Highland Middle School (Libertyville, Illinois) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like to request the restoration of Highland Middle School (Libertyville, Illinois) to Wikipedia. I have spent hard work on this article and would not like to see this go to waste. Please consider putting this article on the articles for revising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertyville (talk • contribs)

Uncle Sherm's Visit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

This episode of SpongeBob SquarePants exists. I provided a neutral source (in german) on its talk page after it was deleted and protected. Kitia 21:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. A German fan page speculating about a possible episode because someone (unnamed) has seen the storyboards? Can it get any less reliable? ~ trialsanderrors 00:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has a picture of him... ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]] 00:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still not a reliable source. What's the matter with your signature? ~ trialsanderrors 00:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's messed-up. I don't know how to fix it. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]] 00:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go to "My preferences" and unclick "Raw signature". ~ trialsanderrors 00:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Come on more and more are going to believe that the episode IS real! I suggest that maybe you can re-create the page soon, because i signed a petition on the articles talk page. Please re-create the page soon. Thanks. Zany zacky ^{(talk • contribs)}
  • Petitions are not reliable sources. Find some and it can be recreated. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Undelete Keep Deleted. Or perhaps suspend deletion? This episode is still in developement and will be aired in Gremany first, like the last few. It seems kind of redundant to delete a page just to make it again a week later with sources... Anyways, here are a few:
  • tv.com episode guide [1]
  • Storyboards [2] Kelden 05:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • They don't look like reliable sources to me. The first anyone can sign up for an account and add/change the content. The second maybe a story board to an episode (I'm no expert) but doesn't give an verifiability to any material in the article. Far from being redundant if deletion is what it takes to get people to provide sources then the deletion has had a positive result. --pgk 13:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see your point and I agree. It even appears the some information may have been added by wikipedia members (user:patrickrox11, [3]). I think I was little hasty in voting, I'm relatively new to wikipedia. Hence, I'm changing my vote. If this episode airs, it will be added then, such unfounded speculation is unencyclopedic. ~ Kelden 23:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion --pgk 13:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted until Nickelodeon airs it then it can be undeleted --Caldorwards4 19:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish-American businesspeople ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)(deleted history)

The original vote was here with just three votes: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_6#American_businesspeople_by_ethnicity

Category:Jewish-American businesspeople was created to break up Category:Jewish Americans into smaller pieces. It was NOT created to break up Category:American businesspeople into smaller pieces. By changing the category all the people lost their Jewish identity, and as below, their national identity. The change was made with just three votes and was made without thinking of the consequences of the change and the loss of information it would create. Now each article has lost their inclusion in Category:Jewish Americans. Important moves like this need much more debate before enacted. I suggest a minimal number of votes before decisions are made. Category changes are much more complicated than article changes because there are supracategories and supercategories that have to be considered. Remember if the category is a double intersection, you can't replace it with a single category, it has to be replaced by two categories. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same for:

Jewish Americans is currently divided into the following, so why is "business person" not acceptable:

African Americans are identified as:

• Category:African American academics
• Category:African Americans' rights activists
• Category:African-American actors
• Category:African American artists
• Category:African American classical composers

• Overturn and Undelete All subcategories I believe for consistency these subcategories should all remain. Removing ethnicity is not important here. Categories are used to group like things. In this case, we are creating one huge category of things that are different. TonyTheTiger 21:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Wow! Wikipedia has that much power? They lost their Jewish identity just through being moved to a different category? Let's move Category:Terrorists to Category:Really nice people who give money to charity and are good to their mothers and start solving the world's problems in earnest! Guy (Help!) 22:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • You should probably avoid sarcasm, stick to what your good at. You also lost me with your terrorist metaphor. Was that an attempt at humor or are you equating Judaism with terrorism? And yes, when you remove an ethnic tag from an article, you are removing their ethnic identity. It is like taking a book from a library shelf, and removing the Dewey decimal code on the spine. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh.... my guess is that he's not? Bwithh 02:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite good at sarcasm, actually - what we have here is simply an example of a sarchasm. Be that as it may, the idea that Wikipedia exists to promote the Jewish identity of anybody seems very much like soapboxing. I am not persuaded that it is in any way helpful to identify Jewish Americans separately in this way, it seems to be more of a service to those wishing to validate their religion than to the reader (and I'd say the same if you were to substitute any other religious identity). What one can say with very great confidence is that the Jewish or national identity of any individual is completely unaffected by their inclusion in a category on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the case, but by that logic all of the other "Nationality Profession" categories (which are explicitly supported by WP:CAT) would be invalid. Your trolling is not appreciated, by the way and it would be in your best interests to cease and desist per WP:CIV. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 12:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• A few opinions:
  • Oppose Anti-semitism
  • Rename American rabbis to Jewish American rabbis
  • Speedy Delete JzG
  • Endorse Closure - crz crztalk 23:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As the admin who closed the debate, I obviously endorse the deletion, otherwise I wouldn't have done it:-) Other reasons for my endorsement include my thinking that "Jewish-American people" and "Businesspeople" is not an encyclopedically meaningful intersection of categories. I disagree with TonyTheTiger that "Businesspeople" now contains "things that are different". If TonyTheTiger is right then if we have category Category:Jewish-American businesspeople then we should also have Category:Women American businesspeople on the grounds that women are arguably at least as different from men as Jewish people are from non-Jewish people. It is the splitting of the category Category:Jewish Americans (that should be Category:Jewish-American people) that was ill-conceived, not the deletion of this category. This debate shows us why we desparately need category arithmetic. If the result here is to reverse the deletion, then apply to me and I will gladly supply a list of articles that were in the categories. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The action shouldn't have been taken with just three votes, and without doing research into the categories already existing and their inter-relationship. Special care has to be taken with categories that are carefully crafted to provide intersections of other existing categories. You can't remove a triple intersection category and replace it with a single category, without losing information. These changes require some thought and familiarity with categories and the boolean logic behind them. If you don't feel that someone should be identified as African American or Jewish thats a much bigger discussion and needs to be argued elsewhere. You should also have the courtesy to notify the Wikiproject or Portal involved with these categories, since they have been working so hard to tag Category:Jewish-American people and then subdivide that category. And, lastly you should be responsible for undoing the damage you created, not others. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Firstly I did not nominate the category for merging: why hold me responsible for notifying the project? Secondly, AFD is not a vote. Thirdly, three clear coherent reasons to merge is actually a pretty good AFD consensus in my opinion. Fourthly, please do not imply that my closure of the debate was thoughtless: comment on the closure, not the administrator. Fifthly, my familiarity with categories is just fine, thanks. Here's the boolean question: do we categorise American businesspeople by ethnicity? The answer from the AFD discussion was a clear no. I thought the discussion here was about whether to reverse that consensus, not whether the closure was incorrect. Sixthly, do not attribute arguments to me that I have not made: people should clearly be categorised as African American or Jewish. The AFD discussion said clearly that ethnicity does not impinge on business-ness. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. Richard has apologised for the tone of his comment above, and I accept the apology. I apologise in return for the tone of my reply, but I feel the content of the reply is valid. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete/Keep The individuals involved in the original CfD either have not read WP:CAT or believe it does not apply to them. The existence of Category:British writers is explicitly supported here. Is there some logical reason why Jews should be treated differently? If you have a problem with WP:CAT, propose changes to the guideline, don't use your admin flag to circumvent consensus. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 16:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I might have been willing to accept the argument that I should also have added the people in the categories to the other category of intersection, and I am still willing to do so, as it was possibly an oversight, but the WP:CAT guideline you point at supports the existence of Category:British writers, not the existence of Category:Jewish-British writers and is not relevant here. Your accusation of my "using my admin flag to circumvent consensus" is gratuitous and insulting, and you may wish to consider apologising. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. To get back to the debate: the argument Karimarie has put forward in favour of restoring this category is consensus at WP:CAT. I was initially sceptical, above, but following her recent advice on my talk page I have looked there quite carefully. Searching WP:CAT for the word-stems "religio", "ethnic" and "jew" give no results. WP:CATGRS does mention ethnicity, but again I am not sure that it is relevant to this debate (and Karimarie did not cite it anyway). I conclude that there is no such consensus as the one Karimarie cites. I am not infallible, and my usual practice in the face of personal criticism is to withdraw on the grounds that the least said, the soonest mended. I initially withdrew here, but on reflection I feel that it would be allowing Karimarie to carry her point by playing the man and not the ball. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete/Keep - per jzg.Bakaman 06:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all others or keep this one. And save the wit for a crowd that might actually find you funny, Guy. Grace Note 09:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What rationale are you using to support one and not the others? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 12:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist obviously there is not a consensus yet. Koweja 20:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• yes, RelistDGG 16:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete/Keep Again, we have admins getting way over their heads deleting categories (and deleting articles and abusing CSDs) where there is no clear justification for doing so. The category -- and the other, similar child categories -- are meaningful descriptions of the individuals so designated. What we seem to need more desperately in Wikipedia is an "Admins for Deletion" category. Alansohn 14:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks very much. Reading again what you wrote, I am reminded that hyperbole doesn't really work as a debating technique in Wikipedia discussions. In answer to your one substantial argument, "meaningful" is not the same as "encyclopedic". --RobertG ♬ talk 10:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graal Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

Overturn and Undelete. This article does not require deletion so long as it follows Wikipedia Guidelines. It deserves a place in Wikipedia. Also, this was just speedy deleted simply because of the past, while it had no conflicts with the Wikipedia rules. RedKlonoa 18:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse valid process. WP:ILIKEIT does not trump WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEB or indeed anything else with any degree of consensual support. Guy (Help!) 18:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Nothing deserves a place in Wikipedia. Nobody and no thing has an entitlement to be here. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• ---RedKlonoa 19:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say that. Your argument that something "deserves" to be here is specious. Argue based on WP:NOTABILITY, WP:V and WP:RS. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I was about to edit that out. Anyways, what I meant when I said "deserves" is that it is just like every other article, and does not need a delete. It is only because of other users that caused the article to be deleted. RedKlonoa 19:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That assumption is not borne out by the AFD discussion linked above, that is full of editors agreeing that the site fails WP:WEB. The large number of trolls in the discussion didn't help anything, but do not appear to be the reason for the deletion, from what I can see. Fan-1967 19:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion again, process was valid. --Coredesat 20:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion for the second third fourth time. Far out, seriously, AfD has spoken, Danny (talk · contribs) has spoken (see the AfD), DRV has spoken, and all have said "delete". I also urge speedy close, as there is no new evidence presented. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Apparently valid deletion and process. Linked AfD page settles it for me, I think. Luna Santin 23:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Super Extra-strong Deluxe Endorse - It's been recreated how many times now? ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 23:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm still wondering what your arguement is... RedKlonoa 19:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You opened this DRV based on what appear to be false assumptions. The AFD shows that a consensus of editors determined that it failed WP:WEB, i.e. it does not meet our standards of a notable website. You have not offered any counter-arguments relevant to that decision, or any reason for overturning the AFD. Fan-1967 20:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion - Failed to assert notability on the original AFD, still isn't notable now. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 04:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-Sword (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

Overturn and undelete This article was originally listed for deletion as "non notable" and not conforming to WP policy on software related articles. During the original delete debate several assertions of notability were not backed up by necessary references. This has subsequently be rectified. During an initial delete review a number of references for notability were provided. Many more were obvious from Google (>40000 listings and many just as required. I therefore undeleted the article, started to insert such notability information (reviews etc) and add more - as I said google is full with it. The article was again deleted by another admin, who felt it should go first go through another review. Given that even the review said that the article may be recreated with actual references - which I was starting to provide - I did not hold this for necessary, but I am happy to submit to process. Summary : the software is notable, and the necessary references are provided. This should be sufficient to satisfy policy Refdoc 17:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples for notability are here [4] [5] and [6] In each listing it is finalist in one magazine or another.

Actually, all 3 links are from the same source, and the program is only labelled as a finalist (for the religious category of pocketpc programs) in the first link Bwithh 19:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a finalist in the Pocket PC awards [7] and is described here - an academic theological journal [8] Latter is a 32 page review and analysis of various pieces of Biblesoftware. E-Sword features prominently throughout the whole article. Refdoc 17:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and Undelete. (though it might be weak) I still think the way Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Sword (second nomination) was closed was completely inappropriate. I also wish that the first deletion review actually addressed this closure, rather than the lack of sources in the article. Had the amount of criticism in the last review been made during AfD with no improvement toward the article, I would endorse deletion. Refdoc has claimed that he put sources and more evidence for notability in the article after he undeleted it. If this is true, I don't think Robdurbar should have redeleted it--Mackensen and the last deletion review both allowed recreation of the article, so long as WP:V and WP:RS were followed. --Karnesky 18:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object in the strongest possible terms. There was a deletion review of this decision on December 5, and the close was upheld. Refdoc acted inappropriately be undeleting on his own authority. Are we reviewing DRVs now? What the hell is this? Mackensen (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that Refdoc didn't add sources? If so, I might have to change my vote. --Karnesky 18:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The text of the addition: e-Sword has been subject to numerous outside reviews and has been several times named (one of) teh most comprehensive and usable free Biblestudy programmes. Color me unimpressed. Perhaps more to the point, this is an abuse of process. The decision was already reviewed and upheld. Re-creation is fine, but the undeletion stuck me as a bit raw. Mackensen (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close bad faith DRV listing. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So how do you get envolved and have a sensible review when it gets closed before getting started. It strikes me that there could be another adgenda here than pure unbiased assessments of notablility. Agreed it was a little short of proper referencing in it's original form. That I believe is largely due to good references being buried in the search engines such as Google by the "download related" sites that are too numerous to mention (obviously a hardly known piece of software then!). You have to dig deep to get the referencing for this one. But it can be done. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Footballdatabase (edit | [[Talk:Template:Footballdatabase|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

i don't knoow why afd became tfd and not cleanup, the template is useful for create external link for some footballer. Matthew_hk tc 14:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted, template creates external link to a commercial website. —Angr 15:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, WP:VSCA appears to apply to this case. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PocketGPSWorld.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

The Keep reasons were based on the notability of this site - it is referred to in most articles and websites on GPS systems. There was also a majority (5-3) for a Keep. The closing admin overruled this based on "the lack of sourcing in this article, and the quality of the article itself". Neither is a ground for deletion against the concensus. I should welcome a quality threshold, but that is for another day, and it is not a deletion reason. Inadequate sourcing (as opposed to being unverifiable) signals the need for editorial action but not deletion. Yes, this is a poor article that needs a thorough cleanup but procedurally it should not have been deleted. Overturn and Keep. TerriersFan 10:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply by closer WP:V is an inviolable reason to delete and overrules both notability arguments (or rather here: assertions) and vote counts. As I said in my closing statement, if someone thinks they have sources and wants to write an article based on them I'm happy to userfy or restore. But with zero outside sources either in the article or in the AfD discussion the argument by User:Pan Dan that the article fails WP:V trumps all others. ~ trialsanderrors 10:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - thank you for this helpful reply. Though the article has a regrettable lack of sources there are plenty enough /available/ to verify its safety camera database, its main claim to 'fame'. User:Pan Dan was arguing (I think) on notability not verifiability. He/she acknowledges that verifiability is not an issue by saying "no one denies that this company & website, and its services, exist". The company's existence is verified here and its safety camera stuff is verified here. TerriersFan 10:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Existence is not a sufficient criterion for inclusion, it fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Safe a small group of topics that are considered notable per se, articles that do not assert the notability of their subject risk being speedily deleted, articles that do not support the assertion to notability via independent sources risk being deleted at the end of an AfD. This is what happened here. Elvis Presley doesn't have an article because his birth certificate verified his existence, but because multiple outside sources exist that attest to his notability. In simple terms, if the subject of an article is notable it shouldn't be hard to find sources unless it's historical or from a remote part of the world. ~ trialsanderrors 11:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Number one is a directory listing, number two is a passing mention in a forum post. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, no reliable sources in article or AfD = delete. Alexa ranks are not indicators of notability - they were removed from WP:WEB months ago - and even when it was, the threshold was 10,000. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close - endorse deletion - OK I am persuaded by the arguments and withdraw the nomination. TerriersFan 16:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to see the article and perhaps look for references but evn on the basis of the discussion above, the article needs to come up for further AfD discussion.DGG 16:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penumbra (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history) — (AfD)

The article about Penumbra has been deleted before because the game was only a tech demo. Since that deletion (and the article's recreation), Penumbra has expanded into a full commercial game that has received the mention and interest of major gaming websites such as Gamespot and IGN. It is possible that the game will be digitally distributed on Steam: a major market for gaming. The full game is significant enough to warrant its own article. The focus of the article as of now is on the tech demo, but it could easily be changed to place the emphasis on the full game being developed.

I also think it's incredibly unfair because the second deletion was only a proposed one. The template said to remove it if any reason was seen as to why the article should be kept (there was no actual AfD involved). I brought the argument up on the talk page and removed the notice, and a few hours later, the article was deleted. That aside though, I still think the article should be remade to focus more on the full version of Penumbra. ShadowMan1od 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I fixed the link to point to the AfD debate, as it should. Chris cheese 00:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an AfD from the first time the article was deleted though (which isn't the one this is contesting, but oh well :P). ShadowMan1od 00:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's felt the situation hasn't changed enough for it to not apply, though. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now that you mention it, I guess that's the whole issue of debate. All the votes to delete it in that AfD were because it was just a college project and it wasn't notable enough. It's gone beyond that phase now, so should it still be deleted for the same reasons? ShadowMan1od 01:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The second deletion wasn't a proposed deletion -- I placed the {{prod}} and then it was brought to my attention that the article had already failed an AfD, so I deleted it without letting the prod run its course, and told this user to come here to have it undeleted. I do note several references in Google. However, I don't know if the article truly passes notability, it's possibly close. Andre (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 00:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion without prejudice against future recreation once the game is actually released. The game company's own website says that the first episode of this game isn't scheduled for release until Q1 2007[9]. Gamespy says this game isn't due to come out until October 2007, and hasn't been rated or found a publisher yet [10]. Gamespot has a preview of the game-project-development-still-in-progress from October, which suggests the first episode is likely coming out in March 2007[11]. IGN has like 3 screenshots, and that's it as far as I can tell[12]. What's the hurry in recreating this article if the game won't be out until maybe some time March to October 2007? Wikipedia is not a place for creating pre-launch/pre-"possible distribution through Steam" marketing buzz for unpublished software projects. Bwithh 04:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:SombatMetanee.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)(deleted history)

The image was uploaded as a {{promophoto}} and included in the article Sombat Metanee in the infobox. It was flagged by User:Chowbok with a {{Replaceable fair use}} tag, which I then disputed. Through that process, however, I learned that the use in the article was indeed not fair use, so I moved it to a section of the article that detailed the actor in the era depicted in the photo. That was "not good enough" for User:Angr, who then deleted the image. I disputed this on Image talk:SombatMetanee.jpg, and Angr offered some helpful suggestions about how to improve the article so that the image might be kept. Those improvements were made and a new fair-use rationale for the image was crafted. Angr then made a subjective judgement about the photo and asked if a different image could be used. I accommodated him by offering an external link to another image, but it wasn't good enough for him, either. I then offered a link to several images that he could choose from, and that's when his responses ended. So I've brought the issue here, seeking a resolution. — WiseKwai 10:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is at Image talk:SombatMetanee.jpg. I'm still not 100% convinced the image is unreplaceable yet, but I was surprised when the talk page was closed for further discussion. My responses only ended because I felt out of my depth in making decisions on what images do or do not adequately illustrate the physical attractiveness of an actor I've never heard of. I was hoping for more input from others rather than "The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it." —Angr 10:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who closed the debate. I just thought it was policy to close debate after the image was deleted. I certainly didn't mean to stifle debate if it's still up in the air. I personally wouldn't have deleted it, FWIW, but I know it's a borderline case. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- we don't appear to have a source for this image or know who owns its copyright -- there's a statement that the image was "released by" a film festival. This fails our image sourcing requirements. Jkelly 21:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The image was part of promotional material distributed to the press for the 2006 Bangkok International Film Festival, which holds the copyright to the material. — WiseKwai 04:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn — per DRVers request. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 00:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per above. If it fails policy, I'm certain someone will come along and tag it again, but the move made appears to make sense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]