Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 June 9
2009 June 11 >

10 June 2009[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Beyond Flavor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Artist page Original Flavor was deleted via PROD, and then this album was A9'ed. The artist page has been restored, and so the A9 is now invalid. This is sort of an extension of a contested prod and hopefully is not controversial. Chubbles (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure it counts as a contested PROD, but I support the undeletion. Stifle (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:CA SupremeCourt.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

As I previously mentioned, this image is not replaceable because you're never going to otherwise get the seven justices in one place to take their pictures. It is arguably in public domain, although I don't think it actually is. (Compare with File:Supreme_Court_US_2006.jpg.) Nevertheless, I think there is no doubt that using it is fair use. Further, as it is the case with Supreme Court of the United States, I think having the justices' group portrait substantially enhances the article's vividness and is necessary to give flesh and blood to the article. Nlu (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. We don't use non-free images to give flesh and blood. The same encyclopedic information could be provided by showing free images of the individual justices. Clearly replaceable. – Quadell (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where are these "free images of the individual justices"? They don't exist either. --Nlu (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps not, but so long as the people are alive, free images could be created. – Quadell (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Quadell. Non-free images of people who are still alive aren't allowed except in the most unusual circumstances. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore A joint picture is important and unreplaceable information. This is one of the special circumstances. We can decide here how narrowly to interpret the rule. DGG (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You think it would be impossible for them to be in the same room together? – Quadell (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merely being viewed by you as important and unreplaceable information doesn't make it pass WP:NFCC. Aside the issue of if a similar photo could be taken, does it meet NFCC#8 (say) "add substantially to the readers understanding" in the context in which it was being used. If we show 7 individual shots and comment that they are rarely collected together does that not convey the same information (arguably showing all together is misleading if it's that rare an occurance). If the image itelf is a really important image in it's own right such that we could write about it, I'm sure then there will be independant commentary on it, does that exist? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be impossible for them to be in a room together as members of the C Supreme Court. Context is relevant, since we don't use NFCC pictures as just decoration. DGG (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't see how that answers the question in the slightest. The context in which it was used was listing the number of justices, it said nothing about the photo, said nothing about the signficance of them being in the same room at the same time etc. You completely fail to say how that picture adds any more encyclopedic value than individual pictures. You fail to say how it increases the readers understanding etc. It still seems to come down to merely your belief that it is important for some unspecified reason, scarcity and importance aren't the same thing. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The same can be said about any picture. As far as I am concerned, it speaks more than 1,000 words to see the seven justices with their diversity in gender and ethnicities together in one picture than seeing them in the hypothetical seven individual photos -- not to mention that such photos don't exist. You really expect any Wikipedia editor to be able to invite the seven justices -- or even one -- to allow a picture to be taken by the editor? --Nlu (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • So it still comes down to a matter of personal opinion, one I still don't share just making vague waves toward pictures speaking a 1000 words doesn't actually tell me anything. Has anyone else written about the photo in this way showing it's significance? The general standard we use is not that wikipedia editors decide on such matters but the world as a whole writing about such issues. As to wikipedia editors taking pictures, yes it is possible they don't have to be posed shots, and it presupposes the only way to get a free image is to stand there and take one. There are images of these people and wikipedia editors can go and ask those with such images if they are willing to license them under a free license. I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation that those wanting to contribute to a free encyclopedia make quite a bit of effort to contribute using free material. A massive point of the project is free content, and a part of our NFCC being stricter than fair use doctrine is to dictate not having too broad a use of fair use, not using the lazy way out. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Juxtaposing seven free photographs of the individual judges would easily accomplish the goal you mention. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Perhaps, if that itself is possible to do. I am not convinced that it is at all possible. --Nlu (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - from my perspective this is similar to whether we should allow non-free images of bands, when individual free photos are available or could be created. My understanding is the consensus interpretation of policy is to not allow this practice. Consequently, I believe the closing admin acted correctly. I understand what DGG is saying, but I disagree, we should be attempting to follow the consensus interpretation of policy. PhilKnight (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    if consensus about the interpretation were to change, this would be a good place to change it. Personally, I think it at least is beginning to change in this direction. DGG (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this would not be a good place to change it; WT:F would. Stifle (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Quadell. BTW. If the image speaks a thousand words, it is clearly replaceable with text. Rettetast (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Some of the above arguments for deletion are beyond bogus, but there is no clear reason why we can't take pictures of each person and combine them. Not as good as the combined picture, but still enough for the article IMO. Hobit (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn I'd certainly !vote to delete this, but I don't think this is a clear speedy and should have had it's chance in XfD. It isn't so clear as to be an automatic deletion without discussion. Hobit (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.


File:Sonic Erotica Article Psycho-Sensuals Unite.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache))

for entry Sonic Erotica. ESkog takes too many liberties and makes too many assumptions.--Mirror Man (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Moved from main page. lifebaka++ 13:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, note that Sonic Erotica is currently deleted. lifebaka++ 13:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This image is copyrighted. Do you have a release for it under a free license? If not, what is the fair use rationale for using it? Stifle (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse deletion due to lack of reply to an essential question. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. It was a non-free image that unambiguously violated our NFCC. Eskog was right to delete it as "F3: Media file with improper license", and Jimfbleak was right to re-delete it as "F9: Image copyright violation without claim of PD, FU etc". – Quadell (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Quadell. In this discussion, the deletion arguments were compelling. PhilKnight (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Inappropriate image for a number of different reasons. DGG (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

MusicMatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

History-only undeletion. This was deleted years ago without any discussion that I could find.  ~ PaulT+/C 05:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The deletion log looks like it tells you the entire content "{{nocontext}}'''MusicMatch''' is digital jukebox computer software for Microsoft Windows.{{stub}}" --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But not the contributor. According to the GFDL they should be listed. ~ PaulT+/C 06:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "content", such that it is, has not been used anywhere else, there is no GFDL reason to restore it, there is no reason at all to restore it, this DRV is a frivolous waste of time. --Stormie (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The GFDL requires attribution to those contributing towards the work, as that was deleted and doesn't contribute to the work there is no such attribution required. Additionally it's unlikely that the phrase would be sufficient for copyright protection anyway. IANAL etc. --155.140.133.254 (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A frivolous waste of time? From the instructions above: "'History-only' undeletions can be performed without needing extended discussion on this page." According to that there really shouldn't be much of a discussion anyway. ~ PaulT+/C 06:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undeleting it shouldn't be a problem and as a one off is minimal effort, however the nature of the instructions doesn't make the process of someone going and undeleting a single phrase which adds zero value to the article or its history any less of a waste of time. Wikipedia gains nothing by undeleting it. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete the history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to undelete the history. The article has been re-written through other people's listed contributions and the redirect is all that's needed of the original. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien episodes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
List of Late Night with Jimmy Fallon episodes (2009) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of The Colbert Report episodes (2009) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Closer dismissed valid arguments based on wp:notability, wp:episode and other policies. Sides with nom despite lack of deletion rationale. Nom's reasoning and those of deleters are largely based on not liking it "I think this kind of list is a little different, because it isn't a plot summary like other lists of (show) episodes. If O'Brien is as successful as Leno or Carson, this list could end up being in the thousands of episodes. These kinds of shows have far more episodes per year, than sitcoms, comedies, etc." None of those are policy based. A no consensus close would have been fine. Also, additional articles were added after it had started and weren't given separate consideration by all the voters (ex. one year of Colbert show episodes). ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would overturn and relist, as I don't think the closer was correct in dismissing so many "votes" out of hand. Relist because of the confusion effect of adding new articles halfway through. I'm a strong opponent of articles like this, but process and consensus are important. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Keep despite me voting for deletion. This page was closed as delete despite a 15:8 keep to delete ratio. While AfD is not a vote, I feel that is just too overwhelming to close this as delete. When User:Smashville deleted the articles, he stated that not a single keep vote was in policy, but I would highly disagree with him. I count about seven keep votes that do not mention any policies or guidelines in their answer, but on the other side I count three delete votes that don't cite and policies and guidelines. that still leaves approx. a 8:5 keep to delete ratio. A lot of the keep votes were based on notability and I simply feel that User:Smashville overlooked those arguments and deleted the article based on his personal feelings. Tavix |  Talk  15:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My keep vote (like all the rest) was discounted as not referring to a policy or guideline but my reasoning was that the nominator didn't give a reason for deletion so there was nothing really to comment on other than the fact that the nominator wanted the page deleted. Drawn Some (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is spot on. Rlendog (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Keep There was clearly a majority to keep the articles. A list of episodes is a perfectly legitimate topic uder WP guidelines, even if there's one four days a week. Reywas92Talk 16:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfDs aren't votes, so a majority doesn't matter, per say CTJF83Talk 17:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus per Stifle mostly. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Keep. The closing rationale seems to assume that you have link to or quote a policy for your !vote to based on policy. This is simply not the case. There were, as pointed out, numerically more keep !votes, and the keeps managed to demonstrate the possibility for a neutral, well-sourced, verifiable, and notable article. Cool3 (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:EPISODE recommends that we need reliable, independent sources on the topic. Unless editors can prove that the show does receive such episodic coverage from the news media, this should remain deleted. There's a danger in thinking that the Tonight Show is notable, Conan is notable, NBC is notable... therefore, a "list of episodes of the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien" is also notable. Notability is not inherited; this specific topic needs indepedent coverage on its own to merit inclusion. I don't think the AFD closer made that clear in his closing statement. --Madchester (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, as I pointed out in the AfD, it's very easy to find reliable citations for all of the material in the article (guest stars and musical acts). As for reviews, they exist for every episode so far. It's crystal-ballery to say they won't in the future, and as I pointed out in the AfD, nearly every episode of Letterman has real reviews; why would Conan not be the same?
