose and promote one particular web framework, and web.py helps to inform that debate. I'd say that's a notable issue since it concerns one of the major languages used to produce dynamic web pages. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 20:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure you meant well, and I'm sure this software is notable to certain people, just not to the readership of a general purpose encyclopedia. Under our generally agreed-upon rules of notability, forum posts or the perceived interestingness of a topic do not constitute notability. Coverage in reliable sources (not necesssarily in the media) does. The software might be covered, however, as part of a wider article about this general type of software. Sandstein 21:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • All righty. I'm aware of the general notability guidelines, but I guess I've seen (and edited?) more than a few articles on software that don't seem to meet them. However, I know that one bad example shouldn't foster another. I may try to write a broader article on Python web frameworks, perhaps as a subsection of web application frameworks. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 21:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD seemed to reach a fairly strong conclusion. Do you have any evidence to present to support the undeletion of this page that was not brought up in the AfD. If not, then I endorse the deletion. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My argument for notability is based on the use of the web.py framework by a couple of high-profile and high-traffic web sites. It seems like this isn't sufficient according to others, though. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 04:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is, the same could be said of bits of PHP script that I've written that definitely aren't notable in and of themselves. We need sources demonstrating that the code is itself notable, not simply that it is used on "a couple of" sites which get heavy traffic. Heather 14:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy delete - No substantial new information has been presented to overcome the reasons the article was deleted at AfD. As for notability, the fact that Reddit and YouOS use the product but have failed to tout it's importance to the media shows that Web.py (or Webpy or Webpy.org) lacks notability. Seriously, if Web.py is that important, why has no one ever written about it in a reliable source independent of Web.py? The topic also does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards since there is not enough reliable source material to support a Wikipedia article. You have the opportunity to create a draft article in your user space, so there is no reason to have the article recreated in article space without any referenced material. -- Jreferee t/c 15:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Speedy Deletion considering that this already went through an afd TonyBallioni 02:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Quantum fiction – Improper non-admin close overturned, AFD reclosed as delete. Non-admins should not close controversial AFDs such as this per WP:DP. If this closure is contested, a new DRV will be needed. – Coredesat 23:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Quantum fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Non-admin closed as "Keep", saying that "the consensus is clear and the article has sources". Without getting into details about the validity of the sources (which I dispute), the consensus was not a clear "keep" by any stretch of the imagination. Despite likely SPAs, about half of the !votes were delete, and the debate suffered from some of the same problems as the related article on Vanna Bonta (deleted, but also on DRV). Itub 16:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. As the non-admin closure of this afd discussion I believe the consensus was clear (else I would have left it alone); but I understand fully that my actions in doing so are open to review. If others feel that the consensus was not as clear as I thought it was then I will, of course, accept this and learn from it. B1atv 17:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRV consensus is not really needed. Any admin may reclose the AfD so long as it is done before the close of this DRV. -- Jreferee t/c 17:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but no objection to an admin reclosing the AfD differently - The closer seems to have interpret the debate correctly, but the discussion was not so solid that a delete close would be out of line. Non admin AfD closes can be reopened by any administrator, even during this DRV. See Non-administrators closing discussions. So any admin thinking about posting overturn in this DRV should just reclose the AfD as delete and close this DRV. In the future, just post a note at WP:AN and request an admin reopen the non admin AfD close. If that doesn't bring satisfaction, then post here. Comment The term "quantum fiction" seems to have originated in April 1996 by Vanna Bonta's novel, "A Quantum Fiction" which is said to be the first work of "quantum fiction" in recorded history. The trouble is, it seems to be the only work of "quantum fiction" in recorded history. On the other hand, the term "quantum fiction" is being used by others, but perhaps not enough. See Google books and Google scholar. On balance, there probably is not enough reliable source material to support an article on the term and the information might fit better in the Vanna Bonta article. -- Jreferee t/c 17:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Vanna_Bonta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Not_Self-Published 65.19.53.5 09:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Just though you should know there are libelous claims on which the deletion requests are based, specifically that her novel is self-published. Vanna Bonta's novel is not self-published. The publisher is on an earlier book: A Janigan; and the publishing house that published her novel Flight which pioneered quantum fiction (and which I see was not deleted but kept) is not a POD, it's a small but legitimate publisher. Bonta and the novel and their popularity is biggie thorn in the side of some science fiction people. The book was published by Meridian House and it is not a self-published novel or a vanity press or a POD house. How do I know? I have an earlier book from the same publisher and it lists the publishers names. Black and white since 1989. There is also record of an advance they apid to Bonta.[reply]
Another claim that isn't true FYI is those claims that she's just into self-publicity. That is as far off as possible. How do I know? I know someone in the Space community (science journalist Laura Woodmansee) who had to talk Bonta five or six times into agreeing to be interviewed in her book Sex In Space. When she then agreed to do a panel for her also at a conference, newspapers in every country repeated what Bonta had to say and she did not even want to grant interviews. Bonta is known and respected for her advocacy of Space and literacy and she is like family in the community. She will support causes she loves but she is all about promoting ideas and not herself. That is from people who have dealt with her if you can't figure it out by reading her.
