Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 1

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

There have been a number of works published where WikyBlog has either been the subject of the work or has been a significant portion of the work. While there appear to have been articles published in multiple languages, I've included links to the english articles below.

• (subject) http://www.freedownloadaday.com/2007/07/20/wikyblog-combines-wiki-and-blog-features/
• (subject) http://scout.wisc.edu/Reports/ScoutReport/2007/scout-070427-nettools.php
• (subject) http://chasesagum.com/?p=61
• http://www.mitchelaneous.com/2007/09/19/9-wordpress-alternatives/

The notability criteria I reviewed, and believe WikyBlog has met, concerns web content. Thank you for your time in reviewing this matter,(Note: I am the developer of WikyBlog). -- Oyejorge 00:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure based on the sources so far. Freedownloadaday is published by Savetz Publishing. OK. The Internet Scout is from the University of Wisconsin, which lends it some credibility. The other two appear to be personal blogs, which aren't reliable sources for establishing notability. Yours is a well written request, tho.--Chaser - T 03:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• It is hard to say no to such a nice, forthright, and well thought out request. However, there does not seem to be enough reliable source material to develop an WP:A article on WikyBlog. I did a search and didn't find anything other than what is listed above. You might want to contact your local alternative weekly newspaper and see if they will do a story on WikyBlog. They usually write long, detailed articles that provide plenty of reliable source material for Wikipedia. You also might want to include a detailed "History of WikyBlog" on your website. And if WikyBlog does something noteworthy, consider generating a press release and sending it to Marketwire. With a little effort, you can eventually have enough reliable source material generated by those not connected with WikyBlog to use in a Wikipedia article. -- Jreferee t/c 16:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the compliments on the request and the suggestions for generating more press (which I will follow through on). In the mean time though, since I've already started, I'd like to pursue undeletion a little bit further. In response to the WP:A concerns, I would submit the option of using the sourceforge listing of WikyBlog as a major source of references (for dates, system requirements, languages supported... ). The project news archive would be even more useful as it contains release announcements and project notes beginning with the 0.9.2 release of June 2006 (I noticed many of the references for MediaWiki were release notes). And as for information on WikyBlog.com, an archive of all release notes has been kept if they would be accepted as a valid self-published source. Thanks again, Oyejorge 03:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  So far, I got WikyBlog is a blog publishing system developed by Josh Schmidt and release on September 21, 2005. The software is given out free. Articles usually have a hook in them, something to draw the readers in. Did anything interesting happen in the two years since it was release? Do you make money giving it out free? Any notable people use the software? -- Jreferee t/c 01:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Kurdish-Israeli relations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Being bold as an administrator is one thing. But consensus on this article was completely ignored. There was not one person calling for a delete of the page, and the reasons for keep were equally as sound as the reasons for delete. I'm all administrators being bold with this kind of thing, but if we're going to be saying delete when every single person on the page is calling for a keep, then we might as well throw AFD out the window and just have admins press the delete button. To address the concerns:

• There were 4 people calling for keep, using sound policy arguments.
• There was one person with a comment implying what several other people expressed: that the article itself was worthy of inclusion, and that at worst the title should change.
• Deletion was based off previous discussion, with the idea that the two were similar. They are, but the reasons calling for delete in that discussion had nothing to do with the current discussion.

In short, it is the administrators responsibility to establish consensus and work according to it, with leeway to ignore arguments against policy. It is not, however, the responsibility of an administrator to ignore consensus altogether in a discussion. If an admin feels this strongly and there is no consensus, s/he should simply add his comment to the page. This was a faulty close of a discussion, which at most should have been closed as no consensus, and reeks of administartor activism. 64.178.96.168 18:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• overturn elaborate rationale given, but basically he decided to agree with one sole person and based on the result of one prior related deletion. Admin should have joined the argument instead, and let somebody else close. DGG (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Some of the arguments on the nom were blant personal attacks aimed at the nominator and hence have very little value.
  • A-B relations are reserved for diplomatic relations. This is the common practice to date. The article was "inventing" a relationship between a country (political entity) and ethnicity (a cultural entity) in an WP:OR manner. The article was even synthesizing a relationship based on the interpretation of the bible by the articles author. There isn't a single example of such an "ethnicity-country relationship" article anywhere on wikipedia and this is not the point of "A-B relations" articles. At least two other articles (Kurdish-Chinese relations and Kurdish-Italian relations) were deleted over similar concerns: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurdish-Chinese relations. I do not see any argument that overides that past consensus. WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. It is the weight of the arguments that count. Some of the arguments on this nom were based on WP:OR or personal opinions and has very little value and do not have much weight. This article and those two has been written by same person. -- Cat ^chi? 21:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The AFD devolved into a bit of a slap at the nominator. Although I disagree with White Cat about 99% of the time on things Kurdish and Turkish, this time he is right. We have Turkish-israeli relations which is not the relationship between the Turkish & Israeli people, but the diplomatic relations between their respective governments - if this were not the case we could have Californian-Japanese relations, Austrian-Bavarian relations, Washingtonian-British Columbian relations and Sicilian-New Yorker relations and heck why not Angelino-Mexican relations or Chicagoan-Warsawan relations for which much could probably written (or synthesized). Kurdistan has no sovereign government to date - to the best information I have seen the autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq has not obtained recognition of its sovereignty by any other state and has no accredited diplomats posted to any other state and has no diplomatic relations independent of those of Iraq. Let's evaluate the article, not the nominator. Carlossuarez46 21:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

  I do want to add that Turkish-Israeli relations redirects to Turkey-Israel relations -- Cat ^chi? 22:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I added that redirect as previously only Turkish-israeli relations (uncapitalized "i") was the redirect. We have Turkish-American relations, Armenian-Turkish relations, Franco-Turkish relations, and Greco-Turkish relations but also Turkey-Germany relations, Turkey-Azerbaijan relations, Turkey-Chile relations and Iran-Turkey relations. Suffice to say that the naming is neither uniform nor optimal perhaps, but that doesn't change my position. Carlossuarez46 22:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• As the deleting admin, I based my decision on a few facts: The "A-B relations" article are about diplomatic relations between countries. The previous AFD was a valid deletion (two articles were deleted, not just one), this article is really no different. Regrettably, the closing admin didn't give a reason as to why they deleted, which is a pity. However, I'm a bit unclear what policy was invoked in the arguments on this AFD. There were most definitely some good arguments on the "keep" side of things, but there were even better counter arguments made. AFD isn't a vote, and deleting admins must take into account the keep and delete reasonings. In this case, the keep reasons were reasonably weak, and the delete reasons were strong. I'd like to note that I have no real opinion one way or another of Kurdish/Israeli topics, and believe that the DRV nominator should assume good faith - there was no "admin activism" here. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• While I have no strong opinion on the article itself, it does seem unfortunate that it was deleted without any "delete" support. The logic about "country - country" also seems flawed - "IBM Microsoft relations" or "GM Ford relations" would beoth be significant topics, let alone "IRA UK relations" or "NATO Warsaw Pact relations". On the DRV level I would perhaps suggest Relist and on the AfD level merge and redirect seems to be the obvious course if there's insufficient notable sourced material. Rich Farmbrough, 11:18 2 October 2007 (GMT).

  And incidentally the "slap at the nom", while unfortunate, should not inform our discussion here. Rich Farmbrough, 11:20 2 October 2007 (GMT).

  • If you are referring to the AFD, then I can assure you I didn't base my decision on that. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

    • Response to Rich Farmbrough, perhaps a better titling of all the international ones would be "A-B diplomatic relations" where A & B are county names rather than adjectival forms which can be ambiguous. Then we can have the any notable "relations" that aren't diplomatic state-to-state but of the GM Ford, people-to-people, what not without "diplomatic" so that Kurdish-Israeli relations would be relations between Kurdish people & Israeli people, and if sources for that can be found and not synthesize an article from nothing. Carlossuarez46 21:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

