Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 15

< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log
< January 14 Deletion review archives: 2009 January January 16 >

15 January 2009

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.


Christ Carrying the Cross (Leonardo da Vinci) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Endorse

Explanation I did not know this discussion was taking place until today, which happens to be the 16th of January, in the Land of Oz. Since I was the person who discussed the pic in detail, and added it to the list of Leonardo's works, I am ignoring the fact that the discussion is closed, because my statement on this is of considerable relevance.

(Clarification: the work that was under discussion is not the drawing of a head of Christ. It is a painting, with Jesus in a similar position to that which he has in two of Maineri's paintings, and which also includes tormentors that are not present in the Maineri works.)

  • I included the work in the list of Leonardo's works, at a time when the list was still part of the Leonardo da Vinci article. I included it reluctantly and under pressure from the editor who created the now-deleted article. My reluctance was due to the fact that I didn't think that any serious art historian could possibly believe it was Leonardo. However, I was under the impression that Pedretti, who is a renowned expert, had in fact said that it was probably by Leonardo. My personal opinion was that poor Pedretti was going ga-ga. This is not the impression that I now have, from reading that Forbes article, which previously, I haven't been able to fully access.
I succeeded in persuading the writer of the wikipedia article to upload a better picture of the painting than those available on the net. Some well-meaning editor blanky-well blanked the picture before I managed to get a really good look at it, because the data about the source was incomplete (or some such). Since then, no decent pic has been available.
Unless there is a positive indication that Pedretti really did say that it was by Leonardo, then it should be deleted, from the list as well. If Pedretti really says it's a Leonardo, then it ought to be included, but if possible, with any conflicting opinion that might be available from any other historian. The personal opinions of wiki-editors don't carry weight here, unless they have been indepently published.
  • My unpublished opinion is that this is definitely not a Leonardo. Moreover, I don't think it is up to the standard of Maineri either, unless it is a very immature work. Amandajm (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please clarify which page or image this discussion is about? The page referred to above doesn't seem to exist. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Stifle (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Response I was unable to ascertained who it was that actually did the deletion. It was possibly Ham. I am the major writer of the Leonardo da Vinci page. I agree entirely with the deletion. Amandajm (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The article was in fact deleted by Juliancolton, which can be ascertained from the deletion log. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I'm not sure what the common practice is for attribution of paintings when there are different recommendations by different scholars. In the Forbes article (12.22.03, most likely 22 December 2003) Pedretti says the painting is either by Leonardo or one of his assistents, not really a positive attribution, but it cannot be discounted entirely. In 1978 the same painting was attributed to someone else, but that has it's downside too since it was very long ago and then there's this listing. The people in AFD seemed to think that an attribution by one notable scholar wasn't enough and some erronously thought that the uncertainty inherent in attribution makes it non-notable by default. We need to seek out the mainstream opinion of the scholars. - Mgm|(talk) 09:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Misunderstanding. Mgm, you haven't really read or understood what is being said on the page Christ carrying the Cross that you have directed readers to look at. "Christ carrying the Cross" or "Christ on the road to Calvary" (which is also known by several other possible names) was not an uncommon subject for religious artworks. The work that you have directed us to has nothing whatsoever to do with this. It is a relief sculpture, not a painting!
  • Overturn Unreasonable decision. should have been either non-consensus or relisted for more opinions. The sources are stufficient for the article; the possible attribution is reason enough for this particular artist. DGG (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further coment I entirely support the deletion.
As I read the Forbes article, which I was previously unable to access, it seemed that Pedretti was paid or offered payment to give "an opinion" and seems to have been very hesitant about doing so. Older references to a possibly Leonardo "Christ carrying the cross" do not have anything to do with this painting. They refer to a drawing about which scholars are undecided. I do not know of any scholar who is prepared to say that this pic is by Leonardo. The only suggestion was Pedretti's tentative one. If Pedretti really thought that he had found a bona fide Leonardo of that size, he would be jumping for joy, and letting the whole world know about it. Believe me! Amandajm (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a mention of the opinion of "mainstream scholars". No mainstream scholar has taken this seriously. You won't find any conflicting opinion, simply because the attribution is not being taken seriously by anyone except the owner. For him, it's the difference between owning a pic worth thousands and a pic worth 500 million. The owner has promoted the painting as a Leonardo. Pedretti has not promoted the painting as a Leonardo, and it would certainly be in his best interest to do so, if he really thought it was genuine. If he thought it was really Leonardo, he would have published a learned paper on this amazing find.
  • Here's the Forbes article, showing the painting in question, with its owner. [1]
  • Here's one by de Mainieri.[2]
  • The Getty has a version by Leonardo's pupil Marco d'Oggiono. [3]
  • Here's a work by another of Leonardo's associates, Giampetrino, in the National Gallery, London. [4]
  • Here's an associated picture ascribed to Giorgione or Bellini.[5]
  • Here's the drawing which some scholars accept as Leonardo. [6]
  • Here's the Battle of Anghiari [7]

Why this is not a work by Leonardo

  1. This painting is not as well painted as the versions known to be by de Maineri and d'Oggiono. It is most unlikely that the work of the renowned master could be less competent than that of two of his least-famous associates.
  2. Leonardo's works are renowned for the subtlety of the grading of tone. This is apparent even in his earliest works. Sfumato is his famous technique. The tone here is crude. Compare with this early work [8]
  3. Leonardo was a master of composition. The composition of this picture is as ordinary as it can possibly be. Compare St Jerome[9] and the painting [10] The composition has no depth. Everything looks as if it's crowded at the front, with no sense that one man actually stands behind the other. There is no foreshortening in the arms of the figures.
  4. Leonardo was a master of light. In this picture, Jesus and the cross are lit from the left, while the faces of the tormentors are lit from the right. Compare with the Last Supper where all the light comes from the real window in the building where it was painted and the painting here [11]
  5. Nearly all of the paintings attributed to Leonardo have landscape backgrounds like this [12] Three portraits and the St John have dark backgrounds so that the figures emerge from the darkness like this [13] No painting by Leonardo or attributed to Leonardo has a plain pale background like this [14]
  6. Leonardo was an expert at anatomy. He dissected thirty corpses and did a great many drawing of the structure of arms and shoulders. See here [15] He could never never NEVER have drawn an arm and shoulder as badly as that on the upper tormentor. This has been very badly copied from Ruben's drawing,[16] and has been crammed in to avoid the top of the painting. The proportions have been changed so that the proximity of the elbow to the shoulder is ridiculous. See here [17]
  7. Leonardo was an extraordinarily prolific and highly inventive designer of paintings, even though he didn't execute very many. The only time that he repeated a composition was the Virgin of the Rocks. He probably did this because he was under pressure from his clients. It is most unlikely that he would repeat part of the design of a large fresco in a small panel painting.
  8. Leonardo was a student of human emotion. Why on earth would a person as skilled at drawing scary faces as Leonardo was, bother to repeat two ugly faces? Leonardo understood the facial expression of emotions. The emotion of tormenting a prisoner and the emotion of confronting possible death in a battle are not the same thing. Leonardo was not so stupid as to make that error.
  9. Is the painting a forgery? Making a pastiche by copying the figure of Christ from a picture painted by several of Leonardo's followers and combining it with two figures based on a pic by Leonardo is exactly the sort of thing that a forger is likely to do. Someone sooner or later, will notice the similarity to the figures in the Battle of Anghiari, and be taken in.

NOTE Each of these statements concerning the painting "Christ carrying the Cross" constitutes either OR or POV (you can choose). These statements have not been published elswhere by me, and cannot be quoted or cited in the wikipedia articles. They have been put here so that other wikipedia editors might understand why it is that Leonardo experts are not bothering to comment on this work. All the experts on Leonardo already know the stuff that I have written here, and have simply dismissed the painting. That is why you won't find reputable art historians refuting the attribution. No one is taking it seriously.

In other words, I wouldn't bother getting too worried at the thought that something of real significance has been deleted. Amandajm (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. DGG says (at the AfD) that we should report on a disputed image if there is "significant dispute about the attrribution." That standard is right, but it does not appear to be met here--there is one popular-press article about this painting, but does not seem to be any interest among art historians. The conclusions of the AfD are correct--this is a minor work surrounded by a minor dispute--and thus the AfD is quite valid. Chick Bowen 16:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 article above. Please do not modify it.


CoolHandNuke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

I believe that the wrong Standard for Deletion was applied i.e. Notability was consistently given as the reason in conversation with editors/administrators; However in the delete log CSD#A7 is given as the reason. It is precisely this standard which I believe constitutes the reason why it should be restored. That said I am more than willing to revise the content to ensure that it reflects these requirements and successfully meets these standards. Great pain was taken to ensure that there was no bias, conflict of interest or "marketing" given; however, I do recognize that the work may need revision in order to allay these concerns as well as a comment made about link spamming or something of that nature by one of the moderators. I make no claims for complete understanding of grammar, etiquette or the intricacies of wikipedia posts, so any errors in these areas I apologize for and will take whatever corrective action/revisions necessary. The primary history is found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheMadFam It is my belief that if given the opportunity we can revise our article to meet the standard of 'important' or 'significant.' In fact, while not clearly stated as such I believe the basics for this are already in the article in reference to being the first web 2.0 site of this kind, versus the historical sites which have been more along the lines of web 1.0. I can only go so far in that we have patent pending technology & trade secrets that we must protect; but I will certainly go right up to the line on it. As an aside I am formally requesting that information pertaining to the minimum threshold or standard for 'notability' specified and given i.e. the number of links required, sources, and any other qualifying quantifiable measure. Thank you for your time and consideration.

–RE:Smashville pt 1. Respectfully, the site does exist as stated in article Alpha_release going to Beta Release on Monday January 19, 2009. It should be noted that gmail is currently a 'Beta' release. With respect to pt 2 please same reasons apply. It exists and will be seen in move to beta.

–RE:Cameron Scott. I give Mea Culpa for not indicating "why its subject is important or significant." The article as posted clearly has room for improvement in addressing these points as alluded to in my prior post. I would like it noted that the premise for deletion was given by Smashville as lacking in notability and the person before him/her for the same reason chiefly defined as a lack of links when googled. This I do not dispute. There is a lack of information out there, precisely why I felt a entry into wikipedia was warranted.

Now as far as external sources, chiefly defined as some kind of Award, AP story, etc.; not having been presented as reference s/he is correct. However, I cite the following: Internet guides. "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples."

It is my belief that is a current event, the movement of a field (job boards) from what is essentially a web 1.0 brochure site with a post and pray mantra to a true 2.0 experience where community is incorporated is an event and I suggest the following excerpt & quote from Wikipedia#History stated here "Jimmy Wales has described Wikipedia as "an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language" and furthermore in footnote 107 [18] that "If anything, we are *extremely* elitist but anti-credentialist."

We may not have clearly met the credentials that you are suggesting we need, but I submit that we do in totality. With regards to Smashville consistent reference to non-existence, I am willing to supply screen shots of the site if requested. 

TheMadFam (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as deleting admin. For one thing, a page would have to actually exist for any sort of claim to notability to be made towards it. Even according to your article, the page doesn't even exist yet. --Smashvilletalk 01:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Em.. CSD#A7 is about notability - An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Please correct me if I am wrong, but the only source in the article was a facebook page? That cannot be used to establish notability and a CSD#A7 would be a perfectly valid reason to delete the article (with no prejudice again recreation if better sources could be presented). --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Stifle (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can maybe answer that on behalf of the user, extensive discussions have taken place on my user talk page and on the article creator's talk page. -- roleplayer 10:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine, but it was Smashville who deleted the page, not you. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Roleplayer is correct. If you check those pages you will see that there was prior discussion where I was directed here. Specifically you will see "If you have a problem with it, take it to Deletion Review. I have deleted it and will not undelete it. And call me by my correct username, please." This per Smashville. In their defense I misread their username and had posted to Smallville rather than Smashville. That said I do not believe this to be a courteous, "do not bite" response; but do not know that this is the proper forum to handle that portion of the conversation.TheMadFam (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying that. Endorse deletion as a valid invocation of CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best wishes.TheMadFam (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I nominated the page for speedy deletion in the first place, and I still stand by my decision. The page was about a website that hasn't gone live yet, and the only reference the user could offer to verify notability was facebook. -- roleplayer 10:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 article above. Please do not modify it.

Jaafar Aksikas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

AfD closed as no consensus (default keep), but opinion counts may have been compromised by socks and SPAs, and I believe that the unaddressed challenges to arguments in "keep" !votes were not properly taken into account by the closing admin. Said admin concurs in listing the case at DRV. Proposing overturn. Hqb (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • overturn to delete This is a good example where SPAs should be ignored/reduced in worth. Arguments for keeping were weak (at best). Ignoring the SPAs, delete is the clear outcome. Hobit (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse no consensus There were reasonable grounds for keeping the article. I myself had very substantial doubts about the notability of the work, but I do not think COI was the only basis for keeping the article. Thee is rarely reason to overturn a "no-consuensus" close. Rather, in a month or so, this should be relisted. DGG (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Two of the people who voted to keep linked to a page of Google results that only listed trivial mentions (which do not establish WP:GNG. Without those, the overwhelming majority is in favor of deletion. Also, the claim he is the editor of a journal was discounted because a journal with just two issues and no impact factor is not major and well-established as the guideline requires. - Mgm|(talk) 09:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. All but one of the keep "votes" were from SPAs, which are usually discounted, and I do not see any reason why this should be any different. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete Bleugh, I can smell the socks from here! The closing admin made the wrong decision as the discussion from established editors was clearly balanced to delete the article, and the arguments from the single-purpose accounts were weak to non-existant. Only one voter argued to keep the article by successfully citing policy, while there were four arguments to delete per policy and one argument to delete (DGG's) that, while not citing policy, showed a clear understanding of it as well as a good attempt to refute the argument to keep. Themfromspace (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is a discussion, and even SPAs are permitted to participate, because they may happen to present a good argument. The criterion for a good argument is based on policy, not actually citing policy. DGG (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. With that being said, AfD isn't a place to build an artificial consensus, which is why it's often best to treat the SPAs as a single user and take more consideration to the established users' ideas. Themfromspace (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete no showing that he meets WP:PROF, which policy is the consensus of WP editors rather than the SPAs. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. The SPAs presented no valid argument for keeping. If they had done that, I would have certainly reconsidered my comments and recommendation, and so would others.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Discussion review is not a repeat of the AfD. If the concern is that consensus was not reached by established users, why not start another AfD? I would like to see more discussion on why the subject doesn't meet WP:Prof when he is the founding editor of an academic journal from the Columbia College of Chigaco 1.
  • Endorse - factoring in quality of argument factors and discounting the "AFD regulars should get the say" attitude it's a pretty clear no consensus. Revisiting the discussion in a while may be sensible. WilyD 03:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Window Sticker Jetta.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)|IfD|article)

There was some misinterpretation of copyright laws regarding this image. This image was originally contained in the article Monroney sticker. First of all, it was deleted under Wikipedia:CSD#I9 which should not have been used given that it was a self made photo. But that's not the real issue here. This document is not subject to copyright as it is simply a collection of information. See Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service for a legal opinion. There is minimal prose contained within and what is in there is required per the Monroney law. Thus it is essentially in the public domain. If people do think that there is something problematic, please be specific in pointing it out. Analogue Kid (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore While giving the image a free license was obviously a misinterpretation, I still think this should have been fixed instead of deleted. (@ nom: making a photograph of copyrighted material doesn't transfer any permissions or right to give it your own copyright tag. It should have either been a fair use claim or if these are official government documents tagged as PD-gov or whatever that template is called. - Mgm|(talk) 09:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was actually deleted after a PUI discussion here; it would seem that Garion96 chose the wrong reason from the deletion dropdown. I endorse the deletion, as the text and drawings go beyond the "collection of information" standard, but remain to be persuaded about the merits of a fair use claim on the image. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I could try to claim fair use for this. The image contributes substantially to the article (much more so than a picture of the politician who wrote the law) and doubt we could come up with any "free" alternatives. Perhaps I will go that route.--Analogue Kid (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would probably be the easiest solution. If you have a claim ready to go, I can restore it for you, or you can drop the claim here and I'll put it on after restoration, your choice. Cheers. lifebaka 19:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. There is a Monroney sticker article, so if it is impossible to get a free photo (like movie posters, etc) then a fair use claim should be easy. But I dont see thats necessary. Who owns the copyright which has allegedly been violated? No demonstration that copyright even exists. On WP:Copyright it says that "Works produced by civilian and military employees of the United States federal government in the scope of their employment are public domain by statute in the United States" and much of the info on the sticker is from government (EPA) tests, so I reckon this is public domain and a copyright infringement has not been demonstrated. Chryslerforever1988 (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Don't forget that this discussion is to ascertain whether the deletion process was correctly followed. It is not a rerun of the PUI. Stifle (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well clearly the deletion process was not properly followed here. So it looks like it needs to be restored and then we can discuss whether it needs a fair use claim.--Analogue Kid (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 article above. Please do not modify it.

Jock Sanders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

No real discusson took place from college football project members. If so, we would have quickly pointed out that the subject in question has over 17,600 google hits which is at least an indicator of notability, and has some impressive statistics for only being a sophomore. There's a lot of press on this guy. Further, the deleting admin shows an unawareness of the topic that calls for a specialist to review. I'd like the AfD re-opened and asked for that here but the admin refused. Paul McDonald (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion Clear consensus to delete in the AFD, google hits are not an indicator of notability, statistics are not an indicator of notability, presence or absence of the project members is not significant, and nothing in the nomination makes me believe that the answer should be anything other than delete. Nominator is advised to take the deleting admin's advice and try writing in their userspace an article written solely from the reliable sources that they believe exist. GRBerry 17:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Nothing has been adduced to suggest that the deletion process has not been followed. Please note that the deletion process does not include a requirement to notify WP:CFB of any deletion discussion that might concern it. Stifle (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I agree !vote conscious would be to delete, but I think the closer ignored the wrong arguments. Being "all conference" is a reason to claim notability, whereas the claim that "not a pro" clearly isn't a reason to delete per WP:ATHLETE. Further, folks claimed that WP:N wasn't met, but [19] would seem to indicate there are plenty of news sources about him. Most may be "in passing" but that's a LOT of news sources and some spend a paragraph or so on him/his contributions to various games. While this isn't AFD2, the fact that WP:N can be met means that the arguments that "doesn't meet WP:N" should be somewhat discounted. All that said, delete wasn't an outrageous result by any means given that !votes that existed. Ah well, rant over. Hobit (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I don't see anything wrong with the way the debate closed, but I'm not opposed to userfication of the article if you think he passes the general notability guidelines. Themfromspace (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If he passes GNG then we undelete this and restore but that requires multiple, independant non-trivial secondary sources. The nominator may wish to read WP:RS and see what he can come up with. Spartaz Humbug! 15:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't really fault the closer on xer interpretation of consensus on this issue, but it's been my experience that Paul is usually pretty good about bringing these articles up to standard. Would userfication be acceptable? lifebaka 19:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 article above. Please do not modify it.

უმაღლესი ლიგა (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Article with text was deleted under CSD-A2; a similar article already exists at Georgian Wikipedia, except it only contains an infobox and no text. Temporary undelete so text can be transwikied to ka:wikiSynchronism (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it; you could just have asked, no need for a deletion review. Lectonar (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article about Georgian Premier League (football). This article is its English version: Umaglesi Liga. This can be deleted. (BTW, this exists as an article on the Georgian Wikipedia [20], not a template). --Folantin (talk) 11:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_January_15&oldid=1138435446"