Just saw those very glaring points. One is a potential legal liability since you seem to have taken action (page deletion). OK so you cover yourself saying "alleged" self-published isn't notable. But you are acting on the fake claims. So there are my two bits for Wikiwise.
Was wondering also how it is that self-published bloggers and science fiction fandom people (mostly all self publish themselves and each other) or MySpace and YouTube personalities who are self promoters qualify and a novel and person such as Bonta that got serious reviews does not. Just for Wikiquality this should all be reviewed by a Senior administrator if not already being looked into. Not necessarily to reinstate that article it seemed way too long but for the points mentioned and fairness and Wiki honor. 65.19.53.5 09:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy endorse my deletion, whether she's self-published or not doesn't make her any more notable. Despite all the SPAs (including the nominator here), the AFD was valid and consensus was clear. --Coredesat 12:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist (and rewrite) The AfD was a disgrace.--as was the unbelievably spammy article. The most self-indulgent personal bio I've seen here, which is saying a lot, considering the strong competition But one of the people arguing admitted to a strong personal dislike for her fiction. The fans arguing for keep made similarly personal comments. Among all the bickering, the true argument for keep was not considered, which is the multiple reviews for her fiction. Not all were actually cited, but if they are all real she just might be notable. The argument at the Deletion Review similarly misses that point and is as far off the mark as the arguments in the AfD. Poetry awards were also specified, but I doubt their significance. The movie roles were clearly trivial. Self-published was not used as a reason in the closure. But it is amazing that opportunity was not taken during the AfD to rewrite the article into some semblance of objectivity and proportionate weight--its nature undoubtedly affected the decision. Orange Mike properly said that if rewritten it might actually establish some notability. I wouldnt oppose a "permit recreation on talk page," as the best chance of getting an acceptable article. DGG (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - While the issue of the biography meeting WP:N can be debated, AfD consensus seems to say that it is not and it is clear from the AfD that the article itself did not meet WP:A and would not likely meet WP:A anytime soon. The multiple reviews for her fiction may make her fiction meet WP:N, but of those reviews do not include biography material, they do not help the article meet WP:N. My own search shows very little reliable source biography material for Vanna Bonta. The Los Angeles Daily News (October 8, 1995, "Strangers no longer. Women bonded during Valley bank robbery ordeal." Page N3) article goes into detail about a Vanna Bonta who was a customer in a bank during a robbery, but it is not clear that the Vanna Bonta of that article is the author Bonta. There some smattering of other reliable source information, but maybe not enough for a biography. I think that if all the available reliable source material were added to the Vanna Bonta article and only referenced material were used, I do not think that the article would meet WP:N when looked at as a whole. That may explain the need for an unbelievably spammy article (a way to disguise an inability to meet Wikipedia's article standards). The established user at the AfD seemed to recognize this in their delete consensus. The closer interpreted the debate correctly. I wouldn't oppose permitting a draft article in user space that uses reliable source material. Once that draft is done, please return to WP:DRV so that the draft may be reviewed and the issue of recreation decided. -- Jreferee t/c 16:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Notability was never proved satisfactorily despite the ramblings of some of the fans. I've likewise nominated the closely-related Quantum fiction for review, as it was incorrectly closed as a "keep" IMO. --Itub 16:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. The AfD was such a mishmosh of confusing and longwinded comments from multivoters that it's difficult to determine what, if anything, the consensus was. Needs more opinions from people not involved with the article in order to generate a consensus. --DachannienTalkContrib 22:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it was quite easy. There were several arguments from uninvolved editors, including a(n unsubstantiated) keep argument that was just a vote. All the long-winded SPAs just call those arguing to delete "vandals", and no one presented anything concrete that could show for notability, based on the original nomination reason. --Coredesat 23:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. AfD ran fine and was closed appropriately. Nothing new that needs to be considered, nothing to suggest the consensus would be different. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Valid AFD, valid consensus after following the valid, usual procedure that comments from accounts appearing to be single-purpose, sockpuppets, or recently created are discounted. DRV isn't a place to have a second bite at the cherry hoping for a different outcome. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse After sorting through the SPAs the consensus was clearly delete and Coredesat closed the AfD properly. TonyBallioni 02:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - valid AFD, proper close. Otto4711 00:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-list (and Re-Write) - Article not good, needs to be re-written, but some very weak arguments to endorse deletion, far too much personal opinion. John B Sheffield 17:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)JBS[reply]
  • Endorse valid afd, clear close. Carlossuarez46 22:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The idea that we need to relist an AfD because it contained a "mishmosh of confusing and longwinded comments" is bollocks. There is no evidence that Coredesat's reading of the discussion was lackadaisical or biased, so there is no reason to reopen the circus. ~ trialsanderrors 06:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - Comment: I would like to note that I am not a SPA even though I did not respond to my email in time, and I apologize if I am new to Wiki and make an error. The following is important to have For the record on the AfD, which I also agree is a disgrace:

Since we did due diligence in contributing to this entry about the Italian American author Bonta and other Italian writers for Wikipedia, and citations of newspapers, books, publishers and publications satisfied guidelines, we were curious and wanted recommendations on how to improve our contributions to Wiki and checked this out.

The Bonta in the article about the robbery is the same author Bonta. There are multiple other biographical sources, to mention a few: Articles by Vanna Bonta where biographical info is cited by the publication's editors: 

   * http://www.thespacereview.com/article/252/1
   * http://www.spaceandsociety.org/cgi-bin/long-list.pl?000099

Additional verifiable biograpical info on author Bonta: 

   * http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14002908/
   * http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-03y.html
   * http://www.space-frontier.org/Events/NewSpace2006/NS2006speakersbios.html

While the acting sources were trivial and the article was spammy, she is a reviewed author. I'm amazed there was not a request to rewrite and Wikify.

at is amazing is that this AfD was concurrent with simultaneous vandalism and comments which, when compared to this link I provide here, are identical and clearly originate from this small fandom science fiction forum that formed this blog page (link below) coincident with the AfD request on author Bonta.

They may be Wiki users but an agenda to spread fabrications as fact is not per Wiki guidelines or purpose.

The multiusers chiming in for Deletion are from this forum; further, their comments are very personal and emotional, and fit the profile of cyberbullying, defined as: --distorts, twists, concocts and fabricates criticisms and allegations, and abuses the disciplinary procedures - again, for control and subjugation, not for performance enhancement --uses gossip, back-stabbing or spreads rumours to undermine, discredit and isolate

This consensus is worthy of investigation: the source of rumours, vandalism and allegations made about author Bonta in this archive should be sourced; they are identical to the Delete comments in AfD. That is because this forum generated the AfD as well as the AfD on Quantum Fiction, a genre associated with author Bonta, because they do not like the author's fiction. See them here, some even have the same usernames as Wiki names: http://www.journalfen.net/community/fandom_wank/1115650.html http://kytha.livejournal.com/522007.html

It's my opinion that cyberbullying and generic internet grudge material by Wiki users in this case was given license to veto referenced national and international newspapers, publications, publishers, accomplishments and organizations accrediting the Vanna Bonta entry.

