Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 1

The June 22 proposed deletion of this user box was rejected (see

• Comment by closer: the repopulation of the category isn't a problem--I'll ask someone to run it as a bot job or (preferably) the editors in question can decide for themselves whether they want their user pages to belong to that category. The rationale for this close is pretty obvious. Firstly, it permits the editors in question to express their opinions as they wish (even better, they can tweak the parameters and alter the text at will, which wasn't possible while they were transcluding another editor's version. Secondly, it effectively sabotages any attempt to abuse the whatlinkshere function. There is no legitimate reason to use the DieWeisseRose version while it's possible to use the "template:userbox" version to produce the same effect in a manner that is not susceptible to abuse. --Tony Sidaway 22:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The rationale put forth by the editor who nominated the userbox for deletion was simply: "User template is divisive and inflammatory. It implies that the UN is bad". Nothing was then said about "abuse [of] the whatlinkshere function." Furthermore, during the course of the discussion, there simply was no consensus that the transclusion of the userbox was a problem. Even less so was there consensus for the solution proposed by
    User:Dmcdevit. Nor has anyone produced any evidence that this userbox ever resulted in any "abuse [of] the whatlinkshere function." --DieWeisseRose 02:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse I think the question of transclusion vs. substitution is irrelevant. I didn't ask Tony to subst the userboxes, but once it's done I don't give a darn. User categories are a separate issue. Uncategorizing certain users from a category, even if for a trivial reason, should not be reversed at DRV without a clear demonstration that harm was done. Shalom ^Hello 00:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse userbox hasn't been deleted, admin has offered to re-add people to the category in question. If people want to move back to the "real" userbox they can. (My endorse is based on a belief that Tony Sidaway is acting in good faith and will act as promised.) -N 02:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have never suggested bad faith on the part of the closer, I just think the closure summary was incorrect and should be changed to a simple Keep. --DieWeisseRose 05:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. While the outcome dictated was interesting, it is arbitrary, and I do not feel it was the result of a consensus gathered during the discussion. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The outcome was basically keep with the administrator choosing to do some edits on top of that. There is nothing stopping the user from changing all the userboxes back if he wanted to. How is this a matter for DRV? -N 03:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:DRV: "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly." --DieWeisseRose 04:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The closure was not keep it was a specially crafted form of subst. If the edits being made can be declared to be NOT PART of the mfd, this is pretty much moot, as the contestor can just go revert them all, right? — xaosflux ^Talk 04:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - You are correct and I should have been more clear on that point. The closure summary stated: "The result of the debate was substitute by a suitable invocation of template:userbox" My contention is that there was no consensus for the substitution but there was consensus to keep the userbox. --DieWeisseRose 05:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject as there is nothing special about this userbox than any other userbox. No other controversial userboxes I know require the {{subst: prefix, why should this one? Tony wrote the closing statement despite the fact that the posts never mentioned "you should use the {{subst: prefix". The closing statement should be changed to reflect this, and you should be able to use the true userbox without subst: and not get edited by a bot. However, Tony's view should be expressed in the closing statement, one way or another, but it shouldn't be shown as a "required action".FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 03:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - For the sake of clarity, will editors please state "Endorse" if they agree that "The result of the debate was substitute by a suitable invocation of template:userbox" or if they otherwise support the closing summary? Please state "Reject" if you you do not agree with the stated debate result and/or wish to see it changed to "The result of the debate was keep." --DieWeisseRose 05:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject - per my nom. --DieWeisseRose 05:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Ludicrous - there really isn't much more to say. --BigΔT 05:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I don't understand how Tony Sidaway's closure is intended to be enforced. If I transclude it onto my user page, will Tony (or someone else) replace it? What if I revert that edit (it being my user page and all)? —Ashley Y 07:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject User:Tony Sidaway's signing statement, keep the userbox as it was, and revert Tony Sidaway's substitutions. As the word "substitute" does not even appear in the discussion, I find the assertion that the discussion reached a consensus to substitute to be plainly false. If Tony Sidaway had suggested substitution before closing and archiving the discussion, it is conceivable (though IMO unlikely) that such a consensus could have been reached, but this is not how Tony Sidaway chose to act. — The Storm Surfer 10:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject Per nom, but namely per the discussion we had on the user box. Bertilvidet 11:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. There was absolutely no discsussion of, let alone consensus for, Tony's closing outcome. There was consensus for keep. --Ybbor^Talk 13:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject entirely the notion that our deletion process can enforce a requirement to substitute a userbox (and thusly reject this particular closing). It appears that Tony Sidaway used his position as closer to improperly override consensus. I would note also that I don't even understand how networking via Whatlinkshere (assuming this is even widespread) is "abuse" — merely using the word in a sentence does not make it so.

