Ministry of Love

Removal of PROD templates

Please stop mass removing PROD templates from articles. It's clearly disruptive. Hut 8.5 17:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You clearly haven't come to a judgement as to whether these articles should be deleted - you're giving a boilerplate rationale for each and you removed three in under a minute. Do you have another account at Wikipedia? Hut 8.5 17:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The idea is that you examine the article and come to a judgement about whether it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines - usually notability or what Wikipedia is not. If you think it does (and you should provide some evidence of this) then you can remove the PROD tag, and yes you should give a different rationale for each article. Your current actions imply that you want to shut down part of Wikipedia's deletion process, and the correct way to do that is to go here and try and engage other editors in a discussion to persuade them that you're right. That's the constructive thing to do. Hut 8.5 17:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

For an individual article you can. If you dispute the validity of the proposed deletion process then you have to persuade people. The reason for this is that the process was introduced after a number of editors discussed it and decided that it was good for the encyclopedia, and one person can't override this consensus. Hut 8.5 17:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You aren't arguing that one or two articles should be saved, you are arguing that at least one entire class of articles (horror movies) be exempted. There is a consensus of editors that they should be and you can't just ignore that. You have to try and form a new consensus that they shouldn't. Hut 8.5 17:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I said that they can be deleted through this process. Hut 8.5 18:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to remove PROD notices from one or two articles because you think the article meets Wikipedia's content criteria then you can do so. If you want to change the rules so no horror movie articles cannot be deleted through this process, then you have to get consensus for that change. Hut 8.5 18:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no arbitrary figure. However, what you were doing (namely going through the proposed deletion category and removing the deletion tags at high speed) is considered disruptive. (By the way, you only have to add a new section once on my talk page - once you've done that you can add your comments to the bottom of that section.) --Hut 8.5 18:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, your problem is not with the deletion of an article or two but with the deletion process in general, and for that you need to discuss with other editors. I have not erased your messages, I have merely reformatted them so that they conform to general talk page layout (which I am allowed to do). Hut 8.5 18:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

To save all horror movie pages from being deleted you need to change the process. Hut 8.5 18:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop misrepresenting me. I never said, or intended so say, that all horror movie pages are going to be deleted. Hut 8.5 18:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Any horror movie page can be nominated for deletion using this process. If you want to change this then you need to change the process. I'm going to try and get some other editors to speak to you. Hut 8.5 18:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy notification: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ministry of Love. Hut 8.5 18:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 7eventy 5ive

An article that you have been involved in editing, 7eventy 5ive, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7eventy 5ive. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 152 (film)

An article that you have been involved in editing, 152 (film), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/152 (film). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The 13th Alley

An article that you have been involved in editing, The 13th Alley, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 13th Alley. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 13th Child

An article that you have been involved in editing, 13th Child, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/13th Child. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice

I see Hut 8.5 already had a discussion with you about the subject, but again, removing prod notices just for the sake of removing them isn't how Wikipedia works. A prod may be removed if someone states a valid reason for inclusion. It is however NOT the purpose of a prod to simply remove it. I forwarded four of the articles you de-prodded to AFD so we can establish consensus. In the meantime i agree with Hut's analysis that repeated removal of PROD tags is uncalled for. As of such i would like to ask you to keep them around, Thank you. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I only want to save horror movies pages!

It says "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason." but Hut 8,5 syas I can't take it off horror movies. Why doesn't wiki want horror movies anymore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 18:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you possibly try and explain the procedure to this user? Evidently I'm getting nowhere. Hut 8.5 18:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Will do in a minute. Ill create a grouped AFD for this forst though, perhaps thats the best way to deal with the current situation. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As Hut already explained there is a difference between contesting a single prod, and removing it of each and every single page of a genre. You are right that a prod can always be contested, but only if the contester provides a valid rationale explaining why the article should be kept. Note that simply because a prod MAY be removed, it doesn't mean that it SHOULD be removed. Contesting a prod alone is no warrant for inclusion, because if a user contests a prod, an article might be forwarded to WP:AFD any time if someone else believes it should be removed. In short: Only contest a prod if you can provide a reason compliant to wikipedia guidelines.

