Bob's Discount Furniture – restore – Picaroon (t) 03:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bob's Discount Furniture (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Improved, referenced version of article created at User:GregRM/Bob's Discount Furniture draft. Feel free to edit the article or provide comments/suggestions. I realize that the reference numbers are sometimes out of order...I will try to work on this soon. When the article is restored to main article space, please also restore original history. Original deletion review is available at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 9.--GregRM 20:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Restore - I have no idea how the deleted version of the article looked, but if I had something like the one in your userspace lined up then I'd just upload it without pandering to process. It might not be listed on the Dow, but there's a reasonable amount of different sources, and I'm sure anyone in the US furniture business will know who they are. Wikipedia's reach in the business space is desperately lacking, take a look at the gaps we have in the FTSE 250 Index for example. Well sourced articles in the business space are encouraged, and if they're on the whole neutral then I don't care whether it was paid for or not. - hahnch e n 00:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] The only reference was the corporate website. Picaroon (t) 02:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] That's a well-written and well-sourced replacement, GregRM, and I don't think you need a deletion review for this move. In my opinion, it can be moved any time. Would you like me to move it there and restore the history of the deleted article now? Picaroon (t) 02:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yes, you can move it. Thank you very much.--GregRM 02:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Bob's Discount Furniture – restore – Picaroon (t) 03:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Improved, referenced version of article created at User:GregRM/Bob's Discount Furniture draft. Feel free to edit the article or provide comments/suggestions. I realize that the reference numbers are sometimes out of order...I will try to work on this soon. When the article is restored to main article space, please also restore original history. Original deletion review is available at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 9.--GregRM 20:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore - I have no idea how the deleted version of the article looked, but if I had something like the one in your userspace lined up then I'd just upload it without pandering to process. It might not be listed on the Dow, but there's a reasonable amount of different sources, and I'm sure anyone in the US furniture business will know who they are. Wikipedia's reach in the business space is desperately lacking, take a look at the gaps we have in the FTSE 250 Index for example. Well sourced articles in the business space are encouraged, and if they're on the whole neutral then I don't care whether it was paid for or not. - hahnch e n 00:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only reference was the corporate website. Picaroon (t) 02:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a well-written and well-sourced replacement, GregRM, and I don't think you need a deletion review for this move. In my opinion, it can be moved any time. Would you like me to move it there and restore the history of the deleted article now? Picaroon (t) 02:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you can move it. Thank you very much.--GregRM 02:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys (song) – Speedy Endorse since PROD removal is not reviewable by DRV. – Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys (song) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Search - ( wp g b ) This is the first time I've encountered this issue; I hope you'll bear with me. This article is relatively short and contains much information which is duplicated from it's parent album's page. So I merged the information back to the parent page, in its own section & left a "prod"" on the page. There was an objection & removal, as you will see, from an IP address which was used for about an hour earlier today to do a bunch of minor edits. This is why I did not leave a note on the editor's talk page, it might be dynamic & so doing so would probably be a waste of time. I am prevented from replacing the "prod" under WP:Delete, which is why I've placed it here. My opion, FWIW is that anyone searching for it is going to type (to abbreviate) TLSOHHB. not TLSOHHB (song); if they search for the title, they will be taken to the album, where the comment about that title now resides. ALso, the IP's editor's reason for the removal of "prod" is not necessarily valid in the track's country of origin, the UK. There are now vanishingly few radio stations playing this type of music. Also, the IP editor hasn't reverted the parent page, so we now have duplicated info, which is both a resources and a maintainability issue. Comments? --Rodhullandemu 18:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - After removal of a PROD, the next step is to list the article at AfD if you think it needs deleting. I just listed the article at AfD. See The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys AfD. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys (song) – Speedy Endorse since PROD removal is not reviewable by DRV. – Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

This is the first time I've encountered this issue; I hope you'll bear with me. This article is relatively short and contains much information which is duplicated from it's parent album's page. So I merged the information back to the parent page, in its own section & left a "prod"" on the page. There was an objection & removal, as you will see, from an IP address which was used for about an hour earlier today to do a bunch of minor edits. This is why I did not leave a note on the editor's talk page, it might be dynamic & so doing so would probably be a waste of time. I am prevented from replacing the "prod" under WP:Delete, which is why I've placed it here. My opion, FWIW is that anyone searching for it is going to type (to abbreviate) TLSOHHB. not TLSOHHB (song); if they search for the title, they will be taken to the album, where the comment about that title now resides. ALso, the IP's editor's reason for the removal of "prod" is not necessarily valid in the track's country of origin, the UK. There are now vanishingly few radio stations playing this type of music. Also, the IP editor hasn't reverted the parent page, so we now have duplicated info, which is both a resources and a maintainability issue. Comments? --Rodhullandemu 18:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After removal of a PROD, the next step is to list the article at AfD if you think it needs deleting. I just listed the article at AfD. See The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys AfD. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Smiths – Cover artwork – deletion endorsed for overriding policy reasons. The text content of the article is already at The Smiths#Early history, 4th paragraph, and has been since before the first edit of this article. (Which didn't credit where the text came from, causing a GFDL violation in this article's history The gallery of images is not needed at The Smiths, making it clear that there is no way our fair use policies will allow this gallery on this article. This is an implausible search term, and no history here moved to the main article, so a redirect is not needed. – GRBerry 00:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Smiths – Cover artwork (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Search - ( wp g b ) I started the article The Smiths – Cover artwork some weeks ago. There are many articles about albums and singles by The Smiths. This article describes the motifs. It was deleted by Majorly. There was no deletion request and no information on my discussion page as author. Please see the discussion on Majorly's discussion page. I can not see the problem with using the cover pictures as they are used for illustration of the band's and its records' articles, too. Beside this the article goes much further than the introducing sentence because it is a collection of information about each record. Even without pictures it would legitimate a table containing the list and information. -- Simplicius 13:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)(please excuse, English is not my mother language) Note - Majorly speedy deleted The Smiths – Cover artwork at 16:02, 24 August 2007, giving the reason "WP:NOT a gallery of non free images, and without said images this article fails many requirements." -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Undelete the article seems to have been at The Smiths – Cover artwork, and as far as I can tell meets no speedy deletion criteria. Their rather strange cover artwork, with black-and-white photos of people from Elvis to Charles Hawtrey, is one of the things the Smiths are most recognised for, and certainly should be discussed somewhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] I'm inclined, based on the description of the article, to endorse as being a gallery of non-free images per Majorly. Otto4711 14:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Undelete per Simplicius; it sounds like it should have been a discussion rather than a speedy. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Policy violations are not subject to consensus, a speedy is perfectly appropriate. This article was clearly a gallery of non-free images and should not be recreated. --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 15:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Undelete more than a gallery. In addition to the illustrations, there is descriptive text. Possibly not really enough to justify repeating the illustrations yet, so the article should be expanded. And if necessary it can be done as Simplicius suggested, a table without the illustrations--just links to the WP articles on the albums. DGG (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and list at AfD - Neither WP:CSD#A1 no context nor WP:CSD#A3 no content really apply. The blurb at the top of the deleted article gets it past WP:CSD#A7 (no assertion of importance/significance). There might be a basis for WP:CSD#G12 (Blatant copyright infringement), but the problem is non-free images, not text, and there are different procedure for non-free images. This isn't a fair use galleries in user space per WP:CSD#U3 usper page speedy delete. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion doesn't seem to apply, but the article is ripe for WP:AfD. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Undelete without pictures (at least initially). This is an encyclopedic topic, and the deletion rationale is a catch-22. Speedy deletion is only appropriate when an article fits one of the speedy deletion criteria.P4k 22:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and list There needs to be a discussion about this and consensus of sort reached in this case. Deus Ex Machina 23:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] About copyright violation: I am quoting the pictures directly. They are all used elsewhere, too. In other articles about the records they are used as illustration mainly, in the article about the band just as decoration. I cannot see a conflict with the policy, just the problems of fair use in general - but not here in particular. -- Simplicius 12:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The Smiths – Cover artwork – deletion endorsed for overriding policy reasons. The text content of the article is already at The Smiths#Early history, 4th paragraph, and has been since before the first edit of this article. (Which didn't credit where the text came from, causing a GFDL violation in this article's history The gallery of images is not needed at The Smiths, making it clear that there is no way our fair use policies will allow this gallery on this article. This is an implausible search term, and no history here moved to the main article, so a redirect is not needed. – GRBerry 00:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

I started the article The Smiths – Cover artwork some weeks ago. There are many articles about albums and singles by The Smiths. This article describes the motifs. It was deleted by Majorly. There was no deletion request and no information on my discussion page as author. Please see the discussion on Majorly's discussion page. I can not see the problem with using the cover pictures as they are used for illustration of the band's and its records' articles, too. Beside this the article goes much further than the introducing sentence because it is a collection of information about each record. Even without pictures it would legitimate a table containing the list and information. -- Simplicius 13:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)(please excuse, English is not my mother language)

Note - Majorly speedy deleted The Smiths – Cover artwork at 16:02, 24 August 2007, giving the reason "WP:NOT a gallery of non free images, and without said images this article fails many requirements." -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete the article seems to have been at The Smiths – Cover artwork, and as far as I can tell meets no speedy deletion criteria. Their rather strange cover artwork, with black-and-white photos of people from Elvis to Charles Hawtrey, is one of the things the Smiths are most recognised for, and certainly should be discussed somewhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined, based on the description of the article, to endorse as being a gallery of non-free images per Majorly. Otto4711 14:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete per Simplicius; it sounds like it should have been a discussion rather than a speedy. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Policy violations are not subject to consensus, a speedy is perfectly appropriate. This article was clearly a gallery of non-free images and should not be recreated. --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 15:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete more than a gallery. In addition to the illustrations, there is descriptive text. Possibly not really enough to justify repeating the illustrations yet, so the article should be expanded. And if necessary it can be done as Simplicius suggested, a table without the illustrations--just links to the WP articles on the albums. DGG (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD - Neither WP:CSD#A1 no context nor WP:CSD#A3 no content really apply. The blurb at the top of the deleted article gets it past WP:CSD#A7 (no assertion of importance/significance). There might be a basis for WP:CSD#G12 (Blatant copyright infringement), but the problem is non-free images, not text, and there are different procedure for non-free images. This isn't a fair use galleries in user space per WP:CSD#U3 usper page speedy delete. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion doesn't seem to apply, but the article is ripe for WP:AfD. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete without pictures (at least initially). This is an encyclopedic topic, and the deletion rationale is a catch-22. Speedy deletion is only appropriate when an article fits one of the speedy deletion criteria.P4k 22:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list There needs to be a discussion about this and consensus of sort reached in this case. Deus Ex Machina 23:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About copyright violation: I am quoting the pictures directly. They are all used elsewhere, too. In other articles about the records they are used as illustration mainly, in the article about the band just as decoration. I cannot see a conflict with the policy, just the problems of fair use in general - but not here in particular. -- Simplicius 12:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

L Lidströmer and Femmage – for Femmage deletion is endorsed; for L Lidströmer, recreation is permitted, and the userspace draft has been moved to Louise Lidströmer. – GRBerry 00:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
L Lidströmer (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Femmage (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` These two well-written articles with a lot o references and very adequate contents has been deleted numerous times ny tje user "cryptic". He doesn't seem do respond, and he has no talk-page. I'm very unexperienced with Wikipedia and all my research has now been deleted. I would like reinstall the page of L Lidstömer and Fammge (he deleted both). I'd like to protect them also. If someone wants to delete them again, I can present a lot of evidences!!!! PLEASE HELP ME!!! NGL 07:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nike George (talk • contribs) User:Cryptic has a talk page, which you have vandalized. L Lidströmer was an article about Louise Lidströmer. An earlier article about her was deleted as a result of Articles for deletion/Louise Lidströmer. Please explain persuasively and concisely how that earlier decision was wrong; in particular, cite some credible links. -- Hoary 08:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] It seems that the damage to Cryptic's talk page was accidental; accidental or not, Nike George has since apologized to Cryptic for it. -- Hoary 10:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion under WP:CSD#G4, reposting of content deleted through a discussion. As of 12/06, the consensus was there was not enough material. You seem to have commented there, so this is not news to you, and you have tried to name the article something else, so you seem aware of the status. There's a possibility of notability here but without sources, substantial error in the prior AFD, or substantial new information, our help here is limited to helping you understand our biographical article policies. --Dhartung \| Talk 08:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, reposts at much better titles are still reposts. Nobody else other than Nike George (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)seems to be interested in these subjects, and by common consent at the deletion debate notability was not established. No more end-runs around deletion policy, please. Guy (Help!) 12:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion unanimous AfD, no reason given to overturn. Edits like this one (replacing Cryptic's whole talk page) makes it hard to assume good faith on the nominator's part, and their reference to the subject as "my family" strongly suggest a WP:COI case as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Stop deletion, my persuasive defense speech: OK, my dear fellows, I am very new here, I don't now how to write and protest, and I tried to protest today to User:Cryptic, but unfortunately on of his pages were deleted by mistake. Can we reconstruct that page, now I really need help with that to, is there "go back-button"?? OK, sorry for that, it was a mistake and I hope you will listen to my arguments. Secondly, I find the tone very aggressive here, "I am the only interested in these subjects", is absolutely wrong. Why do Swedish newspapers right about this artist if I am the only interested? Why has the artist's homepage over 4,000 visits per months if I am the only interested? Why do you delete a page without asking me if I could add some references. On the page itself I have actually added around 10 book-references, is that to little, in that case I can add more. For the third, the previous decision was based on another article, which I agree wasn't written in the same perfect manner as the latest version, where some of my friends helped me (under my name). I do personally not know much about how to create articles. I think the tone against me has been very antagonistic - instead of asking for more references, which there are, you just erase and eradicate a work that I have no copies (could I at least get a version back via e-mail?). Regarding the Femmage-article there are wide range of evidence for the accuracy of that article, I even referred to a book that is published with it's ISBN-number. Regarding the artist I also referred to printed media with ISBN-number. If you try to validate what I say by just googling it doesn't sound very scientific - it must be OK to also refer to printed media. When googling however you may find many articles in Swedish and French, and since I am a fluent speaker of these languages I can use these sources. Do you speak Swedish? How can you judge sources without knowing the language? I or anyone else could help you here!! Just a humble offer!! Someone claims I have just reposted an article that was previously deleted which is incorrect; the style, contents, presentation and especially reference-presentation differs alot. And why delete the femmage-page? Did we even have a discussion here? Is it so, that just because a couple of men somewhere in cyber space dislikes an article about an artist (which is very famous) or an art term (which is widely used), then it is eternally forbidden to write something an improved article?? NOTE, important: I have a lot of references (long list), where and to whom shall I write to restore my work? Do I only have to refer to internet pages or, what TYPE of references do you require? I just try to learn and understand how you think and what type of extra material you need to stop the deletion. --14:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)14:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)14:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)14:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nike George (talk • contribs) 15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)~ [reply] I have also thourougly apologized to User:Cryptic!!!! I am very sorry for that. OK, have please some faith in that I would like to contribute and write something good, and if my articles were not up to standards, tell what was missing. I will correct them in that case!!!15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)~ EVIDENCES OK look at these printed articles: ARTICLE CHRONOLOGY with 120 of 400 articles 1972-2005 A complete list of articles in full text can be asked for (on a CD). 2005 06 18, Nerikes Allehanda, s. 8, Stefan Nilson, Vackert, vitt och minimalistiskt (BILD) 2005 02 26, Sydöstran, s. 1 & 3, Margareta Andersson, Konst som granskar konst 2005 02 26, Blekinge Läns Tidningar (BLT), del 2, s. 42, Jane Betts, Med inspiration från franska kyrkor 2004 12 04, Södermalmsnytt, Nr 49, 4-10 december, s 21, Vilda Engström, Louise Lidströmers okända sida 2004 12 01, What's On Stockholm, s 10, Karin Bergh, A Look at Studio L2 2003 09, FORM, Nr 4, Pernilla Norrman, Fragment 2003 04 02, Östran, Karin Asmundsson, Visar minne från Paris i skulptur och måleri 2003 03 29, Ölandsbladet, Erich Schwandt, Spår av Paris av Lidströmer på VIDA 2003 03 28, Barometern-OT, Gunilla Petri, På strövtåg i konsthistorien 2002 08 21, Falukuriren, Marianne Törner, Dialoger med stenar 2002 08 05, Dala-Demokraten, Boel Ferm, Vernissage på Kulturhuset i Mora 2002 08 02, Mora tidning, Jennielie Kjörnsberg, Paret Zorn i choklad 2002 mars-avril, No 19 Art Actuel, Documents DR, Show lapin suédois 2001 09 05, Vallentuna Steget, Vallentuna Konstförening 2001 07 04, Vadstena tidning, s. 9, Sven Slotter, Glimmande guld på Öland 2001 06 19, Ölandsbladet, s. 14, Erich Schwandt, Imponerande mångfald av tolkningar 2001 06 18, Barometern, s. 48-49, Gunilla Petri, Allt är guld som glimmar 2001 06 18, Östra Småland, s. 11, Karin Asmundsson, Allt är guld som glimmar i slottets salar i sommar 2000-07, ?, Ingrid Larsson, …på Norreport finns skulpturer av L. Lidströmer 2000-05-19, Dagens Industri, Ralph Herrmanns, Ordskapande skulptris 2000-05-14, Svenska Dagbladet, Lars-Erik Selin, Louise Ljubi Lidströmer 1999-08 (trol.), Barometern, Paris som inspirationskälla 1999-07-06, Ölandsbladet, Erich Schwandt, Dialog med historien 1998-12-15, Ölandsbladet, Ragnhild Oxhagen, Trippelutställning på Kalmar Konstmuseum 1998-12-10, Barometern, Gunilla Petri, Former från barndomens sandlådelek 1998-12-10, Östra Småland, Lena Svensson, Vacker som ett nyss uppstiget Paris! 1998-12-01, invitazione, …all’inauguratione della mostra Femmage à Tizian di Ljubi Lidströmer, Istituto Svedese di Studi Classicci a Roma 1998, Septembre, Vu de Levallois, p. 13, ”Itinéraire” aux couleurs suédoises 1997-12-18, La Nouvelle Gazette – la Province, Mons – Exposition, Aujourd’hui: Musée des Beaux Arts 1997-12-18, La Nouvelle Gazette – la Province, Mons – Exposition, p. 13, Monia Lakhdar-Hamina, ”Femmage à Titien et à Camille Claudel 1997-12-15, Nord Eclair – Mons, J. D., Un Jeu de Références sur l’Histoire de l’Art – la suèdoise L. Lidströmer rend un ”femmage” à Titien et à Camille Claudel au Musée des Beaux Arts 1997-12-11, The Bulletin Newsweekly of the Capial of Europé, p. 12, The Critics’ Choice 1997-11-27, La Nouvelle Gazette, p. 11, Les oevres de Ljubi Lidströmer aux côtés de Louis Buisseret 1997 (automne), La Nouvelle Gazette, l’agenda, adverstisement, Musée des Beaux Arts de Mons, Belge 1997-11 (prob.), Visual Arts, advertisement, Musée des Beaux Arts de Mons, Belge 1997-09 (trol.), Lidingö Tidning, Och Ljubi ställer ut i Paris 1997-08, Barometern, Maria Olson, Paris som inspirationskälla 1996-12, Östermalmsnytt, Ljubi har fått ett år i konstnärernas Paris 1996-11-11, Tidningen Södermalm, s. 13, Ljubi har åkt 1996-10-31, Lidingö Tidning, s. 18, Marja Beckman, Parisresa och väv uppmuntrar Ljubi 1996-09-24, Länstidningen i Södertälje, s. 15, Christer Duke, En pensel med temperament 1996 (hösten), Svenska Dagbladet, Namn idag: Ateljéstipendium till konstnär 1995-12-20, Alingsås Tidning, s. 2, Alf Claesson, Ljubi Lidströmer och Tizian 1995-12-20, Göteborgs Posten, del 3, första sidan, Viveka Vogel, En evig kamp med konsten, s. 49, I Tizians spår, Ljubi Lidströmer på Alingsås museum 1995-12-20, Alingsås Kuriren, Vernissage på Nolhaga slott 1995-12-13, Alingsås Kuriren, Effektfull konst på Nolhaga slott 1995-12-13, Aftonbladet, Kvinna Kultur, Anne Larsson, ”Jag är trött på alla fyrkanter” 1995-10-05, Tidningen Södermalm, Henric Tiselius, Ljubis konst är attgöra Tizian för tiden 1995, Meddelande från BTJ (Bibliotekstjänst), Femmage à Tizian 1995, Konstvärlden, nr. 4, s. 66, Nya konstböcker 1995-07-29, Dagens Nyheter, s. 27, Gaby Wigardt, På Lövsta brukas kultur i varje vrå 1995-07-07, Upsala Nya Tidning, Johan Rudström, Nya utställningar i Lövstabruk, Tizian gav inspiration 1995-03-28, Västerbottens Folkblad, s. 3, , Stig Anesäter, Sensuell humanism 1995-03-02, Västerbottenskuriren, Mårten Arndtzén, Här finns kvinnors konst, men finns kvinnlig konst? 1994-10-01, Svenska Dagbladet, Stockholmsguiden, Lars-Erik Selin, Paletten som konst 1994-09-01, Dagens Nyheter, Susanne Hellberg, ”Fantasin får fritt spelrum”, Konstnären Ljubi Lidströmer ställer ut en femmage till Tizian 1994-09, Svenska Dagbladet (?), Christina Uby, Femmage till Tizian flyttar 1994-08-31, Lidingö Tidning, Ljubi ställer ut i Stadshuset 1994-03-11, Aftonbladet, Ingamaj Beck, Nordiskt ljus – genomskinligt? 1994-02, ?, Kultur, s. 3, Stig Anesäter, Fyra kvinnor men fyra bud 1994, Konstvärlden, nr. 12, Göran Hellström, Välbesökt konstmässa 1994-03-10, Hallandsposten, Marianne Holm, Hyllar materialet 1994-03-09, Svenska Dagbladet - Kultur, Åsa Wall, Hoppfullt, ungt, nordiskt 1993, Lokaltidningen Århus, uge 6, s. 14, Betragteren faengsles 1993, Århus onsdag, Hun faengsler betragterens fantasi 1992, Konstnären, nr. 3, Ljubi Lidströmer, De har i alla fall löner 1992-05-20, Lidingö Posten, Per Wikström, Majsolen lockade 1991-10-16, Östgöta Correspondenten, s. A4, Stefen Skogelin, Lovsång till konsten 1991-10, Expressivt måleri på Galleri Gothia 1990-10-17, Lidingö Posten, s. 12, Per Wikström, Gå och se Ljubi 1990-10-10, Alingsås Tidning, s. 2, Nana Eklund, Konst med glädje ochlivslust 1990, Lokaltidningen, v. 3, Arne Spångberg, Alla gillar Ljubis konst 1989-12-01, DN På Stan, Gitta Magnell, Lekfullt i stort format 1989, SST (Solna?), v. 49, s. 4, Ingrid Wahlin, Vilken blick! 1988-10-03, Kuriren, s. 11, Hans Werder, Ljubis konst visar glädje och livslust 1988-10-01, Hudiksvalls Tidning, Anita Ridefelt, I Hälsinglands museum: Friskt och spontant 1988, Bulletin (Konstföreningen i Lidingö), nr. 4, s. 6, Meddelanden: Vår Britt Paus-stipendiat Ljubi... 1988-04-23, Örebro Allehanda, s. 4, Maija Niitymäki, Jazzig livsglädje 1988-04-09, Örebro Kuriren, s. 17, Annika Burholm, En själsfrände till Picasso 1987-10-21, Lidingö Posten, Per Wikström, De får stipendier 1987-10-17, Svenska Dagbladet, Stig Johansson, Hetta och svalka 1987-10-07, Lidingö Tidning, Sven D., Färgsprakande Ljubisalong 1987-02-02, What’s on & Where to go in London, Exhibitions & Art 1986-11-13, DN Runt Stan, Ingela Lind 1985-11-22, DN På Stan, ODN, Vågar ta risker 1985-11-07, Lidingö Tidning, Sven D., Ljubi Lidströmers utställning: Besök stadshuset, men dröj gärna kvar i entrén! 1985-10-31, Lidingö Tidning, Stor salong med Ljubi 1985-10-31, DN Runt Stan, ”En utmaning att måla stort” 1985-10-07, Vimmerby Tidning, A-L Larsson, Ljubi Lidströmer en ung kvinna med egna idéer 1985-01-31, Karlskoga Kuriren, Paul Andersson, Ljubi Lidströmer 1985-01-26, Karlskoga-Degerfors Allehanda, Ljubi i konsthallen: mina bilder ska provocera 1984-12-14, Svenska Dagbladet, Bortglömda konstnärinnor 1984-12-14, DN På Stan, ODN, Framplockade ur glömskan 1984-12-13, DN Runt Stan, s. 8, Elisabeth Jansson, Hon har letat fram deras verk till utställning, fyra bortglömda Lidingökonstnärinnor 1984 (trol.), Lidingö Tidning, SDK, Hon ger lön för mödan 1984-12-06, Lidingö Tidning, s. 22, Sven D., Fredrikorna jubilerar med ett stycke unik kulturhistoria 1984-09-28, Folkbladet, s. 7, Bilder av människor på Fröbel galleriet 1984-03-08, DN Runt Stan, förstasidan och mittuppslaget, Christina Uby, Dagens namn är Fredrika, Fredrika Bremerförbundet 100 år, Lidingöfredrikorna har fått vind i seglen 1984-03, Roland Berndt, Konstnärer om Müchenbryggeriet: Inga bortkastade pengar 1982-11-31, DN På Stan, Arne Odéen, På plats i gamla München 1982-10-22, Svenska Dagbladet, Monica Anrep-Nordin, 48 konstnärer på plats i Münchenbryggeriet 1982, Lidingö Tidning, Cecilia Christner, Spännande utställning 1982-06-17, Lidingö tidning, s. 16, Cecilia Christner, Att vara konstnär – RÄCKER INTE DET? 1982-04-22, Lidingö Tidning, 25 år med Colly, Jubilem med teknik 1980-11-15, Lidingö Tidning, Karl-Erik Jonsson, En utställning väl värd att ses 1980-03-28, Göteborgs Handels- och sjöfartstidning, Tord Baeckström, Galleri Olab - Ljubi Lidströmer 1978, Socialnytt (Socialstyrelsen), nr. 3, Kjell Åkerlund, KULTUR - bästa medicinen för långvårdspatienterna 1978-04-20, Lidingö Tidning, Gösta Rooth, Konst i intimt format 1978-03-23, DN Nordost, s.28, ”Konst är ett livsbehov” 1975-04-10, Lidingö Tidning, G. R., 1974-10-17, Lidingö Tidning, G. R., En ovanligt driven krokitecknare 1974-01-24, Lidingö Tidning, s. 6, Fia, ”Former av liv” på galleriet 1972-11-03, Lidingö Tidning, s. 11 15:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)15:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)15:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)~ Attacking me? Now someone has also deleted my article on Sigrid. The Sigrid-article was full of references and there was NO DEBATE before about "if it should be deleted or not". OK, I am now concidering to disappear completely. A wikipedian suicide. This is too much. Could I ask to be deleted as a member and also require everything I have written to be deleted. I am so sad because of this bullying against everything I write.15:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)15:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)15:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)15:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC) 15:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)15:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)15:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)~ Permit re-creation ~~Endorse deletion~~ - ~~under WP:CSD#G4~~ per Hoary's fine reasoning -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC) -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Permit re-creation of the Lindstromer article. There certainly does seem to be substantially more material. Probably it warrants another discussion at AfD. I hope we can resurrect Nike George as well.As for femmage, that might possibly make an article, but not if nobody else has used the trm, and the article here was a duplicate. DGG (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Permit re-creation of Louise Lidströmer, because a long list of what are purported to be disinterested references have been produced. This permission should not be taken to preclude a second AfD if the re-editors of the article do not credibly indicate just which assertion about LL is backed up by precisely which authoritative source. (The sources cited may be in Swedish or any other language, but they must be specified precisely.) ¶ "Femmage" seems to be a neologism of little significance; if Louise Lidströmer is restored, then Femmage may be re-created as a redirect to it. ¶ Toward the end of his long message shortly above, and therefore perhaps inconspicuously, Nike George comments on the speedy deletion of another article by him, Sigrid Lidströmer. This article is rather problematic in some ways, but I too disagree that it was speedy material and am about to contact the admin who deleted it. -- Hoary 22:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Further comment: the AfD was not one of WP's finest. Of the first five contributions, four are "delete" quasi-votes; however, three of these say or imply that they'd change to "keep" if sources were forthcoming, and the fourth doesn't take the obvious opportunity to disagree. This was followed by two announcements that sources had been found, and a relisting. The very first contribution after the relisting was a disinterested and informative description of substantive sources. None of the people who'd previously (and more or less provisionally) said "delete" then returned (whether out of laziness or because they hadn't been notified of the discovery of evidence), and there was a single delete quasi-vote that completely ignored the matter of evidence. Yes the edit history shows "COI", grounds to view the article with great suspicion -- but not grounds to dismiss the 2 December comment by Bonadea. -- Hoary 00:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] A little note from me. I wrote an article after the Louise-article, called only "L Lidströmer", that contained more references including books with ISBN-number (as it should be I guess). Regarding the "femmage" (which is a neologism) I also had a book reference there (with ISBN). When it comes to Sigrid, I aggree it is not the easiest article, but I saw some challenge to find more here. When learning more about Wikipedia it is more fun, and I hope I can contribute with articles outside these mentioned subjects, which may seem small.--NGL 08:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nike George (talk • contribs) Release of a page please look at my draft with 84 new references (you may also look at my talk page where Hoary has helped me alot) Link; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nike_George/Draft Tomorrow I will reconstruct the Sigrid-page. I would also like to reconstruct the femmage-page - could someone, a kind person, send me the final version of the femmage-page, so I could add references and notes? NGL 18:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC) I have done this. -- Hoary 10:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yet more comments. I've written above that the "Louise Lidströmer" AfD was unsatisfactory in certain ways. The article that it rightly or wrongly deleted was most unsatisfactory too. The article that was later created as L Lidströmer was also unsatisfactory; however, it was not a simple re-creation of the earlier article, it was instead an improvement, with sources. Speedying it seems iffy. Both the earlier article and the later one are about a member of the author's own family, immediately raising worries about COI. But as I read this guideline, while it warns people away from writing about members of their own family, it does not rule it out; and (from "in a nutshell"): editors with a potential conflict of interest may edit with appropriate care and discussion. What Nike George is now working on asserts notability, provides references (at this moment, too many of them), and seems to show an honest (if not yet fully successful) attempt at appropriate care. -- Hoary 10:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Good enough? I think it may be completed now. Now I think the article is complete with the references presented in the correct and formal way, sources to pictures, I have taken away many references also because I had too many. I am open to all opinions, if you think I should correct, add or take away something.NGL 18:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

L Lidströmer and Femmage – for Femmage deletion is endorsed; for L Lidströmer, recreation is permitted, and the userspace draft has been moved to Louise Lidströmer. – GRBerry 00:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

These two well-written articles with a lot o references and very adequate contents has been deleted numerous times ny tje user "cryptic". He doesn't seem do respond, and he has no talk-page. I'm very unexperienced with Wikipedia and all my research has now been deleted. I would like reinstall the page of L Lidstömer and Fammge (he deleted both). I'd like to protect them also. If someone wants to delete them again, I can present a lot of evidences!!!! PLEASE HELP ME!!! NGL 07:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nike George (talk • contribs)

User:Cryptic has a talk page, which you have vandalized. L Lidströmer was an article about Louise Lidströmer. An earlier article about her was deleted as a result of Articles for deletion/Louise Lidströmer. Please explain persuasively and concisely how that earlier decision was wrong; in particular, cite some credible links. -- Hoary 08:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the damage to Cryptic's talk page was accidental; accidental or not, Nike George has since apologized to Cryptic for it. -- Hoary 10:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion under WP:CSD#G4, reposting of content deleted through a discussion. As of 12/06, the consensus was there was not enough material. You seem to have commented there, so this is not news to you, and you have tried to name the article something else, so you seem aware of the status. There's a possibility of notability here but without sources, substantial error in the prior AFD, or substantial new information, our help here is limited to helping you understand our biographical article policies. --Dhartung | Talk 08:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, reposts at much better titles are still reposts. Nobody else other than Nike George (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)seems to be interested in these subjects, and by common consent at the deletion debate notability was not established. No more end-runs around deletion policy, please. Guy (Help!) 12:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion unanimous AfD, no reason given to overturn. Edits like this one (replacing Cryptic's whole talk page) makes it hard to assume good faith on the nominator's part, and their reference to the subject as "my family" strongly suggest a WP:COI case as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop deletion, my persuasive defense speech:

OK, my dear fellows, I am very new here, I don't now how to write and protest, and I tried to protest today to User:Cryptic, but unfortunately on of his pages were deleted by mistake. Can we reconstruct that page, now I really need help with that to, is there "go back-button"?? OK, sorry for that, it was a mistake and I hope you will listen to my arguments. Secondly, I find the tone very aggressive here, "I am the only interested in these subjects", is absolutely wrong. Why do Swedish newspapers right about this artist if I am the only interested? Why has the artist's homepage over 4,000 visits per months if I am the only interested? Why do you delete a page without asking me if I could add some references. On the page itself I have actually added around 10 book-references, is that to little, in that case I can add more. For the third, the previous decision was based on another article, which I agree wasn't written in the same perfect manner as the latest version, where some of my friends helped me (under my name). I do personally not know much about how to create articles. I think the tone against me has been very antagonistic - instead of asking for more references, which there are, you just erase and eradicate a work that I have no copies (could I at least get a version back via e-mail?). Regarding the Femmage-article there are wide range of evidence for the accuracy of that article, I even referred to a book that is published with it's ISBN-number. Regarding the artist I also referred to printed media with ISBN-number. If you try to validate what I say by just googling it doesn't sound very scientific - it must be OK to also refer to printed media. When googling however you may find many articles in Swedish and French, and since I am a fluent speaker of these languages I can use these sources. Do you speak Swedish? How can you judge sources without knowing the language? I or anyone else could help you here!! Just a humble offer!! Someone claims I have just reposted an article that was previously deleted which is incorrect; the style, contents, presentation and especially reference-presentation differs alot. And why delete the femmage-page? Did we even have a discussion here? Is it so, that just because a couple of men somewhere in cyber space dislikes an article about an artist (which is very famous) or an art term (which is widely used), then it is eternally forbidden to write something an improved article?? NOTE, important: I have a lot of references (long list), where and to whom shall I write to restore my work? Do I only have to refer to internet pages or, what TYPE of references do you require? I just try to learn and understand how you think and what type of extra material you need to stop the deletion. --14:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)14:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)14:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)14:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nike George (talk • contribs) 15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)~ [reply]

I have also thourougly apologized to User:Cryptic!!!! I am very sorry for that. OK, have please some faith in that I would like to contribute and write something good, and if my articles were not up to standards, tell what was missing. I will correct them in that case!!!15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)~

EVIDENCES

OK look at these printed articles: ARTICLE CHRONOLOGY with 120 of 400 articles 1972-2005

A complete list of articles in full text can be asked for (on a CD).

2005 06 18, Nerikes Allehanda, s. 8, Stefan Nilson, Vackert, vitt och minimalistiskt (BILD)

2005 02 26, Sydöstran, s. 1 & 3, Margareta Andersson, Konst som granskar konst

2005 02 26, Blekinge Läns Tidningar (BLT), del 2, s. 42, Jane Betts, Med inspiration från franska kyrkor

2004 12 04, Södermalmsnytt, Nr 49, 4-10 december, s 21, Vilda Engström, Louise Lidströmers okända sida

2004 12 01, What's On Stockholm, s 10, Karin Bergh, A Look at Studio L2

2003 09, FORM, Nr 4, Pernilla Norrman, Fragment

2003 04 02, Östran, Karin Asmundsson, Visar minne från Paris i skulptur och måleri

2003 03 29, Ölandsbladet, Erich Schwandt, Spår av Paris av Lidströmer på VIDA

2003 03 28, Barometern-OT, Gunilla Petri, På strövtåg i konsthistorien

2002 08 21, Falukuriren, Marianne Törner, Dialoger med stenar

2002 08 05, Dala-Demokraten, Boel Ferm, Vernissage på Kulturhuset i Mora

2002 08 02, Mora tidning, Jennielie Kjörnsberg, Paret Zorn i choklad

2002 mars-avril, No 19 Art Actuel, Documents DR, Show lapin suédois

2001 09 05, Vallentuna Steget, Vallentuna Konstförening

2001 07 04, Vadstena tidning, s. 9, Sven Slotter, Glimmande guld på Öland

2001 06 19, Ölandsbladet, s. 14, Erich Schwandt, Imponerande mångfald av tolkningar

2001 06 18, Barometern, s. 48-49, Gunilla Petri, Allt är guld som glimmar

2001 06 18, Östra Småland, s. 11, Karin Asmundsson, Allt är guld som glimmar i slottets salar i sommar

2000-07, ?, Ingrid Larsson, …på Norreport finns skulpturer av L. Lidströmer

2000-05-19, Dagens Industri, Ralph Herrmanns, Ordskapande skulptris

2000-05-14, Svenska Dagbladet, Lars-Erik Selin, Louise Ljubi Lidströmer

1999-08 (trol.), Barometern, Paris som inspirationskälla

1999-07-06, Ölandsbladet, Erich Schwandt, Dialog med historien

1998-12-15, Ölandsbladet, Ragnhild Oxhagen, Trippelutställning på Kalmar Konstmuseum

1998-12-10, Barometern, Gunilla Petri, Former från barndomens sandlådelek

1998-12-10, Östra Småland, Lena Svensson, Vacker som ett nyss uppstiget Paris!

1998-12-01, invitazione, …all’inauguratione della mostra Femmage à Tizian di Ljubi Lidströmer, Istituto Svedese di Studi Classicci a Roma

1998, Septembre, Vu de Levallois, p. 13, ”Itinéraire” aux couleurs suédoises

1997-12-18, La Nouvelle Gazette – la Province, Mons – Exposition, Aujourd’hui: Musée des Beaux Arts

1997-12-18, La Nouvelle Gazette – la Province, Mons – Exposition, p. 13, Monia Lakhdar-Hamina, ”Femmage à Titien et à Camille Claudel

1997-12-15, Nord Eclair – Mons, J. D., Un Jeu de Références sur l’Histoire de l’Art – la suèdoise

L. Lidströmer rend un ”femmage” à Titien et à Camille Claudel au Musée des Beaux Arts

1997-12-11, The Bulletin Newsweekly of the Capial of Europé, p. 12, The Critics’ Choice

1997-11-27, La Nouvelle Gazette, p. 11, Les oevres de Ljubi Lidströmer aux côtés de Louis Buisseret 1997 (automne), La Nouvelle Gazette, l’agenda, adverstisement, Musée des Beaux Arts de Mons, Belge

1997-11 (prob.), Visual Arts, advertisement, Musée des Beaux Arts de Mons, Belge

1997-09 (trol.), Lidingö Tidning, Och Ljubi ställer ut i Paris

1997-08, Barometern, Maria Olson, Paris som inspirationskälla

1996-12, Östermalmsnytt, Ljubi har fått ett år i konstnärernas Paris

1996-11-11, Tidningen Södermalm, s. 13, Ljubi har åkt

1996-10-31, Lidingö Tidning, s. 18, Marja Beckman, Parisresa och väv uppmuntrar Ljubi

1996-09-24, Länstidningen i Södertälje, s. 15, Christer Duke, En pensel med temperament

1996 (hösten), Svenska Dagbladet, Namn idag: Ateljéstipendium till konstnär

1995-12-20, Alingsås Tidning, s. 2, Alf Claesson, Ljubi Lidströmer och Tizian

1995-12-20, Göteborgs Posten, del 3, första sidan, Viveka Vogel, En evig kamp med konsten, s. 49, I Tizians spår, Ljubi Lidströmer på Alingsås museum

1995-12-20, Alingsås Kuriren, Vernissage på Nolhaga slott

1995-12-13, Alingsås Kuriren, Effektfull konst på Nolhaga slott

1995-12-13, Aftonbladet, Kvinna Kultur, Anne Larsson, ”Jag är trött på alla fyrkanter”

1995-10-05, Tidningen Södermalm, Henric Tiselius, Ljubis konst är attgöra Tizian för tiden

1995, Meddelande från BTJ (Bibliotekstjänst), Femmage à Tizian

1995, Konstvärlden, nr. 4, s. 66, Nya konstböcker

1995-07-29, Dagens Nyheter, s. 27, Gaby Wigardt, På Lövsta brukas kultur i varje vrå

1995-07-07, Upsala Nya Tidning, Johan Rudström, Nya utställningar i Lövstabruk, Tizian gav inspiration

1995-03-28, Västerbottens Folkblad, s. 3, , Stig Anesäter, Sensuell humanism

1995-03-02, Västerbottenskuriren, Mårten Arndtzén, Här finns kvinnors konst, men finns kvinnlig konst?

1994-10-01, Svenska Dagbladet, Stockholmsguiden, Lars-Erik Selin, Paletten som konst

1994-09-01, Dagens Nyheter, Susanne Hellberg, ”Fantasin får fritt spelrum”, Konstnären Ljubi Lidströmer ställer ut en femmage till Tizian

1994-09, Svenska Dagbladet (?), Christina Uby, Femmage till Tizian flyttar

1994-08-31, Lidingö Tidning, Ljubi ställer ut i Stadshuset

1994-03-11, Aftonbladet, Ingamaj Beck, Nordiskt ljus – genomskinligt?

1994-02, ?, Kultur, s. 3, Stig Anesäter, Fyra kvinnor men fyra bud

1994, Konstvärlden, nr. 12, Göran Hellström, Välbesökt konstmässa

1994-03-10, Hallandsposten, Marianne Holm, Hyllar materialet

1994-03-09, Svenska Dagbladet - Kultur, Åsa Wall, Hoppfullt, ungt, nordiskt

1993, Lokaltidningen Århus, uge 6, s. 14, Betragteren faengsles

1993, Århus onsdag, Hun faengsler betragterens fantasi

1992, Konstnären, nr. 3, Ljubi Lidströmer, De har i alla fall löner

1992-05-20, Lidingö Posten, Per Wikström, Majsolen lockade

1991-10-16, Östgöta Correspondenten, s. A4, Stefen Skogelin, Lovsång till konsten

1991-10, Expressivt måleri på Galleri Gothia

1990-10-17, Lidingö Posten, s. 12, Per Wikström, Gå och se Ljubi

1990-10-10, Alingsås Tidning, s. 2, Nana Eklund, Konst med glädje ochlivslust

1990, Lokaltidningen, v. 3, Arne Spångberg, Alla gillar Ljubis konst

1989-12-01, DN På Stan, Gitta Magnell, Lekfullt i stort format

1989, SST (Solna?), v. 49, s. 4, Ingrid Wahlin, Vilken blick!

1988-10-03, Kuriren, s. 11, Hans Werder, Ljubis konst visar glädje och livslust

1988-10-01, Hudiksvalls Tidning, Anita Ridefelt, I Hälsinglands museum: Friskt och spontant

1988, Bulletin (Konstföreningen i Lidingö), nr. 4, s. 6, Meddelanden: Vår Britt Paus-stipendiat Ljubi...

1988-04-23, Örebro Allehanda, s. 4, Maija Niitymäki, Jazzig livsglädje

1988-04-09, Örebro Kuriren, s. 17, Annika Burholm, En själsfrände till Picasso

1987-10-21, Lidingö Posten, Per Wikström, De får stipendier

1987-10-17, Svenska Dagbladet, Stig Johansson, Hetta och svalka

1987-10-07, Lidingö Tidning, Sven D., Färgsprakande Ljubisalong

1987-02-02, What’s on & Where to go in London, Exhibitions & Art

1986-11-13, DN Runt Stan, Ingela Lind

1985-11-22, DN På Stan, ODN, Vågar ta risker

1985-11-07, Lidingö Tidning, Sven D., Ljubi Lidströmers utställning: Besök stadshuset, men dröj gärna kvar i entrén!

1985-10-31, Lidingö Tidning, Stor salong med Ljubi

1985-10-31, DN Runt Stan, ”En utmaning att måla stort”

1985-10-07, Vimmerby Tidning, A-L Larsson, Ljubi Lidströmer en ung kvinna med egna idéer

1985-01-31, Karlskoga Kuriren, Paul Andersson, Ljubi Lidströmer

1985-01-26, Karlskoga-Degerfors Allehanda, Ljubi i konsthallen: mina bilder ska provocera

1984-12-14, Svenska Dagbladet, Bortglömda konstnärinnor

1984-12-14, DN På Stan, ODN, Framplockade ur glömskan

1984-12-13, DN Runt Stan, s. 8, Elisabeth Jansson, Hon har letat fram deras verk till utställning, fyra bortglömda Lidingökonstnärinnor

1984 (trol.), Lidingö Tidning, SDK, Hon ger lön för mödan

1984-12-06, Lidingö Tidning, s. 22, Sven D., Fredrikorna jubilerar med ett stycke unik kulturhistoria

1984-09-28, Folkbladet, s. 7, Bilder av människor på Fröbel galleriet

1984-03-08, DN Runt Stan, förstasidan och mittuppslaget, Christina Uby, Dagens namn är

Fredrika, Fredrika Bremerförbundet 100 år, Lidingöfredrikorna har fått vind i seglen

1984-03, Roland Berndt, Konstnärer om Müchenbryggeriet: Inga bortkastade pengar

1982-11-31, DN På Stan, Arne Odéen, På plats i gamla München

1982-10-22, Svenska Dagbladet, Monica Anrep-Nordin, 48 konstnärer på plats i Münchenbryggeriet

1982, Lidingö Tidning, Cecilia Christner, Spännande utställning

1982-06-17, Lidingö tidning, s. 16, Cecilia Christner, Att vara konstnär – RÄCKER INTE DET?

1982-04-22, Lidingö Tidning, 25 år med Colly, Jubilem med teknik

1980-11-15, Lidingö Tidning, Karl-Erik Jonsson, En utställning väl värd att ses

1980-03-28, Göteborgs Handels- och sjöfartstidning, Tord Baeckström, Galleri Olab - Ljubi Lidströmer

1978, Socialnytt (Socialstyrelsen), nr. 3, Kjell Åkerlund, KULTUR - bästa medicinen för långvårdspatienterna

1978-04-20, Lidingö Tidning, Gösta Rooth, Konst i intimt format

1978-03-23, DN Nordost, s.28, ”Konst är ett livsbehov”

1975-04-10, Lidingö Tidning, G. R.,

1974-10-17, Lidingö Tidning, G. R., En ovanligt driven krokitecknare

1974-01-24, Lidingö Tidning, s. 6, Fia, ”Former av liv” på galleriet

1972-11-03, Lidingö Tidning, s. 11 15:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)15:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)15:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)~

Attacking me? Now someone has also deleted my article on Sigrid. The Sigrid-article was full of references and there was NO DEBATE before about "if it should be deleted or not". OK, I am now concidering to disappear completely. A wikipedian suicide. This is too much. Could I ask to be deleted as a member and also require everything I have written to be deleted. I am so sad because of this bullying against everything I write.15:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)15:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)15:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)15:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC) 15:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)15:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)15:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)~

Permit re-creation ~~Endorse deletion~~ - ~~under WP:CSD#G4~~ per Hoary's fine reasoning -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC) -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Permit re-creation of the Lindstromer article. There certainly does seem to be substantially more material. Probably it warrants another discussion at AfD. I hope we can resurrect Nike George as well.As for femmage, that might possibly make an article, but not if nobody else has used the trm, and the article here was a duplicate. DGG (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Permit re-creation of Louise Lidströmer, because a long list of what are purported to be disinterested references have been produced. This permission should not be taken to preclude a second AfD if the re-editors of the article do not credibly indicate just which assertion about LL is backed up by precisely which authoritative source. (The sources cited may be in Swedish or any other language, but they must be specified precisely.) ¶ "Femmage" seems to be a neologism of little significance; if Louise Lidströmer is restored, then Femmage may be re-created as a redirect to it. ¶ Toward the end of his long message shortly above, and therefore perhaps inconspicuously, Nike George comments on the speedy deletion of another article by him, Sigrid Lidströmer. This article is rather problematic in some ways, but I too disagree that it was speedy material and am about to contact the admin who deleted it. -- Hoary 22:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: the AfD was not one of WP's finest. Of the first five contributions, four are "delete" quasi-votes; however, three of these say or imply that they'd change to "keep" if sources were forthcoming, and the fourth doesn't take the obvious opportunity to disagree. This was followed by two announcements that sources had been found, and a relisting. The very first contribution after the relisting was a disinterested and informative description of substantive sources. None of the people who'd previously (and more or less provisionally) said "delete" then returned (whether out of laziness or because they hadn't been notified of the discovery of evidence), and there was a single delete quasi-vote that completely ignored the matter of evidence. Yes the edit history shows "COI", grounds to view the article with great suspicion -- but not grounds to dismiss the 2 December comment by Bonadea. -- Hoary 00:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little note from me. I wrote an article after the Louise-article, called only "L Lidströmer", that contained more references including books with ISBN-number (as it should be I guess). Regarding the "femmage" (which is a neologism) I also had a book reference there (with ISBN). When it comes to Sigrid, I aggree it is not the easiest article, but I saw some challenge to find more here. When learning more about Wikipedia it is more fun, and I hope I can contribute with articles outside these mentioned subjects, which may seem small.--NGL 08:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nike George (talk • contribs)

Release of a page please look at my draft with 84 new references (you may also look at my talk page where Hoary has helped me alot) Link; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nike_George/Draft Tomorrow I will reconstruct the Sigrid-page. I would also like to reconstruct the femmage-page - could someone, a kind person, send me the final version of the femmage-page, so I could add references and notes? NGL 18:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have done this. -- Hoary 10:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet more comments. I've written above that the "Louise Lidströmer" AfD was unsatisfactory in certain ways. The article that it rightly or wrongly deleted was most unsatisfactory too. The article that was later created as L Lidströmer was also unsatisfactory; however, it was not a simple re-creation of the earlier article, it was instead an improvement, with sources. Speedying it seems iffy. Both the earlier article and the later one are about a member of the author's own family, immediately raising worries about COI. But as I read this guideline, while it warns people away from writing about members of their own family, it does not rule it out; and (from "in a nutshell"): editors with a potential conflict of interest may edit with appropriate care and discussion. What Nike George is now working on asserts notability, provides references (at this moment, too many of them), and seems to show an honest (if not yet fully successful) attempt at appropriate care. -- Hoary 10:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough? I think it may be completed now. Now I think the article is complete with the references presented in the correct and formal way, sources to pictures, I have taken away many references also because I had too many. I am open to all opinions, if you think I should correct, add or take away something.NGL 18:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Single File (band) – request withdrawn – GRBerry 00:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Single File (band) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Hi, it's me again. I first came across this article in my days of yore, when I first started spending a lot of time hanging around at AfD. I saw this band's article come up for deletion (under the name Single File, which now redirects, as it should, to a disambig), and spent a fair bit of time trying to save the article, without success. Ah, the mistakes we make when we are young. And, as one of the articles cited notes, what a difference a year makes! Since the article was deleted, the group scored a slot opening for Colorado compatriots The Fray and got signed to Reprise Records, who released an EP of theirs that hit the Billboard Heatseekers chart. Oh, and the page Single File (band) was A7'd four more times and protected. In light of this rewrite of the old article (which should now establish notability under WP:MUSIC bullets 1, 2, & 4), can I have this unsalted and restored? Chubbles 04:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] You certainly don't want the old one back: it was vapid promotion obviously copied from another site. Notability per the rewrite is dubious, they appear not to have released a full-length album since being signed and you've not included multiple non-trivial independent coverage of which they have been the primary focus. Looks like a "one day, not yet" candidate to me. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion at least for now. One major-label EP and no albums wouldn't pass WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment It may be just an EP, but it still charted, which passes WP:MUSIC and is generally indicative of major exposure. Chubbles 20:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment I seem to be losing this case. While I regard all of the arguments so far put forth as specious (both nontrivial coverage and WP:MUSIC have been provided), it seems the main contention is that the band has yet to release a full-length album, so I will return when they do so. Chubbles 20:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Single File (band) – request withdrawn – GRBerry 00:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, it's me again. I first came across this article in my days of yore, when I first started spending a lot of time hanging around at AfD. I saw this band's article come up for deletion (under the name Single File, which now redirects, as it should, to a disambig), and spent a fair bit of time trying to save the article, without success. Ah, the mistakes we make when we are young. And, as one of the articles cited notes, what a difference a year makes! Since the article was deleted, the group scored a slot opening for Colorado compatriots The Fray and got signed to Reprise Records, who released an EP of theirs that hit the Billboard Heatseekers chart. Oh, and the page Single File (band) was A7'd four more times and protected. In light of this rewrite of the old article (which should now establish notability under WP:MUSIC bullets 1, 2, & 4), can I have this unsalted and restored? Chubbles 04:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly don't want the old one back: it was vapid promotion obviously copied from another site. Notability per the rewrite is dubious, they appear not to have released a full-length album since being signed and you've not included multiple non-trivial independent coverage of which they have been the primary focus. Looks like a "one day, not yet" candidate to me. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion at least for now. One major-label EP and no albums wouldn't pass WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may be just an EP, but it still charted, which passes WP:MUSIC and is generally indicative of major exposure. Chubbles 20:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I seem to be losing this case. While I regard all of the arguments so far put forth as specious (both nontrivial coverage and WP:MUSIC have been provided), it seems the main contention is that the band has yet to release a full-length album, so I will return when they do so. Chubbles 20:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:WikiCabal MTG Card.png – copyvios will not be undeleted on DRV. Feel free to create an image for this purpose that is not a copyvio. – >Radiant< 11:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:WikiCabal MTG Card.png (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` No discussion -- nobody except the nominator posted on it, and I don't think it was a copyright infringement as the nominator claimed. (If it was, it will be fairly simple to fix once undeleted.) Neon Merlin 00:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted, IFD does not explicitly require discussion, images get deleted at the end of the five days if there is no objection to the deletion. As for this particular case, I believe Wizards of the Coast owns the copyright to the design of Magic: the Gathering cards, so I could see how this would be a copyright infringement. --Core desat 01:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - derivative of copyrighted work, can't be used on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse WotC/Hasbro unquestionably owns the card design elements. No objection to the image being privately emailed to someone who wants to replaced the copyrighted parts with something that merely looks similar but doesn't violate copyright. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Image:WikiCabal MTG Card.png – copyvios will not be undeleted on DRV. Feel free to create an image for this purpose that is not a copyvio. – >Radiant< 11:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

No discussion -- nobody except the nominator posted on it, and I don't think it was a copyright infringement as the nominator claimed. (If it was, it will be fairly simple to fix once undeleted.) Neon Merlin 00:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted, IFD does not explicitly require discussion, images get deleted at the end of the five days if there is no objection to the deletion. As for this particular case, I believe Wizards of the Coast owns the copyright to the design of Magic: the Gathering cards, so I could see how this would be a copyright infringement. --Core desat 01:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - derivative of copyrighted work, can't be used on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse WotC/Hasbro unquestionably owns the card design elements. No objection to the image being privately emailed to someone who wants to replaced the copyrighted parts with something that merely looks similar but doesn't violate copyright. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Fillmore! episodes – copyright violation deletion endorsed, recreation proceeding – GRBerry 00:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of Fillmore! episodes (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Deleted out of process. We have articles with lists of episodes for other shows, why not this? Illintea 21:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] I think a fuller explanation of the basis for the appeal is needed, since otherjunkexists is no reason for an appeal. The article was deleted with the comment:‎ (Episode summaries are copied. This is a copyright violation.) -- I've notified the deleting admin of this discussion--The copyvio tag was by an anon, who had very recently been indef blocked for disruptive edits, & was back on trial.. The actual article is, indeed, an episode list like other episode lists--I copy below the first one of the 26 {\| class="wikitable" style="width:100%;" \|- bgcolor="#CCCCCC" ! #!!Title !! US Airdate !! Pro. Code \|- ((Episode list \|EpisodeNumber=1 \|Title=[[To Mar a Stall]] \|OriginalAirDate= [[September 14]], [[2002]] \|ProdCode=101 \|ShortSummary=X Middle School's bathroom renovation project teeters on the brink of disaster as the new tagger "STAINLESS" strikes at will. Out of leads, Fillmore and Ingrid turn to Randall Julian, the former vandal "FLAVA SAVA," currently in solitary detention. His help puts them back on the trail, but Randall escapes, forcing Fillmore and Ingrid to hunt down both "STAINLESS" and "FLAVA SAVA" before they strike again. )) I think there is no consensus whatsoever that such material is a copyright violation, and the admin deleted it on the basis of his private view , without reference to established policy and guidelines. I note that the individual episode articles are present, and I think that this sort of combination article is generally considered a much better way to do it. DGG (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment It looks like the article was deleted due to copyright problems. According to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 August 14/Articles, the content of the article matched the episode guide at TV.com. You may also wish to contact the administrator who deleted the article if you haven't done so already, particularly if the content of the page was not copied from tv.com and you can provide evidence for this. According to the Wikipedia article on TV.com, their episode guides are submitted by volunteers...does anyone know if they keep a history of the date when information was submitted? (I tried to look on the page and didn't see anything, but it may be possible to view it if you are logged in as a member.)--GregRM 01:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yep. My carelessness in not looking first, I forgot to check it and the contents is identical for at least the first two episodes. The individual episode article and this one were started on the same days, Feb 7 & 8, 2007. I've notified the ed. involved. DGG (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment by deleting admin What I looked at during copyright review before deleting: The tv.com terms of use are on [1]. The terms of use clearly do not allow copying by third parties. The actual guide is on [2]. No source was cited in the article for the episode summaries. All of season 1 was entered on Wikipedia over a 40-minute period by a single user (User:Chirchona). While deleting, I did not look for articles on individual episodes; the backlog on Wikipedia:Copyright violations is such that I rarely search for more things to check. --Alvestrand 06:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC) (deleting admin).[reply] Comment: I've recreated the list with the numbering I have in my folder of Fillmore episodes, but the page is very bare and I urge people to fill it with uncopyvio summaries. Will ^(talk) 16:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of Fillmore! episodes – copyright violation deletion endorsed, recreation proceeding – GRBerry 00:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted out of process. We have articles with lists of episodes for other shows, why not this? Illintea 21:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a fuller explanation of the basis for the appeal is needed, since otherjunkexists is no reason for an appeal. The article was deleted with the comment:‎ (Episode summaries are copied. This is a copyright violation.) -- I've notified the deleting admin of this discussion--The copyvio tag was by an anon, who had very recently been indef blocked for disruptive edits, & was back on trial.. The actual article is, indeed, an episode list like other episode lists--I copy below the first one of the 26

{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%;" |- bgcolor="#CCCCCC" ! #!!Title !! US Airdate !! Pro. Code |- ((Episode list |EpisodeNumber=1 |Title=[[To Mar a Stall]] |OriginalAirDate= [[September 14]], [[2002]] |ProdCode=101 |ShortSummary=X Middle School's bathroom renovation project teeters on the brink of disaster as the new tagger "STAINLESS" strikes at will. Out of leads, Fillmore and Ingrid turn to Randall Julian, the former vandal "FLAVA SAVA," currently in solitary detention. His help puts them back on the trail, but Randall escapes, forcing Fillmore and Ingrid to hunt down both "STAINLESS" and "FLAVA SAVA" before they strike again. ))

I think there is no consensus whatsoever that such material is a copyright violation, and the admin deleted it on the basis of his private view , without reference to established policy and guidelines. I note that the individual episode articles are present, and I think that this sort of combination article is generally considered a much better way to do it. DGG (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like the article was deleted due to copyright problems. According to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 August 14/Articles, the content of the article matched the episode guide at TV.com. You may also wish to contact the administrator who deleted the article if you haven't done so already, particularly if the content of the page was not copied from tv.com and you can provide evidence for this. According to the Wikipedia article on TV.com, their episode guides are submitted by volunteers...does anyone know if they keep a history of the date when information was submitted? (I tried to look on the page and didn't see anything, but it may be possible to view it if you are logged in as a member.)--GregRM 01:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. My carelessness in not looking first, I forgot to check it and the contents is identical for at least the first two episodes. The individual episode article and this one were started on the same days, Feb 7 & 8, 2007. I've notified the ed. involved. DGG (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by deleting admin What I looked at during copyright review before deleting:

The tv.com terms of use are on [1]. The terms of use clearly do not allow copying by third parties.
The actual guide is on [2].
No source was cited in the article for the episode summaries.
All of season 1 was entered on Wikipedia over a 40-minute period by a single user (User:Chirchona).

While deleting, I did not look for articles on individual episodes; the backlog on Wikipedia:Copyright violations is such that I rarely search for more things to check. --Alvestrand 06:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC) (deleting admin).[reply]

Comment: I've recreated the list with the numbering I have in my folder of Fillmore episodes, but the page is very bare and I urge people to fill it with uncopyvio summaries. Will ^(talk) 16:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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