Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 23

Irish National Teachers' Organisation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Please restore to my userspace so I can address the reasons for the original deletion Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'll upgrade that request to overturning the original speedy because there were no valid grounds to delete the page. This is the largest elementary teachers' union in Ireland. Stifle (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Restore per the above statement. The largest elementary teachers' union in Ireland sounds notability and should be verfiable. I checked Academic Search Complete and it turned up hits in the Times Educational Supplement. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• It doesn't help that there was no edit summary on the deletion - perhaps there was a blatant defect like a copyvio. We can only know when it has been restored. I know there is a backlog of restore requests — I am sure someone will get around to it soon. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  The deleted page doesn't appear to be a copyvio, but if it's found to be one, I will have no problem replacing it with original content. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Restore unless there is a major issue with the deleted page - I have no access to the deleted page so, there may be a major problem, e.g. copyvio. However, bBeing the largest teacher's union in Ireland certainly makes it notable and it should be restored.in the absence of a good reason to the contrary. There is certainly reliable coverage, here and here, for example. BlueValour (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• View amended in view of DGG's assurance. BlueValour (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Restore There is no problem with the content, which is a short stub. Stubs dont get deleted if the subjects are probably notable--they get expanded. DGG (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Restore per most commenters above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • For clarity, I meant to overturn deletion per Stifle. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn, no rationale for speedy deletion means it could have been in error. MrPrada (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak overturn -- I'm willing to give this one the benefit of the doubt. I don't think being a teacher's union makes it notable, but it's at least an assertion. With no deletion reason given, I'd err on letting users improve it and AfD again if they fail to do so. -- Kesh (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Kesh, you said "AfD again". According to the log, it has never been AFD'd prod'd or properly speedied. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

James Wesley Rawles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

passes WP:BIO "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" His book was published by a professional publishing house and only self republished after the company went out of business. He was quoted by CNN on 4/20 ^[1] and the NYTimes 4/6 ^[2]showing that he is considered an expert in his field. He was the editor of an industry magazine: Defense Electronics magazine, one of his papers is quoted in papers from NASA ^[3]and the Australian military. The article needs work, no doubt about it, but isn't one of the tenets of WP that we should repair articles that can be salvaged rather than deleting them? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse closure of a heavily-socked AFD. I can see a case for near-notability but every single avenue comes with reservations (or outright exaggerations). Yes, he published a book, but it has not been shown that book was reviewed in reliable and independent sources. Just publishing, even by a commercial house, is not a claim to notability. Yes, he is quoted in articles by reliable sources, but he is not the primary subject of those articles and barely more than incidental in some cases. Yes, he is widely published, but clear precedent for journalists excludes those who have written a lot but not been written about. Yes, he was an associate editor of a magazine, but he was not the editor. Many people may be quoted in papers because they said something pertinent or quotable. Nothing here establishes clear-cut notability. Close in some ways, but this isn't horseshoes. In any case, we are not disputing the case for notability here, we are reviewing the close of the AFD, and when you discount the !votes of dubious IPs and possible socks, you don't have a consensus to keep. If Legotech wants to work on the article in userspace, I have no objection. --Dhartung | Talk 08:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Relist Closer said " "keep" votes either made by IPs and sockpuppets, ", which was not the case. There was no consensus to delete. Dhartung is not correct that there needs to be a consensus to keep. If there is no consensus either way, the correct close is "no-consensus". DGG (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I didn't say there had to be a consensus to keep. I said there wasn't a consensus to keep. Clearly the AFD, even if not socked, was flooded from a forum of Rawles fans, and mostly they argued that he had published a lot or been quoted in the NYT. We can reargue all that, of course. But I looked for stronger sources and didn't really find them. --Dhartung | Talk 23:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn – At worst this should be no-consensus at best Keep. Looking at the opinions they were evenly split 4 for Delete – 4 for Keep, and yes I discounted the new users and IP votes (which were all Keep). In that a both sides made passionate arguments that contained some level of merit and validity, how could a clear consensus of Delete be reached? ShoesssS ^Talk 20:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Admin made the correct call on sock votes. Subject is not notable in the first place, despite attempts by him or his fans to spam Wikipedia with references to his non-notable self published book. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid your assertion that the book was self-published is incorrect. I was unfamiliar with the subject, but three minutes of research sorted it out and turned up multiple book reviews in major publications. It makes me wonder how this closed as a delete to begin with. MrPrada (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion Good close by Dhartung. I agree with his points above. Eusebeus (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I voted in the AFD but it was closed by Deiz (talk · contribs). --Dhartung | Talk 22:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn or relist per compelling reasons that even with socks discounted it would have probably had a no consensus. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. The debate should have been closed as no consensus, since the delete votes (only two, one of which was a weak delete) did not make a compelling policy argument for deletion and the default presumption in an AfD is to keep. Although the original article was clearly written as an advert, I found book reviews for two of his books in the Sacramento Bee[1], Press Telegram[2], Wired (magazine)[3], and World Net Daily[4]. This is more then enough independent review by reliable publications to establish notability as an author in my mind. The survivalist stuff, and the blog, I cannot verify outside of primary sources, but should be included because the rest is verified, including recent 2008 New York Times quotations mentioned in the AfD. MrPrada (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I must not have checked the results thoroughly. --Dhartung | Talk 07:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment The original discussion was sufficiently contaminated by the socks that a new and fair discussion is warranted. The presence of multiple obvious socks arguing for keep can have a unfortunate effect on the chances of keeping, which in this case may not have been deserved.14:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) changed duplicate !vote to a comment.DGG (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment – Sorry DGG I disagree with that assessment. The use of WP:Socks was extremely apparent to me and I am sure was just as apparent to the Administrator closing the discussion, or at least I hope so. In which case he/she should not have been influenced by the WP:Socks. Our discussion here is whether or not the WP:Afd discussion was closed appropriately. I say no to a relist proposed by this debate! I thought we were here to decide on whether the Administrator made the appropriate decision. To me, when closing an WP:Afd there are only three ways to go; Yes, and the deletion stands, a decision of Keep or finally a No-consensus (where by we keep the article by default). The decision to relist should be made by the community, which is easily done, once the article is reinstated. ShoesssS ^Talk 01:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

CommentHas a checkuser been run? I'm starting to get offended at how easily the accusation of socking is being tossed around without proof. If you MEAN Meatpuppet, say meatpuppet. Either way, unless you have proof, stop accusing, its childish. "I don't like this guy or what he does so I'm gonna delete his article and accuse him and his friends of breaking the rules" is exactly what y'all sound like right now. I have no dog in this fight...I just saw an article that got deleted that I think has a chance at redemption and I honestly thought that was the policy, don't delete but Fix. I know that "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument, but at some point, it does become somewhat germane. There are articles about other small field experts on WP that are people that are only known within that small field, but if that field happens to fall within the bias of WP then it is saved...so if the expert is in the field of Comp Sci, or Math, or Pop Culture, the article will survive. It's time we step back from our own bias and our own small fields of expertise and accept that there are some people that are notable but just because WP:IDONTKNOWIT doesn't mean that they aren't worth an article. We have to start somewhere and this nutjob survivalist is just as good a place as any. If the NYT will pick up a phone and ask his opinion, seems like someone thinks he's got something to say. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and while you are throwing around the sock puppet claims? I went back to the AfD:

• Trasel first edited 11 April 06
• Flight ER Doc has an edit as early at 9 April 2007, and then returned to editing for this discussion.
• SR Hamilton: 24 July 07
• Mzmadmike: 31 Jan07
• Ribonucleic 12 Jul06
• Bnp 25 May TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
• Rydra Wong 29 August 06.

Even discounting the IPs and the IP that was signing with some sort of fake username we still have 7 keep and 1 delete and one weak delete...., even if you remove Flight ER Doc who has had an account for over a year, but doesn't edit its still SIX keep 1 delete and 1 weak delete. Just because the admin does not recognize the usernames does NOT mean that they are socks and I think that this article deserves another chance. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• OK, I'm changing my vote to endorsing a relist, and I withdraw my endorsement of the closer's assessment of sockpuppetry. --Dhartung | Talk 07:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Rawles was interviews on Fox Business News 4/25...Does this satisfy notability yet? Or just because we don't like the guy we have some strange higher standard to satisfy? [5] LegoTech·(t)·(c) 17:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Cheap shots are not appreciated. In any event, interviews are generally NOT considered to contribute to notability per se, because whatever is said is usually self-sourced. They can be used as sources if notability is established by other means. --Dhartung | Talk 07:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry Dhartung, but this is getting frustrating...if CNN, Fox News AND the New York Times all look to him for information, doesn't that make you think that perhaps, maybe, someone, somewhere, thinks that this guy knows what he's talking about? We MUST step back from our own Bias and give this article a reasonable chance. Heck, I'm about as far away from this guy on religion and politics as you can be and still be on the same planet but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be here. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 17:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know why you're urging me to step back from a bias. Have I shown one anywhere? Please assume good faith. The fact is that being quoted, even being interviewed, isn't considered a strong claim to notability. I call such things "notability indicators" or "secondary indicators" and use them as a suggestion that a topic may well be notable, but needs better sources. I did look and I wasn't particularly impressed by anything I found, unless you take a bunch of small almost-notable situations and add them up. His best shot now, to me, seems to be WP:BK. --Dhartung | Talk 05:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It absolutely is WP:Bias if this guy were some minor mathmatician, or a programmer than wrote some special line of code, or a guy who wrote one episode of Lost, we wouldn't be here....the article would never have been sent to AfD because people on WP would know who he is. I am completely frustrated by this entire process and I can completely see why people abandon the project. I completely and freely admit that the guy is a right wing religious gun nut and I, personally, can't stand anything he stands for...that does NOT mean that he does not belong here and frankly I'm at my wits end as to how people can't see that. At this point it is nothing more than Wikilawyering to keep him off. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 06:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment To preserve good order I will assume you are speculating about everyone else's motives, and not my own. It is the responsibility of those who want something on Wikipedia to provide the WP:RS that satisfy WP:V and fit inside WP:N. I only offer my opinion that that has not been proven, and if consensus of other editors agrees, then he does not belong here, more or less objectively. I agree this is a borderline case and perhaps even his notability is on the upswing. But don't blame us if the article doesn't present a rock-solid case. --Dhartung | Talk 09:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Relist. Heavy sockpuppet contamination to the point where it is pretty much impossible to sort through. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Relist without opposition to the original closure. The sock flood made it impossible to properly determine consensus at the article. Stifle (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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

UNDELETE_REASON Gutt2007 (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC) As I am the copyright holder of the material used in the article do I not understand how I violated the policy of Wikipedia.

• Note: Relevant logs here:[6] --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Because of the GFDL, which allows anyone to take anything off of Wikipedia and do anything with it (mostly), we can't accept any copyrighted content. Unless you release the content for re-use everywhere (by contacting Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission or releasing it into the public domain), it can't go up. Sorry. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - the way to go is to release the content, as described above. BlueValour (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse – Sorry guy, without permission it goes. ShoesssS ^Talk 03:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearly no consensus to delete. The relevant AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre (2nd nomination). 11 for keep, 7 for merge and redirect without deleting, and 11 for delete is no consensus. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• overturn per essentially same logic as one below. For those too lazy to scroll down: "I'm not sure I want this article at all (having it smacks to me of systemic bias and recentism). That said, I strongly disagree with the close. The result was reasonably no consensus which can stick something to admin discretion if there's a compelling policy reason. However, the closer's logic, NOTMEMORIAL, was strongly disputed as being relevant in the AfD. A strong argument that that did not apply existed. Therefore this should be overturned." JoshuaZ (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• keep as redirect to Columbine High School massacre, where the information already is. AfD isn't a vote count, and the second you start with "but there were x to keep, and y to merge...", you're counting votes. --Kbdank71 15:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• overturn to "no-consensus" There was clearly not any consensus, so the closer was merely voicing his opinion, not deciding on the basis of the discussion. DGG (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• question: What is overturning going to accomplish? I'm all for consensus, but in this case, with the information already in the main article, overturning is simply going to create duplicate information. Is there a point to that, or are we just policy wonking? --Kbdank71 15:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse own deletion, restoring history if necessary, per Kbdank71. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• support closing admin and deletion. The debate is not a vote; the "keep" arguments were not based in Wikipedia policies; the "delete" were. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The keep arguments were indeed based on policy and refuted the delete votes. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn incorrect close... there was no consensus about how WP:NOT applied here. --Rividian (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - I must admit that although I supported deletion, there was no consensus as to how WP:NOT#MEMORIAL applied to the deletion of this article. We can only conclude that no consensus can be reached on deletion, period.--WaltCip (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn – To no-consensus. Both sides of the interpretation of Not A Memorial make valid points. In that both opinions were evenly expressed for Keep – Delete to me that means no-consensus. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and commend the admin who understood that AFD is not a vote and that issues of privacy and WP:NOTMEMORIAL trump any mixed consensus. When it doubt, delete. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Please review our policies on deletion, because when in doubt, we close as no consensus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • No we don't. When in doubt about higher issues such as Wikipedia policy (NOTMEMORIAL, anyone?) we delete. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Please read over the AfD. Many of those arguing for keep refuted the "notmemorial" arguments. We only must delete in cases of hoaxes, libel, or copyvios; otherwise we take other matters into account. We do not delete by default. That is a significant misunderstanding of policies. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Warmly Endorse Deletion We have plenty of consensus at WP:NOT#MEMORIAL and that is exactly what this is. Stifle's close - clap clap - was an accurate interpretation of that consensus; as we all know, AfD is a discussion not a vote so the actual tallies are not relevant here since Keep arguments were not founded in policy. Eusebeus (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment – You are absolutly right, it is not a vote count. However, I am sorry, I disagree with your opinion that the Keep opinions were not based on policy! The interpretation, may have differed from the oppose, but the Keeps did put forth a rational – intelligent and persuasive argument based on policy. ShoesssS ^Talk 00:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion. Wikipedia is not a memorial. You guys seem to think otherwise, but the policy of Wikipedia is pretty clear on the matter. I suggest you attempt to try and formulate some reason these names are notable, because I fail to see one. Period. What is notable about them? Dying violently doesn't make you notable, folks; we aren't going to list all the victims of 9/11, or the people who died at the Battle of Gettysburg, or all the soldiers who died in the Iraq War. These simply aren't important, nor are they notable, and their names and deaths aren't particularly either. That they died is important, but who they were isn't unless they were individually notable. There is absolutely no purpose to a list of names whatsoever save to memorialize the victims, as their names add absolutely nothing to the general public's understanding of what happened. Their names are meaningless. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There is a big difference between being among a battle in which soldiers are obviously killed by other soldiers, but in a massacre in which specific people were targetted by the killers, knowing something about these individuals reveals something about the motives of their killers. Journalistis and scholars of the event do indeed care about who the victims were, but beyond their names, their ethnicity, gener, socio-economic background, etc. which provides statistical data about the nature of the incident and those involved. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Just because SOMEONE cares doesn't mean WE do. We are an encyclopedia, not researchers. And what is the difference between soldiers killing each other and people being killed, largely at random (yes, at random, I know that it is hard for you to understand that, but it is so) in school? What is the difference between these school shooting victims and the victims of car bombings and 9/11? There isn't one from our standpoint. I'm sorry, but you don't have a leg to stand on. What makes these people more notable? Nothing. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
      • The fact that so many Wikipedians argued to keep suggests that we do care. An encyclopedia is a research tool. There is no benefit to be gained from deletion of a verifiable and coherent article, while there is at least potential benefit from keeping. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
        • We is the encyclopedia, not the editors. We is Wikipedia itself. And frankly, most editors do not understand Wikipedia policy. You are not making an argument on the basis of Wikipedia policy, you are making an argument on the basis of emotion. Wikipedia's purpose is to be a neutral encyclopedia. We do a good job at it generally, but only via the constant vigilance of editors and admins. A lot of what comes to exist on the site has to be heavily edited and pared down, or refined, or better explained, or what has you. Wikipedia is far from perfect. But we constantly try to make it better. You have cited NOTHING to support your position. No Wikipedia policy supports you. You are trying to turn Wikipedia into a collection of information, which makes the encyclopedia useless as such. Yes, this does hurt the encyclopedia. It hides important information and it disguises what is actually important and notable. This is the reason why there are notability requirements on Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I have not seen any cinvincing policy based reasons not to have this article. Neutral books about serial killers and mass murderers typically have information on the victims, many even with pages containing pictures of those victims or other discussions of them. No Wikipedia policy supports deleting this article. It does not hurt the encyclopedia. It provides important information about a serious and notable incident. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Yes, they do. Wikipedia, however, is not a book about serial killers, or any specific subject. We have put forth arguments as to why various policies apply - we have pointed out that this list is simply an indiscriminate list of information, that it is a memorial, and that it is non-notable. You claim Wikipedia policy is otherwise. Explain, then, how Wikpiedia policy supports your position. You aren't explaining why, you're just making claims that we are wrong. Wikipedia is not a democracy and it isn't a forum. If you are hoping to build a consensus for your position, explain to us exactly how this information is otherwise. And yes, random junk does hurt the encyclopedia, as I have explained before - it obscures useful information. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
              • • This list is hardly "random junk." "Random junk" is hoaxes, copy vios, and libel. Per Wikipedia:Five pillars, the subject is verifiable through reliable sources, covers a focused topic with real world notability, and is consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on crime or massacres. The article is also consistent with Wikipedia:Lists. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
                  • Random junk includes random, indiscriminately included information, such as this list. This is a crystal clear example of Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be., straight from WP:NOT. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I am sorry if I misinterpreted this page. I thought the discussion here was to pertain exclusively to whether the Afd was closed properly or not! Not a continuation or whether to Keep or Delete the article. In reviewing the closure of the Afd, my opinion, is that it was Closed improperly. You had valid arguments made for both Keep and Delete. In my opinion, both made extremely valid and rational reasons. Both were equally split. Both had respected and trustworthy editors expressing their opinion on both sides of the discussion. Again, in my opinion, this is a No-Consensus. At the least relist the piece, and we all can express our opinions and let consensus fall as it may. However, regarding the topic, as it is expressed here, the closure was wrong. ShoesssS ^Talk 02:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)

Thing is, as has been pointed out previously, AFDs are there to create consensus, not to be a vote, which many people treat them as. The purpose is not to poll Wikipedians but to have a discussion. The format has devolved into voting, where people say Delete, Merge, or Keep (or variations thereof), often with no explanation at all. The purpose of them, however, is to examine the article and whether or not it warrants inclusion or violates Wikipedia policies and should be removed. The admin who closed this felt that the consensus was that the article violated WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, that no one had really said anything which demonstrated that it did not, in fact, violate that, and that thusly it should be deleted. I think this was fine under Wikipedia policy; remember, Wikipedia is not a Democracy. However, people are angry about it because people DO feel it is a democracy, even though it is explicitly stated not to be. They feel they have been ignored, but the reality is that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to respect opinions, but to make an objective encyclopedia - a very difficult task to be sure, especially when people feel they are entitled to their opinions and to make their mark on it.

There were not valid arguments, in the closer's opinion, that the article shouldn't be deleted, and as such, I feel that the closure was appropriate. Just because some people refuse to contemplate the deletion of these articles doesn't mean they shouldn't be deleted or aren't in violation of Wikipedia policy. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon I am in 100% agreement with you on this; “…it is not a vote”. You are absolutely right in that we do not count up the Keep or Deletes, the Support or the Oppose, we look to who has made a rational – well thought out – factual argument and count that opinion three – four – five times over the “Well I just like it” voice of reason. I have no problem with consensus! Again, in this situation, sorry to say, consensus did not rule. Hope this explains where I am coming from. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 02:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NOT: Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered. - this implies that if someone or some event is notable, it is not disqualified merely because it is also a memorial. There are many notable death-events in Wikipedia. However, this is a discussion better suited for an RfD or other discussion, not a deletion review. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overtun to no consensus. Between the quite lower number of outright deletion proposers and the fact that their arguments were quite successfully refuted by the keep proposers, it's either a weak keep or a strong no consensus. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - rendered moot by 1) redirect to Columbine High School massacre is in place, and 2) the list of victims are prominently boxed in the target article. So if the deletion were overturned, an editor has already pre-empted it by being bold and merging it with the target article. B.Wind (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion on a technicality the technicality being a clear lack of consensus. Personally, I'm okay with deleting a redundant article, but deletion review is typically about process not WP:IDONTLIKETHERESULTS. The lack of consensus to actually delete is very clear. I think there would be a consensus to MERGE the articles. A WP:BOLD merge and redirect might even go uncontested.davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus. I fail to see where lack of consensus is a technicality, since an AfD is about reaching a consensus. None was reached here--simply some stating keep, some stating merge, some stating delete, WP:NOTMEMORIAL and an admin endorsing one of those. I agree with davidwr that a merge may be appropriate, and stated such in the AfD. My concern is not with his statement, but with the way the AfD was interpreted by the Admin. Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn - Perhaps WP:NOTMEMORIAL needs to be looked at again per WP:CCC]. Clear no consensus in my view. -Halo (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD (4th nomination))

