Wikipedia:Deletion review

Articles and multimedia are sometimes deleted by administrators if they are thought to have a valid reason for deletion. Sometimes these decisions are completely correct, and undisputed. Sometimes, they are more controversial. Before using this page, please read the Wikipedia:Deletion policy and undeletion policy.

The archive of deleted page revisions may be periodically cleared. Pages deleted prior to the database crash on 8 June 2004 are not present in the current archive because the archive tables were not backed up. This means pages cannot be restored by a sysop. If there is great desire for them it may be possible to retrieve them from the old database files. Prior to this, the archive was cleared out on 3 December 2003.

Purpose of this page

It is hoped that this page will be generally unused, as the vast majority of deletions do not need to be challenged. This page exists for basically two types of people:

1. People who feel that an article was wrongly deleted, and that Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored. This may happen because they were not aware of the discussion on Votes for deletion (VfD), because it was deleted without being listed on VfD, or because they objected to deletion but were ignored.
2. Non-sysops who wish to see the content of a deleted article. They may wish to use that content elsewhere, for example. Alternatively, they may suspect that an article has been wrongly deleted, but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted.
   • As a subset of this, sometimes an article which is appropriate for a sister site is deleted without being properly transwikied. If the page is undeleted temporarily, it can be exported complete with history using Special:Export, and then redeleted. This will be especially useful once the import feature is completed.

This page is about articles, not about people. If you feel that a sysop is routinely deleting articles prematurely, or otherwise abusing their powers, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at Wikipedia talk:Administrators. Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.

How to use this page

If you wish to undelete an article, follow the procedure explained at Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. If the conditions are met, the page will be undeleted.

If you wish to view a deleted article, list it here and say why. A sysop will provide the deleted article to you in some form — either by quoting it in full, or by emailing it to you, or by temporarily undeleting it. See also Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages by sysops.

Some articles are listed here, and after discussion and review, a consensus is reached to keep the articles deleted. They are listed at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/deleted. Archives of recently undeleted pages are recorded at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/undeleted

If a request to undelete is made, a sysop may choose to undelete the article and protect it blank so that people may look at the article on which they are voting. This is done through use of Template:TempUndelete.

History only undeletion

History only undeletions can be performed without needing a vote on this page. For example, suppose someone writes a biased article on Fred Flintstone, it is deleted, and subsequently someone else writes a decent article on Fred Flintstone. The original, biased article can be undeleted, in which case it will merely sit in the page history of the Fred Flintstone article, causing no harm. Please do not do this in the case of copyright violations.

Votes for undeletion

Admins - please review the deleted history of these requests and provide the most complete version for discussion here.