Technically taken you are in no way limit to the amount of prods you can oppose, as long as you can provide rationale for the oposal. However, note that repeated removal for the sake of removal alone falls under Disruption of wikipedia. For the matter the only reason a prod really exists is to prevent flooding WP:AFD with articles which removal could be called "casual work" (IE: Where a single admin can decide on compliance to the rules).

Now, as it is quite clear you are opposing an entire battery of horror related PROD's i decided to create a grouped AFD for all of them. In short all the articles listed there are threated as opposed prod's, which meants that its now up to the community to decide whether all of them should be included or removed from wikipedia. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So if I keep trying to save horror movie articles you're going to kick me off the wiki? I gave a reason for keeping the article but you don't seem to like it. I just want people to have a chance to make the articles better! Hut 8.5 keeps telling me I have to get people to change the process and now you're threatening to ban me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 19:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My friend, i am in no way whatsoever threating to ban or kick you of Wikipedia. If that is the way you interpreted my reaction you have my apologies since my reaction apparently completely missed the point i was trying to make. What i was trying to explain is that even though the template technically allows you to remove it, this does NOT mean that there is not a limit to this. In order to remove a template a user must state a reason which gives an explanation why the article should not be removed. In this case an explanation is a reason that states why the reason stated in the PROD template is not valid. In short, its up to you to explain why a prod is not valid, which is most times done by indicating an articles compliance to WP:Notability.

Furthermore i have to say i am not very fond of edit summaries stating AuburnPilot said I could take this off when removing prod's. At this time several other editors expressed concerns about the current removal of prod tags, which means that there is a conflict between you and several editors. As of such you should not simply keep removing prod tags regardless of your opinion as this will only cause an edit war between you and the other editors. (People tend to see this as disrespecting their opinions.) As i have already pointed out i created a grouped AFD to discuss the matter of article inclusion i would like to request that the discussion takes place there there. Furthermore i would like to ask that you do not resume taking off PROD's while the AFD is still open. If you are afraid the prodded articles in question might be removed before the AFD is closed you can take of the prod tags, but you should also list them into the AFD so they can be included into the discussion. (Relevant AFD).

Also, as a notice, and not as a threat, keep WP:DISRUPT in mind. While i don't oppose that you want to save the articles in question, i do oppose the means used. Just state your point at the AFD and let people decide what to do with the articles. If the articles are good they will simply be kept. :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 20:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read this comment. Hut 8.5 20:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not fond of people threatening to ban me from websites that I'm trying to contribute to. AuburnPilot said I was allowed to take it off so I did. What am I disrupting?

Excirial did not threaten to ban you (he explicitly said it's not a threat) and he's not an admin so he can't ban you even if he wanted to. The fact that someone else doesn't agree with me does not mean that I have to apologise to you - my opinion of your actions has not changed. Hut 8.5 20:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You are of course free to disagree with both me and hud 8.5 about this issue. However, apologies are given when someone thinks they are needed, and they are never demanded. As of current there is no need for an apology from either of us. Personally i went trough the tedious work of creating an AFD where you could easily voice your opinion about this, and as of current i see no comment from you over there. Hut 8.5 at the same time spend time trying to explain what you weren't doing the way you should do it. He could have easily spend that time just slapping AFD templates on the pages in question which would be exactly according to procedure. We both tried to help you and explain our points, but apparently you just keep thinking im out to ban you, and HuD is out to bother you. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 20:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you expect me to thank you for creating an AFD??? I don't want the articles to be deleted, remember? You decied to do that on your own without even looking closely at the articles. There is no reason you couldn't have just let the articles stay. Where does it say that if someone edits out the prod notice that it has to go to an AFD?? That's not how it works. And if you're not threatening me why do you keep implying I'm being disruptive???? miniluv (talk)

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome to Wikipedia and welcome to deletions. It's tough and draining, I know. I'm not involved in the horror film articles, so I'm pretty neutral and I thought I might give you some perspective. (I have edited Aquanoids, which is how I noticed this. I've never seen the film, nor do I really care about it. I just did some mindless cleanup work on it. Anyway...) Wikipedia needs to be sure that the claims in articles are true. To do this we need citations from reliable, third-party sources. We need reliable sources because why should we trust, say, some random person's blog? We need third-party sources because why should we trust the subject of the article? Relatedly, we need to know why a given article's subject is notable. I can dig up reliable, third-party sources about my apartment complex in the form of city records and maybe a newspaper article about the construction. But fundamentally my apartment complex isn't notable in any way. Many of the horror articles are running into both problems: lack of third-party sources, and they don't explain how they're notable. If you'd like to keep the articles, the best thing you can do is to add these things. Track down reliable third-party sources. News coverage of the filming, interviews with the cast and crew, reviews by mainstream critics. That sort of thing would do nicely. Then add them to the article. Ideally you'd integrate the reference into the article, but you can toss them in as "External links" and "References" at the bottom in the a pinch. Happily, these very same references meet the guidelines for film notability. And maybe some or all of the articles will be deleted. If they are, but you later find the sources you need, you can ask for it to be restored so you can improve it and re-add it. I know this is tiring; I've been editing Wikipedia for years and I spend a lot of my time trying to keep articles from being deleted. While I think that many editors err in being too aggresive in deleting articles, they are fundamentally right. I hope you'll stick around. Editing Wikipedia has its down sides, but you can help make it better. If you have any questions, please feel free to get in touch — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

User Warnings

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have tried several times to have a polite discussion with you regarding the AFD of the for mentioned horror movie related articles. Each and every time it just ends in an uncivil response from your side no matter who is trying to help you. It is a rule to assume Good faith when discussing with other editors, and also to remain civil when discussing. However, your edit over here along with the previous discussions you had with both me and HuT show that you apparently only seek confrontation with other people.

If you still think that i am completely unfair/unreasonable towards you and still think that all i am trying to do is threating to ban you, you can raise an issue at WP:WQA or WP:RFC. Explanation about how to raise issues can be found at the respective pages. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

How am I attacking anyone??? I'm just asking you a question!!!miniluv (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you to disengage with Excirial and Hut8.5. These sorts of discussions can get heated and people can get caught up in that. Right now it seems like all parties are in a "finger pointing" mode which is generally not helpful to anybody. If you have any questions about Wikipedia policies, deletion or otherwise, I'd be happy to help you. Of course, you don't have to do this, but I just thought I'd offer some friendly advice and try to head off an unnecessary potential conflict. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at the link he posted. All I did was ask a question!!! I'm not trying to attack anybody!!!! Can you ask him to take back his warning? miniluv (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, if he's wrong, then just ignore him and move on. There's nothing to be gained by badgering editors about their motivations or whether a warning was proper or not. Again, I suggest that you disengage from this editor and simply continue to edit the encyclopedia to improve it (adding references, whatever). That should really solve everybody's issues. If you continue to perceive harassment even after disengaging, then maybe we'll talk about what further action is required. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks Chunky Rice. I will stay away from him but it doesn't seem right that he is allowed to threaten people with banning just because they disagree with him. 22:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)miniluv (talk)

I think that because you were in a conflict with this editor, you may have perceived threats where there was merely cautioning. Just like how Excirial may have thought you were attacking him when you were just asking a question. It's so hard to communicate tone with the written word and statements that wouldn't make you blink in the real world can come accross as attacks or threats on the internet, particularly when they come in the middle of a conflict. That's why I asked both of you to step back. If the problem continues, we'll deal with it, but right now, it think it's just a misunderstanding. Thank you for not further escalating it.

