Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saugeen Stripper 2

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 no consensus; defaults to keep. STANDARD WARNING: NO CONSENSUS MEANS NO CONSENSUS NOW, SO IF YOU EVER GET CONSENSUS IN THE FUTURE TO DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN KEEP FEEL FREE TO GO AHEAD. THIS DEBATE IS IMMATERIAL TO DISCUSSIONS OF WHETHER THERE IS CONSENSUS TO REDIRECT OR KEEP, BECAUSE THERE ISN'T CONSENSUS TO DO EITHER. CITING THIS DEBATE OR MY DECISION TO BACK UP A KEEP OR REDIRECT DECISION WILL RESULT IN MAJOR SMACKDOWN. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. Do you smell what the Jmk is cookin'? Johnleemk | Talk 13:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Saugeen Stripper 2

After a disputed first nomination, this article was closed as a no consensus, but deleted out-of-process by another admin. As the first close was controversial (the closer, for example, counted two accounts with very few edits, which is almost always a bad idea, and there was a clear majority for deletion that was borderline rough consensus), and there was support for a relist at DRV, I am relisting this now. My vote is delete, as its basically a news story that isn't even really newsworthy, much less encyclopedic. Although there is support for a merge/redirect to the residence hall where the even took place (Saugeen-Maitland Hall), which I can live with (the merge has already been done). -R. fiend 17:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• SPEEDY KEEP. This article has already been through AfD. A consensus was not reached. There has been no change in the status since then. The exact same arguments can be made for deletion. The exact same arguemnts can bemade against deletion. Nothing new can be brought to the table. Tokyojoe2002 17:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

More eyes on the article can lead to a better consensus. A no consensus result the first time through is the perfect reason to relist IMO, although it probably should not have been done while we were discussing it actively on the talk page. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per the previous AfD. Do not merge or redirect. DES ^(talk) 17:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Just for the record, the result of the previous AFD was "no consensus," and actually had 11 delete votes vs. 7 keeps. --Naha|^(talk) 22:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

So? 11 vs 7 is no consensus which is exactly what DES said. 70.21.144.18 00:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, most admins would have discounted 2 votes, making it 6 to 10, and remember it's not just about the votes. Some admins don't give as much credence to users who say exactly the same thing on every AFD. Sometimes one must wonder if they even read the article. -R. fiend 02:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No need to be defensive or rude. I was merely stating that it was kept because thats what happens when there is no consensus, NOT that the former consensus was to "keep." --Naha|^(talk) 04:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect into Saugeen-Maitland Hall (the merge of data has been done, but the redirecting of this article has been undone as of this writing). This vote should not be counted as support of a straight "keep". -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect into Saugeen-Maitland Hall. The article on its own is not encyclopedic, but it is useful as an example of "The Zoo" (though, it is not the first time something like this has happened in a college dorm room). Also, this is a new AfD, so please make decisions on the merits of the article. (Is voting to keep because the previous AfD was "no consensus" really a valid reason?) — TheKMan^talk 18:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  I'm changing to Delete, because I don't want my decision to be counted with the "keep" votes. — TheKMan^talk 20:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Apparently, the moral of this story is if you don't like the result keep trying till you get the one you want. I don't buy it. 70.21.144.18 23:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC
• Delete, per WP:NOT (not an indiscriminate collection of info or not a newspaper). I don't see any encyclopedic or significant historic value in the article at all. PJM 18:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Mild interest as a salacious news story, no lasting intesrest, hence no encyclopedic value. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 19:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Very minor incident, no real basis for notability, will be forgotten by history. Deserves at most a minor mention on the Saugeen-Maitland Hall page. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect into Saugeen-Maitland Hall, though that article could have a bit more information on this. Got a lot of traction on the net (apparently short-lived), though not perhaps a full-fledged Internet phenomenon. --Wrathchild ^(talk) 19:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per R.fiend. It was marginal as a news story to begin with. College student gets drunk and strips, photos show up on internet. Big deal. Hamster Sandwich 20:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per result of previous AfD. Story still has legs as an internet meme, and should remain an active Wikipedia article. Phantasmo 20:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per rationale by Rob in the last AfD: this is a non-event, a story that barely made the news. Let alone having an encyclopedia entry. - Liberatore(T) 20:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Adam Bishop 20:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. We clearly need more great stories like this here. I also see no need for a renom so soon. -- JJay 21:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Given the media attention, many people will cherish this event for years to come. -- JJay 21:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• • The article was relisted per decision on Wikipedia:Deletion Review. Also, amusing stories are fine and all, but not necessarily encyclopedic. This event has no lasting value. — TheKMan^talk 21:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not encyclopedic. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 21:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not encycolopedic. Also, this article has already been merged into Saugeen-Maitland Hall. --Naha|^(talk) 21:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There are many undergraduates on this planet. Undergraduates do stupid sex-related things; this is just one unexceptional example. It's salacious, but not encyclopedic. Sliggy 21:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Big deal--Porturology 21:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete content and images have already been merged into Saugeen-Maitland Hall.  ALKIVAR™ 22:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete better in Saugeen-Maitland Hall. NicM 22:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC).
• Keep as per previous AfD Jcuk 23:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Who cares?Voice of All^T|@|ESP 23:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough. Forever young 00:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, trivial and ephemeral college dorm incident that made the news for about 15 minutes, and then receded into well-deserved obscurity. Not an encyclopedic topic. MCB 00:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopedic. FCYTravis 00:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as this story and event is more notable than the hall itself and also because AfD already spoke on this and it is not appropriate to Afd this again at this time 70.21.144.18 00:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This topic has no encyclopedic or historic value. --NormanEinstein 00:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE. So, if I rent a stripper, take a few photographs, I can make a wikipedia entry all about it? I thought not. Delete. This article is not notable. --Dogbreathcanada 00:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nonencyclopedic. Should it somehow survive the vote, a redirect is the next obvious choice. DreamGuy 02:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Trivial, transient, of limited interest. Just plain not encyclopedic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per User:A Man In Black and others. --maclean25 03:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep because other internet phenomenoms are on Wikipedia like Rachelle Waterman. She gained media attention through bloggers as well. That should be a prescedent setting case. --Sarnya 04:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You're comparing a stripping college student, to a murderer... — TheKMan^talk 04:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Six of one, half dozen of the other. -R. fiend 04:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm thinking that committing murder has a tad more impact on the word than taking off your clothes in a dorm room. But maybe it's just me. --Calton | Talk 04:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Waterman should be deleted too. Adam Bishop 04:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
          • There's still a ton of other articles on here to do with people who have been made famous because of the internet. This topic was covered by a national newspaper and generated a great deal of word of mouth. --Sarnya 05:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
            • But she's not famous. No one knows who she is. Do you know her name? Anything about her other than that she's had a boob job? I thought not. She's not famous in the least. --Dogbreathcanada 08:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
              • She's obviously famous enough to the degree that people feel she deserves to be on Wikipedia and what do you define as fame? Paris Hilton has never "done" anything, yet she is famous. Her sex tape scandal made her famous because of the internet and word of mouth. Between being covered by a national newspaper and having thousands of bloggers write about you, that justifies your fame, whether it be for the right reasons ot not. --Sarnya 13:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
                • There are certainly many levels of fame and for that very reason; fame in the general sense is not enough to justify inclusion, IMO. Incidentally, I don't think a media staple like Paris Hilton is a relevant comparison, in any way. PJM 14:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
                  • We must absolutely keep this article. Look at all the rediculous stuff on Internet phenomenon!! If that stuff can stay than why can't the Saugeen Stripper. There is no reason why this should be deleted since we allow other internet phenomenon's on here. Case closed. --Sarnya 20:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
                    • No, I don't think we 'must'. Why follow a bad precedent? Other unfit articles will eventually be exposed via AFD; so the case is not closed. PJM 20:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
              • Comment: Paris Hilton acted in a major Hollywood motion picture, House of Wax, as well as an adult video that won three AVN Awards. This girl, to the best of my knowledge, has done neither. -Colin Kimbrell 17:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I followed the links and carefully viewed each and every photo. I still could find nothing notable or encyclopedic about this episode. The article doesn't even mention how much she got paid... Atrian 04:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. Trivial, non-encyclopedic, ephemeral. Though, of course, I will do further careful research of the photos when I get home tonight, just to be sure. --Calton | Talk 04:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep—not out of any real conviction about the article, just because deletionism scares me. Let this be discussed and a solution hammered out on the article talk page. Deletion shouldn't even be considered: we should be thinking about either keeping or redirecting. Everyking 05:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Please note that the information has already been copy-n-pasted to the residence hall article, so a delete w/o redirect would have minimal effect. -- nae'blis _(talk) 05:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable internet meme, says this deletionist vandal. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 06:21, Jan. 18, 2006
• Delete Non-encyclopedic. Choess 06:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme delete. This was a short-lived news story hardly even appropriate for WikiNews. The story has now had its 15 minutes of fame and is fading it to the either. I guarantee that if this stays as a Wikipedia article over lack of consensus, that if it is nominated again in a year there will be overwhelming consensus to delete it, so why don't we just put the article out of its misery now instead of later. ^BlankVerse 14:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme Delete. Pffft. This happens ALL THE TIME on university campuses. Definitely NOT encyclopedic. --OntarioQuizzer 18:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. No doubt. But why did this one get national press coverage and generate so much buzz on the net? --Wrathchild ^(talk) 18:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply: I never heard of this incident until I saw the AfD. I wouldn't call this particularly noteworthy. --Dogbreathcanada 00:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply to comment. And the incidents at Brock University the past two years didn't? --OntarioQuizzer 18:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • shrug. Never heard of it, so, I guess not. --Wrathchild ^(talk) 19:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per (wisely made) nom. BD2412 T 19:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. (I was the admin that closed the previous AfD). I've previously stated my reasons on the article talk page. Mindmatrix 19:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • BTW: I think the article's talk page should be kept - there's plenty of reasonable discussion about various issues there. Mindmatrix 19:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Mark¹ 19:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable  Grue  20:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable. Wikipedia is not paper, and we should record as complete an account of contemporary culture as possible, including case studies of interesting events and people. Imagine the archives of every newspaper in the world reorganized and refactored into an encyclopedia so that the events of each and every story were put into full historic context. This is what we should strive for. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 20:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• I could not disagree more. I think Wikipedia should be more prudent than that about what it keeps. Nevertheless, I do like Rush. PJM 20:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• • How can you justify deleting this when stuff like Dog poop girl is kept on here?! --Sarnya 20:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Tokyojoe2002 changed Sarnya's comments to a "keep." I've reverted it. If that's what Sarnya meant to put in, I'm sure he/she would have. Don't try to stuff the ballot. And don't edit people's comments. --Wrathchild ^(talk) 20:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Not trying to stuff anything. Clearly need every vote I can get here and while the sentiment there is clearly keep, the lack of the word will most assuredly be used here in not counting that one as such. Oh well. Tokyojoe2002 21:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
        • But it sure looks that way, since he voted once already. Please let things proceed cleanly. PJM 21:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
          • As I indicated above, it was not my intention so my apologies. let's not throw stones here. This whole process has been a joke start to finish. Tokyojoe2002 21:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
            • I'm not throwing stones at you; just pointing out a fact. Also, calling this process a "joke", no matter how much you disagree, doesn't help a thing. PJM 21:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
              • • There's a lengthy history to this article. Process has been blatantly disregarded. Not referring specifically to this AfD or anything on this page but rather the existence of this page top begin with. Regardless, I'll drop the tone. Tokyojoe2002 21:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Note that Sarnya has already cast a keep vote far above. -R. fiend 21:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Noted with apologies again. Tokyojoe2002 21:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
              • Sorry. I didn't mean to screw anything up. If I accidently erased somebody's comment, it wasn't my intention. This edit page is just full of so much stuff, I guess I got confused. --Sarnya 21:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, naked girls aren't notable per se. Also, this is not wikinews.

Radiant_>|< 20:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per Hamster Sandwich, Charles Stewart, et al. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 20:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not merit unique space in an encyclopedia, and already merged anyway. Moriori 20:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. While we certainly don't want every concievable blurb about naked women, once a topic is raised to the level of a talking point in mainstream newspapers, I think it is notable enough to warrant a historical record in the encyclopedia that is not paper. Also, I find the whole second bite of the apple here to be atrociously bad form. Dragons flight 20:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and if not then redirect to the hall, which seems to have the entire entry in it now. -Andrew 21:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Note- I am hoping that this AfD will result in a keep or at worst a non-con (uphill battle, I know...I have faith in my fellow wikipedians, what can I say). IF that comes to be, I will delete the content from the main Hall entry. Tokyojoe2002 21:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. definatly notable -Chris (UTC)
  • Note: user's only edit. -R. fiend 21:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Even disregarding whether this is notable or not, we have to look at what we have here. No names, no dates, no specifics (can the age of the girl even be substantiated?). We have some photos and a hell of a lot of speculation and (I assume) outrage by people who know nothing of the incident either. It may have been a birthday party; is that the best we can do? How can we justify this in an encyclopedia? -R. fiend 22:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Somebody (an anonymous editor unfortunately) made an update today in the Saugeen-Maitland Hall entry that the girl's name is Nicole Martucci. Who knows if this is true but it's the first mention of a name that I have heard. --Sarnya 22:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for pointing that out. I have reverted it, as its certainly not the sort of thing we can print without a source (and a good source at that). I'd like to think we've learned something from the Seigenthaler fiasco. -R. fiend 22:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • You have GOT to be kidding me. You argue that the article is delete worthy because it lacks specifics, then when those specifics are added you delete them. Looks like this situation is just going to be manipulated to get the desirable result. Tokyojoe2002 02:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
        • And if those specifics had a reliable and verifiable source, it would be in the article. However, if you Google said person's name, there is no mention whatsoever of the fact that this event was correlated to this person. We don't need another Seigenthaler here. --OntarioQuizzer 04:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Is this really a notable event? --Sunfazer (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Do not merge. I wouldn't normally have any opinion on this kind of thing but it was listed only a short while ago and there seemed no great urgency to delete. Nothing's changed. James James 23:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This artice was the most read article on the Toronto Stars web site. Read more than the war in Iraq, Government Controversey, or the Toronto Plane Crash. If thousands of people read that, I think it is noteworthy. Sarnya has it right on the button! —The preceding unsigned comment was the first edit by 64.229.228.203 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment Should we be worried about meatpuppeting now? --OntarioQuizzer 04:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Not a notable event, pretty much speculation. If I was to post about strippers in Merseyside would that count as a notable event? Not at all, why should this be here? --Sunfazer (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • People are saying that this has received more attention than most strippers. And how is it speculation? Everyking 05:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable event.-gadfium 00:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not encyclopedic. See WP:V, WP:NOT, and Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. No compelling arguments for keeping have been presented. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We really don't need one-two day news stories in the encyclopedia. In 2 months, people will be going "Who?". --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 04:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into the Hall page somewhere. Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 16:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Saugeen-Maitland Hall, since the content has already been merged there. -Colin Kimbrell 17:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not treat this as a straight "Keep" vote. -Colin Kimbrell 17:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not encyclopedic, should be a mention in the hall and maybe a wikinews story. I've already forgotten about this event until now. This kind of thing happens all the time, do you want to document everytime someone sees a female in the nude? Specialbrad 18:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Note: User's sixth edit. -R. fiend 18:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: much confusion between encyclopedic and notable. The former is a slam-dunk, and anything which has generated this much controversy (and I'm not simply talking about inside Wikipedia) must fulfil the latter. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Except that it didn't generate a lot of controversy. It was something mentioned for a couple of days as "wacky" or "offbeat" news in the media and blogosphere, and then disappeared. That's not a "controversy". MCB 18:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Exactly. Remember Lindsey Marshal, that dancer for the Raptors who got fired because of her naked pictures? That was in the news. Does anyone remember it now? Not particularly... --OntarioQuizzer 20:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Good points. It's not a major controversy, in fact, not so bizarre in the world of college dorms. For people who are living vicariously through its images, maybe it's a big deal, but in the broad scope of things...not really. JMHO. PJM 20:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Meets notability guidelines, with several articles in reliable sources on the event/individual. Given current Wikipedia guidelines and standards, this is a clear keep. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge (already done) and redirect. I am sure people will come searching for this phrase "Saugeen Stripper", and they should be redirected to the Saugeen-Maitland Hall. Frankly, the section of the dormitory's article about this incident is better than this article. Cmadler 14:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sufficent coverage at Saugeen-Maitland Hall. Gamaliel 18:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with a redirect to Saugeen-Maitland Hall, since the content is already merged there. Do not count this as anything other than delete, please. Although this didn't happen that much at MY college (more's the pity), it is not notable, and the incident itself is not encyclopedic. No compelling arguments for keeping have been presented. ++Lar: t/c 02:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Keep, delete, merge, redirect, any of the above. Will Wikipedia be worse if this is kept? Not by much. Will Wikipedia be worse if this is deleted? Not by much. Will the subject be better or worse if this is kept, or deleted? Not by much. Is this a horrible abuse of process? Maybe, but it's utterly unimportant. Go add something of undoubtable notability. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well said. check this link as well, if you're interested. -R. fiend 05:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The question is not whether "will this article change Wikipedia much" but "will all articles like this one change Wikipedia much". If we start having 1 article for 1 event that makes a national newspaper, that will hurt Wikipedia (note that we have Wikinews for things like this). Keeping an article is a precendent that will affect next AfD discussions. That's why I think we should delete this article and move to writing articles that we really need. - Liberatore(T) 12:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Seconded. - brenneman^(t)(c) 13:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thirded (as I said above)... next thing you know people will want to have an article for every minor porn star and every minor school, and every visit by a minor porn star to a minor school. er wait, bad example, since we have 2 out of three of those already? ++Lar: t/c 14:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per previous AfD. Notable event (where notable is used in the NPOV sense), merging not appropriate as this event is more well-known than the hall. I also don't like articles getting renominated so soon after surviving an AfD, but at least it went through DR first, so proper process was at least partially observed. Turnstep 22:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge-redirect as has already been done quite nicely. End of story. Technically, a delete also results in the merge-redirect since it's already been done. Barry Wells 23:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - The incident itself is marginally notable and worthy of mention in other articles, but it's not worthy of its own entire page. I disagree with having a wikipedia article for every temporary headline, and this is obviously just a short-term story that got passed around because it had pictures of a naked girl. The only way I would vote keep on this would be if the incident turns out in the future to have longer-lasting repercussions, such as being the subject of a book, or leading to a major lawsuit, new legislation or some newsworthy change to school policy. For example, Rosa Parks did a small thing by just not giving up her seat on a bus, but it had large consequences and was definitely encyclopedic. As it stands though, this article does not meet that standard for me. Keep its history, but redirect the page. Elonka 04:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Turnstep and others. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, utterly non-notable incident, totally unencyclopediac.--Sean|Black 12:44, 23 January 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.