Coredsat asks for speedy deletion on this article and cites a "flood of SPAs" yet doesn't also weigh the flood of Delete votes from the above clearly biased source with definite biased agenda. Several of the Keep votes were also not SPA, and this is overlooked. I'm amazed and believe the matter should be evaluated for biases. I also welcome pointers on how to improve my contributions. Italianstudies 06:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Boon Software – Deletion endorsed; userfication available if anyone wishes to incorporate new sources into a revised draft. – Xoloz 14:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Boon Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article has thus been modified and is still in the process of modification.Dleewh 08:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close, nothing here. --Coredesat 12:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, although the DRV nomination is pretty confusing, he seems to be correctly pointing out that the article was modified a good deal from when all but one of the AFD participants had commented that there weren't enough sources. The sources in the last version of the article may not have ultimately passed muster, but I'm not sure they got any consideration from the AFD participants. --W.marsh 16:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close; relist Endorse close; Keep deleted - Endorse the close since no other way to interpret the AfD debate. As for the new information not reviewed by the AfD participants, it may be substantial new information and that is what this DRV can review as well. See DRV Purpose #3. The article was well referenced, but the references were press releases. Thus, keep deleted in view of the new information. Comment - Press releases contain little, if any, Wikipedia reliable source material. A press release can be used to source the claim that the company's name is "Boon Software", they were founded in 1993, and they are in Singapore. The rest of the press release material contains information that no reliable source independent of Boon Software has found reason to publish. If independent reliable source do not find the material interesting enough to publish then there is no reason Wikipedia should include the information in Wikipedia. Boon Software Consulting Pte Ltd. is mentioned here as a key partner to Oracle, but that's about it. Its in a press release, and not really significant enough to mention in the Oracle Corporation article. On the other hand, the company is in Singapore and has been around for fourteen years. It seems likely that someone with access to Singapore print media can locate some reliable source material independent of Boon Software. Until someone actually locates that material, keeping the article deleted seems appropriate in view of the AfD consensus. -- Jreferee t/c 17:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I revised my position based on W.marsh's 19:33, 26 October 2007 post below. The were many new references that like were not considered at the AfD (although the closer probably saw the article before it was deleted). Given so many new references, it is possible that within all that information might be found enough reliable source material for the article. Someone can recreate a deleted article using reference material and they can create a draft article. However, the issue is whether AfD would be appropriate. If it were a few references, I'd say no. If it were merely a data dump of references, I'd say no. But given the effort to both list the seventeen references and use them to footnote the text of the article, I think another review at AfD is the best way to get a consensus on the new material. -- Jreferee t/c 15:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If there is significant new information to establish notability and otherwise rehabilitate the article, why not simply recreate from scratch? If the flaw was notability and you've overcome that based on new sources or new developments with the company since the deletion debate, the new article will then get evaluated on its own merits. Wikidemo 19:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A bunch of sources, 17 actually, were added to the article, at the tail end of the AFD. So what you describe has already been done, it's just not clear that the sourcing-improved article got a fair shake. --W.marsh 19:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Yes, new sources were added, but most were from Boon software or non-noteworthy sources. I see no sources in the later revisions of the article that assert the company's notability than were in the revisions considered at the start of the AfD. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting seems appropriate if debate worthy, with userfication the reasonable alternative. I'm not sure that there is an independent source in the lot. But the AFD doesn't evidence that the additional sourcing was considered (it certainly wasn't discussed). The subject might be notable and giving it another shot is worth the time. But I do think the article needs further improvement using sources independent of the subject and its partners. GRBerry 16:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per AmiDaniel - the new sources do not show significant coverage in reliable third party sources. It's press releases, business partners saying that they're a supplier/vendor, what have you - but where is the real coverage from uninvolved sources? Exactly. Carlossuarez46 22:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article 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.
Rickroll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was last deleted June 2007. Since that time, the Rick Astley article has been modified to include a section on RickRolling that this page could redirect to. Poobslag 03:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably shouldn't have been speedied in the first place... I don't know if the original version was really patent nonsense or not, but the version I viewed a while ago was a fine stub (unless that was a different article with the same subject). — xDanielx T/C 06:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Place protected redirect. Most of the earlier deleted versions were lyrics to Never Gonna Give You Up. The others that aren't redirects are pretty much simply unsourced definitions of a "rickroll". Since the section in Rick Astley exists, might as well make a redirect. However, I personally think the section should be removed, as the sources for it are not WP:RS (they're YouTube videos). --Coredesat 12:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Protected redirect to Never Gonna Give You Up. Will (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Place protected redirect to Rick Astley#Astley as an Internet phenomenon or Never Gonna Give You Up#Internet culture. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 13:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy deletes of the redirect - The two 29 June 2007 speedy deletes cited WP:CSD#G4 recreation of material deleted at AfD. First, WP:CSD#G4 does not apply since "#REDIRECT [[Rick Astley]]" is significantly different content from that which was deleted at AfD. Also, the Rickroll article was speedy deleted at AfD and WP:CSD#G4 does not apply to speedy deleted articles. Comment - Reliable source information includes (1) Columbus Dispatch , June 5, 2007, Page 8D, (writing, "We've been "Rickrolled" a few times recently and figured it was time to pass along the fun."); (2) Village Voice August 28, 2007 (a single use of the term); (3) San Antonio Express-News, September 11, 2007, "Pop star from '80s resurfaces thanks to Rick Rolling." Page 1C (archive search "RickRoll.org" or see reprint); The Kitchener Record and the Guelph Mercury reprinted the September 11, 2007 San Antonio Express story. That might not be enought for an article, but certainly is enough reliable source material for mentions in the Rick Astley article. -- Jreferee t/c 16:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You must check out this awesome Youtube video!!! Uh, recreate the redirect per Jref. ~ trialsanderrors 03:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Damn! I followed your link, but was only routed to Astley's video of "Never Gonna Give You Up". I guess I was Rickroll. On the bright side, we now have more content for the notable examples of this meme entering the mainstream:

    During a deletion review of the notable Wikipedia article Rickroll, a notable editor Trialsanderrors enticed many unsuspecting notable Wikipedia contributors to Astley's notable video with the dynamic link tag, "You must check out this awesome Youtube video!!!"[citation needed] Although not confirmed, many of the Wikipedia rickrolled victims notably were red faced.

    -- Jreferee t/c 15:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Place protected redirect as above. I think Rick Astley#Astley as an Internet phenomenon is better because Never Gonna Give You Up is just the most common song used. --Dhartung | Talk 03:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliably source or eliminate the section in Rick Astley. If it survives, place a redirect. Award the latest G4 deleter a trout, a redirect is not substantially identical to an article. GRBerry 16:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or Place proteced direct- this should never have been speedied in the first place. Calls with regards reliable source just get silly at times. John B Sheffield 17:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_October_26&oldid=1138431345"