If you have any questions at all about the policies and guidelines we have here, please do not hesitate to ask me. Try to remember that almost everybody here is trying to improve the encyclopedia. We may have different opinions about what that means, but we all need to work together. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure it's possible that I've misunderstood what Excrial intended. There wasn't any need to link Wikipedia:Disruption in 2 separate messages to me and once again on the admin board. You can see how that comes across as a threat?? And I'm "attacking" him because I simply ask why he's creating AFD discussions when he doesn't have to?? I feel like I'm being bullied here. miniluv (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Calm down. I've already told Excirial that I think that your actions have been fine. He wanted to alert me to what was going on. I've reviewed it and I think that your contributions at the AfD and at various talk pages are appropriate. Just ignore him. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Please tone down the edit summaries. You're just going to piss people off when what you really want to do is convince them to change their minds. Acting in a combative manner will do more harm than good. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Great finds with the NYT and PW articles, by the way. I think that article is a slam dunk keep now. I reformatted them with one of the templates here, just for uniformity and to put the URLs in. Hope that's okay with you. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!!! I'll cool it with the editorial comments. miniluv (talk) 01:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Good job on 13th Child. (And an explanation of what happened around it)

I technically promised not to get involved into more conflict about the 13th Child article, but i hope you will share the opinion that the word conflict doesn't mean the same as praise or explanation :). Seeing the references you added to the article, there is no way it should be removed as sources added clearly indicate it meets the notability guideline. Again, compliments of finding such quality sources and lifting the article to a state where its certain of being kept!

Second, i see you still think i am trying to bully you. I can't really blame you for that as your start at Wikipedia hasn't exactly been a warm welcome, nor one i am proud to say i have been part of. However, i hope that a little explanation from me about my motivations and what happened in this entire issue will clear a bit of the clouded sky. I still believe this entire issue is nothing more then a big misunderstanding on both sides. Sorry if i mess up the chronology a little bit, but as a lot happened at the same time it is kind of hard to keep track of.

The start of it all

Initially my involvement started a little time after Hut was discussing with you about the removed PROD tags. Just like him i noticed an unusually large number of removals from a single user, so went in to have a look. It seemed like Hut thought the large removal to be disruption, mostly likely due to the amount of tags being removed and the speed of them being removed (Its rather unusual something like that happens). He decided to re-add the prod tags to the article. However, no matter the reason, a prod tag that was contested should not be re-added to the article unless clear malicious intent or accidental removal is the case. By the time i arrived the discussion already showed that there was no clear malicious intent or accidental removal, but also showed that Hut still stood by his decision to re-tag the articles. By doing that he implicitly disagreed with the removal of the prods; However when someone disagrees with the removal of a prod, procedure states the article should be forwarded to WP:AFD, instead of placing the prod back on. So this is where i came in. I created the AFD's for a few of the articles he opposed. (For me it was just to follow a procedure which had not been followed the way it should have been).

After that we had a long discussion around the entire Wikipedia: On my talk page, on your talk page, on the articles talk pages, on huts talk page and who knows where else it has taken place. Mostly this discussion focused on the matter of mass removing prod tags from the articles. It seems that my mention of disruption shook you up quite a bit. However that mention was not a veiled threat to ban or silence you; it was meant as a caution as hut already mentioned the word before. See, while it is not forbidden to remove a prod of any article, doing so on a lot of articles in a fast way makes people question the intent of doing so. Just compare it to this: If i would add prod tags to a load of horror related articles you would very likely think that this was a way to take revenge. While both interpretations of those actions might just as well be wrong, its just what people tend to think. Also note that back then i still was not sure if you were being a good editor simply trying to save the articles, or a bad one just trying to disrupt (By now i know its the former).

ANI and the "attack" warning together with a bit of Rice

The next stop was ANI (I believe?). And again, the topic was the PROD tags. I guess that ANI really confused you due to the slightly different interpretations of the prod tags posted over there. See, (I cannot really talk for Hut, but i can guess) Hut and my side in this discussion was that while is is not technically wrong to remove any number of prod tags from any number of article, doing so with a lot of tags in a fast sequence is not exactly the meaning of it. Auburnpilot claimed about the same thing, but did not include or share our interpretation that in this case there was any intent for disruption. Your question about his subsequent comment about not re-adding or removing the prod tags again was also not answered, so allow me: Once someone removes a prod tag tag from an article there is no need or rule to send that article to AFD. However if someone does not agree with the removal of the tag then the prod should not be re-added, but the article should be taken to AFD instead.

