The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
A Portuguese (amaterur?) historian, author of several books, one of which (with a controversial claim about Columbus) seems to have gained notoriety outside Portugal. His claim has been recently re-reported (and brought to my attention for the first time) in numerous media: English: [1] - CNBC, [2] - The Telegraph, [3] - Daily Mail; Polish: [4] - Wprost, [5] - Onet.pl, [6] - Rzeczpospolita (newspaper), [7] - Gazeta Wyborcza. I think this is sufficient to prove notability of his theory, and thus, his own. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Support original decision to delete. I don't see how the problems at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manuel Rosa have changed. We already have an article Origin theories of Christopher Columbus which mentions his ideas, a separate article on his idea is not appropriate. It's nice to see that that edit wasn't added by Rosa himself or one of the apparent sockpuppets that keep adding what look like promotional edits to this and the main Columbus article. I can't see how he passes our notability guidelines. Note that this publicity is sourced to his PR Release at [8]. His page on this website [9] makes it clear he isn't a professional historian - and doesn't even say he's an academic, just that he works at Duke University Medical School. I'm also trying to figure out if his book is self-published - the publisher is [10] and I find this which suggests to me that it probably is. Dougweller ( talk) 07:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | ||||
Furthermore, no clarity for the reasoning behind the decision was made following a declined appeal to the admin for reconsideration. The user who put it up for deletion did not return to make an opposing statement. The undisputed statement was: "It does not matter how stylized it is, nor how much artistic effort was involved, if it is still recognizable as a letter, than in the U.S. it may not be copyrighted." Based on the previous statement: "As described at Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts the "M" is therefore not subject to copyright claims. This leaves only Trademark issues with respect to the use of this image." I have since applied the image with the following template:
The side of caution has already been taken. There's no reason at all to delete the image. This image is linked in two articles where it's a contribution. Editor182 ( talk) 05:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Do you endorse its retrieval based on the image not falling into either category? The trademark template is there for a reason, and I think it's applicable here, not a deletion. Editor182 ( talk) 05:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
If the Wikipedia article concerning fonts is fallacious, then it needs to be corrected, but for now, I'm going to stick to agreeing with the statements made above based on Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts, that it is not subject to copyright claims, and that leaves only Trademark issues which are covered with the template. If there's doubt, then it should clearly side with being against deletion, and the article can be corrected first and foremost, but I really don't want to beat around the bush with this, an endorse or overturn decision would be good for now. Editor182 ( talk) 06:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
"Under U.S. law, typefaces and the characters they contain are considered to be utilitarian objects whose utility outweighs any merit that may exist in protecting their creative elements. As such, typefaces are exempt from copyright protection in the United States ( Code of Federal Regulations)." If we're to draw a conclusion for now, then it should side with the "M" logo not being under copyright protection in the US, and the article speaks about having a soft-copy of the design which may then fall under copyright, but this is a photograph, of a can, it's a "hard-hard copy". It's not like the logo being used in the article under fair use, which is a soft-copy of the trademark, although it's still not under copyright protection even then. "Hence the computer file(s) associated with a scalable font will generally be protected even though the specific design of the characters is not. Furthermore, a rasterized representation (e.g. bitmap) of the characters in a scalable font is not protected by copyright in the United States." - Let alone my photograph of a can. Can we draw a conclusion based on what we have now? Editor182 ( talk) 06:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, I'm going with what was stated above; "It does not matter how stylized it is, nor how much artistic effort was involved - if it is still recognizable as a letter - then in the US it may not be copyrighted." I think going into this topic any further will be perpetuating unreasonable doubt and pulling at straws. The admin offered no rationale for the deletion, except to be on the safe side and the user who put the image up for deletion withdrew themselves from the discussion in acceptance of the information presented on the contrary. Perhaps this is about not being so fast to reverse a firm decision made by an administrator, but it was a firm decision based on no research or justification, only a self-assured unwillingness to consider otherwise. If something solid comes up in the future to justify its deletion, then it may be removed, but at this point in time, it should certainly be restored, as there is nothing thats been presented to validate or justify deletion. Editor182 ( talk) 08:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad someone gave a clear and unbiased response. There is no doubt that this image should rightfully be restored without needless further delay. An incorrect decision is an incorrect decision; whether it was made by an administrator, or a user, the response and subsequent course of action should not be dissimilar and dragged out needlessly, wasting time that could be spent improving articles or resolving other disputes which have cause and reason. Editor182 ( talk) 23:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
