File:Wii.svg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I FU reduced it under the pretense it was FU, but as it's free-but-trademark, size doesn't matter (see Image:Coca-Cola logo.svg). Should be uncontroversial enough. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 23:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Sceptre - the item was last deleted for a lack of source. Is this request relevant to that? I may be being stupid but what does "I FU reduced it under the pretense it was FU" mean? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• The image was deleted because it was orphaned and had a non-free tag, even though it's free and is superior to the current image used. This is utterly non-controversial, so I've restored it. east.718 at 15:59, May 3, 2008

Template:Municipal districts and cadastral areas of Prague (  | [[Talk:Template:Municipal districts and cadastral areas of Prague|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Speedied G7 (One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page). I wrote 99% of the template and have not requested deletion or blanked the page. Mwalcoff ( talk) 21:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Update. I see the page content was moved to Template:Districts_and_cadastral_areas_of_Prague. The page should have been speedied T3, not G7. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 21:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment I'm sorry, but I've reviewed the logs and this was an uncontestable WP:CSD#G7 deletion. No links, no edit history except for the original author who is not Mwalcoff. I'm afarid this DRV is invalid. If Mwalcoff wishes it to be restored I will be more than happy to do so, but to be honest it can simply be re-created without this process. Pedro :  Chat  21:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't know what happened, because I know I wrote that template, but apparently there was an issue with multiple names. It's OK, because the content has simply been moved. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 21:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC) reply

One Fine Day! (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore|)

The original article title One Fine Day! had been deleted due to the series' lack of proven notability from when the series was simply broadcast on a single college campus. Since the original article's deletion, the series has gained an official webpage www.onefinedaytv.com, begun broadcast through the OSTN network, and an IMDB page has been created to mark its notability. There is also a grouping of print interviews with a variety of sources available on the series' press homepage. There actually is an article on the series located at One Fine Day (IPTV Series) and I would suggest that the One Fine Day! title be unlocked and the material from One Fine Day (IPTV Series) be moved to that location. Ofd2008 ( talk) 13:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• No opinion on the request right now, but noting (since it doesn't seem to want to appear in the header) that there was an AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Fine Day!. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn They finally got a weblink to the News-Gazette article, which considered the article interesting enough to also announce it on the first page of the paper, and found non-trivial coverage on the Daily Herald. It's also broadcasted on Open_Student_Television_Network. Altought it doesn't meet WP:MOVIE, it's notable because it's financed by the students themselves, and it's already on its second season. Notice that the Daily Herald article was from when they had only done one season, and it will get more notable if they get out a third season. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 17:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I'm not advocating either side, but it appears that a simpler solution would be to redirect One Fine Day! to One Fine Day (IPTV series) and then work on the latter. Cheers. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 20:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Actually lifebaka, that's a good idea. That would keep the disambiguation intact for the IPTV series article. And since the older One Fine Day! has been locked for some time, the One Fine Day (IPTV series) material has more up to date information. I second redirecting One Fine Day! to One Fine Day (IPTV series). Ofd2008 ( talk) 21:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn & Merge I agree. Merging the two articles would be best. Fkick ( talk) 17:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn & Close It seems that the consensus so far has been to overturn the lock on One Fine Day! and redirect it to One Fine Day (IPTV series). I move that an admin close the discussion and proceed as there does not appear to be any further discussion. Ofd2008 ( talk) 18:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Still feels more self-promotional than notable to me. Sorry, Darkspots ( talk) 00:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment The series has also now been added to tv.com and imdb.com both of which have stringent moderation policies and will only list a series once it has begun national broadcast (such as the broadcasts on OSTN). (The article for tv.com can be found here and the imdb.com one here here.) These sites require third party verification of this release. My feeling is that if the series passes both of their requirements, it has as much right to have an article as any other television series so long as the article is maintained in a professional and non "promotional" manner. Ofd2008 ( talk) 03:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply