Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 27

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

I'm nominating this article for a deletion review. It was nominated for deletion just some few days after its creation. i believe improvability of the article can not be questioned. please review comments by those who wanted to keep this article. the comments of those who wanted to keep the series of Miss Venezuela articles has much bearing against those who wanted to delete it. RebSkii 18:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - main arguments for keeping look to be "it's useful" and "it's new." Deletion arguments were stronger. Otto4711 19:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The deleted article consisted of only--and I do mean only--a contestant list and an external link to a site with the same contestant list. I don't know if an encyclopedia article can be written about this topic (my gut instincts say no but I'd be happy to be proved wrong). I'd suggest rewriting the article in user space before nominating it here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Starblind, but, as I said on the AFD, without prejudice against an article about the contest. A national championship like this is indeed notable, but a list of contestants and nothing else is unencyclopedic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, the "keep" reasons were not compelling. Trebor 22:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. There was no procedural error that I can see, even as a raw vote count the Deletes had it, the year-by-year articles seem way excessive, and the nominator doesn't describe the improvements he could do if only more time were provided. If policy is allowed to weigh in the balance, the lack of sources in the surviving Miss Venezuela certainly argues against keeping the articles for the individual years. EdJohnston 04:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I weakly supported keeping at the AfD (just as a stay of execution in the hope the articles could and would be improved), but the discussion was properly closed as "delete". I do not oppose proper recreation of the articles that provides more context rather than just a list of the contestants. -- Black Falcon 17:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ormus matter – deletion endorsed – GRBerry 02:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was speedily deleted because another (much shorter) article written by somebody else had been found unsatisfactory. Can a topic from the natural sciences really be banned in the same rapid scanning process used for weeding out pranks, descriptions of unimportant persons/bands and such? Should its validity be determined by the bunch of often unserious users (see their discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ORMUS) who happened to be present when that other article was discussed? I will say that the reported discovery of a new form of matter is worth a Nobel prize. (Regrettably, the private person who had spent several million dollars on finding and investigating it, didn't also pay the scientists to publish scientific reports.) Documentation and phrasing are debatable, and might be flagged for improvement the wiki way, but a speedy deletion is ridiculous for a science topic. The speedy censor wrote: "the ormus concept is not generally acknowledged by physicists. To put that another way: ORMUS is pseudo science which is not even notable enough to be written up as such or as an hoax." The truth is that this matter is disregarded because its detection requires use of a Russian analysis method. Labelling the topic as a pseudoscience is no basis for speedy deletion, as also pseudoscientific topics are valid in Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Pseudoscience. In the new version of Ormus matter I have added a paragraph discussing the question whether ormus is scientific, and I conclude it is presently a protoscience. But it is also a practical technology, and as such its notability should be evident. (Ormus has a Yahoo discussion group with 1700 participants, and Hudson got several ormus patents.) The new version of the article Ormus matter can be found here in Wikinfo. nomination was by User:OlavN placed in a comment by mistake, restored by --ais523 08:58, 21 February 2007 (U T C)

Neutral. This is of course completely made up. But I think our convention has been to go ahead and have articles on pseudoscience, so that when some poor fool reads about it on an oh-so-serious website, they can come to Wikipedia and learn that it's fake. That said, we need sources for both the claims and the debunking, and I don't see any sources in that wikinfo article. — coelacan talk — 19:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete I do not blame anyone who speedied it as nonsense, but it is the sort of N nonsense that WP does include. The fact that it is totally impossible doesn't make it less N. In a way, its good to have a chem one come along considering all the paraphysics we have.DGG 00:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Nothing has changed since the AfD debate above, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ORMEs and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monatomic elements. The propsed draft does not make it clear in the first paragraph that this is protoscience and does not demonstrate that it is notable protoscience. -- RHaworth 19:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had included a paragraph Scientific Status, where the status Protoscience was concluded. So - not stating this in the first paragraph justifies speedy deletion? OlavN 10:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the touchstone of wikipedia is verifiability not truth. If there are third party sources discussing this discovery exist they have not been provided in the article linked or the AfD's mentioned above. Until and unless such sources are produced this article should stay deleted. Eluchil404 10:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A valid comment, but the wiki way is to tag insufficiently documented articles. How can a nonexistent article be improved? OlavN 08:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Send to AfD The prior discussion was in 2005. ~ trialsanderrors 00:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per AfD below. ~ trialsanderrors 07:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 13:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment The relative merits of borderline theories is endlessly debatable, but this one is contradicted by all theories of chemistry and physics. But I am not a RS, and any view I have on the scientific validity is irrelevant. The question is whether this is N, either to established science, or the public. Impossible garbage which gets public coverage is N, and rightly so, because people will come here for information. The N needs open discussion, and I would never judge such a matter on a speedy. DGG 20:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This wasn't speedied as G1 nonsense but rather as a G4 repost. The AfD's age notwithstanding (though the most recent relevant one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monatomic elements was in November 2006), the same arguments apply: the article doesn't demonstrate notability by citing references in reliable sources. This has nothing to so with the scientific merits of the proposal. Eluchil404 04:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop the press - heavyweight paper found. I just did a Google Scholar search (for ormus and Hudson) and found: Superfluid Modelling of Atomic Nuclei, which has paragraphs describing (and evidently accepting) ormus, m-state, Cooper pairs... (Also several hits in Google Books.) This is the wiki way: Important information can come only if the article is not speedily deleted. OlavN 09:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, this looks like an undergrad thesis supervised by someone who's not even on the regular staff of the Cavendish lab. No evidence of publication. If that's the most heavyweight evidence there is, the circular file is over there. ~ trialsanderrors 19:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I would accept reliable sources if they were offered by the nominator. I see that the last AfD was in 2005. It is indeed possible that new papers could have appeared since then, but I didn't see any such papers offered for our consideration. I scanned quickly through the online paper found by User:OlavN, and the first 90% of it is standard physics, the very end descends into ORMUS with no reliable sources, so it's not helpful for our debate. If this article is to be kept because ORMUS is a hoax, it needs to be a widely-believed hoax per WP:HOAX and we need reliable sources that show that it fooled a lot of people. This is not being offered to us either. EdJohnston 04:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Esperanza – Closing: not a request to review a deletion decision, but rather a request to edit the comments. The appropriate place for these comments is on the talk page of the MfD. – —Doug Bell ^talk 03:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please note: This submission for deletion review involves this version of Wikipedia:Esperanza. Previous discussions include Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza/Archive1, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza, and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Wikipedia:Esperanza.

(I have two really long arguements for this, so make sure that you have a lot of time and patience!)

The closing comments on the most recent MfD, which I fully support, stated:

The result of the debate was to decentralize Esperanza. I see this as the only viable way to minimize the pain between all parties involved, and understanding that this MfD will have wider, serious implications for other similiar organisations in future.
What do I mean by decentralization? The one main concern brought up in this MfD is the membership, the structure of this organisation. Its programs are good-intentioned, and they are supposed to be avaliable to any editor on Wikipedia. This is also the cause of the perceived "better than thou" and "cabalism" claimed by members, and the lack of consensus building.
This means as from now, the membership, council and associated pages are to immediately go. They will be salted. This is a warning to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a similiar fate as Esperanza.
All programs will be migrated to its associated projects and shall be open to every editor on Wikipedia. The existing program pages should be redirected to its new project page rather than Esperanza itself. Tentatively, Admin Coaching ~~to WP:ADOPT~~ as separate program (per request), Stress Alerts as standalone (Wikipedia:Stress alerts), COTM to WP:COTW, Trading Spaces already transferred, and birthday to WP:BDC. They are allowed to survive in their new forms and may be MfD-ed seperately if nessecary.
Messedrocker Solution will be applied to the rest of the pages; deletion not required. Esperanza is too big to be deleted without leaving many red-links and making newcomers wonder. A new essay page describing its history, philosophy and its fate is to replace the existing main Esperanza page. Its talkpage and archives should be clearly marked that its subsequent discussion is only about the essay only. I do not expect the organisation to revive, but hopefully this result will be something that is progressive and less controversial.
- Mailer Diablo 16:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The essay on Wikipedia:Esperanza, however, does not fulfill the requirements of the MfD closure, particularly the following sentence: "A new essay page describing its history, philosophy and its fate is to replace the existing main Esperanza page". The only things to be shown on the Esperanza essay are statements that factually describe Esperanza's history, philosophy, and fate. As I am about to show you, the current version of the essay is in violation of the closing comments of the MfD...

The first paragraphs of the essay say the following:

Esperanza was a Wikipedia project founded on August 12, 2005. Its goals were to support the encyclopedia indirectly by encouraging a sense of community. It was the belief of Esperanza that a friendly, supportive community within Wikipedia would help the encyclopedia by keeping editors happy, productive, and on the project. The name is derived from the Spanish word for "hope," and the original goal was to offer hope for the Wikipedia community and bring it together. When proposing the association, the founder wrote the following:

This particular paragraph describes Esperanza's history, because it describes EA's founding and its original goals. Second paragraph...

Esperanza or Esperanza Association is a proposed association of wikipedians dedicated to strengthening wikipedia's sense of community through establishing a support network for wikipedians in an environment that is often hostile and apathetic. Esperanza takes its name from the Spanish word for hope. We have taken this name the in spirit of offering hope to wikipedians who feel isolated and ignored. Spanish is used in the hope that a segment of the wikipedia community will never again feel so isolated that it breaks away from the community as did a portion of the Spanish wikipedia community did to form Enciclopedia Libre.

This paragraph touches lightly on philosophy and history. The founder was describing his intentions for the organization. Third paragraph...

Towards those goals, Esperanza attempted a number of initiatives, such as:

A stress alerts page that would alert Esperanza if someone was ill or feeling highly stressed due to issues on Wikipedia or in real life, or if someone left Wikipedia.

Admin Coaching, where newcomers could get assistance from Wikipedia administrators.

Reach Out, which provided consoling.

Tutorial Drive, which aimed to write a series of tutorials for using and editing Wikipedia

A calendar for members to list their birthday, first-edit day, etc. Esperanza tried to send out birthday wishes to Wikipedians.

The to-do list.

Trading Spaces, where Wikipedians could request help for designing their user page.

The coffee lounge for casual discussion.

The User page awards for well-designed user pages.

The Barnstar Brigade which gave out barnstars to users for good work.

Stressbusters, which investigated the source of wikistress.

Some of these programs survive as independent projects.

This particular section describes Esperanza's history. It talks about what Esperanza attempted to do in order to fulfill its goals. Fourth paragraph...

Esperanza was governed by a charter, which stipulated an Advisory Council with staggered terms, as well as an Administrator General who was selected by the council to lead the project. Amendments to the charter could be made through week-long discussions held on Wikipedia talk:Esperanza. This was criticized as being heavily bureaucratic; Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

This describes Esperanza history, talking about its bureaucracy. Fifth paragraph...

Esperanza was first nominated for deletion in November 2006. Critics of the group argued that Esperanza distracted people from contributing to the encyclopedia proper by providing an environment for social interaction. Esperanza was also criticized for having regular Council elections, which were seen as nothing more than popularity contests. Following a no consensus result in the first motion to delete Esperanza, the organization engaged in a series of reforms, which resulted in the deletion of the coffee lounge, the user page awards, Stressbusters and the Barnstar Brigade. The group also attempted to promote participation in the article namespace by creating an Esperanza Collaboration of the Month. While most of the reform discussions ultimately reached a consensus, the overhaul discussions related to Esperanza's goals, its charter, its governance, what constitutes membership, and the noticeboard weren't completed.

This paragraph discusses Esperanza's history, since it talks about the first MfD and attempts to reform afterwards. Sixth paragraph...

A month later, Esperanza was once again nominated for deletion. Noted complaints included:

The overhaul, which was allegedly done to prevent the deletion of Esperanza rather than to actually fix it, was unsuccessful in reforming Esperanza.

Esperanza had a "holier-than-thou" belief that without Esperanza, Wikipedia would melt into the ground. Likewise, there had been noted complaints that non-Esperanzians were treated as inferior.

Esperanza had set non-Esperanza members apart through their activities, such as Esperanza Collaboration of the Month.

The bureaucracy at Esperanza is anti-Wikipedia; the council made binding decisions through off-wiki conversations which were only made available after the event.

Esperanza was a nice idea but impossible to implement; additionally, a large project isn't needed to spread hope and good cheer.

The first sentence says, "A month later, Esperanza was once again nominated for deletion." IMHO this and only this sentence describes either Esperanza's history, philosophy, or fate. (In this case, the sentence describes history, since it talks about the second nomination.) The rest of the paragraph, however, describes arguements during the debate, which does not provide useful information that would adequately inform readers in an unbiased tone. The bullet points represent public opinion, and are not based on factual information. This slightly touches into my second arguement later on, which we'll get to soon. Seventh paragraph...

After long discussion, it was ultimately decided that Esperanza was to be decentralized and disbanded; see above for a list of now-independent projects. Other pages about Esperanza themselves were redirected to this page, which was replaced with the summary above.

This paragraph discusses Esperanza's fate, describing the close of the very same MfD debate we are describing! Eigth paragraph...

More debates followed on various pages in the Wikipedia namespace, including on a deletion review filed to review aspects of the MfD closure. The closing admin declared the consensus to be that the original MfD decision was endorsed.

This describes Esperanza's fate after the closure of the MfD.

As you can see, the sixth paragraph does not comply with the closing decisions of Mailer diablo. The original DRV even declared that his closing comments should be implemented! Now, on to my second arguement in this debate...

The essay in its current version is also in violation of WP:NPOV. I know...I know...WP:NPOV only applies to Wikipedia articles. However, let's take a look at the following comments written by Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, taken from this page.

If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.
If your viewpoint is held by a significant scientific minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides.
If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then _whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not_, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

The majority viewpoint is obviously that of the people who voted delete for Esperanza during its MfDs. But what about the other viewpoints during the MfDs, such as those that supported Esperanza or its ideals and goals? Or what about the viewpoints supporting the general idea of a community? Shouldn't we be able to "address the controversy without taking sides"? Let's take a look at the comments on the second MfD by Fang Aili...

I admit I have not been keeping up with the arguments for and against deletion, and I didn't participate in the overhaul of Esperanza. However I am !voting keep because I find value in the Stress Alerts, Admin Coaching, and Calendar. I simply find these useful and would be sad to see them go. If they can be moved elsewhere that would be fine. But I'd just like to say that I'm sad that the Esperanza community that helped me become a Wikipedian is dying.

There are obviously mixed feelings over this situation. Therefore, I strongly suggest that Wikipedia:Esperanza be edited to reflect the closing remarks on WP:MFD/EA and in the interest of keeping an NPOV. Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close. This doesn't have anything to do with deletion review, at all. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - I would like to point out that I have attempted to discuss the issue with other editors, but no further comments have been made as of now. I would also like to quote trialsanderrors, the closing admin of WP:DRV/EA with his following statement:

Just to be clear, the status quo per community consensus is whatever the closing admin decided. So all unilateral actions after the closure amount to a challenge to the MfD decision and therefore a de facto nomination for review. Unless there is a consensus to overturn the MfD decision will be upheld

I am justifying this DRV on the basis that the essay is in violation of the MfD closure and that other editors have been reluctant to change it, amounting to an objection to the closing admin of the MfD.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to get the page undeleted? Are you contesting the closure done by Mailer Diablo? If neither one applies, then this is the wrong venue. I don't see how the low-grade edit war between you and Dev920 over the essay rises to the magnitude of deleting subpages. Go back to the Village Pump, or try the dispute resolution channels. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reptile Palace Orchestra – History restored behind improved article – trialsanderrors 00:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was speed deleted due to lack of notability. I would assert that it fulfills the criteria for notability of a music related page due to the fact (as was stated on the page) that one of its members is Sigtryggur Baldursson of the Sugarcubes, which is a quite notable band in its own right which also helped launch the career of Bjork. Acornwithwings 00:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can offer no reasoned opinion on the matter as I was the person who deleted it in the first place. Bobo . 02:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete Whether it unquestionably meets WP:MUSIC is debatable, but I don't think it's speedy fodder. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since the page was speedied and not salted, it can be re-created anytime. I should note that the original page had no claim to notability per WP:MUSIC and no sources. The only notability claim thus far is that it once contained a member (Sigtryggur Baldursson) who was notable as part of other groups. WP:MUSIC states that a redirect to the notable member's biography is normally most appropriate as opposed to a separate article on the earlier band. RJASE1 ^Talk 00:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think, in that case, it should have either had a tag put on it or put up for regular deletion so that we would have had a chance to discuss it and/or improve the article. If it can be recreated, thats cool, although I personally don't know how to go about doing that. Acornwithwings 01:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the material from the original article, it's still in the Google cache. I would expand and source it before posting it again, though, or it will probably get nominated for deletion again. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the speedy deletion. No objection to re-creation if sources are provided. EdJohnston 04:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete I'm sure I can add some reputable notability sources to this article - but don't know how to undelete it.

--Bifftar 20:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tales of the Questor – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 02:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

In the interests of disclosure, I need to here point out that I know the creator of this comic. That said, I think that there may be a case for its undeletion. While a google search for the name does lead to a large amount of material not suitable for an encyclopedia (unedited reviews in non-notable blogs, and so on), it has won a major award ([1], coverage, for example, here, and its published volumes received reviews here, which I believe counts as a reliable source. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~. Our article on the Ursa Major Awards was deleted because reliable sources covering it couldn't be found. That doesn't automatically mean it doesn't provide any notability for your webcomic, since Ursa Major is independent of you and it's third party recognition. Beyond that, it does appear that Anthrozine has editorial oversight, and the review there is fairly extensive. The point of notability requirements is to gather enough information, independent from you, for the rest of us to write an article about your comic. There might be enough here. But in any case you will need to avoid editing the article, per WP:COI. — coelacan talk — 22:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not my comic. I wouldn't dare speak on anything I did. But I figured that it wouldn't be inappropriate to see if I could find evidence that a friend's comic was notable, as long as I stated my interest, and thought, after the research, there might, or, admittedly, might not, be a case. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread. It's not your comic. My reading comprehension has been very poor today. Thanks for clarifying that to me! — coelacan talk — 23:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "major award" does not look that major - any coverage outside the furry community? Are the books self-published or are they published by a reputable publishing house? Guy (Help!) 23:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published, and I'll admit I know nothing whatsoever about comic-related awards, so I honestly couldn't say beyond that one report of the comic gaining the award I stumbled across and linked above. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as one of those links demonstrates, the Ursa Major Award is recognized outside the Furry community, in the larger SF community. I would also say that third party reliable sources are third party reliable sources regardless of what community affiliation they claim for themselves. I'd like to see more sources, though, the Anthrozine review helps but it's not enough. — coelacan talk — 23:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had another quickish look, and... well, you'll have to be the judge of whether they're notable and/or reliable (I don't know enough to be sure, tending to work on articles on old Victorian plays or modern science, in both of which cases a reliable source is unambiguous) but these may be useful: [2], [3], [4], [5]. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, those are just blogs and one is a collection of links. Nothing that meets WP:RS. My own searches aren't pulling up anything more notable either. I'll have to say I endorse deletion. — coelacan talk — 09:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Linked the prior deletion review above. I note that this should not be speedy closed, as the nomination does offer new information not present in the AFD or prior DRV (the sources, not the award), but as the likely closer offer no opinion on overturning/endorsing. GRBerry 23:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 01:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. This article seems to have had multiple deletion reviews. I limit my review to the immediately prior AfD and what the submitters have said above. Meeting the WP:WEB requirements for web notability listed by User:Francis Tyers at the beginning of the most recent AfD would certainly be sufficient for keeping, if they were met. He argues that this article does not meet them, and the version of Tales of the Questor at answers.com certainly has no reliable sources. So I'll base my answer on whether anything new appears in this DRV, new sources for example. Submitters above point out that Ursa Major is not a major award, and the fact that the print versions are self-published certainly is worth considering. I agree with User:Coelacan that the links provided by User:Adam Cuerden don't appear to be reliable sources. So I'm endorsing the deletion. I don't object to eventual re-creation with sources, though no adequate sources have appeared in any of the debates so far. EdJohnston 17:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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