Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 9: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 09:04, 10 June 2009

< 2009 June 8

Deletion review archives: 2009 June

2009 June 10 >

9 June 2009

[[:]]

75.128.238.73 (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a very good article on the subject of "Spanking Therapy" for adults. The problem I'm having is that I have no idea when it was deleted or how to identify the page, but it should certainly be undeleted.

The article you are looking for was deleted back in 2005. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanking therapy. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sofiarotarucircusindialive.ogg

I am afraid you have committed a mistake. The files were rather to be kept as they are, or shortened at worst, but nobody voted for their deletion, except the nominator. I doubt this is in accordance with Wikipedia rules...* The desire of Jaan Pärn to delete the contents and then the article Sofia Rotaru alltogether goes a little too far, even when users vote for keeping files. Do you think this deletion was done in accordance with the Wikipedia rules?--Rubikonchik (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC) --Rubikonchik (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. The key criterion here is WP:NFCC#3a: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." As the editor who !voted "Keep...sort of" noted, there are many clips in the article, and no especial need for the deleted clips was shown over other clips in the article. No argument was made in the FFD that overcame that.--Aervanath (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all there were two or three "keeps" (week or strong) and one "delete". For me, not a rocket scientist, the consensus is clearly to keep. Second, the whole paragraph deals (or used to deal, since I cannot even follow anymore all of the deltions of Jaan Pärn on the article Sofia Rotaru about these songs where. It is for the intention to release an album with these songs with Sony BMG Music Entertainment, that Sofia Rotaru was forbidden to leave the USSR for 7 years. At the same time, Soviet power allowed her to sing the Circus song representing Soviet Union in India on Universal Youth Games. Circus was the major success of the Soviet delegation. Just listen to the observations of commentators on youtube (radio live recording). That's the whole controversy about certain and namely these songs in foreign languages of Sofia Rotaru, which changed her life, caused anger and satisfaction of the Soviet authorities at the same time. This was told in the article, but I guess later deleted by Jaan Pärn. --Rubikonchik (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I appreciate your argument, but please read all WP:NOTAVOTE; discussions are based on the strength of the arguments, not the number of votes. Also, please read all of WP:NFCC. Near the bottom, it notes that "it is for users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale, not for those seeking to remove or delete it to show that one cannot be created". Even with these three deletions, there are still many sound clips on the article, and there was no "valid rationale" in the FFD to show why ALL of them were necessary. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. Your first argument should be dismissed, as if we are following the WP:NOTAVOTE, you should have noted that not only Jaan Pärn basically lied in his arguments, but also other users have counterargumented him. Your second argument should be dismissed as well, as these were unique recordings for a Western recording company, in foreign, back then (in the late 70's!!!! - it's not that far from the hottest point of the Cold War) of the leading Soviet singer... I think all of them are complied with. Which one is missing?--Rubikonchik (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is missing is an explanation why it is necessary that there be more than one sound clip in the article. According to WP:NFCC#3a (which I have already cited above), Wikipedia requires "minimal usage" of non-free media. Without a sufficient argument to show why multiple non-free sound clips are required to demonstrate the style of her music, there could have been no other outcome. So far, I have seen nothing to convince me of this necessity. For each file, it is necessary to show why that particular clip, and ONLY that particular clip, could add to the reader's understanding of a key fact in the article. I have seen nothing sufficiently specifically-worded in any of the discussions, including this one. If you can give me an individual explanation why each one is critical to reader understanding, then of course I will undelete the ones which are critical.--Aervanath (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a familiar reasonuing: "first I decide to delete, just because, then I try to find a reason why exactly did I delete. And if the reason does not work, I'll always invent another one." I have provided already a detailed explanation why these audio files were important and unique. You haven't addressed any of my concernes regarding the Wikipedia rules as far as the voting and number of "keep"s and "delete"s is concerned. I could revert to you with necessary links, proper wording etc., if that's what's missing... But you will probably find another reason... Therefore, please kindly indicate me where can we discuss this with a third party input? Thank you.--Rubikonchik (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should go to WP:Deletion review and follow the instructions there, so that other users can review my reasoning.--Aervanath (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The argument applies to two more files

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_26#Sofia_Rotaru_-_Immensita.ogg

3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_26#Sofia_Rotaru_-_Wer_liebe_sucht.ogg Rubikonchik (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RESUME: The closing admin has not answered any of my queries regarding the proper application of rules as far as are concerned: (1) counting the keeps and deletes (obviously, only one delete was given - by the nominator, against two keeps, and (2) falsification of arguments by the nominator.--Rubikonchik (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin: the above conversation is actually a copy of the conversation from my talk page: User_talk:Aervanath#Sofia_Rotaru. That said, endorse my own closure as the nominator has still not given a reason what value each of these files individually adds to the article, meaning that there is still no justification to satisfy WP:NFCC#3a.--Aervanath (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: As far as the files File:Sofia_Rotaru_-_Immensita.ogg and File:Sofia_Rotaru_-_Wer_liebe_sucht.ogg are concerned, the closing admin is addressing the issue slightly beside the point. The files are not missing WP:NFCC#3a as Rubikonchik has described the exact episode in the career of Sofia Rotaru what the clips aim to illustrate. However, these do miss WP:NFCC#8 - Significance - as the clips do not increase the readers' understanding on the topic, being the ban on Sofia Rotaru to travel outside the Soviet Union for recording abroad in foreign languages. I will stress that she did not receive the ban for her musical style nor anything else that one could understand only by listening to the tracks, but for recording abroad in foreign languages. The relevant facts are clear to the reader without the clips. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the track "Circus" reflected by the file File:Sofiarotarucircusindialive.ogg is not mentioned in the Sofia Rotaru article at all, and has never been mentioned in the history, so the talk pages are the only location where one can find the episodes in the singer's career that the clips should illustrate. Not that the inclusion of these facts would create a necessity for the clips to be included. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion; permit reuploading of a version that passes WP:NFCC#3b i.e. is 30s or shorter. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Jews

Back in February 2008, a dozen categories related to fictional characters by religion were deleted in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_24#Category:Fictional_characters_by_religion this CfD with the closing administrator arguing that The strongest argument either way came from the last sentence of the nomination itself: It's pretty unlikely that someone looking for the Rocky, Michael Corleone, Scarlett O'Hara or Eric Cartman will look it up through fictional catholics. While true, these characters are fictional catholics, that is not what they are known for. And for those characters who religion is the main defining trait, as discussed, there are better categories that can be used. While all of these categories have been recreated -- and promptly deleted without discussion or explanation -- as a recreation of deleted material, the Category:Fictional Jews has been recreated almost a dozen times, more than any of the other categories. I believe this pattern of recreation reflects the belief of many different editors that this category should exist. I don't know much about what unites Catholic fictional characters, and I have little reason to believe that there is anything religious about fictional Anglicans or Methodists. But I do know that fictional Jews from William Shakespeare's Shylock to Rebecca from Ivanhoe to the title character Daniel Deronda by George Eliot to Philip Roth's Alexander Portnoy and even cartoon characters Kyle Broflovski and Krusty the Clown are distinguished by their Jewishness, for those who have appeared in print this is probably their most defining characteristic. While authors may select hair color, place of origin or even name on an entirely arbitrary basis, the choice to make a character Jewish is a quite often a rather deliberate and defining choice on the part of the author. It seems ludicrous, at best, to categorize Shylock, the quintessential Jewish character in fiction, solely in Category:Italian characters in written fiction after Act III, Scene I's famed speech from him that begins "Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?", described in the Merchant of Venice article as one of Shakespeare's "most eloquent speeches". Even South Park's Kyle Broflovski would be more usefully put into Category:Fictional Jews than Category:Fictional characters from Colorado. Part of the problem with laundry list nominations at XfD is that useful articles and categories get deleted when the dross is collectively tossed out. While articles at AfD can be readily recreated with the addition of the sources and claims of notability that had been lacking, DRV is the only means of recreating deleted categories. Given the fact that the proffered explanation for deletion does not fit the world of Fictional Jews, and given that there have been numerous books, journal pieces, college courses, as well as newspaper and magazine articles on the subject, the proper action should be to allow recreation of the category. Alansohn (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

overturn The nominator summarizes things pretty well. There should be a general category to understand how Jews have been portrayed in fiction. It is a category which makes sense (and is indeed a subject which has had multiple PhD theses and books dedicated to it). JoshuaZ (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are "jew eyes", anyway? Do you have better eyesight? Are your "jew hands" more supple? Do you laugh when I tickle you because you're a jew? And would you laugh harder if I had jew hands too? Just some things I wonder about when I hear that. Personally, I still stand by my close. I doubt that even you, Alan, if looking for Kyle Broflovski's article, would start under Cat:Fictional Jews. Well, ok, maybe you would, but most people probably wouldn't. Being a fictional jew is not what Kyle is mainly known for. Being a South Park character, yes. Rocky, known for being a fictional catholic, or a fictional boxer? Anyway, listen, even though I said I stand by my close, I don't have the energy or desire to go round and round in what might be a rather lengthy and contentious DRV, so if you want to recreate it, knock yourself out. --Kbdank71 20:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kris, I took no objection to your close and still see none in anything I've written in the nomination, nor is your name mentioned at all in the nomination. While the rule of thumb that once you need to decide based on a "better argument" would have made "no consensus" the best close and while a close as "keep" would have been equally appropriate based on the same set of data, I still do not object to your close of the CfD in question. I only raised Kyle Broflovski as an example in response to the inclusion of Eric Cartman in your close. Cartman may have little in common as a Catholic with Rocky Balboa, but Kyle has far more in common with Shylock than with his neighbors J. B. Dix, Hawk (G.I. Joe), Parker Lee and Bob Russell (The West Wing) in Category:Fictional characters from Colorado. I don't see this DRV as "contentious" and expect little meaningful argument in opposition. I simply hope to restore a category that should exist and that hasn't for the past 15 months. If you have any other personal issue with me, Kris, you are free to take it elsewhere where it belongs. Alansohn (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I have no issue with you, Alan. I understand why you nominated it, and don't have a problem with it. As for being contentious, I've rarely come across a DRV or CFD that had anything to do with race, religion, or politics that wasn't lengthy and contentious. It was a mistake to imply you did that on purpose. I've refactored my comments above. --Kbdank71 20:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. I wouldn't say it's an "overturn" because the closer interpreted the consensus correctly; but I would say it's an "allow recreation on the basis of new arguments" because that nomination's fairly convincing.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure the nom has it wrong - can reliable sources be found that say that any of the characters he posits for a recreated category are famous for being (fictionally) Jewish or as I would suggest, they're famous for being in a famous work of fiction. It'll be an OR project: which of the Friends characters get put in here; some seemed like they were supposed to be Jewish - but was their notability based on that, or based on being in a highly rated TV show? Ditto, nearly every modern tv show or movie that has a broad array of characters from various (perceived) backgrounds to generate more opportunity for contrast, drama, etc. Looking back on nearly every show this could be done: Leonard Nimoy said he developed the Vulcan salute based on what his rabbi used to do, so is Spock now Jewish? Why or why not? And what RS'es tell us that he is or isn't Jewish when the actor who portrayed him seems to imply a Jewish element to Spock's character. If recreated, how is this sort of OR to be prevented? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I am often reminded, the question is if a fictional character being Jewish is a defining characteristic, not if it makes the character "famous". The standard that I use for inclusion, here and elsewhere, is descriptions in reliable and verifiable sources, a methodology that Wikipedia appears to enourage. this source from The New York Times describes "of course, there was the Jewish usurer Shylock, out for his pound of flesh, seeming to care more about his ducats than his daughter" in a 1998 performance of The Merchant of Venice. And as to another character, this from the pen of Charles Dickens and one that I had shamefully neglected to mention in my nomination, this source from The Independent in the UK notes that "Perhaps Shylock gives him a run for his money-lending. But there is almost no other character to compete with Fagin for the title of the most grotesque and villainous Jew in all of English literature." It seems hard to argue that these are not just two of many fictional characters for whom being Jewish is a defining characteristic. While I have seen a video in which Leonard Nimoy wraps himself in a tallit during a speech and describes his childhood recollections of being with his father in synagogue during the Priestly Blessing, in which a Kohen splits his fingers and blesses the congregation, and describes how this experience became his inspiration for the Vulcan salute, the character himself is never described as being Jewish. Reading reliable and verifiable sources is never OR. I invite you to deal with the inclusion of any particular entry in the talk page of that article; Here we are discussing whether Category:Fictional Jews captures a defining characteristic, and the reliable and verifiable sources say yes. Alansohn (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, interesting examples used in that there has been a lot of academic work comparing Shakespeare's Shylock to Dickens' Fagin precisely in regards to among other things changing stereotypes about Jews. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure and SALT -- long experience has shown this is better as an article Fictional Jews, perhaps with a fully fledged and annotated List of fictional Jews.
1. There's no article, so all those "numerous books, journal pieces, college courses, as well as newspaper and magazine articles on the subject" have come to naught!
2. Looking at the list, many entries are red-linked, or are characters that are only incidentally Jewish; or assumed or deduced or inferred, as no Jewish story line was ever developed.
3. As a category, it would be yet another one that needed constant patrolling. Too little time, too many things to do....
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an argument here other than that categories are hard to police? JoshuaZ (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- All categories need patrolling. Why do we keep any category at all, when there is just so little time? Getting rid of the entire category system would pull the rug out of a pool of petty tyrants and force them to actually contribute to Wikipedia, which might have benefits of its own. There is no requirement for an article to exist in order to retain a category, and the list that does already exist can grow in parallel with the category, as WP:CLN encourages. I'm unsure how the presence of red links indicates that "characters that are only incidentally Jewish" are included and not simply that articles have not yet been created. We don't delete (or not allow recreation) based on the argument that it's too much work. Alansohn (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate A category and a list go well together. I don't see why we have to have one and not the other. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate/overturn/etc There have been a lot of "Fictional X" categories that I've despised and had welcome their deletion for being frivolous. Being Jewish is often the defining/major characteristic of some fictional characters, which sets it apart from many of the others (such as "Fictional characters who like ham sandwiches"). -- Ned Scott 05:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DukeDaGod (closed)

Original Flavor (closed)

Diana Vickers

The Afd is out of date (decision was redir). National tour, new record, passes WP:BAND #4. She has signed with RCA and also Wikipedia:WikiProject Idol series#Biographies of contestants, she also passes notability (Yanks consider anyone making the live shows as a finalist) and passes WP:BIO basic criteria having been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject with numerous WP:REFS. Some feel it time to get on with article. Others are enforcing the redir without discussion and biting a poor new editor. That is not the wikiway. So I come here to get proper discussion and consensus. Triwbe (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Triwbe for a few references, so I'll hold off on !voting for the time being. I do have a few questions, however, the answers to which will hopefully help other participants:

Is the national tour part of the X Factor live, or as an individual artist?
Has the new record been released/charted yet?

If she's toured as independently, i.e. not as part of the X Factor, or if her record has charted I'd be happy for the article to be recreated.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep redirected until sources are found. When there's some decent coverage of her outside of X Factor (newspapers talking about her record deal or about her album would be best) then I will fully support restoring the article. Currently, all anyone is pointing at for notability outside of the show are fansites and her own Twitter profile. Until we have sources, she's just someone who lost on a gameshow and may or may not have had a fling with another contestant. (On a loosely related note, she's performing in my town in a few weeks, so I may have some pictures to share if I find myself at the performance...). J Milburn (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources regarding Diana's album:
http://entertainment.stv.tv/tv/85079-diana-vickers-starts-work-on-debut-album
http://www.popjustice.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3388&Itemid=9
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/leisure/music/4088619.Real_deal_as_Diana_Vickers_signed_by_major_label/.