You're attempting to refute facts and you've only presented doubts about these facts in your comments. Rest assured, there is absolutely no reasonable doubt that this image is copyright protected. There is no doubt; it is clearly NOT copyright protected. You're basing your affirmative decision on your unreasonable comments. Why not base a decision on the evidence provided, instead? This is typeface. This is a variation of typographic ornamentation, lettering and coloring. It is a single letter of the alphabet and in the US; it may not be copyrighted. If it is not restored, then you might as well throw out the dispute resolution process for content deleted by administration. I believe your decision is either bias or shows extremely poor judgement, whereas the administrator who deleted the image was careless and self assured, disregarding consensus. The user who originally put the image up for deletion withdrew their argument, as they had enough esteem to accept that they were incorrect and corrected. Now what? Now two administrators are siding with deletion, one of them blindly and callously, as you note how the administrator who deleted the image has not commented here or on their talk page on their rationale. If this image isn't restored it will be an example of immoral and bias administration. Every person on Wikipedia should be for Wikipedia, not for their team, but that's just my opinion, just like your opinion that it should be removed based on..uncertainty, or rather; nothing. What is not an opinion is fact, the fact that this image is not copyrighted, and the appropriate trademark tag has been applied. Either do wrong or do right. Show some propriety or display abuse of power. Editor182 ( talk) 01:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Another administrator siding with "endorse", why am I not surprised. "No, a single letter is not a typeface." The copyright exclusion includes typeface and lettering. A singe letter is lettering. "To me, it's clear that the logo is more a graphical element that happens to be based on the letter M, rather than letter M that's used as a logo. It's a subtle, but an important distinction." Really? It just "happens to be based on the letter M"? The energy drink is called MONSTER! Clearly the "M" is for the "M" in MONSTER, and not a coincidence. "it's not used as type, I fail to see how it could be "typeface as typeface"" It may be either type or lettering. "green wavy/clawy thing." No, it's just the letter "M" with some fancy graphical elements. It's no ambiguous "clawy thing", I can assure you. I can also assure you that it is not a copyrighted image, without a doubt. Can you admins say the same thing? No, you can't. I believe your endorsements are bias, designed to create reasonable doubt where there isn't any. There is no reasonable doubt for deletion. If you're both genuinely endorsing and all just happen to agree on.. nothing. I say nothing because everything you've said so far has been clearly addressed as false ... ... then you're basing your decisions on doubt, and our argument is based on fact without doubt. You're pulling stuff out of your ass. You have absolutely no logical argument. The weakness of your arguments and strength of your convictions sicken me. You're all pathetic and without principle, a waste of my time when I could be improving other articles. To quote the above statement from another user: ;Pertinent Copyright regulation ( Title 37, Chapter II, Section 202.1):
Based on any one of the three parts I underlined, it is clear that the Monster logo is in no way subject to copyright. If a complete typeface (no matter how fancy) cannot be copyrighted, than clearly a portion of a typeface such as a single letter also cannot be copyrighted. Do you know what this is? It's called factual and logical information, something you have clearly not presented, and you know what else? The user isn't bias, only appealing to the facts, truth, principle of the whole thing. Go ahead, endorse, suck up to your peers, be cowardly, appeal to the majority, because of course you'll have the numbers and misplaced power to close this review without overturning anything, even though you're wrong without question, and you know you're wrong without question. Congratulations, you must feel good to be on the side of injustice, you can win any argument with a delete button. Imagine an administrator came in now and was for overturning the decision.. what an oddity.. they would be basing their decision on factual information instead of supporting their peers in favor of run of the mill bullshit.. that person would be.. an administrator who thinks for themselves. An individual! How amazing! Anyway, maybe I'm wrong, maybe you're all genuinely endorsing this decision.. but that would make you idiots instead of cowards.. either way, you're just users with administrative privileges, not an administrator, an administrator doesn't take sides, they're more mature and have higher esteem than that. Too bad one isn't here. Editor182 ( talk) 09:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I assume you mean can't copyright a sylised letter "M". The problem with copyright is that it's a bit of a Schrödinger's cat cat type problem, how the law would be applied and interpreted can't be told until someone tries to enforce it via legal action. So until McDonalds try to uphold copyright on it, it's an indeterminate problem. They'd usually however be better off with Trademark law for such things, so it's a bit academic. I notice our rendering of the McDonalds M however does list it as non-copyrightable in our view, without seeing the logo in question, it does seem we are being inconsistent in our interpretation. I'll also agree that Editor182's latest screed is far from helpful. ( also isn't an admin) -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 13:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Exactly what I've stated from the beginning of this review. There is no questionable doubt whatsoever that it's a trademark issue, not a copyright issue.