    • Reviews of the episode of June 9: [1] [2] [3]
    • Reviews of the episode of June 8: [4]
    • Reviews of the episode of June 7: No episode
    • June 6: No episode
    • June 5:[5]
    • June 4:[6] [7] [8]
    • June 3:[9] [10]
    • June 2:[11]
    • June 1: [12] [13]
    In short. The keep votes were justified; there are plenty of sources. Cool3 (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I addressed this issue multiple times in the original AFD, yet no editor took the iniative to provide third-party links to each episode of that article. If the article stays, I expect such news articles for each and every episode that's aired, in order to satisfy WP:EPISODE's requirement for independent sources. --Madchester (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep - This argument is definitely incorrect. WP:EPISODE states "Once there's enough verifiable information independent of the show itself, then: * Create a page for each series/season, or a 'List of episodes' page with every season/series." Having verifiable information from secondary sources about individual episodes is only required for having separate articles about individual episodes. WolframBerlin (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually, the bulk of the guideline stresses the need for reliable, independent, secondary sources - regardless if it's just for the show itself or a specific episode. We don't create entire Wiki artciles that are simply reproducing info from the primary source. --Madchester (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Delete, first of all, ChildofMidnight, I never once said I "didn't like" the list. I was saying that this list will get ridiculously long when Conan has thousands of episodes. This list isn't even a plot summary, like most "List of ___ episodes", it is just a list of guest stars. CTJF83Talk 17:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And a list of guest stars and very longs lists are against WP policy how? This are permittable per WP:EPISODE. Reywas92Talk 19:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep - Closing admin claims that none of the 15 keep !votes (against 8 deletes) "were based on policy". That is blatantly false, as many of the keep !votes and subsequent discussion to replies to those !votes addressed WP:N, WP:EPISODE, WP:NOT and WP:SALAT, to name a few. Further, the nom itself was not based on any policy, but just on a view that the list may become overly long - a view that many of the !keep votes disputed. Rlendog (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also note that only a single delete !vote was registered subsequent to the Colbert Report list being dumped into this nom. Rlendog (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep with extra fish sauce for the closer. Implement the consensus. If you don't like the consensus, then !vote, don't close.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for lack of sources if nothing else. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Overturn and keep per above, sources were indeed found and I didn't catch them on first glance. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep These are the standard ways to deal with the situation. There is dispute about separate articles for individual episodes, but as for lists of episodes--that is I think accepted by almost everyone. The closer misunderstood the situation. DGG (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (no consensus) Bad close. There was no consensus, rough or otherwise. The closer's action should have been a standard !vote. Don't relist for a month at least. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (no consensus) arguments on both sides using WP:CRYSTALBALL to discuss availability of sources, there were valid arguments on both sides, and also, clearly, some votes. Bigger digger (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep the WP:EPISODE keep votes were justified and subsequently outright ignored by the closing nom as evidenced by his closing comments. Vodello (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus: goes against the community consensus/understanding that episode lists are a valid compromise between no episode coverage and complete epiosde coverage. Sceptre (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the deletion of List of The Colbert Report episodes (2009) immediately. It was added late to an ongoing discussion of not obviously related articles, and deleted after less than seven days. (Six, but as long as we're nitpicking about the finer points of policy...) I'm not well read on Wikipedia policies, but I believe this falls under 'If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" ...' in WP:DP. And if it should be deleted, it should be done right and include all years, from 2005 onwards. magetoo 17:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • On closer inspection it seems like three days, not six. magetoo 09:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Sceptre and TPH among others. Icky close. Hobit (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Obviously an error in judgment on the part of Smashville when you have nearly a 2/3 advantage of keeping the articles and deleting them. This isn't a vote, but WP:EPISODE is a valid argument for deletion discussions and it was overlooked and there are reliable sources for The Tonight Show, The Colbert Report, etc. which can satisfy reliable sources and notability. Another error was made in not bothering to check related articles about The Colbert Report when List of The Colbert Report episodes and 4 related season articles still exists, leaving a red link for the latest season. — Moe ε 23:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus to delete, talk about a horrible close. How do these people become admins? There was clearly no consensus to delete in that AFD. And several of the comments by people arguing to delete were totally ridiculous: "raise potential copyright issues", "very hard to verify", "there are 3,775 episodes", "no plot line to write about", "kill it now while it's still small", "likely going to be hundred of episodes, per year", "this belongs on a fan page", "This has the potential to be an extremely bloated article", "this is useless fan fluff", "I don't see the value", concerned "whether or not it can be backed up by reliable secondary sources.", "A magnet for original research.", "nor is a list of the episodes encyclopedic." And the nominator's reasons were absolutely laughable — "most shows seem to have a list of episodes page....I think this kind of list is a little different, because it isn't a plot summary like other lists of (show) episodes." What kind of nonsense is that? Besides, how many plot summaries do you see in List of The Simpsons episodes, which is a featured article? Does the nominator even know what a talk show is?

    And why delete List of The Colbert Report episodes (2009) and leave List of The Colbert Report episodes (2005), List of The Colbert Report episodes (2006), List of The Colbert Report episodes (2007), and List of The Colbert Report episodes (2008)? They're all acceptable sub-articles of List of The Colbert Report episodes. The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien, Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, and The Colbert Report are all notable televisions shows, and splitting off a list of episodes is perfectly acceptable.

    There's no policy against list of episode articles, it's common to have lists of episodes for talk shows rather than individual episode articles (as seen with The Colbert Report), the information is easy to verify, Category:Lists of television series episodes has over 2,200 articles under it[14], WP:EPISODE isn't a policy (or even a notability guideline), and episode articles themselves on Wikipedia have over seven years of precedent per the policy WP:NOT#PAPER. And you absolutely do not need "third-party links" to each episode to "satisfy" WP:EPISODE (although it's easy to link to TV.com if someone insists on them for some strange reason). WP:EPISODE doesn't even address list of episode articles (and it didn't address lists of episodes when Radiant! marked it a guideline all by himself either). That "guideline" doesn't even deserve to be called that. It's clearly breeding a new generation of know-nothing volunteers. It's "guideline" status is disputed[15][16]. Why do people blindly follow some page with no citations, that they don't even know who wrote, simply because the page itself tells you it's a "guideline"? What an ignorant bundled AFD, and equally ignorant closure. --Pixelface (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was no consensus to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.


L-Cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

The article was based on information that i myself submitted and contributed to my article. It was definently original work and should not have been deleted, almost immediately after it's posting. I submitted the article on Aug 21, 2007 and it was deleted immediately. I disputed the deletion with the (deletor/i.e.edior?)....but he never responded. And then i read over other request and based on information from other contributors, this individual is somewhat of a serial deletor. He has deleted a number of other articles that author's disputed were in violation of any of Wikipedia's article rules.. I just hope this can be resolved in a somewhat timely manner. I am relying on this submission to use as a guideline to account on when and how i acquired the material for the overall L-Cat project. User-Soulsearchers Soulsearchers03 (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Deleted by Irishguy[reply]

The content of the deleted page, created by the above nominator, was:
L-Cat:
In theory, the L-Cat(Local Computerized Access Terminals), would be part of a network of information gathered from various points of interest and all processed or tallied to give an accurate average. Because of the information that was gathered by the system makes it invaluable and very cost efficient. It would be enviromentally friendly, and very pratical. I could be used for a small or large projects, and it could be expanded or downsized as seen fit by the person persons in control of the project.
As such, I endorse deletion. I'm not sure that you understand the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to document notable topics using verifiable information. It's not a place to promote new inventions, nor to "use as a guideline to account on when and how i acquired the material for the overall L-Cat project". You may wish to write about this on your own website. See Wikipedia:Alternative outlets.
Casting aspersions on the motives of administrators who delete articles is unlikely to help your case, too. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, perfectly valid CSD A1. Stifle has provided the entire content above if you wish to use it elsewhere. --Stormie (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Stifle. On that train of thought, any admin who regularly carries out the deletion of articles is a "serial deletor". I should also note that the deleting admin is now retired. MuZemike 20:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but permit recreation with some information about what is being talked about. Personally, I would not have used nocontext for something only 7 minutes after creation when it would seem expandable, but tag, and notify, and watch for developments. But I can;t say it was actualy wrong. DGG (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Be nice to newcomers, especially. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify. Not useful at the moment, but maybe can be edited into something more valuable. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_10&oldid=1138435794"