Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 19

Template:User against censorship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache)

Template is not inflammitory or divisive, so does not meet T1 criteria for speedy deletion Willy turner 21:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, sound deletion on Cyde's part. I don't know what to say about the nominator's comment statement that this did not meet CSD T1, other than the fact that I disagree. Trying to paint your opponents, whoever they are, as nazis, is divisive and inflammatory. Picaroon (Talk) 21:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If you dont know what to say about my statement then you shouldnt be commenting at all. Having a picture of book burning clearly does not paint anyone as a nazi. Willy turner 22:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC) The image is used on every page dealing with Censorship. Why havent you nominated it for deletion from the censorship series box if you feel so strongly. I can just about deal with admins censoring any userbox which is critical of any aspect of religion, but this is the last straw. If a userbox opposing censorship is censored (without any discussion), then we may as well delete all userboxes expressing an opinion. Willy turner 22:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should. --Cyde Weys 02:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Slipping down a slope, are we, Cyde? When can I expect my view on cats to be deleted? --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 13:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your view on cats is in user space. This template was in template space. There's a rather significant difference there. --BigDT 22:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Namespaces don't stop Cyde from deleting, as was demonstrated recently by the unfortunate demise of User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion. Moreover, the comment you're replying to was a digression from the debate, I said that in response to Cyde's "We should delete all Wikipedia userboxes, Muhahaha!" Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 03:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn If being against censorship is inflammatory, then the EFF must be on fire, man. -N 22:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I don't see how this possibly qualifies as "divisive and inflammatory. It is a prime candidate for the German userbox solution, however.--Chaser - T 23:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Then be bold and create it in your userspace. It can't be in template space, but there's nothing stopping it from being in userspace or used on userpages in a subst'ed fashion. --BigDT 22:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong overturn If this is "inflamatory and devisive" then so is any citaion of the section of WP:NOT that says "Wikipedia is not censored". I do not see how this can be considred a vaild T1 deeltion, and i think that T1 should be used with great caution, for all too often deletions under it are rather more devisive than the userboxes involved are ever likely to be. DES ^(talk) 00:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• I like how everyone is missing the point over the deletion. It has nothing to do with me being pro-censorship. --Cyde Weys 02:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I don't accuse Cyde of being pro-censorship (even if I weren't assuming good faith, very few people honestly think that censorship is good). I just don't see how this is inflammatory. -Amarkov moo! 02:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, here's another tack, if Kesh's take below doesn't convince you: do you really think it should be a template? --Cyde Weys 03:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • For my part, I'd certainly think it probably to be properly situated in userspace, but I would observe that a discussion about that issue is better had at TfD; that something should not be a template is not a justification for its being speedily deleted. I suppose one might argue that since its been deleted we might as well decide that, even as T1 was inappropriate, we ought to userfy straightaway; such a proposition is, of course, though, inconsistent with the well-settled understanding of that which DRV is to do (and a TfD better involves the community in a discussion over whether GUSification is counseled in any case). Joe 06:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Likewise, the decision to unilaterally delete an opinionated userbox might be seen as a pragmatic approach to a convoluted status quo. DRV deals with the method as well as the merits of deletion. My suggestion, and one I emphatically wish that Cyde takes to heart, is to subst all transclusions before deletion, so as not to annoy users and prevent future DRV timesinks. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - Censorship is a term that gets flung around a lot, but the meaning isn't always clear. I've seen plenty of AfDs where people cry "censorship!" of their pet topic, and can see how this template may be used as a badge for those with a grudge against other editors. That's how it can be seen as inflammatory & divisive. -- Kesh 02:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Would that apply to other policies that get misinterpeted? Would a template saying "This user supports the deletion of replaceable fair use images" or "This user supports the removal of unverifiable information" or "This user opposes personal attacks" be inflammatory and divisive as well? I don't see how this case is any different. Xtifr _tälk 10:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy per zee Germans, or subst and delete ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, clearly inflammatory. --Coredesat 05:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a social networking site, but was this template's creator too focused on social networking in his contributions? Was it his intent to create a divisive template? Is using a picture of the Nazi book burnings really that inflammatory (sans the awkward phrasing)? Maybe there is some disagreement over the answers to these questions, maybe TfD was a better way to go. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. The old horse just refuses to die. I'm sure that by this time radical antiuserboxen like Cyde Ways have clearly realised that their free interpretation of speedy deletion criteria and view of community consensus as something optional has created far more division and trouble than any userbox ever could. The question then remains, why do they continue doing this? The answer I believe is that they consider doing otherwise to be conceding defeat to the pro-userbox forces of Evil. This is not a healthy mentality. If you believed that community consensus indeed favours the deletion of userboxes like this, you could have easily nominated it at TfD. But you knew that there was little chance of getting consensus that way, so the only way to get your will done was to use your special administrative abilities to simply delete it. Vague criteria like divisive and inflammatory can be easily interpreted to include anything. You are using your administrative powers in a creative manner, something you definitely should not be doing. Adminship was intended to be and should be janitor work, just carrying out community consensus. Attempts to wield that power to enforce personal opinions with disregard for the community can only be labeled with that much-abused cliche, admin abuse. This should be undeleted as a matter of process, CSD T1 was interpreted very loosely when CSD criteria should be interpreted very strictly. Loom91 07:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Meh. Yes, such templates tend to be used for soapboxing, and no, deleting them does not actually stop that soapboxing. >Radiant< 09:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong overturn: I can understand when anti-Wikipedia-policy userboxes get deleted, but when pro-Wikipedia-policy userboxes get deleted, that's just silly! The whole argument about "calling your opponents Nazis" makes no sense to me. What opponents? This is a userbox; something people put on their user page, not something they use in edit wars. These hypothetical "opponents" are unlikely to see the image, much less imagine that it's directed at them. Heck, you could argue that it's more inflammatory to link to censorship in a debate, since the same image appears at the top of that article. In fact I just did. Is someone going to accuse me of calling Cyde a Nazi? Silly as that would be, it would at least make more sense to me than the deletion of this userbox. (Note that I have no objection to userfying this per the usual practice, but deleting it outright was outrageous and...well, I'll self-censor at this point, to avoid accusations of incivility.) Xtifr _tälk 10:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Loom91s highly articulate take on the matter! DarkSaber2k 10:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy - this is a no brainer. It's the kind of thing we discourage in template space but allow in user space. Metamagician3000 12:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. While it might technically be argued that it is not inflammatory or divisive, the word "censorship" is so rarely used in the corrcet sense, or in calm, rational debate, as to make the distinction impossible to draw in the real world. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong overturn and userfy per Loom. The problem here is not userboxes, the same deal can be written down in text on a userpage and no one'd bat an eyebrow. If non-inflammatory userboxes, like this one, are used for edit warring or personal attacks or whatever, there are already policies in place to deal with them. Unilaterally deleting userboxes or userbox directories (like Cyde recenly did with User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion, which was in userspace) is only a circumvention of process and not in keeping with the principles of Wikipedia. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 13:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Userfy - TFD is probably the appropriate venue for this, since there seems to be controversy over this, but the debate has started here. Kinda pointless userbox that doesn't contribute to the encyclopedia, but I don't think its really inflammatory/disruptive. Wickethewok 13:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and send to XFD This does not fit within T1, and Cyde certainly knows that speedy deleting userboxes is divisive and inflammatory. However, instead of straight overturning, I recommend sending to TFD because the XFD discussion might go multiple ways including: 1) remove the image but keep, 2) replace with one of the various already Germanified userboxes against censorship, 3) just Germanify, or even 4) keep. Since I don't know which of those should be the consensus answer, send it to the proper forum for determining that. GRBerry 14:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• overturn and send to TFD per GRBerry. This doesn't seem to be inflammatory. Some days I wouldn't mind deleting all userboxes that aren't directly relevant to writing the encyclopedia but we don't have anything resembling a consensus for that. JoshuaZ 15:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse or relist. I think the right result was reached here: this is over the line, but I admit that others may have reasonable disagreement on that. I would prefer to just endorse the deletion, but I'm okay with relisting, too. Mangojuice^talk 16:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "Relist"? It was never listed in the first place. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 16:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy - this is why we have the userbox migration... The Evil Spartan 16:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at TfD - the cached version looks halfway reasonable; I would suggest it could be reworded to something along the line of 'this user is opposed to censorship". Addhoc 19:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The version looks halfway reasonable? Using an image of book burning by Nazis is "halfway reasonable"? Corvus cornix 01:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • If it's not, than neither is the article on censorship, which uses the same image. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 03:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, that image was totally inappropriate at censorship, or to be more precise, at {{censorship}}: not only is it inflammatory and associates many articles wih Naziism that aren't related, but censorship is not book burning. Mangojuice^talk 13:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
        • • In that case, the image can be easily changed. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 06:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Hey Cyde, we all make mistakes. Being against censorship might inflame the two or three people who support censorship, but is it really a core issue? Yes, list on TFD if that's what people want. YechielMan 08:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Classic T1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for political agitation. How long does it take to get this message through? --Tony Sidaway 19:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Im with Tony on this one. It seems squarely within the remit of T1. Even templates that promote widely held views can be divisive. I don't have any objection to usrfication per WP:GUS. Eluchil404 20:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, of course. Nobody is saying you can't have it subst'ed on your userspace. --BigDT 22:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I doubt anyone here's saying it should stay in template space, the real debate seems to be whther or not to userfy it. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 06:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - agree with The Raven's Apprentice that it should be in user space and if relisted I guess that would be the consensus. On the subject of the image - a less inflammatory photograph could be chosen, also I notice the current image doesn't at the moment have a fair use tag. Addhoc 10:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The real, big debate (for me at least), is whether indiscriminate application of fundamentally vaugue criteria like T1 to speedily delete hundreds of pages is an acceptable practice. I think it's time we had a large-scale centralised debate on the issue instead of rehashing the arguments in every such DRV debate.Loom91 18:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. If you delete that, you'd need to delete every template for opinions that are relevant to how we edit Wikipedia. Doczilla 08:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and userfy I don't think it belongs in templatespace (per the narrow definiton of T1 applied by some admins) but I also think the outright deletion was unwarranted. We have deletion process for some reason, and if you know that deleting something is controversial, for heavens sake don't go "I know what is best for Wikipedia; WP:IAR" and delete it. This only forsters a culture (or at least the image of a culture) of "once you have the bit, do what you want, the common schmuck can't touch you". 84.145.231.10 11:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • How do you overturn and userfy? If you want it in your user space, log in and create it there ... or if GFDL is an issue, ask an admin to restore it and move it there for you. The template was deleted from template space - there's no bar in Germanizing it.--BigDT 19:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • There is a bar to "Germanizing" it. It was deleted as supposedly-inflammatory, and until we get the question resolved as to whether that was appropriate, a recreation, even in userspace, is likely to be deleted again. Which makes the "overturn and userfy" comment make perfect sense. Xtifr _tälk 01:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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

non-notable software Hi, I would like to request that Xcellery be opened for Undelete review. This is my first time writing an article versus just making small edits so I apologize in advance for getting the procedures wrong.

A temporary version may be found at User:CambridgeBayWeather/Sandbox I understand from CambridgeBayWeather that this particular article was deleted twice Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xcellery and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xcellery (second nomination) due to advertising content and insufficient notable sources.

Taking this into account, I have re-written the stub and at CBW's advice, I would like to submit it for review. According to WP:SOFTWARE a piece of software must be notable if it has multiple non-trivial independant mentions. At the time, Lifehacker and Salesforce were listed as the two references. Upon further review, it was noted that the Lifehacker reference did not live up to the WP:SOFTWARE standard since it appeared that the author of that blog article had not used the software...

Now that a few months has passed, I found the following references to Xcellery thanks to Google. Besides SalesForce AppExchange (which noone has disputed the legitimacy of), there is a reference on Buzzshout, Office 2.0 Database, and Webware. Of these, several are hands on evaluations of this software so they should count, right?

I'm not sure what the next step of this procedure is. Please advise. Regards, --Gsalelanonda 20:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment article looks good, but all the external links are to blogs. I cannot (personally) endorse an undeletion, no matter how well written, without reliable sources. -N 22:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Who wrote those blogs? Blogs are not automatically non-reliable. If it happens to be the blog of a software experts (say Bill Gates), I'd call it even more reliable than some other sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are almost always bad sources (even blogs of experts) since they are typically not peer reviewed. Exceptions exist, but I don't think this would be one of those situations. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Not all the links are to stubs. One of the sources is to SalesForce AppExchange - an on-demand applications platform setup by a "real" CRM company. In the previous deletion discussions, noone disputed this link as a legitimate notable mention.--Gsalelanonda 22:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; the only reliable source on the proposed article is [1], a decent enough product review by Network World however that review says the product is still in beta, with 3000 beta testers and only five companies using it. As a result, I do not see why this product needs to be recorded in an encyclopedia, except as part of a marketing program. John Vandenberg 07:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reto Laemmler is, as is trivially verifiable, the founder and CEO of the company that provides this software, so conflict of interest plus lack of independent sources means I endorse deletion. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note as closing admin - Yeah... I kinda expected this to pop up here but I stand by my choice until multiple non-trivial sources exist. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael Curtis Parsons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Both the nominator and one participant failed to provide any reasoning as to why they deemed this person not notable. One other relied on online sources. The paper archived their online content for a limited length of time, but information would still be available in dead tree format. The final participant in the discussion draw into question his single television appearance without even discussing the fact he had a leading role in a London West End musical and not only had a leading role in said TV show. I believe this article should be undeleted because the most important argument for his notability - his stage work - was completely ignored in the AFD and none of the comments took ALL his work in consideration. Mgm|^(talk) 18:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

About the tv show Tony said: "I think being on one TV show run in the after-school slot once is a little bit weak for notability". That particular program was actually a mini-movie rather than a TV series and was repeated multiple times. And the fact it was about the London Underground bombings makes this particular program/movie notable in itself. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Very strange article about pre-teen actor who appeared on one kids' TV show--once--and per IMDB was billed ninth. Not only is that way under any reasonable bar of notability for an actor, but frankly it seems to me that this level of coverage for a non-notable child--complete with where he lives(!), what family members he lives with (!!) and what their names are (!!!)--is rather, well, creepy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You may find all these "creepy", but it's all in the sources and it's all basic biographical information. - 87.209.70.231 18:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The billing is totally irrelevant. In fact I believe he had more screen time than many of the other actors. If you take a good look at the credits you'll notice it's alphabetical and not based on any importance of the actor or character. - 87.209.70.231 18:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the billing is relevant. There is a notability threshold for biographical articles, and this person didn't cross it by a longshot. Most of the links given as references in the article were dead. Please read WP:BIO. --Spike Wilbury 19:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• It can be relevant if it is based on something like star status, but it wasn't. You can't call someone non-notable because they happened to be billed ninth in an alphabetical list, that way someone with a last name starting with Z would always draw the short straw. What is relevant is the importance of the character, the number of lines they have and their screen time. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  That sounds like contributing as to if the character is notable, not that actor who those attributes are completely independant of. Generally notability is about what the rest of the world think, did the world at large think the actor was significant enough to give broad coverage to them (rather than their character). --pgk 21:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If the character is notable, then why wouldn't the person playing them be notable? - Mgm|^(talk) 22:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Notable roles are generally recurring roles or break a significant stereotype or are critically acclaimed. None of those apply here. Besides we can cover the role without being creepy and giving a complete bio of the kid. Macaulay Culkin this kid is not. -N 01:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse strongly I am usually against WP:BLP deletions but this was a near unanimous afd (besides the perennial inclusionist jeff) and this is just plain creepy. -N 01:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. If the role is notable, then create an article on that, and maybe mention who plays the role. There is no need for a biography on the guy himself, especially since biographical information on him is not currently easily accessible. -Amarkov moo! 02:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

I have posted this article twice, and both times it has been deleted by the same administrator. The article was previously posted by someone else, and there was a deletion discussion. The administrator who continues to delete it cites that discussion as his reason. However, that discussion was flawed. The reasons given for deleting the article are inappropriate. One reason was lack of verification of claims, yet links were provided in the article that backed them. Another reason was the questioning of the importance of the article. Element TD is a very popular game for Warcraft 3, and I say this as a person who has played Warcraft 3 for years. But don't take my word for it, the number of downloads it has received on numerous Warcraft 3 sites speak to this fact. It has not only been Spotlighted by Blizzard themselves as an outstanding map, but it also is featured in the map section of the prestigious WC3Campaigns.net. The final reason brought against the article is that custom maps for games do not deserve to be on Wikipedia. However, Defense of the Ancients (DotA) has TWO articles on Wikipedia (DotA and DotA Allstars). It should be noted that DotA is a custom map for Warcraft 3. If that reason is to be cited, Wikipedia should be consistent. I believe the handling of this article has been inappropriate. The article has not had a chance to grow in size and quality because it is immediately deleted. I can promise that many users will edit and improve the article, because Element TD has a large fan base. Please rectify this situation. Karawasa 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. A fact mentioned in the Feb version of the article but quietly omitted from the latest version is that the mod is now maintained by Karawasa. The article is self-promotion/spam. -- RHaworth 08:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The list of titles at the head of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Element TD says it all, really. This is vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. No new independent reliable sources have been provided to help with verification and notability.--Wafulz 13:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per all of the aove, and RHaworth's findings especially. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• endorse deletion The precense of a conflict of interest by Karawasa is not that relevant. What is relevane is a lack of reliable sources that talk about the topic. Find reliable sources and then get back to us. JoshuaZ 18:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Rebuttal You guys keep mentioning lack of reliable sources for verification and notability. What exactly is being looked for here?

http://www.battle.net/mod/mapvault_archive3.shtml - This is the link to Blizzard's Spotlight Maps. If you don't know, Blizzard is the company responsible for making Warcraft 3. Element TD being in this archive means that Blizzard has singled it out for being one of the better custom maps for Warcraft 3.

http://www.epicwar.com/maps/?mode=details&order=desc&sort=downloads&page=1 - This is a link that shows that Element TD has an outstanding number of downloads and ratings. See how it is above every map but two for this database in terms of downloads.

http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/2745/eletddv7.jpg - Link to picture taking of WC3Campaigns.net map database. Notice how Element TD is a part of the database. WC3Campaigns.net is essentially the largest and most respected site for Warcraft 3 maps and modding. Element TD being a part of this database was only possible with the approval of the administration of that site. Very few maps make it into the database, only the highest quality and most respected ones.

http://warcraft3.filefront.com/file/8_Element_TD;71609 - Link to another site for Warcraft 3 downloads. Notice the large number of downloads for this map. Feel free to compare the number of downloads with others from that site.

What other proof can I offer you? I also would like an answer to a question I have asked several times. Why is Defense of the Ancients article allowed to exist on Wikipedia (DotA). It has TWO articles (DotA and DotA Allstars). What proof have they offered to be allowed an article? If Element TD article cannot exist on Wikipedia, nor should this article. As administrators, you need to be consistent.

RHaworth, I thank you for actually taking the time to familiarize yourself with Warcraft 3. My conflict of interest is irrelevant here. It is not self-promotion, I do not mention myself at all in the article.

--Karawasa 22:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Those are not reliable sources. See WP:RS and WP:V. -- Kesh 03:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Request If those are not reliable sources, then I request that both "DotA," and "DotA Allstars," articles be deleted. Those two articles are also about a Warcraft 3 custom map, which apparently is something that doesn't deserve to exist on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is to maintain any sort of credibility, then the administrators must be consistent in their actions. --Karawasa 05:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You have the option to nominate them for deletion as well, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ALLORNOTHING are not valid reasons to keep this article. -- Kesh 05:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, notability not demonstrated on the Afd, and the only calls for "keep" had a COI with the article. John Vandenberg 07:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, AfD discussion properly closed as a deletion due to lack of reliable sources; deletion review provides nothing to indicate the contrary, nor does it provide any reliable sources to warrant undeletion at this time. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)