Consensus? Editor182 ( talk) 19:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Wow, seriously Ipsign? Okay, let's just say it is copyrighted (which it isn't) on what grounds could the company sue based on this image being on Wikipedia? Copyright infringement? Okay, fair enough.. oh wait, but WHERE IS THEIR FINANCIAL LOSS?! Wikipedia is not for profit, if it was some fancy online subscription encyclopedia with paid access, then yes, that would be grounds for a case, as the image is improving the quality of their articles which people are paying to view. In this case however, the most they would do if they were bothered by it (which they wouldn't be, if anything, they'd be happy to see their product displayed here), they would send a message to an administrator to have it removed - but to file a lawsuit? Not a chance. Lawsuits are expensive, and if one was filed, the judge would throw it out, but they're not that stupid. Just think next time, okay? Think about the real world. Editor182 ( talk) 13:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl, it is, in fact; lettering (one letter or more, in this case, one "M") and typographic ornamentation (the adding extraneous decorations to the "M"). I appreciate your friendly input. Editor182 ( talk) 13:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I know it's not typeface.
It's point (a) that applies to this image - lettering - it applies to any and all letter/s. "M" is a letter, it's simply not copyrighted in the US. It cannot be used on Commons, that is for unrestricted content only. This image is subject to trademark. Editor182 ( talk) 13:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I can see why it's not typeface, but no, it does not rise above simple ornamentation. It's a fancy "M". That's all. The "Best Western" logo was denied copyright? Rightfully so. Editor182 ( talk) 13:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's an interesting case in point. Editor182 ( talk) 14:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
That's some good work Thincat, hopefully it will help lessen any doubt on the copyright status of the "M" logo.. because doubt is all they have. Oh, man - another discussion? I usually hang out in articles, not Talk pages and discussions, but thanks to one clown from a dispute in June who monitors my account.. and one daft administrator.. well, I appreciate your input on this review, but what I would really love is a CONCENSUS, as based on the information for and against, clearly the information sourced and presented for restoring the image is incomparably greater. Is there a 7 day minimum this topic has to drag on - or can an administrator with good judgement close this right now? Wishful thinking? Alright, I support the Commons discussion. Editor182 ( talk) 16:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
So let it be done! ;)
| ||||
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I don't feel that there was a clear consensus in this case either way. This should have only ended in a no consensus. Even when you eliminate the !votes there are only two arguments that have disagreement. Outback the koala ( talk) 02:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
A Portuguese (amaterur?) historian, author of several books, one of which (with a controversial claim about Columbus) seems to have gained notoriety outside Portugal. His claim has been recently re-reported (and brought to my attention for the first time) in numerous media: English: [1] - CNBC, [2] - The Telegraph, [3] - Daily Mail; Polish: [4] - Wprost, [5] - Onet.pl, [6] - Rzeczpospolita (newspaper), [7] - Gazeta Wyborcza. I think this is sufficient to prove notability of his theory, and thus, his own. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Support original decision to delete. I don't see how the problems at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manuel Rosa have changed. We already have an article Origin theories of Christopher Columbus which mentions his ideas, a separate article on his idea is not appropriate. It's nice to see that that edit wasn't added by Rosa himself or one of the apparent sockpuppets that keep adding what look like promotional edits to this and the main Columbus article. I can't see how he passes our notability guidelines. Note that this publicity is sourced to his PR Release at [8]. His page on this website [9] makes it clear he isn't a professional historian - and doesn't even say he's an academic, just that he works at Duke University Medical School. I'm also trying to figure out if his book is self-published - the publisher is [10] and I find this which suggests to me that it probably is. Dougweller ( talk) 07:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | ||||
Furthermore, no clarity for the reasoning behind the decision was made following a declined appeal to the admin for reconsideration. The user who put it up for deletion did not return to make an opposing statement. The undisputed statement was: "It does not matter how stylized it is, nor how much artistic effort was involved, if it is still recognizable as a letter, than in the U.S. it may not be copyrighted." Based on the previous statement: "As described at Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts the "M" is therefore not subject to copyright claims. This leaves only Trademark issues with respect to the use of this image." I have since applied the image with the following template:
The side of caution has already been taken. There's no reason at all to delete the image. This image is linked in two articles where it's a contribution. Editor182 ( talk) 05:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Do you endorse its retrieval based on the image not falling into either category? The trademark template is there for a reason, and I think it's applicable here, not a deletion. Editor182 ( talk) 05:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
If the Wikipedia article concerning fonts is fallacious, then it needs to be corrected, but for now, I'm going to stick to agreeing with the statements made above based on Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts, that it is not subject to copyright claims, and that leaves only Trademark issues which are covered with the template. If there's doubt, then it should clearly side with being against deletion, and the article can be corrected first and foremost, but I really don't want to beat around the bush with this, an endorse or overturn decision would be good for now. Editor182 ( talk) 06:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
"Under U.S. law, typefaces and the characters they contain are considered to be utilitarian objects whose utility outweighs any merit that may exist in protecting their creative elements. As such, typefaces are exempt from copyright protection in the United States ( Code of Federal Regulations)." If we're to draw a conclusion for now, then it should side with the "M" logo not being under copyright protection in the US, and the article speaks about having a soft-copy of the design which may then fall under copyright, but this is a photograph, of a can, it's a "hard-hard copy". It's not like the logo being used in the article under fair use, which is a soft-copy of the trademark, although it's still not under copyright protection even then. "Hence the computer file(s) associated with a scalable font will generally be protected even though the specific design of the characters is not. Furthermore, a rasterized representation (e.g. bitmap) of the characters in a scalable font is not protected by copyright in the United States." - Let alone my photograph of a can. Can we draw a conclusion based on what we have now? Editor182 ( talk) 06:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, I'm going with what was stated above; "It does not matter how stylized it is, nor how much artistic effort was involved - if it is still recognizable as a letter - then in the US it may not be copyrighted." I think going into this topic any further will be perpetuating unreasonable doubt and pulling at straws. The admin offered no rationale for the deletion, except to be on the safe side and the user who put the image up for deletion withdrew themselves from the discussion in acceptance of the information presented on the contrary. Perhaps this is about not being so fast to reverse a firm decision made by an administrator, but it was a firm decision based on no research or justification, only a self-assured unwillingness to consider otherwise. If something solid comes up in the future to justify its deletion, then it may be removed, but at this point in time, it should certainly be restored, as there is nothing thats been presented to validate or justify deletion. Editor182 ( talk) 08:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad someone gave a clear and unbiased response. There is no doubt that this image should rightfully be restored without needless further delay. An incorrect decision is an incorrect decision; whether it was made by an administrator, or a user, the response and subsequent course of action should not be dissimilar and dragged out needlessly, wasting time that could be spent improving articles or resolving other disputes which have cause and reason. Editor182 ( talk) 23:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
You're attempting to refute facts and you've only presented doubts about these facts in your comments. Rest assured, there is absolutely no reasonable doubt that this image is copyright protected. There is no doubt; it is clearly NOT copyright protected. You're basing your affirmative decision on your unreasonable comments. Why not base a decision on the evidence provided, instead? This is typeface. This is a variation of typographic ornamentation, lettering and coloring. It is a single letter of the alphabet and in the US; it may not be copyrighted. If it is not restored, then you might as well throw out the dispute resolution process for content deleted by administration. I believe your decision is either bias or shows extremely poor judgement, whereas the administrator who deleted the image was careless and self assured, disregarding consensus. The user who originally put the image up for deletion withdrew their argument, as they had enough esteem to accept that they were incorrect and corrected. Now what? Now two administrators are siding with deletion, one of them blindly and callously, as you note how the administrator who deleted the image has not commented here or on their talk page on their rationale. If this image isn't restored it will be an example of immoral and bias administration. Every person on Wikipedia should be for Wikipedia, not for their team, but that's just my opinion, just like your opinion that it should be removed based on..uncertainty, or rather; nothing. What is not an opinion is fact, the fact that this image is not copyrighted, and the appropriate trademark tag has been applied. Either do wrong or do right. Show some propriety or display abuse of power. Editor182 ( talk) 01:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Another administrator siding with "endorse", why am I not surprised. "No, a single letter is not a typeface." The copyright exclusion includes typeface and lettering. A singe letter is lettering. "To me, it's clear that the logo is more a graphical element that happens to be based on the letter M, rather than letter M that's used as a logo. It's a subtle, but an important distinction." Really? It just "happens to be based on the letter M"? The energy drink is called MONSTER! Clearly the "M" is for the "M" in MONSTER, and not a coincidence. "it's not used as type, I fail to see how it could be "typeface as typeface"" It may be either type or lettering. "green wavy/clawy thing." No, it's just the letter "M" with some fancy graphical elements. It's no ambiguous "clawy thing", I can assure you. I can also assure you that it is not a copyrighted image, without a doubt. Can you admins say the same thing? No, you can't. I believe your endorsements are bias, designed to create reasonable doubt where there isn't any. There is no reasonable doubt for deletion. If you're both genuinely endorsing and all just happen to agree on.. nothing. I say nothing because everything you've said so far has been clearly addressed as false ... ... then you're basing your decisions on doubt, and our argument is based on fact without doubt. You're pulling stuff out of your ass. You have absolutely no logical argument. The weakness of your arguments and strength of your convictions sicken me. You're all pathetic and without principle, a waste of my time when I could be improving other articles. To quote the above statement from another user: ;Pertinent Copyright regulation ( Title 37, Chapter II, Section 202.1):
Based on any one of the three parts I underlined, it is clear that the Monster logo is in no way subject to copyright. If a complete typeface (no matter how fancy) cannot be copyrighted, than clearly a portion of a typeface such as a single letter also cannot be copyrighted. Do you know what this is? It's called factual and logical information, something you have clearly not presented, and you know what else? The user isn't bias, only appealing to the facts, truth, principle of the whole thing. Go ahead, endorse, suck up to your peers, be cowardly, appeal to the majority, because of course you'll have the numbers and misplaced power to close this review without overturning anything, even though you're wrong without question, and you know you're wrong without question. Congratulations, you must feel good to be on the side of injustice, you can win any argument with a delete button. Imagine an administrator came in now and was for overturning the decision.. what an oddity.. they would be basing their decision on factual information instead of supporting their peers in favor of run of the mill bullshit.. that person would be.. an administrator who thinks for themselves. An individual! How amazing! Anyway, maybe I'm wrong, maybe you're all genuinely endorsing this decision.. but that would make you idiots instead of cowards.. either way, you're just users with administrative privileges, not an administrator, an administrator doesn't take sides, they're more mature and have higher esteem than that. Too bad one isn't here. Editor182 ( talk) 09:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I assume you mean can't copyright a sylised letter "M". The problem with copyright is that it's a bit of a Schrödinger's cat cat type problem, how the law would be applied and interpreted can't be told until someone tries to enforce it via legal action. So until McDonalds try to uphold copyright on it, it's an indeterminate problem. They'd usually however be better off with Trademark law for such things, so it's a bit academic. I notice our rendering of the McDonalds M however does list it as non-copyrightable in our view, without seeing the logo in question, it does seem we are being inconsistent in our interpretation. I'll also agree that Editor182's latest screed is far from helpful. ( also isn't an admin) -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 13:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Exactly what I've stated from the beginning of this review. There is no questionable doubt whatsoever that it's a trademark issue, not a copyright issue.
Consensus? Editor182 ( talk) 19:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Wow, seriously Ipsign? Okay, let's just say it is copyrighted (which it isn't) on what grounds could the company sue based on this image being on Wikipedia? Copyright infringement? Okay, fair enough.. oh wait, but WHERE IS THEIR FINANCIAL LOSS?! Wikipedia is not for profit, if it was some fancy online subscription encyclopedia with paid access, then yes, that would be grounds for a case, as the image is improving the quality of their articles which people are paying to view. In this case however, the most they would do if they were bothered by it (which they wouldn't be, if anything, they'd be happy to see their product displayed here), they would send a message to an administrator to have it removed - but to file a lawsuit? Not a chance. Lawsuits are expensive, and if one was filed, the judge would throw it out, but they're not that stupid. Just think next time, okay? Think about the real world. Editor182 ( talk) 13:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl, it is, in fact; lettering (one letter or more, in this case, one "M") and typographic ornamentation (the adding extraneous decorations to the "M"). I appreciate your friendly input. Editor182 ( talk) 13:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I know it's not typeface.
It's point (a) that applies to this image - lettering - it applies to any and all letter/s. "M" is a letter, it's simply not copyrighted in the US. It cannot be used on Commons, that is for unrestricted content only. This image is subject to trademark. Editor182 ( talk) 13:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I can see why it's not typeface, but no, it does not rise above simple ornamentation. It's a fancy "M". That's all. The "Best Western" logo was denied copyright? Rightfully so. Editor182 ( talk) 13:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's an interesting case in point. Editor182 ( talk) 14:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
That's some good work Thincat, hopefully it will help lessen any doubt on the copyright status of the "M" logo.. because doubt is all they have. Oh, man - another discussion? I usually hang out in articles, not Talk pages and discussions, but thanks to one clown from a dispute in June who monitors my account.. and one daft administrator.. well, I appreciate your input on this review, but what I would really love is a CONCENSUS, as based on the information for and against, clearly the information sourced and presented for restoring the image is incomparably greater. Is there a 7 day minimum this topic has to drag on - or can an administrator with good judgement close this right now? Wishful thinking? Alright, I support the Commons discussion. Editor182 ( talk) 16:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
So let it be done! ;)
| ||||
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I don't feel that there was a clear consensus in this case either way. This should have only ended in a no consensus. Even when you eliminate the !votes there are only two arguments that have disagreement. Outback the koala ( talk) 02:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |