Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democracy & Nature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was, if the various sockpuppets and meatpuppets are ignored, no consensus. Default to keep. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 22:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Democracy & Nature

Vanity page, not obviously notable. Google Scholar shows very few instances of citations from other journals. Editorial board of magazine is trying to maintain control over content, as shown by talk page. SarekOfVulcan 03:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. This seems to be an attempt to end an edit war and disagreement through an afd vote. Not the way to do it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I can see how you would come to that conclusion, but I don't feel it's the case. I don't have a dog in this fight: I'm just trying to insure the integrity of Wikipedia. This article came to my attention while I was following RfPP after the Freemasonry edit war, and I was quickly convinced that if the editorial board (all of whom post from IPs, not named accounts) was going to insist on having the article exactly the way they wanted, then it qualified as Vanity. You can do the same external research I did: a Google search on the title shows that most of the top references appear to be just references to the journal's existance, or reprints of articles. A Google Scholar search shows that very few of the articles are cited more than once or twice.--SarekOfVulcan 07:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
While I'm not familiar with impact factors outside of the natural sciences, I don't think median citation rates of one or two sound all that bad for a journal with such a focus. Pete.Hurd 06:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment First, it is the Editorial Board itself which formally requested the deletion of the page when it became clear that Wikipedia could not protect our page from vandalism. But to characterise the page of the journal as a ‘vanity page, not obviously notable’ is only revealing –to say the least--of the philistinism of the author of this comment. D&N was an antisystemic Left journal and citations from other journals are bound to be few and sparse, as it is clear that the mainstream journals (as well as those of the reformist Left) which dominate the field do not bother to deal with anticapitalist journals, particularly today. Had he checked citations made with respect to other serious antisystemic theoretical journals like Anarchist Studies, for example, he would have found even fewer of them! Second, serious research on the significance of a journal obviously cannot be carried out through a Google search, which refers exclusively to electronic citations. Had your ‘researcher’ checked with the authentic Alternative Press Index (only in print form!) he would have seen dozens of citations of abstract reprints from Democracy & Nature. Third, it is an obvious lie that the members of the Editorial Board insisted “on having the article exactly the way they wanted”. In fact, even though it was apparent that we faced a systematic attack by a single disgruntled ex-member of the journal we took on board several of the suggested changes, but clearly we could not accept a blatant distortion of historical facts that he insisted on imposing upon us for his own personal reasons, as a reading of the exchanges in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democracy_%26_Nature makes abundantly clear. (Member of the Editiorial Board) 11:16, 18 November 2005
  • Keep it!

The Journal contents still very interesting articles of many prolific writers of Left. This is a clear attempt to end the discussion when he/they (Sharek of Vulcan)have no 'arguments' left other then his hatred! R.H.This vote & comment left by anonymous User:195.179.14.235

  • Keep. Journals of this type are inherently notable. No one "owns" a Wikipedia article. If there are issues over the NPOV status of the article, then it should go to Wikipedia's arbitration folks or simply protected. 23skidoo 13:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I dispute that journals of any type are inherently notable - many of them have pitifully small circulation, no academic credibility and they are often short-lived; many of them are vehicles for vanity, either of the editor or the contributors. Whether that is the case with this one I have yet to determine. It certainly looks as if this one may well be notable. Also, while the nomination might be in good faith there's plenty of evidence of bad faith in the edit history, so it might be hard to get to the objective truth. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it!!!!!

Keep the D&N page as it is. The themes and topics are insightful; they offer an alternate perspective not to be found in any other journal. The anti-systemic nature of D&N is refreshing, and provides a valuable research tool. Viji November 18, 2005This comment & vote left by anonymous User:67.84.97.153

  • Delete. A Google Scholar search shows 159 citations, of which 133 are within the journal itself. In the absence of any information on subscriber base, and given that the magazine is defunct, and given the long-running dispute re inclusion or non inclusion of text re the history of the journal, I'd say that the article is substantially unverifiable, and that evidence of notability is absent. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. For your information, among subscribers to D&N have been the following libraries: University of Oregon; Bath University,UK; Chaire De Sociologie University of Paris; Universita di Padova Italy; University of Waterloo-Ontario; Dept of Linguistics, Cambridhe, MA; Univ of Chicago Press;MIT Press Journals; Library of Congress, Washington DC; Dept of Philosophy, Univ. of Texas; Philosophy Dept, Swinburne Univ. Australia --full list from Taylor & Francis/Carfax. Also, the journal is not defunct but has been succeeded since 2004 by the online journal The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy (Member of the Editorial Board).14:46, 18 November 2005
      • The fact that you cite University of Bath rather than, say, Oxford or Cambridge, is interesting (Library of Congress is famously promiscuous in its buying). So, how many actual subscribers were there? Personal and institutional (two numbers) will be fine. Or do I need to walk next door and ask? As it happens I work next door to Taylor & Francis! - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it!

I believe that the page should be kept as it is at the moment (with no separate sections for two members of the IAB) because information about a journal of such a scope is of an obvious encyclopaedic value. We should not permit a "disagreement" of a whole group of people with a single person (who hardly used arguments), to influence our judgement. D&N was (and is, in its newest digital form and name) one of the last independent anti-systemic journals. We cannot base our opinion about it in google search, or even on the number of subscribers for that matter, but on the quantity and quality of the condributions and the significance of the contributors themselves!!! And since when an encyclopedia must select its entries on the basis of popularity? User:Dimitri 18:57, 18 November 2005This comment and vote were added by anonymous User:212.205.76.134

      • Here is a more comprehensive list of some of the main subscribers to D&N: UNIV OF CO AT DENVER; WASHINGTON & LEE UNIVERSITY; MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY; BROCK UNIVERSITY,CANADA INDIANA UNIVERSITY; UNIV OF TEXAS AT EL PASO; UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND; UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN; SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY; IOWA STATE UNIV; UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA; LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS; UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS; STANFORD UNIVERSITY; SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY; HAMBURG LIBRARY; BERNARD HAMES LIBRARY, AUSTRALIA; UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES; UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY, KENT; UNIVERSIDADE DE COIMBRA, PORTUGAL; LOYOLA UNIVERSITY; GODDARD COLLEGE, VT; HARVARD COLLEGE LIBRARY;INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL HISTORY, AMSTERDAM;FORMAZIONE II BIBLIOTECA, PALERMO;WASHINGTON & LEE UNIVERSITY; BROCK UNIVERSITY; INDIANA UNIVERSITY;UNIV OF TEXAS AT EL PASO; UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN;IOWA STATE UNIV;UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS;SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY;BATH UNIVERSITY.

Sorry, Oxbridge is not in the list but the LSE library is included! I wonder however whether you have checked similar details for the other journals hosted by Wikipedia and we are not going to continue satisfying your curiosity(?) anymore...(Member of the Editorial Board) 16:44,18 November 2005

        • If they come to AfD I will ask precisely the same question. The fact that you appear to be relying on sock-puppets to keep your entry on WP also carries certain implications. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable enough for mine given the list of subscribers and list of authors. Content disputes should preferably be sorted out on the talk page. Capitalistroadster 17:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Definitely a notable journal with many notable contributors and editorial board members. If members of the editorial staff really did request deletion because they couldn't control the article content, that's idiotic on their part; but it doesn't make the journal less notable. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems notable enough. I don't think the total number of subscribers is significant with journals like this; it says more that a number of respectable academic libraries use their limited funds to buy it. (By the way - since Oxbridge was brought up by somebody else - it seems that it can be found in the Radcliffe Science Library in Oxford.) --u p p l a n d 19:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Whatever! Hasn't anybody else noticed that those who support Democracy & Nature's editorial board almost always write either using no username, or simply using an ad hoc username which hasn't been used anywere else in Wikipedia and will therefore probably be discarded soon afterwards? See especially the Talk pageof the Democracy & Nature entry. This is turning into a game of shadows, wherein those with more time to spare do their best to give the impression of massive support for their viewpoint. And Wikipedia has witnessed previous occurences of such behaviour. DisposableAccount 00:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • "simply using an ad hoc username which hasn't been used anywere else in Wikipedia and will therefore probably be discarded soon afterwards" -- like, say, "DisposableAccount"?--SarekOfVulcan 01:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Did it occur to you that most of them (I am talking in particular about members of the Editorial Board and readers of D&N) may have never participated in Wikipedia discussions in the past—something that could explain their frequent editorial mistakes, their lack of experience about user names etc? Does all this mean that there is some sort of organissed campaign, as you imply, or does it simply mean that that the couple of supporters (who may just be the same person using different user names) of the biased ex member of the EB who attempted to vandalise the D&N page and created all this fuss simply have run out of arguments and have resorted now to plot theories?(Member of the Editorial Board)01:05, 19 November 2005
    • *sigh* You know, MotEB, you make it very hard to WP:AGF.--SarekOfVulcan 01:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • weak keep I don't buy that this journal is NN. Other reasons to delete include that it's the easy way to end an edit war between one or more apparent kooks, whereas keeping will consume admin time and effort for the forseeable future. Deletion for this reason doesn't sit well with me, nor do the hints of editorial board expectations of maintaining control over the content of article. If this journal is notable, then the article will just have to remain an admin pest case Pete.Hurd 06:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • strong keep It is more than obvious that this journal is trully important. It is really depressive to characterize the people behind it as "kooks", when the vast majority side explain again and again its significant reasons of arguing. And the interest in objectivity shouldn't be labelled as "maintaining control over the content of article".User:Thessalon 14:00, 22 November 2005This comment and vote added by anoymous User:213.16.239.19
  • More than obvious? That it is truly important? Excellent, then there should be absolutely no trouble whatsoever in citing references to support that claim: academic journals for the arts, for example, enthusiastically discussing the magazine and its importance to literary culture. Half a dozen or so will easily persuade me. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Half a dozen or so? Are you interested in quantity over quality? It is obvious that the journal is important because of the quality its anti-systemic analysis. Whereas the reformist quantitative Left takes the existing SYSTEM of the internationalzed market economy for granted and would like to improve its functioning by putting a smiley or green face on it. The argument here is whether to keep the D&N page as the EB has written. It is obvious that the comments to keep are emphatically and decisively in favor of the EB. So why keep this page up for now approaching a week? user:john 20:45, 22 November 2005This comment left by anonymous user:67.84.97.153
  • More than obvious? If you are interested in the number of references to the journal check out the Alternative Press Index published by the Alternative Press Center in Baltimore.User:Aruna 21:10 22 November 2005This comment left by anonymous user:67.84.97.153
  • See, it's like this. The world is full of small literay (and other) journals. Some are significant, others are not. Thus far, the proof of this journal's notability has been, to my reading, confined to arm-waving and argument by assertion, so I asked for some externally verifiable evidence in the form of discussions in recognised authorities which themselves recognise the merit of this journal. So, to be absolutely clear, I am quite happy to believe that this might have been a noteworthy journal, but as yet no verifiable evidence has been cited to prove it. Is that really too much to ask? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 11:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Last two comments from User:john and User:Aruna were from the same IP.

  • Wow! Brilliant deduction! But john and Aruna are two different people. What's your problem? user:john3:50. 23 November 2005This comment left by anonymous User:67.84.97.153
  • Delete nn defunct journal; if this article is kept it needs to be cleaned up for content. Instead of the current ra-ra blurbspeak, how bout something on why it failed? Eusebeus 09:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep seems reasonable enough journal. Alf melmac 13:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepKeep the D&N page. It has great research information and analysis.user:tommy12:22,Nov 23,2005This comment & vote added by anonymous user:67.84.96.84
Oh, now this is interesting. 67.84.96.84, voting keep here, has a very similar reverse DNS address to 67.84.97.153, voting keep here. In addition, the registered account Tommy hasn't contributed for quite a while, so I doubt this is him. --SarekOfVulcan 17:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep* It would be more useful to the discussion if people like Eusebeus do their research before writing comments so that they do not give the impression that they do not know what they are talking about. The journal is neither defunct nor failed! It simply changed names (as it has done in the past) and form (online instead of printed). If changing a journal to online is considered a failure, then shall we say that Wikipedia is also a failed encyclopedia? User:john 15:00 23 November 2005This comment left by anonymous User:67.84.97.153
  • Keep I know many articles in greek (printed) magazines, here in Greece, reffering to D&N and its articles. Also, I' ve seen references in essays from the Institute for anarchist studies, or the on-line magazine "Communalism" and other sites, especially anarchists ("coalition against civilization" etc). I just want to remind to "Just zis Guy, you know?", that D&N is NOT an arts or literary culture magazine!!! Its a radical political journal, and D&N isn't responsible if radical politics are not so preferable these days! User:B.J.This comment and vote left by anonymous User:212.205.76.134
  • Comment*It is clear that Just zis Guy, you know? has never seen in his life an antisystemic Left theoretical journal, otherwise he would not have asked for some “externally verifiable evidence in the form of discussions in recognised authorities”! Can he describe for our benefit which are these “recognised authrorities”, as fas as journals of the antisystemic Left is concerned? We referred him to the authoritative Index of Aleternative Press but did not pay any attention to it. Similarly, the fact that some of the most significant university libraries in the world are subsuscribers to the journal is of non importance to him. Furthermore, had he gone through the dozens of references in Google (which of course give only a glimpse of the real significance of the journal as they mention only electronic references) he would have discovered that it is a distortion of the truth what was mentioned above by SarekOfVulcan that “most of the top references appear to be just references to the journal's existance”. In fact, many refer to specific articles used by other scholars et al. This is why the journal has received and published so many contributions by important theorists in the Left, who would never have submitted an article to an obscure journal. I am also sure that most other journals hosted by Wikipedia do not satisfy any of the above criteria, not to mention his own criteria. If this is not a biased attitude, I wonder what the definition of bias is…(Member of the Editorial Board)
  • Keep If the administrators have done their homework they would conclude that D&N is notable. Sherlock Hemlock of Vulcan, your claim above that because one address has a very similar DNS address as some other address allows you to doubt the existence of Tommy and by inference the two addresses are one and the same, is illogical. Sherlock Hemlock of Vulcan your ruminations are irrational and since, according to your presupposition that Vulcans can only be rational, your identity is placed into question. Your claim that similarity is identical is senseless.

You should know that “identical” twins are not truly identical, even though they are cloned from the same fertilized egg. Next, since there are no things as aliens (Vulcans) you must be something other. So to identify your self with something that does not exist is a real misunderstanding of your self. Your ego ideal (Sarek) is unreal—-one of wholeness and total rationality. Your image is based on a misunderstanding and therefore, you cannot fit into an ever changing (rational-irrational) world. Identity exists only in the ideal world of mathematics, everything else is difference. Your fallacy consists of, if A is identical with B, then every property that A has B has and vice versa, but you state that A and B are very similar, and similarities are not identical, so you make a false assertion: I doubt Tommy is Tommy, or the person who signed Tommy is not Tommy. The seeming identity of the two addresses has frozen your mind. Loosen up so that you can become more genuine. user:john5:32 (thankstaking day in america) 24 November 2005This comment and vote left by anonymous User:67.84.97.153

  • ' ' ' keep ' ' 'In researching the D&N journal one can find ways to change society. D&N explores beyond all leftist ideologies which are in reality reformist and not revolutionary .In reading the responses and comments I have come to believe that an individual that hides in a fantasy vulcan world is parallel with the capitalist system that also provides society with myths and irrational concepts that distract societies from reality as the present situation in vulcan sarek's life proves.Thus Sarek is unable to differentiate reality from fantasy. This is why He doubts I am Me. In reality I know I am me. Sarek lives through a fantasy world to justify his exsistence.

This is a valid reason why D&N should be kept because it demystifies all ideologies.user :tommy12:19 Nov 24 ,2005This comment and vote left by anonymous User:67.84.96.84

No Personal Attacks, please.--SarekOfVulcan 18:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I am a bit mystified as to why the personal attacks are deemed necessary. Is it not reasonable to ask for some evidence as to why an article should be included? It seems to me that we're being asked to keep it because it is unverifiable, which is a little odd. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment. My claim that you may have never seen an antisystemic theoretical journal before was corroborated by the fact that you asked for “externally verifiable evidence in the form of discussions in recognised authorities”. THis was not therefore a personal attack but a very reasonable assumption and as such was read by any unbiased user. Everyone who has read a similar antisystemic journal in the past is aware of the fact that there are no independently recognised authorities for this type of journal and the only verification could come from the sources I mentioned, which once again, you ignored!(Member of the Editorial Board)
So you are saying that thye evidence of its importance is the impossibility of verifying its importance? Must remember that next time I want to keep a pet article :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly a valid topic. Not a very good article, but we don't settle that by deletion. Given Pinter, Chomsky, and Bookchin on its board, obviously notable. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Note that this whole thing started when the anonymous Member of the Editorial Board (and others?) repeatedly removed a reference in the article to the D&N article where Bookchin severed his connections with the journal because of his philosophical disagreements with the founder.--SarekOfVulcan 21:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment This distortion of facts is really shameful. First, the reason that we objected the vandalism of a disgruntled ex member of the journal had nothing to do with the reference to Bookchin’s letter of resignation. As it was repeatedly stressed by members of the Editorial Board and the founder of D&N himself (see D&N discussion page), the reason we objected to this vandalism was that it added separate sections just for two members of the Advisory Board (Bookchin and Castoriadis) on the basis of the blatantly false assertion that “the main theoretical influences of the journal" were the work of these two writers. This, despite the fact that their articles and those of their supporters constituted only 12 percent of the total contributions published and that the programmatic aims of the journal, published in each issue, were clearly differentiated from their work! Second, Bookchin’s attitude was condemned by the entire Editorial Board [1], although it was not particularly surprising to us given that, in the past, he had repeatedly expressed his discontent to the Editorial Board for the fact that the Advisory Board included the names of other people (e.g. Chomsky) with whom he had political disagreements . It is clear that SarekOfVulcan uses here the well known old trick of relying on the fact that very few pople will bother to read the relevant exchanges before they draw their conclusions!(Member of the Editorial Board)
  • Comment According to Wikipedia guidlines there is a limit of five (5) days within which a decision has to be taken on an article for deletion. Despite the fact that the proposal for deletion was made on November 18, 2005 (today is the 26th of November) no decision has yet been made. I wonder whether this is due to the fact that two administrators, who are obviously determined (for reasons known only to them) to have the page deleted have not yet managed to get a simple majority in favor of deletion. In fact, the consensus as expressed by the vast majority of users and administrators who took part in the discussion, voted in favor of keeping the page and only one other administrator supported the above mentioned administrators. This, even when all the "anonymous users" voted to "keep" were arbitrarily deleted with the insulting description used by one of the administrators as "dodgy sigs"--just because of their concern that new users did not read the Wikipedia guidelines about registration and/or get a user name! User: Sandy 13:20, 26 November 2005

Can't you even avoid lying when the evidence is on this page? The only substantial deletion has been when the MotEB removed his/her personal attack on me. No votes have been deleted. I apologize, that was out of line.--SarekOfVulcan 20:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC) Actually, I just re-read wikipedia guidelines, and it says nothing of the sort. The deletion policy says that you can't delete it faster than 5 days, and after that, it's moved to a holding area until an admin has time to act on it. There are a whole lot of AfD nominations older than this one that haven't been acted on, either. (And please sign your posts correctly.)--SarekOfVulcan 20:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• As usual, [SarekOfVulcan] is economical with the truth. He forgot to mention for instance that I removed my “personal attack on him” just a couple of minutes after it was published by an obvious error of mine and that my comment followed his own personal attack on me when he accused me for bad faith—a comment that he never removed. (Member of the Editorial Board)


  • Comment When a proposal was made to delete the Parecon page on 20 July 2005, a decision was made by 28 July to keep it! In the Democracy and Nature case, the overwhelming majority of administrators, users, and anonymous have voted to keep it. Still, despite the fact that the proposal for the deletion of Democracy and Nature was made on 18 November, 10 days later the administrators have not yet decided anything on that, although the guidelines clearly state, "AfD is where Wikipedians decide whether problematic articles be deleted or kept. Items sent here usually wait five days or so while debates take place on whether the article should be deleted or not...the page is then kept, deleted etc." By the way, in the Parecon case the AfD was made by an anonymous user, whereas an administrator made the AfD in the Democracy and Nature case. POINT of ORDER: Make a decision now! User:Sandyshevack 16:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Admin? What admin?--SarekOfVulcan 01:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I have to say that if I were the closing admin, having seen the way in which the anon IPs have attempted to forge wikisigs (something I've not seen in any other AfD debate I can recall), I'd discount all anonymous votes. But I am not an admin either. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 16:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not "anonymous", I want you to restore my vote. What should I do about it? User:Thessalon 17:40, 28 November 2005 (anonymous comment by User:213.16.239.13)
  • KEEP You have NO RIGHT to erase me again. What is the reason for acting so hard? Why do you condemn so many people in anonymity? Probably because we are so many AGAINST your opinion? Kim Bruning writes below: "Sometimes people outside wikipedia find out about a VFD, and will want to leave their comments, which is something that we've always allowed". What's with this case? Former Thessalon, User:TheVel 20:45, 28 November 2005.
  • Keep Since "Just zis Guy" has personally attacked me, john, below (footnotes), as "anonymous" and again above as a "forger" of wikisigs, I take exception to his irresponsibility as I'm sure others do who have been labelled the same! Furthermore, as Kim points out below, just because we are new to Wikipedia does not mean we can be both attacked vituperatively and votes discounted as "Just zis Guy" would have it. The D&N article is verifiable and presents an analysis that is sorely needed in today's neo-liberal propaganda. I vote to KEEP D&N! User:john 15:20, 28 November 2005

[edit] Footnotes

  • Quick footnote (so keep it in the foot! ;-): Not every very very new user is a sock. Sometimes people outside wikipedia find out about a VFD, and will want to leave their comments, which is something that we've always allowed. Kim Bruning 08:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin: I have tagged several comments with the anon IP from which they were posted. In some cases these have been "signed" with genuine usernames. As far as I can tell, of these, only User:tommy has any edit history, and that account appears to be mostly dormant. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I am user "Tommy" and the anonymous user claiming to be me in this vote, is not. Tommy 13:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.