Add new article listings below here

May 02, 2005

Jim Robinson

I would like to request this article's restoration on the grounds that bona fide reasons existed against its deletion that were neglected in the VfD process and also due to problems in the way the VfD process was conducted. This article pertains to an individual named Jim Robinson, who is the owner and president of Free Republic - a prominent political website. The Jim Robinson article was merged with the Free Republic article, but this is not at all in keeping with how site owners of similar well known political websites are separated from the article about their site (examples: Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, Matt Drudge, Charles Johnson, John_H._Hinderaker, and Scott_W._Johnson). VfD on this article arose barely two days after its creation at the behest of a single editor who favored merging the two after the consensus on talk:Jim Robinson favored keeping it. At the time of the VfD request, this same editor had already attempted to merge the articles twice unilaterally in less than an hour's time of the article's creation, and in spite of outstanding indications by at least three separate editors (myself included) that he discuss his proposed changes before carrying them through. He then initiated the VfD process two days later to obtain a merge, though Wikipedia's deletion policy clearly says this was NOT the proper process to pursue at the time that he did (e.g. a merge tag and discussion would've been more appropriate). During the VfD process he misrepresented the discussion on talk:Jim Robinson by indicating it was deadlocked, when in fact it was ongoing and the only participant who refused to go along was himself. Given these circumstances and a fundamental flaw in the way the VfD was initiated and portrayed, I believe it should be undeleted and any discussion started over. Thanks Rangerdude 16:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep redirected. Technically, this page is for restoring deleted articles only, but the principles are similar enough. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jim Robinson shows a valid process and consensus to merge and redirect. Given that, whether or not you agree with the outcome or think that they ignored your arguments is irrelevant, because Votes for undeletion is not for rearguing your case. None of your complaints, even if true, are relevant to whether there was a consensus to merge and redirect. Or, as we say in the law biz, you have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 12(b)(6). Postdlf 18:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment on the above. The aforementioned claims that an undeletion is unwarranted here are plainly in conflict with Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy, which does indeed permit undeletion in cases where somebody "objected to deletion on bona fide grounds but were improperly ignored." It also permits undeletion in the event that "Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored," which I believe to be the case based upon consistency with the other articles I mentioned and linked to above. Furthermore, the complaints are indeed relevant for the reason that they produced a VfD process that was in plain conflict with Wikipedia:Deletion_policy, which plainly includes merge requests of the sort that was made (which are to be done by a merge tag and subsequent discussion) are not among the things that are to be resolved by VfD, to wit "Problems that don't require deletion...merge and redirect." Rangerdude 19:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Once again, "undeletion" involves deleted articles, not redirected ones. Regardless, the fact is that a VfD tag and discussion provide more notice and more focused dicussion than would happen if nothing but a merge tag were applied to the article. You actually wanted less process to happen? The issue of merging was discussed and the VfD represents a community consensus on that issue. Postdlf 19:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Very good, Postdlf. And "Votes for Deletion" involve articles in which a decision is being made on deletion, not merges, which require a separate "merge" tag and are explicitly excluded from the VfD process on Wikipedia's deletion policy page. That process was not followed and the VfD was initiated improperly. Thus its validity was compromised from the very beginning. Rangerdude 00:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • This isn't the substance of the debate here, but I'd like to correct information that Rangerdude for some reason persists in propagating — he states VfD on this article arose barely two days after its creation at the behest of a single editor who favored merging the two when in fact I also concurred with using VfD as an option for garnering more opinions and in fact was the one to suggest the step. I also vote to keep merged — the community weighed in and I see no compelling reason to reverse or recast the vote. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:40, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • And I'd also like to correct misinformation that Katefan0 persists in propagating. He/she now claims credit for initiating the VfD. In reality, he/she merely proposed a VfD upon the mistaken belief that consensus did not exist on the article's talk page based upon an erronious counting of the participants there. Upon being informed of his/her mistake he/she promptly apologized and made no further comment indicating he/she intended to persue a VfD further. JC then arrived the next day and initiated one on his own. And yes, all of this may be plainly seen on the page talk:Jim Robinson Rangerdude 00:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep merged Agree with Postdlf. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:53, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep merged. Also agree with Postdlf. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep merged. Also agree with Postdlf. -Willmcw 21:12, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep merged, per Postdlf. Why are we voting to undelete an article that wasn't deleted in the first place? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 22:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment on the above. Don't ask me. Why did we hold a "Vote for Deletion" on an article that wasn't deleted in the first place and was in reality subject to a separate merge procedure with its own merge tag that the VfD's original proponent failed to observe?
• Keep merged. As VfD closer, not directly involved in this discussion prior to closing, I weigh in on behalf of the nine merge votes that put the article in its current state. This is not the place to reargue the VfD. I found no irregularities in the discussion or the votes; RangerDude simply does not seem to want to accept that there was substantial support (75%) for the merge. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment on the above. Now that's odd. User:Jonathan Christensen did not wish to accept that the majority opposed a merge on Talk:Jim Robinson at the time he initiated the VfD and you said that was justified (even though it violated Wikipedia's Deletion policy, which says VfD's are not for merge requests). Yet when I challenge the VfD process and the majority it produced here (which Wikipedia's Undeletion policy permits me to do), you complain about me not accepting that majority. You must be having trouble with consistency again. Rangerdude 06:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep merged, VfU is not the place to rerun VfD votes. RickK 00:08, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment on the above. I realize this is probably futile given the deletion-happy editors around here, but actually VfU IS a place to challenge deletions of that sort and others. Per the VfU policy, a VfU may be initiated when an editor believes the process "improperly ignored" objections to the deletion and when the VfD was improperly conducted. I have alleged and documented both, to wit: (1) the administrator who made the final decision based that decision on vote totals rather than pertinent discussion material objecting to a deletion and (2) the VfD process was improperly conducted from the get go as it was initiated to conduct a merge - not a deletion - where a merge tag rather than a VfD tag is the explicitly prescribed remedy. Like it or not, those are the rules, though I'm beginning to wonder why we even have rules for things like this seeing as they are so casually disregarded when it gets in the way of an uninformed frenzy to delete a perfectly valid and well developed article. Rangerdude 06:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

May 01, 2005

Casady & Greene

I believe this page should remain as it provides Casady & Greene customers with links for product support. C&G went out of business and left many customers without information on where to go for product support.

• Keep deleted. It was deleted as a copyvio. It appears to be material copied wholesale from their website. As a long-time Macintosh user, I lament the passing of Casady and Greene which was a lovely little company that furnished many interesting and fondly-remembered products (Glider Pro, K.I.S.S., Conflict Catcher...) Although of borderline notability, I would personally support the creation of article on them. If someone were to write a decent new article on them and it were to be speedily deleted as re-creation, I'd vote for undeletion. If it were nominated for deletion, I'd vote strong keep. But... the existing article is a copyvio plain and simple and must be kept deleted. Because of the technical deletion issues, the history is conveniently there if anyone wants to use short and appropriate excerpts as the basis of a new article. The customary procedure with copyvios is to develop the new article at Casady & Greene/temp. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Wikipedia is not a web directory. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Deleted via proper process. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

April 30, 2005

Moe, Victoria

Was deleted "out of process".

• Last content was apparently "copyvio|url=http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/ncas/multimedia/gazetteer/list/moe.htm" Kappa 10:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Not deleted out of process, it was listed on Copyright problems, it had the copyvio boilerplate, and the copyright violation was properly deleted. User:Chammy Koala has chosen to restore the copyright violation, and I have re-deleted it. If someone wants to right an article about this town in their own words, more power to them, but keep deleted the copyvio. RickK 22:00, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you'd read what was written, It was not the same article that I created, it wasn't a copyvio, just an article with facts on the town. So the first time it was deleted as a copyvio, but the article I ceated was not. Please make sure you don't delete articles without good reason.--Chammy Koala 22:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gee. Let's see. The version that got deleted because it was a copyvio (which you posted) began:

Formerly the city of Moe, this Gippsland town was amalgamated together with Morwell and Traralgon in 1995 into the LaTrobe Council. The town is bisected by the Narracan Creek and this area was originally occupied by the Woiwurung poeple. The name Moe is said to be derived from an aboriginal word mouay meaning swamp. After 1850 a small settlment known as Mouay or Westbury grew to service local agriculture including timber, dairying and potatoes. Moe was also a major stopping point for goldfields at Walhalla.

This was deleted via proper process as a copyvio. You then reposted:

Formerly the city of Moe, this Gippsland town was amalgamated together with Morwell and Traralgon in 1995 into the LaTrobe Council. The town is bisected by the Narracan Creek. The name Moe is said to be derived from an aboriginal word "mouay" meaning swamp.

The railway from Melbourne opened in 1910.

Explain to me how the second is not the same as the first, which was a copyvio.

However, the article has been replaced by a non-copyvio version, so this debate is moot. RickK 20:40, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Agree with RickK. Keep copyvio edit history deleted. Postdlf 06:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed, the deleted version was just a shortened copyvio. Keep deleted that one along with its edit history, while we keep the current rewrite. Sjakkalle 10:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Drouin, Victoria

Looks like Moe was a copyvio.[1]

The reason for [2] is unclear - "Redirect to article that was created without consensus; discourages writing of actual article." It was probably a redirect created to something larger, when there should be an article about the town itself. Same for Drouin. [3] That seems to confirm it. "Delete redirect; discourages actual article on the topic." Unless the deleter forgot to check the histories, these appear to be good-faith deletions. --SPUI (talk) 10:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• there was no history other than the original redirect. Ambi deleted it so that it would be a red link so that somebody could see it and want to write an article about it. There's nothing to undelete. And Moe was a copyvio -- there are no votes when copyvios are concerned. RickK 22:04, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