This source shows how popular Diana is:
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/4139682.Diana_Vickers_more_popular_than_Britney_Spears_with_UK_internet_users -The source shows that Diana was seached for more than Britney Spears and came just after Barack Obama. -Sumeet_92

The following source refers to Diana being signed by RCA http://www.unrealitytv.co.uk/x-factor/diana-vickers-lands-record-dealbut-not-with-cowell/ . - T2h2o2m2a2s

Regarding the deletion of Barack Obama administration controversies (closed)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Animal Crossing

It is the habit of the project to preserve task force and wikiproject talk pages as a record of past history. See here for a related discussion. "Not useful" is not sufficient criteria for deletion. SharkD (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete ~~not a valid G8, and a prime example of where subjective instructions need reworking over at WP:CSD~~. -- Ned Scott 05:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand partly corrected, G8 does mention talk archives being pages generally kept. Not sure why the deleting admin deleted the talk page, but then again I can't see the content of the page. -- Ned Scott 07:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hearing Orange Mike's and Stifle's words I think it probably was a valid G8, but like S Marshall notes, it's not an unreasonable request, even if it's just two comments. -- Ned Scott 05:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, having viewed the talk page there are only two comments. The first is "I created this taskforce because..." and the second is "I don't agree, just go to the main project page". Stifle (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support my own action - as a historian, I am a fanatic about preserving archives; but Stifle sums up the entire content of the talk page pretty well - this was a cleanup, as much a G6 as G8, and nothing was lost of even the remotest value. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. I accept the cleanup as a very valid point, but, we'll use more system resources arguing about it than we would by just undeleting it on reasonable request, which rather defeats the purpose of a deletion for cleanup reasons.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:F-GZCP.jpg

Discussion before deletion in favour of the image seemed valid. It would have been a nice touch to have an image of the actual craft attached to the article, so long as the image met fair use critieria (which it seemed to, if perhaps narrowly). Frei Hans (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 09:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its copyright status was queried and no articles had links pointing to it. I have now undeleted it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason this needs to remain open, then?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Kowal

A search of "Theodore Kowal"and NASA returned 149 google hits - enough to be considered notable although the article was deleted because it was at the time considered un-notable (a user cited only 17 google hits). Frei Hans (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was deleted a year and a half ago. If you can recreate it overcoming the issues which led to the deletion, do so. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can also request an admin put a copy in your userspace on wikipedia so that you can improve it. Stifle (the editor who commented above) will generally do so I believe. That said, I'm not able to find anything that meets our inclusion guidelines (see WP:N and WP:BIO) but that doesn't mean much as I didn't try too hard and you may have access to better sources. Good luck! Hobit (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just note that notability isn't measured in numbers of google hits even if it can give a guide, 17 is very low so maybe unlikely, but if those 17 were full articles in the New York Times etc. then it'd likely be notable, similarly 1,000,000 hits for messageboard posts, is unlikely to meet the standard. It's the quality of the hits which counts. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 *'''Nominator''': As far as the files [[:File:Sofia_Rotaru_-_Immensita.ogg]] and [[:File:Sofia_Rotaru_-_Wer_liebe_sucht.ogg]] are concerned, the closing admin is addressing the issue slightly beside the point. The files are not missing [[WP:NFCC#3a]] as Rubikonchik has described the exact episode in the career of Sofia Rotaru what the clips aim to illustrate. However, these  do miss [[WP:NFCC#8]] - Significance -  as the clips do not increase the readers' understanding on the topic, being the ban on [[Sofia Rotaru]] to travel outside the Soviet Union for recording abroad in foreign languages. I will stress that she did not receive the ban for her musical style nor anything else that one could understand only by listening to the tracks, but for recording abroad in foreign languages. The relevant facts are clear to the reader without the clips. --[[User:Erikupoeg|Jaan Pärn]] ([[User talk:Erikupoeg|talk]]) 22:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 Furthermore, the track "Circus" reflected by the file [[:File:Sofiarotarucircusindialive.ogg]] is not mentioned in the [[Sofia Rotaru]] article at all, and has never been mentioned in the history, so the talk pages are the only location where one can find the episodes in the singer's career that the clips should illustrate. Not that the inclusion of these facts would create a necessity for the clips to be included. --[[User:Erikupoeg|Jaan Pärn]] ([[User talk:Erikupoeg|talk]]) 22:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
+*'''Endorse deletion'''; permit reuploading of a version that passes [[WP:NFCC#3b]] i.e. is 30s or shorter. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 09:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 ====[[:Category:Fictional Jews]]====