Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 16 Deletion review archives: 2008 December December 18 >

17 December 2008

[edit]
  • Numerous Images all deleted by bjweeks – The risk from Copyvios must be taken seriously and given that this now blocked user has already uploaded copyvios with fraudulent attributions we must be very careful before accepting their word about other images. There needs to be a very clear consensus before we can risk undeleting these images and that is clearly absent here - there is no clear consensus to undelete so this defaults to Deletion Endorsed – Spartaz Humbug! 10:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.


Numerous Images all deleted by bjweeks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

I came back to Wikipedia after years away to get 3 images deleted[1][2] that I said were my own but were actually not. The 3 copyvios were pictures of pictures and were all fuzzy and low resolution. All of my other images are obviously taken in real life, and you can can tell by the EXIF data. These pictures were all high quality and used in multiple articles. I was trying to make things right now by telling everyone exactly which pictures needed to be deleted. In his rage against me for my insulting of the admin community here [3], Bjweeks got carryed away and deleted every single image I ever uploaded[4]. 98.213.141.241 (talk) 07:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. 23:36, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) changed block settings for Ewok Slayer (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ‎ (Disruptive editing)
  2. 23:35, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Giants Causeway Cliffs 03.JPG" ‎ (I9: Blatant copyright violation)
  3. 23:35, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Liberty Science Center.jpg" ‎ (I9: Blatant copyright violation)
  4. 23:34, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File talk:Kilauea LightHouse Hawaii.jpg" ‎ (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)
  5. 23:34, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Kilauea LightHouse Hawaii.jpg" ‎ (I9: Blatant copyright violation)
  6. 23:33, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:ClearLake.jpg" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup)
  7. 23:33, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Ugly Brute Brazil Woodcarving.jpg" ‎ (I9: Blatant copyright violation)
  8. 23:33, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:800px-Niagara falls in dark 2.jpg" ‎ (I9: Blatant copyright violation)
  9. 23:32, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Grand Falls NB.JPG" ‎ (I9: Blatant copyright violation)
  10. 23:32, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File talk:Giants Causeway Organ.jpg" ‎ (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)
  11. 23:32, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Giants Causeway Organ.jpg" ‎ (I9: Blatant copyright violation)
  12. 23:32, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Happy Sheep.jpg" ‎ (I9: Blatant copyright violation)
  13. 23:21, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Hopewell Rocks Main.jpg" ‎ (I9: Blatant copyright violation)
  14. 23:21, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Hopewell Rocks Flowerpot.jpg" ‎ (I9: Blatant copyright violation)
  15. 23:20, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Aralship2 copy.jpg" ‎ (I9: Blatant copyright violation)

If needed for verification, I have the originals (I have uploaded three here [5] ) and other pictures in the series.


Side Note: In the process of trying to get these images deleted, I got into arguments with other editors[6]. In their rage against me, admins have blocked another user[7] with whom I have never had any contact because he spoke up in support of me.[8] I have never used sockpuppets, and found this new attack almost funny for its shear absurdity.
  • Speedy close, more trolling by banned user Ewok Slayer. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn User was blocked, not banned as far as I can remember, but that is totally irrelevant. Their block was for using an image in a signature. Unless the deleting admin can show where these supposed violations were taken from, there's no evidence these images were actually a blatant copyright violation (the underlined part is important). Unless it is absolutely clear (with a link that shows it's an unequivocal copyvio), it should be discussed properly rather than speedied. - Mgm|(talk) 10:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per comments by MacGyverMagic. Whilst I appreciate that finding a few copyright violations in a user's uploads requires close inspection of their other uploads, I'm not able to see why these are "blatantly" copy vios. The images which the uploader highlighted as copyright violations are clearly of a very different style to the others. Trolling or not, I assume these images were used in article so ultimately our readers might be being disadvantaged by these deletions so it is right to take the time to consider these more carefully. Adambro (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of all. There is no meaningful way to seperate out the "good" images from the "bad" given the uploaders poor track record of incorrectly claiming as his own images that were already copyright. Given that the uploader has proven, beyond all reasonable bounds of good faith, that his statements about whether or not he owned the copyright on the images he uploaded, I don't see how we can accept any of his images. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are three ways to tell the images apart:
    1. The copyvios where all fuzzy, low resolution and had EXIF data that indicated they were inside close up shots (pictures of pictures), not outside long distance shots.
    2. I have the originals of all images available on request as well as other images from the same series.
    3. I am telling you exactly which ones are and which ones are not copyvios. I could have just said nothing and avoided all this drama, but I didn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.141.241 (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - all should remain deleted given risk of copyright violation. While I accept that some may not be copyright violations, I think it is correct to leave these deleted given the problems already caused around this editor's images. Once the editor's block has expired he can then reupload those which are suitable for WP, with correct copyright statements. As he still has the originals, this wouldn't be a large or difficult piece of work. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 14:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment What's the point in requiring him to reupload these images? He's already said which images are copyright violations and which aren't and until if and when he does decide to reupload his images our readers suffer because these images are missing. Bjweeks' position seems to be that because he incorrectly uploaded some copyright violations then all his images are "blatant copyright violations" despite them being clearly of a different style to those the uploader asked to be deleted. The deletion of these images is clearly not valid under CSD I9, "Images that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case." This simply isn't an accurate claim to make. It is not uncommon for users to misunderstand copyright issues and mistakenly upload images which they shouldn't. We should be thanking this user for bringing those images to our attention, not deleting every single upload under CSD I9 when that speedy deletion criteria is clearly inappropriate. It seems some of those who have commented here are endorsing the deletion to keep the images deleted rather than because the deletion was valid. The primary concern here should be whether the deletion was carried out properly in accordance with our policies, not whether the images should be deleted, that is a different issue. They should be undeleted and, if their deletion is considered appropriate it should go through the proper channels, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images or similar. Adambro (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: A few bad apples can ruin an entire bushel. seicer | talk | contribs 14:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Before anyone very inappropriately considers closing this as a scorched earth, can his repeated claim of the handful of images having the "low quality" vs "good quality" thing be confirmed? Just hate to lose valid content, just in case. rootology (C)(T) 14:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The uploader mentions three images which are copy vios, I can only find two of these, not sure what the third one is called. Of the two File:Hopewell Rocks Low Tide.jpg is 486×365 and File:Hopewell Rocks High Tide.jpg is 524×365, both aren't very sharp and generally are of low quality. Looking at the others:
    1. File:Giants Causeway Cliffs 03.JPG 1,600×1,200 sharp, higher quality
    2. File:Liberty Science Center.jpg 1,563×578 higher quality
    3. File:Kilauea LightHouse Hawaii.jpg 1,312×2,024 sharp, higher quality
    4. File:ClearLake.jpg said to be from usbr.gov, deleted as "G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup", it isn't immediately obviously why
    5. File:Ugly Brute Brazil Woodcarving.jpg 1,590×1,500 higher quality
    6. File:800px-Niagara falls in dark 2.jpg 787×348, crop of File:Niagara falls in dark.jpg (PD)
    7. File:Grand Falls NB.JPG 1,200×1,600, higher quality
    8. File:Giants Causeway Organ.jpg 1,200×1,600 higher quality
    9. File:Happy Sheep.jpg 1,291×1,072 higher quality
    10. File:Hopewell Rocks Main.jpg 1,600×1,200 higher quality
    11. File:Hopewell Rocks Flowerpot.jpg 1,191×1,173 higher quality
    12. File:Aralship2 copy.jpg 709×1,039 higher quality
    From this quick comparison, my suggestion is that the other images which were deleted are quite distinguishably different from those which the uploader highlighted as copyright violations. In the case of File:800px-Niagara falls in dark 2.jpg, this turns out to be a crop of another public domain image although this wasn't mentioned on the page so it isn't immediately obvious. If all of these images were very similar to the copyright violations then I might accept the use of CSD I9. It is unfortunate that the current situation means we can't have a more comprehensive discussion about this issue since the images are only available to admins. Adambro (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've found the third image. It was originally uploaded here but deleted when it was moved to Commons. This has now been deleted per the uploaders comments that it is a copyright violation. The discussion is at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Confederation Bridge whole length from air.jpg. That image is, although a higher resolution than the other two copy vios at 1,310×692 can be seen to not be particularly sharp, and of course with it being taken from the air it distinguishes itself as not your everday photograph. Adambro (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore File:800px-Niagara falls in dark 2.jpg as a crop of a PD image, which is allowable as far as I know, per User:Adambro above. No Opinion on other images. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    The license given for that image was gfdl-self. BJTalk 12:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, so? Adambro (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then the image was mistagged and didn't give an original source. Should be reuploaded to commons regardless. BJTalk 08:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For an image released as public domain, GFDL seems a perfectly valid license for a crop and it isn't required to cite the original source. Adambro (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I note that the images are variously from a canon powershot A20, A520 and A40. I can't find any copies on the web that show the normal webscraping type of copyvio but this often means little. The user could solve the issue, and remove doubt, by uploading the original resolution, unphotoshopped version of a couple of them - if they are self made this would answer the question. Nothing else I think can answer if these are truly not copyvios - Peripitus (Talk) 04:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay Here goes: Download Link [9] include three original images
    1. Liberty Science Center img_1638
    2. Hopewell Flowerpot Rocks img_1969
    3. Happy Sheep img_1104
    Please note that this is a lot of trouble for me to do, because I have to try and remember what each image looked like and then search for it in my multi-gigabyte archives. My images are not named at all, simply numbered sequentially, hence the img_1969.jpg and so forth.--98.213.141.241 (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded proof that my images are original. What more do you want from me? I should have never said anything about those 3 images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.141.241 (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2008 (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.

Wikipedia:Village pump/ACFeedback (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD))

Asking for a re-opening of the debate. The debate was closed after 17 hours as a non-admin closure by User:Sceptre invoking WP:SNOW; however at 23 keeps to 14 deletes, and there was no indication that this was a WP:SNOW case. Twice already someone has tried to restart the debate, as the early close has apparently not allowed enough interested parties to comment. Given the potential widespread interest in this AFD, there does not seem to have been an adequate time given to allow enough comments to judge consensus. It may turn out any number of ways, including a "no consensus keep" eventually, but this should really be allowed to run the full five days; or at least longer than a few hours, to judge the consensus. 70% keep is hardly a snow-able situation... Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reopen - not enough time, not enough of an imbalance in the opinions to snow it. (Disclaimer: I supported deletion.) never mind, keep this drama generator running, I guess. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - vote counting, the keeps outweigh the deletes by a significant margin. Also, I don't think the "attack page" rationale for deletion was that strong (it's not attacking NYB, for example). Sceptre (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • reopen Might as well let the matter go through a full MfD. I see no compelling reason not to. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse WP:SNOW is judged on the likely certainty of the outcome, not the heads counted. Do we really think that some VP subpage, well attended by arbs and admins and serving as some locus of discourse was going to get deleted at MfD? Not "do you want it to be deleted" or "would Wikipedia be better off if it didn't exist" (because the existence or non-existence of that page won't force people to write or not write articles, BTW), but "is it reasonable to see this being deleted?" The answer to that is no. It isn't reasonable to see this being deleted at an MfD. As such, avoiding 5 days of meta-debate is beneficial. Though arguably it was also certain that the decision would be appealed, so 5 days of meta-debate was also unavoidable. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Protonk (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse generally per Protonk (assuming that "Endorse" means "do not reopen":) ). Quite apart from the procedural issues addressed by Protonk, reopening the MFD would provide more opportunities for drama by people arriving to accuse other people of causing drama by supporting the existence of the page. Rather than constructing a recursive drama-function, wide participation and a resounding expression of support for the current Arb's would be more convincing in demonstrating that the page was not needed in the first place. Follow that? Franamax (talk) 05:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep closed (without endorsing, if that's possible). Poor judgment, but reopening would only serve to create more drama. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The last 11 !votes were all keeps. The delete !votes had been exhausted before closure. Ruslik (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse That was always going to snow. ViridaeTalk 10:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • don't reopen. There's enough drama around here already, and deleting the page out from under an active discussion in order to squelch the discussion underway wouldn't succeed in actually squelching the discussion, it would just add fuel to the fire and get the villagers to break out their pitchforks. --Alecmconroy (talk) 12:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen. DRV exists to examine the process of the AFD. Clearly, User:Sceptre overstepped in closing this debate at such an early hour. The closer notes that this was about vote counting which is not what AFD is. So, based on the closer's misunderstanding and the failure of a true WP:SNOW situation, I think we should re-open and allow the case to run its course. JodyB talk 12:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure When does an administrator make the conscious decision to see just how much they can create a drama shitstorm? I don't know, but whenever that day happens, they need to be desysoped. Vodello (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Per Protonk, who made the excellent point that even the Arbs, who are said to be attacked, are participating. Too often we assume that any on-wiki review or endorsement sort of process is Inherently Evil, but when the subjects themselves--and no, it does not require all of them to support it--participate, it's quite fine. All that aside, re-opening the MfD will be more drama, and 70% was snow country in any event. rootology (C)(T) 14:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep closed per Stifle. --Kbdank71 18:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep closed, say no to moar drahmah. - Mailer Diablo 18:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Mailer Diablo. Orderinchaos 20:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Not only per above, but also pointing out that the early closure probably spared us an extra 4 days of drama. Wizardman 20:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw my request. There does not seem to be much support for this MFD, and these comments seem to confirm the original close reason. Thank you all for your comments. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:44, 18 December 2008 (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.

Publicity Stunt: The Art Of Noise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Jklein212 (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page Publicity Stunt: The Art Of Noise was deleted stating that is was "spam." I spoke with RHworth: User_talk:Jklein212. I did post it wrong the first several times, even under the wrong title by accident at first. I am new to wikipedia so I apologize -- but I did read many articles about what to do and what not to do. I feel I followed these instructions closely. My page is about a book that has already received major news headlines to millions of readers, through notable sources, and is not by any means an "advertisement." I ask that you please reconsider this deletion and allow publicity stunt the art of noise to post as many people will find this article helpful. If I did something incorrectly, please either edit that part or delete that part or let me know how to fix it instead of deleting the entire page. As you can see, it has had major news coverage, as I said before, including AOL, The Insider, SOHH, BET, Essence magazine and the author his a very notable publicist within the music industry, as he also belongs to the Associated Press. jklein212 (Talk | 21:15, 17 December 2008 (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.

User:Guido den Broeder/Wikipedia, the Social Experiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD))

Further information: WP:ANI § Improper use of MfD page?

A page like there are many in Wikipedia, including the user spaces of the commenting users. It violates no policies. There was no consensus to delete, but an admin who has been angry with me various times deleted it regardless. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, this screams bad faith: "...an admin who has been angry with me various times deleted it regardless." Can you please find a citation or substantive content to verify that poor acquisition? In fact, I can't recall having any prior interactions with you, Guido, because I have purposefully kept myself out of the dramas that you seem to induce on an almost weekly basis.
This edit summary is also in bad faith, in regards to the MFD. seicer | talk | contribs 18:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that we have to ask ourselves a simple question here: Is this true? If it is true, then I'd be inclined to support an indefinite block of the remaining account. If it is not true, then the deletion is correct. Personally, it looks like a load of juvenile twaddle to me. CIreland (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - he claims it's true, and there's no way to prove otherwise. I'd absolutely support a community ban, but I think the consensus at ANI when it was brought up was not to ban. // roux   18:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original posting on the ANI was by Guido (here) and there was only one person who endorsed a ban in any formal way; I would venture that it wasn't a good place, or starting point, for a ban discussion (IMO). Carcharoth's follow-up thread dropped into the archive without a ripple. And as a general comment, any "endorse deletion" and "endorse undeletion" !votes on this page should probably be counted as well (but not twice if, as I did, an editor !voted on both pages). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion for all reasons cited in original MFD; the page disparages wikipedia in a way that does not help it, the truth of the statements are questionable and unproveable, and would not be a valid form of commenting on the project anyway. Anyone else who wants to review wikipedia as part of an external project does so in the open. It wasn't done here, the report can't help anything. The content exists anyway and wouldn't require a stand-alone page anyhow. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from an uninvolved admin: I count seven Delete !votes, including the nominator, to five Keep !votes on the original MfD. One of the keep !votes suggested simply moving the text to a subsection on Guido's userpage. Hardly consensus in either direction. Hermione1980 19:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm aware they're not votes (hence the !vote designation). The only reason I included that was for summary purposes. Everyone here is more than likely aware that there are other factors to consider when discussing deletion/undeletion. Hermione1980 19:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please. It's not my experiment, only my report. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which does not exist. I've done quite a few queries for a report from the United Nations on Wikipedia, and have come up with nothing. seicer | talk | contribs 20:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which you've been provided a copy of. --Smashvilletalk 20:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Seicer, now we are getting to the true motive for this quick deletion. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Seicer? --Smashvilletalk 20:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, still not seeing your point, Guido. I've provided a personal copy of this surmised report to your e-mail address. seicer | talk | contribs 20:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "in the interests of keeping drama to a minimum,: since when is that a reason for deleting anything?
  2. "user page resembles a soapbox" a considerable litattitude is allowed for expression of views in user space.
  3. "no positive relation to Wikipedia" it certainly does bear a relation to Wikipedia , and if its negative criticism that is just a valid a sue as positive.
  4. "blog for personal opinions" personal opinions about Wikipedia are arppropriate content for user space.

I do not in the least agree with guido, but the deletion is a clear violation of NOT CENSORED. We follow NPOV about the outside world in article space, and in WP space that applies to views about us as well. DGG (talk) 06:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'keeping drama to a minimum' falls squarely within 'Do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point', it seems to me. Bollocks about some alleged 'UN report' or 'experiment', even more so. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. strongly endorse deletion- deranged ramblings of someone who I thought should already be indef blocked for POV pushing and general 'illness', which he himself says is being exacerbated by the project, because on this issue a lot of people here's opinions are too much like those of the real world for him to handle. Sticky Parkin 14:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

  • So it appears that 'rampaging over Wikipedia' is an accurate description, then. As for reducing drama, the best way to do so is removing the source--the obvious next step is left as an exercise for the reader. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2008 (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.


Richter7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Valid content about an independently verifiable organization. Other similar organizations have nearly identical pages that have not been subject to deletion. Attempts to communicate with the deleting admin have been unsuccessful. Direction on specific changes needed to avoid deletion are welcome. 216.81.78.246 (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2008 (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/2008_December_17&oldid=1142263231"