      • Seems reasonable to me! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist. Flawed closure with a rationale based in no policy. I don't share the presumption that "X-Y relations" articles must necessarily be between two sovereign states, especially in such an ambiguous case as Kurdistan (which for all intents and purposes was sovereign between the two wars). In any event, whether we have such an article should be determined at least in part by WP:N. I would be more willing to back a better-sourced article; this one is weaker than it need be. There are sources, but much of that is itself speculative, so a strongly-grounded article may well be impossible. Nevertheless, it deserves an AFD on the merits. --Dhartung | Talk 12:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  It was defacto semi-sovereign state, yes. There were two factions fighting for power all the time. in the region now known as Iraqi Kurdistan. The scope of the article went beyond that. This article was using the bible as a source to establish Israeli Kurdish relations. It talked about Kurds blaming the capture of the PKK leader to Israel and etc. -- Cat ^chi? 03:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Relist. While I sympathize with the closer's sentiment (and in fact largely agree with the closure) the way in which it was done was just not right - it is impossible to argue that the consensus of the debate was to delete. This is one of those cases where the closer would have been better off adding the opinion to delete to the debate rather than closing it as such. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Closer is not obligated to ignore policy just because everyone else did. From reading the debate, it appears some editors are under the impression that "Kurdistan" is a sovereign entity with diplomatic relations, which is emphatically not the case. Mackensen (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - The closer's opinion that "relations articles are clearly only for country-to-country diplomatic relations" fails to account for the fact that a variety of reliable source material specifically uses "Kurdish - Israeli relations" as topic for their writing. The book After Such Knowledge, What Forgiveness?: My Encounters With Kurdistan addresses Kurdish-Israeli relations in detail. The 10th Issue of Al-Fursan Magazine (October 2006) has a three-page article describing the historical relations between the Kurds and Israel. The article is entitled "The Kurdish-Israeli Relations: Their Development, Forms, and Objectives." Nabaz Goran wrote about Kurdish - Israeli relations for the third time in a February 14, 2007 article entitled "Back to the original relations, back to the Israeli relations" and published by the Iraqi Kurdistan National Democratic Union newspaper Midya. Also, Google books provides some hits. The closer's use of original research to draw the closing statement is not an appropriate close. Moreover, the consensus clearly agreed and established that the topic Kurdish - Israeli relations meets WP:N. -- Jreferee t/c 02:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  Israel and Kurdistan cannot have diplomatic relations as Israel does not recognize any independent Kurdistan. No dependent entity can have diplomatic relations. The scope of "Iraqi Kurdistan National Democratic Union" only extends to the KRG and not to Turkey, Syria, Israel, Armenia, Georgia, Iran, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and a dozen other countries where Kurdish people also live. It is WP:OR to establish such relationships among ethnicities. -- Cat ^chi? 03:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Reverse per Jreferee. Closer completely ignored consensus and a multitude of evidence contrary to his views. I'm going to bite my tongue and assume good faith here and not say that it was closed purely out of spite and as a knee-jerk reaction to some borderline comments by a few Keep'ers; but it was a bad decision in any case and warrants reversal. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 04:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - when the comments of those contributing to the debate are 100% in favour of keeping, closing as a delete because you personally think it should be deleted is ludicrous. TBSDY may have been better off participating in the discussion by writing a cogent argument for deletion and letting someone neutral close it - if his argument had been strong enough, it may have been deleted anyway. Neil ム 11:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a democracy. AFD isnt a vote. It is the weight of the comment that counts. -- Cat ^chi? 03:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. The reasoning the closer used to go against consensus is faulty as even the nominator eventually acknowledged that "A-B Relations" articles are not necessarily for countries alone. The nominator said that a PKK-Hezbollah relations article would be OK. Pocopocopocopoco 00:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

  Yes. Hezbollah is an organization not an ethnicity. Kurdish is an ethnicity not an organization. -- Cat ^chi? 12:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

  Kurds are also a people, and it seems arbitrary to me that you just want to exclude peoples from "A-B relations" but everything else is OK. Nonetheless, my original point stands that the closers reasoning for going against consenses is faulty as his reasoning was that "A-B relations" should be for countries alone. Pocopocopocopoco 14:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. This is an impossible article. If it were more specific - like, a certain Kurdish party and group with the current state of Israel, rather than some Biblical story, it might be different. As it is, it has no purpose being here. It also read more like a history article than a relations article. --Golbez 11:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Relist I see no clear consensus from the AfD. GDonato (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment First I have suggestions to the nominator here and to the closing admin. The nominator here (64.178...) should, as a courtesy to us, sign in with his/her account (User:Part Deux ?), as it is a library anon, though this does not affect this deletion review. Also the closing admin should be more careful while concluding future AFDs. I am in principle against closing an AFD with a comment that is pretty much like a vote, which might be the case here; closing admin even took part in the discussion. I think that we should pay attention to AFD's involving Cat chi, also as there are people attacking him. Let me list the situation with the keep vote arguments:
  1. Pocopocopocopoco: countered well by nom
  2. Evil Spartan: attack on nom, and a not so relevant argument
  3. VartanM: attack on nom, not so relevant argument
  4. Victor falk: countered well by nom
• No one countered nom's arguments which seem to be quite valid. I agree with the conclusion, but I would have liked it more, if the closing admin did not take part in the discussion. Deniz^T_C 11:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Longest Day (song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