After that i think i issued the "Attack" warning. I never really explained the why though. At that time several of your comments in a row accused me of trying to ban or silence you, even though i had (in my eyes) clearly explained that this was not the case . I ended up placing that warning as by now i started to find the constant accusations to be uncivil. At that time rice came in and asked the both of us to back down from the discussion. Good call from him really, as by now the discussion was going nowhere, and i guess the both of us has a little to much prejudice about each others actions to really discuss anything :).

And last: Baron and the current AFD

And last we have the current AFD and the sudden involvement of someone called Baron Foley. I remember seeing a comment where you thought that Baron is someone who i asked to get involved and remove the article. However, Baron is the person that placed the PROD you initially removed before either hut or myself got involved. I decided to inform him about the entire situation as he was the first person to assume that the articles were not notable, so he would likely be the best person to determine what to do by now. When he subsequently decided to nominate 13th child he ran into the problem that the article has been nominated before. Nomination an article for AFD which has been nominated before is more complex then a first nomination, and is not really well documented. So he decided to ask a question on how to do this; But when it did not work as expected i ended up helping him out with the technicalities. Note that the decision to AFD is (As far as i know) not influenced by me.

And as for now, your addition of sources made clear that the 13th child is simply notable and should be kept on Wikipedia. Also (And this time you didnt ask for them :) ) i wanted to offer you my apologies for not being able to stop this entire issue from escalating so far. While i still believe that the mass removal of PROD's wasn't that great a idea, that was simply a misunderstanding anyone can make. However as i have been around quite a bit longer i should have been able to resolve this issue without having a share in letting it escalate so far. At the very least a bit more assumption of Good Faith from my side could have made all the difference. So again, apologies for what happened. With kind regards, and wishing you a more pleasant time then this rather negative start from now on, Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you but what you say is not an accurate representation of your actions or my actions. I am not confused. I did not misunderstand anything. I did nothing wrong. No matter how many times you claim it does, Wikipedia:Proposed Deletion doesn't say contested prods have to go to AFD. Please leave me alone!!! miniluv (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping...

To save the David Decoteau movies Ancient Evil: Scream of the Mummy and Beastly Boyz. They were amongst the first I ever created when I started here, and it's nice to see someone paying attention to them. Both were prodded, and rather than argue with the prodder, I put them up for discussion/deletion. I think what you and others are doing will at least save Beastly Boyz. Btw, IMDB isn't really a good source for much except movie and TV listings. It can be editted just like Wikipedia, so the biographical info can be added by anybody, and isn't always reliable. Just an FYI. Otherwise, keep up the good work! :) --Ebyabe (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Brandon Michael Vayda

The only edit I see here is that you endorsed a PROD. Looks fine to me. I actually re-instated the PROD, since I don't think that a procedurally closed AfD has any impact on anything. Let me know if you have any other questions, or if I missed the issue you were referring to. -Chunky Rice (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Black Oasis

Sorry to be tardy in getting back to you. Was involved in several real-worl prjects. Sadly, the link you sent only states "Upcoming titles in development include BLACK OASIS by Stephan Elliot...". So, not back in production yet. The article can come back if it does get back to production. Good looking out. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I Survived

Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Yes... thank you for the warm words. I have myself been very involved over the past few months doing what I can to inprove wiki. That the article about me came back to AfD was a sadness, but understandable because of the weakened condition in which it had been left after the last deletions round in June and July. Pretty much, every assertion of notability it had made was removed and nevr returned. No small wonder it was them put on the firing line. Perhaps some editor or two might take it upom themselves to give it a few tweaks... perhaps not. As it is, I am myself still aboard and making what contributions as I am able. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Leeds Point (film)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Leeds Point (film), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

This article is about a film that does not meet notability. The claim to notability appear to be two awards at a minor film festival. References in consist of a college paper item, and link to the film festival site. Neither of which establish notability. [1], and [2] are the same article from two local papers. These are the only items I could find in my search.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Whpq (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

AFD

An article of yours is at AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Storm (film). Joe Chill (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)