  The closer's job is to determine consensus and propose the solution to concerns expressed. My close was a keep, with some extra actions to reflect that serious potential for abuse that was expressed. Self expression is permitted but not abuse. --Tony Sidaway 13:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject closing for 3 reasons. First, closing does not reflect the consensus of the MFD, second Tony is a fierce anti-userbox activist and couldn't have possible closed that without interjecting his own bias into the mix, and thirdly he's not even an admin, and shouldn't be closing contentious decisions anyways (he resigned last year). -
  R!) 17:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Reject closure
  GRBerry 18:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Reject closure as completely improper. Whether it is within the proper ambit of a deletion discussion to mandate substitution might be debated (although it is not infrequently done at TfD). But not one person in the deletion debate suggested this outcome, neither among those favoring keep, nor among those favoring deletion. An outcome cannot have consensus if no one argued for that outcome. It is not the closer's role to invent a solution to an issue, but to determine what consensus the discussion has reached, whether the closer agrees or not. This looks like a closer who wanted to delete, but saw that the discussion could not be closed as delete, and so attempted to frame an outcome that amounted to a deletion in effect, or as close to that as possible. Now that may not have been in Tony's mind, but that is what it looks like, IMO. Multiple discussion have made it clear that there is currently no consensus to extend T1 to userspace, much as some would like this done, and illogical as the distinction might seem. Jimbo's remarks have made it pretty clear that such an extension is unlikely to be mandated by the Foundation in the near future. This leaves an odd situation, one that excites strong feelings on all sides. But closing not so much against consensus as completely sideways to consensus, picking a solution that no one had favored, is not the way to deal with this. Had this been closed as a simple keep, and Tony or another editor proceeded to sust this is an editing action distinct from the deletion process, I'm not sure what would have happened. Surely some would have objected, but perhaps others wouldn't have cared. But if this close stands, it will imply that it is proper for the closer to "invent" a solution not considered during the discussion, and that, i think will be more harmful than any single userbox could ever be. DES ^(talk) 20:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject closure per Royalguard11. --Hut 8.5 08:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. Valid. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you clarify your reasoning a little for the rest of us? — The Storm Surfer 09:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Banner_logo_campbells.gif

Deleted for not having a fair use rationale. I'll write it. Kotepho 20:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Please also add a source. --BigΔT 06:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tinfoil Hat Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted on a second nomination with virtually no participation and essentially dismissing the arguments of the first debate. The second nominator, User:Chealer, seemed to think that the primary point in the original debate was whether the distribution had users, whereas in fact the debate centered on its notability as an example of secure computing. The consensus (see in particular the comments of User:Jamyskis and User:Phr) was that in fact this was indeed notable. Chealer, however, ignored this argument entirely, minimized the significance of the article's "historical value", made an ambiguous statement about Google hits, and asserted precisely the argument which I, the original nominator, had advanced in the first deletion debate (namely, that this Linux distribution is dead and therefore not notable) and which was refuted. The second debate itself attracted only two other participants, who disagreed, and the one (User:Goldenglove) who voted for deletion gave the two invalid reasons that the article was poorly linked-to, and was "not so great". I think this was an improper conclusion of consensus given the relatively active debate in the first nomination, and that the article should be undeleted. Ryan Reich 18:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess talking to the deleting admin (me) first was out of the question? --W.marsh 18:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I am new to this process. I usually just write pages and try to stay out of deletion debates now. This one struck me. Still, this is the place for talking, and you have my objections. Why did you think that this debate was conclusive? Ryan Reich 18:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article had no sources... I think that was the main reason I deleted. Granted the AFD didn't really bring that up, but the article had been around for a long time and no sources had been found. See
      WP:N, we need reliable sources to write an article. If there are some sources I will undelete. --W.marsh 18:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Gotta say, I'm disappointed with all of us in the first debate. Ten minutes with Google uncovers, in addition to the project page, the following three sites: an article about Van Eck Phreaking mentioning THL, an article all about THL (archived since the site's now dead), and an article from last year discussing THL. The evilmutant.com article is under a page that, if you use web.archive.org to surf around on, also contains another article with a number of links to a number of sites, some of which can still be accessed from that article, covering the other evilmutant.com exposé (I consider this a corroboration of notability, as well as of Phr's claim about it "generating some discussion" in the original AfD. I no longer remember the claims made in Tinfoil Hat Linux but I think that, between the project page and the evilmutant.com article, they should all have some support here. I'll add these links if the article is restored. Ryan Reich 18:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, I'll undelete, also based on a search at [1]. These should really be added to the article, in case there's another AFD. --W.marsh 19:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I'm glad we could agree on this. Ryan Reich 19:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't there also a talk page to undelete? Ryan Reich 19:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reliable source 1 Reliable source 2 This should redirect to Greg Parker. He is not notable because of his talent, smarts, business success, inventions, or even smashing good looks, and has enemies and rivals out to get him. He is notable because of his ability to make himself notable. He is all media. And reporting on him means reporting what the media reports about him. In the iPhone coverage, the epithet "iLoser" became of rather common use to refer to him, and since reliable sources - both of which I provide do not push bias or POV - identify and report as the epithet being used to refer to him, its all kosher like Nathan's frankfurter. Cerejota 17:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted page appears to have been an attack redirect, if such things are possible, and was deleted as a BLP concern. In the circumstances endorse - BLP trumps pretty much everything. Please consider taking this up with the deleting admin to see whether they would accept an idefinatly protected redirect instead.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment While in general I tend to agree with the principle of

WP:BLP

, I do argue that [{WP:BLP]] explicitly allows for this redirect and mention in the article of the the term "iLoser", in the context of Greg Parker. The term "iLoser" is much less an attack per se than a somewhat derogatory backslash epithet. Since his notability is intrinsic with media reaction to him (his source of fame is fame itself), the term "iLoser" is germane and central to documenting his notability in wikipedia.

Please consider this. Thanks! --Cerejota 22:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The assertion that Greg Packer deserves to be forever labeled the 'iLoser' because a couple of weblogs felt a sense of malicious cleverness during the iPhone hype is unnecessary, unkind, and is clearly removable under BLP. Keep deleted. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted per Spartaz. First of all, this epithet is being used to refer to Greg Packer, not Greg Parker. Second, labeling him the "iLoser" in a redirect gives undue negative weight to a single incident in his life. --Metropolitan90 23:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. This is really ridiculous. "much less an attack per se than a somewhat derogatory backslash epithet." What kind of doublespeak is that? --Tony Sidaway 14:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Blindingly obvious, I can't imagine why we're even having this discussion. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Chairboy (and I rarely say per anyone). ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

It was flagged as a copyright violation probably because the single line description of the company comes from their website, and the bot compares the first line of the article with the first line of the webpage listed as the source. The line was referenced as coming from the webpage, and the entire article was just three sentences. The entire article reads as follows: "[Boston Dynamics is an engineering company that specializes in robotics and human simulation]. [1] [The company began as a spinoff from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where Marc Raibert developed robots that ambulate like animals]. [Boston Dynamics was incorporated in 1992.]" Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Actually, the second of the three sentences was also copied from the source, too. Citing where it was copied from still doesn't make it okay... just write the article in your own words. Instead of spending so much time challenging deletions, it's best to just write acceptable articles from the start. At any rate the deletion summary "tagged as copyright violation, of which a single sentence is, but deleted primarily for a7, no assertion to notability". --W.marsh 16:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Here is the text from the website: " [Boston Dynamics is an engineering company that specializes in robotics and human simulation]. Our customers have applications that range from military robotics to simulation-based training to physics-based virtual prototyping. [The company began as a spinoff of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where Marc Raibert and his colleagues first developed robots that run and maneuver like animals]. Their groundbreaking work inspired the [launch of Boston Dynamics in 1992]." I challenged the speedy, so why wasn't it sent to AFD? The article already has links to it from other articles, thats why I created it. A simple Google search would have turned up 36K hits, and 122 in Google News Archive. Doesn't some sort of due diligence need to be done before speedy deletion? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't talk your way out of it being against our copyright policy... so an AFD would be pointless with the current version of the article. Write an acceptable version then yes there could be an AFD. --W.marsh 17:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only line directly copied from the website is "Boston Dynamics is an engineering company that specializes in robotics and human simulation" and it is cited. Shouldn't the companies own description be used and cited to be the most accurate? Anyway the deletion was for non-notability. So lets keep the discussion to the business at hand, and keep the personal attacks to a minimum. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comment in the deletion log states (tagged as copyright violation, of which a single sentence is, but deleted primarily for a7, no assertion to notability). I don't think that this is a valid A7 but a copy vio is a copyvio and the article is therefore tainted. Why don't you just go ahead and recreate it without the copyvio. There is no need for a DRV for that - the page isn't salted.
    Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Richard, I looked through the company's website's news section for news stories about the company before I deleted it and found only press releases. Seeing the stories listed in the google news archives now (I didn't know the archives existed until just now), I agree that the company is notable. Just recreate it without the offending sentence. I won't speedy it again.--Chaser - T 18:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that Richard had recreated the article, with no citations except a link to the company website. It has been deleted again as a recreation of previously deleted material by User:W.marsh. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kesh (talk • contribs) 15:33, July 4, 2007
• Note it was not a recreation. The nature of the companies work was moved from a reference to a direct quote in quotation marks to satisfy the people who said that using a single sentence is a copyright violation. It went from:
  • Boston Dynamics is an engineering company that specializes in robotics and human simulation. [1]
  • Boston Dynamics is an "engineering company that specializes in robotics and human simulation." [1] That should certainly satisfy anyone declaring that using a single attributable sentence is a copyright violation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC) See: User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#Boston Dynamics to see the rationale behind the deletion by User:W.marsh and User:Kesh. [[2]][reply]
    • As I pointed out on the talk page, it does not. -- Kesh 16:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What was your newest objection? Your arguments on the talk page are not correct. If you feel so strongly that a corporate webpage is the same as a blog; and that it is a primary source, not a secondary source, add it to the list of forbidden sources, and see if it sticks. Its much easier than arguing on a case by case basis. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Recreated I have done my own research and created an article that hopefully meets all the speedy objections raised so far. It may still be wise to merge it into some other article, such as that of the its founder.--Chaser - T 18:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for properly citing the article, Chaser. Hopefully now Richard will see what kinds of citations are actually required for an article. -- Kesh 22:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pentax K mount lenses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'm not very satisfied with the discussion. 3 people say "listcruft", 2 people say "useful", all of which are apparently

Comment Have you asked the deleting admin to consider reversing themselves and relisting the discussion? Useful isn't a valid reason to keep by the way but I agree the consensus to delete wasn't outstandingly obvious.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Yup, crap discussion. But a valid result. The Pentax K mount is notable, but a list of lenses with Pentax K mount is canonical fancruft: of interst only to a very small number of people who probably knew it already. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The implication of the closure is that the closer considers the material to be valid, in which case it belongs in wikipedia. In any case, there was no consensus to delete. Aviara 01:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• History undeletion and redirect with an eye to a partial merge. Notable lens types should be listed in the parent article. As long as the list is restricted to notable ones, it shouldn't over-crowd the text there. Xoloz 17:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The copy of this list in the Google cache is quite unpromising. Only Xoloz's comment (just above) gives a hint of a reform plan that would try to make the list encyclopedic. None of the lenses in the list have their own articles. We don't even know why the ones included in the list deserve a place there. A more analytical survey of the field of lenses might be acceptable, but that would be a lot of work, and a whole other article. Since there was not a clear consensus in the AfD, the closer of this DRV should be open to reform plans that have some hope of success. If there are none, then I believe it should stay deleted. EdJohnston 23:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion JzG has it right. Eusebeus 10:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was deleted for being a neologism, even though this accusation wasn't properly explained. I quote: "The keep arguments have not been able to rebuttal the WP:NEO arguments appropriately." Actually there were no arguments for WP:NEO - it was stated, but not argued (check the log).

This administrator was wrong to rule in favour of delete when there was certainly not consensus, and the delete side didn't come up with any arguments as to why it was in breach of WP:NEO.

Even if you agree with that administrator's actions in the former case, I have some new sources that weren't made available in that deletion debate. Consider the below... how could something that's been talked about for over 30 years and has books, plays, tshirts and numerous articles about it be considered a neologism?

Scholarly article about 27 club - http://www.unt.edu/writinglab/resources/share_information/index.htm

Book about 27 club - http://www.memoware.com/?screen=doc_detail&doc_id=19600&back=search_results

BBC news item about 27 club - http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/r2music/documentaries/nirvana_27.shtml

Magazine article about 27 club - http://split-magazine.com/2007/05/20/the-27-club/

Article about 27 club by Cobain/Hendrix biographer which mentions how widely known it is - http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/writers/304767_writer23.html

27 Club t-shirt for sale - http://www.a-non.co.uk/item.php?id=272

Article about a play based on the 27 club - http://www.stereogum.com/archives/the-27-club-set-to-meet-offbroadway.html

Website of said play - http://www.27heaven.com/

Fan website (admittedly a bad quality one) - http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/27club/ I'm right and you're wrong 12:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure entirely what's going on but there was a past AFD here, closed by me, and a 2005 AFD here which was for some reason moved. --W.marsh 14:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Overturn Term is notable and sourced as per Caleby.--Cerejota 17:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Overturn - multiple sources, I can't see a consensus to delete in the AfD discussion.
   Catchpole 13:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]

• Overturn. I argued for the deletion of this article and likely still would. Nevertheless, there was no demonstrable consensus to delete.
  Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn. Bad form to go against consensus just because of an argument, which in this case was not properly understood. Andre (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn There was no consensus. Haddiscoe 00:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Seems like the article could be fixed up and at least be something interesting. Poor quality is not a reason for deletion. --Rocksanddirt 18:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Prejudice decided the outcome, when it should be consensus. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 01:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Overturn the latest AfD was closed as no consensus.  Grue  21:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Highly notable magazine. It's the oldest continously published anarchist magazine (since 1898) and the second oldest in the world. Have ha several notable people writing for it like

• The problem is, the article didn't say of of that -- at least not in the version that was deleted. This was apparently a 2-in-one article: a single article about two different subjects with the same name. In this case, there appear to have been two quite different magazines titled "Brand": one was the anarchist magazine described above, and one a communications magazine of apparently dubious notability (or at least with very few indications of notability in the article). This page had two separate articles about these two magazines. This style used to be recommended, to avoid the need for disambiguation. I created one myself once (about 5 different early middle ages queens who all had the same name). They are no longer encouraged, i believe. To return to this article, some editor cut out most of the content on the anarchist magazine a few revisions before it was tagged foe speedy deletion, and what was left was a rather spammy stub about the other "Brand". Overturn and revert to a version that includes the full info on the anarchist magazine. Then consider splitting. This should be a lesson to admins: remember to check earlier versions, particularly when A7 is involved. Same applies to copyvios -- revert to a clean version, if there is one -- and then possibly use selective deletion. DES ^(talk) 07:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other Brand is as far as I cen tell not notable. // Liftarn
    • Fine, then split and prod the non-notable one. DES ^(talk) 17:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and fix Haddiscoe 00:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore Mistaken deletion of an article about a clearly notable subject. Wimstead 14:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]