No comment was made on addition of new sources before the deletion. E tac 17:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps that's an indication that nobody thought the sources changed their previous comments. Corvus cornix 19:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Possibly, however the big issue with the articles was apparently that there was no source information.--E tac 23:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - AfD isn't a vote and deleting because the vote was 3-1 doesn't send a good message. That, by itself, is reason enough to overturn. In addition, "Delete per mine" and "Delete because it didn't chart" are not policy reasons for deletion and the one keep reason offered no assistance to the closer's ability to make a decision. The sources added during the pending AfD were never addressed. When in doubt, don't delete. I considered the relisting option, but the lack of any meaningful discussion in AfD#1 would seem to result in the same lack of meaningful discussion if the article were relisted at AfD. -- Jreferee t/c 16:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Jreferee's reasoning.--chaser - t 04:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I know I am not suppoesed to modify this but if the deletion has been overturned then where is the page?--E tac 19:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Digital Paint: Paintball 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Lack of notability not demonstrated - notable as one of the few Quake 2 total conversions to have a large fanbase, and gets more Google hits than some other mod projects that there are articles on. 192.43.227.18 06:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• You have it backwards: the proponents of the article have to demonstrate the presence of notability. Google hits don't cut it; do you have any external sources on that? >Radiant< 11:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - arguments in article all fell under exactly what the admin said they did: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as they do immediately above (i.e., WP:WAX, WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:GOOGLEHITS, and WP:BIG.) 64.178.96.168 19:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. I knew this article was familiar (I was the closer of the AfD). I any event, the arguments for keeping ranged from unpersuasive to irrelevant. In particular the fact that some other articles are poorly sourced or unsourced, doesn't have any bearing on the question of whether the lack of sourcing in this article is merely an unfortunate accident of drafting or a reflection of fundamental non-notability. Nor are the "it's more notable than this other mod" suggestions definitive. We are under no obligation to have articles on any Quake II mods unless they meet the general notability criteria (WP:N). Even of they're blue-linked at the moment, they may be deleted at any time if they meet criteria such as lack of notability or verifiability from reliable sources. Eluchil404 05:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - Consensus was clear in that the article should be deleted since there was not enough reliable source material to develop an attributable article on the topic. The keep arguments centered around importance/significance, which may get it past CSD A7, but not AfD. The delete arguments regarding WP:N and reliable sources were never countered by those interested in keeping the article. The delete arguments were the better arguments and thus the rough consensus. -- Jreferee t/c 16:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Alpha Omega (game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