no consensus to delete... more users in this discussion supported either keeping or merging information, and argued that WP:NOT#MEMORIAL does not apply. Just curious how then the closing admin used this as the only rationale to delete? HokieRNB (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• comment The relevant AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre (4th nomination). Not yet have informed an opinion on this matter. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn closure. AfD may not be a vote, but 9 good faith editors arguing to keep is "no consensus". Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• overturn I'm not sure I want this article at all (having it smacks to me of systemic bias and recentism). That said, I strongly disagree with the close. The result was reasonably no consensus which can stick something to admin discretion if there's a compelling policy reason. However, the closer's logic, NOTMEMORIAL, was strongly disputed as being relevant in the AfD. A strong argument that that did not apply existed. Therefore this should be overturned. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Irrelevant as I have merged it back into the parent article. But yeah, there was no consensus. -- Y not? 14:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Er no. At multiple levels. If people want to merge a merge discussion should occur. Furthermore, that now requires us to undelete the stuff below the redirect to comply with the GFDL. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Right as usual. But of course it was pulled out of the parent article in the first place! ... this is the circle of life, Josh. -- Y not be working? 15:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I have pulled the list back out of the parent article until this issue is decided. One step at a time, folks. Per JoshuaZ, a merge with the main article should be discussed.--Sfmammamia (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Hmm, if this was pulled out initially there's likely no serious GFDL issue with such a merge then. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• keep redirect per Y. --Kbdank71 15:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• overturn to "no-consensus" There was clearly not any consensus, so the closer was merely voicing his opinion, not deciding on the basis of the discussion. DGG (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse own deletion. AFD is not a vote count and I feel that the consensus, and policy, lean towards deletion. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• support closing admin and deletion. The debate is not a vote; the "keep" arguments were not based in Wikipedia policies; the "delete" were. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The keep arguments were indeed based on policy and refuted the delete votes. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• overturn I do not see a consensus reached and believe the decision was premature. Ronnotel (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you please clarify why you believe the decision was premature? Stifle (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Given that there had been three previous AfD's that were closed as Keep, with the latest one from Sept. 2007 as nearly unanimous, I would expect a decision that runs counter to that to have substantially more backing than was the case here. Why was no input sought from the previous closing admins? Ronnotel (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep - being an admin doesn't give you a "super !vote". Admins working AFD are there to judge consensus. Unless there is an overriding policy concern, vote stacking, etc, you should go with the consensus. The AFD did not consider this article to be a memorial and thus chose to keep it. Ignoring that decision is out of process. --B (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and commend the admin who understood that AFD is not a vote and that issues of privacy and WP:NOTMEMORIAL trump any mixed consensus. When it doubt, delete. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That is NOT how our deletion policy works. Please take time off of just going down the list of AfDs rapidly voting to delete and please review our policies on deletion, because when in doubt, we close as no consensus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • by law and custom, any death is a matter of public record and there can be no expectation of privacy. I would and have opposed any list of the wounded on privacy grounds. Ronnotel (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Warmly Endorse Deletion per my point above, namely WP:NOT#MEMORIAL enjoys plenty of consensus and that is what this is. Good close. Eusebeus (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. The article needed to go, it was a memorial and it was simply not notable. I only counted 8 keeps, and many of them simply were not using Wikipedia policy as a basis for their arguments. For instance, one person argued that as victims of a terrorist attack they were notable, when this is specifically non-notable! We don't list, say, the victims of 9/11, and 9/11 was far, far more notable. The lack of notability of this list is very large. I myself nominated it for deletion ages ago and was shut down by memorializers, but now that a lot of them are gone, only a few are left. There is no reason to keep the list; these people weren't notable, their names aren't important. All that was important was that the event happened. Listing every person who died violently in the history of mankind is unreasonable and is not the purpose of Wikipedia. AFD is not a vote, as some people seem to believe, it is a means of showing conesnsus, and I think those who opposed either are too close to it or don't understand Wikipedia policy adequetely. This is not a knock on them, but the reality is that this has come up time and again, and time and again they present no argument other than claiming that it isn't a memorial without presenting any evidence thereof, or why this list of dead people is any more notable than, say, the list of 9/11 victims, or the list of people who died in the Battle of Gettysburg. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Scholars and journalists legitimately research the victims of attacks, what gender was targetted, what race, what econcomic background, etc. Is there any correlation among these statistics regarding the victims? Were they random? Etc. Victims of massacres in reveal something about the incident and potentially baout the mass murderer's motives. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Unless you can come up with a reason why this is different from a list of people who died in 9/11, then you don't have a leg to stand on. And our job is not to copy down the history of every single person on the face of the planet, which is exactly what youa re advocating. Where does it end? I've done research on my family members, that doesn't make them notable. Heck, one of my family members is the assistant director of the Oregon Department of Energy. Does she have a Wikipedia article? Heck no. Nor should she. She simply is not notable enough. These people are far, far less notable. Being killed violently does not make you notable; we simply do not have articles about every single murder victim, which is what you are advocating. People DO do research on the gender of murder victims, their race, the race/gender/religon/whatever of their killers, ect. But that doesn't mean Wikipedia should include information about every single person who has ever lived and died. I'm sorry, but you really don't have a case here. What is notable about these people? Nothing. Our purpose is to be an encyclopedia, not a list of everything. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Far less people were killed in this incident than 9/11, which makes for a much easier maintable article. We are not debating on individual articles; we are discussing a list; thus the comparison with the assistant director of the Oregon Department of Energy is apples and oranges. I see no compelling benefit from not having something that obviously is relevant to a good deal of good faith contributors here. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
        • In order: the number of victims is meaningless. You cannot make an argument on that basis; if it was notable, we'd have such an article. It isn't, though, fortunately, so we don't need such an article. Arguing it is difficult to maintain is not a valid argument; it is hard to protect Evolution from creationists, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't cover the topic. And the comparison with the assistant director of the Oregon Department of Energy is NOT apples and oranges; the assistant director of the Oregon Department of Energy is FAR more important and notable than these people. They get interviewed by NPR and occaisionally show up in newspaper articles. These people simply don't, and never did - their ONLY source of notability was dying, and dying does not make you notable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Comparing the list under discussion with a list of assistant directors of the Oregan Department of Energy would be a fair comparison, or comparing one of the victims with one asssitant director. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)

The point is that neither are notable enough to warrant articles. You don't understand this. There is nothing notable about this list of names. They have no purpose and no encyclopedic value. You are not making a logical or coherent argument against it. And your argument that having a large group of people makes you more notable is outright long; as is pointed out specifically in the notability guidelines, lumping a bunch of non-notable things together doesn't make them notable. Again, I suggest you read the Wikipedia guidelines. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

They are notable enough to warrant an article on a paperless encyclopedia whose foundsr said we're after the sum of human knowledge and I see no reason otherwise. They have a purpose as many have outlined above and are encyclopedic. I see no logical argument otherwise. Determined, perhaps, but not an accurate interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - rendered moot by 1) redirect to Virginia Tech massacre is in place, and 2) the list of victims are prominently displayed in the target article. So if the deletion were overturned, an editor has already pre-empted it by being bold and merging it with the target article. B.Wind (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This is circular reasoning. The list was broken out of that article in the first place due to space and legibility concerns will likely be pared back for the same reasons. Ronnotel (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • This is not a matter of deletion policy, people. This is simply an editorial decision. Nobody's writing bios of the NN victims - just a list of names. The only question is whether it should be a standalone list, or inside the main article, where it's more justifiable, but cluttersome. Somebody please close this stupid irrelevant DRV. -- Y not be working? 14:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn as no consensus. Note that I am for deletion of the article, and stated so in the discussion. Yet the discussion clearly was at a no consensus state. Nabla (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion on a technicality the technicality being a clear lack of consensus to delete. I think there would be a consensus to MERGE the articles. A WP:BOLD merge and redirect might even go uncontested. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. I fail to see where lack of consensus is a technicality, since an AfD is about reaching a consensus. None was reached here--simply some stating keep, some stating merge, some stating delete, WP:NOTMEMORIAL and an admin endorsing one of those. I agree with davidwr that a merge may be appropriate, and stated such in the AfD. My concern is not with his statement, but with the way the AfD was interpreted by the Admin. Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Result of original AfD read: "The result was Delete per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. If you disagree, please go right ahead and open a DRV. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)" This reads like an intentional disregarding of consensus and statement of opinion by the closing admin, followed by a challenge (to do the DRV) Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus - Consensus just was not reached one way or the other and there was very strong contention on both sides. --Oakshade (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Victim Lists and Wikipedia

As far as I'm concerned, there are two issues here (and this relates to BOTH of the victim lists).

• Wikipedia is not a memorial.
• Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

Lists of victims invariably fall into the above categories. These are their only purposes. People talk about "giving an idea of the scale", but that is an attempt to elicit emotional response from the reader and is completely unacceptable under the NPOV policy. Numbers are fine, but a list of the names is meaningless to the public at large - John Doe is no one important, so the ONLY person that it is meaningful to is the person who is like "I knew that person", at which point it is a memorial. Now, some say researchers will look at these lists, and this is true - but many of these researchers are memorializing people via books, movies, ect. Some aren't, but at that point we're looking at a very small subpopulation of scholars, and they simply won't use Wikipedia for such purposes as they'll use other, more reliable resources. But I think more importantly, this second group is not worth considering because of the second bullet above - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and a list of victims is exactly that. Just because it is useful to SOMEONE doesn't mean we should have it; we have notability guidelines to exclude random junk, and this is random junk. These are no more notable than the assistant director of the Oregon Department of Energy, or of the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attack, or the dead at the Battle of Gettysburg. These are no more notable than a list of temperature readings at some specific buoy off the coast of Oregon.

Wikipedia considers the historical notability of subjects, and, frankly, these victim lists simply aren't historically notable. Indeed, they are far LESS notable than a list of soldiers who died in some important battle.

Unless you can show how these victim lists do not fall under the above categories, you simply cannot vote in good conscience and in accordance with Wikipedia policy to keep them. If I'm wrong, SHOW me, under Wikipedia policy, where I am wrong. But I don't think you can. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The director of the Department of Energy is ONE PERSON and thus not really comparable with a list of MULTIPLE PEOPLE. Those advocating to keep are not arguing to memorialize the victims and nor is a discriminate list inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. Multiple editors arguing to keep means it's useful to more than just "someone." Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read more about Wikipedia policy before you contribute to these discussions, as clearly you don't understand Wikipedia policy. The Neutral Point of View policy is essential to Wikipedia, as are the notability guidelines. I'm sorry, but you aren't making an argument on the basis of Wikipedia policy. Explain how, exactly, these lists are not what I have stated. You're just saying they aren't, but you aren't providing evidence to the contrary. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. A straightforward list of victims of a historical incident is hardly not neutral. I do not see any evidence that there's a benefit to our project by not having this material. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're making a fundamentally flawed argument; my argument is that there is no reason for it to be here in the first place, and you need to support its inclusion. It is either a memorial (and thus non-neutral) or it is the sort of information which falls under Wikipedia is not a collection of random information. Your argument of "researchers might need it!" falls under the latter. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

While I have presented multiple reasons for its inclusion, I see no reason for it not to be here. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Explain this one to me like I'm an idiot - what is the difference between a list of victims, a list of television episodes, and a list of anything else? We split out the "list of xyz" from the main "xyz" article because including it in the main article would double its size. Wikipedia is not the place to publish my great grandmother's obituary, but if the death of one or more people makes world headlines for months and we have a featured article about their death, it makes sense to at least mention their names. I don't see how this is any different from having a list of TV episodes, a list of minor Southpark characters, a list of books someone wrote, a list of John McCain's political positions, etc. --B (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Lists should answer some of your questions. Lists like this one would only be appropriate if all of the names were links to articles; these people, however, are completely non-notable and thus do not have articles. Political Positions of John McCain is not a list in the sense of WP:Lists, but rather a "list" in the sense of being a summary of numerous political positions he holds. Notably, this isn't a simple list of worsds, but actual positions; they are in the form of prose and seperated and organized by subject. Lists of television episodes are the same - they are actually descriptions of the television episodes and what came to pass in them, essentially a number of brief plot summaries linked together by being a show under the same title, noteworthy enough for inclusion but too brief to warrant articles of their own. This list is none of those things. Their names are not notable, and give no useful information, nor is any information about the people noteworthy - more or less, the list has no purpose. It is just like if I were to list just the names of every Pokemon episode with no reason for it, except unlike Pokemon episodes, there is nothing TO note here. More or less, these people aren't noteworthy because the articles are about the killer and what happened, not about the victims - the victims are, in fact, entirely incidental, and all that matters are their numbers, not their names. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Then, expand the articles to have more than just names. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

They simply aren't notable, hence the lack of details. There is nothing TO note, and the names themselves are meaningless. That's the entire POINT - these are not notable individuals, and nothing about them, including their names, is notable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

They are notable in the context of being victims of a notable crime which journalists and others are likely to research, see here and here. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

They are non-notable. Notability guidelines exist for a reason, and these people certainly fail notability. Per the notability guidelines additionally, lumping together a lot of non-notable persons or things does not make them notable. Therefore, the list is, in and of itself, non-notable. Whether or not journalists may do research on them is irrelevant. They may do research on otherkin, or various webcomics which also fail notability. The guidelines specifically prohibit making articles speculatively that they might be notable in the future, and that is exactly what you are advocating, as well as throwing out all notability requirements. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Straight from the notability guidelines:

Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability.

If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

These massacres have been and will continue to be covered in scholarly articles and published books. I just did a search on Academic Search Complete and you have for example: "Chemenger among Virginia Tech victims," Chemical Engineer, May2007 Issue 791, p54-54, 1/8p; (AN 25430615). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Chemical Engineer is a monthly magazine; thus, that was the FIRST edition of the magazine after the shooting. So your evidence actually contradicts your own point. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It demonstrates coverage of a victim in a reliable source. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The key there being a victim. If you could find enough other reliable sources, you could build a WP:BLP-appropriate article on that person. But that does not make the victims as victims inherently notable. -- Kesh (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have "List Of Virginia Tech Shooting Victims: Students And Faculty Who Died In Blacksburg Tragedy" on CBS News's website, which provides more than just a list of name and I would definitely consider CBS News a reliable source. Similar coverage appeared on MSNBC (see "Profiles of victims in Virginia Tech massacre: The slain include an award-winning professor and an Air Force cadet") and Time (see here), The New York Times (see here), as well as NPR (see here), thus considerable coverage of specifically the list of victims in major news outlets both online and print and even journal sources that turned up on Academic Search Complete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• not the right place for this discussion The question of whether such lists are suitable for the encyclopedia does need to be discussed, but Deletion Review is not the place to do it. And the decision on whether they are will be decided by the consensus of people at Wikipedia. Personally, I think we need a new discussion on the articles about the individual victims. One Event does not apply when the event is so notable that there are multiple sources over time about the people--sometimes in exceptional cases the individual identity of each of the victims can be encyclopedic content. At least VT was a sufficiently exceptional event. DGG (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I've been editing for a long time, but I've never done a RFC or a policy proposal before. I have read the RFC page and am unsure whether this would fall under that or something else. How would I go about doing one? Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Victim Lists

Wikipedia:Victim Lists is an attempt by me to create community consensus on the inappropriateness of lists of victims on Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Please userfy the page, in the interests of don't bite the newbies. http://www.pytables.org/ is GPL, so any copyright violation is debatable rather than blatant. Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn simply not a blatant copyright violation. the deletor probably did not notice to GPL. It could possibly be argued that it applies only tothe software itself, but I think that the intent was to license the documentation as well. DGG (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC) I see from the below that I misinterpreted the copyright statement. DGG (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The software is under the GPL license, there's nothing on the original page which says the text is. And the GPL license is incompatible with GFDL, anyway, since it says, the license gives the right to do anything with the software - except making it unfree somehow. That violates the GFDL right to republish commercially. Corvus cornix_talk 21:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - per the reasoning by Corvus cornix. In addition, there is no real reason for userfication since the content is accessible by clicking the cache button, above. BlueValour (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Request withdrawn. The original page says "GPL licensed" but looking closer, I see that is the default footer for MoinMoin wikis, and merely means the MoinMoin code is GPL licensed. There is no statement of copyright that refers to the web page text, so we have to assume 'All rights reserved'. We can't use it. (By the way, userfication would have been better than the cache as it restores the wiki code.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)