Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 6

Timeline of the Phantasy Star series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The user Shimeru deleted this entire entry for no discernible reason on April 5, 2007 — the article proper was entirely fact-checked and accurate.

Right next to the entry in the Deletion Log, s/he only listed the word "prod," which renders the article eligible for restoration if another contributor so desires it. --The Bandsaw Vigilante 00:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed article title, restored contested prod. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Turkish settlement (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The closing administrator closed it as no-concensus, nevertheless I feel that the AfD was treated as a vote rather than a discussion.

1- No proof whatsoever was brought into the discussion proving the usage of the term "Turkish settlement" in the English usage - (among one of the examples I cited, such a search in the BBC News web-site returned zero hits [1] - whereas the term "Israeli settlement has an established usage in the English language.

2- No sources were brought attesting to the meaning of the term "Turkish settlement"

3- Nearly all impartial editors agreed that it was a WP:FORK of the Cyprus dispute article, and numerous administrators voted for deletion.

4- The article is in a mess, with no clear indication of what it is talking about, what its title means (thus WP:OR) issues and what should be done with it.

5- The article was created by a user who has only six edits, four of them on that article. In my nomination I raised the WP:OR issues, and expressly said that any meaningful content should be merged to Cyprus dispute instead of getting deleted.

6- I believe that the listing of this article in Greece and Turkey related deletion pages was detrimental to the discussion and therefore clouded the evaluation of the closing administrator - I would like an additional review to see if the WP:OR-title and WP:FORK issues have been dealt with, to see if any sources brought that attest to the usage of such a term in English, and whether this article shouldn't be merged to the Cyprus dispute. Baristarim 00:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn as nominator Baristarim 12:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• endorse but on the basis that there is no reasonable ground to expect that further discussion of the deletion of the article would be productive. If there was ever an AfD which fully justified a non-consensus close it was this one. DGG 04:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Indeed, there was no consensus, since a large part of the commenting users were more committed to one pov than to the npov character of an encyclopedia, and therefore willing to overlook the irreparable defects of the article. I feel that the arguments proffered in favour of "keep" have no substance in relationship to the issue.  --Lambiam^Talk 06:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. I can't disagree with the result in this case. Perhaps if it is borne out that it can't be expanded, we may have reason to take a second look. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weakly endorse. At bottom, I have to agree with Baristarim and Lambian here, and Future Perfect at the AFD: this smells like a rather neologistic POV fork, and we delete those. None the less, it is just about possible that Jeff is right and that some inspired, collaborative editing can fix this. I do hope that Niko, Yannis, and the other editors who wanted this kept will prove Jeff right and me wrong, but I'm not very optimistic and I think this will end up back at AFD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Per Baristarim--Doktor Gonzo 12:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Further discussion right now does not seem to entail any productive feedback. Notability was established. Now, if there is a disagreement about the title, let's discuss it in the article's talk page; I have declared I have no objection to rename the article to something like "Turkish settlers in Cyprus" or something similar. But the subject the article treats is notable by itself, and deserves an article. In any case, the discussion that took place during the AfD is the very definition of non-consensus in every respect. Therefore, I have to endorse the initial AfD closing.--Yannismarou 15:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Per Baristarim--Must.^{T C} 16:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per Yannismarou and may I add that as there are no new actual arguments which weren't raised during the AFD, this request shouldn't have been made at all. Text is sourced (despite the large and misleading invocations of OR by those who favor deletion) and too much to be merged into another article.--Domitius 17:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Could you please give me the source for the statement that after 1974 new Turkish settlements have been formed in Northern Cyprus?  --Lambiam^Talk 18:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  When, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe issues a Recommendation for the "Colonisation by Turkish settlers of the occupied part of Cyprus" (Recommendation 1680/2003), calling on "Turkey, as well as its Turkish Cypriot subordinate local administration in northern Cyprus, to stop the process of colonisation by Turkish settlers", what does it mean?--Yannismarou 19:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  "The number of settlers had grown considerably and continued to grow throughout the decade of the 1990s." (Green- Collins, Embracing Cyprus, [2]--Yannismarou 19:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Yannis, the finer points raised by Lambiam and FPaS are important: we are talking about the definition of the word "settlement", and that's why he is asking if there have been any new settlement which has been formed. Were there new colonies built exclusively for them just like in the Americas? Or were they just blending in? Anyways, let's just merge this into the Cyprus dispute, there are so many bastard articles lying around, seriously. For example, how is this article any different significantly than Naturalized TRNC citizens? Believe me, nobody is against content, but because of a certain assumption of bad faith, so many articles have proliferated that it actually took me three months to track all of them down and I still don't see why some of them exist. Cyprus this, Cyprus that, Cyprus us, Cyprus them - and the worst thing is that they are all in a dire state. I am sorry, but you are actually the only one who is actually putting in the effort to back up your keep votes: in nearly most of the AfDs we have had, the articles have completely dropped off the radar as soon as the AfD finished. There are at least ten articles about the Cyprus dispute + a handful who slightly overlap each other, but none of them are even GA, nearly all of them have NPOV tags on them with no clear future in store. I don't know, the article doesn't really disturb me really, and I do see that an article covering immigration from Turkey to Cyprus has merit, but I am just afraid that this article will lay there with lame POV tags all over the place and an inviting style for edit-wars. Let's just merge, that's all I am saying.. Baristarim 19:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  To avoid "lame POv tags and an inviting style for edit wars" is up to us. I think that the article treats a notable topic, and instead of deleting, why don't we just rename it? Proposing deletion reminds me a Greek gnome: Πονάει δόντι, κόβει κεφάλι (If it hurts the tuth, cut the head). It seems simpler and more constructive to me. And IMO it is not bad to have many articles about an issue, if there is material supporting them. And, in this case, there is material both for improvement and expansion.--Yannismarou 19:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Well, if it is up to us, then someone better work on them or something. You still haven't answered my question: I consider it a fork of Cyprus dispute, but even pretending that it deserves its own article since there are armies of editors just itching to work on it, how is it any different than Naturalized TRNC citizens? They cover the same damn thing - and your suggestion is wrong, you know it, I know it: no-one will work on it' just like Angus McCellan mentioned above, and he is assuming a LOT of good faith. Not only will this article become a bastard article, but it will be a fork of multiple articles. It is amazing to me that such an obvious fact isn't that clear for you Yannis.. Nobody said delete the content: merge the damn thing for the sanity of Wikipedia and the rest of the similar articles.. Baristarim 20:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse - sourced and procedurally correct. May be renamed to "Turkish settlers" (1400+ links in Google scholar) but that's hardly the right place for such a conversation. NikoSilver 20:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  I know as well as I know my name that nearly none of the keepers here will contribute even one bit afterwards. How is this article any different than "Naturalized TRNC citizens", really? Whatever, there are so many stupid forks lying around that Turks and Greeks are becoming the laughing stock of all of Wikipedia.. Merge the damn thing, the rest of the articles are already in a dire situation. Let's create another stupid lame fork - go ahead, like I care.. It is not like one lame article in Wikipedia is going to make the Turks look bad or something.. They are not going to say "oh, did you see this article in Wikipedia? We have to pack our bags and go back to Central Asia!" This article is a lame fork, no-one will work on it, it will lay there with stupid POV tags all over just like the rest of the ten Cyprus-related articles, and it will invite people to edit-war for no reason - you know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Blindness to see facts is not an atout.. Baristarim 20:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Well, I'd be damn surprised if I saw you endorse the deletion of a pro-Turkish FORK... I suggest you start from there. NikoSilver 20:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Aha.. Create one and you will see.. Unfortunately there are not many of them laying around. In any case, this is not even a "pro-Greek" fork: that's the funny thing - in what way is it "anti-Turk" btw? Turks in Cyprus are there and will stay there, they are not going to do anything because of some lame Wikipedia article u know :)) Nearly all impartial editors agreed that it was a fork - this can be covered more healthily somewhere else - in fact, come to think about it, as it is, it is the exact duplicate of Naturalized TRNC citizens and forks both the Cyprus dispute and Demographics of Cyprus. Let's create more forks: Citizens of Turkey in Cyprus, Turkish land acquisition in the TRNC, Influence of the TR in the TRNC, Immigration from TR to TRNC, Property disputes in Cyprus, Property disputes in the TRNC, Property disputes of the Greek Cypriots with the barbaric Turkish Republic. Maybe if we created some more, those Turks will go back to Central Asia, eh? :)) Baristarim 20:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Heh, the problem with your examples is they're red. I'm really bored to list the blue ones. NikoSilver 20:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  In fact it was an encouragement to create them u know :) Baristarim 20:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Forceful endorsement: well-sourced, properly procedure followed. May need a new title, but let's not erase evidence of this perfidious phenomenon. Biruitorul 05:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Question The result was no consensus. So, what is this about? Does overturn mean that it should be re-evaluated? Is it about not voting based on solid things? Are we re-voting here? It seems to me that keepers became endorsers and deleters became overturners, I voted 'delete'. I also dislike the fact that it was ambiguous. People might have voted for either of Turkish "settle-ment" or Turkish settlements . From the title it should be the former one. So, we need to change the article quite a lot. We might need to revote for the people who thought it could be the latter one. deniz^T_C 07:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  The discussion in "articles for deletion" is not a vote, and the closing administrator should base the decision not on "head counting", but on the weights of the arguments presented. A contribution of the form Keep because I say so should have no weight. For an example of a recent discussion where the head count was 10 to 3 in favour of Delete, but the closing admin's decision was No consensus, see here. In deletion review, we present arguments concerning the question whether – given the AfD discussion – the closing administrator reached the correct conclusion. Endorse means support for the decision (think: "If I had been the admin, I would have done the same"). Overturn means: the decision (in this case No consensus, defaulting to Keep) should have been different. This is not the spot to bring in new arguments (unless new facts come to light); an excellent argument in Deletion review (when it applies) is that various contributors were actually sockpuppets.  --Lambiam^Talk 12:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn I would rather not have another poor quality article related to Cyprus. Any relevant info should be merged into Demographics of Cyprus. --A.Garnet 12:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Dates in Harry Potter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article has been rewritten: meets the demands in original AfD for out-of-universe perspective, citations, removal of original research. Michael Sanders 22:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Cache redirects to original version, rather than speedily deleted version of today: [3] rewritten version took this form when reposted today. Michael Sanders 23:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, it's still original research, see WP:SYNT WP:NOR. --Coredesat 02:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Question. Could you please let me know exactly what the original synthesis is? I am probably one of the few remaining people on earth who has not read any of the Harry Potter books so I would appreciate your clarification. Thanks in advance, Black Falcon 06:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, whoops, it's not a synthesis to advance a position (which is what WP:SYNT is). However, it is a synthesis of information from primary sources (the books themselves, and fansites that record raw information from the books themselves), which is still original research. The rewrite did little to resolve those issues. --Coredesat 07:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Synthesis from primary sources which does not advance a position is officially encourgaed on wiki. I quote from WP:NOR: Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged.. The argument you have presented here is one for reinstating the article, not deleting it. Sandpiper 10:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted original research/cruft - there's nothing to discuss here, this is just a fan list.--Doc^g 08:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:CRUFT, fancruft as a term expresses a users distaste for something, but it not grounds for deletion. Some reason apart from distaste is needed. It is regrettable that issues like this should be decided on whether some user likes a particular aspect of modern popular culture, or not. This term featured in the original debate as a reason for deletion, and as such should have been discounted when the debate was closed and the vierws of contributors were being considered. Sandpiper 10:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - this one is clearcut: fan synthesis, not an encyclopedic topic. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - could you please clarify how it is a synthesis? Since it is merely the information deriving from the books, and Rowling's statements. Michael Sanders 13:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The synthesis comes when you put that together to create this timetable. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, no. The manner in which the data is used can be supported by external sources (e.g. Harry Potter Lexicon, the timeline on Warner Bros. DVD), which means any synthesis is attributable; moreover, I would contest that it is synthesis to create a timeline based on clear statements in the books: any synthesis is attributable, anything referencing only the books simply derives straight from them. Michael Sanders 13:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Seeing as the Harry Potter Lexicon is fan-created, my guess would be that fails WP:RS, comfortably so. Synthesis referencing the books is still WP:OR synthesis: you need to reference something else to prove that someone got there before you. More importantly, WP:N needs to be satisfied to prove that anyone actually cares beyond Harry Potter fanworld. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 14:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
          • The Lexicon, although created by fans, is approved by Rowling. That gives it reliability in this area. Moreover, this debate is not over the original deletion, but the speedy deletion of the recreated article: the original debate summed up that the article was being deleted because it contained OR, was uncited, and too in-universe; I recreated the article after rewriting it to address those flaws, which should at the very least call for a recreation and new deletion debate: since the original objections of those who wished to delete the article have been removed. Michael Sanders 14:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Furthermore, according to Wikipedia:Attribution#What is not original research?: "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source." Michael Sanders 15:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
              • It's still not properly attributed because the sources in question are primary, and thus not reliable according to our standards. The whole of the article is original research; the only way to remove it is to remove the article. --Coredesat 19:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
                • Just to clarify: See Rowling's official site for her recommendation of the Lexicon. Someone beat us to it at creating the timeline, which was then followed by a second source, a DVD by Warner Bros. I don't see how that's not sourced properly. But please see my comments below about what we are questioning the deletion to. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
                  • Coredesat, please see my comment above and consult WP:NOR. Synthesis of primary sources which does not create an argument is officially 'strongly encouraged'. It is a core element of creating any encyclopedia and without it Wiki could not exist. Sandpiper 10:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - admin correctly interpreted the debate and deleted appropriately. Otto4711 14:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Michael Sanders brought up this point in response to a comment, but it might be lost among the many comments above. It is important to note that this is not in response to the AfD, but in response to a new article that was speedily deleted. This article was heavily sourced and written from an out-of-universe perpsective. If you still feel that this new version of the article is inappropriate, than you should take it once again to AfD for a larger consensus. But this is different now, it was considerably different from the article that was deleted as a result of AfD. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • All of the sources in the new article were primary, therefore it was still original research, and fundamentally the same as the previous article. It should also be noted that Michael Sanders attempted to recreate the article again, but I have deleted it as a G4 recreation. If someone wants the history restored for the review, they need to request it here instead of just recreating the article. --Coredesat 20:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• It is not a synthesis of primary sources. First of all, primary sources in this case are Rowling's original writing, not the novels based on that writing. Second, it is questionable whether rules on primary/secondary sources apply to novels. Thirdly, such complaints were not included in the original AfD, and therefore, are not appropriate for Speedy Deletion criteria. Fourthly, the article makes use of secondary sources - e.g. Harry Potter Lexicon, which is recognised as a reputable source by Rowling. Fifthly, according to Wikipedia:Attribution#What is not original research?: "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source." Michael Sanders 20:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; original research, not an encyclopedic topic. Encyclopedic topics have third party sources, but the most recent revision in the page history doesn't seem to have one. Picaroon 20:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not a corect statement re sourcing of articles. It is desireable that articles have third party sources, but it is not essential. Wiki seeks to improve its credibility be widening the range of sources as far as possible, but this is an aspiration. It is not always possible to do that. However, in this case the timeline originated from a reliable website and has been adopted by Warner brothers. Sandpiper 11:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn per Michael Sanders. The main argument to endorse the article's deletion is that it constitutes original research. According to WP:OR, an edit is OR if it meets any of 7 criteria. The issue here seems to be point 6:

It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source.

Note that point 6 applies specifically to analysis or synthesis that builds a particular case favored by the editor. There is no POV-pushing and no "case" here. I shudder to think that the simple act of ordering of dates chronologically or subtracting numbers could be considered original research. -- Black Falcon 20:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, I suppose - if we had an encyclopedic article on dates in Harry Potter, this would be it. (the userspace version, linked.) I learnt stuff I hadn't known, i.e. that Rowling-sanctioned material included traceable dates - I was all set to come here and say "bollocks, there are no dates in the books." This is no more "original research" than really quite a lot of our other stuff on popular fictions, and way less than most. Something DRV needs to keep in mind: you will never decruft en:wp. You may however make the cruft encyclopedically-written cruft - David Gerard 20:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

In responses to claims of OR: it is categorically not Original Research. It derives from the books: WP:OR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources says "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." Obviously, this has been published by a reliable source (let's not even bother debating that point); the information has been carefully cited from the novels. Any reader, with or without specialist knowledge, can go to the cited text and read the references to the dates. And there is no 'interpretation' of anything that does not refer to secondary sources, which are heavily used: in particular, Harry Potter Lexicon, (deemed reliable by Rowling, who apparently claims to use it to check details herself), which contains its own date references. So please, demonstrate the OR to me. Michael Sanders 21:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

And from the same: "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."

"Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." Michael Sanders 21:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn/Keep The subject matter is incredibly relevant to Harry Potter, a subject that has been clearly determined to be encyclopedic. Anything that can relate and link the subject to the real world is needed. With something like 75 references and sources, this is one of the better ref'd articles in Wikipedia. John Reaves (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn/Keep I had it in mind to post this on DRV myself. I asked the closing admin his grounds for his decision, but am still slightly at a loss which specific reasons for deletion I should be attempting to rebut. The deletion debate was rambling, bringing up just about any argument anyone could think of.

It is my view that the arguments above that the article was original research has been demonstrated to be incorrect. It is accepted that wiki articles can be based upon reorganised material drawn from primary sources, so long as they do not make an argument. This applies to half the article by word count, which is the collected dates. The collected dates have anyway been largely published by HP-Lexicon (although despite the author's endorsement, some challenge its reliability as a source) and by Warner bros. As creators of the films, I do not see how they can be impeached for unreliability as a source. Whether they are a second primary source of the same information (something of a paradox, having two primary sources for the same thing), or a secondary source, seems also in debate.On balance, I think they have to be classed as a secondary source, with the author as primary source. It has been reported on mugglenet that Warner did submit their proposed timeline to her for confirmation.

The other half of the article discusses references within the book to real world events, and some comments by Rowling, which together have been used to create absoulute real-world reference dates for events in the books. Stating these items is again a synthesis of primary sources, but not one making an argument, so it is permitted as a way of creating an article. It is merely permitted cataloging to state the book mentions a real-world person Nicholas Flamel, or that such and such ghost claims to be celebrating the 500th anniversary of his death in whichever year it was. I have to say, I also see it as permitted cataloging to point out where the source may contradict itself, i.e. separate references to the same date being both a monday and a tuesday at different points in the book, or discrepancies where the ghost is suddenly 400 rather than 500 years old in a different book. However, an argument is made when this collected information is used to support specific conclusions, e.g that book 1 is set in such and such year. This is still not OR, because the process of outlining this argument was done by Hp-Lexicon, who also host pages explaining how their dating of events was arrived at. Furthermore, the dates arrived at have subsequently been accepted by Warner, so their reliability does not depend upon the arguments, and nor do the conclusions. The evidence is includeable, and the conclusions are includeable. If it accepted that the article simply reports Lexicon's derivation of the dates, then explaining the argument is also includeable. Even if it is not accepted that this is how the official dates were dervied, it remains a matter of record to note that Lexicon claims to have derived dates in this way, and again is a matter of reporting that claim. There is no 'official' version of the article to now refer to, but it may be some rephrasing is needed to make the staus of the information more clear. I can see how someone non-knowledgeable on such an abstruse subject may not appreciate that the article is reporting, not originating. It is regrettable that there is a need to write wiki articles in a form designed to convince other editors that they can continue to exist according to the rules, rather than as any other encyclopedia might do to best explain to a reader. Sandpiper 11:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It occurred to me that no one has observed that this article needs to be considered as part of the whole set of HP articles, and containing the summarised dating information for all. As to the noteability of this subject, I see that two HP article are now listed in the top 100 most read articles on wikipedia. The practical effect of this articles existence is to resolve arguments which continue to arise on other HP pages as to dating. All dating references were linked to refer to this page, so that a reader gets an explanation before changing articles, rather than after. The existence of the article, whatever else its merits, furthers the ability of editors to maintain the accuracy of the other articles. Sandpiper 10:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

No consensus for deletion

• Overturn. In the AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (second nomination) I count 6 arguments for deletion, 6 arguments to keep. Deletion seems to be based more on personal bias than anything else. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• The article was pretty cruddy, though, wasn't it? Guy (Help!) 19:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, it would help if you were more specific; "pretty cruddy" describes at least 50% of the articles on Wikipedia. It certainly was very well referenced. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Overturn. I Agree with Jay: every section, actually every paragraph is sourced, thus totalling 87 references. For WP standards, the article is not cruddy at all. --tickle me 20:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Per Jayjg, imperfect content is not a good enough reason for deletion. Looks like a case of creative accounting. Sorry I missed the vote. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Its hard for me to believe that the parent to so many other entries is "pretty cruddy," especially when AfD was 6 to 6. Tewfik^Talk 21:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as within admin discretion. AFD decisions are not decided by vote count. Comparing the actual comments, all but one "keep" opinion were at the front of the discussion and were short to the point of being fairly unhelpful in the discussion. Once new arguments were presented in the discussion, the weight of opinion fairly clearly turned toward deletion. (Note: It would have been nice if the earlier participants had returned to the discussion and either changed their minds or explicitly endorsed their prior opinion. Unfortunately, people seem to have fallen out of the habit of returning to deletion discussions.)
  The issue of sourcing is not, in my opinion, the definitive issue here. No one is disputing that the word "apartheid" is being used in each of these contexts. The problem is in deciding which uses are appropriate to list in this article. The opening paragraph of the last deleted version even says that "its meaning has been extended to include any wholesale cultural, intellectual, religious, economic, or gender based discrimination." Apartheid has become so widely used as an epithet that we are left to determine for ourselves which uses really qualify and which are mere rhetoric. That's the original research problem. I don't see how that problem could have been solved - and neither, apparently, did the folks participating in the deletion debate. Rossami (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I see arguments both pro and contra, but why this particular case should be made an exception/example/revenge for other cases where count matters? I don't like polls in general, but given the outcome, why should one janitor's... errr, admin's discretion be given preference rather than another admin's? I don't think it is a good idea to brandish mops. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn with prejudice. I'm not sure 6 votes is even a quorum, even if they were unanimous. Not only that, but an admin's job is not to be judge and jury over these cases - this is why consensus is sought. I have every reason to believe the closing admin acted in good faith, but has clearly misunderstood the limits of his/her mandate and authority. --Leifern 22:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as a violation of consensus. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 23:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, but rename. The title "allegations of apartheid" is very illogical. First of all, a couple of articles I've read describe real-life facts, not "allegations". The title must correspond to facts the describe, not political labels assigned to tyhese facts. Apartheid is a specific term applied to a specific country. To call apartheid enywhere else is similar to term like Feminazi which is just a slur. A supposedly NPOVing addition "allegations" is a clumsy way to introduce NOPOV: it leaves an impression that these "allegations" are just opinions of disgruntled political opponents. For what is described there is a universal term, segregation. Mukadderat 00:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Rossami - an AfDs is not a vote, what matter is the debate. The article is cruddy: it is a mishmash of stuff which belongs to "Human Rights in X" articles under a better encyclopedic format. Baristarim 00:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure although the timing wasn't good. The articles on Israel, Islam and Cuba should also have been simultaneously up for deletion with any salvageable material going to appropriate serious articles. At present there is a whole game going on being played by a handful of opposing editors over this issue, that's been running for over a year, and it is just one massive violation of WP:POINT. Its damaging wikipedia. Deleting this article was the first step towards unravelling this mess and it shouldn't stop there. Basing a series of disparate themes that are merely linked by a perjorative, and nothing else, is not good practice.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 01:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Sounds about right. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I am sorry, I generally don't like commenting on other people's votes, but I think that this goes to the heart of this debate: it is "votes" like this that create this confusion, and is the precise reason why this AfD is in deletion review. People: it is not a friggin' vote, please explain your reasons - "sounds about right" doesn't mean anything in itself, right? :) I am sure you have very good reasons why you want it overturned, but can you go the extra mile and explain them please? Baristarim 03:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • No problem. I can't really say much more than needs to be said, but it's been made clear that weight-of-argument doesn't factor as highly here as it does at AfD, so an added voice agreeing with what's been said above better helps the closer in this case. Until DRV starts using strength of arguments, I'm forced. Sorry. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn due to lack of consensus and because it is inconsistent with the result of the latest attempt to delete Allegations of Israeli apartheid which was going on at the same time but had a different result. I agree with Zleitzen that all articles about accusations of apartheid should be merged/renamed to articles that do not have apartheid in the title (other than the one about South Africa, of course.) However, I think it has to be done as part of a coordinated effort. To delete this one while "IA" remains -- and now seemingly even further immunized against deletion because it supposedly has had 4 unsuccessful nominations -- sends the wrong message, in my opinion. 6SJ7 04:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS] ;) Kla'quot 08:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  That does not apply when the two articles in question are, essentially, one article that has been split into two parts, which is the case here. 6SJ7 05:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse we don't count votes, the article is an irredemable mess of unconnected rhetoric - allegations of fascism anyone?--Doc^g 08:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse the keep arguements were based on a "me two" response with it needs to be cleaned up not deleted, where as the arguments for deletion were based n WP:SYNT policy which states that joined together in an article in order to advance [a] position becomes original research. Gnangarra 13:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Without prejudice. I think there was still much discussion to be had on the subject; I'm sorry I didn't see it until after it closed. IronDuke 14:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per Doc Glasgow. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of allegations. Such articles should be deleted without prejudice. The day Britannica and other print encyclopedias carry this junk (in other words, when pigs fly), then bring them back to Wikipedia. Khorshid 21:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • When do you imagine "Britannica and other print encyclopedias" will carry multiple and voluminous articles on things like List of Pokémon characters, List of Pokémon items, Pokémon regions (including multiple sub-articles), Poké Ball, Pokédex, and particularly List of Pokémon, which includes sub-articles on over 400 of your favorite Pokémon creatures? I'm particularly looking forward to Britannica's Registeel article, I think Wikipedia's has significant deficiencies. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Pokemon argument is not a valid argument - in any case Pokemon is not an "allegation" - most people might consider it childish but there are those who like it: but there are no disputes as to what constitutes "Pokemon". You will never see an article titled "Allegations of Pokemon", even in Wikipedia. The "Pokemon argument" is a notability one, not a OR, fork or a POV one. :)) Baristarim 06:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I think you're pointing out that the Britannica argument is not a valid one, as did I. As for the Pokemon articles, there's barely a footnote to be found in any of them, quite the opposite of the Allegations of apartheid article, which had dozens. Almost all of them are original research, as are tens of thousands of other articles on Wikipedia. Let me know when you find a 9/11 conspiracy theories or Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center or AIDS conspiracy theories or AIDS reappraisal article on Britannica. For that matter, tell me when you'll find an Allegations of Israeli apartheid article on Britannica; yet that article has survived 4 AfDs (admittedly the first two were straw-man nominations, and the 3rd ended prematurely). Jayjg ^(talk) 08:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, that was a well documented article. --Shamir1 05:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. The policy of no original research is non-negotiable, and there was a consensus that this article either had lots of OR or was entirely OR. Perhaps this article can be retitled and rewritten in a way that addresses the concerns raised in the AfD. Kla'quot 08:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per jayjg and humus sapiens. I find the Pokemon analogy refreshing and also the fact that the article was well sourced.Bakaman 15:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn per jayjg and humus sapiens.--Urthogie 18:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per jayjg and humus sapiens and as the article was obviously well-sourced. I would like to address two comments above. (1) if the content belongs in "Human rights in X" articles, that's an argument to merge and not to delete. (2) Khorshid wrote, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of allegations". Politics, in large part, consists of series of allegations and counterallegations; hard facts are often difficult to come by. Also, allegations may be encyclopedic if they have received sufficient coverage to render them notable. -- Black Falcon 18:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Mud may be slung in other places, but this is not a credible academic topic, and articles about mudslinging are likely to be far more trouble to keep neutral than the miniscule importance of the article can ever justify. Nathanian 00:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As this article was deleted based on the belief that it violated WP:SYNT, I would like to see "overturn" arguments that explain why it did not violate WP:SYNT. Pointing out the copious references doesn't help when the problem is novel synthesis. Kla'quot 08:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • What I do not understand is why, if the deletion did not even get a majority, much less a consensus, one administrator has the right to delete the article in the first place. It seems to me that the restoration should be automatic, and then the deletion process can start over if someone wishes to do so. This article and Allegations of Israeli apartheid were nominated for deletion on the same day, for the same reason, by the same person, and both got similar numbers to keep and delete (exactly even in this case), and yet this article goes and the one about Israel stays. 6SJ7 12:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    • This article was deleted on the grounds that as it linked disparate phenomena in a way no actual notable forum has ever attempted, it was judged to have violated WP:SYNT and WP:NOR after arguments made by editors, totally within process. Afd is not a vote. The problems with the other article, of which there are many, are different and should be assessed on their own merits. But all the articles should have been up for deletion simultaneously, and the nominator should have given proper reasons which applied to the relevant articles. As it is, the nominator made a mess of it.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 13:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, the nominator set the mess in motion, but the administrator who closed this AfD and deleted the article without a consensus, while at the same time another administrator was (properly, I must admit) closing the one about Israel consistent with the consensus, perpetuated the mess. Regardless of how the mess got here, it is here, and it needs to be corrected. 6SJ7 02:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• overturn The question here is (or should be) not whether the article was a synthesis, but whether the topic is a synthesis. And what could be simpler? Allegations... apartheid. Said allegations are made in various venues in reference to various allegees by various allegators. Perhaps this would have been more compelling had the deletion of Allegations of Brazilian Apartheid been pushed through first then the dust allowed to settle in order to cover the POVness of standing Allegations of Israeli Apartheid up on its own. Gzuckier 15:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist This should all have one more go through the blender. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: On a note raised by 6SJ7 about the Israeli article... I don't think that the two are related in the sense that one is about a specific country, nevertheless had I been aware of that AfD I would have voted for a merge with Human rights in Israel article. But again, there is no reason to overturn this because the other one was a keep/no-concensus. I know this will be a straw man, but there is no reason to set a thief free just because another one got away :) Baristarim 13:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. WP:SYNT, the way I see it is using two or more sources to draw new conclusions supported by none of them. If there are multiple sources each supporting a section segregated from the others, no new conclusions have been drawn, and there is no synthesis. The validity of the article therefore rests on the validity of the sections, and I think there was not a consensus that those were invalid. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it was having sections on numerous different disparate topics on the same page linked only by a rhetorical word, rather than by subject matter, that makes it WP:SYNTH. Meaning that it is original research to combine and link these disparate topics, as they had never been studied as a collective phenomenon elsewhere. It means that wikipedia had effectively created and collectively studied a topic, "allegations of apartheid", that didn't exist in the outside world, and elevated a rhetorical descriptive term used in passing to the status of a topic in itself, which in reality it isn't. Individually, "tourist apartheid" in Cuba stems from a wider programme of policies initiated after Cuba's economic collapse of the early 1990s, "social apartheid" in Brazil relates to years of economic disparities in Brazil that can be traced back to the time of slavery, "Israeli apartheid" refers to a particular dispute in the middle east. None of these have any connection to each other other than one rhetorical term used in passing, and have never been associated or studied as a collective phenomenon elsewhere. Because they do not form a single topic or subject.- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The problem is, the people who make the allegation of "apartheid" don't seem to think it is merely a "rhetorical term used in passing", but a legitimate claim and valid analogy, as in particular do the people nurturing the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. They even allege (despite its absurdity) that the they are referring to the Crime of apartheid. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, violation of WP:SYNT and WP:POINT.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 16:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse (my) closure. (Apologies for the delay; was mostly idle over Easter, and since nobody had informed me this was being listed at DRV, I only noticed it a minute ago while resuming activity.) Sources aren't really the issue here; the problem is that the sources established only that the term "apartheid" had been used or misused to describe cases X, Y, and Z. So what's the problem? Well, the article covered "gender apartheid", "Islamic apartheid", "financial apartheid", "water apartheid", and a half-dozen other "apartheids", some of which had been used by a single individual and some by a greater number of individuals, a couple of which were somewhat questionably defined, and few of which had anything to do with the legal definition of "apartheid" with which the article began. None of the sources backed up any sort of equivalency between these differing forms or interpretations of "apartheid". There is no such connection (that I could find) between these different instances, according to our sources -- we were creating this connection, and that is original synthesis. They're all allegations, and all use the word "apartheid", yes, but what is meant by all of these terms is not necessarily the same thing. Additionally, some sections were unsourced/OR, and others might have been treading on giving undue weight to given POVs. Shimeru 04:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Banks of mainland China (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache)

Category:Companies of mainland China (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(restore|cache)

To restore older edit history prior to re-creation. Both look like speedied after emptied. Neither went through CFD. See

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 18#Category:Economy of mainland China,
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 11#Category:Economy of mainland China,
• Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 24#Category:Economy of mainland China,
• Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 3#Categorization Naming Conventions and
• Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/unresolved China#Category:Companies of mainland China

for related discussions. - Privacy 17:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Neither of these has been deleted. The "older edit history" seems to be at the pre-existing Category:Banks of the People's Republic of China (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and Category:Companies of the People's Republic of China (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). There looks to be nothing to do here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Deletion log of Category: Banks of mainland China indicates it has been deleted once, and Category: Companies of mainland China has been deleted twice. The two categories you mentioned were never deleted. - Privacy 09:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as many times as necessary lather rinse repeat. POV fork. SchmuckyTheCat 15:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • They are not forks. "Mainland China" ≠ "People's Republic of China". - Privacy 18:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The whole PRC/mainland China naming controversy is not settled, and Privacy (talk · contribs) has no consensus behind his mass re-categorization. --Ideogram 18:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• • This is DRV, not CFD. - Privacy 18:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • If they haven't been deleted why are you wasting everyone's time here? --Ideogram 18:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
      • To restore earlier edit history. - Privacy 18:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Restore history per nom. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment ChoChoPK was prompted by Privacy to offer his brief comment. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This vote canvassing (and potential puppetry) on all the discussions around creating/deleting "mainland China" anything is extremely disturbing. SchmuckyTheCat 01:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Were not eligible for speedy deletions as per above. Michael G. Davis 20:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Category deletion normally goes through the Speedy section under CFD. They aren't speedied with the {speedy}} tag, and they shouldn't be emptied before Speedy at CFD. Passer-by (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Faye Turney (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/f/a/y/Faye_Turney_666e.html

cache]|AfD)

Subject is notable within Wikipedia's meaning of notability and the AfD discussion had not reached a consensus when it was closed. Greenshed 16:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete; not notable at all. Maurauth 16:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. By checking the last version of the article before it was redirected, we can see that there are multiple reliable sources that address her (and not just the capture incident) non-trivially. Ergo, she meets our notability guidelines. Also, if I'm not mistaken, a "15 minutes of fame" test has been repeatedly proposed as an indicator of notability and repeatedly rejected. In any case, AFD is not the place to change policy. A merge may be appropriate to improve content organisation, but the AFD close was clearly inappropriate. -- Black Falcon 16:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• This should properly be discussed and decided on the respective article Talk pages, not here. AFDs that close as "redirect" are no more binding than any other discussion with equivalent participation. But since the question has been put before us, I will endorse closure (keep as redirect). I also checked the sources in that last version of the article but do not reach Black Falcon's conclusion that they establish notability independent of the one incident. Had she been killed in the incident, we would have unambiguously rejected an independent article because Wikipedia is not a memorial. I find it very strange that we would reach a different decision just because she and the others lived. Wikipedia is not WikiNews. Not everything in the newspaper belongs in an encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse perfectly reasonable close. Come back if she becomes notable for something else independent of the seizure, in the mean time a redirect is the logical answer. Guy (Help!) 18:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I am more than happy to discuss the notability question here in detail. However, my main point is procedural, namely that the AfD discussion had not reached a consensus when it was closed (if anything I thought that it was heading in the direction of "Keep"). I submit that the article should be reinstated and if someone wants nominate it for merging or deletion then they can do and we'll debate notability then. Greenshed 19:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. While I agree with the nominator that a consensus hadn't really been established, closing a debate as no consensus is fairly unsatisfactory and relisting the debate would not likely help with the lack of consensus issue. Reaching a compromise in the form of a redirect is a bold move on the part of the closing admin and is an admirable thing to do. A redirect is not a delete and it can be reverted by any user - a better forum for discussion on whether this ought to be a merge/redirect or a standalone article is better suited to the talk page. Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Further comment. Would you agree that if I were to revert the redirect and add to the article, this would also be bold and admirable? Greenshed 19:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It would be a little inappropriate without some constructive debate on the matter. The problem is that in XFD matters the closing admin is often forced to make some pointedly difficult choices, particularly in matters where consensus isn't clear, knowing full well how likely it is someone is going to either complain about the income or call the decision in to question. So, often a judgement call has to be made as to which decision will be the least contentious outcome. If the consensus here in the DRV is to endorse the closure, a unilateral decision on your part (or anyone elses) to revert the redirect would be bold yes, but flagrantly disrespectful toward both process and the editors involved. If, afterward, you can get a constructive debate on the topic going on in the talk page and the consensus is then to restore the article, that is perfectly fine, yes. Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The reason why I have nominated this article is because I intend to respect both process and consensus. I agree that closing the article as no consensus is somewhat unsatisfactory but in this case it would have been accurate. My understanding is that if a consensus cannot be reached then the article should stay. Assuming that my understanding is correct, then by upholding the actioning admin's flawed judgement (no doubt made in good faith) the principle that no consensus means no removal of the content is turned on its head. Greenshed 19:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close, there is no deletion to review - reverting a redirect is an editorial decision that can be discussed on relevant article talk pages. --Coredesat 19:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I did ask about this here Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Protected_redirects first. Perhaps the deletion policy article could include some guidance on this question. Greenshed 20:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • By article talk pages, I mean Talk:2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel or Talk:Faye Turney. Nothing was actually deleted (otherwise the history of Faye Turney would not be there), so there is no scope for a deletion review. --Coredesat 20:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The article has been through the AfD process which has (wrongly in my view - as there was no consensus for keeping, merging or deleting) placed the onus onto me and other like-minded editors to establish consensus for the article's re-establishment. If I were to just revert the redirect then as has been stated above this would be "flagrantly disrespectful". Given the (very brief) discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy it would be most helpful if the policy could define whether the scope of deletion reviews is restricted to all AfD outcomes or just to actual deletions. If it is the latter then this needs to be clear as I fear that if I start a discussion on one of the talk pages, some will say that the AfD outcome takes precedence over a talk page discussion. Greenshed 21:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
        • We obviously don't apply reviews to all outcomes since a keep will not be subject to a review but a relisting or another AfD as appropriate. Whether we should apply a review to a supposed merge consensus is less clear Nil Einne 13:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - Not notable outside of the Incident. Leave it deleted! Nooie 00:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse I advocating keeping the article without the redirect. However, this was a reasonable close.DGG 04:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - whatever one's views on this, procedure has not been followed. Far too many debates get closed with a "the decision is X" just because a particular admin supports one case. SteveRwanda 06:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel seems sensible. If she becomes famous for something else, then the redirect should be undone and it should become a separate article. Really this is one case where listing for deletion was a waste of time (wasn't going to happen) and a redirect makes Wikipedia a more informative encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 20:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• endorse deletion she hasn't done anything notable that isn't covered by the parent article on the seizure itself. The parent article covers all the aspects which many argue make her notable enough for her own article, I think that it would just be duplication. SGGH 14:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and unprotect and keep. Highly notable, this should not be a question for anyone. A protected redirect is would be inappropriate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep. This event is still ongoing with the whole selling of stories issue coming up while this process has been going on. Hypnosadist 16:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Alluc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

improved notability and layout Iyenweyel 07:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)