Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Nihilist Underground Society (5th nomination)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
American Nihilist Underground Society (5th Nomination)
editAlready deleted once at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Nihilist Underground Society, no ocnsensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Nihilist Underground Society (2nd nomination). This looks like an organisation with external coverage, but on investigation it turns out that none of the cited sources is actually a story about ANUS at all - one of them mentions it in passing as being allegedly the source of something and none of the others even name it. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The article has already undergone two recent afds. I suggest that you wait a while before renominating.--Azer Red Si? 21:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - ANUS.com started out on the web in 1993 and went into its home at ANUS.com in 1995. It has been written up in SPIN magazine, investigated by the FBI, and reported on in several oblique contexts for its related websites. ANUS is thus an 11-year online presence that has seen many notable mentions and has maintained itself on a high-value domain name without selling out for that time. Only someone horribly bigoted against its content would argue "not notable," and clearly that's the case with "Guy." It is the oldest heavy metal resource on the Internet. Is that "not notable"? Come on, grow up. MouthfulOfFeces 22:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes, lets look at the references. The Houston Chronicle awards ANUS.com as being the best Nihilist Website on the web. They directly write about them and it is an award (criterion 3 of WP:WEB). The Wired article is about the exploits of the leader of ANUS. The MTV and Yahoo articles mention ANUS's relation to the Day of Slayer. The Village Voice article credits anus.com with the heavy metal faq. I'm sorry but you can't just pick and choose to ignore sources that are there. To say that none of the external coverage is about ANUS in particular is just false, the Houston Chronicle award is direct coverage and an award. --TrollHistorian 05:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - Previous AfD's - [1], [2], [3], [4]. Tevildo 21:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keeps should count towards number of AfDs survived, so the last one is irrelevant. Still three previous, the third being rather close. But now that we don't have an apparent bad faith nominator, delete per nom. -Amarkov blahedits 21:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Is this for real? Third nomination within one week? It was kept seven days ago and speedy kept two days ago. This is rather disruptive and clearly not what Afd is for. An administrator should know better. Prolog 21:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keeps do not count. If they did, I could prevent an article from ever being re-AfDed by simply making a nomination every month, getting it speedy kept because it's too early, and then any real nomination will end up speedy kept, too. -Amarkov blahedits 21:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Still, there was nothing wrong with the third Afd and that closed only seven days ago. Disagreements over Afd closures should be taken somewhere else. Prolog 21:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "No consensus" is considerably different from "keep"... -Amarkov blahedits 21:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. And? What has changed in seven days? JzG's nomination does not present any new arguments. Prolog 21:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have an arguement; what about the GNAA? :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That was the argument by the third nominator. See the Afd. Prolog 23:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have an arguement; what about the GNAA? :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. And? What has changed in seven days? JzG's nomination does not present any new arguments. Prolog 21:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "No consensus" is considerably different from "keep"... -Amarkov blahedits 21:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Still, there was nothing wrong with the third Afd and that closed only seven days ago. Disagreements over Afd closures should be taken somewhere else. Prolog 21:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, actually, it does. Nobody really discussed sources. -Amarkov blahedits 21:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I know I did. And after the Afd, this article was turned into a stub and most of the original research removed. So it's actually better now than at the time of the third nomination. Also, since nominator titled this the "second" nom, it's obvious that he failed to go through, or even notice, the last Afd's. Prolog 21:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keeps do not count. If they did, I could prevent an article from ever being re-AfDed by simply making a nomination every month, getting it speedy kept because it's too early, and then any real nomination will end up speedy kept, too. -Amarkov blahedits 21:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They're not that easy to find, y'know. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, they are right at the top of the article's talk page. -Amarkov blahedits 22:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, well, I seemed to miss that. Anyroadup, the last two completely failed ot address the issue: one was clearly bad-faith, the other was "didn't we just do this?". This is a proper nom, based on the article and its cited sources. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom GabrielF 21:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - Can someone easily tell me that ANUS and GNAA have nothing in common? We have already decided that GNAA was not worth keeping on WP, and because of that, it makes sense to remove ANUS also. I think there needs to be consistency here, otherwise, if I see that this is kept, I am going to see that GNAA gets included again. We cannot have it both ways. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some should take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 28/Gay Nigger Association of America and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination). :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Why would we delete organization Y because organization X was deleted? We don't do that to bands or schools either. This one seems to meet WP:WEB criterion #2: The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organization. Houston Press [5] Prolog 23:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are saying that The Hate Directory is an award, is that particular organization notable, then? :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 23:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Sorry. Fatigue played a role in not seeing your link. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 23:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Why would we delete organization Y because organization X was deleted? We don't do that to bands or schools either. This one seems to meet WP:WEB criterion #2: The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organization. Houston Press [5] Prolog 23:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some should take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 28/Gay Nigger Association of America and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination). :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Holy God, leave this alone for a while. -Toptomcat 23:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Speedy Keep for the love of God, Odin, or whatever deity you happen to worship. TTHERE WAS NOTHING CHANGED when this new person nominated it again. This is not a good faith decision on the afd nominators part. Ours18 00:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we must assume that the nominator isn't acting in good faith! Seriously, though, if the issue of not having sources has truly come up before, it should be easy to counter, so could you just do it? -Amarkov blahedits 01:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When reading the nom's reasoning, I'm afraid that's the only sourced conclusion one can reach. A mention in the Houston press, a mention in the Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal that is the primary source for the List of Heavy Metal Bands (the entry in the books states the website is "authoritative," if my memorery serves me correctly)...these are reliable and verifiable. Now, as for some sort of thing you can look at without having to buy the book, see Prolog's diif here from the last nomination. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Nihilist_Underground_Society_%283rd_nomination%29&diff=next&oldid=96580991 Ours18 01:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um... like JzG said, two of those sites don't even mention the thing. -Amarkov blahedits 01:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From the yahoo article: “Apparently the National Day of Slayer was promoted this year by a website affiliated with the American Nihilist Underground Society, who called on fans to listen to the band's music on June 6.” From the Houston Press article: “Many people who click on Anus.com aren't looking for philosophical treatises, but porn seekers just might end up finding enlightenment. A.N.U.S., an acronym for American Nihilist Underground Society….” Now, that’s the exact opposite of what you said. And you still have no response to the site’s mention in the Encyclopedia….because there isn’t anything to say about it. It’s mentioned in two mainstream press outlets, one of them in passing and one of them as the feature of the article. It is mentioned as a reliable and authoritative source in what’s pretty much the most reliable source aside from EM used for articles related to metal (the afore-mentioned Encyclopedia). Just two of those would be enough. Three? It should be here by default. Ours18 01:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um... like JzG said, two of those sites don't even mention the thing. -Amarkov blahedits 01:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When reading the nom's reasoning, I'm afraid that's the only sourced conclusion one can reach. A mention in the Houston press, a mention in the Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal that is the primary source for the List of Heavy Metal Bands (the entry in the books states the website is "authoritative," if my memorery serves me correctly)...these are reliable and verifiable. Now, as for some sort of thing you can look at without having to buy the book, see Prolog's diif here from the last nomination. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Nihilist_Underground_Society_%283rd_nomination%29&diff=next&oldid=96580991 Ours18 01:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we must assume that the nominator isn't acting in good faith! Seriously, though, if the issue of not having sources has truly come up before, it should be easy to counter, so could you just do it? -Amarkov blahedits 01:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are multiple independent sources in the article (see the external links section) that mention this organization (and not just in passing). --- RockMFR 01:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If there is any way of protecting an article from ever being nominated again, this one warrants it. Ours18 01:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep how many afd's does it take till an article is deemed permanent!? Jcuk 02:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's absurd, an article should never be deemed permanent. -Amarkov blahedits 02:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The whole "AFD until it's gone" strategy, like what happened to the GNAA article, is a persistent problem. Perhaps an article should never be deemed permanent, but something else should be done to address it. -Toptomcat 04:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's absurd, an article should never be deemed permanent. -Amarkov blahedits 02:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep so 2 AFDs go by and I as a major editor of this article receive no notifications on my talk about it? I know you don't have to tell people about your AFDs but it is courtesy. Regardless the ANUS article meets the notability and reliable sources requirements. For WP:WEB it is verifiable as per WP:RS and WP:V (multiple news sources) and it has won a non-trivial award. Thus ANUS passes criteria 1 & 3 of WP:WEB (you only need to pass 1 of the 3). ANUS is not just a website and do in real life trolls like slayer day and various postering campaigns. They have multiple media mentions in magazines such as Wired, in Houston newspapers and on MTV news. --TrollHistorian 05:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article still has bad sourcing. It still does not meet WP:V. It has the same problems it had when I wasted time discussing it for nomination #2. Seriously, though, this is a little soon to renom. Delete but even I'm wary of this one. GassyGuy 06:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How does the Houston Press and this site's second most credible source for metal music fail verifiability? Ours18 19:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. For all the reasons GNAA was deleted. Maybe it will take the number of nominations into double figures, but I'm sure Wikipedians don't mind that. --Montchav 20:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- *raises hand* Hi! Hello! I'm a Wikipedian, and I mind. -Toptomcat 21:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I second that motion. When notability has been established countless times through verifiable sources, there is no reason to delete it no matter how many times it gets nominated. Ours18 21:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- *raises hand* Hi! Hello! I'm a Wikipedian, and I mind. -Toptomcat 21:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment here is the aforementioned Encyclopedia source[6]. Ours18 21:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I rewrote the article now and there isn't a single unreferenced sentence and sources include Houston Press, Blabbermouth.net, Village Voice, MTV, Yahoo! and Windy City Times. Prolog 22:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- weak delete In a previous AfD my opinion was to keep thinking that it met criterion 1 of WP:WEB. I'm no longer convinced in meets that criterion. In particular, none of the mentions are non-trivial and the summary of all the details is drawn by synthesizing disparate details from a variety of sources. While one could argue that it meets the second criterion of WP:WEB but a glance shows that the relevant Houston award is not sufficiently notable for that purpose. I would strongly suggest that the page be userfied until someone can come up with better sourcing(not all the sources used meet WP:V) and a demonstration of notability occurs. If nothing else, I won't mind having a version userfied to my userspace if no one else wants to take it. JoshuaZ 03:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. How does it not have non-trivial coverage? Yahoo! coverage starts with A group of nihilists are being blamed... and the Houston Press award page is dedicated to the organization. Also; [7] and [8]. Prolog 08:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, non-verifiable (or when only verifiable claims are made, it isn't notable), dies by the same rationale as GNAA. Also support userfication as per JashuaZ. Cool Hand Luke 03:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Comment How is it original research? Each line now has a citation. --TrollHistorian 05:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You are supposed to check the article before participating in the discussion. You obviously have not done that. Prolog 08:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate how you assume good faith, but to make myself more clear: it was original research before, or once distilled to verifiable claims (which it's really not yet, unless the GNAA became a useful source of commentary), it fails to assert any claim of notability. It fails WP:WEB, having not recieved a bona fide (let alone notable) award, and it doesn't pass WP:ORG any more than any other minimal organization needed to run a website. And yes, the coverage is trivial. Cool Hand Luke 15:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The article has been rewritten 3 times already, the first was an obviously ANUS driven article, I wrote the second and Prolog has written the 3rd. Quite frankly each article is completely different from the previous, my article and prolog's articles were sourced and are not Original Research, you can go ahead and make that claim that it is original research but it isn't. Now you claim it hasn't recieved any awards. Yes it has! The Houston article is an award saying ANUS.com is the best nihilist website of 2006. This is reputable houston publication claiming this. There are also multiple article which are news coverage of ANUS pranks. You are welcome to claim there are no sources but there are. You are welcome to claim they are non-notable, but in fact they are. You are welcome to claim anything but just because you do doesn't mean your claim is accurate. I passes WP:WEB, it has multiple secondary sources, it is referenced, they are attributed with maintaining the Heavy Metal FAQ, they have recieved an award (so we have WP:WEB criteria 1 & 2 covered), they are an organization who has recieved media attention for their pranks and have been awarded as such. --TrollHistorian 16:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I appreciate how you claim the article is not yet verified, because 1/13 references is the GNAA. Let's define "trivial" per Wiktionary: Of little significance or value, or per Wikipedia: Trivia are unimportant (or "trivial") items, especially of information. How is a long interview on a website with 0.8% reach "trivial"? How is a Houston Press web page entirely dedicated to this organization "trivial"? This article meets WP:V, WP:WEB (#1) and WP:ORG (#1). Prolog 16:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The news stories cited are predominantly not about this alleged organization. They reward it for being a good site (an award which fails WP:WEB because, as I said above, it is not a "notable award"—a random prize from a weekly newpaper's annual Restaurants issue with no independant coverage is not a Webby—the Houston Press "award" is not notable per WP:WEB#2 and WP:V), sources discuss ANUS.com in context of music, but they mostly don't cover the article's topic. That is, the reliable sources don't write about the underground as an actual organization (appart from folks who presumably run a website). The more on-topic the references are, the less reliable they are—a problem that was also suffered by the GNAA. If GNAA had been distilled to bare references like this article has, it would still not merit an article. I believe in the precendent set by GNAA and Jimbo Wales. Cool Hand Luke 22:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you keep bringing up GNAA as precedent? It had no external links to any newspaper publication whatsoever. There is no precedent, it is a policy called WP:WEB. If we read WP:WEB Criterion 2 we see: "The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organization.[6]" and footnote 6 contains "Examples of such awards: Eisner Awards, Bloggies or Webby Awards. See Category:Awards for more. Being nominated for an award in multiple years is also considered an indicator of notability.". The award is from an independant houston based publication. That said do you think there are a lot of nihilism related awards? --TrollHistorian 23:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I think there have been no notable awards given to anus.com. Notice that WP:WEB#2 even links to WP:N to stress its point. A non-sequitur sidebar to in a weekly's "best-of" restaurants issue which generates no independant commentary is simply not a notable award.
- Actually, the GNAA did have an external link to a reputable daily newspaper, but I remember now that there was a significant difference. See the Scottsman article mentioning GNAA. The Scottsman article was poor because it relied on wikipedia itself as a source, so you are right that this article has more independant verifiability than GNAA. I agree with Prolog that this article satisfies WP:WEB#1. I still believe WP:ORG shouldn't apply when the article's sources primarily refer to an organization in their capacity of maintaining a site. At any rate, keep, but the GNAA reference has got to go. Cool Hand Luke 00:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you keep bringing up GNAA as precedent? It had no external links to any newspaper publication whatsoever. There is no precedent, it is a policy called WP:WEB. If we read WP:WEB Criterion 2 we see: "The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organization.[6]" and footnote 6 contains "Examples of such awards: Eisner Awards, Bloggies or Webby Awards. See Category:Awards for more. Being nominated for an award in multiple years is also considered an indicator of notability.". The award is from an independant houston based publication. That said do you think there are a lot of nihilism related awards? --TrollHistorian 23:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The news stories cited are predominantly not about this alleged organization. They reward it for being a good site (an award which fails WP:WEB because, as I said above, it is not a "notable award"—a random prize from a weekly newpaper's annual Restaurants issue with no independant coverage is not a Webby—the Houston Press "award" is not notable per WP:WEB#2 and WP:V), sources discuss ANUS.com in context of music, but they mostly don't cover the article's topic. That is, the reliable sources don't write about the underground as an actual organization (appart from folks who presumably run a website). The more on-topic the references are, the less reliable they are—a problem that was also suffered by the GNAA. If GNAA had been distilled to bare references like this article has, it would still not merit an article. I believe in the precendent set by GNAA and Jimbo Wales. Cool Hand Luke 22:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep mentioned by name numerous times in the media including MTV, Village Voice and YAHOO! News. The article as it stands is well referenced, completely verifiable, and probably the best sourced stub on wikipedia. It clearly passes WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEB, and WP:NPOV. I would in fact deem this the PERFECT EXAMPLE of what a stub on wikipedia should be. Just because you dont like the subject matter is not a valid deletion grounds, many people hate George W. Bush but if we deleted on the grounds people dislike him where the hell would we be as an encyclopedia? A "vote" here for deletion is a "vote" for censorship and bowdlerism on wikipedia. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could you explain what part of WP:WEB it meets? I'm not seeing it. Also, note that claims of censorship are rarely productive. JoshuaZ 04:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Why the fuck do we even have an article about this? If GNAA shouldn't be here, neither should this. Shady Tree Man 04:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Um, I'm not sure I follow that. Could you expand? JoshuaZ 04:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ANUS seems to meet WP:ORG (I realize it is a guideline not a policy) which is important since ANUS is more than just a website and a heavy metal FAQ. --TrollHistorian 04:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment in reply to JoshuaZ on my talk page: Criteria 1) The Yahoo and MTV articles mention ANUS relates trolls which were on a national level, Criteria 2) ANUS isn't really local in scope according to the slayer day related articles and the skull related articles and the astronaut bones related article. WP:ORG Notability Requirements 1) They are included in third party materials including some metal encyclopedia, they have been awarded for their website and various sites have written about their exploits. 2) They have some news coverage. Thus ANUS meets both the requirements for inclusion according to WP:ORG and notability according to WP:ORG. --TrollHistorian 05:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Per redone article, redone sourcing. Articles can and do reach permanent notability standards. Arguments that no articles can/should be permanent are straw men. Notable troll organization covered by a stunning array of mainstream and independent media sources. This is and should be the final XfD on this. Keep/close per WP:SNOW. Future noms should also close as hasty keeps. WP:BALLs. F.F.McGurk 19:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, too many of the deletes I see against this article I'm seeing people refer to GNAA by which they are directing some of their bad feelings about that article by lashing out at this one. For goodness sake stop constantly putting up an article for deletion mere micro-seconds after the previous one failed. Give the editors of an article a chance, otherwise it can be seen as outright bullying and highly disruptive to wikipedia. Mathmo Talk 03:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep was kept just a few days ago - not sure what's going on, nor do I really care. Articles should not be nominated repeated in a short time span. WilyD 18:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.57.52.187 (talk • contribs).
- Comment & Note for closing Admin: Please be sure to review the previous AfDs, and note that this 5th AfD began less than 24 hours after the last closed as a Speedy Keep. This 5th one on that basis alone should be closed procedurally from my readings and understanding of the AfD system... here is the complete list of the previous AfDs, copied from the article talk page for your ease of review. Thanks! F.F.McGurk 18:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep please there are some reliable sources and the article is still being improved since last time Yuckfoo 19:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. Imprudently renominating the same article on a daily or weekly schedule demonstrates contempt for previous discussions and wastes the limited resources available to improve wikipedia. More experienced users - particularly those who claim the sysop mantle - should not be mechanically pulling the AFD lever thinking this will be the day the cherries align. The nom claims that previous nominations were "bad faith"[9]. I don't see that, nor do I see any new arguments that could possibly justify an immediate renom. "I don't like it" is not a valid reason to call for renewed debate. I stand by my argument from one of the previous discussions [10]. --JJay 02:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the above. If the subject is notable enough for The Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal [11] then it is no doubt notable enough for an encyclopedia which hopes to provide the complete sum of human knowledge. RFerreira 02:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the previous 4 tries. // Gargaj 07:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.