In the AfD for this independently-developed game and it's marketing campaign, there was consensus among the users that participated in the AfD that the game was non-notable and should be deleted, but that the accompanying marketing campaign article was uncertain. Despite there being consensus for at least one of the subjects, the whole AfD was closed as no consensus. Discounting the countless SPA and anonymous users in the AfD, I want to at least overturn the no consensus on Alpha Omega (game) and have the article deleted as it was clearly shown that the game isn't notable. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• If the game is not yet sufficiently notable, why not just merge the two articles or just redirect the game to the marketing campaign? The AFD resulted in "keep the marketing campaign, delete the game" but that doesn't seem a very useful result to me, so "no consensus, but feel free to use your editorial discretion to merge" seems like a reasonable answer. Kusma (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment given the strong feeling of the forum that was drawn into in the debate, I doubt such a merge would be allowed to stand unless it had some sort of official backing. If a merge did take place - as it quite possibly should - the "no consensus" result would be taken as an invitation to edit war. Percy Snoodle 17:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete Alpha Omega, or Reopen to get consensus for an official merge result. Ignoring La Bicylcette and the meat puppets he brought in from the EHWR forum, only Web Warlock voted against deleting Alpha Omega, and even he seemed to agree it was non-notable; he just wanted more time. Perhaps the closing admin was influenced by the puppets. Percy Snoodle 15:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn decision on game. No comment on the Ethan Haas (admin failed to give reasoning, and thus I cannot tell if the decision for Ethan Haan was based off a poorly done count of heads, or solid reasoning). 64.178.96.168 19:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• The IP's and some new users mess up the last discussion, so a second discussion should be started over and possibly with a semi-protection so that there will be no-messed up this time. --JForget 01:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Retain You're just moving on to petty tactics now. --Koji 03:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Comment Kojiro is one of the editors - albeit one of the few preexisting ones - brought in from the EHWR forum to stuff the ballot. His comment here is typical of the keep votes in the deletion debate which should have been ignored. Percy Snoodle 06:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• 'Keep' Again, the article is notable enough in that it is a very closely-watched upcoming released. If it does not meet notability guidelines, why not do some research and try and improve the article rather than wanting to delete it right away? A lot of hard work was put into writing this article, and it should be given a chance to be improved. It's not unsalvagable, after all. There is enough information on it to give it notability, and as its website has been recently updated, and with the PDF version expected to be released soon, new information should start becoming more easily available. Obscurity does not automatically qualify for deletion here. I also question the motives of the two main pushers for deletion, as they seem to be doing this for a personal grudge. I say, let sleeping dogs lie. La Bicyclette 02:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment it's easy for you to ask to let sleeping dogs lie when you're the one calling me an "idiot" and importing a load of meat puppets[1]; pretending to be reasonable now won't undo that (although in fairness to you, it was Kojiro who called us "bastards"). To answer your actual points, the article doesn't contain information which asserts its notability; all it has are three press releases from the company that made the game. Your arguments about hard work and salvageability are dealt with at WP:PROBLEM. Obscurity doesn't qualify an article for deletion, but failing to meet the notability guidelines does. Percy Snoodle 08:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - Consensus regarding Alpha Omega (game) was clear in that the article should be deleted since there was not enough reliable source material to develop an attributable article on the topic. Even the significant number of SPAs (who probably have a self interest in the topic) failed to assert sufficient reliable source material. The keep arguments centered around importance/significance, which may get it past CSD A7, but not AfD. The delete arguments addressed the references noted in the article, those brought up in the AfD, and the likelihood of undiscovered reference material. The delete arguments were the better arguments and thus the rough consensus. -- Jreferee t/c 16:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The article sites enough sources to be considered notable. There are plenty of other article with absolutely NO references on Wikipedia that could be cleaned up. It's surprising the vitriol spilling spilling into this discussion. In the time it has taken for the AFD to complete with absolutely no consensus, the article could have been better improved. It's obvious egos have been bruised here. The article has references and content that could be improved. I suggest one of you experts take fifteen minutes and try to make this article better than simply trying to ghost it. Ukulele 02:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Since you seem so adamant on keeping the article, why don't you improve it? Further, where exactly are these sources that you're talking about? As pointed out in both the AfD and here, none of the sources in the article currently (three press releases) are not enough to prove notability. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment all of Ukelele's arguments have been dealt with before at WP:PROBLEM. The article has no third-party references because none are forthcoming; it seems likely none exist. The best thing for wikipedia right now is to delete this article. It can always be recreated if Alpha Omega becomes notable one day. I'm not sure here is the place to be debating the article's notability, anyway - the question is whether there was a consensus to delete; my my reckoning there were no geniune arguments in favour of keeping it at all and several editors who pointed out that it doesn't meet the notability criteria. Then there were some meat puppets and Ukelele who likes the article but doesn't have a reason why it meets the notability criteria. Finally, I wish people would stop using "expert" as a veiled insult. Percy Snoodle 07:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Response to comment Percy, you are correct, and I apologize for causing offense by using the word "expert" in a sardonic tone, especially since I accused those participating in this discussion as spilling vitriol. I honestly consider many of here, including you, Percy Snoodle, as an expert in RPG theory and game history. Your contributions speak for themselves. I simply hate to see a hasty rush to delete somebody's hard work with a request for AFD when there are other tags (with appropriate waiting periods for action) that could equally inspire the original authors to better-improve the article to conform to Wikipedia's standards. I am not adamant about keeping this article, as NeoChaosX suggests. But I do consider the three sources sufficient enough to secure enough notability for a small article about a RPG, especially since there are longer and IMHO more historically important articles here, which lack any references at all. Perhaps this is poor logic on my part, but if cleaning up Wikipedia is truly the goal those of you who wish to have this article deleted, I am simply curious as to why so much discussion has been devoted to this particular article. I do believe in consensus, but my observation here is that a consensus about deleting the aforementioned article had not been reached within the five day discussion period, and now this discussion will spiral into some Danteian circle of discussion hell until some admin makes a decision based solely on wanting to end this filibuster. I would rather see a Template:Notability tag on this article instead of a request for AFD, but It does seem obvious that there are strong feelings about this subject and life is too short to fight tooth and nail for this. I will assume good faith with all of you, and ask that we can better respect each other in this awkward medium of text-based communication in the future-- something that I did a poor job of myself. Sincere apologies again for any offense given and all the best. Ukulele 20:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• overturn and delete We're not ruling on the merits here, it's procedural. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)