April 29 2005

100 Greatest Guitar Solos

This article was deleted after a vote which was overwhelmingly in favor of such an act. However, all the votes were submitted before the page was radically changed and filled with content. The problem with the article after the redesign was one of the Name rather then the content being unencyclopedic.--TheGrza 19:16, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Would this article be acceptable as is but entitled GuitarWorld List of 100 Greatest Guitar Solos (2004)?--TheGrza 21:16, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

The title is irrelevant—the VfD decided that the subject did not deserve an article. Postdlf 21:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. VfU is not the place to rerun VfD votes. RickK 19:36, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The rewrite changed nothing relevant for a reconsideration. The original version just included an external link and a brief summary of the results, and all the rewrite did was import the actual list. It's clear from the voters' comments that just such a rewrite was contemplated and would change nothing: "Even if the information was imported in from the external site..." (Dsmdgold); "Why should we have an article about this particular list?" (Dave the Red); "Unencyclopedic article from non-notable source" (Jayjg); "I'd say just add the ext link to the list onto Guitar World (which I just did) and delete this article." (Idont Havaname). Postdlf 19:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. Gamaliel 19:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Mike H 20:59, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Properly deleted in process. Consensus was strong. It was clear that participants were not asking for the actual list to be reproduced. Furthermore, if this is an exact duplicate of a list of 100 names published by a magazine there are at least potential copyvio issues. I'm getting very tired of people asking for "re-votes" on the basis that articles were improved just before deletion. VfD lasts at least five days, usually more. There is plenty of time to improve the article and call enough attention to it the improvement to get people to reconsider their votes; when the improvement is genuine, people frequently to change their votes and only a handful of changed votes is usually needed to keep an article. Maybe the VfD template should read "However, during the first three days of the discussion, you are welcome to edit this article and improve it." Dpbsmith (talk) 00:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Clear VfD consensus, proper process. VfU is a court of appeal; therefore it can only deal with process, not content. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

April 28 2005

Trade Federation PAC

This article was deleted despite an unclear result at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Trade Federation PAC. A subsequent undeletion discussion in March resulted in unanimous support for undeletion [4]; however, the page remains deleted. - SimonP 18:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - Appears to be six votes to delete if you include the nominator. - Tεxτurε 20:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Even with six votes to delete it is still not consensus, as there were four votes to merge and two to keep. - SimonP 20:31, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • In addition to the comments below there are only three merge votes. One vote is delete but if his vote failed he was willing to accept a merge. It was not a vote to merge. That users vote is clearly delete. - Tεxτurε 20:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted I consider myself a Star Wars fan, and I tend to go easy on pop culture stuff, but geez... this way too obscure for Wikipedia, especially if the 3 Google hit count is correct. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:37, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Unless the people who vote merge explain where they expect the article to be merged, their votes are useless. RickK 22:04, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Feel free to mention the Trade Federation PAC on the Star Wars article of your choice, but the merge votes were obviously just as opposed to an individual article as the delete votes. Postdlf 19:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The result seems clear to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Phantom Regiment Drum and Bugle Corps

This article was deleted earlier this month on the basis of non-notoriety. I submitted its redirect, Phantom Regiment, for speedy; Henrygb brought it back to its pre-redirect stub form, pointing out its Google presence (5K pages for "Phantom Regiment" drum). Seems notable enough, and comparable to other drum and bugle corps articles. Could it be undeleted, so that a proper merge of the two articles be done? --Fbriere 17:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment The content in the above article was basically identical. Why not just recreate it as a redirect? --khaosworks 17:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Because there was no way for me to know what was in the old article, of course. :) If there's no new material or interesting history, then I'll go and move the current article to the old location. --Fbriere 18:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Quite right. Sorry. :) The old content was simply this: "The Phantom Regiment is a Division I Drum and Bugle Corps based in Rockford, Illinois, which is a member corps of Drum Corps International. Official website for The Phantom Regiment: http://www.regiment.org." Merge away. --khaosworks 19:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. I'm serious. The problem isn't with the notability of the corps. It's quite well known and was the subject of a prize-winning documentary. The problem is with the article. It falls entirely within criteria #1 and #2 of the speedy delete guidelines. I.e. there is no content and it is a link with no content. A fact is not an article. A fact is not a valid stub. A fact is just a fact. Encyclopedias are discursive. Quiz sheets are statements. Geogre 02:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

April 27 2005

Diagnosis: Murder

Deleted with copy vio concerns, explained in article talk that this is not the case. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid your request didn't make it clear that the information would be released under the GFDL license and could be and will be copied all over the Internet. This isn't appropriate copyright release. RickK 17:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Cool Cat was dishonest from the beginning about this posting, denying at first that it was copyrighted, then claiming he had prior permission, then claiming he got permission after the fact (see discussion currently on my talk page). Furthermore, the text was copied from two websites, and the e-mail he speaks of at best covered one. If he likes the show that much, it shouldn't be a problem for him to use his own words to expand the new article. Postdlf 18:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. We can write an article from scratch on this just like we do for everything else. Gamaliel 22:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Note: I was the person clearing copivios who deleted part of this article. There were two copyvios from two different websites. Coolcat claims he got permission from one of the sites and notes this on the talk page. But he is unable to tell which site he got permission from, so I deleted both copyvios until Coolcat can figure out which is which. Coolcat asked me to look at the order of deletions and additions to the article, with respect to when the permission note was added on the talk page and this would tell me which website the permission is from. I'm not going to clear copyvios based on information like this. If someone else would like to- be my guest.--Duk 12:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. No evidence that copyright release granted. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

April 24 2005

Elf Only Inn

Webcomic deleted for lack of notability. The deletion debate and the article failed to mention its best claim for notability, namely that it had a several page crossover with Penny Arcade. Not the most important article in the world, but it's still a webcomic of non-trivial note, and I'd like to get the chance to expand the article with some more information and let it go through another VfD debate in its modified state. Snowspinner 17:00, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Update: WHAT? I did some more looking into it, and this is a KeenSpot comic. For those not up on webcomics, that means that the comic ran under one of the biggest webcomic sites in existence. This is not a trivial comic at all, and its low Alexa rating is probably more related to its being ended than anything else. Frankly, I think there's a strong case to be made for Keenspot and Modern Tales comics being inherently notable. This was a bad VfD - it was an article that could easily have been fixed if anyone had noticed it in the five day period. The fact that nobody did should not mean that the article can now never be written. Snowspinner 03:41, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Further comments: I note that even the strictest webcomic inclusion grounds (Which have largely been backed off on now) said to allow the top ten Keenspace strips. Keenspace is the more minor version of Keenspot. The fact that Elf Only Inn graduated up to Keenspot from Keenspace means that it was more notable than the top ten Keenspace strips. In other words, this met the strict webcomic inclusion guidelines. Snowspinner 15:08, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete. The crossover makes it more notable than many of the webcomics we have articles for. Gamaliel 19:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I don't see any grounds for undeletion here since the article was really a poorly written stub. Also, as crossovers are rather common among webcomics, I'm not sure how that demonstrates notability. However, if you think you can write a good article on the subject, by all means, go ahead. Radiant_* 07:59, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Although crossovers are fairly common, the lack of crossovers is one of the somewhat notable things about Penny Arcade - I think there have only been two. Snowspinner 14:47, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Beware of those who will delete it anyway, despite being completely different content. --SPUI (talk) 16:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, as per VfD. Grue 15:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: If you want to write an article on Elf Only Inn, you're probably better off doing so from scratch, as the deleted article was of poor quality. --Carnildo 00:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Everyking 00:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Nice to know the limits of your inclusionism. Snowspinner 00:26, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Non-notability is outside the limits of my inclusionism. Everyking 00:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. If someone is going to recreate it, they must be aware that the main problem was not the poor article, but lack of notability. Was it seriously discussedsomewhere else outside its home? In some permanent sources? I.e., chat rooms don't count. Mikkalai 02:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Worthless. Postdlf 02:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain I'd say that if Snowspinner (or anyone else) wants to take another shot at this article, they should by all means go for it. On the other hand, the dismal Alexa rank of 5,546,155 suggests very severe notability problems with the subject. I know Alexa results don't count for everything, but for a webcomic, it's pretty important, and I doubt it would survive another VfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:45, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. If a decent editor will bother to put in the effort to make a borderline deletion - and this was borderline - into a good article, only good can come of it - David Gerard 16:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Properly deleted in process. Article not a useful starting point. Anyone who wants to write a half-decent new article may do any time without prejudice. If a new article is created and for whatever reason is speedied as a re-creation I will gladly vote to undelete that. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Webcomics are truly a dime a dozen. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: Above vote was deleted, by accident I think. I have restored it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:19, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete. Make sure to expand. I love comics too.--Jondel 04:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete, notability not established the first time. Wiwaxia 07:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see where it is estabilished the second time. Grue 09:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete. Mr d00d! 01:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment:Mrd00d (talk · contributions) User's 19th edit on the 2nd day of contributions. --Deathphoenix 20:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid VfD. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

April 23, 2005

Paul Bouche

A new article was submitted so saying that it should remain undeleted due to the history and votes should not be enough I think the people giving their opinions should have a chance to see the fully revised article that was posted in April 2005 and not judge on the discussion of a different article posted over a year ago.

I still think it's a vanity page, originally by Mr Bouche himself, though this anon may or may not be Mr Bouche, but he doesn't seem notable, but I'd like someone else to have a look. see talk:Paul Bouche; also anon comment that follows Dunc|☺ 20:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

\Did u see? the links that are enclosed in his article? I am familiar with Paul Bouche. How many of your listings have won an Emmy award? As a matter of fact I was searching for him after Discussion and presentation by him @ Miami International University of Art and Design.

He has been arround for many years and has been an inspiration for many young hispanics as myself. I guess you are not familiar with the field of spanish media. That is ok. But know I also searched The Miami Herald, El Nuevo Herald, La Opinion (Los Angeles Main Hispanic Paper), Even Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and Hispanic Business magazine have featured articles about him. Perhaps you should too. I don't see anyone on the list of comments that strike me as Hispanic or Latino. Ask arround. Even though you probably know no hispanic americans.

Just because you dont know someone doesn't mean they are not relevant for our community 35 million in the US and 400,000,000 arround the world. (end anon comment)

• Keep deleted. VfU is not a place to try to rerun votes already cast on VfD. RickK 21:33, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, valid VfD process. Radiant_* 07:55, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete Hispanically notable--Jondel 04:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Vanity deleted through valid VfD process - Tεxτurε 20:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I was at first surprised based on the claims in the article that it was VfD'd (particularly being an Emmy Award winner), until I read the discussion and saw that the claims were already considered and rejected, and I too could find no verification that he actually received an Emmy.[5] If we ever get an article on the TV show he hosted and produced according to IMDb (A oscuras pero encendidos—his only credit listed there, aside from an appearance on what looks to be a talk show or entertainment news show) he can be mentioned there, but there is no reason for any content on him outside the context of that show. Postdlf 19:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted I certainly wouldn't consider it vanity, but the VfD seems valid as far as I can tell. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:12, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Valid Vfd. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

For those that needed proof of his emmy award I found it

http://suncoast.emmyonline.org/emmy/97emwin.htm

Also by typing "Astracanada Productions", "A Oscuras Pero Encendidos", "Paul Bouche" and "Arriba Con Paul" as google searches I was able to find plenty of articles on this subject. Notable cetainly according to Hispanic Business, Variety and The Miami Herald. Please note that meny of the artlcles are in Spanish. I would suggest Undelete. This is just my perception. I am Hispanic as well as the two people on the request for undelete that have actually recoment to Undelete this article "Jondel" and "Daniel C. Boyer". Thanks. (Note: third edit by 65.9.175.101)